Yes I seem to remember that took all year to study in school.Ned wrote:Hamlet, on the other hand....
If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
-
Hjarloprillar
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
- Location: Sol sector.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
The bard .. i'll give him this. he defined my father and all like him.
his
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I promised i would learn and learn more. and im still at 50+ only 5% full.
life is too short . not because i wish to live longer. but because i wish to learn more
aside from that one profound statement Shakespeare was a nobody like you and i.
1st in print made his fame. Most of his writing is crap.
his
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I promised i would learn and learn more. and im still at 50+ only 5% full.
life is too short . not because i wish to live longer. but because i wish to learn more
aside from that one profound statement Shakespeare was a nobody like you and i.
1st in print made his fame. Most of his writing is crap.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
If Shakespeare was a nobody like you and I, how come I've heard of Shakespeare and not you?Hjarloprillar wrote:The bard .. i'll give him this. he defined my father and all like him.
his
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I promised i would learn and learn more. and im still at 50+ only 5% full.
life is too short . not because i wish to live longer. but because i wish to learn more
aside from that one profound statement Shakespeare was a nobody like you and i.
1st in print made his fame. Most of his writing is crap.
Cheer up, man. The whole world isn't as crap as you make it out. Perhaps it's just you?
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
This is becoming too heavy.
Let's have a bit more fun here:
The last man on Earth
The last man on Earth
sat alone in his room,
aware of his isolation,
knowing He would come for him soon
with his well-deserved salvation.
There was a knock on the door
and he eagerly rushed to answer,
wondering why He was late…
…
but he saw only hooves, tail and horn,
sealing his misanthropic fate.
Let's have a bit more fun here:
The last man on Earth
The last man on Earth
sat alone in his room,
aware of his isolation,
knowing He would come for him soon
with his well-deserved salvation.
There was a knock on the door
and he eagerly rushed to answer,
wondering why He was late…
…
but he saw only hooves, tail and horn,
sealing his misanthropic fate.
-
James Markham
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
I believe the existence of ideas concerning god, or gods, is a natural phenomena, and is therefore an unavoidable aspect of intelligent development. The idea of a supreme being, is one that has occurred individually to almost all of the various isolated human societies, and due to the fact these ideas have occurred independently of each other, and are not of a common origin, it seems to be a phenomena that we can assume is a likely occurrence at some stage in the progression of intellect.
I think the reason for this is the fact that the intellect does develop, and is in no way brought forth fully formed. The intellect of a species is formed as a means to solve problems, which essential involves a process of questioning and answering, so as certain problems are solved, it becomes possible to ask further questions.
So as an example, when man first started to take note of daily cycles, it then became possible to acknowledge and ask questions about the yearly cycle of the seasons, and to predict the yearly migrations of herds, and the seasonal availability of certain foods. As a consequence of this knowledge, it then became possible to ask if it was possible to plant and harvest food, and rather than depend on fortune, to actively plan and provide for the future, by the manipulation of nature.
So if we think about the more philosophical questions that started to require answers, such as how and why we are here, then it seems obvious that the first attempts at an answer would have drawn from what was common knowledge, such as we were produced by a consecutive number of fathers. If these questions are asked alongside questions such as, has time always existed, then it seems to me that the answer, no, time has not always existed, so therefore there must have been a first creator, is not such a strange conclusion. If you pitch in an early attempt to understand death and spirits, then I think it can be seen why so many developing civilisations have a god, or gods, as a first cause, and prevailing watchful spirit.
So rather than ask how so, I would be more interested in how an early civilisation can avoid these ideas, even in the world as it is today, science fails to answer any questions that really matter. If any branch of knowledge contains meaningful insight, then I would say its metaphysics, but how could a civilisation go straight from ignorance, to metaphysical speculation, without first creating ideas to work with, such as spirit, eternity, earth and the universe, morality and justice, so in their early contemplation, the solutions to these ideas are what developed into religion.
So imagine there was a planet of chimps, that developed the ability to communicate there contemplations of life and it's meaning, do you think there early conversations would be purely of a mechanical causal nature? How could this be the case. When they are only just realising there existence demands an explanation, and they at the same time know of their own inability to provide that explanation, then the supernatural speculations that lack the rules of logic, are a lot easier to explore than the ones demanding consistency and pure reason. So personally I think it's due to the nature of ideas and there evolution within a developing intellect.
I think the reason for this is the fact that the intellect does develop, and is in no way brought forth fully formed. The intellect of a species is formed as a means to solve problems, which essential involves a process of questioning and answering, so as certain problems are solved, it becomes possible to ask further questions.
So as an example, when man first started to take note of daily cycles, it then became possible to acknowledge and ask questions about the yearly cycle of the seasons, and to predict the yearly migrations of herds, and the seasonal availability of certain foods. As a consequence of this knowledge, it then became possible to ask if it was possible to plant and harvest food, and rather than depend on fortune, to actively plan and provide for the future, by the manipulation of nature.
So if we think about the more philosophical questions that started to require answers, such as how and why we are here, then it seems obvious that the first attempts at an answer would have drawn from what was common knowledge, such as we were produced by a consecutive number of fathers. If these questions are asked alongside questions such as, has time always existed, then it seems to me that the answer, no, time has not always existed, so therefore there must have been a first creator, is not such a strange conclusion. If you pitch in an early attempt to understand death and spirits, then I think it can be seen why so many developing civilisations have a god, or gods, as a first cause, and prevailing watchful spirit.
So rather than ask how so, I would be more interested in how an early civilisation can avoid these ideas, even in the world as it is today, science fails to answer any questions that really matter. If any branch of knowledge contains meaningful insight, then I would say its metaphysics, but how could a civilisation go straight from ignorance, to metaphysical speculation, without first creating ideas to work with, such as spirit, eternity, earth and the universe, morality and justice, so in their early contemplation, the solutions to these ideas are what developed into religion.
So imagine there was a planet of chimps, that developed the ability to communicate there contemplations of life and it's meaning, do you think there early conversations would be purely of a mechanical causal nature? How could this be the case. When they are only just realising there existence demands an explanation, and they at the same time know of their own inability to provide that explanation, then the supernatural speculations that lack the rules of logic, are a lot easier to explore than the ones demanding consistency and pure reason. So personally I think it's due to the nature of ideas and there evolution within a developing intellect.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Most of this is true, however, the thread was not about the origin of religion, as I explained in several posts.
It was about your OWN personal religious experiences, if you had any, and your answer to the question: do you think you would have had these experiences if you grew up in the hypothetical world I described in the OP.
It was about your OWN personal religious experiences, if you had any, and your answer to the question: do you think you would have had these experiences if you grew up in the hypothetical world I described in the OP.
-
Hjarloprillar
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
- Location: Sol sector.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
True, i was in my cups. tanked, blotto , wasted , pickled, and in not a good mood.aiddon wrote:If Shakespeare was a nobody like you and I, how come I've heard of Shakespeare and not you?Hjarloprillar wrote:The bard .. i'll give him this. he defined my father and all like him.
his
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I promised i would learn and learn more. and im still at 50+ only 5% full.
life is too short . not because i wish to live longer. but because i wish to learn more
aside from that one profound statement Shakespeare was a nobody like you and i.
1st in print made his fame. Most of his writing is crap.
Cheer up, man. The whole world isn't as crap as you make it out. Perhaps it's just you?
-
Hjarloprillar
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
- Location: Sol sector.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Ned wrote:Most of this is true, however, the thread was not about the origin of religion, as I explained in several posts.
It was about your OWN personal religious experiences, if you had any, and your answer to the question: do you think you would have had these experiences if you grew up in the hypothetical world I described in the OP.
Please. as religion is an organised following of a single definition of the concept of a god.
An Islamic or Catholic experience might be interpreted as gooblygook to a Hindu.
God is the premis. religion is about earthly power structure and comprehension of such within framework of a society.
An experience of a god better describes it i think .
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Great. I'm now discussing religion with drunk people.Hjarloprillar wrote:True, i was in my cups. tanked, blotto , wasted , pickled, and in not a good mood.aiddon wrote:If Shakespeare was a nobody like you and I, how come I've heard of Shakespeare and not you?Hjarloprillar wrote:The bard .. i'll give him this. he defined my father and all like him.
his
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I promised i would learn and learn more. and im still at 50+ only 5% full.
life is too short . not because i wish to live longer. but because i wish to learn more
aside from that one profound statement Shakespeare was a nobody like you and i.
1st in print made his fame. Most of his writing is crap.
Cheer up, man. The whole world isn't as crap as you make it out. Perhaps it's just you?
To think, I came here for intellectual stimulation.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
According
to the law of averages you should not have expected better. You just
happened to end up where you are bunched into the lower 50
percentile?:-)
to the law of averages you should not have expected better. You just
happened to end up where you are bunched into the lower 50
percentile?:-)
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
aiddon wrote:Great. I'm now discussing religion with drunk people.Hjarloprillar wrote: True, i was in my cups. tanked, blotto , wasted , pickled, and in not a good mood.
To think, I came here for intellectual stimulation.
You want to discuss philosophy and you complain about drinking?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7r5jIEe9s
-
bobevenson
- Posts: 7346
- Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
- Contact:
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
All is not lost, my friend, since "The Ouzo Prophecy" is one click away at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf.aiddon wrote:To think, I came here for intellectual stimulation.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Now you want to replace Intellectual Stimulation with Bull Shit?bobevenson wrote:All is not lost, my friend, since "The Ouzo Prophecy" is one click away at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf.aiddon wrote:To think, I came here for intellectual stimulation.
-
James Markham
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:18 pm
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
Ned, I suppose the answer to your question, would depend on how well our intellectual inquiries were satisfied in this hypothetical world. If somehow all of our questions concerning the nature of reality, and the purpose of our existence, had logical and reasoned answers, then I don't believe there would be an opportunity for people to advance any theories of a supernatural nature.
Even the society we exist in today, with modern technologies and particle physics, fails to give any reasonable answers to the questions man has been asking for thousands of years, all of the meaningful enquiries made by people in their early years (and again in their later years when the preoccupation with everyday survival has relented slightly), are unanswerable by science. If every time a question was asked, there was a logical and satisfactory answer, then the stability of your reasoned mechanical world would be safe, but I don't think that world is a possible reality.
So if we imagine the conditions you propose as existent, your question is then, is this hypothetical reality stable in that I, or no other subsequent individual is likely to create, or imagine theories about god and the after life. Well if it's happened countless times already, then as I said before, unless either mans curiosity was removed, or all the answers were provided to satisfy his intellect, then I would say no, it's not a reality that could prevail, and yes, either I or others would begin to speculate on the possibility that some higher form of consciousness exists, and it probably wouldn't take long before religions were created around the various ideas.
It's the nature of man to think and speculate, and when that speculation is naturally destined to transcend the physical, and encompass the mental aspect of existence, then nothing as constricted as physics can satisfy all that we contemplate.
Even the society we exist in today, with modern technologies and particle physics, fails to give any reasonable answers to the questions man has been asking for thousands of years, all of the meaningful enquiries made by people in their early years (and again in their later years when the preoccupation with everyday survival has relented slightly), are unanswerable by science. If every time a question was asked, there was a logical and satisfactory answer, then the stability of your reasoned mechanical world would be safe, but I don't think that world is a possible reality.
So if we imagine the conditions you propose as existent, your question is then, is this hypothetical reality stable in that I, or no other subsequent individual is likely to create, or imagine theories about god and the after life. Well if it's happened countless times already, then as I said before, unless either mans curiosity was removed, or all the answers were provided to satisfy his intellect, then I would say no, it's not a reality that could prevail, and yes, either I or others would begin to speculate on the possibility that some higher form of consciousness exists, and it probably wouldn't take long before religions were created around the various ideas.
It's the nature of man to think and speculate, and when that speculation is naturally destined to transcend the physical, and encompass the mental aspect of existence, then nothing as constricted as physics can satisfy all that we contemplate.
Re: If you never heard of God, would you ever think of it?
To answer the original question maybe they would have no bias to to concept and would apply a scientific approach to the investigation. Even a scientific approach requires the imagination and will to search every corner no matter how improbable.