posted
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?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, that isn't fair. Oh well, suppose I should also, since everyone else is. Will just have to bring this up tomarrow.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 1635 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
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.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It is due to the fact that you have made the argument completely pointless because you do not give their comments any respect.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
