What is religion and how did it exist:

[sadashivan]

Religion is age old since the civilization came into existence. It began when human’s brain advanced to realize to have faith, and worship the systems of the society. Human lived in small groups, regulations and systems were formed to maintain discipline in the group. All small groups had own ideology that were obligatory to all group members. As they were too small in groups, system differed from group (society) to group. In order to initiate members to worship the system, an idol was formed that harmonized the ideology. Rituals were essential part that to be carried in occasions for rejuvenation. During this period their rituals were for natural resources like sun, moon, river, fire etc; spirits like group gods and character idols like devil or angel.

As I feel, ritual is a practice to follow the ideology and its inscription, like those who have faith in bible inscription are Christian and who have faith in Quoran are Muslims and have faith in veda are hindus. So Christianity is the system (religion) and Christians are society, bible is inscription and Jesus Christ is icon. A difference of opinion in society split up from Jews to Christianity or branches like Roman Catholic, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostal or others.

So religion is a system of belief in society. A ritual is main part of religion that builds citizens of the society to trust, respect the ideology of the society. Each religion has its own inscription for its group. When number of followers grew and opted to join the group that resulted to expansion of particular religion. On the other hand in many cases conversion method by force or temptation was/ is also adopted to expand its wings

negative/ positive RELIGION AND RITUALS

http://members.tripod.com/~sadashivan_nair/negativepositivefactorsandwe/id4.html

[Bob]

Religion is age old since the civilization came into existence. It began when human’s brain advanced to realize to have faith, and worship the systems of the society.

That is your explanation, there are others...

Religion is the answer to awe and amazement, or to the idea that the universe and all of what can been seen must have some purpose. Religions try to explain why things exist, not how. Above all, they try to give meaning to human existence with all of it's ambivalence and contradiction. e.g. Why can a human being fathom the universe but steep to the ignorance and brutality of the dark ages?

We need to get away from the idea that early human beings were 'primitive' in a way that we are not. I believe it is proven that early human beings were as intelligent as we are today and reliant to a far higher degree upon their adaptability and genius. They didn't just bow down before a rock, there was thought behind it, not fear. If early humankind were as dumb as the people during the course of our development have shown themselves to be, we wouldn't be around to write about it.

Shalom
Bob[/quote]

[detrop]

Schopenhauer noted that it might be because of the enormous intellectual inequality between men that one might take the words of another as a revelation. The "thoughts of the wise" became an authority to the lesser minded common folk. This, I think, is the substructure behind the formulation of all religions. Once the religion is established and organized it is passed down to the next generation as if it were something eternal.

Think about it for a moment. Let's say you are alive four thousand years ago. Suddenly, some dude leading a revolution against the Roman church, named Jesus, approaches you and says some pretty far out stuff, though you are convinced and accept it. To you, this guy was a beginning of something that had not yet existed, Christianity. To your children, the question "are his(Jesus) words an authority," is never asked. It is accepted as the truth. Christianity is as common as loafed bread, nowadays.

[blank_frackis]

My opinion on how religion came about is that human beings cannot (or could not) comprehend their own non-existence. Therefore they invented some after-life which would remove this possibility. For a human however, in order to be rewarded with eternal life (i.e an end to worry about non-existence) they realise that they must sacrifice something for that reward.

The early religions sacrificed humans/animals etc, so when christianity/islam etc, appeared with their idea of sacrificing the greatest pleasure in life - sexual pleasure - it was obvious that it would be popular. The new religions allowed people to give up pleasure in reward for eternal life rather than the more painful sacrifices (i.e you stop doing something you enjoy in return for eternal life rather than doing something distressing in return for eternal life).

Obviously simply giving up sex would have a detrimental effect on the species so sex within the confines of marriage was allowed.

[detrop]

My opinion on how religion came about is that human beings cannot (or could not) comprehend their own non-existence.

That's obvious though. Maybe what you want to say is that religion is taking advantage of this fact that people cannot know what 'non-existence' might entail as obviously they are living creatures. This remains a mystery, and although it should be easier and more common sensical to believe that death is the end, because of the fact that this cannot be proven philosophically, people take advantage of it. Also, it caters to psychological desires as well. People like life, they don't want to die. Its all the better when they can choose a doctrine to believe in when it already supports their desires.

But yes, I agree with you completely. Religion is a direct attempt to allieviate the anxiety of death.

For a human however, in order to be rewarded with eternal life (i.e an end to worry about non-existence) they realise that they must sacrifice something for that reward.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a reward system. Although this model works well in religion. With this humans can believe that they are in a sort of process where they 'graduate' after being tested by a series of trials.

However, I don't think this model would be an accurate depiction of what a 'real' God might be and what a real religion might involve. I would quicker accept that my consciousness might 'carry on' after I die then I would the possibility that each and every action I make in the world has a 'right' and 'wrong' quality. I think 'religion' outside of pure metaphysics is the only kind that can have any moral or ethical significance. That is, I need not prove that God is concerned with human struggling or that he is 'caring,' or even that he's an asshole, to necessarily prove that 'it'(God) exists, although this theorizing is cold and indifferent, it isn't affected by human prejudice. That is what gets in the way when postulating God. In fact, a purely metaphysical theory of God is far more acceptable precisely because it wouldn't be slandered with human morality and emotion. I don't like egocentric religions or anthropomorphic interpretations of God. Humans are in general stupid creatures, don't trust anything they say.

he..he..

[being_gabriel]

look into Freud, Feuerbach and Marx's views on religion.

[scythekain]

:roll: Religion is age old since the civilization came into existence. It began when human’s brain advanced to realize to have faith, and worship the systems of the society. Human lived in small groups, regulations and systems were formed to maintain discipline in the group.

ok here's my question. What evolutionary purpose does faith have? the answer none. the part of the brain that activates faith has been proven through MRI. again what practical purpose would this part of the brain have evolved through evolution?

I agree many religions are used to control the people. but that doesn't make the concept of faith in god an ingenuous "fake" concept, brought about by accident.

think about it. Faith in god is no accident. Atheists choose to suppress that faith as irreprievable until they get into a nature setting (hombre ) and then suddenly they can believe in god. but get back to the city, and it's all reason again no room for god in a world with evolution. it's just not very reasonable is it?

Evolution, the opiate for the fearful of god.

[being_gabriel]

i beilieve whole heartedly in evolution and that religion is a psychological human construct. and i don't fear the non-existent

[70 times 7]

i beilieve whole heartedly in evolution and that religion is a psychological human construct. and i don't fear the non-existent

You believe by faith, for there is no proof. Face it, it's your religion.

[being_gabriel]

id rather label myself an evolutionist than an atheist, evolutionism however can't be a religion because a religion by definition needs something meta physical, hence the argument over the authenticity of buddhism as a religion

[Bob]

You believe by faith, for there is no proof. Face it, it's your religion.

I quite like some of the Buddhist arguments about Ultimates (paramattha) in Buddhism, which point to the fact that we believe a lot more than we think:

"Water exists. However, a molecule of water can be subdivided into H2 O, namely, two atoms of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen; therefore, water, as such, cannot be regarded as an ultimate, for an ultimate, by definition, is something that cannot be subdivided.

Once again, an atom is not an ultimate unit, for it can be subdivided into protons, electrons and neutrons. These protons, electrons and neutrons are not ultimates either, for they can be subdivided into atomic particles and muons and quarks, and maybe these are the present ultimates in Science.

There are two kinds of truth, one is conventional truth, like our concept of water, (sammuti-sacca), and there is ultimate truth, like atomic particles (paramattha-sacca).
.... You cannot see an ultimate with the naked eye but only with the eye of wisdom, that can be called the "inner eye", for it is abstract. Similarly, you cannot see an atom or a molecule except with the "inner-eye".

Just pause for a moment to consider that the whole body of water in this universe, the lakes and rivers and oceans are not ultimates; they exist only in conventional language but they do not exist in terms of ultimates.

There are ultimates in Matter (materiality) and ultimates in Mind (mentality), and they are seen by the Buddhist inner eye as having or manifesting properties or qualities. But nothing exists apart form the ultimates.

Each of these ultimates has its individual essence, called sabháva; sabháva is also translated as intrinsic nature. One has to come to realize these individual essences by contemplation or meditation, both the individual essences of the ultimates in Matter and ultimates in Mind.

Mind and Matter can be likened to a Cripple and a Blind Man. The Cripple can’t walk, and the Blind Man can’t see. When the cripple is put on the shoulders of the blind man, the cripple can see and directs the blind man to go left and right.

Mind wants to eat but it cannot eat, and it is the body that eats, Mind wants to drink, but it cannot drink and it is the body that drinks. It is the Mind that controls and directs."

Shalom
Bob

[scythekain]

id rather label myself an evolutionist than an atheist, evolutionism however can't be a religion because a religion by definition needs something meta physical, hence the argument over the authenticity of buddhism as a religion

buddhism is just as much a religion as atheism or secularism, or evolutionism.

buddhists believe that through meditation and removing themselves from the world (removing cravings) that they can reach a state called nirvana. The following from dictionary.com:

nir·va·na Audio pronunciation of "nirvana" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nîr-vän, nr-)
n.

1. often Nirvana
1. Buddhism. The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.
2. Hinduism. Emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment.
2. An ideal condition of rest, harmony, stability, or joy.

nirvana

n 1: (Hinduism and Buddhism) the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness [syn: Nirvana, enlightenment] 2: any place of complete bliss and delight and peace [syn: eden, paradise, heaven, promised land, Shangri-la]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

disinterested wisdom? escaping reincarnation? sounds pretty metaphysical to me (if that is your definer for religion)

as for disinterested wisdom, I prefer my wisdom with passion, served warm.

if your trying to attain the "ineffeble ultimate" how can you ever be sure anything in your life is ultimate? imo it's to easy to become disconnected with the world trying to reach nirvana. while buddhism presents some good philosophies, it's best to follow them in moderation, otherwise you'll seperate yourself from the world (remember that's IMO)

[being_gabriel]

at no point did i say buddhism was not a religion or argued the fact it wasn't i said due to the definition of religion, there have been many arguments over buddhism. none of which i wish to take part in, or indeed start.

[sadashivan]

ok here's my question. What evolutionary purpose does faith have? the answer none. the part of the brain that activates faith has been proven through MRI. again what practical purpose would this part of the brain have evolved through evolution?

Thanks for your message: As I feel evolution is above religion. IT is the enviornment that is on top of all and is god. evlolution is survival process and religion is sub part of survival.

[70 times 7]

Bob - ???!!!!!

(I'm sort of being a post whore. How many posts do you need to get to be a thinker? A philosopher?)

To me, to believe in something without PROOF is being religious. I've always felt that religion is created by mortals as a set of rules designed to reach out to or please God or the gods. Rigourous, legalistic. At it's essence - stripped of what we have done to it - Christianity is the act of God reaching out to us through His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. When it turns into religion, though, it begins to die.

Gotta go to bed now - eyes hurting.

[Bob]

Hi 70 times 7.
Nice to see that someone has a name that associates with the amount of times we should forgive - and it's not about counting.

How many posts do you need to get to be a thinker? A philosopher?

I think it is 300 and 400 - but I'm not sure.

I've always felt that religion is created by mortals as a set of rules designed to reach out to or please God or the gods. Rigourous, legalistic.

Every religious movement that writes something down is in danger of turning legalistic, especially when the first generations have passed on and the 'spirit' of what had been written is lost to speculation by later generations. If you take the legends and the mythical writings out of the Torah, you have a lot of legalistic instructions - but if you accept that Israel was to be a very different society to the ones around them, the law was important - even if it never was realised.

The thing about judaic-christian development, was the progress of the Covenant. First it was a Covenant with Abraham, and God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then Israel recieved (mythically) the book of the covenant (what exactly they received is discussed controversially even today) - and the covenant was one of the 'Word' which Israel should reflect on and share at every opportunity because of humankinds hardheartedness. It went even as far as wearing the word in leather ornaments (although originally it was probably meant figuratively). The coming Covenant is to be a spiritual Covenant with the 'Word' in the hearts with no need of preaching and teaching, because all will 'know' God - and be intimate with him.

Christianity has however stepped into all of the traps that the Tenak has documented, so we can't accuse others of being legalistic. The Qu'ran is a different kettle of fish. It was meant for reciting, perhaps as the ancients did in Hebrew, and believers are meant to learn by this continual recital.

I'm not sure that it is any worse than any other kind of religious practise. In fact, we all have a tendency to do that, even though in a banal manner - think of all of the songs we sum.

Shalom
Bob

[Hatsu]

Scythekain and 70 times 7 I agree


The Self-Centered


It seems people only cradle religion because they are too afraid to die, Okay, You are not afraid to die neither am I but not our love ones, I just wonder why this topic is so self-centered, true religion = love, not fear.

I believe burdens and rewards cannot be equally divided amongst humanity, but I believe there are two kinds of circumstances where people tend to believe or not to believe in religion, consider this my e. g.

1.)The Rewards
This are some example situations where people refute or forget god.

a.you won the lottery
b.in your company you manage to move up the ranks
c.your nowhere to find as your in an out of town vacation
d.your in a casino

2.) The Burdens
This are some circumstances were people tend to remember god.

a.You are not afraid to die but your loving little sister just pass away last morning and your overwhelming grief, sorrow, and compassionate towards your sister triggers a defensive mechanism of regression for you to suddenly wish she is in some other place much better such as heaven or paradise.

b.Beyond doubt your not afraid to die but your already 75 years old and you still just can’t get enough of learning and learning, reading and reading, researching different kinds of stuff and experiments but you yourself knew that fulfilling time is about to end, but you know you just do not have the power.

c.Unquestionably you are not afraid to die but you and your family are currently being rounded up by guns and held hostage.

d.Sure you are not afraid to die, but you and your whole family abruptly arouse as a burly earthquake struck you county.

I believe this is the reason why people seek religion.......