NEWS: The Evolution of Religion

We only see people created from other human beings.
This is, technically, the only schematic we have for understanding creation.

If all we truly know of “god” is the word of “god” Then what is the word as there is nothing if you don’t have a word for “it” to translate the word god in all languages means the “creator” or simply “creation” so if all we know of god is creation then to get closer to god or understand gods thought one must create! (Which I’ll bet has something to do with our innate desire to procreate as well) We must then look at what is created… us, the world, everything and what is everything made of atoms and what holds atoms together, how are they created how do they make up structures of thought and mater… well it’s a neurons and electrons bouncing off each other around a nucleus… held together by electromagnetism an infinite amount of power or electricity and what am I but just a mass of flesh and tissue with a small eclectic pulse firing in my brain the releases different chemicals to make me think and feel thus acting a certain way, (thought feeling behavior cycle out further down the spiral) . So I guess “god” is in all of us… in everything. If you look at Nero-electrical activity in the brain I’ll bet the highest amount is generated when a person is in the midst of creating, painting, music, design, even sports… So to know gods thoughts, to be closer to god… to be happy one must create! An atom, very similar to our solar system (*1) only sped up a trillion time a second… Every choice, every alternate reality all happening in a blade of grass every thing that can happen will happen all at this moment in space and time. It’s only our experience that makes this, it’s only our observation that makes this our reality on a quantum level the observer makes his or her own reality(*2) however the reality of it is Schrödinger's cat is still dead.

*1 (http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/solaratoms.htm)
*2(http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/void.html)

Generally in science, the theory that can accurately explain reality with the minimum amount of assumptions prevails. The fact of the matter is if we can explain religion as a physical process of the brain, that came about through the evolutionary process there is no need to invoke a soul, because that’s simply another assumption that has no evidence to back it. Therefore the question you should be asking is if every function traditionally given to the soul is actually a physical process of the brain, then what reason do we have to believe we have a soul at all? The answer should naturally be none at all besides our desire to have one and if you have no soul, no ego, no sense of self to hold onto then what just sit down and shut up?

I found over-all the article a great read, and somewhat enlightening (I have already self-studied a lot of this stuff, but still it was explained pretty well).

But my problem is often with these "Why is religion here" eventually come upon a statement like above. That to understand our world, we decided to imagine a "Creator," and thus God was born. While it is a logical assumption, I feel that it is still just an assumption, and one that my personal experiences and studies have shown different.

I believe we "Felt God" first, and then through reason and our attempt to understand the world used these figures to try to explain our world AFTER. Just a little evidence without getting into my experiences: Many of the initials Gods were formless, just an emotion to be felt. Brahma from Hinduism lacks any form, as does "God" in Judaism, so did original figures like Tiamat (the ocean) and Gaia (the earth), and the force in Buddhism doesn't even have a name. These originals "Higher powers" were without form, they were just the all connecting life-force, the soul of the world if you will, and they didn't really have much of anything beyond just being. The "God is" statement. Its not until later that we gave them form, such as Yggdrasil, the life tree, Tiamat became a sea monster, Gaia was given human form (and married to Kronos), and "God" became a big white guy with a huge beard.

Looking at the pantheon religions, we go from something simple, something singular, which just exists, and we're part of it (Gaia, Yggdrasil, Brahma), to quickly becoming huge pantheons where each God has a power over something specific (I think this also ties into ancestor worship). Again, I feel that this shows a logical possibility that we initially had an idea, or an emotion (considering they were originally simply described as "life" or "love", and we tried to reason out what we felt to be, and thus made these things Deities that ruled over specific things of nature.

The evolution of how we perceive deities I feel shows that its a possibility that its our reasoning that twisted the feelings of spirituality, and not that spirituality twisted our reasoning.

Of course, for today's world, its undebatable that it is Religion that is twisting reason, making people even argue the obviousness of evolution (although, part of that blame goes to those who would antagonize religion. Antagonizing a person doesn't make them want to learn more, it makes them hold onto their beliefs harder). Still, I feel the assumption that God was just created initially is an unproven assumption, and needs to be taken as that.

I also had a hang up about this setup. If religion is where morals come from, than the statement that religion twisted morals is just paradoxical to me. Not really sure how to express it other than confusion. I feel that statement is saying we created Religion so we could justify wrong doings, but the reason we understand what is right and wrong would be from religion?
Did I miss something explaining where morals originally came from in there? It does talk about tribes fighting each other as a natural part of what we are, but not a reason why we decided killing other tribes were bad.

I grew up Roman Catholic and even at a young age was confused by my faith. I couldn't believe that all these events that took place so long ago were both well documented and so fantastic yet not fictitious. As I grew up this doubt grew, but I still respected my family for their belief. God can be very helpful in troubled times, but sometimes belief can overstep it's boundaries. Mainly in your respect of other people and their freedom in life. My main problem with religions is that they often tell other people how to live, which I'm not okay with. Something is wrong, something is right, we are objective, you are subjective. It's all just....so frustrating.
But I think there is something of value to be gained out of religion. Even now, I regard a lot of the laws and rules of religion. Love and respect thy neighbor, which is often ignored by hypocritical hyper-conservatives. Treat those as you want to be treated. I mean, these are all great values that should be carried by all people. Many of the idols of religion (Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc.) are great role models for all people. The way they lived their lives, even if they are fictitious is breathtaking and I wish I was that good of a person, that forgiving, that loving. But because I think you have a good person in your religion doesn't mean that I agree with all of your ideals, or even some of them.
Please, people, you are all intelligent, self-thinking adults. Don't let other people tell you what to think or do. If you want to be religious, more power too you. If you don't, that's fine too. Just don't be a dickbag and love your fellow man. That's all I ask.

Religions have been one source of a moral code. They're not the only one, they certainly didn't originate morals, and they confuse a lot of other random bullshit with moral imperatives.

Exellent article, full of interesting ideas. I've never quite understood the thought process of religious belief. I'm a long way from simply accepting all of the arguments presented here, but it does at least provide some plausible reasons for why people might believe. I've never understood it and it's bugged me for a long time. This gives food for thought.