Sarkus,
The same can be said for mere "stories".
You make it sound as if stories are somehow wrong. The full aspect of man incorporates
right brain as well as left brain. Religion is a personal endeavour exercising all aspects of human beings, whereas secular education requires aspects like emotion, compassion, and empahthy to be left at the door.
The term "scriptures" has something more about it.
Yes, the source is of a divine/holy nature (definition), passed down in sucsessive lines. The information is from the one source passed down through various times according to particular place and circumstances.
And I'm still confused by what you mean when you say "there is no before scriptures"?
Scriptures are written versions of what was passed on aurally, specific to this age (the last 5-10k years). So the the idea of gods would have been part of that aural tradition, meaning there's no way of telling if at some stage man decided to invent gods.
Of course we could digress and argue whether or not the scriptures are what they say they are, and whether or not aural traditions were more elaborate versions of scriptures, but that's a different discussion. For now we are discussing whether or not man invented gods.
Why give offerings to deceased ancestors if there was no sense of an afterlife?
Most (if not all) indigenous cultures had a sense of transition (afterlife), so was not even seen as ''a religion'' but was a part of their religion (code to life).
What would the purpose be if not some religious overtone?
Religion is simply a code of life. You have it in your mind that religion is worship of God or gods, that it needs very specific rituals by people dressed in fancy robes and hats.
Religion can be any man-made practise.
Why waste something of value on what would otherwise be seen as a carcass?
They know that it is ''a carcass'', but they don't worship the carcass (maybe some do, I don't know), but they worship the spirit/ghost, and they don't see it as a waste, because they want to looked out for, and helped by the spirits/ghosts.
I don't claim to know.
I put it out there as a hypothesis because, in the absence of knowledge, we determine what is rational (to us) based on the available evidence.
But there isn't an absense of knowledge. We both understand that there is substantial knowledge of things that we now know through modern science, and we know that they didn't have the physical scientific structure or technological advancements we have today.
We know that they couldn't of guessed the earth was a sphere, or how other planets move, or that the universe was expanding (just to name a few things), they would have to have some way of calculating this information. That said, it is highly unlikely that they were of the type of mind to make up gods, ghosts, afterlife, etc.. to explain phenomena they didn't understand.
So I find it hard to accept that this hypothesis is based on rational thinking, either that or it is too rational to the point of ignorance. I think it is simply based on belief that God, therefore anything to do with God, does not exist.
As such, to me any hypotheses that do not require something for which there is no evidence (eg divinity) are favourable to those that do. Occam's razor etc.
You don't know what constitutes evidence of God, other than you personally will know when you know, which is basically what some theists actually do. But as you have that portion of your mind open, it begs some interesting questions. If you do find evidence of God, how will it differ from any other theists evidence? And if God isn't what current theists/scripture say's, then why would you call it God, plus what could this ''God'' be? And finally what would you constitute as evidence, given that you have no idea, and find the current explanations and testimonies irrational, bordering on delusional?
I don't see that as evidence of anything but how humanity took a backward step in its intellectual understanding of its place.
It is evidence that some kind of method was used to procure this knowledge. We know from our own experience that the work involved is very rigorous, requiring technolgy to achieve results. We don't see any remnants of the type of tech we employ today, in the ancient past (although there are some fantastic impliments that have been un-earthed). So how did they acquire access to this information? You say you will believe God exists if there is sufficient evidence. You also say we became retarded due to the dark ages, alot of knowledge was supressed, and lost.
How do you know that knowledge of how to communicate with God and gods was not the knowledge that was supressed?
t more likely that early humans anthropomorphised anything they didn't understand, in an attempt to understand it.
Why would they do that? It's not a human trait. We generally don't give a monkeys about things we don't understand, especially things like thunder and lightening. We simply accept the sun, not even having to realise it's purpose other than heat and light. Indigenous people see themselves as part of the eco system, they don't waste time trying to harness power unecessarily, they simply lived according to their environment taking only what they needed.
They worshiped that which they did not understand yet held power over them, such as the sun, the wind, the moon etc.
You'll find that alot of the indigenous people believed that they decended from the sun or moon dynasties, which is probably why they gave it special attention. But there is no need to worship the sun or the moon because they have a great effect on the planet, and it is quite obvious that they work in a cycle and have no choice but to affect the planet.
And because they could not defeat these things they considered them powerful.
Very powerful.
Why would they want to defeat them? As far as they are concerned, the sun and moon does what it does. It seems as though you are creating something to fit your worldview.
Eventually the concept of gods arose, as a natural progression.
Why would such a concept arise?
I see this as a more rational explanation.
But it doesn't explain anything.
Why would we anthropomorphise the sun and moon, from a position of seeing them as part and parcel of this planet? Why would we feel as though we were defeated by them? And why would we make up gods (effectively lie), and make up elaborate scriptures, and rituals for something we know isn't true. The psychological aspect of this is far more interesting than the subject.
Ok. But I see this as just evidence that we lost a lot of knowledge. Until recently we didn't know how they built the pyramids, but we're getting there. I choose not to underestimate their level of understanding that they achieved in their own right. I don't see a need for a deity to impart it to them.
It's not about what you or I see a need for, it's about what actually is. They acheive great things, but you accept some explanations and disregard others because it doesn't match your worldview. That's how it seems to me.
I'm not speaking for them. I'm speaking for myself. So please don't assume anything from the crowd you want to put me in, but rather from what I say for myself.
No problem.
I do not consider ancient man knuckle-draggers or whatever term you care to suggest. There was certainly a time when perhaps our ancestors did, but they were not homosapiens.
It's only a figure of speech.
I just don't see anything to convince me that scriptures we not a means to collate information in the most appropriate format, style, manner for the time, by people who wished to then use that information for whatever reasons.
Can you rephrase this, the double negative is confusing.
And I see nothing to suggest that the concept of a deity did not precede those scriptures by a considerable margin, and that religion and superstition was ingrained into the human condition (perhaps an evolutionary benefit).
They did precede the scriptures in the capacity that the scriptures are written versions of aural traditions, but the concept of god, it has to be said, was always there, unless you can find evidence that they were introduced/invented at some point in time.
I agree with you regarding religion. It is true that people can be fooled by all sorts of ideas and theories, but religion is a man-made phenomena, or to be more precise, specific religions are man-made. Religion itself is just a way of life, and can be anything.
I also see no evidence that gods do exist, and so my position, that I consider most rational, is that the concept was man-made.
And that position is based purely on your belief, you say ''evidence'' because it seems like a rational thing to say, but we have establised on numerous occassions that...
1. you have no idea what would constitute evidence for God.
2. if you don't believe that ''evidence for God'' incorporates everything (inner/outer observations), then you cannot ever accept God exists.
3. the reason you don't believe in God is through choice or ignorance (I don't mean to be harsh)
I do not (or try not to) read into observations what I want to in order to fulfil my preconceived ideas. Instead if an item of evidence says nothing about a subject then I will be content to say as much.
Sounds good, but it means nothing as you yourself as set the parameter for what is and isn't evidence.
jan.
