The Origin of Religion

I've got a project to do for school, and I thought I'd get anon's input. The topic I've chosen is The Origin of Religion. Now, don't get the wrong idea, this doesn't mean I think all religion came from one source, I just haven't been able to come up with a better title. Basically, I'm going at this with a purely scientific standpoint, looking at the reasons religions are formed, how they evolve, and why they've lasted so long. I'll also include some of the first instances of religion and why were how they were.

So far, I have the most functions of religion as:
To help give moral support.
To keep a stable social structure.
To "motivate" people.

These are, of course, a bit simplistic, but I think I've come close. If anyone has objections, changes, or anything else regarding this project, I'd be very much obliged if you'd submit them in a civil manner.

Honoring deceased people generation after generation could develop into something.

There was a study recently of how some smarter birds develop superstition to random feeding.

if they are flapping their wings randomly as food comes they start flapping when they want food. Like they think it helps the food arrive, a baseless falsehood. But in a more natural setting perhaps not so. Random flapping might loosen food from trees or something so it is a natural advantage.

But even with no reenforcement habits and superstition presents. I think that these are the precursors to religion.

Obviously, reenforcement just causes learning, and the useless actions lessen or disappear.

I'll get on the scientific journal search engines and try to find the report... maybe.

>>1
>>2
>>3
Is Time Travel Possible?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8&feature=related

>>3
I have found what seems to be logical beginnings of religion in the Rational Choice Theory:

Psychopathological model - Under a period of stress, the founder uses the creation of religion as a sort of therapy
Entrepreneurial model - Founder takes aspects of other religions to make a new, 'marketable' religion
Social model - A society becomes more and more isolated, leading to a "social implosion", in which new religion naturally develops
Normal revelations - The founder interprets ordinary occurences or coincidences as supernatural.

I believe what you're describing would be a basic form of the last of these, and would also seem to be a probable starting point for religion without influence from other religions.

>>2
You're right for the most part. Normally, honoring of the deceased would require a belief in an afterlife. Perhaps, though, people's need for purpose in life would lead them to begin doing this as a way of making their actions have permanence, thus leading to their feeling like they've accomplished something. This would seem to fall under both the moral support and motivation categories.

dammit...

it's /sci/, not /religion/

also underage b&

the origin of religion is their divine inspirations.

>>7
There is no evidence for the source of those inspirations being divine.  Stop descending into superstition in what should be a rational debate by learned men.

>>6
I'm not the one to talk to about the lack of a religion forum, and underage for a science forum? Come on now.....

>>7
As 6 said, this is a science forum, keep the nonsense out.

>>9, look up Cognitive Sciences, Human Condition and Social Engineering. You may be suprised.

www.wikipedia.org

Thank you RedScam for trying to make us believe that what you are telling us is true, and forgetting that lying yields no results save the liar's own ignorance. Yup, what do schools for science and religious churches have in common? Hmm, they both hord lots of people into tiny rooms, make them sweat and when they leave they feel even more ignorant than when they entered, and have a strange craving for a cheese burger.

If I'd have to come up with a guess as to the original topic of this thread, I would have to guess that it was derived from the commonalities derived between many persons who experienced and practiced diligently the lives they wanted to live and from this derived some basic philosophies that later through debate, negotiation, discussion, and deliberation came to a concensus of what would be best to put into a BIBLE, Quran, Torah, and so forth. Of course, what I'm going to do is much more sinister (cause who'd believe I was trying to do something good, I'm human after all). I'm going to coallesce and integrate information from multiple philosophies, poems, religions, sciences and from personal conversations where I am able to find greater meaning in all that makes us human and what it means to acknowledge and accept that in others. Basically, my tales will be placed into the realm of fiction, written in the prose of poetry, entangled with smart-ass humor, and bound by human flexibility. I have already begun my journey of learning and practice, but what does it all mean? It means to me what it means to me. What it means to you is an idea of what it means to you. What you do with that idea is entirely up to you, it's your choice. And that is part of the understandings I'll place within the book. I was thinking I would release it on December 21, 2012 to mark it as the epiphany of man-kind, so no more would you be at the mercies of theives profaning themselves simple businessmen, politicians, or like-wise. No more would we cowar in the face of ignorance. No more would we turn our backs to the very support systems that thrive upon. No more would we destroy or segregate from that which is most dear to us. And it is dear, whether we realize now or later. To live your life is a life worth living.
A few movies to watch that'll get you going are "Peaceful Warrior" "Patch Adams" and "Revolver"
Peaceful Warrior deals with the practicing of self-awareness
Patch Adams is about self-discover and living that discovery
Revolver is about getting over the human ego
Of course, that's not what the critics will say about them. "Oh, that old story has been told over and over so many times it's making people sick to death to see it repeated."
Well, learning is repetition, life is learning, repetition is painful, pain is awareness, emotion is awareness, reactions are awareness, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. To surround yourself with the repetitive notions of self-awareness, awareness of the human condition, awareness of integration vs segregation and that they are the two components of everything in life. Life is Acid(0) + Base(12) = Balance of (7) where we as humans and water live much of the time, but as is evidenced by research you'll find that that is a balance of finite gravity. So, scientifically, religiously, phychologically, philosophically, and sociologically; how did I do? Again, too much or perhaps I need to get more schooling (I am class-trophobic, just to let you know).

"To Be or Not To Be?" This is the only question, 1 or 0. Life is as simple as that, what makes it complicated is the sheer number of these calculations which science and technology has awarded us with. Multitasking, tele-conferencing, Chat-rooms, online dating. But why is it so segregated from us as individuals? And what does it mean for us to be individuals? To slave towards someone elses benefit? Perhaps! It is the choice of the individual that should perhaps be recognized, but how do we contribute this concept to the playing fields of war where brother is pitted against brother and very real people die every day because of our simple physiological and emotional support systems that require and reinforce us to act by chemical reaction (emotions) in order pursue the need (habit). Doesn't all of this seem like we're already on drugs? Perhaps the drugs that inhabit every inch of our bodies creating chemical reaction after chemical reaction to instigate change. There is two choices in that, choose reaction or choose action. To choose reaction means all action is based upon the reactions of emotions; to choose action means that all actions are based upon choice. But how to make that transition? Well, that takes faith in the unknown. Perhaps to make a leap that feels wrong upon choosing, perhaps to look at alternatives given ample time before practice. It is solely up to the individual whether it is me or another fellow human that does this; either way, to accept that both are possible within each and every one of us is to actually believe that we are human. This is the nature that I believe we are missing out on and the very lives that we are losing are the very lives that we choose to give away for $8.00 per hour without benefits. There is no retirement, benefits, or financial package awaiting you in heaven;

but if you act now you can get all the benefits you could ever dream of, vacation, retirement, health, dental, vision, financial packages, girls, guys, animals, children if you like! All can be yours if you act today for the super-low price of just 1% of your soul plus $9.95 S/H! -Brought to you by the Mantle Pioneers, Inc. Call now and receive a double-dose of everything you see here, but don't wait these fantastic prizes are going-going-...

>>7 makes a suggestion that is perfectly reasonable given the topic being discussed.

Religion seeks explanation for what science cannot explain, primarily consciousness.  Why is the universe anything more than a mindless void?  Do you believe others are capable of thought process?  You have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE for that (do I really need to say who I'm talking to here?).  Yet most everyone believes it.  I fail to see a significant difference between that & what you call religion.

Religious theories have been disproved & amended over & over again?  Strange, so have scientific theories.  It's not like there has ever been completely unanimous opinion towards any theory.

Some of you seem to forget that you don't have to belive everything some book says to be religious, & not every religious person does think that way.  Science has yet to disprove god, and does not seem to be approaching that point anytime soon.  Thus, it IS possible in this era to believe in a god & still bow to what science teaches.

Let's say person A believes a god definitely does exist, but cannot elaborate further.  Person B believes a god definitely does not exist.  Neither one is looking at this as scientifically as an agnostic.  In fact, in this situation, person A seems more reasonable, because his theory could attribute it's inspiration to that god.  Person B just does not believe.

Atheism is a perfectly legitimate belief, but people who proclaim atheism as the only thing an intelligent person could possibly believe are assholes who are looking for a reason to think of themselves as being above the masses.

I am not remotely religious but I can respect the belief of any person who does not proclaim superiority over all who do not share in it.

tl;dr RedCream is an arrogant piece of shit who likes to imagine that he is the only one to attend science courses & thus the only one that can present legitimate arguments about anything ever

>>14 here
AnOnYmOuS 2U, I would really appreciate it if you would try to break up your posts more as I just tried to do.  I find your posts are consistently interesting & respectable, but I'm sure I'm not as good a reader as the average /sci/ viewer & I lose focus very often when trying to read through a big block.  Should probably get some ritalin or something but I'm more comfortable living w/o taking pills every day.

religion

is not

science

>>16
YES IT IS.

EVER HEAR OF SCIENTOLOGY??

>>17
No

/sci/ - Religion

Yeah! Scientology! http://www.scientology.org/index.html

>>Krieger

  You've got a good start but You might want to toss this around in your head 4 awhile... "Religion is the same as normality, just a socially accepted opinion held by the masses saying that a type of behavior or action is acceptable or not acceptable."
  In other words there has been no proof of a god, just alot of people trying to explain the unexplainable in a way that is comforting to them. Example, "its a miracale! thank you lord!"         

Religions indoctrinate people so they can be controlled, but they are a double edged sword for a tyrant. The medieval church rivalled Kingdoms in wealth and influence, all the King's nobles were indoctrinated from birth to follow the church and in order to make the church more believable they had to espouse charity and virtues etc..

The Karl Marx quote "religion is the opiate of the masses" is too simplistic to describe the purpose of religion, there are 100s of other factors at play.

>>22, I would hope that you don't think that we'll accept that it's any religion's fault that people get indoctrinated or whom do the indoctrinating. Both are people who have the ability to choose, but rely solely upon their emotions to insite change.
So what do people do who are aware of this phenomena within each and every human being? They pray upon them like vultures and leeches to the point where these people are essentially sucked dry of all their funds and time on this planet. It is this grave misuse of intelligence that people use against their fellow humans to gain better foot-hold in the financial and popularity contests. See all religions, cults, politics and even advertising! All are taylor made to the whims of the physiological and emotional stabilities of humanity. But the downfalls of these are that people essentially get raped to death financially while enjoying a 90 minute video that costs you 30 dollars which is 33 cents a minute and if you make less than 20 dollars an hour you shouldn't waste your time watching anything over 90 minutes in length as it doesn't earn you any money and you are essentially burning that money. Just think about it like being raped without knowing about it. Oh, we feel the effects of it, but because it's not measured...Hmm. Thus, the need for money management. I could take advantage of corporations and people, but I choose not to do so on the simple and unchallengable reason of personal choice. Who should have the power? Those that work for the people to assist in the learning and teaching of the American people, to assist in the upbringing of the children of our states and families and workers to bring people to a greater understanding of themselves and to potentially learn the next level in our human evolutionary future. Why isn't this happening today? Choice of no choice. Choice of ignoring the overwhelming. Choice of plausible deniabilities. Choice of distraction over self-discipline. Choice of pleasure over pain when essentially pain is simply a greater version of pleasure; choice of reaction over choice. We are so in the Dark Ages of human understanding of the mind-body functioning, working, feeling, and learning states that we believe what we read at face value; we believe the words of others are the realities of our own existence; we believe that god and the devil exist only outside of ourselves if we believe that they exist at all; we believe that heaven and hell are outside of the place in which we live when it is our very choices that decide our fates; we believe that our fate are either decided by someone else and are set, or that we decide our own fate; but what about fate being the place where you are? Does any of this have to be real for people to accept it as truth? That is a choice I leave to the reader for who better to choose what is best for that person than the very person for whom it directly affects? I do apologize for my lengthy posts; some of it is interesting and some people do get lost after some time. I'll see if I can't ask 4chan's admin to create a special board for people who want to discuss the topic of potentialialities, religion, perception, cognitive and social engineering sciences, self-awareness and the like. I do believe that this is one of those topics that some people just don't yet have a taste for simply because they aren't yet aware of it...yet. While believing something is already in motion when it is not observable yet is the essence of faith, once we are able to observe and measure the effects then faith moves into the realm of science. To me, reinforcing my faith with science has granted me the abilities that I now possess, so to the potential exists for every one of you, for you too are human and my comrades upon this earth. I look forward to future events and posts. Until next time, keep reading, keeping thinking, but most importantly, reinforce with practice to discover the truth for yourselves of your own perceptions and abilities. Best of luck, it isn't easy; I know this from my own choices and actions of the past.

Listen you atheists. How is the "belief" that when you die you cease to have a consciousness or exist any different from the "belief" that you go to heaven or are reincarnated after you die? There's zero evidence for either scenario.

>>24
That's a good question and an answer I happen to agree with. There is no evidence because Religion and Belief are both just very strong opinions held by the general masses.

>>23
If you were the rewrite this entire post as a list of key points, how many key point would there be?
>>25
Untangible and/or unrepeatable proof is still proof, just nothing that can be assumed to be absolutely certain according to logic. So in terms of proof religion is more valid than atheism since atheists have no untangible and/or unrepeatable proof, if just because they don't accept it.

The part where most people fail at or are challenged at is that once the understandings, discoveries, explorations and so-forth are observed only by yourself the information moves back into the realm of faith as it now exists within your mind once again. The paper is simply a point of origin or method of measurement for future explorations, but to others it will only be seen as rhetorical non-sense. So, faith is what people believe to be true, science is the method to involve and improve upon that belief whether it's to confirm or retract from previous understandings. This is the methodology to understand ourselves, others, and the world around us and divorce ourselves from the idea that what exists in the unseen spaces doesn't exist until we uncover it. And so basically that is how my understanding of time works as well, you take something plausible, possible, potential, and opportunity and refine it to one singular point of observation and that moves from the arena of unseen/unknown potential future to the absolute observable present, and once again to the unseen/unknown but recorded past. This is what it means to be human, and I see more faith and belief in that than not doing anything and hoping that it'll work itself out. Does anyone here understand this or believe to a similar or other fundamental way?

Perhaps religions are interdimensional visions of what was, is, or could be reality in the multiverse?

>>29
Isn't everything an inter-dimensional vision of what was, is, AND will be reality in the multiverse?

Jeez, religions are based off of revelations and those revelations took place by being aware and observant. So, when those events take place again, but aren't observed, did they really occur? Do the people typing all of these texts really exist in the real world or are they just drones of a sub-quantum computer system designed by the CIA to document and catalog all IP, date, and information stated herein? How do you know that what you are reading isn't just made up or not? Well, by performing research that can be ascertained quite simply.

"There's never nothing going on." -Peaceful Warrior

>>32
WHOA! Good job! Too bad though about your viewpoints, you lack an open mind and thus you are already doomed to failure...should you stay your ground on the soul basis of ignorance of every given situation. What is science? The study of us, the universe around us, and the universe within us. What does it mean to study? To be observant, to be open to possibilities, potentials, and opportunities. How do you remain and re-institute those principles? By challenging those beliefs at every chance, every opportunity, every potentially possible situations that you may or will come into contact with. How do you challenge? Science. How do you have belief and faith? FIRSTLY! The first step is to have an idea, that idea leads to actions, actions lead to a re-inforcement of faith, it's a matter of turning it to your advantage just as you have. Your faith is only accepting something if you believe it, if you don't, then it doesn't exist at all and if it appears to exist it's really just a ghost or lie. That is your stand-point. Now, what's say you use that talent of yours and put it to a larger calibur than simply a small chat room like 4chan.org and take that talen to the bank! Generalizations are the beginning, they are the lie, faith is a lie, science is the method to reveal the lie as less of a lie and more of a truth, thusly, life is paradox, so use axiom to uncover the paradox. :) Your welcome.

If I lacked an open mind, I never would have opposed everything I'd been taught and questioned God. I believe you have somewhat of a cynic debater's attitude. Not all beliefs should be questioned, there are some that are axiomatically correct. Now, try the method of the relative optimist. Once developing a new theory, based off of either your own or others' ideas, expound upon that. It can be seen in both your attitude and your posts that you have a difficult time focusing on the idea at hand. Stick with something for more than the fleeting few sentences that seem to endlessly spew all over the board. Expound upon and offer proof for your theories. All I've seen from you so far are stream of consciousness messes. Until this dilemma is solved, I find it difficult to argue against you, seeing as there is no you to argue against. It's like taking a look at the encyclopedia, then forming an argument against it, and this means your arguments, if they could be so called, are bordering on becoming tautologies, which is bad, bad, bad.

Firstly, if you has questioned the idea of God, you would have DONE THE WORK to find out WHY do people think that god exists and done it until you understand why. DID YOU DO THIS??? Well, by your very statements, all you do is tell others and yourself that something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it yet...and when it does happen...SHOCKER! SO, do some god-damned work, get out from behind your desk that's held up with books, and start doing some true-to-life research, A-HOLE!

SECONDLY, beliefs shouldn't be questioned? WTF? Ok, just let those beliefs die then, WTF do I care what you do with them. Mine? I put mine to the test and consistently re-inforce them. Guess what that makes me...FAITHFUL. SHOCKER!

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Please note that I am the one who did the project over the origin of religion. Please note as well that I did this from an anthropological standpoint. Do you not think this would include the question: Why? No, of course note, inference is below you. Now, seeing as I did do a good third of this program over the psychology of religion, I do know why people started and continue to believe in god, both from a communal and individual standpoint. It is because of the benefits religion offers, whether it be conscious or subconscious. The moral support in being part of a collective tautology, for instance. "I'm right, the group I'm part of is right, and there's nothing you can do to disprove this." Of course, that would be an obnoxious attitude to express, but it is the subconscious drive behind most religious feeling.

I also think that, by your own statements, you shouldn't disagree with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You haven't experienced it, and it's never been disproved. Based on your own experience, you should be a Pastafarian. Yes, this is the argument you've used, and should be ashamed of yourself for using it. I believe what has been proven, not was hasn't. This is especially true when what has been proven contradicts what hasn't been disproven. So, I'm not saying that your god has been proven not to exist, I say that opposing theories have been proven.

"I put mine to the test and consistently re-inforce them. Guess what that makes me...FAITHFUL."
I believe the process you've explained here is the scientific method. That is not faith. Also, re-inforce is not a word....

Also, I never said that beliefs shouldn't be questioned, I said not ALL beliefs should be questioned, which was what you said. Some things have been proven beyond doubt and now lay as the premise for further theories. To question something as gravity would discredit numerous other theories. You haven't the time to question what has been proven in the past, simply have FAITH in what has been proven to exist and move on to what has yet to be proven. Now, when something new has been proven or disproven, by all means, question it, but leave the axiomatic ideas alone.

Now, in sensing the anger in your caps and language, I feel compelled to post a quote by Bertrand Russel:
"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."

First off;
re·in·force   Audio Help   /ˌriɪnˈfɔrs, -ˈfoʊrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-in-fawrs, -fohrs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -forced, -forc·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to strengthen with some added piece, support, or material: to reinforce a wall. 
2. to strengthen (a military force) with additional personnel, ships, or aircraft: to reinforce a garrison. 
3. to strengthen; make more forcible or effective: to reinforce efforts. 
4. to augment; increase: to reinforce a supply. 
5. Psychology. to strengthen the probability of (a response to a given stimulus) by giving or withholding a reward. 
–noun 6. something that reinforces. 
7. a metal band on the rear part of the bore of a gun, where the explosion occurs. 

Also, reenforce, re-enforce.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–1600; re- + inforce, alter. of enforce]

Taken from Dictionary.com

Secondly, DUMASS! What is it you are questioning!!?!?!?!?!?!?! YOU ARE QUESTIONING AN AXIOM!!!! WHYYYYY!!!?!?!?!?! BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS A PARADOX. OR at least that's what scientists do.

Hence, read this in the WIKIPEDIA.ORG;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Good hunting!

Alright, reinforce is a word, re-inforce isn't....

Also, I just stated that I don't question axioms. "Now, when something new has been proven or disproven, by all means, question it, but leave the axiomatic ideas alone." Next time, avert your eyes 5 inches upward to read the post you're responding to.

I've managed so far to address nearly every aspect of your chaptered posts, but you, on the other hand, seem to focus on one aspect which you think you could possibly prove wrong, which, by the way, you have failed to do, and proceed to attempt to do so.

Perhaps someone else would like to join in this, because, quite frankly, I've proven enough idiots wrong in my meager lifetime. It really offers no satisfaction anymore.

YES! I am looking at what you are typing, and I'm finding that we simply have a varied vocabulary since we consistently compliment one-another with our definitions. And yes, I am only focused on one idea, the complete understanding of self, choice, AND how to activate use awareness and ignorance, the fundamental human capacities and reinforce them.
Plus, if you had read the entire (POST TRUNCATED) portion, you would have realized that re- +inforce was used at one point in time, therefore it has the capacity to be used again. But thank you for delivering to me your proof "re-inforce isn't a word"(axiom "what you believe to be true") for me to prove "re-inforce isn't a word"<skepticism<(by questioning the proof) and delivering to you my proof "The text-book definition of reinforce, its varients, and previous usages" (axiom "what I now believe to be true"). But, if you think I'm trying to prove to everyone here whether you or myself is an idiot, I really couldn't care less. That is a child's agenda, not an adult's -with adult responsibilities- agenda. If I were to prove something to the world it is this;

We have the capacity for both {good and evil} (self-awareness and self-preservation) [choice and ignorance]
My study is showing so far that ignorance at first isn't choice, it's the beginning before the axiom, faith if you will. But over time, a skill is born called perception and recollection. From knowing what your capacities are; the choice is born. With choice, regardless of environment, the situation lies completely in the control of human Will. Once this is accomplished, I find that some people fail to see the common points between choice and ignorance, they both fall under the choice aspect at the point of self-awareness; However, I am finding that once choice is given to chemical emotional reactions, ignorant actions are reinforced over time, the skill of perception and recollection begin to break down until only chemical emotional reactions and absolute ignorance remains. And so, from this, I have also found that learning is hindered, belief-telling is hindered by falsified memories via imagination|memory barrier breakdowns, to finally a complete failure to understand the world around us on an intellectual level is finally recurrent. Basically, to be human or animal in nature's point of view, is seperated by choice in adolescent teenagers during puberty. Such a chemical change shows the results by average rates of school drop-outs, if any do survive they live on the streets or low paying jobs, if any push forward they may make something out of there lives, but only just. My experiment is to find a methodology that works to provide the proof of self-ignorance by choice and to bring someone back from ignorance to self-awareness. I have a feeling that this will be a learning trait that all humans will have to undergo during the course of their learning experiences in order to overcome the hardships in life and see the miraculous in the mundane. So, now you see the experiment I'm still working on, what do you think of the potential implications?

Has anyone here ever read two awesome books by a man named Pútídámó (菩提達摩)? They are called the Yì Jīn Jīng (易筋經) and the Xǐ Suǐ Jīng (洗髓經) and they are the best martial arts guides ever written.