Religion brought civilization
Gobekli Tape proves it.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ … /mann-text
And once again, we see that you have failed at one or both of these:
1. Read the article
2. Comprehended the article
"What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself."
The article doesn't prove anything. It shows that some of the worlds archaeologists are still researching the beginning of civilization.
"The Birth of Religion
We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization."
The article does hint clearly that farming and civilization started 12000 years ago with religion; it did not start with atheism .
The same argument could probably be made for the fermenting of alcohol.
No argument there: alcohol = civilization.
Even God knew this - there was a Eleventh Commandment that was accidently broken:
Though shalt all consume alcohol
Why do you think Jesus turned water into wine?
OK so there goes my chance of getting into heaven!!!!
Yet the atheists won't accept it; once they have decided psychologically to doubt everything, they cannot come out of this wrong state. Their thinking is neither natural nor reasonable.
Thanks for your appreciation.
"Wrong state". Yet it behooves us to doubt everything we hear - the vast majority of "information" we receive is not factual.
Far better to doubt and look for truth than to simply believe everything we hear because it fits with what we want to be true. It is a concept you would be well advised to understand better.
One should doubt only where it is reasonable to doubt; not otherwise; then it will become a psychological disease.
Science does not support your viewpoint; it supports only where it is reasonable to doubt.
Wrong again, Paar. You have immersed yourself so thoroughly in the world of theology that you haven't the faintest idea of how science works or what it does.
Science always doubts; only after thousands or tens of thousands of tests is something beyond doubt, and even then only in those particular circumstances of the tests.
Theology on the other hand will declare there is no reasonable doubt after deciding something is true; tests aren't necessary, only rationalization that leads to the predetermined conclusion. There is thus always serious doubt by scientific methodology but theology doesn't recognize that methodology so the truth stands.
You truly need to try, and try hard, to understand this concept. Science doesn't accept theological methodology as useful any more than theology accepts science methodology as required. You continue to use religious methods of finding truth and expect science to agree, but it doesn't work that way.
Let me clarify. The article doesn't support your OP. It doesn't mean it wasn't fascinating though. Did you notice they haven't excavated anymore than a portion of one tenth of the site? And that there could be monuments even deeper, going further back in history?
Amazing discoveries could still be ahead.
Really? Or, is it such that you never read the article or you didn't comprehend it and now you're trying to back peddle because the article does not support your silly claims?
Funny how the more you post, the more we can see what your religion has actually taught you.
This morning the sun rose to the sound of geese honking. So clearly geese cause the sun to rise.
Just so. Religion may well have risen alongside civilization; as more and more people live in close contact it is inevitable that someone will invent and use religion to control the others. Also, any new thought about understanding the world around us (there is a god throwing lightning bolts and causing thunder) spreads quickly with lots of people around.
There is, however, no indication that religion caused the rise of civilization. It is convenient to think so as it gives a usefulness to religion that isn't there, and you will find lots of people that will believe it because, just like your geese, the time element works.
On the whole, though, religion retards the progression of civilization. Religion almost always denies new knowledge and will always try to maintain the status quo as that's what keeps it in power - this is not bringing civilization.
I believe you are right, wilderness. Ancient Greece was civilized beyond belief well before the advent of organized religion. They dressed elegantly in draped garments designating their status in the community, women wore 'gym' clothes to participate in spartan athletic games of skill, and men debated world views and allowed the opinions of women equal weight.
I don't agree with you.
Socrates, a cream of them, himself was a messenger prophet of the Creator God.
"Taqiyya, meaning religious dissimulation, is a practice emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion. This means a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are under those risks."
Someone is certainly taking advantage of this immoral and unethical Islamic teaching.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; and the posters here know very well that I don't conceal that.
paars - do you really think so? Socrates was an existentialist, believing we should think for ourselves, examine every bit of authority and worldview. He believed in perfecting ones soul but is never said to have been a devotee of one god. That doesn't mean he discounted the existence of god as a collective consciousness.
You may be correct in that sense. As a messenger, or person who lived at a higher level of awareness, he was trying to tell us that we should examine our own thinking, purpose, and awareness and not be cattled by conventional thinking.
To return to the topic of the thread "Religion brought civilization" I quote from the article about "Göbekli Tepe":
“ Most of the world's great religious centers, past and present, have been destinations for pilgrimages—think of the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya (where Buddha was enlightened), or Cahokia (the enormous Native American complex near St. Louis). They are monuments for spiritual travelers, who often came great distances, to gawk at and be stirred by. Göbekli Tepe may be the first of all of them, the beginning of a pattern. What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ … /mann-text
by glendoncaba6 years ago
Atheists are looking for evidence to attack the story of Jesus and have been all over the internet saying that Christians stole the myth of Horus.Here is a good article which debunks the lie. Read it and...
by J.R. Smith6 years ago
Why are the aethists so interested in religion?
by pisean2823112 years ago
What do you guys think on this?
by paarsurrey2 months ago
As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion and or philosophy. Right? PleaseRegards
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.