Creating the Creator..

U

ULTRA

Realistically Surreal
Registered Senior Member
As far as archeological and other human records go, about 40,000 years, there is evidence that people believed in a creator. Many of these ideas have survived into the worlds religions all around the world. But even tribes in Brazil that have no contact with the modern world also have a very strong belief in spirits. Why should it be, I wonder, that man everywhere has had the same basic idea. Each has created thier own image of the creator according to thier specific mythology.
I would have thought that if the original idea had travelled out of Africa with the first migration, the stories would be more similar than they are. Each seems to have created a creator to suit thier needs. Each spend a great deal of time, energy and resources that could have been extremely valuable to honour thier dieties. Why should this endure like it does?
 
wouldn't the most obvious answer be because it's true?
 
Why should this endure like it does?
Click to expand...

Because people need to have something to follow and give hope for. They have forgotten that believing in themselves is the most important thing to do for only you can do those things that need to be done in order to have a happy life and a life you want to live. Once smarter people saw the need to have something to believe in they invented many myths and beliefs to satisfy others around them and to make them a leader among the masses.
 
cosmictraveler said:
Because people need to have something to follow and give hope for. They have forgotten that believing in themselves is the most important thing to do for only you can do those things that need to be done in order to have a happy life and a life you want to live. Once smarter people saw the need to have something to believe in they invented many myths and beliefs to satisfy others around them and to make them a leader among the masses.
Click to expand...
actually its the people who think that they can be happy in this world solely on their own endeavor who have forgotten something integral ... namely that the very vehicle they are operating out (ie the material body) perishes and as does everything they deem as an object of (material) happiness ... and there are certainly loads of intelligent people who capitalize on this myth of happiness in the material world, establishing themselves as a leader amongst the masses
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
actually its the people who think that they can be happy in this world solely on their own endeavor who have forgotten something integral ... namely that the very vehicle they are operating out (ie the material body) perishes and as does everything they deem as an object of (material) happiness
Click to expand...
You'll probably find that there are many people who both "think that they can be happy in this world solely on their own endeavour" and have NOT forgotten "that the very vehicle they are operating out of perishes along with everything the deem as an object of (material) happiness."

I am therefore not sure how the two sides to your argument / statement here are linked.
:shrug:

... and there are certainly loads of intelligent people who capitalize on this myth of happiness in the material world, establishing themselves as a leader amongst the masses
Click to expand...
You'll need to justify / support your claim of their happiness being a "myth", if you are to be taken seriously in this matter.
:shrug:
 
Sarkus said:
You'll probably find that there are many people who both "think that they can be happy in this world solely on their own endeavour" and have NOT forgotten "that the very vehicle they are operating out of perishes along with everything the deem as an object of (material) happiness."
Click to expand...
then that simply makes them less intelligent (or socialized around a poor quality of enjoyment at best)

I am therefore not sure how the two sides to your argument / statement here are linked.
:shrug:

You'll need to justify / support your claim of their happiness being a "myth", if you are to be taken seriously in this matter.
:shrug:
Click to expand...
you ever wondered about the sparkly things in advertisements?
 
lightgigantic said:
then that simply makes them less intelligent (or socialized around a poor quality of enjoyment at best)
Click to expand...

The standard reply here is:
"Who are you to judge other people's happiness (or intelligence, for that matter)?"

And indeed: On the grounds of what may one claim that one kind of happiness is lesser than another?
 
Signal said:
The standard reply here is:
"Who are you to judge other people's happiness (or intelligence, for that matter)?"

And indeed: On the grounds of what may one claim that one kind of happiness is lesser than another?
Click to expand...
on the grounds that one kind of happiness is invariably connected to equal portions of misery at best
 
My concern with your line here, LG, is that you are claiming an objective position with nothing but subjective support.

For example, would you care to elaborate on the above comment, and explain the objective measure of "happiness" and "misery" that you are alluding to (given that you are judging)?
And examples of a type of "happiness" that is not, as you put it, "invariably connected to equal portions of misery at best"?
 
Jesus was a terrorist, or at the very least led the charge back towards Monotheism... Catholics perverted this and instead worshipped the messenger.

It was Jesus' intent to take the established order of Jewish tradition and turn it on their heads. This is why he spoke with Rabbis and impressed them; this is why he met John to get anointed, not the Temple; this is why he overturned the moneychanger's tables at Temple.

Jesus was trying to simplfy religion for the people of the time- to end people worshipping Rabbis and objects and instead worshipping God.

Now, God is as far as I am willing to go- I am not willing to take that final step over the edge and say there is no God, as many here are willing to do.

I believe in God. Who or What He is I cannot say but I stick to the original message and simplify God as much as possible by removing as much dogma surrounding God as possible.

And it is very human for us humans to believe in God- we have to believe in something greater than us and someplace better than here in order to remain civil. This is why religion endures and people dedicate parts of their lives to His worship.
 
Sarkus said:
My concern with your line here, LG, is that you are claiming an objective position with nothing but subjective support.

For example, would you care to elaborate on the above comment, and explain the objective measure of "happiness" and "misery" that you are alluding to (given that you are judging)?
And examples of a type of "happiness" that is not, as you put it, "invariably connected to equal portions of misery at best"?
Click to expand...
its quite simple

whatever happiness one alludes to, if it meets a point of separation then it becomes a source of misery

Buddhism is big on this
 
lightgigantic said:
whatever happiness one alludes to, if it meets a point of separation then it becomes a source of misery
Click to expand...
And your answer to the other questions (repeated again below)?:

...and explain the objective measure of "happiness" and "misery" that you are alluding to (given that you are judging)?
And examples of a type of "happiness" that is not, as you put it, "invariably connected to equal portions of misery at best"?
 
Sarkus said:
And your answer to the other questions (repeated again below)?:

...and explain the objective measure of "happiness" and "misery" that you are alluding to (given that you are judging)?
And examples of a type of "happiness" that is not, as you put it, "invariably connected to equal portions of misery at best"?
Click to expand...
I thought it was obvious

that happiness of the soul (ie eternal identity with eternal values - no issues of separation)
 
There are sound evolutionary reasons for mankind postulating spirits or unseen agents, since no one knew how even some basic natural phenomenon worked. However, to say that ancient religions were so similar that they must have tapped into some universal reality is a flawed argument. These religions were far more diverse than we give them credit.
 
spidergoat said:
There are sound evolutionary reasons for mankind postulating spirits or unseen agents, since no one knew how even some basic natural phenomenon worked.
Click to expand...
... and we still don't apparently, but its a moot premise anyway since no one is really talking about "unseen" agents, except perhaps materialists who insist on driving home their ideology while forever balking at the point of even theoretically understanding the topic, what to speak of approaching actual issues of application.
However, to say that ancient religions were so similar that they must have tapped into some universal reality is a flawed argument. These religions were far more diverse than we give them credit.
Click to expand...
even atheists who actually study in the field disagree.

Usually they talk about Jungian concepts of universal consciousness since its just plain stupid to suggest that the same general idea can pop up all of the world in all time, places and circumstances despite insurmountable borders of culture, geography and time.
 
lightgigantic said:
..Usually they talk about Jungian concepts of universal consciousness since its just plain stupid to suggest that the same general idea can pop up all of the world in all time, places and circumstances despite insurmountable borders of culture, geography and time.
Click to expand...

You are right, it would be stupid to think the same idea popped up all over the world regardless of culture, because it never happened.
 
Those who do often have something to prove. Part of the problem, which I think I mentioned before, is that western knowledge of foreign cultures often comes from missionaries.
 
spidergoat said:
Those who do often have something to prove. Part of the problem, which I think I mentioned before, is that western knowledge of foreign cultures often comes from missionaries.
Click to expand...
well yeah that was the trend circa 19th century but I am talking now, and not even exclusively theists.

:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top