a priori, there are no Gods - what then?

M

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
If we assume a priori there is and are no Gods. Then where did the major religious treaties come from? Most religions have a “founder”, what does this say about them? What do you think?

For example: As I understand it, Buddha credited his revelations to thinking about things. He’d meditate, then come up with some idea, then place said idea in cultural context and 2500 years later we have a religion called Buddhism based on said person’s thinking about stuff. I think it’s fair enough to say, yes, he probably was honest in saying he was thinking about things and even though there is no evidence about the more esoteric ideas being true (ex: reincarnations) I think it’s fair to suggest he was saying what he thought about. Was he a liar? Probably not. Was he crazy? Again, I don't think see. More like a was a philosopher and placed his ideas in a cultural context.


What of the Bible?
What of the Qur’an?


Where these written by Liars? Psychopaths? Schizophrenics? Cons? A combination?

Think about it. These books contain copied storied from other religions. The authors say they heard these as “revelations” but the truth is – they are lying, these were plagiarized. Unless they were totally nuts. Then, perhaps they didn’t know they were coping. They may have known of the stories but heard a retelling in their head, probably a lobe-disconnect, and thought they were hearing a God.

I think by the very nature of the writings, we can say something about the people who wrote them.

What of Dietetics?

I think it's fair to say the ideas are original. No? So, was Ron nuts? Was he a philosopher like Buddha? Was he a con?


I think a lot can be said about the person, based on what they said. Why not apply this logical discourse to religious books and of course, their authors?

What do you think?
Michael
 
Believers in God have to also believe the scribes who wrote their religious texts were actually in contact with God. This is obviously not true and yes a lot of stories are plagiarized. Of course one could say the original scribe was communicating with the Almighty but the list is now shortened to either one or a few individuals.

Bibles have been written by men who have access to other religious stories, have preconceived notions and prejudices.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Believers in God have to also believe the scribes who wrote their religious texts were actually in contact with God. This is obviously not true and yes a lot of stories are plagiarized. Of course one could say the original scribe was communicating with the Almighty but the list is now shortened to either one or a few individuals.

Bibles have been written by men who have access to other religious stories, have preconceived notions and prejudices.
Click to expand...
What does it say about the authors, as individuals, that they lead their audience to think their book is based on the words of a God. Did they think this was the only way their audience would listen? Are these little white lies told for the benefit of the overall communittee? Maybe they thought this was the natural order of things, lie to the masses and rule over them.

If this was the case, why didn't the philosophers go this route? Where they aiming for something more signficant?
 
A religion that is written by a liar would not stand a test of time to survive and be followed.
 
Michael said:
If we assume a priori there is and are no Gods. Then where did the major religious treaties come from? Most religions have a “founder”, what does this say about them? What do you think?
Click to expand...

Most Biblical scholars work from the point of view that there were several authors of the Bible, over several periods of time. One can recognize the differing styles, even point to passages where the same story by two separate authors was combined by some scribe. You can learn alot about ancient peoples from these books. The ancient Hebrews were patriarchal and adopted the God Yaweh out of a pantheon of Gods worshipped in that area.

Buddha's great revelation did not come from thinking. It wasn't philosophy, it was an experience, a mental and perhaps biological transformation. Reincarnation does not suggest anything supernatural or even new, it was a way of looking at the unity and cyclical nature of things.

The same kind of process went on as both Buddhas sayings were codified and Biblical stories were told and retold. It's not that anyone was a liar or crazy. There was at first a truth, then this gets elaborated on by subsequent authors. Aspects of the stories that held symbolic significance were emphasized.

The Quran was copied from the Bible, for the most part. Just like the Book of Mormon was loosely based on it too. It's no great mystery of itself, it's just what humans do.
 
michael if we assume for a min abraham existed (though if not himself then whoever else was really the thinker involved in the proto tora development but he makes a nice place holder) i herd a theory about what COULD have happened. What he could have been talking about was the budding extelligence of his time, the gathered knowlage of the group rather than the indervidual which he was seeking to understand. Acording to what i read johova means "that which is". Its as good a name as any for understanding this collective. This is a good explination for the origions of mono theiastic religions and even those like budasium

In the case of polly thieastic probably followed more from a) a way to garentie the tribe, keep out outsides (and there for protect resorces) and bind them together. Futher more coincidence may have had alot to do with it. Rember we are talking about HUGE amounts of time and large numbers of people. Say for instance hunters were desiring food after a long drought and they said a "proto pray" and a deer comes walking along. The fact that its not replicatable because its coincidence doesnt mean anything because the scientific method isnt established, hell INTELLIGENCE isnt established. This then becomes a hunt god. In egypt where agroculture is important its RAIN that was probably the first trigger or fertility. Its quite possable hathor was the first god of egypt rather than Ra
 
Michael said:
What of Dietetics?
Click to expand...
The religion of weight-loss??
I know many women who are devout followers of this! :D


I think you mean DIANETICS - the ideas that led ultimately to Scientology.

I don't think Hubbard was necessarily a con in formulating and publishing his thoughts on Dianetics. He clearly thought, from his observations and experiences, that what he was putting forth would help people.
Unfortunately there is little, if any, scientific support for his ideas.

What Scientology has become, though, is somewhat different.
 
Hmmmm.... spidergoat, lets think about this some more.

Asguard, you type as quick as you think, this much is true.

Sarkus, LOL, now WHAT is this something different? and.... R U SURE?
 
Michael said:
Hmmmm.... spidergoat, lets think about this some more.

Asguard, you type as quick as you think, this much is true.

Sarkus, LOL, now WHAT is this something different? and.... R U SURE?
Click to expand...

hmmm concidering the way you ordered that im not sure wether to take it as an insult or a compliment. If it was the other way around i would have known you just intended it as insulting:p

But please if you disagree with the hypothisis argue your case, it seems like a fairly plausable way for it to have developed concidering that polly theastic religions predate the monotheastic ones. This means that a) the people were likly more intelligent and more extelligent when they developed and b) people were already used to the supernatural theories. The fact that an early philoposher would mestake extelligence (this is just the word used when i first read the theory, call it cultural or group intelligence if that suits better) for "god" is understandable.

Further more its very possable that the origional proto polly theastic religions were simply a means to control a) the enviroment b) the group. Im not nessarly suggesting that the second one was an immidate jump, but at some point the proto-philosophers (for want of a better word) in the tribes oviously realised that these rituals and other actions taken to favorly influance the natural forces could be a way to also control the tribe and give themselves power over it. Its easy enough to see ways for them to explain there failures, for instance if you pray to the god of lions and then get eaten the priest could say "you didnt pray hard enough" or "you wernt sincere in your prayers". If people object they can then be sacrificed to the god of lions.

Neat way of getting power for those with brains in a world where the strongest fighter was king so to speak
 
draqon said:
A religion that is written by a liar would not stand a test of time to survive and be followed.
Click to expand...

Explain the Mormon religion, then. Or Scientology. One was started by a known con artist and the other by a science fiction author who once remarked to a friend that the surest path to wealth was to invent a religion.

Jesus was either a crook, a liar, a nutcase, or nonexistent (nonexistent covering the possibility that a man named Jesus existed, but everything about him was concocted over the years by zealous followers).
 
It all depends on how one looks at it

Various scholars have voiced that some of the contents of the Pali Canon (and its main teachings) can be attributed to Gautama Buddha. Dr Richard Gombrich thinks that the main preachings of the Buddha (as in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitaka) probably go back to the Buddha individually.[19] Some scholars argue that the teachings are coherent and cogent, and must be the work of a single genius: the Buddha himself, not a committee of followers after his death.[20][21]

J.W. de Jong has stated that parts of the Pali Canon could very well have been proclaimed by the Buddha, and subsequently transmitted and developed by his disciples and, finally, codified in fixed formulas.[22] A. Wynne has said that the Pali Canon includes texts which go back to the very beginning of Buddhism, which perhaps include the substance of the Buddha’s teaching, and in some cases, maybe even his words.[23]

A.K. Warder has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the shared teaching of the early schools was formulated by anyone else than the Buddha and his immediate followers.[24]

Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha[25] Some of these scholars argue that[26] some passages contradict the main teachings, and that the Buddha must have been consistent. Some believe only one of the variant teachings can have been the teaching of the Buddha, and that if the Buddha had taught the main teachings, contradictory teachings would never have got in. Some believe that because of this, the Buddha must have taught the divergent teachings, and that the main teachings were elaborated by his followers after his death.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon#Attribution_according_to_scholars
 
Many types of religions were developed to control people. Since governments weren't that powerful thousands of years ago something had to be in order to have the general population controlled so they wouldn't get out of hand and anarchy prevail. What better way than to create Gods, Goddesses and other things that no one else could explain but those who made them up. Way back then people were wanting to follow others that knew what they were doing , so to say. Some bright people started to form these religions in order to help others with a direction in which to go in life and to have a position of authority over others. These were not lier's, cons or jerks but were people who I believe wanted to just take charge of those around them to have them do things according to what they thought should be done.
 
Why assume anything a priori at all? Doesn't the assumption decrease the accuracy of any possible conclusions?
 
Yeah, its why atheism fails as a system. It begins from a presumption that there is nothing to look for.
 
That should lead towards strong nihilism, though... or am I wrong? If there is nothing, why does it matter, in other words?
 
Michael said:
Sarkus, LOL, now WHAT is this something different? and.... R U SURE?
Click to expand...
I see the difference between Dianetics and Scientology similar to the difference between "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" and Christianity.

Ok - bit simplistic.
My point is that Dianetics is merely the thoughts and ideas, the hypotheses about how things work and what the result might be if the hypotheses are correct - whereas Scientology is the religion that has taken those thoughts and ideas and made them into a money-spinning exercise in gullibility.
Dianetics is the combustion engine, Scientology the car.

I could go on with equally dubious metaphors... :)
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, its why atheism fails as a system. It begins from a presumption that there is nothing to look for.
Click to expand...

Not nothing to look for, just no Gods.

I totally agree with the quote you made about Buddhism. It's entirely possible that much of what is attributed to the Buddha was added later. Fortunately, it's not a cult of personality, Buddha isn't the highest authority, you are. You can try it out an see for yourself, and many people have independently verified the Buddha's admittedly subjective experience. It doesn't matter one bit if it describes absolute truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top