It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When Did Religion Start?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 





This same reason apply to science too and why science could be thought as a religion as they seek answers to very same question.


That' reason is a bad comparison.

Religion is formed not because of the "WHY?" its because of the assumptions made from WHAT. Religion does not seek answers, it assumes it "already has them".

Science is WHY and seeks answers.




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Please refer back to the definition of religion.

Religion is an organized collection dependent upon a belief in a supernatural power OR powers that attempt to explain existence.

Science attempts to explain, through methodology, existence. But as per the definition, it is a religion, because they have tried explain existence through the powers of natural causes. As these powers govern the universe, according to the definition, then it is still a religion.

If science were not a religion, then explain how so many very well-educated scientists do believe in the cause of Creation being from a supernatural agent?

From Max Planck, the same institute in Germany named for him and from where many evolutionary scientists graduate from...


Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"


Here is the homepage of the Max Planck Society for scientists. The very founder of quantum physics believed in God. So perhaps he was able to bridge the gap?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Religion is an organized collection dependent upon a belief in a supernatural power OR powers that attempt to explain existence.

I think you're misreading the definition.

SUPERNATURAL Power or Powers. They could as well have said Supernatural Power(s).

I don't agree that science is a religion; science is ever concerned with PROGRESS, and no organized religion that I know of (except the philosphy of Tibetan Buddhism, which some consider a "religion" and others don't)
even TRIES to update their dusty old scriptures so that they MAKE SENSE in the world we now UNDERSTAND.

Maybe Scientology? I don't know much about it.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


And the Nazis didn't rally people around the Christian cause in their nationalism.
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.

Involved with Teutonic knights, Arian superman, Arthur, Holy Grail… the works. Hitler attended church to marry aficionados, many Nazis were married in churches. Not covered very well historically, guess why.

Hitler fancied he was the return of Christ to establish the world order for a thousand years (Biblical reference).

Yes he did allow and foster his own brand of Christianity. You just don't hear Christ mentioned much officially. Guess what, neither do we today. Not in the main stream…

History will wonder about that when they look back and find the official records blank.


I went on what he himself said.

Perhaps you should as well. He was very anti-Christian, and said so. Hitler's Table Talks was written by his secretary, of conversations he had with different people. And if you really saw videos of him, you certainly could never arrive at the conclusion that he was Christian. He was the opposite. What you are proposing is conspiracy theories and not what the man himself said.

Here, it is free online for you to read.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


How do you explain what brought about your existence? Does it come from your worldview? Have you organized a collection of your thoughts to attempt to explain your existence that derived from your worldview?

Then you have a religion if you believe some power brought about or caused your existence. Energy is a power. As energy may be simply explained as a force, then a force brought about your existence. It is still a power. Now whether or not you want to attribute that to the supernatural, that's part of your worldview. But you still attempt to explain existence, and through collection, you organize your thoughts and beliefs. That's a worldview and it is religion.

The force, as some people believe, is the Cause or the Unmoved Mover. As energy is not created, it is merely transferred, then the energy or force that moved, still needed a mover to move it. What is the mover?

Aristotle called it the Unmoved Mover, and since energy needs something to move upon it in order for it to be changed, then the attempts to explain existence deriving from it, creates a religion and a worldview.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by dollukka
 





This same reason apply to science too and why science could be thought as a religion as they seek answers to very same question.


That' reason is a bad comparison.

Religion is formed not because of the "WHY?" its because of the assumptions made from WHAT. Religion does not seek answers, it assumes it "already has them".

Science is WHY and seeks answers.





And that's completely oversimplifying. It's better to say that they seek to answer slightly different questions.

Science is more concerned with "how" and religion is more concerned with "why."

If I want to know how something works in the universe, I turn to science. If I want to know the metaphysical why, I turn to religion. However, given how much both systems simply do not know or cannot prove both systems are reliant on a good deal of faith.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

WarminIndy
I went solely by the pure definition of religion.

You went off a definition of a word in a changeable language that is often contested.


But as science is a religion by definition, then what you really mean is Christian Vs. Evolution theories about the universe. You may have to separate them according to the definition of religion.

The issue here is that the redefining of the word religion comes with a considerable agenda; an agenda to assume that science has the same properties as religion and therefore can be contested in the same way. If this is the case then it should follow that religion can answer bad science but this is wrong.

The answer to bad science is good science. Science can confirm or deny a religions claims, but religion cannot verify science claims. Therefore, science and religion do not contain the same properties.

If the origin of life via evolution is wrong it will be more science that proves it, not more bible study. I will agree that evolution is religious when it is completely falsified but people still believe it. We are not there yet.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Where science crosses into religion is where the adherents of certain theories cling to them with all the fervor of the blindly religious. There has also been a history of the two disciplines crossing into one another in terms of the deeply religious (a areligious) taking up science to either attempt to prove or disprove God and creation or simply to understand the majesty of God's creation. Some of science's big breakthroughs have been made very religious scientists.

Part of the problem I think we see now is the attempt to divide science from religion as though the two are mutually exclusive as though you cannot believe in one and not the other, as though one has conclusively disproven the other. And the attempt is made from both sides in all fairness.
edit on 5-11-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I didn't show a single Bible verse in my first post, did I?

No, I simply gave the definition of religion and worldview.

Did I imply that Christianity is the only religion? Did I imply solely the Christian doctrine? No, I did not. But it appears that your bias can't look past objectivity. Believing in evolution is subjective.

Look past the subjectivity and be objective regarding religion. You may hold your worldview all you want, but as I sat here and gave credence to other religions apart from my own, means I was being objective. Only in objectivity can you see what others think, without the subjectivity.

I didn't post a Bible verse.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by Pinke
 


Where science crosses into religion is where the adherents of certain theories cling to them with all the fervor of the blindly religious. There has also been a history of the two disciplines crossing into one another in terms of the deeply religious (a areligious) taking up science to either attempt to prove or disprove God and creation or simply to understand the majesty of God's creation. Some of science's big breakthroughs have been made very religious scientists.

Part of the problem I think we see now is the attempt to divide science from religion as though the two are mutually exclusive as though you cannot believe in one and not the other, as though one has conclusively disproven the other. And the attempt is made from both sides in all fairness.
edit on 5-11-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)


Why do Hindus believe in the science of the Mahbharat?



And in the Bhagavad Gita?


Hinduism is a religion, the last time I saw. So you are correct, there are those who do mix science and religion. But I don't hear opposition to Hinduism science, only Christianity and science.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Religion is an organized collection dependent upon a belief in a supernatural power OR powers that attempt to explain existence.

Science has no such belief. Science is simply a formula used to get a probability. If I use a mathematical formula to get an answer to a math problem. There is nothing religious about it. However, if I were to worship math as a deity of some kind. Then it becomes a religious practice on my part. But the math is what it is.



If science were not a religion, then explain how so many very well-educated scientists do believe in the cause of Creation being from a supernatural agent?

Here again, you lump science and scientists together as if they are one. They are not. A scientist can believe what ever he/she wants. Science is just a methodology. A formula. You are projecting consciousness onto something that has none.

I'm sorry. I don't see science as fitting the definition of religion in any way, shape, or form. Especially since religion typically involves a deity, as you noted in your definition of religion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :-)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by Pinke
 

I didn't show a single Bible verse in my first post, did I?

No, you didn't.

If you did post a bible verse (or any religious book) and it made a new discovery of physical knowledge or falsified an existing scientific theory you would prove that religion and science have the same properties thus enforcing your claim that science and religion are the same.

Without this I have to objectively disagree with your chosen definition.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


No, I did not insert a deity in my OP. That's an assumption.

What I did refer to was "supernatural power" or "powers".

supernatural power does not always imply God.

Please read again what I posted as the definition. As you believe the definition must contain deity, because of the phrase "supernatural power", then you give credence to God being the "supernatural power".

I did refer you to other ancient religions apart from the Judeo/Christian god. I did use the phrase that contained creator, and people believe in the creator as a person or being, but from the definition I used and explained that creator does not always imply God either.

Is there an active agency in creation? The original force that began evolution then becomes a creator. There is a difference in Creator as in a proper name and creator, or something that creates. And since there was an original force, then what was that force that brought into creation this world?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
500,000 years ago is when the first known instances of deliberate burial by Neanderthals were dated.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
500,000 years ago is when the first known instances of deliberate burial by Neanderthals were dated.


Maybe it was my ancestor...I am 2.9% Neanderthal.


But wasn't there a time when scientists believed Neanderthals and humans were so different they could not have possibly interbred? That came from years of scientific study, until one test in DNA proved them wrong.

But people went to their graves believing it.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I appreciate the clarification, and I'll take responsibility for my assumption. That still does not change the fact, that science, in and of itself, does not equate to your definition of religion. However, if you were to say, the scientific establishment fits your definition of religion. That's a statement I can understand. It would still be a debatable point, but at least I could understand your perspective. It really comes down to objective vs. subjective. Science being the former, and scientists sometimes being the latter.

In answer to your original question, though. I think the seeds of religion were birthed, the moment humans began to wonder where they came from, and what their purpose was. These are questions that have been around for a very long time.


edit on 11/5/2013 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You misunderstand what I am trying to say. Sorry if I am not being clear.


He was very anti-Christian, and said so.

He was more anti Christ than "anti Christian". Christians were not rounded up and sent to camps. They were not enemies of the state. He needed their support to further his aims. Thats why their churches weren't burned like the Jewish synagogues were (in Germany).


And if you really saw videos of him, you certainly could never arrive at the conclusion that he was Christian.

I never said he was.


He was the opposite. What you are proposing is conspiracy theories and not what the man himself said.

Of course he was the opposite. Please don't put words in my mouth. You yourself may benefit by reading "The Spear of Destiny" by Trevor Ravenscroft. I know Hitler wash't religious. He used religion to appeal to the masses in a propagandistic way though. Just like every other nation on earth.

They all do it. Bush said God led him to do these things. So did Hitler. Except he said, "I go where Providence leads me".



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Klassified
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

I appreciate the clarification, and I'll take responsibility for my assumption. That still does not change the fact, that science, in and of itself, does not equate to your definition of religion. However, if you were to say, the scientific establishment fits your definition of religion. That's a statement I can understand. It would still be a debatable point, but at least I could understand your perspective. It really comes down to objective vs. subjective. Science being the former, and scientists sometimes being the latter.

In answer to your original question, though. I think the seeds of religion were birthed, the moment humans began to wonder where they came from, and what their purpose was. These are questions that have been around for a very long time.


edit on 11/5/2013 by Klassified because: (no reason given)


OK scientific establishment is an organized religion. I will agree with that one.

But science is ancient also. Ever since man looked at the stars and made their navigation by them, science was part of their world. I don't think that people suddenly just knew how to plant crops, I think that evolved through experimentation as well.

Someone said "I've noticed that when we plant wheat during this time, then it grows better". That's observation which is science.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

intrptr
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You misunderstand what I am trying to say. Sorry if I am not being clear.


He was very anti-Christian, and said so.

He was more anti Christ than "anti Christian". Christians were not rounded up and sent to camps. They were not enemies of the state. He needed their support to further his aims. Thats why their churches weren't burned like the Jewish synagogues were (in Germany).


And if you really saw videos of him, you certainly could never arrive at the conclusion that he was Christian.

I never said he was.


He was the opposite. What you are proposing is conspiracy theories and not what the man himself said.

Of course he was the opposite. Please don't put words in my mouth. You yourself may benefit by reading "The Spear of Destiny" by Trevor Ravenscroft. I know Hitler wash't religious. He used religion to appeal to the masses in a propagandistic way though. Just like every other nation on earth.

They all do it. Bush said God led him to do these things. So did Hitler. Except he said, "I go where Providence leads me".


Corrie Ten Boom, Christian from the Netherlands, was placed with her family in a concentration camp for hiding Jews. Yes, many Christians did go to the concentration camps.

Corrie Ten Boom

You may benefit from reading the book I suggested, which was his own words, before reading something else about him. You then can arrive at what he really thought and did, if you listen to the man himself.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Language, which includes religion, started likely during the Upper Palaeolithic Age, where there was a "creative explosion" in cave paintings, artifacts and idols. Around 50,000 years ago.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join