It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Marulo
Apparently humans tend to want to explain things. Maybe the first explanation to death, weather, disease, earthquakes, and what not did not even have to do with religion as we know it. Eventually though they became pretty fantastical, there were probably so many crazy stories. Now at this point in human history, I see no reason to make the assumption that god exists. He could very well exist, I just don't see any reason to make the assertion.
We imagined imaginary figures, so It is only a matter of time before another intelligent species will. There is probably religion throughout the universe. At any rate, none of them have the specific details right. Does not mean there is no god. I would hate to think there was this omnipotent being responsible for all this though. What a #ty existence in that case.
I have a feeling the first religions "god" figure was probably the sun.
Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by NorEaster
A "non-corporeal entity" is too ambiguous to just assume it had to have precedence. What exactly had to have precedence. Obviously being "non-corporeal" is a "non-material" representation of something. So what is that something? Typically, what we imagine as existing in another realm are personified versions of some thing. Meaning the "non-corporeal" entity exists in our imagination as a figure with eyes, nose, head... essentially all the faculties of a human face. A god(s) is (are) written as a supernatural being that transcends matter itself, and can take any form. These are basically descriptions of complete barrenness that happens to contain an enormous facility for explanation. Meaning, by our conventions of language, we have created an idealistic version of a god with no physical or natural features. Descriptions that have no meaning, other than being written in a syntactically correct manner.
However, the realms we invent in our heads, the ones that we envision (ocular representation rather than epistle), are populated by one or many "human-like" gods, but with no distinct feature other than of the blurred components of a face (perhaps various fragments of the humans and other animals of the locale). I don't know of anybody who actually can picture transcendence of matter, because its not in our capacity to do so (and there is no reason any such thought should ever exist)
edit on 1-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)