So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
I might be wrong, but lumping faith/religion/beliefs together like that might be too general. When you compare and contrast them you may find many radically different ideas even if, for example, they share the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient being.
I might be wrong, but lumping faith/religion/beliefs together like that might be too general. When you compare and contrast them you may find many radically different ideas even if, for example, they share the concept of an omnipotent/omniscient being.
But why does the idea of an omnipotent being exist in the first place even if from there dramatic changes are present? How did the primitive tribes come up with such a complex concept?
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
First you are wrong. Countless cultures do not have the same concept of gods, spirits, and afterlife.
Zeus isn't the same concept as the Abrahamic god, Krishna isn't the same concept as Raijin, and Zeus and Raijin, while both are gods of thunder/lightning are not same concept.
Even the concept of the after life is different from culture to culture with varying degrees. For example, Valhala isn't the same concept as Heaven or hell.
Try giving a universal definition of what qualities a god has that everyone can agree on. You'll find that quite difficult, because the term is ambiguous.
Secondly, just because all of these cultures believe in supernatural things doesn't mean they are true. The other thing all of these concepts have in common is a severe lack of evidence.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
First you are wrong. Countless cultures do not have the same concept of gods, spirits, and afterlife.
Zeus isn't the same concept as the Abrahamic god, Krishna isn't the same concept as Raijin, and Zeus and Raijin, while both are gods of thunder/lightning are not same concept.
Even the concept of the after life is different from culture to culture with varying degrees. For example, Valhala isn't the same concept as Heaven or hell.
Try giving a universal definition of what qualities a god has that everyone can agree on. You'll find that quite difficult, because the term is ambiguous.
Secondly, just because all of these cultures believe in supernatural things doesn't mean they are true. The other thing all of these concepts have in common is a severe lack of evidence.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
EDIT: If you want me to be more specific, why does the concept of a great evil one exist in so many cultures? Even if the names are changed, the idea of a devil and hell are pretty commonplace across religions, even Buddhism.
It's not clear to me how this is any more a question for atheists than it is for theists. If, for example, Judaism->Christianity is the true religion, then we are no closer to explaining how Native Americans came up with concepts of God and afterlife, as theirs are apparently not the product of divine revelation.
I would say the reason is that all cultures generally face the same difficult questions: Why are we here? What happens after we die? Why should I be good instead of evil? etc. etc.
When faced with the same questions, they come up with loosely similar answers. This shouldn't really be a surprise.
I bet that if you look at ancient works of fiction from different parts of the globe (where such records exist, at least), you'll find similar narrative elements shared across cultures as well.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
Humanity is a social animal. Most of our lives are spent interacting with other human beings in very complex ways. Now, as you may have noticed if you've ever tried carrying on a meaningful conversation with your laptop, this is not a trivial task even for powerful computing devices. Our brains can manage the feat because they are heavily specialized for social interaction. Just as a falcon's brain is specialized to solve high-speed aerial trajectory problems, a human brain is specialized to solve social problems: figuring out what other humans are thinking in order to anticipate how they will behave and react. This ability is called theory of mind.
Other species may have theory of mind as well, but almost certainly none approaches human-level strength. Our theory of mind is so strong, in fact, that we instinctively use it even when interacting with things that don't have minds, in a process called anthropomorphism. We think about inanimate objects as if they had thoughts and motives like humans do. And we do this even when, intellectually, we know better. We all know that our cars are mindless - but when somebody's car fails to start, they may shout at it as if it could feel fear, plead with it as if it could feel mercy, or even hit it as if it could feel pain, before getting a hold of themselves and pursuing a solution to the problem through mechanical rather than psychological means. The first response, the default setting, is to assume that the problem is psychological; other forms of problem-solving come later.
Now imagine a society that doesn't know better. A society that doesn't have mechanistic explanations for the phenomena going on around them - that doesn't know that storms are caused by the sun pumping thermal energy into the atmosphere in an uneven pattern that is corrected by air movements. Their first response is going to be to anthropomorphize natural phenomena, and that will remain their only response until they start to learn more about science. They're going to think that the storm has a mind: that if it brings life-giving rain it's for a psychological reason and if brings destructive winds and torrents it's for another psychological reason. They're going to try to communicate with the storm and keep it friendly to them, because that's how they interact successfully with other humans. This basic belief, that natural phenomena have minds, is called animism, and it is the prototypical form of religion. More abstract beliefs, like a grand good being and grand evil being, are not universal, but when they do occur it is as an outgrowth of animism.
And it all boils down to the fact that we're wired to assume that other things have minds because we humans have minds. We make the gods in our own image.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More universal than any concept of God or gods, it seems, is the notion of a judgment after death. Whether that judgment is carried out by Jesus Christ or Annubis or the non-sentient force of karma is really a lesser matter. It's easily enough inferred, by evolutionary thinking, that societies that could promote good order and diminished criminality among their members would be the ones to thrive; and telling stories about good and evil deeds receiving their recompense even beyond death might be an effective method (especially in primitive societies having nothing like a modern police force) of promoting good behavior. Belief in gods (or, again, some force like karma) would then be promoted or reinforced according to the demands of social justice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
Humanity is a social animal. Most of our lives are spent interacting with other human beings in very complex ways. Now, as you may have noticed if you've ever tried carrying on a meaningful conversation with your laptop, this is not a trivial task even for powerful computing devices. Our brains can manage the feat because they are heavily specialized for social interaction. Just as a falcon's brain is specialized to solve high-speed aerial trajectory problems, a human brain is specialized to solve social problems: figuring out what other humans are thinking in order to anticipate how they will behave and react. This ability is called theory of mind.
Other species may have theory of mind as well, but almost certainly none approaches human-level strength. Our theory of mind is so strong, in fact, that we instinctively use it even when interacting with things that don't have minds, in a process called anthropomorphism. We think about inanimate objects as if they had thoughts and motives like humans do. And we do this even when, intellectually, we know better. We all know that our cars are mindless - but when somebody's car fails to start, they may shout at it as if it could feel fear, plead with it as if it could feel mercy, or even hit it as if it could feel pain, before getting a hold of themselves and pursuing a solution to the problem through mechanical rather than psychological means. The first response, the default setting, is to assume that the problem is psychological; other forms of problem-solving come later.
Now imagine a society that doesn't know better. A society that doesn't have mechanistic explanations for the phenomena going on around them - that doesn't know that storms are caused by the sun pumping thermal energy into the atmosphere in an uneven pattern that is corrected by air movements. Their first response is going to be to anthropomorphize natural phenomena, and that will remain their only response until they start to learn more about science. They're going to think that the storm has a mind: that if it brings life-giving rain it's for a psychological reason and if brings destructive winds and torrents it's for another psychological reason. They're going to try to communicate with the storm and keep it friendly to them, because that's how they interact successfully with other humans. This basic belief, that natural phenomena have minds, is called animism, and it is the prototypical form of religion. More abstract beliefs, like a grand good being and grand evil being, are not universal, but when they do occur it is as an outgrowth of animism.
And it all boils down to the fact that we're wired to assume that other things have minds because we humans have minds. We make the gods in our own image.
Thank you. This is exactly the type of answer I was looking for.
As for why I posted this towards Atheists... It was because most believers I asked said it was evidence that god exists. I wanted to see what non- believes would say.
More universal than any concept of God or gods, it seems, is the notion of a judgment after death.
I really don't think so. Judaism doesn't seem to have had it when most of the Old Testament was being written down (and Ecclesiastes explicitly denies it). It is nowhere to be found in the Homeric epics. Some forms of Buddhism are fuzzy on the matter. And as you've seen on this very board, even some Christians reject the idea of Hell. And these are just the big literate religions I'm familiar with. If you dig into the anthropological data on the countless preliterate societies, I doubt you'll find any more uniformity in beliefs about death and the afterlife.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
More universal than any concept of God or gods, it seems, is the notion of a judgment after death.
I really don't think so. Judaism doesn't seem to have had it when most of the Old Testament was being written down (and Ecclesiastes explicitly denies it). It is nowhere to be found in the Homeric epics. Some forms of Buddhism are fuzzy on the matter. And as you've seen on this very board, even some Christians reject the idea of Hell. And these are just the big literate religions I'm familiar with. If you dig into the anthropological data on the countless preliterate societies, I doubt you'll find any more uniformity in beliefs about death and the afterlife.
Point taken. TBH, despite my reference to Anubis, I was thinking more in terms of religions that have survived down to contemporary times. Modern Judaism generally does speak of heaven and (temporary) hell. Mahayana Buddhism (the most popular strand) has a well developed mythology of narakas, or hells. I do believe that notions of afterlife judgment certainly help confer longevity to religions, and that this helps account for some of the common threads we see between religions that continue to be practiced in the present day.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
As stated before, I think you are understating the differences in supernatural beliefs of different cultures.
As for the similarities, humans are a common factor in all of these cultures, regardless of whether they have had contact with one another. Humans are similar to one another, and I wouldn't expect humans to come up with vastly different ideas. They are all working with the same ape brain and the same Earth.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
Humanity is a social animal. Most of our lives are spent interacting with other human beings in very complex ways. Now, as you may have noticed if you've ever tried carrying on a meaningful conversation with your laptop, this is not a trivial task even for powerful computing devices. Our brains can manage the feat because they are heavily specialized for social interaction. Just as a falcon's brain is specialized to solve high-speed aerial trajectory problems, a human brain is specialized to solve social problems: figuring out what other humans are thinking in order to anticipate how they will behave and react. This ability is called theory of mind.
Other species may have theory of mind as well, but almost certainly none approaches human-level strength. Our theory of mind is so strong, in fact, that we instinctively use it even when interacting with things that don't have minds, in a process called anthropomorphism. We think about inanimate objects as if they had thoughts and motives like humans do. And we do this even when, intellectually, we know better. We all know that our cars are mindless - but when somebody's car fails to start, they may shout at it as if it could feel fear, plead with it as if it could feel mercy, or even hit it as if it could feel pain, before getting a hold of themselves and pursuing a solution to the problem through mechanical rather than psychological means. The first response, the default setting, is to assume that the problem is psychological; other forms of problem-solving come later.
Now imagine a society that doesn't know better. A society that doesn't have mechanistic explanations for the phenomena going on around them - that doesn't know that storms are caused by the sun pumping thermal energy into the atmosphere in an uneven pattern that is corrected by air movements. Their first response is going to be to anthropomorphize natural phenomena, and that will remain their only response until they start to learn more about science. They're going to think that the storm has a mind: that if it brings life-giving rain it's for a psychological reason and if brings destructive winds and torrents it's for another psychological reason. They're going to try to communicate with the storm and keep it friendly to them, because that's how they interact successfully with other humans. This basic belief, that natural phenomena have minds, is called animism, and it is the prototypical form of religion. More abstract beliefs, like a grand good being and grand evil being, are not universal, but when they do occur it is as an outgrowth of animism.
And it all boils down to the fact that we're wired to assume that other things have minds because we humans have minds. We make the gods in our own image.
This.
Like Tiax said, we all ask those same questions. What happens when we die? Why are we here? What is good, evil? Who is looking out for me? What is up with the suffering?
For ages we have answered those questions with a wide assortment of God's of the Gaps.
We still do more often than not.
A small minority of people, probably way back 10,000 years, all the way to today are too skeptical to buy the product. We (I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic) just don't "get it". We either see through the snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. Or, we just lack that "personal revelation" that would make us a believer. Or maybe we simply lack the personality to blindly believe in any ideology.
Whatever the case.
It is possible that god(s) exist, and though "a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" - a lack of evidence is enough for reasonable disbelief.
This doesn't stop people who WANT something to believe in, from believing in whatever makes them feel best, or feel special, or feel whatever feeling they are starving for in their lives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
As others have mentioned, humanity are fundamentally the same people. While we have our obvious cultural differences, we do wonder and worry about similar things.
There are two absolute fundamentals in just about every established religion and/or world-view-
1) What happens at death?
2) Why/how does X occur?
Gods, and religion, provide a concrete explanation for the two above questions.
We want answers, and we want a stable, absolute world-view in which everything is explainable. There is no going around this.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
They are all created by the same process. Its like asking "why do all cultures have superstitions?".
In my opinion, the simplest answer might be that people believe in gods because they like to have an explanation for things. Even if that explanation is wrong and/or unjustified, its still feels better than saying that you don't know (for most people anyway).
When I was religious I embraced the lies that made me feel better. For example, I didn't want to admit that I had no idea what happens to me after I die. So when someone tells you that there is a beautiful paradise waiting for you after death and all you have to do is fill the collection plate and believe in magic people that walk on water and come back from the dead, that can be pretty enticing.
When I matured I became more honest with myself and am liberated by the fact that I no longer have to believe in absurdities in order to make it through the day.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
Its neither unique or complex. The superstitious nature of human beings is an evolutionary development with the idea of false positives being more benificial than false negatives.
Also its possible that the concept goes as far back as when we had less than 5 thousand humans living in a few scant tribes. The ideas could have very well developed from there. To say that several tribes have never had contact with each other is demonstrably wrong. They all can be traced back to African roots. At any given point in time or another all humans have a common ancestor within the human line.
For example every man can trace is Y chromosome or "father's father's fathers' father's ect ect ect" back to a single man who lived as early as 60k years ago. The X chromosome or mitochondrial eve is thought to have lived about 140k years ago.
In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
I'd say this is extremely debatable. A lot of our information about foreign regions is filtered through Christian mysticism either explicitly (Beowulf) or implicitly (Greek mythology). Even when the information doesn't arrive in a distorted form we tend to for fit it into what we're already familiar with. If you think in Christian terms you will see everything that way. If you think in Shinto terms you will see everything that way.
Christianity and Shinto are particularly interesting because of how syncretic they've been. Modern Shinto is literally just a combination of every spiritual or religious thing the Japanese have thought was neat, which was then reinterpreted in their own terms. There are large influences from Buddhism (philosophy, style of temples), native animistic beliefs (spirits, kami), and even Christianity (weddings, shinigami).
It is very easy to obscure enormous difference between beliefs but they're there.
Christians see God as an abstract being of limitless power.
Ancient Greeks saw the gods as physical beings of significant but limited power who had to obey certain cosmic laws.
Buddhists don't always believe in gods but they do believe in abstract concepts.
Shinto does not draw a line between the spirit world and the physical world.
As FoxBlade pointed out, the important thing to note, and note in a most emphatic manner, is that they are not by any means the same beliefs in the same gods. Attempts to lump religions together do not work because even religions that believe in the same deity/deities often have very different frameworks, perspectives, etc.
Human groups have run the gamut of monotheistic to polytheistic to atheistic (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/04/17/missionary-deconverted-by-amazon-tribe/), so I'm really not sure there's really anything fundamental here, except the temptation to personify our surroundings. The apes that saw agency (intent; intelligence) in the rustling of bushes tended to survive better than the apes that didn't.
Applying agency even works for dumber animals; apparently pigeons can grow "superstitions" in the lab; trying to repeat whatever they were doing when food was dropped in, they would develop "rain dances" or rather "food dances"; spinning in a circle, pecking in a certain corner, etc., in order to please the food gods.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
Why does every culture in the world think only certain intervals of music sound good? Because all human only have the capabilities of humans, are there music gods? Or is it simply that and certain things biologically sound pleasant to humans and certain musical patterns are easy to recognize? Other places around the world have religions because people are naturally inclined to try and rationalize the unknown as well as probably stuff to do with feeling safe and having hope.
People need an explanation for the unknown, that and they are narcissistic. For example the greeks thought the only way the sun could rise and set was if a man rode a flaming chariot across the sky everyday. There were an unlimited number of possible rationales but they settled on the one involving a man because they thought something so important must be controlled by a humanoid. In the Bible it says god created man in his image but if you look at all the different religions you will find it's actually the other way around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
People need an explanation for the unknown, that and they are narcissistic. For example the greeks thought the only way the sun could rise and set was if a man rode a flaming chariot across the sky everyday. There were an unlimited number of possible rationales but they settled on the one involving a man because they thought something so important must be controlled by a humanoid. In the Bible it says god created man in his image but if you look at all the different religions you will find it's actually the other way around.
What about all the religions that have to do with animals and rocks, like for instance Native American religions and Shintoism?
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
The simple answer is that it is a fantastic way to gain power and control over people. You simply invent a God/Panethon and use it to extort power, control, and instill your own version of morality into a group of people. "You shouldn't do this, God wouldn't like it! The poor people may be downtrodden, but you're rewarded when you die, trust me on this. It's ok to go to war with those people, they have a false god and ours is the real one. God spoke to me, he wrote this through me, you shouldn't do this or bad bad stuff will happen. Be nice and obey me or else... We must do this ritual and build this in their honor, donate some gold please." Look at the power base for thousands of years and religion is always right up there in the mix of things.
There is no reason this should be limited to atheists. I'm going to edit the title to include everyone, I want to here some theists discuss this question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But why does the idea of an omnipotent being exist in the first place even if from there dramatic changes are present? How did the primitive tribes come up with such a complex concept?
First you are wrong. Countless cultures do not have the same concept of gods, spirits, and afterlife.
Zeus isn't the same concept as the Abrahamic god, Krishna isn't the same concept as Raijin, and Zeus and Raijin, while both are gods of thunder/lightning are not same concept.
Even the concept of the after life is different from culture to culture with varying degrees. For example, Valhala isn't the same concept as Heaven or hell.
Try giving a universal definition of what qualities a god has that everyone can agree on. You'll find that quite difficult, because the term is ambiguous.
Secondly, just because all of these cultures believe in supernatural things doesn't mean they are true. The other thing all of these concepts have in common is a severe lack of evidence.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
EDIT: If you want me to be more specific, why does the concept of a great evil one exist in so many cultures? Even if the names are changed, the idea of a devil and hell are pretty commonplace across religions, even Buddhism.
I would say the reason is that all cultures generally face the same difficult questions: Why are we here? What happens after we die? Why should I be good instead of evil? etc. etc.
When faced with the same questions, they come up with loosely similar answers. This shouldn't really be a surprise.
I bet that if you look at ancient works of fiction from different parts of the globe (where such records exist, at least), you'll find similar narrative elements shared across cultures as well.
Humanity is a social animal. Most of our lives are spent interacting with other human beings in very complex ways. Now, as you may have noticed if you've ever tried carrying on a meaningful conversation with your laptop, this is not a trivial task even for powerful computing devices. Our brains can manage the feat because they are heavily specialized for social interaction. Just as a falcon's brain is specialized to solve high-speed aerial trajectory problems, a human brain is specialized to solve social problems: figuring out what other humans are thinking in order to anticipate how they will behave and react. This ability is called theory of mind.
Other species may have theory of mind as well, but almost certainly none approaches human-level strength. Our theory of mind is so strong, in fact, that we instinctively use it even when interacting with things that don't have minds, in a process called anthropomorphism. We think about inanimate objects as if they had thoughts and motives like humans do. And we do this even when, intellectually, we know better. We all know that our cars are mindless - but when somebody's car fails to start, they may shout at it as if it could feel fear, plead with it as if it could feel mercy, or even hit it as if it could feel pain, before getting a hold of themselves and pursuing a solution to the problem through mechanical rather than psychological means. The first response, the default setting, is to assume that the problem is psychological; other forms of problem-solving come later.
Now imagine a society that doesn't know better. A society that doesn't have mechanistic explanations for the phenomena going on around them - that doesn't know that storms are caused by the sun pumping thermal energy into the atmosphere in an uneven pattern that is corrected by air movements. Their first response is going to be to anthropomorphize natural phenomena, and that will remain their only response until they start to learn more about science. They're going to think that the storm has a mind: that if it brings life-giving rain it's for a psychological reason and if brings destructive winds and torrents it's for another psychological reason. They're going to try to communicate with the storm and keep it friendly to them, because that's how they interact successfully with other humans. This basic belief, that natural phenomena have minds, is called animism, and it is the prototypical form of religion. More abstract beliefs, like a grand good being and grand evil being, are not universal, but when they do occur it is as an outgrowth of animism.
And it all boils down to the fact that we're wired to assume that other things have minds because we humans have minds. We make the gods in our own image.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Thank you. This is exactly the type of answer I was looking for.
As for why I posted this towards Atheists... It was because most believers I asked said it was evidence that god exists. I wanted to see what non- believes would say.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Point taken. TBH, despite my reference to Anubis, I was thinking more in terms of religions that have survived down to contemporary times. Modern Judaism generally does speak of heaven and (temporary) hell. Mahayana Buddhism (the most popular strand) has a well developed mythology of narakas, or hells. I do believe that notions of afterlife judgment certainly help confer longevity to religions, and that this helps account for some of the common threads we see between religions that continue to be practiced in the present day.
As for the similarities, humans are a common factor in all of these cultures, regardless of whether they have had contact with one another. Humans are similar to one another, and I wouldn't expect humans to come up with vastly different ideas. They are all working with the same ape brain and the same Earth.
This.
Like Tiax said, we all ask those same questions. What happens when we die? Why are we here? What is good, evil? Who is looking out for me? What is up with the suffering?
For ages we have answered those questions with a wide assortment of God's of the Gaps.
We still do more often than not.
A small minority of people, probably way back 10,000 years, all the way to today are too skeptical to buy the product. We (I'm a bitter anti-theist agnostic) just don't "get it". We either see through the snake oil salesmen peddling their wares. Or, we just lack that "personal revelation" that would make us a believer. Or maybe we simply lack the personality to blindly believe in any ideology.
Whatever the case.
It is possible that god(s) exist, and though "a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" - a lack of evidence is enough for reasonable disbelief.
This doesn't stop people who WANT something to believe in, from believing in whatever makes them feel best, or feel special, or feel whatever feeling they are starving for in their lives.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There are two absolute fundamentals in just about every established religion and/or world-view-
1) What happens at death?
2) Why/how does X occur?
Gods, and religion, provide a concrete explanation for the two above questions.
We want answers, and we want a stable, absolute world-view in which everything is explainable. There is no going around this.
They are all created by the same process. Its like asking "why do all cultures have superstitions?".
When I was religious I embraced the lies that made me feel better. For example, I didn't want to admit that I had no idea what happens to me after I die. So when someone tells you that there is a beautiful paradise waiting for you after death and all you have to do is fill the collection plate and believe in magic people that walk on water and come back from the dead, that can be pretty enticing.
When I matured I became more honest with myself and am liberated by the fact that I no longer have to believe in absurdities in order to make it through the day.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Its neither unique or complex. The superstitious nature of human beings is an evolutionary development with the idea of false positives being more benificial than false negatives.
Also its possible that the concept goes as far back as when we had less than 5 thousand humans living in a few scant tribes. The ideas could have very well developed from there. To say that several tribes have never had contact with each other is demonstrably wrong. They all can be traced back to African roots. At any given point in time or another all humans have a common ancestor within the human line.
For example every man can trace is Y chromosome or "father's father's fathers' father's ect ect ect" back to a single man who lived as early as 60k years ago. The X chromosome or mitochondrial eve is thought to have lived about 140k years ago.
I'd say this is extremely debatable. A lot of our information about foreign regions is filtered through Christian mysticism either explicitly (Beowulf) or implicitly (Greek mythology). Even when the information doesn't arrive in a distorted form we tend to for fit it into what we're already familiar with. If you think in Christian terms you will see everything that way. If you think in Shinto terms you will see everything that way.
Christianity and Shinto are particularly interesting because of how syncretic they've been. Modern Shinto is literally just a combination of every spiritual or religious thing the Japanese have thought was neat, which was then reinterpreted in their own terms. There are large influences from Buddhism (philosophy, style of temples), native animistic beliefs (spirits, kami), and even Christianity (weddings, shinigami).
It is very easy to obscure enormous difference between beliefs but they're there.
Christians see God as an abstract being of limitless power.
Ancient Greeks saw the gods as physical beings of significant but limited power who had to obey certain cosmic laws.
Buddhists don't always believe in gods but they do believe in abstract concepts.
Shinto does not draw a line between the spirit world and the physical world.
Applying agency even works for dumber animals; apparently pigeons can grow "superstitions" in the lab; trying to repeat whatever they were doing when food was dropped in, they would develop "rain dances" or rather "food dances"; spinning in a circle, pecking in a certain corner, etc., in order to please the food gods.
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
Why does every culture in the world think only certain intervals of music sound good? Because all human only have the capabilities of humans, are there music gods? Or is it simply that and certain things biologically sound pleasant to humans and certain musical patterns are easy to recognize? Other places around the world have religions because people are naturally inclined to try and rationalize the unknown as well as probably stuff to do with feeling safe and having hope.
What about all the religions that have to do with animals and rocks, like for instance Native American religions and Shintoism?
The simple answer is that it is a fantastic way to gain power and control over people. You simply invent a God/Panethon and use it to extort power, control, and instill your own version of morality into a group of people. "You shouldn't do this, God wouldn't like it! The poor people may be downtrodden, but you're rewarded when you die, trust me on this. It's ok to go to war with those people, they have a false god and ours is the real one. God spoke to me, he wrote this through me, you shouldn't do this or bad bad stuff will happen. Be nice and obey me or else... We must do this ritual and build this in their honor, donate some gold please." Look at the power base for thousands of years and religion is always right up there in the mix of things.
EDH Decks
RGMarhault Elsdragon (A Touch of Rampage)RG
GWTrostani, Early Bird (Wurm Tribal)GW
RWAgrus Kos, Bumbat Drinkin' BadassRW
RDiaochan, Hateful BeautyR
There is no reason this should be limited to atheists. I'm going to edit the title to include everyone, I want to here some theists discuss this question.