Why did man create religion?

That word is a lable, which is given to people that accept a way of thought, mainly based apon faith that what they are told or know is correct, even without proof or denotion.

The reation of the lable "religion" was most likly a result of logical based thought seperating from faith based thought.

Basicaly it came to a point where collective organizations that would claim things without logic to denote such claims about the orgin or nature of the orgin of humans would but labled under a seperate title.

Hence "Religion".

It seems as time progressed that many "religions" took a back seat to governing a nation, this was most likly due to the logical based thoughts of the other collective organizations. Yet there are still meany places where the role is vice versa. Mainly its all about which side is willing to take up more arms...

That word is a lable, which is given to people that accept a way of thought, mainly based apon faith that what they are told or know is correct, even without proof or denotion.

I was simply showing another side to "religions" mainly I was talking about the three major conflicting religions Islam, Christain, and Judism, since it seems that you both had coverd the nature of "cults" which are maily the same yet there physical actions and radical thoughts seperate them from the lable of "religions"

Yes I know religion doesn't imply evangelism. But it implies a moral code, does it not? And this is useless without others consent.

I thought the objective was to find inner meaning or something as introspective along those lines, and not let others have to be a part of such. Why is there this attitude?

Something along those lines: but this does not mean that other people play no role.

In Buddhism there are people called Snow Leopards: these are people who attain enlightenment on their own, uninstructed. These are very rare individuals. Even the Dalai Lama needs the Sangha, the community of Buddhists. The spiritual path is not an easy one, and it helps to have some support. Spiritual communities provide this support, whether you are a monk in a monastery, or a lay person at your local church. Or even a dirty hippie at a drum circle.

Also Dichanthelium, I never thought about it that way before, thanks (sincerely). But would you not say that we both create religion and experience it? Perhaps creating religion is what we do, and that is not what we ought to be doing as it is not spiritual. By creating religion implies an evangelical frame of mind, whereas experiencing such true religion would be inner intuition, external influences of 'control' rather latent.

Yes, ofcourse. But for example, when you provide the Sky God and Earth Mother cults. Why must these establishments be created? This is not spiritual, this is coercion. Evidently, we humans are naive, and taking advantage of others is not I guess, what you'd call religion then is it? Taking advantage of ourselves, perhaps emerging such logical imperitaves as self-realized seems more spiritual if we wish to call it that, if at all.

A community has it's spirituality and an individual has it's own spirituality, but in achieving enlightenment from the community when the community has it's own separate spirituality (which must be enlightened or more enlightened to enlighten the individual), what kind of intuitive basis are we deriving such true spirit from? But yes I see what you're saying.

If spirituality is as you say it is then if someone else's 'spirituality' 'influences' anothers then that person's spirituality is no longer introspective.

I see religion as establishing and institutionalizing, and I call that search for meaning to be spirituality.

Really, tell me one thing that you think or do that does not influence other people. Tell me that other organizations and institutions do not influence you, many of which imposed by law.

Introspection is an action denoting inspection of oneself, in no way does introspection imply that by preforming it that it will have no effect on others. Anything that has profound effect on you will automatically have influence on others within your sphere of influence.

Just the title of the thread "Why did man create religion" stigmatizes religion as many believe it to be and is a not so subtle way of evangelizing anti-religion.

Who is to say that religion was created by man? Isn't it possible that it was divinly instituted? who is to say "God/s" doesn't want an institutionalized religion run with Swiss watch accuracy and German auto engineering? Who is to say that the tendency to be religious wasn't placed in us to drive us towards it?

Yes I understand this, just like there can be no purely closed system, but while they influence your physical will, why should they directly influence the majority of your moral will? Introspection should question it's own conservations and the external established ones without the hindrance or bias of normative influences. Communal I suppose is not the right word.

To what extent should it influence others is perhaps what separates what I mean by religion vs. spirituality. A man's spirit should not be bargained for. If all of one's decisions revolve around the norm, because one desires to be part of the norm, I have to question what kind of spirituality this is.

I don't want to evangelize anti-religion. I just question the motive of searching for such transcendental realities. How many people do you suppose are christian, jewish, islam, hindu, atheist, or agnostic just because their surrounding influences are? This is not spiritual, well... not likely anyways. Has any introspect actually been done?

Secularism has the same problem as theism. To me, everybody would if using introspect, govern themselves on a rather unique spiritual path. There would hardly be a norm, right? Yet you could still have a community, a community needs to get along with spiritual diversity, otherwise why degrade the word to such a group of people. The rise in secularism is probably due to the fact leisure time used for introspective matters, even thinking, critical thought in general, is in decline in western society. So we get this rising atheist/agnostic trend. Atheists are just mad at everybody, yet the apathy, and conformity is inherently the same as in an evangelically influence society.

(This is why I loath the adds for atheism, because it's not about picking a side. There are no sides, no winner or loser. There is just the result of one's spirit, which should have no leverage on others or done by others, in the non-communal sense. They (the intrinsic effect of advertisement) make people adverse to spirituality.
So the uniformity, to me, speaks as religious mindsets, not spiritual ones. I don't know how to explain the difference I see between the two better than that.