Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Might be worth looking at the origins and development of religions

The people who built Stonehenge had some beliefs, maybe to do with stars and equinoxae

I was at a lecture about Persia where apparently the first monotheistic religions arose, the Zoroaster (?)

What was there before organised religion and books or scrolls? What did the people who worked the stone axe factory at Penmaenmawr believe? From when did people have languages to communicate and argue?

The prehistoric religions are lost to us other than what's left in the form of monliths and buildings,etc.But its a good bet religion was used as it still is today,as a way of controlling the masses,and especially women.

Thinking about it I suppose Sun worship is probably the closest people can get to anything tangiable that they can't influence that affects their lives.

Edited for clarification

but the ancient egyptians did didnt they with Ra? and it was the Phaorohs job to keep on good terms with him so that things went well. Wasnt it Akhenaten ( the Aten was the sun disc ) who made him the sole god and deposed all the others ( and got him self scratched from history by later phaorohs for doing that )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10561090/Akhenaten-mad-bad-or-brilliant.html

mercalia wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Might be worth looking at the origins and development of religions

The people who built Stonehenge had some beliefs, maybe to do with stars and equinoxae

I was at a lecture about Persia where apparently the first monotheistic religions arose, the Zoroaster (?)

What was there before organised religion and books or scrolls? What did the people who worked the stone axe factory at Penmaenmawr believe? From when did people have languages to communicate and argue?

The prehistoric religions are lost to us other than what's left in the form of monliths and buildings,etc.But its a good bet religion was used as it still is today,as a way of controlling the masses,and especially women.

Thinking about it I suppose Sun worship is probably the closest people can get to anything tangiable that they can't influence that affects their lives.

Edited for clarification

but the ancient egyptians did didnt they with Ra? and it was the Phaorohs job to keep on good terms with him so that things went well. Wasnt it Akhenaten ( the Aten was the sun disc ) who made him the sole god and deposed all the others ( and got him self scratched from history by later phaorohs for doing that )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10561090/Akhenaten-mad-bad-or-brilliant.html

Im not familiar with ancient Egyptian religion and haven't much interest in it TBH.
My point in passing was that the sun is the giver of life,of course people who worship the author of the all of everything will point out that sun worship is worship of the created and not the creator,either is pointless IMO as worshipping either doesn't change anything for mankind only makes them feel better.
That wont be the view of fundementalist Christians in the USA currently,who'll find some scriptual reference to support their claim hurricane Irma is all the fault of homosexuals and the nation's turning away from as they see it the one true God

reohn2 wrote:

mercalia wrote:

reohn2 wrote:The prehistoric religions are lost to us other than what's left in the form of monliths and buildings,etc.But its a good bet religion was used as it still is today,as a way of controlling the masses,and especially women.

Thinking about it I suppose Sun worship is probably the closest people can get to anything tangiable that they can't influence that affects their lives.

Edited for clarification

but the ancient egyptians did didnt they with Ra? and it was the Phaorohs job to keep on good terms with him so that things went well. Wasnt it Akhenaten ( the Aten was the sun disc ) who made him the sole god and deposed all the others ( and got him self scratched from history by later phaorohs for doing that )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10561090/Akhenaten-mad-bad-or-brilliant.html

Im not familiar with ancient Egyptian religion and haven't much interest in it TBH.
My point in passing was that the sun is the giver of life,of course people who worship the author of the all of everything will point out that sun worship is worship of the created and not the creator,either is pointless IMO as worshipping either doesn't change anything for mankind only makes them feel better.
That wont be the view of fundementalist Christians in the USA currently,who'll find some scriptual reference to support their claim hurricane Irma is all the fault of homosexuals and the nation's turning away from as they see it the one true God

I bet there are a few also looking at the British Virgin Isles ( tax haven ) and the devastation there will think the same all those expensive properties flattened -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-41208637/hurricane-irma-british-virgin-islands-devastation

mercalia wrote:
I bet there are a few also looking at the British Virgin Isles ( tax haven ) and the devastation there will think the same all those expensive properties flattened -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-41208637/hurricane-irma-british-virgin-islands-devastation

But dont forget those rich folks will have the resourses to rebuild,not so those living at the poverty line.
I can only hope the rebuilding of those mansions provides the poor with work.

I don't believe in god.

But I don't mind others doing so.

If people want to believe that Jesus or Allah are gods and that Elijah and Mohammed are their prophets then I don't have a problem with that.

But they have no evidence for their beliefs.

None whatsoever.

And they need to realise that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949

When reports such as this begin to surface along with child abuse by priests and others within the Christian hierarchy,not to mention the Islamic terrorist threat,it doesn't surprise me people turn away from religion in their droves,whether they believe in God or not.

EDITED for clarity.

Wow. It's moved on quite a bit while I was off riding my bike

Just a few comments. The thing about religion being used to control the masses gets trotted out quite a lot. However, as a theory to explain why people stubbornly continue to believe, centuries after others started saying that belief was no longer needed, it doesn't seem to me to pass normal scientific tests, such as offering a reasonable account for what we observe. Why, if belief is driven by those in power, do you get minorities who stubbornly believe something else? Or could it be that belief is substantially independent of power, but that those in oligarchic power will seize on any lever to exert influence? And does all this denigrate the ordinary person as merely a tool of the powerful, unable to think for him/herself?

The argument that evolution makes belief unnecessary is also often advanced. However, many others will tell you that evolution explains why belief is necessary (or at least beneficial). This gets us to a situation that we often reach; two, mutually-contradictory arguments against faith are put forward*. I mentioned on page 2 the difficulty of knowing which case to answer - although of course I could just leave it to the proponents to undermine each others' arguments


* Of course you can get around the contradiction if you assume, again, that the ordinary person, having been taught evolution in school, is too stupid to see its implications.

Drossall
Ultimately no one knows if God exists or not,but the promises of God after death if the individual toes their particular religion's line are fantastic.
By contrast if they don't the consequences are unimaginably dire.
There is much illustration within religion to support and drive home both after death situations the soul may find itself in
Fear therefore plays a massive role in religion and many people believe because of their fear of the dire consequences more than they look forward to the promises of heaven with God,or at least in It's 'kingdom'.
God for the religious,like it or not is the ulimate dictatorship,the giver and the taker of life,but worse than that,God has the power to torture for eternity them that don't please It,only the fear of that makes the religious conform.

By contrast the evolutionary belief offers nothing other than oblivion,and a finite end to life itself at death.
For some that's too terrible a situation and they simply can't contemplate an end to life itself a nothing a switching off.
It's bad enough losing a close loved one especially prematurely,but to lose one's self,who,whatever anyone might say is dearer and closer than anything else,is simply not acceptable to that self.

IMO,FWIW religion fills a void,that void is a blank,a no thing,an end at the end.
People,it seems to me,want to believe in a continuence,a continual growing an expansion of the self and their loved ones.
They see that continuence within an Author of life itself,who will look after them and their loved ones after this livespan by allowing them to live on afterwards.
That is essence is what religion is ultimately about for the majority of believers.

PS,I use a non gender form to describe God though most monotheistic religions believe in the masculine form

reohn2 wrote:That is essence is what religion is ultimately about for the majority of believers.

What's your evidence for that? People make all sorts of broad, generalising statements about other groups, such as "All cyclists jump red lights". It can be hard to answer these, even when they plainly don't match the day-to-day experience of those with any involvement in whatever is being generalised.

drossall wrote:The argument that evolution makes belief unnecessary is also often advanced. However, many others will tell you that evolution explains why belief is necessary (or at least beneficial). This gets us to a situation that we often reach; two, mutually-contradictory arguments against faith are put forward*. I mentioned on page 2 the difficulty of knowing which case to answer - although of course I could just leave it to the proponents to undermine each others' arguments

No, evolution tells us why belief *was* necessary, not *is*.
Knowing why something happens makes it easier to see why it no longer makes sense so there is no contradiction.

drossall wrote:

reohn2 wrote:That is essence is what religion is ultimately about for the majority of believers.

What's your evidence for that? People make all sorts of broad, generalising statements about other groups, such as "All cyclists jump red lights". It can be hard to answer these, even when they plainly don't match the day-to-day experience of those with any involvement in whatever is being generalised.

Ive spoken to a lot of people and watched and listened carefully to a lot of Christian 'teachers'.
A Jesuit maxim "give me a child until it is seven and I'll give you the man" Roman Catholics I find tend to be more fearful than any other sect within Christainity,their teachings of the young are frightening.
I've spoken with a good few Muslims too, their fear is equal to that of RC Christians IME.

Your analogy of all cyclists to be RLJers is a view held by those who dont cycle,I've cycled long enough to know differently.
My generalisation about the religious believer isn't of the whole,just the majority.

kwackers wrote:

drossall wrote:The argument that evolution makes belief unnecessary is also often advanced. However, many others will tell you that evolution explains why belief is necessary (or at least beneficial). This gets us to a situation that we often reach; two, mutually-contradictory arguments against faith are put forward*. I mentioned on page 2 the difficulty of knowing which case to answer - although of course I could just leave it to the proponents to undermine each others' arguments

No, evolution tells us why belief *was* necessary, not *is*.
Knowing why something happens makes it easier to see why it no longer makes sense so there is no contradiction.

All existing civilisations are built on a religious footing. Quite reasonably we can assume that religion has been abandoned in the past and those civilisations are self evidently no longer here.
The fact that god doesnt exist doesnt mean that religion isnt beneficial for our societies to survive, though we may rename the religion occasionally. For many they are fullfilling the need of religion with another ideology like communism or science but this path has never been successful in the past, the only thing that evolution tells us is that those that are living with a feature have had an advantage because of it. Religion is ubiquitous among successful human civilisations.

meic wrote:......Religion is ubiquitous among successful human civilisations.

Thing is, look around and human societies are not doing particularly well ... and is religion helping or hindering those societies. My personal opinion is that these days our current prominent religions hinder those societies. It's not necessarily the religious beliefs themselves but certainly is the organisations and businesses that effectively operate those religions.

Ian

kwackers wrote:Knowing why something happens makes it easier to see why it no longer makes sense so there is no contradiction.

Then explain why people still believe it, even after being taught evolution in school? Do they still need the evolutionary benefits of belief? I'm still struggling to make all this fit the facts.

Mind you, I'm struggling equally with the account of reohn, that people believe out of fear, as the main reason too. It just doesn't seem to fit the people I've met. And it still doesn't, either, seem to respect fully their ability to reach conclusions as adults.

@reohn, the idea that children are "brain-washed" from childhood again suggests that the adults whom they become cannot think for themselves. It also clashes with the experience of churches, that children of believers leave, and "unchurched" adults join. Of course, I think most would allow that children of believers are more likely to become believers themselves, but then that's not necessarily saying anything more than that you're more likely to believe something that you have been told about. We don't expect people to believe anything, even evolution, if we don't tell them first

Neither of us has met either most of the cyclists in this country, or most of the Christians, or even, I suspect, a statistically-significant sample of either. Hence, I'm not sure why you see a logical difference between the two claims. Personally, I believe neither, but that's that belief word again.

In summary, I'm not finding either ignorance of evolution, or fear, a convincing reason for belief in most people. I imagine, however, that hardly anyone except us is still in this thread, so maybe we leave it there?

Psamathe wrote:

meic wrote:......Religion is ubiquitous among successful human civilisations.

Thing is, look around and human societies are not doing particularly well ... and is religion helping or hindering those societies. My personal opinion is that these days our current prominent religions hinder those societies. It's not necessarily the religious beliefs themselves but certainly is the organisations and businesses that effectively operate those religions.

Ian

Yet they have all survived, more than you can say for any non-religious civilisation. Religion inspires people to do things that save the day, with or without god.