In another thread King of Men said that the one thing he would want to do is "Eliminate religion."
KoM, I hope you don't mind if I comment on this, but this is something I've been thinking about alot recently and I want to try to put my thoughts into words.
I don't believe in a God anymore. I think God is a concept made by man to make people feel like there is something more important to live for and that their life isn't useless, etc. I think it's important that people can hold on to that belief because it keeps people happy, and if there is no God, what more is there to life than being happy? I was an observant Jew for a little while a couple years ago when I stayed at a 100% Orthodox Chasidic Jewish home for an entire summer (they're my cousins). Even though I always felt a little uncomfortable there for fear that I'd do or say something that would offend their beliefs, it was such a happy place to be. They were always smiling and always making sure I was happy as well. Their life had so much meaning to them.
I've thoroughly convinced myself that there is no God, it just seems too unlikely to me that there is a higher power, and when I make decisions I always want them to be as rational and logical as possible. But I still think religion is so important for this world because it makes people like my cousins better people. If the entire world followed a religion 100%, I think we'd have a much happier world. Religion forbids crime against people and promotes love and taking care of others (at least most of them). How could you want to eliminate that? I know people often pervert religion into doing things like suicide bombings, but religion at its core is a positive thing, IMO.
Like I said, I just wanted to try putting this into words and seeing what people thought of it and I apologize if this has been discussed a million times already. If there is any flaws in my logic or if anyone has anything to add, please say so. Thanks.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If the entire world followed a religion 100%, I think we'd have a much happier world.
I think this is your hangup. In particular, the "if." The entire world will never follow a religion, set of religions, philosophy, or set of philosophies completely. There will always be people who do bad things and/or are bad people.
I think the trick is not to focus on spreading a specific philosophy but rather educate everyone in multiple schools of thought as best as possible. An educated, informed, and engaged populace is much healthier than an indoctrinated one, regardless of the virtues of the philosophy with which you choose to indoctrinate people.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
I'd say religion right now is necessary, for all the reasons you mentioned above and more. However, I don't think it's too controversial to asert that we are *slowly* moving towards a more secular society, in terms of organized religion. Spirituality, on the other hand, will never go away, and IMO wil always be necessary for humanity. Faith is required for many other things other than religion (like science), and the unknown will always cause humans to believe in things we can't explain or even understand.
I guess that what I'm trying to say is that religion in itself is not necessary, but faith is. And right now eliminating religion would effectively destroy most people's sense of faith, so it won't happen for a long time.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"However, I don't think it's too controversial to asert that we are *slowly* moving towards a more secular society, in terms of organized religion."
Who is we? Because from all world wide indications that is not true. That might be true for the Europe and the West, but its not for a vast majority of world population.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Religion is not necessary. Not at all, IMO. Faith is, as Angio said. One of the most brilliant quotes I've ever heard actually. I too would eliminate religion, but it could never be done. I am in a way atheist, and see no meaning or use of a deity, as the one described by the bible, is a vain, vengful, and hurtful one. The idea of a deity to me, is completely illogical. The only thing that even makes me wonder is... "What created the Big Bang?" That is what I will be pondering for the rest of my life.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I find religion to be frustrating. I wish there was more focus on spirituality and looking out for humanity instead of so many rules that confuse me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Reticulum, consider what would happen if you answered that question. "What created whatever created the Big Bang?" Turtles all the way down, you see?
As for keeping religion because it 'makes people happy', that is a really patronising sort of attitude. What, theists are not smart enough to be happy on their own? It's not as though atheists are particularly discontented with their lives. And really, I think there is a lot more dignity in loving humanity for its own sake, and not because some outside force tells you to. You never know when it might change its mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And, by the way, science does not require faith, ok? Because you can damn well test it. Next time you turn on a light switch, try having faith that there won't be light, and see how much difference it makes.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I think you're confusing faith with hope. Hope is necessary, faith is not. I see it thusly: Faith is the never-dying belief that [insert something meaningful here] will improve. Hope is the logical belief that [same meaningful thing] *could*.
Faith is childish, hope is realist but also reassuring.
edit: this to Angiomorphism [cool usernam btw- change of heart?], not KoM.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe I could start my own personal religion..
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:Maybe I could start my own personal religion..
It's worked for some. Just stay away from the koolaid.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just won't let other people join It will be only for me and I won't tell folks about it.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
KoM: If I may ask, what is the purpose of science? I'll say "the pursuit of knowledge" as a loose definition. Correct me if I'm horribly off. If you are pursuing knowledge, you must acknowledge that there is unknown stuff out there. Obviously. Now, I suppose this depends greatly on the way you define faith, but I have always defined it as "belief in something unseen" or maybe "trust in something unseen". Science believes or trusts that the answers to the questions are out there, al beit in a verifiable, tangible form. But still, I see that as faith. Faith that there is something worth pursuing. And with that definition, religion isn't so far fetched. Religion simply replaces "knowledge" with "God". And I can understand how that may be repulsive to someone like you, who appears to have this insatiable thirst for knowledge, but then, not everyone can be perfect .
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I think this thread should be renamed God-Bashers. Gaal's original thought is getting lost in all this other garbage. I happen to appreciate your comments, Gaal, that while you personally don't need God in your life, you don't knock other people for needing or wanting to believe in a higher power.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Hmmm. I do hope what I said is not considered bashing God, because I happen to have a very strong belief in God. I am a bit leery of religion, though I attend church regularly. The point I was trying to make was that while I put my faith, my hope, my trust in a Supreme Being, others put their faith, their hope, their trust in rationality and knowledge. That's cool. I respect that, though I reserve the right to not agree with it. I think "The Sea Wolf", by Jack London, should be required reading everywhere. It has some wonderfully interesting musings on the immortal soul. If we do not have immortal souls, then religion can be eliminated. Something else can take the place of what we today consider religion, and quite possibly do a better job. But I am of the opinion that we do have immortal souls, and that there is something worth striving for which is not a part of this earth. And that is where religion comes in. If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Here's my bout with Religion.
Disclaimer: Take in mind that all of these things are how I see them, and not how they may be, or how you see them. Don't have to believe this, just respect it.
Completely illogical. It (religion) serves no other purpose then to make others act the way one particular group of people see fit. The Pope is a prime example. The man is good of course, but the office was created soley so that one person could hold power and sway over millions, and be more powerful then Nations. Once again, it only makes people act the way others see fit.
Many use stories from the Bible to try to convince others to join their religions. Some stories, which are claimed to be true, are completely stupid. Noah's ark is also a prime example. How could the populations of all species regenerate from 2? It wouldn't work. You would have stagnation by the third generation. The species would have to use incest to survive. Noah's children would have to mate with each other to save their species. The children would have uneven gene sharings and would develope mental disabilities and almost certaintly by the third generation, would be deformed in one or another.
God: An absolutely illogical invention of mankind. Something that is so farfetched above everything else, that there is no way it could possibly exist. The God portrayed in the Bible, was in no way the God, people try to describe. This God punished and killed those who did not follow him, and even punished those who did, to test their faith. Killing masses, and ordering millions to follow you, or else risking death, is in no way, how a deity should act. Secondly, how did this deity come to exist? Everything has a beginning. The universe, 13.7 Billion years, and one trillionth of a second ago. Man, roughly 200,000. There isn't a way, that something could always have been.
Also, to much emphasis on Heaven and Hell. I don't care. Why would and all forgiving Deity send you to a place of fire and brimstone for not following ten laws? Would this all patient being simply forgive you? Where would it draw the line? Next, other species. Most religions tend to stress that we are alone. This is simply unconcieveable. The Universe is so massiv;e extensive, that there is no way that another form of intelligent life could not exist.
There it is in a nutshell. PLease ignore Grammatical errors, as this was typed quite fast.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't think anybody should discuss *any* view about religion. It's just a waste of time to say anything at all, because it's impossible to convince anyone with blanket statements. If we could stop people from even *having* religious views -- or, for that matter, any views on value, value judgements -- the world would be a much better place.
I really wish I had two hands to type with to respond to you Reticulum, but unfortunately I'm one short, so my response will have to wait. I do have one though, if you'll be so kind as to wait a week or so until I'm able to type more than 3 words a minute and not be in large amounts of pain. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Disclaimer: Take in mind that all of these things are how I see them, and not how they may be, or how you see them. Don't have to believe this, just respect it.
Yes, it was fear. Fear. Fear of not having something else when you die. People wish to believe in something so that they don't have to worry about not going on.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I will be willing to wait. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Will: I tried to tell people that before, more specifically about politics, but no one listens. If ya can't beat em, join em.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The world would be a much better place if everyone thought like me.
In all seriousness, the suicide bombings may make the news, but living in a religious community I have seen far too much good come of it to ever believe it is a *bad* thing.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Dr. Strangelove, I didn't mean everyone was writing garbage.
Reticulum forgive me for saying so, but since you have stated in another thread that you are still a child, you just don't have enough life experience or a firm grasp of Biblical concepts to be making these kind of blanket statements about religion. You know some basic Bible stories but it is pretty obvious that you have not studied the Bible and its teachings at all. You keep asking for us to respect your beliefs but then you tell me that the way I live my life is illogical. You can denounce religion for yourself (which is no skin off my nose) but you imply that the rest of us who believe in a higher power are a bunch of morons. Read some more. Get out there and see the world some more. Then make a more informed decision on what you believe but either way, leave my beliefs alone. They are mine. Just respect it.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:How could the populations of all species regenerate from 2? It wouldn't work. You would have stagnation by the third generation. The species would have to use incest to survive. Noah's children would have to mate with each other to save their species. The children would have uneven gene sharings and would develope mental disabilities and almost certaintly by the third generation, would be deformed in one or another.
Um, what? "Uneven gene sharing"? Noah's grandchildren would all have mental disabilities?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes. That is an overstatement, but somewhere down the line, (and not very far) it would happen.
So yes, that is what I said.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
What are uneven gene sharings?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Mandy, I do not think people who believe in God are Morons. If I said that, I am sorry to you. And as for the child remark, that may be true, but I have based my judgements on the universe quite sternly. For me, science is the way to go. Also notice the disclaimer.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: What are uneven gene sharings?
When two people "mate", as you know, they share I believe 23 genes to form the child. When two people of certain relation mate, their genes are too similar, and eventually get tangled up, and start to cause mutations, and other such horrible results. Hence why most governments ban marriage between relatives.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Yeah, I noticed. I also noticed the horrible misinterpretations of the Bible and middle school science that you are basing your arguments on. You can certainly pick science as your personal belief system but you are basically telling those who believe in the Bible that we are cross-bred, brain-washed people terrified of going to Hell if we don't follow a hateful, vengful God who might just smite us anyway. And you are telling us that our horrible, illogical religion just shouldn't exist but you are allowed to believe whatever you want and we should just respect that. Boy, if you could just hear yourself!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Don't have to agree or like it. Just respect it. All I ask.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Even an atheist is far more than just trust in science. If science is all you've got, you're a cold, cold human being.
In the stuff that makes us human, there is plenty of room for faith, or at the very least, hope.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: What are uneven gene sharings?
When two people "mate", as you know, they share I believe 23 genes to form the child. When two people of certain relation mate, their genes are too similar, and eventually get tangled up, and start to cause mutations, and other such horrible results. Hence why most governments ban marriage between relatives.
Hmm... I really don't know where to start here. I guess I'll with your post not having anything to do with "uneven". In my mind "uneven gene sharing" would mean one of the people didn't have the same number of genes as the other. Second, the genes don't get "tangled up". Inbreeding can cause detrimental recessive traits to surface, which are what cause the deformities and diseases that can come with inbreeding. You need to read up on genetics.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
LOL! No Ronnie is probably just older and more knowledgable than you. (and here I was trying not to type a reponse telling Ronnie that he was using too many big words there)
For Heaven's sake! Why am I wasting my time arguing with you. Oh wait! You don't believe in Heaven and I should just respect that! Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
Inbreeding doesn't cause mutation. It causes a greater chance of inheriting recessive traits. Cite your claim that the child will often have less genes than normal.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
No, I think that's your job. I've taken classes involving genetics.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
*high fives Ronnie*
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Even an atheist is far more than just trust in science. If science is all you've got, you're a cold, cold human being.
Just becayse it's true, doesn't mean it should be said. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What exactly do you mean by "religion" when you say we should get rid of it? Do you mean churches? Do you mean sets of rules and dogma? Do you mean belief in supernatural things? Do you mean beliefs about the fundamental Truth of the universe?
There is no way to avoid having beliefs about the fundamental Truth of the universe. It is necessary to guide the decisions you make every day. What is right and what is wrong? Who am I, where do I come from, and what should I be doing? What is meaningful? What is the nature of the world around us? Even atheists have answers for these questions - that is their "religion", so to speak. I fail to see how one could live without having some sort of beliefs, whether well-thought-out or not, about the answers to these questions. And I certainly fail to see why the world would be better without such beliefs.
Now, if by "religion" you are referring to only supernatural answers to these questions, I think the claim that we should eliminate "religion" would be nothing more than atheists suggesting that the world would be much better if everyone thought like them. After all, one person's supernatural is another person's natural. If God existed, he would be as natural as everything else that exists. Nature is simply that which exists around us. And while black holes would sound like supernatural sorts of things if you simply described their properties to someone, the fact that we have observed their existence makes them natural too. Atheists often consider their beliefs about Truth to be objectively right, and other beliefs to be unbelievable and irrational. Thus it is no surprise they'd prefer if everyone followed those same beliefrs. But it should be noted that religious groups typically feel similarly - many would love to eliminate all religions except their own.
However, if by "religion" you mean churches and the dogma associated with them, I think the goal to eliminate religion is misguided for an entirely different reason. Churches and dogma exist to guide and teach people about how to answer the fundamental questions of Truth, and to help them live their lives well. Seriously consider what would happen if we got rid of those guides. We would be essentially telling everybody to come up with answers on their own. We'd be telling everyone to think up their own beliefs. I'm sure some people feel this is exactly how it should be, but I find that a bit overidealistic. I don't think people are wise enough to come up with the correct answers to subtle but fundamentally important questions like "What is right and what is wrong?" all by themselves. You'd have a bunch of fanatics following their own personal dogmatic rules on one hand, and a bunch of hedonists believing whatever satisfied their most current desires on the other hand. You may believe otherwise, but right now I have serious doubts about mankind in general being able to all come up with good answers to the most important questions on their own without help.
Asking to eliminate churches and dogma is a bit like complaining that teachers and textbooks are biased and thus suggesting that everybody should homeschool their kid instead of sending them to school. While it is a nice idea in theory, I'd guess the reality is that most kids would end up very poorly educated.
quote:And, by the way, science does not require faith, ok? Because you can damn well test it. Next time you turn on a light switch, try having faith that there won't be light, and see how much difference it makes.
This is incorrect. Science can be tested but it can't be proven, meaning you know for sure when it is false, but you need faith to believe it will always hold true.
For instance, I believe that when I flip the light switch, the light will turn on. But every once in a while, it will be burned out and not turn on. Thus my belief turns out to be faith rather than anything proven, no matter how many times I "test" the switch and see that it turns on the light.
quote:I think you're confusing faith with hope. Hope is necessary, faith is not. I see it thusly: Faith is the never-dying belief that [insert something meaningful here] will improve. Hope is the logical belief that [same meaningful thing] *could*.
I don't think this is correct either. Faith is based more in logic than hope is. For instance, I hope that the Wizards will win the NBA Championship, but I don't have faith that they will - because my reasoning/logic dictates that it is unlikely.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Alright, "tangled up" wasn't a very good term, but in essence, it was right. As for uneven gene sharing, the child can and often will end up having less genes then normal, caused by genetic mutation. How this happens, I do not know.
Inbreeding doesn't cause mutation. It causes a greater chance of inheriting recessive traits. Cite your claim that the child will often have less genes than normal.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: BTW, you just read Wikipedia didn't you?
No, I think that's your job. I've taken classes involving genetics.
Wow, you just schooled me. I don't think i have any decent response to this. I don't.
Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes. I don't specifically know about the less genes thing, but I thought I should have posted it. Incest causes a lot more then just adopting recessive genes. Since you have taken classes, you should know this.
BTW, if you knew all of that, why did you ask me, one with middle school education to explain it?
And Mandy, why such the harshness?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes.
Repeating a false statement with more intensity will not make it true.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: For instance, I hope that the Wizards will win the NBA Championship
At least they have a chance. Now I, I hope that the Magic will win it all ...
...
Riiiigghhhttt.
Ret, my hand prohibits me from typing quick intelligent replies tonight (whereas every other night its my brain ), but perhaps if I email you. As I said, it may take a while, but mayhap it will prove more conducive to discussion about your post.
EDIT: Oh, and I like the rest of what you said too Tres.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
That would be fine.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes.
Repeating a false statement with more intensity will not make it true.
But perhaps saying in different context and after other statements, will reiterate its meaning.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: If you want my blunt opinion, I would say that I think that the fact religion has stuck around so long indicates that there has to be something out there to back it up.
Well, that's rather remarkably interesting. Would you say the same of racism and slavery, with their equally long pedigrees?
quote: I'll say "the pursuit of knowledge" as a loose definition. Correct me if I'm horribly off. If you are pursuing knowledge, you must acknowledge that there is unknown stuff out there. Obviously. Now, I suppose this depends greatly on the way you define faith, but I have always defined it as "belief in something unseen" or maybe "trust in something unseen". Science believes or trusts that the answers to the questions are out there, al beit in a verifiable, tangible form. But still, I see that as faith. Faith that there is something worth pursuing.
But that is, if I might coin a phrase, a faith justified by works. We can see science working around us, all day - what, computers are the result of divine intervention? And this isn't a matter of 'God's beauty is in everything, if only you had eyes to see', either : The influence of science and technology on our lives is a testable, objective fact. I defy you to find anyone who disagrees that science has made vast changes in human lives.
You can call it 'faith', if you like, but I do think you are rather twisting the meaning of the word. There's a difference between the faith of a gambler that his next roll will be a seven, and the belief of a scientist that a mix of charcoal, saltpetre, and sulfur will ignite rather powerfully.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Wait! I have got one. As for the genetics and genes, I have the fact, that yes, inbreeding does quite often cause mutationsof the genes. I don't specifically know about the less genes thing, but I thought I should have posted it. Incest causes a lot more then just adopting recessive genes. Since you have taken classes, you should know this.
BTW, if you knew all of that, why did you ask me, one with middle school education to explain it?
It doesn't cause mutations. It causes recessive mutations/traits to show up more often. My first two posts were written the way they were because I was unsure what you meant and wanted to clarify it. I also had no idea what you meant by "uneven gene sharings".
quote:But perhaps saying in different context and after other statements, will reiterate its meaning.
Doesn't change the false part, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Reticulum, let me say this simply: The rate of genetic mutations is completely independent of inbreeding. Existing mutations are more likely to cause fatal problems within inbred groups (because of the increased likelihood of any one individual getting a copy from each parent), but the actual rate of mutations is not affected.
This means that if you had two individuals with completely flawless genes, the possibility of their grandchildren all being healthy is quite high.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well yes, that is what I meant de facto. I thought that the part that incest causes genetic mutations to appear in the offspring part made sense.
The offspring of incest have a very high chance of having genetic problems. Perhaps now it is clear, because we established what everyone is thinking and understanding. My main core point, was that a species could not save itself with one mating pair. Absolutely impossible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Noah thing is pretty absurd, but I don't think it's a very useful argument on this forum; with the possible exception of Farmgirl, I don't think there's anyone here who takes it literally.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And, incidentally, I think there's some evidence that cheetahs went through a genetic bottleneck some twenty thousand years ago, where they were reduced to two brothers and a sister. So 'impossible' might be a little strong. Come to think of it, aren't there some dog and horse breeds that all have one or two common ancestors?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I'm not sure if I do or not. I am open to the possibility of the flood being a literal world-wide flood.
I am also open to it not being world-wide.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Wait, wait, wait. Humans were forced down to a population of 2000, but we have effects from it. Most people ahve small similarities in their genes. (Not pants) Can you provide a link for the Cheetah thing, KoM?
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Reticulum, are you really claiming that you meant that inbreeding causes recessive traits to appear more often all along in this discussion?
quote:Incest causes a lot more then just adopting recessive genes.
What other things does it cause?
Also, I think you would do well if you would remember not to state things you're unsure of as if they were absolutely true.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
No, I am not. I am saying that I meant incest doesn't invent mutations, but causes them to surface. Which, is really, if you think of it, a recessive trait. S, I guess, the heart of everything I was arguing, was that incest causes the adoption of recessive genes. So yes. I suppose I was.
Good Point. Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Most people ahve small similarities in their genes.
You're aware that people are all of the same species and that members of a certain species commonly have very similar DNA, right?
quote:No, I am not. I am saying that I meant incest doesn't invent mutations, but causes them to surface. Which, is really, if you think of it, a recessive trait. S, I guess, the heart of everything I was arguing, was that incest causes the adoption of recessive genes. So yes. I suppose I was.
Your other posts do not back up this assertion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. Well, I can't find a link for the 'two-brothers-and-a-sister' thing, which I took from memory; but there are any number of sites about the genetic bottleneck, and one of them did assert that all living cheetahs may be descended from one female.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
KOM, I've heard that claim as well. But while I believe the genetic bottleneck is fairly accepted, that particular claim may be mostly speculative (IIRC).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ha, ha, ha, how halarious. Not what I meant. I find it quite insulting that you would try to educate me on something so trivial. I mean we went through a bottleneck, and there isn't a lot, of genetic varience. Of course, that probably died off by now, to a degree. After thousands of years, and exponential growth in population, it has probably subsided greatly.
I don't care what I posted earlier. It is what I meant, and was thinking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *shrug* I'm not sure if I do or not. I am open to the possibility of the flood being a literal world-wide flood.
Seriously? How do you account for the many cultures that have no such myth; the complete lack of geological evidence for the event; the inbreeding problem that Reticulum mentions; and the Egyptian pyramids, built within a few hundred years of the ostensible date of the flood, by which time there could hardly be more than 10 thousand or so people alive?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Like I said, the flood is completely illogical, as are other parts of religion.
Religion has yet to give a good explanation for evolution, and I have seen no such explanation for vestigial parts that humanity still has. (Tail bone anyone?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cheerfully* I can't give really good explanations for most of those. (Although really, the first one is trivial.)
Hence my openness to other possibilities.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You can call it 'faith', if you like, but I do think you are rather twisting the meaning of the word. There's a difference between the faith of a gambler that his next roll will be a seven, and the belief of a scientist that a mix of charcoal, saltpetre, and sulfur will ignite rather powerfully.
I see your point, and it's a good one. There is undeniably a difference there. But, you are talking of the scientific faith in things already proven. Of course science has made a difference on our lives. But I defy you to find anyone who disagree's that religion has made a vast difference in our lives. But that is looking into the past. I'm looking to the future. Why do you go on? Why do you continue to experiment and test and observe and hypthesize and all that jazz? Why does the gambler throw the die? Why does the pastor pray? Because there is something out there we don't understand. And when seeking to understand that, the pastor and the scientist aren't so different, except in specifics. Basically, you admit there are things out there which we as humans haven't even the slightest inkling about. Things we cannot concieve of. For example, something like a computer to a medieval knight. There are things which cannot be explained right now, and things which cannot even be concieved of right now. You have faith they will be explained, if not by you, by someone else sometime in the future. You have the past successes of science to bolster that faith, so you are secure in it. A ... believer in God has faith that they will be explained, if not now, sometime in the future. They have past successes to bolster that faith, so they are secure in it. You will explain the past successes with your faith, me with mine. You can point to all the experimental data you want, I can point to all the Scripture I want. Back and forth, back and forth, all day long, each of us so secure in our own faiths that neither will budge. And no, I don't have any resolution to that quandry, I'm just trying to get you to see the quandry through the similarities.
And yes, my "blunt opinion" was stupid, as my blunt opinions tend to be. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I find it quite insulting that you would try to educate me on something so trivial.
Perhaps instead of finding it insulting you should take it as constructive criticism, and work to debate in such a way that would not require a response you find so insulting.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I can't really change how I view comments made by others. My brain sorta controls that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in fact, you can be hit in the face by an utterly overwhelming mass of evidence, and you will graciously condescend to be 'open to other possibilities'? This sort of thing is precisely why I want religion eliminated : It makes people stupid. I am sorry to use that word, but I think it is the only proper one. Rivka, you are being very stupid; please stop.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I wouldn't say that Rivka was being stupid, but that is a reason I would say religion should be eliminated.
Plus, no one like the subject of vestigial remnants? Perfect to prove evolution, and a great topic discussion!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're right. I am being stupid.
I knew better than to respond to your posts. I'll stop doing that.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I think it's the other way around, KoM.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I think you do what Rivka is doing, Rappin'
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
And what would that be?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I can't really change how I view comments made by others. My brain sorta controls that.
And ultimately, you control your brain.
More specifically, perhaps if you stopped backing up your arguments with incorrect information, people would not feel the need to educate you on the correct information.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You have faith they will be explained, if not by you, by someone else sometime in the future. You have the past successes of science to bolster that faith, so you are secure in it.
I have no such faith. It is quite possible that we will never be able to build particle accelerators large enough to really break the Standard Model. Nor do I think it is necessary to believe any such thing, in order to do science. An analogy would be climbing a mountain that is maybe a little too tough for you : You can believe that you will reach the top, but the belief is not necessary to make the attempt. If you thought reaching the top would be a good thing, you could well attempt it while giving yourself only a five percent chance of making it. Or, if you had a really good reason to get there, you might try it even if you were sure you couldn't make it.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
You're good. I'm going to have to sleep on that one. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Very good, very good. And still, KoM, religion has never explained vestigial remnants. I am going to keep mentioning this, untill we get a duscussion on it, because it is a very good point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I should be getting to bed also. Goodnight, all. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gah - one last post. Actually, Reticulum, the people who believe that their god guides evolution once in a while, but not all the time, have a kinda-sorta answer for the vestigial bits. A completely un-necessary answer, and a process indistinguishable from the un-guided one, but vestiges do not actively disprove their religion.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ah, that isn't fair. Oh well, suppose I should also, since everyone else is. Will just have to bring this up tomarrow.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I think you do what Rivka is doing, Rappin'
And what would that be?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
They sure play a hand though. G'night all. Ceasefire Rappin'? NO more hostilities?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I think you do what Rivka is doing, Rappin'
And what would that be?
I read this as, "I think you do what Rivka is doing. Rappin'."
Rap, rivka, rap!
-pH
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Actually, Reticulum, the people who believe that their god guides evolution once in a while, but not all the time, have a kinda-sorta answer for the vestigial bits. A completely un-necessary answer, and a process indistinguishable from the un-guided one, but vestiges do not actively disprove their religion.
Unnecessary? If it is the explanation that prevents their religion from being true, and if they have reason to believe their religion is true, then it seems necessary in order to explain how evidence of evolution is consistent with the evidence of their religion.
quote:Nor do I think it is necessary to believe any such thing, in order to do science. An analogy would be climbing a mountain that is maybe a little too tough for you : You can believe that you will reach the top, but the belief is not necessary to make the attempt.
You may not need faith to DO science, but you certainly need faith to USE it. For instance, science can't prove the laws of physics will work tomorrow in the same way they worked today. That is a matter of faith, based on the fact that they've worked that way as long as we've observed. And thus if you are going to use the laws of physics to build bridges that we expect to be safe, it is necessary to actually believe those laws of physics will continue to hold true, and thus it is necessary to have faith in something that science has not proven.
Of course, every time you cross a bridge you have faith in a lot more than just science. You have faith that the engineers and construction workers who built that bridge applied those laws of science correctly. You have faith that they did not forget a decimal point in their calculations. None of these things are known or proven to be true, yet you believe them anyway, or else you would not cross that bridge.
Even worse is a roller-coaster ride. Now THAT is a real exercise in faith.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
*carefully pokes head into thread*
Hey now, don't be calling our rivka stupid. The fact that the people who believe in God on this forum have stopped answering your questions is not because you have caught them in a loophole. It is due to the fact that you have made the argument completely pointless because you do not give their comments any respect.
Oh, and it is not ok to refer to people who have faith in God as morons and then dismiss it because you gave the disclaimer that it was only your opinion.
*runs away before getting too involved*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I read this as, "I think you do what Rivka is doing. Rappin'."
Rap, rivka, rap!
(I'll rustle up a backing track)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Religion, faith, hope and science, they are all good. As someone said here before, even the atheists have their beliefs, which might be viewed as “their religion” (even if it isn’t a religion, strictly speaking). So keep religion. Eliminate the imposing of religion. Eliminate religious persecution.
quote:originally posted by Tresopax: You may not need faith to DO science, but you certainly need faith to USE it. For instance, science can't prove the laws of physics will work tomorrow in the same way they worked today. That is a matter of faith, based on the fact that they've worked that way as long as we've observed. And thus if you are going to use the laws of physics to build bridges that we expect to be safe, it is necessary to actually believe those laws of physics will continue to hold true, and thus it is necessary to have faith in something that science has not proven.
Science can’t prove the laws of physics. True. But I strongly disagree that faith in the laws of physics (as in science) is the same as faith in religion.
The reason is this: Take a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, etc, plus an atheist and give them some experimental equipment and let them not only test the existing laws, but try to discover new laws. The fact that they can agree on the existing laws, and eventually get to discover THE SAME new laws (remember that “old” laws were “new” at some point), makes these laws “universal”. This is “rational faith”. Ask them then what they believe about the concept (and the lows) of “God”. This is “religious faith”. Do you see the difference?
As for the distinction between DO-ing and USE-ing science, I don’t see the point. If every now and then, new experiments were to be carried out, that CONTRADICTED the “known laws of science”, and thus having to “periodically” revise those laws, then I’d say that using a known law at any given time needs faith, because “it might change at any time”. But the history of science, as far as I am aware of it, has examples of IMPROVING the laws (see Newton --> Einstein) not contradicting them. Has this ever been the case with the “immutable religion(s)”?
On the other hand, there is/was as much bad use of science as there is/was bad use of religion. The fault is in those who “implement” it. But the basis of (doing/using) science is not the same as for (doing/using) religion.
I’m not saying that one “kind” of faith is better than the other. I have a personal preference. I’m not trying to impose it. But is it too much asking to stop confusing the two?
A.
PS: If religious people could come up with a set of “universal” laws that everybody could agree upon, regardless of their religion, then we would be talking about something else. But maybe we haven’t advanced far enough in our (spiritual) evolution for that. I suspect that “the moral pillars” are the same for everyone, but that they should also be independent of religion. I mean, all religions should rest on the same ones.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Even worse is a roller-coaster ride. Now THAT is a real exercise in faith.
Not trying to ambush you or anything, Tresopax, but you kind of ignored KoM's contention that faith in a Supernatural entity or order is very different from the faith I have that the sun will rise in the morning. It's rather unfortunate that we have only the one word to describe the two, but it's clear to me, at least, that they are very different things.
To answer the original post:
I'll start by saying I'm an atheist because I think the concept of supernatural is paradoxical. A thing is or is not. If there is a "god," he/she/it is natural and it would be theoretically possible to demonstrate it's existence. Someone else made an argument along similar lines earlier in the thread. Rivka or Tres, I believe.
Reticulum stated earlier that religion is illogical. I disagree.
Religion fulfills many logical human requirements. It promotes a kind of self-discipline and a rather excellent basic morality, though I may disagree on some of the finer points.
Religion provides a means for social interaction. For many people, it is the primary source of social interactoin.
Finally, and I think, most importantly, religion is a means to manage the terror of inevitable death. I really don't see how anyone could rationally dispute this. Human beings have the very rational fear of death for most (if not all) of their lives. Religion is religion, and not merely a moral code, primarily because it explains where we came from, why we are here, and what comes next. 2+2=4.
I imagine a couple theists reading this are pretty angry by this point. Please don't cyber-smite me yet.
I think (though I could be wrong, and please correct me if so) that you are upset with this line of reasoning because you have heard it flow from the lips of atheists in the past dripping with arrogance and, ironically, self-righteousness. I know I have been guilty of this before, though not particularly on Hatrack, I think. I was operating under a fallacy that went something like this:
Religion exists to reduce the dread of our own death.
Because I am not religious, I have no dread of death.
Because you are a small minded thing that fears death whereas I recognize it as an inevitablility, I am better than you.
Of course, the argument was not spoken this way (I hope). When Reticulum made the same argument on the first page, I am fairly confident he didn't intend it that way. But I am equally confident in guessing that that's more or less how it was received.
Of course, I'm afraid to die. So, I'm guessing, are all of you, unless you're nearing ninety or so. So, by necessity, I - and every other non-suicidal atheist - have to find our own ways of managing that terror. Most theists wouldn't begrudge me that, though a couple have been a little snarky over the perceived fact that their way wasn't "good enough" for me. And, of course, I won't begrudge any theist a way that works for them.
Though occaisionally I may get a little snarky over the fact their way didn't work for me.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Does anyone here think that if athiests were to organize themselves, they should have the right to tax exempt status and not having to report their finances?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Atheists that already live in an organised society should observe the same (secular) laws as any others. If they are to build their own society, they have the choice to build it on a different set of laws.
A.
[if you were just making a joke, say so, and I would laugh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does anyone here think that if athiests were to organize themselves, they should have the right to tax exempt status and not having to report their finances?
Why not? There are a number of technically atheist churches.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh man...this thread offers so many points to toss monkey wrenches in. This could be loads of fun. Or just plain futile.
I'll start with one premise: Humans (as a species) do not know everything there is to know. I will return to this shortly.
First: the bred from two individuals thing...Doesn't evolution tell us exactly the same thing? At some point in every species' past there MUST have been a time where two individuals in one generation were "different enough" to have been counted as a separate species -- they bred and voila -- the separate species is extant. I'm all for gradualism to explain speciation, but in the grand scheme of things the mechanisms of speciation include things that would result in very small local inbreeding populations. It may not be the only mechanism for speciation, but it's a biggie. Let's not get too wrapped up about the account of Noah. Even if that story was a first hand account written by the man (Noah) himself, he would've lacked the full knowledge of what events were taking place on the entire globe. His "world" may well have consisted of a basin no larger than the view to the horizon at sea level. Large enough, perhaps, but not the entire world. Since the story wasn't written down until many years after the era described, I think it's pretty likely that whatever happened comes to us through the filter of human storytelling. Biblical literalists may disagree, of course, but I think they open up some troubling cans of worms and end up taking more on faith than is absolutely necessary and risk turning God into a trickster for no good reason other than their faith hinging Scripture's literal veracity. We've had this particular discussion before. As KoM said, there aren't a lot of Scriptural literalists in this crowd, so it's a misapplication to use things like the Flood and the creation story as proof that people with faith are somehow a bunch of misguided numbskulls.
Second: We would all be mental defectives thing... And you're certain we aren't? Maybe early humans were mentally and physically superior to us. We could still be technologically superior to them and still be less intelligent overall.
Third: the lightswitch thing... If one had a theory that said that the switch was a necessary and sufficient condition for the light to come on, then even one failure would be enough to disprove the theory, no? At the very least, it would provide contrary evidence and be suggestive of the fact that one's theory might need modification. Scientific "faith" involves the belief that the scientific method can be used to solve questions about how the world works, not that we have the right answers fully and completely...ever. Tresopax, I have to say that you often appear to misunderstand this and your assertions about science and "faith" are often wrong because of this fundamental lack of understanding on your part.
Fourth. The whole Religion vs Spirituality thing...Is it really all that surprising that spirituality practically forces us into organizing religions? I view this as totally obvious, and not at all an unfortunate by-product either.
Religion (or religiousity) is an expression of the human tendency to affiliate. We like to be among people we can associate with. Few humans in history have been total "loners" or "hermits." We have a hero-meme about that kind of rugged individualist. But really...what are we in the main if not pack animals?
Now, it IS true that an unfortunate by-product of being affiliative is that there must also be, by definition, a group that is "not us." At least it's unfortunate in today's society. It was probably highly adaptive in the early days of mankind on earth. Now, it still has its uses -- the idea that there are those who are inside and those who are outside -- but it also has consequences for us as a species when we throw our ability to arm ourselves and perpetrate mass actions against each other into the mix.
And, yes, religions have been a cause of war over the years. And so has famine. And access to resources. And nationality. And fear. And hundreds of other flaws/characteristics of our human make up.
If religion ceased to exist tomorrow, there would still be wars. Heck, we fight over who has the best group of guys in like-colored jerseys at kicking balls at nets. So let's not kid ourselves. The flaw is in ourselves and we would need to change more than religion before we could achieve a pax humanus.
Which brings me back to my original premise: that we (as a species) don't know everything there is to know.
I think the problem is that we are still fairly stupid as a species. We express that stupidity in myriad ways: some of them truly spectacular like war and injustice. Blaming religion for the ills of this world is just a way to stop ourselves from having to face the real problem -- us.
As others have said, organized religion has its good points too. The church I belong to manages one of the largest and most effective relief organizations in the world. Money donated to relief is spent 100% on getting aid to the victims of natural and man-made disasters. Zero overhead comes out of those donations. And...it's a "give aid first" kind of thing too -- not done to promote a religion, but to give help where it is needed.
There is power in human affiliation.
With religions, as with any human grouping, sometimes that power is misused. More often, the power is used for good things.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bob-- all that said; all charity taken into account; all good deeds tabulated; if there is no God then religion is NOT a good thing. It may not be a terrible thing, but I don't think it should be perpetuated if we discover its falseness.
I will always prefer to know the dismal truth than believe a pretty lie.
That said, I believe in God.
quote:Maybe early humans were mentally and physically superior to us. We could still be technologically superior to them and still be less intelligent overall.
Jared Diamond points to this idea in his book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel.' (So does OSC at the beginning of 'Ender's Shadow) He states that primitive cultures are more imaginative, more adaptive, and quicker studies than technological societies because the mind is forced to engage reality more when you're living hand to mouth.
That's probably not as succinct as Diamond would wish, but it gets the idea across.
Also, I think you're splendid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
GaalDornick,
quote:I've thoroughly convinced myself that there is no God...
This phrasing struck a chord with me, and I can't think of a way for it in the context to mean other than what it plainly says, so keep that in mind when I comment.
I think when an individual has to convince themself of something, that's problematic. I'm speaking of convincing themselves in terms of, for instance, doing something or believing in something that in their gut they believe they should do, or should believe.
I think that if you dig deeply enough into people's rationalizations, facades, and other things that amount to, "I'm doing this thing I think I shouldn't really do," well, you'd come to that same conclusion: that if you have to actually convince yourself that something is right...there's a strong chance you don't actually believe it yet, and you need to work on it, and maybe the question should be, "Why shouldn't I believe it?"
There are exceptions, though. Speaking from personal experience-both in myself, and with other people-I know full well that habitual rationalizations can reduce that necessity of convincing to the point of nonexistence (or nearly there).
So. Since you posted the thread and asked for thoughts, I'll be presumptuous enough to tell you what I think you should be thinking about. Why exactly did you decide you needed to convince yourself that there is no God? You mention logic and rationality as the means to the same ends that religions promote: peace on Earth and goodwill toward men, more or less.
But...how logical and rational are those goals, really? If you're playing in a solely rational and logical ballpark, frankly, I don't think they're very logical and rational at all. If there is no God then logically all humanity is is highly evolved animals...and given that, logically why should we give a damn (pardon my pun) about the peace and welfare of other highly evolved animals?
Logically and rationally, if we are in fact nothing more than highly evolved animals, then I believe that one would hacve to conclude there is no reason to care about other people other than for selfish reasons. And that leads ultimately to, "What can I get for myself, to make my life safer, longer, and more enjoyable?" which itself leads to a host of socially undesireable conclusions if we are in fact nothing more than highly evolved animals.
Because let's face it, a highly intelligent, logical and rational criminal will usually get away with it. A majority (often reported as a very large majority) of crimes go unreported, and a hefty percentage of those reported crimes go unsolved or if solved, unpunished.
I say all that to say this: I don't think it's particularly logical or rational to want to convince oneself of the nonexistence of God. Which brings me back to the question: why did you want to convince yourself of such a thing?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's exactly what I thought of when I read Bob's post too, Scott. Echoes all around.
-------
Reticulum,
Yes, you are in fact stating that religious people are morons. You are saying that religious people believe in this stupid, unnecessary, illogical, childish thing. Morons are often (almost universally) believed to possess one or all of these traits.
Maybe you've read about it mathematically in your rigorous middle-school education that included backpedaling but neglected biology, that when A=B & B=C, A=C.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Logically and rationally, if we are in fact nothing more than highly evolved animals, then I believe that one would hacve to conclude there is no reason to care about other people other than for selfish reasons.
Hm. I'd have to disagree, Jeff. You seem to be arguing here that a materialistic universe is inherently a selfish one, and I don't think that conclusion actually follows.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I believe a materialistic universe is inherently a selfish one. When I wake up tomorrow I'm gonna read whatever post you're replying to and tell you why. Night, people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can you tell me why it isn't, Tom? The only reasons a materialistic universe wouldn't be a selfish one that I can imagine would be if we decided it wasn't...why should we decide that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why wouldn't we? As a society, we clearly feel the need for something more than plain selfishness and/or utilitarianism; these things are almost never considered virtues, and even Utilitarians speak of "enlightened selfishness" when they describe a rising tide to lift all boats. Concern for other humans is obviously a species survival trait, and it makes sense for us to cultivate this -- as well as other, higher emotions, which lend a perceived richness and depth to our lives.
Why is it necessary for our morality to be based on the threat of an afterlife or an appeal to a hypothetically perfect arbiter for it to mean something?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *shrug* I'm not sure if I do or not. I am open to the possibility of the flood being a literal world-wide flood.
I am also open to it not being world-wide.
Ditto.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I apologize to the people who are having productive conversations in this thread, but the other conversations are not acceptable, so I'm locking the thread.
A reminder, folks -- believe what you like, but treat other people and other beliefs with respect, or don't mention them at all. I don't say that you have to respect the belief, but you need to treat it with respect here, or go elsewhere.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Why am I wasting my time arguing with you. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Oh wait! You don't believe in Heaven and I should just respect that! ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)