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.
1: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3:The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.
1:The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2:A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
When did religion start?
I think it has always been there. From the first campfires to the modern era.
Organized Religion is another control used by governments to manipulate the masses just like patriotism. If we can't get you waving a flag to rally around a cause, then we'll get you to wave a Bible and rally around that same cause.
God and Country
For some its a double whammy…
reply to post by WarminIndy
You have a point about symbolism, but the symbols in science are not as deeply woven as they are with religions.
The huge difference between religion and science, is that science questions existence & will not stop until the answers are found, but understands that we will have different ideas about this, and the ideas are fluid because its constant change. Unlike religion, that thinks its an absolute definite & has no reason to question its self & looks down on people who don't hold these same beliefs.
By the way, its rare I S&F this forum subject, nicely wrote and thought about.
"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds...In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest sediments...are extremely short of nitrogen"
(J. Brooks, and Shaw, G., Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973). p.359).
"It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less that its production rate in the upper atmosphere"
William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillian Publishing Co, 1977). p.83.
I would agree with you up until you make it all about Christianity again with that obvious jab at nationalism at the end.
Personally, I think mankind in general has a need to believe in something. Which for me is one of the reasons that I argue for a belief in a higher power. If our natural state is atheism, there would be much less belief in the world and much less of an inner need to believe.
Do the animals, even the higher ones, spend any time worrying about the "why" of everything like humans do?
I suppose if religion had an advertising slogan it would have an advertising campaign slogan something like ... Religion, created by people, abused by governments since 9000BC+
That's nothing particularly new though, and am not sure if many people think Christianity was the first organised belief, it's just one current thing. Never met anyone that doesn't acknowledge the existence of older organised beliefs and religions.
Regarding the science vs religion argument ... There always seems to be this idea that if science can be put in the same league as religion it suddenly evens the playing field. This would hold true except science (including evolutionary branches) has produced practical observable results. Combustion isn't an opinion in the same way my thoughts on Paul's gospels are, passages on electrons aren't parables, and God didn't tell us how evaporation works.
Changing or playing with the definition of religion doesn't change what science is any more than redefining the word science makes the bible a substitute for light theory and biology books.
To which organized religion are you referring?
Be objective for a moment, and tell me, didn't the Vikings also do the same thing? You have still held to the view it's Christianity that does this without looking at history. Please refer to history.
(I split up the paragraph for easier reading on the screen).
the idea is that “primitive” religion broadly, as recorded by anthropologists and other visitors, can give us some idea of the ancestral milieu of modern religions.
Through the happenstance of geographic isolation, cultures such as the Chukchee escaped the technological revolution—the advent of writing—that placed other parts of the world on the historical record and pushed them toward modernity. If these “primitive” cultures don’t show us the particular prehistoric religions out of which the early recorded religions emerged, they at least give us a general picture.
Though monotheistic prayer didn’t grow out of Chukchee rituals or beliefs, maybe the logic of monotheistic prayer did grow out of a kind of belief the Chukchee held, the notion that forces of nature are animated by minds or spirits that you can influence through negotiation.…
Absolutely he did. The Church was allowed to thrive under Nazism, albeit under a twisted cross offshoot. It was as vague and misleading as all the rest.
And the Nazis didn't rally people around the Christian cause in their nationalism.