Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/13/09 01:32 AM, Brick-top wrote: I think the concept of God was a gradual concept rather than someone suddenly saying "God did this"

I'd be worried about anyone who actually thought that that caricature was the literal case.

Which brings up the possibility that deities were educational personifications... models with which to grasp a concept, rather than a literal description. We say time is linear (some of us) - it doesn't mean we actually think time is physically a line. Could be that over generations, as the models spread and detached from their origins, some people took them literally.

Couple of reasons.

Answer unknowns - back in the day they needed a cause for things, whether good or bad. So if they don't understand why something happens, can blame it on God (just like today we blame everything on Global Warming).

Opium of the People - God is the perfect way to keep order in society, and by doing this helps society as a whole develop. The idea that an omnipotent being is always watching what you do, can sway someone's actions to prevent them from doing something to harm others.

Control people - Back in the day, the earliest rulers probably told their followers that they were chosen by God or the Gods to lead the people. And if you oppose said ruler, then God will smite thee.

I wonder if you are actually asking us in order to achieve greater knowledge and to understand , or just to keep with the same old "No, you are wrong i am right and god exists".

At 1/12/09 09:39 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: my opinion, the only way the idea of God could come to us is if he himself came to us.

Do some drugs. You will be astounded.

At 1/12/09 08:38 PM, aninjaman wrote: Did you acually read the article? It does a much better job at explaining.

Jeez you're naive. NOONE EVER CLICKS LINKS TO BORING CRAP ON THE INTERNET.

At 1/12/09 08:45 PM, RWT wrote: Zoroaster also spread his dogma in Iran, which never really spread beyond the mountains. The last Zoroastrian died in 19th century, I believe.

LIES. I personally know a zoarastrian that's still alive, and inherited his belief system from his family. His name is Berzin, and he's Indian (dot, not feather)

At 1/12/09 11:49 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Thoughts of a higher power provides positive emotions. The law of effect states that this will increase the likelihood of the event reoccurring. Furthermore, if I derive pleasure by narrowing my description of the higher power and repeating it to myself and others...

NICE. But doesn't this imply our brains are just naturally wired to believe in god? That idea has some serious cultural implications....

At 1/12/09 08:45 PM, RWT wrote: Zoroaster also spread his dogma in Iran, which never really spread beyond the mountains. The last Zoroastrian died in 19th century, I believe.

I'm curious to know how religions die out, and if that means eventually all religions will die out.

At 1/12/09 08:38 PM, aninjaman wrote: People with severe mental disorders have probably been considered religious figures before.

They have in fact been rulers of nations as well. After the reign of Ivan The Terrible ended (without an heir because he had killed his son in a terrible fight) a retarded man named Feydir who's only real defining characteristic was his enjoyment of the ringing of bells was made Czar of Russia. True story.

I think this also goes back to another reason why humans could create a God and a whole religious system: We like to believe in stuff. We like ritual, and we like the idea that there is somehow a "divine right" a procedure from on high that MUST be followed because dammit it is RIGHT and GOOD.

I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm just saying that to say it's impossible for humanity to conceive of such a thing without having the thing manifest and tell us "I exist! Believe in me!" is asinine, it sells humanity short and it flies in the face of all historical evidence (look at the greatest fiction writers, they've created stories, concepts, and characters that have endured on and on down through time.) so yeah, it's pretty easy to conceive of a situation where humans created the idea of a higher power out of a need to explain things, but also because tribe leaders (especially once we learned agriculture and settled) needed to control people and have a way to enforce the laws they made and have people respect them.

"Hey, hey you! Ezekiel! Don't you fucking steal that loaf of bread or I'm gonna kill you because God says I can! Then, when I'm done with that? He punishes you on and on forever! So put the bread back now...that's right, there's a good asshole"

At 1/13/09 10:07 AM, Ericho wrote: I'm curious to know how religions die out, and if that means eventually all religions will die out.

The easiest way is through conquering a people. Like the ancient Greeks (really ancient, not what we tend to consider ancient in our general culture) were worshippers of a single mother-goddess deity and were a society in which the women were the dominant sex. They were then invaded and conquered by a patriarchal, male dominated culture who believed in the idea of a polytheistic "sky father" religion. This is how we get Zeus and the other gods. The mother goddess was broken down into less powerful goddesses (Hera, Aphrodite, Athena, etc) who controlled ASPECTS of the original, but did not have the power. They also were cast into subservient roles to the sky father (Zeus, Athena in fact is not even born of a woman, she is born of Zeus. Which further renders the matriarchy irrelevant) and other male gods. Thus, the matriarchal religion and culture is wiped out and replaced. The Greeks then have their religion usurped when Rome conquers them, and keeps the religion, but changes all the names. Then Rome becomes a Christian state and the original partriarchal religion of the Greeks is wiped out.

So yeah, it comes down to he who winneth the war back in the day, gets to decide the religious and cultural landscape over time. I think we actually wouldn't be able to do that now because people have different sensibilities about such things now.

By the same token of control over populations, couldn't the concept of God be used to control the rulers of those same populations? By instilling a popular belief that there is an even higher authority that grants the joys the life, wouldn't the "control" facet also encompass those at the top as well?

Sure, the Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, but isn't even he supposed to abide by God's laws?

At 1/13/09 03:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So yeah, it comes down to he who winneth the war back in the day, gets to decide the religious and cultural landscape over time. I think we actually wouldn't be able to do that now because people have different sensibilities about such things now.

So avi, are you implying that religion is totally based on war and control?
That may be true in some cases but you n possibly everyone here has yet to answer the question of where the concept of God and spiritual beliefs came from.

And it doesn't have to be religious at all, you can believe in God without being tied to a religion just as atheists claim they don't believe and aren't in a religion, hell some people have religions n don't believe in God, but where the hell is all this pointing????

There must to of been a being, a creature, alien er whatever that came a long ass time ago n directed us or even created us in the first place, but a long ass time ago is a long ass time ago and sure enough as asshole people who wish to harm n control others, we may never know, thats why death is looked at with both fear and joy.
I could get into it deeper but I'll jus take a break for now.

At 1/13/09 03:18 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Sure, the Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, but isn't even he supposed to abide by God's laws?

Technically yes, but this is just an example of corruption in religion.

At 1/12/09 12:22 PM, poxpower wrote: You have to remember that the all-mighty God is not the first version of God to come up.

The further back you go, the smaller God is. In the most primitive religions, there's usually just spirits. Then you move on to polytheists who have many lesser Gods who do whatever shit. Then monotheism which evolves too.
It starts with a really human God and then gradually moves on to a more abstract concept that is more and more unseen.

Haha how wrong are you. The all-mighty god from the bible was the first god. The ONLY real God.

At 1/14/09 05:52 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 1/13/09 03:18 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: Sure, the Ayatollah is the supreme leader in Iran, but isn't even he supposed to abide by God's laws?

Technically yes, but this is just an example of corruption in religion.

So I bet you're really pissed off that Hillary Clinton was appointed to an office where she'll be spokesman to some of the same people she's requested campaign contributions from.

And technically, endowing power to God [Allah] in deference to one's own judgement is about as uncorrupted as you can get. In the end, though, "it is what it is" and religious institutions can be made to check the corruptive abuses of power commonly found in the world today.

At 1/14/09 01:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: There must to of been a being, a creature, alien er whatever that came a long ass time ago n directed us or even created us in the first place, but a long ass time ago is a long ass time ago and sure enough as asshole people who wish to harm n control others, we may never know, thats why death is looked at with both fear and joy.

I am curious, do you believe in the concept of "synthetic judgments a priori"? Or, in other words, that there are basic concepts that one can just know and never question?

I could get into it deeper but I'll jus take a break for now.

You always do that.

At 1/13/09 10:05 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:
NICE. But doesn't this imply our brains are just naturally wired to believe in god? That idea has some serious cultural implications....

Yes it does, and no, not necessarily. Just because we can explain something does not mean we have to change anything (though I may be unclear as to what you mean by "cultural implications").

At 1/14/09 01:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: So avi, are you implying that religion is totally based on war and control?

No no, I think if you read my post I was saying "yes, what everyone has said about it being about explaining stuff is very valid and true. Now let me add this thought about war and control". I wasn't disputing the prior arguments, I was merely elaborating on a facet I think folks hadn't really brought up yet :)

That may be true in some cases but you n possibly everyone here has yet to answer the question of where the concept of God and spiritual beliefs came from.

I think we pretty much have been though. We've said these concepts come from people's need to explain things, or control. It's developed over time. If you mean specifically the Judeo-Christian God, then I'm not sure we can entirely be sure why the Jewish leaders arrived at the conclusion of a single omnipotent God they named Yahweh, that the Christian splinter group adopted. We can accept the story the Bible tells us, that this being manifested itself to a man named Abraham. Or we can be skeptical and say "look, the Jews were a nomadic tribe for a lot of their existence. They didn't have land to call their own for awhile, and they weren't terribly civilized. So they created the idea of a singular, pissed off angry sky-father deity that was very much ready to whack the shit out of them if they didn't behave". Most of the old testament stories about the actions of God do tend to put forth the idea that He isn't the nicest figure in the world and that he's very ready to make rules, punish disobedience, and just generally demands that you respect what you're told or else. These are all traits that any society is going to need to be any kind of effective and control it's citizenry.

And it doesn't have to be religious at all, you can believe in God without being tied to a religion just as atheists claim they don't believe and aren't in a religion, hell some people have religions n don't believe in God, but where the hell is all this pointing????

One can be Agnostic, which is essentially what I am. You have a believe in either God, or some higher creator force, but you don't follow any organized religious faith. But I think I see what you're trying to do here Shaggy: You want to make this an "all roads still lead to God" argument. There's a problem with this idea though:

Buddhism, Jainism and Atheism

Buddhism is NOT the worship of the Buddha, Sidhartha Guattama (spelling?). It is rather the following of his teachings. There is no God or higher deity in the Buddhist religion. Even the Buddha is ascribed no divine ability, it is merely a pathway to the state of Nirvana, which is ultimate enlightenment. No special deity involved at all.

Jainism I believe has much in common with Buddhism, no creator deity that I know of, and again I believe it's about enlightenment.

Atheism is the firm belief in science and that there's no god, no afterlife, no nothing. You die and that's that.

There must to of been a being, a creature, alien er whatever that came a long ass time ago n directed us or even created us in the first place,

Why? Because you believe there must have been? You remind me of Erik Von Danniken. You just have a firm belief that humanity is just INCAPABLE of doing most of it's greatest achievements all by themselves. Yet like him, you've provided no real evidence to prove your claims, while other people have provided plausible explanations as to why it doesn't have to be that way. I'm not saying you're dead wrong on the subject of God, as I've said, I tend to believe there's at least some passive force that directs the universe and ensures some kind of justice. But that's the thing, it's my belief and I'm perfectly willing to accept I may be wrong.

but a long ass time ago is a long ass time ago and sure enough as asshole people who wish to harm n control others, we may never know, thats why death is looked at with both fear and joy.

Sure, we DON'T KNOW. That's the whole problem with debating the existence or non-existence of a deity (as I've argued in other threads, and in my blogs) because we can't get CONCLUSIVE evidence one way or the other. It all comes down to faith, belief, and then of course when we do finally die, we'll know.

I could get into it deeper but I'll jus take a break for now.

I wish you would, and I also wish you'd pay a little more attention to the thread. Because right now it seems like you're sitting here and discounting any explanation that isn't in agreement with you as "not really explaining anything".

As an answer to annoying children who wont stop asking questions which cannot be answered!

At 1/12/09 03:27 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Once you start seeing cause and effect as the same thing, though, you lose that second step, and in that, you become a pawn of your environment because of the whole "Fate/destiny" concept, where nothing you do matters. So the separation is a functional illusion, and a necessary one for moral action.

What if the moral line is traveling on something that isn't linear, like what if it's in a spiral. Is that possible? Could time be distance? Literally?

At 1/15/09 10:29 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: What if the moral line is traveling on something that isn't linear, like what if it's in a spiral. Is that possible? Could time be distance? Literally?

I suppose time could be compared to distance, but I don't think it could be literally distance. Time is basically the universe's lifespan - you can draw a line from the birth to now, but it isn't exactly a length that can be measured by a meter stick.

I always thought the idea of God was a good concept, because you believed that there was a higher being than yourself, and that you were not the greatest thing in the world, so you could allow yourself to be humble in a vast universe. Sadly, many people don't seem to reflect those views.

At 1/15/09 12:20 PM, Ericho wrote: I always thought the idea of God was a good concept, because you believed that there was a higher being than yourself, and that you were not the greatest thing in the world, so you could allow yourself to be humble in a vast universe. Sadly, many people don't seem to reflect those views.

Why do you need an idea of a god to allow yourself to be humble in a vast universe? The complete insignificance that is humanity is humbling enough, I should think.

Problem: Many see that as depressing and even FRIGHTENING.

At 1/15/09 01:49 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Problem: Many see that as depressing and even FRIGHTENING.

True, but it is still humbling.

Those who see it as frightening should ask themselves: Is seeing life as having no defined purpose truly worse than life merely being a tool to fulfill some greater being's desires?

well, I have a hypothetical question posed here in response to the question of where the idea of God came from: ... um, where did you or I come from?.. and dont give me an off-the-cuff primordial soup cop-out. order does not come from chaos. just do any physics experiment that involves time and leaving things where they are or even exploding them - do it on this planet or in space, you'll get these results- it will not form order and it will not create life if there was no life already there.

At 1/12/09 09:39 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

So I'm asking were people think the concept of the unseen unphysical all powerful being God first came to mankind, my opinion, the only way the idea of God could come to us is if he himself came to us.

well yes... Christians, I being one, however weak of an example I am, believe God came down to us most directly as a man, Jesus: born of Mary from the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, and sorry Catholics, I do not consider Mary the mother of God, being Uncreated. she was only the mother of the man Jesus. christians believe that he was sinless and became a blood-offering sacrifice for all sin to those who would believe in him and confess him as Savior. he, being God, has the right to judge all mankind because he is God and was sinless as man. (but being benevolent chooses to stay his hand quite a lot.. not saying there wouldn't be SLIGHT similarities to Jesus in some of Revelation to "Jebus" in that high ranking Madness clip)

At 1/12/09 10:44 AM, Earfetish wrote: People needed to answer questions and didn't have a method to.

I believe the monotheism we have today came from Zoroastrianism, before that people believed in many Gods, or believed that God and nature were one and the same. Like Paganism. These beliefs were also to answer questions that they couldn't answer sufficiently.

a fluffy detail: the Wisemen from the Bible's Gospels are often presumed to have been Zoroastrian.

At 1/12/09 11:33 AM, Earfetish wrote: Old Testament God is a lot more human than New Testament God, too. Old Testament God talks to people and stuff happens behind his back and he's not in all places at once.

let me suggest that God in the OT perhaps WAS omnipresent but theophanically present only in some cases where it suited his divine purpose. christians do in fact call God triune.. which is a different subject and that might get off topic but I'd say we try to limit God's presence partly because some of us dont like the idea of something that would always be more powerful than us and bigger than our minds can understand.

At 1/12/09 12:22 PM, poxpower wrote: You have to remember that the all-mighty God is not the first version of God to come up.

The further back you go, the smaller God is. In the most primitive religions, there's usually just spirits. Then you move on to polytheists who have many lesser Gods who do whatever shit. Then monotheism which evolves too.
It starts with a really human God and then gradually moves on to a more abstract concept that is more and more unseen.

Basically you see a funny trend towards being an atheist haha. The further God evolves, the more removed from the universe he becomes and the smaller his effects on the current world... almost as if.. he wasn't there at all...

"in the Beginning was God." you're right, Almighty is not the first name for God. one of the first was Creator. even christians have accumulated many names for God, but they've done this just to describe a God that encompasses so much active history (only speaking of Biblical description because thats where most of his names come from).

It sounds like you'd prefer if God didn't even exist - you're talking about going back to the beginning of time and and also toward modern time where God is "removed from the universe" or has "smaller.. effects" on the world.. if you are worried about that I could offer you some resources that show just how potent God was in the beginning and is today.. but I'm sure you could look that up and save me some time.

At 1/15/09 12:47 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm not saying you're dead wrong on the subject of God, as I've said, I tend to believe there's at least some passive force that directs the universe and ensures some kind of justice. But that's the thing, it's my belief and I'm perfectly willing to accept I may be wrong.

this is when I respect agnostics - cutting their pretentious pompous over-explained stereotype and just actually verbalizing admission that God may actually exist, may actually intentionally stay in the background at least not to try to impress you because what's the point, he's God anyway.. I've had some pretty powerful spiritual experiences in my life and they were not nearly drug-induced... I can't explain God, I can't bring anyone to his door, and I sure can't demand him to show himself to anyone, but I'm glad I know he's there.

At 1/15/09 02:39 PM, Jonuh wrote: well, I have a hypothetical question posed here in response to the question of where the idea of God came from: ... um, where did you or I come from?.. and dont give me an off-the-cuff primordial soup cop-out. order does not come from chaos. just do any physics experiment that involves time and leaving things where they are or even exploding them - do it on this planet or in space, you'll get these results- it will not form order and it will not create life if there was no life already there.

Actually, you are wrong.

It has already been done and proven. So the off-the-cuff primordial soup cop-out is in fact not a cop-out at all, but your predisposition that assumes that "order" and "chaos" are actual physical entities is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4797 77,00.html

mutating, evolving, self-replicating RNA molecules created in lab

At 1/15/09 01:49 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Problem: Many see that as depressing and even FRIGHTENING.

So are Zombies.

At 1/15/09 01:49 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Problem: Many see that as depressing and even FRIGHTENING.

Really? I always thought it was a bit liberating. If your scared that you were not put on this earth for a purpose and you need someone to give you a purpose instead of making your own you seem like a bit of a tool.

At 1/15/09 03:25 PM, Earfetish wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4797 77,00.html

mutating, evolving, self-replicating RNA molecules created in lab

I for one don't agree with that, I've heard they have failed time n time again and really if they ever succeeded, it wouldn't mean anything.....reading the article, they say "nearly created".

Artificial life isn't equal to actual life and you know it, and as far as I've heard putting a bunch of chemicals together n boiling it wont make a damn thing, the big bang theory in my opinion is wrong and provable by science and common sense.

But either way you can believe what you want but you cannot tell other people that theirs are lies unless you want your own to be treated the same like I have just done, this circular argument goes nowhere and you know it, if you have an opinion on the topic then share it, don't bring things unrelated into it.

At 1/15/09 03:19 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Actually, you are wrong.

It has already been done and proven. So the off-the-cuff primordial soup cop-out is in fact not a cop-out at all, but your predisposition that assumes that "order" and "chaos" are actual physical entities is.

Tan, you are wrong. But if you truly believe what you have allowed us to assume, you shouldn't have to argue, the truth is that you have your own beliefs and you want others to have the same as you, but that isn't going to happen all the time so get over it, the question is still looming over you I bet, your doubts haunt you 8P

Anyway I hope the topic can get back on track so we wont have another "my belief vs your belief" argument topic.

And dudes, give Jonuh a break, hes prolly one of the only guys besides me here who shares some of my beliefs, but if you're that threatened by him then just stop coming to this post.

I'm reminded of how small and insignificant this site is, if any of these atheist or evolutionists, sadists or whatever actually knew what they were talking about or had any kind of confidence in what they've been told, they wouldn't bother coming here, so I guess the sterotype is true here which I wont say.

Continue the topic.