Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

A great post. To take it one step further, religions are guaranteed if you look at populations psychologically. That is, regardless if there are or aren't deities, a smart/clever prehistoric individual will invent one. Say you are born in antiquity. You find you are way, way smarter than everyone you know. You are physically weak and you are not of royal birth. You are ambitious. Formal education hasn't been invented yet, same for the trades/professions. You would like to be powerful and command large groups of minions. What do you do?

Well you could predict when the river is going to flood and make a prophesy. You could say that the almighty god Blahblah foretold of this. After you get beaten up by the strong, the river floods just like you said and anyone who didn't move to high ground lost either their life, limb or possessions. Now you are a bad-ass. You are the clerical leader of the simpletons. Even the royalty bow before you.

Rinse, repeat ad infinitum over the millennia, just with a different shtick.

I think it is mostly ancient kings that invent religions, or else they hijack them, and make themselves the sons of gods, or even a god themselves.

The more modern ancient Greek versions of this is that all the royal houses of ancient Greece (Hellas) are descended from Heracles or some such other god or demigod.

Well, kings could copy the clerics and become priest-kings, but I am convinced that the originators were folks without power who sought it (rather than someone with power who sought even more, as they would be less motivated).

[alan_wattsify]

It is all bull sh!t. The opiate of the masses.

Likely you think religious people, who deeply believe in God's existence, are self-deceived. And yet you are so arrogant that despite all kind of uncertainties, everything is so clear for you. Religion, above all, was needed to find answers to questions which were unclear or impossible to know (considering the state of science). With another definition, "Religion gives people what they cannot get". Having this as a definition, you are a religious person. You believe in a system which doesn't exist, but since uncertainty is worrying, you created it in your imagination.

As Bertrand Russell said, philosophy's main goal is to teach people how to live in uncertainty. You didn't seem to get that lesson.

Compare for example the babe in a reed basket story about Sargon The Great (google him) with Moses' own story about his own adoption by the Pharaoh's daughter.

I guess in your religion only deities (like you) know who Sargon The Great was, and ordinary people (like me) should google it. Just self-complementing.

Sorry, I didn't like your attitude, there is negativity there. You must be in a very great opinion about yourself to claim that all people who suggest/assume/claim that there was a flood (which is very logical to me) are talking bull sh!t. I know you'll not accept my point, and will continue the play of one upmanship, but when you have spare time, think about it. If blind belief isn't what you aspire, then you aren't on the right path.

This rarely worked, but I still believe in humanity, although there are reasons not to. There is a part in human brain, people feel pleasure when it gets activated. In some people, it gets activated when they coordinate, for others, when they stab in the back (this is scientific statement). This was the point when I realized it's impossible to create a 'good enough' society which will include all kinds of natures.

P.S. Alan Watts - Belief is wishful thinking that the world works as you hope. Faith is openness.

[Pattern-chaser]

Either a great flood happened or a number of great floods in different parts of the world.

There was no flood @Greta .

It is all bull sh!t. The opiate of the masses.

OK, so when the Pleistocene Ice Age came to an end, about 11,700 years ago, what happened to the melt-water?

[Sculptor1]

There was no flood @Greta .

It is all bull sh!t. The opiate of the masses.

OK, so when the Pleistocene Ice Age came to an end, about 11,700 years ago, what happened to the melt-water?

The lake south of France became the Med. The river separating the landmass we call Europe with what we call the British Isles became the "English Channel", and the massive land mass of Dogger was swept under the water to make what is known now as the North Sea.
NONE of these events relates to ANY story found in any religion.

There have always been floods of various sizes and these have captured the attention of story tellers throughout the ages. But the accounts of floods in those religions have no remaining facts of any veracity or interest except parables.

[h_k_s]

There was no flood @Greta .

It is all bull sh!t. The opiate of the masses.

OK, so when the Pleistocene Ice Age came to an end, about 11,700 years ago, what happened to the melt-water? 🤔

Those icecaps would not have reached down into Mesopotamia where the flood myths were being created.

The icecaps were strictly North American, European, and Siberian.

Geography 101, my buddy @pattern-chaser.

[h_k_s]

I think it is mostly ancient kings that invent religions, or else they hijack them, and make themselves the sons of gods, or even a god themselves.

The more modern ancient Greek versions of this is that all the royal houses of ancient Greece (Hellas) are descended from Heracles or some such other god or demigod.

Well, kings could copy the clerics and become priest-kings, but I am convinced that the originators were folks without power who sought it (rather than someone with power who sought even more, as they would be less motivated).

You are probably right about copying. Hijacking is more apropos.

I imagine a clan (like in Clan Of The Cave Bear) of prehistoric stone age people gathered around a campfire telling stories about thunder and lightning.

That's probably how it all started -- with the weather and therefore mythological weather gods like The Four Winds.

Then afterwards during the Bronze Age some king or usurper like Sargon The Great comes along and proclaims "I am the son of those gods."

Thus the opiate of the masses has been hijacked for political purposes.

[LuckyR]

Well, kings could copy the clerics and become priest-kings, but I am convinced that the originators were folks without power who sought it (rather than someone with power who sought even more, as they would be less motivated).

You are probably right about copying. Hijacking is more apropos.

I imagine a clan (like in Clan Of The Cave Bear) of prehistoric stone age people gathered around a campfire telling stories about thunder and lightning.

That's probably how it all started -- with the weather and therefore mythological weather gods like The Four Winds.

Then afterwards during the Bronze Age some king or usurper like Sargon The Great comes along and proclaims "I am the son of those gods."

Thus the opiate of the masses has been hijacked for political purposes.

Absolutely. This, of course has nothing to do with whether or not gods exist, rather that religions are guaranteed regardless as they filled the gap that is currently filled by science.

[Sy Borg]

There have always been floods of various sizes and these have captured the attention of story tellers throughout the ages. But the accounts of floods in those religions have no remaining facts of any veracity or interest except parables.

It seems that the main point in these tales is that "there was once a great flood". No doubt Chinese whispers, not to mention deliberate changes, down through many generations would result in a very different tale after a while.

[alan_wattsify]

OK, so when the Ice Age came to an end, about 11,700 years ago, what happened to the melt-water?

Those icecaps would not have reached down into Mesopotamia where the flood myths were being created.

The icecaps were strictly North American, European, and Siberian.

Geography 101, my buddy @pattern-chaser.

1. You don't know where the flood would reach, it's just an assumption. Archeology isn't science, myths are more reliable sources of flood in my opinion.
2. You don't know where the myths were created, definitely not only in Mesopotamia. You also don't know that you don't know.
3. You didn't know whether there was a flood or not. You also didn't know that you don't know. You made a little progress regarding this ignorance.

[Mark1955]

There was no flood @Greta .

There's an awful lot of certainty in that statement. You have access to all the evidence from pre-history, or you have your own 'belief', your worship of the god Athe.

[h_k_s]

Those icecaps would not have reached down into Mesopotamia where the flood myths were being created.

The icecaps were strictly North American, European, and Siberian.

Geography 101, my buddy @pattern-chaser.

1. You don't know where the flood would reach, it's just an assumption. Archeology isn't science, myths are more reliable sources of flood in my opinion.
2. You don't know where the myths were created, definitely not only in Mesopotamia. You also don't know that you don't know.
3. You didn't know whether there was a flood or not. You also didn't know that you don't know. You made a little progress regarding this ignorance.

This sounds like the argument from ignorance fallacy.

[h_k_s]

There was no flood @Greta .

There's an awful lot of certainty in that statement. You have access to all the evidence from pre-history, or you have your own 'belief', your worship of the god Athe.

There is not enough water on the whole Earth to flood the whole Earth.

The ancient myth-makers were not very good at science. However they were really good at B/S.

[h_k_s]

It is all bull sh!t. The opiate of the masses.

Likely you think religious people, who deeply believe in God's existence, are self-deceived. And yet you are so arrogant that despite all kind of uncertainties, everything is so clear for you. Religion, above all, was needed to find answers to questions which were unclear or impossible to know (considering the state of science). With another definition, "Religion gives people what they cannot get". Having this as a definition, you are a religious person. You believe in a system which doesn't exist, but since uncertainty is worrying, you created it in your imagination.

As Bertrand Russell said, philosophy's main goal is to teach people how to live in uncertainty. You didn't seem to get that lesson.

Compare for example the babe in a reed basket story about Sargon The Great (google him) with Moses' own story about his own adoption by the Pharaoh's daughter.

I guess in your religion only deities (like you) know who Sargon The Great was, and ordinary people (like me) should google it. Just self-complementing.

Sorry, I didn't like your attitude, there is negativity there. You must be in a very great opinion about yourself to claim that all people who suggest/assume/claim that there was a flood (which is very logical to me) are talking bull sh!t. I know you'll not accept my point, and will continue the play of one upmanship, but when you have spare time, think about it. If blind belief isn't what you aspire, then you aren't on the right path.

This rarely worked, but I still believe in humanity, although there are reasons not to. There is a part in human brain, people feel pleasure when it gets activated. In some people, it gets activated when they coordinate, for others, when they stab in the back (this is scientific statement). This was the point when I realized it's impossible to create a 'good enough' society which will include all kinds of natures.

P.S. Alan Watts - Belief is wishful thinking that the world works as you hope. Faith is openness.

I will simply defer to Karl Marx, who said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Always has been. Always will be.

[Mark1955]

There is not enough water on the whole Earth to flood the whole Earth.

Think about that statement a bit and work out how it could and would happen.

I think most people would assume the flood was a localised event, but big enough to leave people floating for a while, which to people for whom the concept of 'the whole globe' was well into the future, would be enough to become an oral tradition, with a real basis.

[h_k_s]

There is not enough water on the whole Earth to flood the whole Earth.

Think about that statement a bit and work out how it could and would happen.

I think most people would assume the flood was a localised event, but big enough to leave people floating for a while, which to people for whom the concept of 'the whole globe' was well into the future, would be enough to become an oral tradition, with a real basis.

What's to think about? Simple geography and math. Volumes. Etc.