GODS: The Fabrication of a Theistic Mind

Alif Balaam Yashin

SINISTERIST
Messages
46
Reaction score
14
Points
8
The origins of religious thought trace back tens of thousands of years, evolving alongside human cognition and culture. Early humans developed spiritual beliefs that reflected their relationship with nature, survival, and the unseen forces shaping their world. The earliest depictions of spiritual figures and deities provide a glimpse into the foundations of religious thought.

One of the most compelling examples of early spiritual symbolism is The Lord of Beasts, sometimes referred to as the Master of Animals or the Horned God. Found in cave paintings, such as the famous Sorcerer from Les Trois-Frères cave in France, this figure is a fusion of human and animal traits. The depiction suggests an early understanding of interconnectedness between humans and the animal world, possibly reflecting animistic beliefs—the idea that animals, plants, and natural phenomena possess spirits or personified forces.

These mythogramic caves, adorned with sacred art, serve as evidence of early religious expression. The merging of human and animal forms in these depictions implies that early spirituality revolved around mediators—beings that bridged the gap between humans and the natural world. These proto-deities were likely associated with survival, fertility, and the hunt, indicating a reverence for the forces that sustained life.

The cognitive shift towards abstract thinking and spiritual belief can be traced back even further, to approximately 35,000 years ago. This period marked the emergence of more complex cultural and symbolic behaviors, including the creation of tools, art, and ritual practices. The famous Venus figurines, such as the Venus of Willendorf, date to this era and are often interpreted as fertility symbols or early representations of mother goddesses. Though not gods in the modern sense, these figures suggest a growing awareness of unseen forces governing fertility, life, and the natural world.

Shamanistic practices likely played a central role in these early belief systems. Shamans, acting as intermediaries between the human and spirit realms, guided rituals and connected their communities to ancestral forces and nature spirits. Over time, these spiritual forces may have evolved into more defined deities with distinct roles and personalities.

By 18,000 BCE, when The Lord of Beasts was depicted, early humans had begun to ritualize their relationship with the spiritual world. This period marked a transition from animistic beliefs—where spirits inhabited all things—to the development of anthropomorphic deities with specific domains and powers.

As human societies became more complex, so too did their spiritual frameworks. The gradual personification of nature’s forces led to the structured pantheons that would later emerge in civilizations around the world. The roots of god-worship, as seen in the earliest depictions of divine figures, reflect humanity’s evolving quest to understand and interact with the mysteries of existence.
 
As human societies became more complex, so too did their spiritual frameworks.
Regarding outward forms and observances, for sure, but I would have thought the essence, or essential nature of the belief, remains quite simple? It all seems an 'I and Thou' dialogue from the beginning?

The roots of god-worship, as seen in the earliest depictions of divine figures, reflect humanity’s evolving quest to understand and interact with the mysteries of existence.
Indeed.

I suppose the point I would ask is having traced differences, over time, how you see the constants?

I assume this is the first part of a longer offering, as this offers no evidence with regard to the title of the thread?

Looking forward to it ...
 
Regarding outward forms and observances, for sure, but I would have thought the essence, or essential nature of the belief, remains quite simple? It all seems an 'I and Thou' dialogue from the beginning?
As human societies became more complex, so too did their spiritual frameworks, evolving from simple animistic beliefs to intricate systems of gods, rituals, and moral codes. Early tribal communities likely centered their spirituality around immediate survival needs—worshiping natural forces such as the sun, rain, and animals. As agriculture took root and civilizations emerged, religious structures adapted to reflect the growing sophistication of human societies.

With the rise of settled communities, hierarchies developed, and religious thought became more institutionalized. The shaman, once a communal figure, gave way to an organized priesthood, often acting as intermediaries between humanity and the divine. Deities took on specialized roles—gods of war, fertility, wisdom, and death—mirroring the diversification of labor and governance within society.

Religious narratives grew increasingly complex, shifting from oral traditions to written scriptures that codified myths, ethical laws, and cosmologies. These texts not only preserved spiritual beliefs but also reinforced societal structures, legitimizing kings and rulers as divine representatives or chosen intermediaries.

As empires expanded and cultures intermingled, spiritual traditions blended, leading to syncretic religions that absorbed foreign gods, rites, and philosophies. Over time, theological debates and philosophical inquiries refined these belief systems, giving birth to doctrinal schisms, mystical traditions, and esoteric paths that sought deeper understanding beyond orthodox structures.

Ultimately, the complexity of spiritual frameworks reflected the evolving needs of civilization, shaping and being shaped by politics, culture, and human understanding of existence.
Indeed.

I suppose the point I would ask is having traced differences, over time, how you see the constants?

I assume this is the first part of a longer offering, as this offers no evidence with regard to the title of the thread?

Looking forward to it ...
Proto-man was just one of many animal species locked in the struggle for survival over millennia. While his brain evolved through natural selection, the question arises: why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve, even to a lesser extent?

The reality is stark: while man's brain has evolved considerably, those of other creatures have remained largely unchanged. By the law of averages, some species should have evolved intelligence approaching humanity's level, but none have.

So, what accounts for this disparity?
The answer points to a deliberate cause.

For proto-man, natural selection favored physical traits—strength, toughness, speed—over brain development. By this logic, we should resemble gorillas. Yet, our intelligence has paradoxically made us physically weaker but mentally stronger. Through intelligence, we've developed medicines, controlled environments, and weapons—tools that enhance survival.

Again, the question persists: what caused this shift?

Remove our extraordinary intelligence, and humanity would struggle to survive. Our intelligence seems to defy natural laws.

"We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause."

This suggests an isolated intelligence influencing our physical selves—something distinct from the objective universe and its laws. This psyche or soul isn't merely a product of the brain's functions; it imbues us with identity, uniqueness, and a sense of separation from the world.

We each perceive something within ourselves that defies explanation by physical laws alone. We resist being reduced to electrochemical equations; we sense a deeper essence, essential to our being.

Human intelligence, as a violation of objective universal law, suggests the existence of an intelligent entity beyond the physical universe. It allows us an external perspective and the creativity to act deliberately.

This greater self, or GodSelf, often misunderstood throughout history, allows us to tap into extraordinary potential repeatedly throughout life.

Human consciousness doesn't evolve passively like nature; it evolves consciously, driven by its own processes. To follow the unconscious path of nature—mindless and mechanistic—would halt our individual evolution. Nature inclines us towards lethargy and stagnation, but our self-aware consciousness empowers us to choose against this.

We can defy nature's course.
 
We each perceive something within ourselves that defies explanation by physical laws alone. We resist being reduced to electrochemical equations; we sense a deeper essence, essential to our being.

We can defy nature's course.
No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?
How long can we defy nature's course? Can we stop melting of ice? Can we stop the rise of sea-level? Can we stop breaking of continents?
 
Last edited:
No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?
How long can we defy nature's course? Can we stop melting of ice? Can we stop the rise of sea-level? Can we stop breaking of continents?
Why would your reply "hurt" my ego?
Human consciousness doesn't evolve passively like nature; it evolves consciously, driven by its own processes. To follow the unconscious path of nature—mindless and mechanistic—would halt our individual evolution. Nature inclines us towards lethargy and stagnation, but our self-aware consciousness empowers us to choose against this.

The way of Nature makes us fat and lethargic, clogs our arteries and persistently works to stop our metabolism. The way of Nature instils a tendency in us to cease examining one's self and to outwardly project all of one's unconscious internal demons (the Jungian Shadow Self).

We can defy nature's course

We are not at the mercy of Nature's wrath, we can stand apart from this unconscious, mechanism and go against its flow, create and reinvent ourselves. The Way of Nature is the way of least resistance, which may appeal to the herd mentality however, consciousness is born and evolved through the path of difficulty and challenge, through Adversity (ha-satan). It will only develop and be made more conscious through conscious effort. Nature cannot do this for us, it can only make us more unconscious
 
Last edited:
That sounds like Malevolent .. one's unconscious internal demons (the Jungian Shadow Self).

We can defy nature's course.
That makes no sense. There is no malevolence in what I wrote. The question is that if we are not an 'electro-chemical equation', then what are we?
Secondly you have not indicated as to how will you defy the course of nature. How would you step melting of the snow, rise in sea level or breaking up of continents?
 
Secondly you have not indicated as to how will you defy the course of nature. How would you step melting of the snow, rise in sea level or breaking up of continents?
Just from context my assumption would be that this is saying that people, due to having some willpower, can take action to do more than just what nature intended for them, and further that that claim would not cover anything broader in the overall planet or cosmos, such as acts of nature that create storms or continental drift, or anything else in the physical world.

(Other than that humans are able to use human inventions that protect us from the elements or the limitations of growing seasons or something -- but our inventions don't change entire physical principles or anything)

That's my interpretation.
 
Does that hurt your ego?
That can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Btw, do you realize you're on the Left Handed Path board? That means by all means join in with discussions about LHP beliefs constructively, but it would not be welcome to challenge them. Save that for general areas, not safe boards, please.
 
That can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Btw, do you realize you're on the Left Handed Path board? That means by all means join in with discussions about LHP beliefs constructively, but it would not be welcome to challenge them. Save that for general areas, not safe boards, please.
A more prominent reminder of the policy differences on general boards vs safe boards would be helpful... I'm not sure what to suggest but I know I forget at times too...
 
Why would a challenge to an idea be malevolent? You are capitalizing the word, does that mean you are using it as a term you are not defining, or the regular meaning of the word "malevolence" ??
Aupmanyav said:
No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?

from the Latin, Malevolence means to wish for bad things . . . I perceive this statement as the desire that my ego was hurt and that is malevolent.
 
Aupmanyav said:
No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?

from the Latin, Malevolence means to wish for bad things . . . I perceive this statement as the desire that my ego was hurt and that is malevolent.
Interesting.
I just looked at it again and that was not my read of it.
No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?
I didn't take it as he WANTED to hurt your ego. I took it as he was WONDERING IF it hurt your ego.
As in that was his hypothesis for your previous reaction that he was replying to?
We each perceive something within ourselves that defies explanation by physical laws alone. We resist being reduced to electrochemical equations; we sense a deeper essence, essential to our being.
We can defy nature's course.
My take on it was, he might, MIGHT have interepreted your response as testy. I did NOT think you were testy at all...
But maybe he did?

And therefore stated and asked:

No, I don't. We are an electrochemical equation, just like any other animal. Does that hurt your ego?

But I will let @Aupmanyav speak for himself. He might not have seen it that way. I may be misinterpreting him. Or you both.
 
Aupmanyav is not trying to hurt anyone's ego (why should one have ego?), it was just a question of how the member felt.
If I have hurt someone, I beg his/her forgiveness. They say (at least, I have heard the Iranian nomads say) that forgiveness is from Allah.
(i.e., what right do we have to accuse or forgive anyone? I am stating my understanding.)

"Say, [O, Muhammad], to those who have believed that they [should] forgive those who expect not the days of Allah .." Surah Al-Jaathiyah ayat 14
 
Last edited:
A more prominent reminder of the policy differences on general boards vs safe boards would be helpful... I'm not sure what to suggest but I know I forget at times too...
Each board that is religion specific is reserved for debate among believers, adherents to that religion....ie under abrhamic, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can discuss their various differences and similarities with decorum....but within each anyone outside can inquire, ask questions etc.

But anywhere, taunts like hurt your ego, or puny Comment....should be reserved for home if that is their nature....we are interfaith.org not inyourface.org

I need reminding often
 
Each board that is religion specific is reserved for debate among believers, adherents to that religion....ie under abrhamic, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can discuss their various differences and similarities with decorum....but within each anyone outside can inquire, ask questions etc.

But anywhere, taunts like hurt your ego, or puny Comment....should be reserved for home if that is their nature....we are interfaith.org not inyourface.org

I need reminding often
Isn't that a convenient loophole to avoid the 'Hard' questions?
 
Isn't that a convenient loophole to avoid the 'Hard' questions?
No.

There are places on the forum for certain questions and conversations that are appropriate for one subforum but not another.

There is also a level of civility that this forum endeavors to foster. It is possible to argue with passion for one's position on an issue, to argue with force against a different position, without resorting to nastiness, condescension, and personal attacks.
 
No.

There are places on the forum for certain questions and conversations that are appropriate for one subforum but not another.

There is also a level of civility that this forum endeavors to foster. It is possible to argue with passion for one's position on an issue, to argue with force against a different position, without resorting to nastiness, condescension, and personal attacks.
I guess so . . . however, this does avoid any HARD QUESTIONS in the Here & Now
Religious adherents are probably NOT going to make the effort to discuss/reply to any difficult questions or comments from another forum

Fair enough
 
I guess so . . . however, this does avoid any HARD QUESTIONS in the Here & Now
Religious adherents are probably NOT going to make the effort to discuss/reply to any difficult questions or comments from another forum

Fair enough
You wanna argue tough questions? There are plenty of forums to play on.

Do ya go into the deli asking for a shirt or haircut?

We are an interfaith discussion board...I know ya get it.
 
Back
Top