The Origin of the Religions - Part 1: Egomania

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

I had intended to tackle this subject in one thread, but it would have been a long opening post and no-one likes wading through acres of text. So I'll vent my spleen in three parts.

It is my contention that there are three fundamental aspects of human nature, all of them regrettable, which have led rise to the current major world religions. They are egomania, cowardice and stupidity (in no particular order). Although the former two are, ultimately, rooted in the latter, they require attention if we are to help our more superstitious comrades to see the light.

We've probably all heard a believer say something along the lines of "there has to be more than this". Meaning more than this temporary existence of eating, shitting, fighting and fucking. Well, perhaps there could be more, or there could be less.

We enjoy 80 or more years of pampered luxury, with abundant food, comfortable housing, antibiotics, international travel, pain-free dentistry, botox and motorcycles.

For the theist, however, it's not enough. The very special personal glory of the believer must go on forever, you see. Simply being born and later dying just won't do.

Imagine the sheer conceit required in order to believe that from the billions of galaxies in the universe, from the trillions of planets in each one of those galaxies, and from the millions of species on our tiny little planet, that no less than the Founder of the Universe has singled out our species, and ours alone, for eternal bliss in paradise. And to top it off, the Founder looks just like us. Made us in his image, he did.

These are the people who like to describe themselves as "humble". Yes, the humble child of god.

A fly lives for two days on a piece of shit at the dump.

All of the other planets in our solar system are barren and apparently lifeless.

There has to be more than this? There could have been a whole lot less.

[notself]

You should include the fear on non-existence.

[cate]

I would agree, but isn't this egomania you describe, evolutionarily speaking, a relatively young trait? And what came first: faith and organized religion or egomania?

[Dagda]

I am sorry, but this is a bit weird. The title of the thread is ‘The Origin of the Religions’ and yet you seem to have dealt solely with Christianity. Added to this you seem to have put the thread forward as some kind of theory, but it seems to me that it is a lot of hot air, if you will excuse the expression. There is no evidence, or even something close to evidence, and the rhetoric is rather sloppy (if you wish this to be taken seriously as an academic exercise, then don’t swear). Before the idea you have put forward can really be taken seriously, you  have to do a lot of work.

[notself]

Dagda,
Perhaps you can enlighten us all by pointing out statements that are representative only of Christianity.

[hvargas]

Religion and its origins can be trace to the first cave-people. That will be primitive religion which was not define since there was no language available as it came later on in history. When the first group left the cave and a more sophisticated generation appear that was able to or started to question its existence and his relations to his environment we find another form of primitive rituals which can be associated as religious in nature. Its is in the first city states that religion is expanded as well define or established as a part of life. One of the things that you can look into is the term " BELIEFS ' , which is different from religion but that are dependent of one another. Humans beliefs systems also have an origin but is of two character: (1) individual beliefs and (2) group or groups beliefs, this one is what created organized religion.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

You should include the fear on non-existence.

That will be covered in part 2 - cowardice. Coming soon to a forum near you!

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

I would agree, but isn't this egomania you describe, evolutionarily speaking, a relatively young trait? And what came first: faith and organized religion or egomania?

I don't see why egomania should have surfaced only recently, but you might be right. Why do you think it would be a recent phenomenon?

I would think that egomania not only pre-dates religion, but was a major cause of religions being invented.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

I am sorry, but this is a bit weird. The title of the thread is ‘The Origin of the Religions’ and yet you seem to have dealt solely with Christianity.

I have dealt with christianity because that is the predominant crock in my country. It applies equally to any religion which promises everything forever courtesy of sky-daddies.

Added to this you seem to have put the thread forward as some kind of theory, but it seems to me that it is a lot of hot air, if you will excuse the expression.

This sentence doesn't really contribute much, does it. Try to address the points I made.

There is no evidence, or even something close to evidence, and the rhetoric is rather sloppy (if you wish this to be taken seriously as an academic exercise, then don’t swear).

The evidence is abundantly clear. The promises made by Christianity are clearly, obviously tailored to stroke a very large, throbbing ego.

A "serious academic exercise"?! Get your hand off it, jizz-knuckles. It's a net forum.

As for swearing, if you insist that I indulge your superstitious fear of certain arrangements of letters, then I must insist that you refrain from ever posting the numbers 312, 6 and 4,734. These numbers are clearly vulgar, offensive and have no place in civilised society.

Before the idea you have put forward can really be taken seriously, you  have to do a lot of work.

So you're all serious & shit, eh? Very impressive. Less impressive is your failure to address any of the points I made.

[Dagda]

Dawkins once made the claim that you should reject anyone who comes forward with a theory not backed up with hard evidence. On this I agree with him. Untill you provide some kind of evidence then I can dismiss you out of hand. Sentences like ‘The promises made by Christianity are clearly, obviously tailored to stroke a very large, throbbing ego’ are statments backed up with not even a quote from a Christian writer or a study indicating that egotism is at play. They are essentialy your opinion, and there is no reason that I must agree with your opinion if you do not present eveidence for it.

[happynewyear]

There is a theory that religion began around 25000 BCE. The evidence comes from archeological finds of artifacts and drawing found in different locations around the globe. At this time god was a woman commonly known as the"Mother goddess" or "Earth Mother. The most famous artfact is the so called "Venus of Willendorf".

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/

Statues similar to this have been found in India, China, Europe, Africa, The Middle East, Egypt and Crete.
Some of the suggested reasons for worshipping this "Earth mother" include the representation of the fertile earth, the fact that mothers were seen as the source of life (this was before the knowledge that men played a part in fertilisation) and the deification of ancestoral females.
Here are some references:
http://www.carnaval.com/goddess/#Marija
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/pia/pr ... vol5/9.pdf
http://www.inhumandecency.org/christine/eisler.html
http://www.kaogu.cn/en/detail.asp?ProductID=2158

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Dawkins once made the claim that you should reject anyone who comes forward with a theory not backed up with hard evidence. On this I agree with him. Untill you provide some kind of evidence then I can dismiss you out of hand. Sentences like ‘The promises made by Christianity are clearly, obviously tailored to stroke a very large, throbbing ego’ are statments backed up with not even a quote from a Christian writer or a study indicating that egotism is at play. They are essentialy your opinion, and there is no reason that I must agree with your opinion if you do not present eveidence for it.

Again with the word "theory". You are obviously very eager to paint my thread as a theory. Presumably this is a tit-for-tat exercise in retribution against those pesky rational atheists who require evidence for your favourite god.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to ignore the evidence I provided in my opening post. Here it is again:

"Imagine the sheer conceit required in order to believe that from the billions of galaxies in the universe, from the trillions of planets in each one of those galaxies, and from the millions of species on our tiny little planet, that no less than the Founder of the Universe has singled out our species, and ours alone, for eternal bliss in paradise. And to top it off, the Founder looks just like us. Made us in his image, he did."

This is my evidence to support my contention that many theists fall into the category of egomaniac. If the christian concept of heaven differs from the above paragraph, then please identify the flaws in my evidence.

[Dagda]

Unfortunately, you have chosen to ignore the evidence I provided in my opening post. Here it is again:

"Imagine the sheer conceit required in order to believe that from the billions of galaxies in the universe, from the trillions of planets in each one of those galaxies, and from the millions of species on our tiny little planet, that no less than the Founder of the Universe has singled out our species, and ours alone, for eternal bliss in paradise. And to top it off, the Founder looks just like us. Made us in his image, he did."

This is my evidence to support my contention that many theists fall into the category of egomaniac. If the christian concept of heaven differs from the above paragraph, then please identify the flaws in my evidence.

]Ivan, Ivan, Ivan this is not evidence, this is YOUR opinion. For instance, I could claim that atheists are egotistical as they deny the existence of a being greater than themselves, therefore in essence making it possible for humanity to step into the breach and rise to the position of masters of the universe. In a reality where God exists, there is no room for the sole mastery of humanity over existence. This is nice rhetoric, and might even describe the deep rooted reason why some atheists believe in God, but I don’t for an instant believe that is why atheism came about. In other words rhetoric without justification does not equal evidence. Where is the science in your claim? Where is the philosophy? Where is any solid evidence?

Even if we take your claim as true that the belief in God creating humanity shows egotism (more latter) the statement ‘and ours alone, for eternal bliss in paradise’ cannot apply to many eastern religions due to the doctrine of reincarnation. You say that you focus on Christianity in this thread, and that is understandable, but if this is your intent say so; do not apply any hypothesis you develop over why people are Christians to other religions-there is no universal theory of religion.

As to  the Christian doctrine being egotistical, perhaps some strains are (certainly predetermination comes to mind), but in regards to the great majority of Christianity, I would have to disagree. For instance, the doctrine of Original Sin holds that we are sinful, imperfect creatures who are not worth of the majesty of God. If John came up to you in the street and said that he was an imperfect creature who could do nothing right and did not deserve the forgiveness of the ones he loved, would you mark him as an egotist? No, if you had any sense you would class him as a depressive pessimist.

Now you have formed an opinion on the origin of religion, but what books have you read which deals with this or similar subject maters?

[Dagda]

There is a theory that religion began around 25000 BCE. The evidence comes from archeological finds of artifacts and drawing found in different locations around the globe. At this time god was a woman commonly known as the"Mother goddess" or "Earth Mother. The most famous artfact is the so called "Venus of Willendorf".

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/

Statues similar to this have been found in India, China, Europe, Africa, The Middle East, Egypt and Crete.
Some of the suggested reasons for worshipping this "Earth mother" include the representation of the fertile earth, the fact that mothers were seen as the source of life (this was before the knowledge that men played a part in fertilisation) and the deification of ancestoral females.
Here are some references:
http://www.carnaval.com/goddess/#Marija
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/pia/pr ... vol5/9.pdf
http://www.inhumandecency.org/christine/eisler.html
http://www.kaogu.cn/en/detail.asp?ProductID=2158

Thanks for the links, I will get round to reading them when I have a spare moment. From what I can gather from a quick skim, this kind of research I have come across before, and I have to say it deeply interests me. In my personal opinion religion was founded as a way for humans to explain the phenomenon they came across, and as a form of expression for this intellectual curiosity into the natural world (the first recognisable art arises at about the time religion appears).

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

Unfortunately, you have chosen to ignore the evidence I provided in my opening post. Here it is again:

"Imagine the sheer conceit required in order to believe that from the billions of galaxies in the universe, from the trillions of planets in each one of those galaxies, and from the millions of species on our tiny little planet, that no less than the Founder of the Universe has singled out our species, and ours alone, for eternal bliss in paradise. And to top it off, the Founder looks just like us. Made us in his image, he did."

This is my evidence to support my contention that many theists fall into the category of egomaniac. If the christian concept of heaven differs from the above paragraph, then please identify the flaws in my evidence.

]Ivan, Ivan, Ivan this is not evidence, this is YOUR opinion. For instance, I could claim that atheists are egotistical as they deny the existence of a being greater than themselves,

Dag, Dag, Dag, you could indeed claim that, but you would again be indulging in another mindless tit-for-tat exercise. This is a common and typically dishonest tactic employed by theists. The evidence for egomania is abundantly clear in the paragraph which I repeated for you. You refuse to acknowledge it because it is embarrassing for you. Atheism does not even stoop to the vain notion of "greater" or lesser beings. We are just another species of animal, one of millions, and when we die, it's all over. Forever.  

This is nice rhetoric, and might even describe the deep rooted reason why some atheists believe in God, but I don’t for an instant believe that is why atheism came about.

"some atheists believe in god"?! Time to reach for the dictionary, Dag. Also, atheism did not "come about". All people are born atheist and remain that way unless they are indoctrinated by religious zealots.

If John came up to you in the street and said that he was an imperfect creature who could do nothing right and did not deserve the forgiveness of the ones he loved, would you mark him as an egotist?

I would mark him as an idiot. As stated in the first post, religious people are one or more of egomaniacs, cowards and morons.

Now you have formed an opinion on the origin of religion, but what books have you read which deals with this or similar subject maters?

Another common ruse employed by those losing ground in forum debates. It's a shallow, empty tactic given the cut & paste opportunities that the net offers. I've read enough to know how to spell "Untill", "statments", "essentialy", "eveidence" and "maters".