atonal chaotic

Religion is a form of social technology.

99.9999% of all religions are dead social technology that ought to be abandoned along with such dead social technologies as honor killings, monarchs, and food taboos.

OldYgg

Let's look at your statements logically.

You show a bunch of human created things and then go on to say the social institution religion couldn't be a human religion.

Unfortunately, none of your objects are similar. You go from material things to a social institution.

We can fix this.

Government, schools, prayer groups, hobby clubs, hunting clubs, gun clubs, sports associations are all social institutions (and there are many more) that are used by humans.

All of these social institutions are human constructed. (Fact)

Religion is a social institution used by humans. (Fact)

Which statement is more likely to follow?

Religion was human constructed.

Religion was not human constructed.

If you submit that religion was not human constucted you have to detail why it is different than the other social institutions. For example, a prayer group is certainly a human made institution while it is dedicated to prayer to god. How is religion any different - with the exception that religion covers more topics than the prayer group (and this might be arguable since the prayer group could indeed cover every topic that religion might cover).

To continue through with our proof that religion is a human invention - we can document the rise of religion in humanity and its changing role.

Social institution that are clearly of human origin rise in their role in humanity and their role changes over time.

If religion were not a human invention - would its role in human life change over time?

Let's take something that isn't a human invention and compare it to religion.

Eating is not a human invention. Certainly, one could pitch a claim that in some cases eating is a social institution.

Clearly, though, before social institutions existed, we had to eat. Of course there were probably no restaurants, food clubs or the food channel in the beginning, but nonetheless we had to eat.

Sex is not a human invention. Certainly, one could pitch a claim that there are social institutions relating to sex.

Sex existed before we had any handy groups, councilling(sp?) or marriage as a social institution.

I think you'll find few religious people that will stake a claim that religion is not a human-made social institution. To make such a claim, you must perforce accept that all religion is not a human-made social institution. So, how is your acceptance of Zeus as your eternal father. The reason you must accept this statement is simple. The religion of the ancient Greeks and Romans or Egyptions had a religion as a social institution that was every bit as strong as the current Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddist social institutions. They had every bit as much proof, heirarchy (in some cases) and mandates from god(s). If you stake a claim that religion is not a human invention - then you must stake a claim that all religion is inspired by otherworldly existence and must therefore have an equal chance of being true.

Old Ygg / Alex

Morgolf

My 2cents...

"Primitive" religion may have been invented as a means for early homo sapiens to understand the world. Science, beyond fire, was virtually non-existent. So early homo sapiens needed something to explain what lightning was, or thunder, to make their world seem less frightening. At a time when the world was filled with creatures able to kill humans easily, and the humans with no substantial houses.

As time went on, humanity, in various groups living in different areas developed different gods for the same phenomena. And eventually, power hungry people found this a convienent way to rule over their fellow humans, even kings.

Selsaral

A very good point. Although we have evidence that some religions were created intentionally and cynically (mormonism and scientology among many others), as a hardcore atheist I personally don't think most religions were created this way. I suspect (and this is supported by a great deal of ethnographic research) that the superstitious nature of human beings gave rise to religions. Our inability to distinguish between coincidence and mystical intervention, our anthropomorphic projection, our profound ignorance, our profound gullibility, and our emotional and psychological fragility all gave rise to religion (perhaps as an evolutionary advantage as some have suggested).

I know it's hard to look at your own religion objectively, but I don't see how you can study the origins of mormonism or scientology and conclude anything but the fact that they were obviously created by humans. For religions created thousands of years ago obviously the issue isn't as cut and dry, but it's clear to me that the same superstitious behavior that leads to oracles, horoscopes, ancestor worship, and animal sacrafices leads to belief in Gods and the theological concepts most of us are more familiar with.

Chili

Correct, but the OP asked how it can be a hu-man invention if they are baffled by it and my suggestion is that man is God but humans are not.

JEST2ASK

Hello deep thinker could you please clarify your question .. are you in fact claiming that in general all relgious / spiritual thoughts concepts are not human constructs or that one particular theology is divinely inspired

WishboneDawn

Ah, thank you. I was thinking of invented as opposed to a supernatural imposition.

abaddon

"Invention" may be the wrong word precisely because it implies a deliberate fabrication or design (like the Wright brothers' invention of airplanes), or even a falsehood or lie. Maybe "originate" or "develop" or "evolve" if you don't want to emphasize a consciously planned act, and "create" or "devise" if you do want to emphasize some sort of deliberate contrivance in how religion(s) started.

I consider religion to have originated with humans, as opposed to originated from God or other supernatural sources. But then, what cultural expression among human societies comes from something other than humans?

notasheep

The world can be a scary confusing place. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a god, gods, or something to make sense of it? Wouldn't it be nice if there was some kind of ultimate meaning or purpose to life? Once someone starts imagining answers to these kinds of questions, is it any surprise if they become popular?

OldYgg

Damn, now I can't get that one line of a Beach Boys song out of my head, real nice. It isn't like I know the rest of the song, either.

Anyway, the world is a scary and confusing place. I just take it as a fact that reality is confusing and that we don't know any answers for sure - and that takes away the scary part of it. I understand that the world existed before me and that it will exist after me -unless there is some nice technology that can extend my lifespan in some shape or form.

I don't think god or gods or even a vague something else would make it any less confusing or scary (until you accept that confusion is a part of life). In fact I think it only makes things more confusing and scary.

God/gods/somethingelse is something that can do anything it wants with you. It really makes me in to a toy or a plaything (like when Lisa on the Simpsons had a little universe of admirers in a mini-world or Bender when he had a society living on his body).

There is little point in an existence just to serve a god/gods/something else.

I define my own existence - and what I'd like to be as the purpose in my life. In a real sense if you decide that god/gods/something else exists and devote your life to it - you have defined your own existence and your purpose in life - although you may say that decision was made for you (strictly speaking that is a little white lie - you are always deciding what you will be).

Old Ygg / Alex

Edited: "I define my own existence" - well I do as much as possible - mostly mental housecleaning and thinking about the future being better than the past or the present.