FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

# 00:01 28 April 2008
# NewScientist.com news service
# Andy Coghlan

"Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic 'Ummah' uniting Muslims."

Article continues...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html

WHAT?! You mean my pet cat doesn't pray to the ceiling cat before going to bed?!

Yet Once again. While people fear death, there will always be a need for Religion, and since a lot of bad people are religious. I am glad they have the fear of God to help them be good.

I myself do not fear death! Nor need a religion, or a god to have a moral code, or to be good.

But....If there was a God. He gave us free agency, and the right of choice. So for him to intervene, would be interfering with our free agency. Yet religions, seem to feel they have the right too dictate, and control our free will.

Man was not born with sin, as we will be punished for our own sins, and not Adams transgressions.....

Amazing, not a "ONE" in sight

How do you do that Pattison Did you just forget yourself, or what

Anyway, you have made my point on God and Religion very well. "Free will" God gave us all free will. We all know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

As for religion being a figment of human imagination, well lots of things could be. Being gay could be a figment of your imagination

Mike

Religion is such a stupid crock of shit. If people want to pray to a god, fine with me. I won't interfere. But you better keep your stupid religion away from me!

JohnnyD saidReligion is such a stupid crock of shit. If people want to pray to a god, fine with me. I won't interfere. But you better keep your stupid religion away from me!

Now, now, Johnny.

Whats got you all pissy.

Your letting your imagination run away with you

There is nothing to be afraid off. Relax

you are all figments of my imagination1

hmm. I don't think being gay and the existence of God are the same thing.... It is possible that God is a figment of our imagination. Humans have a lot of ways of coping with our oftentimes unexplainable reality.

There is a psychological phenomenon called the "just world theory". Basically what it means is that if we find difficulty rationalizing something unjust, we try to find fault in the victim to try to rationalize and compensate.

Modern examples include blaming a rape victim by saying "she was asking for it", or blaming the Katrina victims for living in flood prone areas. A more ancient form of this include "Karma", or for Christians, "original sin".

So If we can not explain something in the world, it can be "God's will". There is no rational explanation but since we have other people who believe the same thing and have "faith", we feel confident about it. Often times we delude in Mass to make ourselves feel better with things like religion. If we delude ourselves alone its "psycho" or if you don't have enough people in your circle of delusion its a "cult". Since its socially acceptable to have faith, no one questions you if you are part of a major world religion. But really if you can't explain it, don't assume you are not smart enough to figure it out or explain it and just have "faith". If you "feel it" but can't explain it, its not "God's love", its self delusion.

Just like your $350 shoes that cost $20 to make, we all buy into things that are irrational simply because it makes us feel good and come with slick marketing or in the case of religion, answers questions that if left unanswered could be scary. Thats life, and like Pattison said, some people need it and thats fine, just be cool about it.

More Hummus less Hamas! Stop the settlements in Israel, if Kosovo can be a seperate state, so can Palestine regardless of ancient history!

Keep your Jesus off my penis.

This may not be appropriate. But, I just wanted to contribute.

Swimbikerun--the poem by Epicurus is great, and it sure says a lot with few words. Personally I think, that as vast as the universe is, reaching out endlessly in any direction, that I can leave room for the possibility of anything, including possibly a god. But for some reason I feel no need to belong to some group believing this, that, or the other thing about God, you and me, why we are here, whats after death. If people need a god so bad why did they create such awfull actions by him, the worst of which is hell, most christians believe in an everlasting hell fire, where the sinner suffers forever. To think that people created this belief about god, as if this god created two kinds of fire, one burns things up, it consumes completely what its burning, then he created a fire that just causes pain, it doesn't consume, this god according to most christians made a kind of fire just to make the sinner suffer for not believing in him. NOW THAT IS SOME GOD ISN'T IT !!!! That is about the most illogical belief ever created by man, and many say it must be so, because god needed to make hell so people would follow him to avoid hell. Which just adds insult to injury. Personally I'll use my imagination for things that make here and now better, for me and those around me. If there is anything about religion I wonder about, its why do so many the world around have to have something like a god to believe in? why do they so readily follow such beliefs as I mentioned above? Perhaps its because so many people are void of logic and senseable imagination of their own?

realifedad said Swimbikerun--the poem by Epicurus is great, and it sure says a lot with few words. Personally I think, that as vast as the universe is, reaching out endlessly in any direction, that I can leave room for the possibility of anything, including possibly a god. But for some reason I feel no need to belong to some group believing this, that, or the other thing about God, you and me, why we are here, whats after death. If people need a god so bad why did they create such awfull actions by him, the worst of which is hell, most christians believe in an everlasting hell fire, where the sinner suffers forever. To think that people created this belief about god, as if this god created two kinds of fire, one burns things up, it consumes completely what its burning, then he created a fire that just causes pain, it doesn't consume, this god according to most christians made a kind of fire just to make the sinner suffer for not believing in him. NOW THAT IS SOME GOD ISN'T IT !!!! That is about the most illogical belief ever created by man, and many say it must be so, because god needed to make hell so people would follow him to avoid hell. Which just adds insult to injury. Personally I'll use my imagination for things that make here and now better, for me and those around me. If there is anything about religion I wonder about, its why do so many the world around have to have something like a god to believe in? why do they so readily follow such beliefs as I mentioned above? Perhaps its because so many people are void of logic and senseable imagination of their own?

Oh well, I guess we must all be mentally ill

By the way, how do you know that most Christians believe what you said above?

I for one do not.

"If there is anything about religion I wonder about, its why do so many the world around have to have something like a god to believe in?"

No disrespect, but that question makes no sense to me. I mean you either believe or you don't. It's not a question of having to have something to believe in.

Mike

MikePhil---- you asked me "how do you know that most christians believe what you said above?" -----------------The belief by christians in eternal hell fire is nearly as standard as going to church on sunday, what they call the lords day. That eternal hell fire stuff is rediculous, are you saying that most christians don't believe in it?

realifedad said MikePhil---- you asked me "how do you know that most christians believe what you said above?" -----------------The belief by christians in eternal hell fire is nearly as standard as going to church on sunday, what they call the lords day. That eternal hell fire stuff is rediculous, are you saying that most christians don't believe in it?

Well I've already got my BBQ pack, for when I go to hell.

[quote][cite]swimbikerun


I am completely in agreement with you!

It isn't just the fear of death that drives people to want to invent a higher power, god, adult imaginary friend or whatever but also the need to understand the world and universe around you. Think of a primitive tribe of people that constantly saw lightning and heard thunder and then had rain.
Some guy comes along and tells them all of that is because of an powerful being that they can't see but who runs everything so they should behave in a manner that pleases this being... of course the new guy that happened along KNOWS what that "god" wants so he can dictate to these people the wishes of the god....this is often how religions get started and are perpetuated through fear from those chosen ones on earth to represent these various gods.

Of course religion is a figment of our imagination

After all there is strong evidence the brain itself evolved the ability to "create" spiritual experiences. These so called moments of faith are nothing more than natural responses to stimulus.


http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/magick/createsgod.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

Every thought and action you take is the result of chemical reactions inside the body. We know for certain things such as free will don't exist. Mankind is less of an independent being and more of an advanced product, of course one with immense complexity.

The only reason some people are involved in organized faiths is the result of brainwashing. When the body experiences an unknown moment such as a sudden chill or a moment of pressure in the skull we try to reason out what's going on. Those raised in a culture saturated be false religions are likely to say "It's God! He touched me!" or some other nonsense. Without the indoctrination, religion doesn't exist. People don't just "believe" in spirits and ghosts and afterlives for no reason, they have to be raised to believe in such.

Part of why I know God(s) dont/cannot/will never exist. At least not what any of use would call a god. If religion has to be taught then why should any god exist.

If god is so loving then why do you have to believe in him to get into heaven?

Pretty much I have two ideas on this:

1) If god exists and is jealous, angry, and childish and demands belief then fine. All of us should WANT to go to hell. No person in their right mind should desire to be with such a hateful god.

2) If god is really all loving and exist? Well lol, lets just all be atheists anyways and save ourselves all the problems theists create

Of course god doesn't exist... but I felt like sharing those examples for all those you still cling to these fantasies. See? If your god is really so loving then become an atheist and stop adding to the force that degrades the human race.

Whether religion is a figment of the imagination or not is probably not that relevant. Human beings are myth creating and believing animals. I can think of a few myths that Americans hold dear that the rest of the world just shakes their heads at.

The important thing about religion, like other "myths" or belief systems, is that it influences human behaviour, which in turn can have permanent and very real consequences for society (both good and bad).

I'd feel better about Epicurus if he knew how to spell "atheist."

trance23 talks about: The ability to create spriual experiance.

Now One has experienced this. I have come to the conclusion, it is nothing more than a function of the brain. But this has helped One be free of religion, as my religion, the Mormons tell me this is the working of our leader, and not a lowly member like I.

But I know what I know to be true, albeit One struggles to understand it, and why I should have come to know such things to come? Plus One is a fag. So such a working can not be the actions of god, as god hates fags.

But with this not being a new function of man. I can understand, what people made of such things in the dark ages, and before. Now I have talked to people about things to come to pass, before they did. If I am deluded, then they share my delusion.

Such workings are not of Gos, but the function of the brain. Now other peoples brains are able to do things mine is not.

obscenewish saidI'd feel better about Epicurus if he knew how to spell "atheist."

Oh snap! I didn't even catch that! lol

swimbikerun said[quote][cite]obscenewish said[/cite]I'd feel better about Epicurus if he knew how to spell "atheist."

Oh snap! I didn't even catch that! lol[/quote]

I thought it was lolcatz spelling.

Without even bringing any religious arguments into this, I think that the premise as described in the original post is not at all scientific. It uses the same logical conclusion that says, if dogs are animals and cats are animals, then dogs are cats.
The 'trick' with this type of presentation is to present a lot of well known facts and then slip in a supposition or two and it will appear that those are facts too. People tend to not be sufficiently analytical with a cynical approach when listening or reading this type of presentation. Sometimes, it's simply a matter of leaving out a fact or two that allows for a supposition like this to be valid. (Case in point: The American Alzheimers Institute [AAI] announced that due to the deposits of aluminum in the brains of autopsied patients who died of it, that aluminum may be a primary cause of Alzheimers. It took them over ten years to realize and admit that the aluminum deposits were a result of Alzheimers and not the cause.)
This kind of 'science' annoys me.

Religion and the ability to believe in the abstract was absolutely a product of evolution
as our brain and our socialization had become more complex the need for a bonding agent or something that allowed groups who did not belong directly to your family or clan to live and work together... this "shared" belief system allowed that
why do you think people with certain types of epilepsy
or who have tumors in specific portions of the brain
all have similar religious "visions"
we're wired for religion ... it had become a survival mechanism in our early societal evolution

realifedad said MikePhil---- you asked me "how do you know that most christians believe what you said above?" -----------------The belief by christians in eternal hell fire is nearly as standard as going to church on sunday, what they call the lords day. That eternal hell fire stuff is rediculous, are you saying that most christians don't believe in it?

Well, I am Christian and I can not answer that honestly, so I'm pretty sure you don't know, but if I were to have a guess at it based on the fact that most people in Ireland are Christian, so most people I communicate with are Christian, then no I do not think most believe that.


Mike

Trance23 saidOf course religion is a figment of our imagination

After all there is strong evidence the brain itself evolved the ability to "create" spiritual experiences. These so called moments of faith are nothing more than natural responses to stimulus.


http://www.nwbotanicals.org/oak/magick/createsgod.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

Every thought and action you take is the result of chemical reactions inside the body. We know for certain things such as free will don't exist. Mankind is less of an independent being and more of an advanced product, of course one with immense complexity.

The only reason some people are involved in organized faiths is the result of brainwashing. When the body experiences an unknown moment such as a sudden chill or a moment of pressure in the skull we try to reason out what's going on. Those raised in a culture saturated be false religions are likely to say "It's God! He touched me!" or some other nonsense. Without the indoctrination, religion doesn't exist. People don't just "believe" in spirits and ghosts and afterlives for no reason, they have to be raised to believe in such.

Part of why I know God(s) dont/cannot/will never exist. At least not what any of use would call a god. If religion has to be taught then why should any god exist.

If god is so loving then why do you have to believe in him to get into heaven?

Pretty much I have two ideas on this:

1) If god exists and is jealous, angry, and childish and demands belief then fine. All of us should WANT to go to hell. No person in their right mind should desire to be with such a hateful god.

2) If god is really all loving and exist? Well lol, lets just all be atheists anyways and save ourselves all the problems theists create

Of course god doesn't exist... but I felt like sharing those examples for all those you still cling to these fantasies. See? If your god is really so loving then become an atheist and stop adding to the force that degrades the human race.

Trance, I don't know if you are being serious or just having a laugh.

If there is a religion (force) that degrades the human race, it is atheism. It is so intolerant of those that believe, almost to a point of hatred, and is so obsessed with trying to convince us that there is no God. And all this among gay men It would make you wonder

You can base your logic on science if you want, but I have been around a while, and I have seen science to be wrong time and time again.

Mike

GQjock saidwhy do you think people with certain types of epilepsy
or who have tumors in specific portions of the brain
all have similar religious "visions"

Did it ever cross your mind that it's because there really is a God, and that is why there visions are the same. That to me would be the most logical answer Just a thought


Mike

swimbikerun said# 00:01 28 April 2008
# NewScientist.com news service
# Andy Coghlan

"Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic 'Ummah' uniting Muslims."

Article continues...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html

using that same logic then all of human culture is a figment as well.

Pattison saidtrance23 talks about: The ability to create spriual experiance.

Now One has experienced this. I have come to the conclusion, it is nothing more than a function of the brain. But this has helped One be free of religion, as my religion, the Mormons tell me this is the working of our leader, and not a lowly member like I.

But I know what I know to be true, albeit One struggles to understand it, and why I should have come to know such things to come? Plus One is a fag. So such a working can not be the actions of god, as god hates fags.

But with this not being a new function of man. I can understand, what people made of such things in the dark ages, and before. Now I have talked to people about things to come to pass, before they did. If I am deluded, then they share my delusion.

Such workings are not of Gos, but the function of the brain. Now other peoples brains are able to do things mine is not.

Oh, we're back to ONE again. I thought it was too good to last.

For someone that doesn’t believe in God and religion, you always refer to "my religion" Why is that?

Apart from that I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Mike

Wow, this is getting really deep guys. I have a situation where both my mother, and my boyfriends' mother and father, are from totally different chrsitian faiths, and live very different lives.
My mother told me when I came out that she still loved me, and God still loved me, that I could live together with another man, love him, kiss him, but not sleep in the same bed. My partners' parents on the other hand, hate the fact that he's gay, and have only just recently accepted the fact that we are 'good for each other', with little or no feelings or thought towards the matter of us living together and sharing more than just our 'friendship'. It really bugs me the fact that If I feel God has created me gay, it is for some reason. Lets face it, I was married to a woman once,and I felt miserable.
I often think my sister is close to the truth, when she said, 'God' is but a band of 'energy' that circulates around all of us.... and if we do good, and pray into that energy field, we get good energy back. And how many of us have heard the saying 'a church is a group of people, not a building to contain people' ?.
We all need to feel a part of something bigger, because lets face it, human greed has always fucked up the world and it's people. We need to rise above, to believe in something greater, to make up for the mistakes of our fore fathers. I only hope we don't blame 'God' when climate change finally makes the earth uninhabitable for humans.... and is returned to fire...if that is, of course, what we name hell?

I pray to Jesus every day... to protect me from his followers

Sometimes I feel like organized religion (of any denomination) really creates more problems in society than it solves. No?

BostonVball saidI pray to Jesus every day... to protect me from his followers Lock your doors, we are coming to get you

Sometimes I feel like organized religion (of any denomination) really creates more problems in society than it solves. No?

including atheism

MikePhilLock your doors, we are coming to get you (including atheism)

BRING IT

Atheism too? Really? I figured they wouldn't care...

It's a bit disappointing that the debate on this thread has very little to do with the argument of the article.

The question raised is this:

Did religion as a social phenomenon play an essential role in the development of human society OR was religion a by-product of the development of human society.

Discussions of the existence or otherwise of deities are tangential to the study of religion as a social phenomenon.

MikePhil, I am frankly tired of reading your overly generalized condemnations of atheists such as "If there is a religion (force) that degrades the human race, it is atheism. It is so intolerant of those that believe, almost to a point of hatred, and is so obsessed with trying to convince us that there is no God." Would you mind not repeating them again?

TigerTim saidIt's a bit disappointing that the debate on this thread has very little to do with the argument of the article.

The question raised is this:

Did religion as a social phenomenon play an essential role in the development of human society OR was religion a by-product of the development of human society.

Discussions of the existence or otherwise of deities are tangential to the study of religion as a social phenomenon.

MikePhil, I am frankly tired of reading your overly generalized condemnations of atheists such as "If there is a religion (force) that degrades the human race, it is atheism. It is so intolerant of those that believe, almost to a point of hatred, and is so obsessed with trying to convince us that there is no God." Would you mind not repeating them again?

LOL

When the over generalized condemnations of believers stop, then, and only then, will I stop OK

I am fighting fire with fire. While there are some that would like to shut me up, there are others that mail me to try and get me razzed.

You just cant win

What's your bets, that there wont be another thread on religion within (lets say two weeks)?

Any takers?

BTW Tim, I think that is my first time making that statement And I will make any statement I want, and as many times as I want. Every thing that has been said on the subject has been said many times. Is it what I said, or just me?

Mike

BostonVball said[quote][cite]MikePhil[/cite]Atheism too? Really? I figured they wouldn't care...

I wouldn't bet on that.

Re: did religion play an essential roll in the development of human society.

In a way yes but buy force. This is why One refers to catholicism, as the first religious terrorist group.

They gave society no choice but to do things their way. We have lost so much of our history thanks to all their book burning, and such. To take humanity's pagan past away from them/us, and forced Catholicism on them/us.

Mexico, is a good example. They would persecute them if they tried to continue with their old ways, and force the new ways upon them. So now so much of their history is lost, and they are a forced catholic county, as they now know nothing else, and still a backward place.

Just as from the dark ages so much of mankind's early development was lost. As the Micks wanted too rewrite history, and for us now, to know it as they wanted us to do so.

But Catholicism is no longer a superpower, and now people are able to turn their back on it, and they are. But yet so much of our history is lost. But they can not burn us, or imprison us as they did Galileo, for questioning them.

We are now in a new era, and religions don't like it, as once again. man is being able to write our history, and not religion.

BostonVball said[quote][cite]MikePhil[/cite]Lock your doors, we are coming to get you (including atheism)

BRING IT

Atheism too? Really? I figured they wouldn't care...[/quote]

it "tis quite OK for religion, may it be the Evangelist, or the catholics to hold big public rallies, and shove their will down our throtes. Do Atheist hold big protest to stop em. Not really.

Yet if atheist could get organised enough to hold a rally, oh the protest, and the violence that would go on to stop it......

Religion means war. How the world would of been a better place, if it was not for religion. We would of had a much more peaceful past, and how the Manhattan Skyline looks so different thank to religion.

Woah guys... Christianity is a religion, true, but religion is NOT Christianity.

Just because a few religions tend to have histories of extreme violence and persecution does not mean they all do.

Pattison saidRe: did religion play an essential roll in the development of human society.

In a way yes but buy force. This is why One refers to catholicism, as the first religious terrorist group.

They gave society no choice but to do things their way. We have lost so much of our history thanks to all their book burning, and such. To take humanity's pagan past away from them/us, and forced Catholicism on them/us.

Mexico, is a good example. They would persecute them if they tried to continue with their old ways, and force the new ways upon them. So now so much of their history is lost, and they are a forced catholic county, as they now know nothing else, and still a backward place.

Just as from the dark ages so much of mankind's early development was lost. As the Micks wanted too rewrite history, and for us now, to know it as they wanted us to do so.

But Catholicism is no longer a superpower, and now people are able to turn their back on it, and they are. But yet so much of our history is lost. But they can not burn us, or imprison us as they did Galileo, for questioning them.

We are now in a new era, and religions don't like it, as once again. man is being able to write our history, and not religion.

I never knew I was a terrorist

Ya learn something new every day.

What's your response to that Tim?

Just for you I will let this one go.

Mike

MikePhil:

Well I don't really see why you feel so under attack. You live, as you say, in a nation where religion is perfectly secure and to which the virtues of religious tolerance ought to be manifest.

And so I don't see why you feel the need to "fight fire with fire" when your persecution would seem to be confined to addressing the ill-chosen words of an ignorant few, and who many atheists would disagree with in any case. Religion is a topic that clearly interests people on RJ, perhaps because it has a somewhat problematic role in LGBT society (where some have advocated our rights and yet others have demanded their removal). However discussions can be bad or good. Perhaps you would like to read this thread for what I consider to be a good debate. Notice that there is no immediate falling back to entrenched positions, no rants or flamewars, and some thoughtful, well argued responses.

So my point is: you can, of course, say what you like. But I think you can do better than writing flames, and in any case I suggest that they're counterproductive to your goals (unless your goal is to start a flamewar).

Pattison said[quote][cite]BostonVball said[/cite][quote][cite]MikePhil[/cite]Lock your doors, we are coming to get you (including atheism)

BRING IT

Atheism too? Really? I figured they wouldn't care...[/quote]

it "tis quite OK for religion, may it be the Evangelist, or the catholics to hold big public rallies, and shove their will down our throtes. Do Atheist hold big protest to stop em. Not really.

Yet if atheist could get organised enough to hold a rally, oh the protest, and the violence that would go on to stop it......

Religion means war. How the world would of been a better place, if it was not for religion. We would of had a much more peaceful past, and how the Manhattan Skyline looks so different thank to religion.[/quote]


I have never held, or been part of a public rally to shove my beliefs down anyone's throats, nor would I.

Atheists are pretty organised on here. And yes Religion means war, to those that don't like or want it. Just like those that don't like or want gays.

Mike

Mikephil.

one has never, ever called you a terrorist! yet you do belong to a terrorist organisation.

Pattison: It is not helpful to argue present moral positions from the roles of history. When you look at any organization, from the British empire to the Pharoahs of Egypt to the United States to DeBeers, etc., you can find something reprehensible.

And yet if the people responsible for those things are long dead, as they are in the Catholic church, then we ought not use them against people in the here and now who have no responsibility for them, unless some claim is made that their history justifies some moral position.

In fact, generally, we ought to recognize that religious belief is one of a basket of human rights that all are entitled to enjoy as a whole. When people use religious arguments to make moral arguments, then we are entitled to argue with them courteously. It has been observed that flamewars and personal attacks are not effective modes of argument.

MikePhil: I've written this as an example of what you *ought* to have argued in place of your flames.

Oh yes, it is patently unhelpful to introduce pejorative words like "terrorist" into a debate.

TigerTim saidMikePhil:

Well I don't really see why you feel so under attack. You live, as you say, in a nation where religion is perfectly secure and to which the virtues of religious tolerance ought to be manifest.

And so I don't see why you feel the need to "fight fire with fire" when your persecution would seem to be confined to addressing the ill-chosen words of an ignorant few, and who many atheists would disagree with in any case. Religion is a topic that clearly interests people on RJ, perhaps because it has a somewhat problematic role in LGBT society (where some have advocated our rights and yet others have demanded their removal). However discussions can be bad or good. Perhaps you would like to read this thread for what I consider to be a good debate. Notice that there is no immediate falling back to entrenched positions, no rants or flamewars, and some thoughtful, well argued responses.

So my point is: you can, of course, say what you like. But I think you can do better than writing flames, and in any case I suggest that they're counterproductive to your goals (unless your goal is to start a flamewar).

Tim,

Look, I apologies if I offend you in anyway. I have never been offended by anything you have said on the subject. My comments were not directed at you or at all Atheists. And I think you know me better than that.

I don't feel under attack, but I feel I should respond where, (for example) I am classed as a "religious terrorist".

Although, considering the source that that came from, I have to say reading it, I laughed my ass off.

If I generalize against a particular group, don't take it to heart. I know I shouldn't do that, but I only do it with those that do it to me. I know most atheists are great people.

Mike

Pattison saidMikephil.

one has never, ever called you a terrorist! yet you do belong to a terrorist organisation.

Can you belong to a terrorist organisation and not be a terrorist

I will say this thread has been hijacked!
My point for originally posting this was to discuss the possibility that the basis for religion has evolutionary origins and not sociological origins as held commonly.

Although I don't subscribe to religion, I believe we owe a lot to religion. Inspite of all the wars and strife, religion has been a focal point of creativity and human advancement.

When I see all the huge Cathedrals and even Mosques, I appreciate the human effort that went into their design, engineering, and construction. I think civilization wouldn't have advanced as it has without it.

With that being said, in light of all the scientific discoveries that used to be explained by religion, I've lost faith in the existence of the supernatural entity behind religion.

swimbikerun saidI will say this thread has been hijacked!
My point for originally posting this was to discuss the possibility that the basis for religion has evolutionary origins and not sociological origins as held commonly.

This thread is a figment of your imagination

John43620 saidInspite of all the wars and strife, religion has been a focal point of creativity and human advancement.

Really? I'm not sure Galileo or Copernicus would agree with that.

swimbikerun said
My point for originally posting this was to discuss the possibility that the basis for religion has evolutionary origins and not sociological origins as held commonly.

I think it's probably both. Richard Dawkins makes a good case for the evolutionary side of it. I think we all know the sociological side as we're still living in an era where church affiliation is often socially and professionally important.

But despite the origin, I think we're also in an era where if not for the social/professional ramifications more people could be honest and admit the whole "God" thing is a little far-fetched and no different than other mythologies.

TigerTim saidPattison: It is not helpful to argue present moral positions from the roles of history. When you look at any organization, from the British empire to the Pharoahs of Egypt to the United States to DeBeers, etc., you can find something reprehensible.

And yet if the people responsible for those things are long dead, as they are in the Catholic church, then we ought not use them against people in the here and now who have no responsibility for them, unless some claim is made that their history justifies some moral position.

In fact, generally, we ought to recognize that religious belief is one of a basket of human rights that all are entitled to enjoy as a whole. When people use religious arguments to make moral arguments, then we are entitled to argue with them courteously. It has been observed that flamewars and personal attacks are not effective modes of argument.

MikePhil: I've written this as an example of what you *ought* to have argued in place of your flames.

I would never ever deprive anyone the right to their religion. This is their right. i would never stop a person from going to church. But I am sorry I have been terrorised by the catholic church, as was my Pa. But do not think a catholic is a terrorist, but the pope is head of a terrorist organisation.

So the Muslims have one bad day. September the 11th. yet they are labeled terrorist. I feel this is not initially just.

Well, just make sure you don't go "nuking" our imaginations when they run wild like they did in south park (imagination-land episodes) .. lol

MikePhil said Trance, I don't know if you are being serious or just having a laugh.

If there is a religion (force) that degrades the human race, it is atheism. It is so intolerant of those that believe, almost to a point of hatred, and is so obsessed with trying to convince us that there is no God. And all this among gay men It would make you wonder

You can base your logic on science if you want, but I have been around a while, and I have seen science to be wrong time and time again.

Mike

I would contend that you've seen scientists who were wrong about some conclusion or another, but you've never seen "science" be wrong because science is a method. Those who use science poorly come to bogus statements, but the scientific method isn't to blame.

And I think if atheists seem to 'hate' theists it's probably due to hundreds if not thousands of years of 'believers' harassing and murdering those who had the audacity to say "I refuse to believe in your invisible god without clear and tangible proof." And if you were trying to explain to someone that invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters weren't real, and they insistently clung to the irrational belief that they were, and you'd seen some of history's most disgusting atrocities committed in the name of the flying spaghetti monster, wouldn't you get kinda pissed off at them, too?

You indict atheists' "intolerence"-- well we don't tolerate slavery, and that was based on irrational, unsubstantiated beliefs. We're intolerent of a lot of imaginary beliefs because we see those who hold them do harm; why should religion be an exception? Given the choice between a world where majority belief is based on rational, scientific evidence and those who made stuff up and swore by it were treated as mentally ill, or a world where a majority believes based on faith in defiance of evidence and those who don't buy in are thought of as 'immoral,' then I'd take the former any day.

MikePhil said
You can base your logic on science if you want, but I have been around a while, and I have seen science to be wrong time and time again.

Really? Would you mind giving some examples? Because I can list a dozen or so instances where the church has been incorrect about the nature of things (including a big one - heliocentricity), but I'm having a hard time thinking of instances where the scientific community got things completely wrong.

I'm thinking of medicine, physics, and astronomy. Lister, Pasteur, Einstein, Curie, and Copernicus were all proven right.

Tell me about the times science has been wrong "time and time again."

Global_Citizen said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite]
You can base your logic on science if you want, but I have been around a while, and I have seen science to be wrong time and time again.

Really? Would you mind giving some examples? Because I can list a dozen or so instances where the church has been incorrect about the nature of things (including a big one - heliocentricity), but I'm having a hard time thinking of instances where the scientific community got things completely wrong.

I'm thinking of medicine, physics, and astronomy. Lister, Pasteur, Einstein, Curie, and Copernicus were all proven right.

Tell me about the times science has been wrong "time and time again."[/quote]


1) A scientific establishment said that "A stone cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky" The great chemist Antoine Lavoisier examined a piece of meteoric rock, and came to the conclusion that it was an ordinary rock that had been struck by lightning.

2) Elizabeth Kenny's polio treatment. She discovered that polio paralysis could be treated with a damp sponge. Her ideas were dismissed by the medical community for 30 years, but eventually accepted.

3) Continental drift,

First detailed theory proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, and rejected by the vast majority of geologists. Eventually proved true in the 1960s.

4) Lord Rutherford, said that the atom could ever be a source of energy

5) http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0704/breaking46.htm

Now, I'm no scientist, so if any of those things I have heard (and there are more) are wrong, please correct me.

I also want to say that I don't see anything wrong with getting things wrong. That is how we learn, but just because science says it is so, does not mean it is so.

Mike

Well, just as I suspected, imperator's assertion above proves true. You're citing individual scientists whose theories have proven to be wrong, not the consensus views of the scientific community.

The scientific process, and therefore the scientific community, is geared to inherently find the right answers and dismiss the wrong. An individual hypothesis can prove to be right or wrong, but "science" in general is not wrong because it's continually testing those hypotheses and rejecting those which are flawed.

This is in stark contrast to the church, which denies obvious truth even centuries after it's proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, look at heliocentricity, which the Catholic Church didn't officially acknowledge until 1991, some 477 years after Copernicus hypothesized about it and 381 years after Galileo proved it.

Pattison said[quote][cite]
So the Muslims have one bad day. September the 11th. yet they are labeled terrorist. I feel this is not initially just.

Muslims are not labeled terrorists by me. Who here thinks Muslims are terrorists Who here thinks I'm a terrorist

Pattison, as always you are talking nonsense.

I don't believe for a moment that September the 11th had anything to do with religion. Religion may have been used as the means, but that is about it.

Mike

MikePhil saidAtheists are pretty organised on here.

Dammit, guys, Mike must have heard about our weekly meetings, carpooling, and phone chains! Who let the cat our of the bag?

Global_Citizen saidWell, just as I suspected, imperator's assertion above proves true. You're citing individual scientists whose theories have proven to be wrong, not the consensus views of the scientific community.

The scientific process, and therefore the scientific community, is geared to inherently find the right answers and dismiss the wrong. An individual hypothesis can prove to be right or wrong, but "science" in general is not wrong because it's continually testing those hypotheses and rejecting those which are flawed.

This is in stark contrast to the church, which denies obvious truth even centuries after it's proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Again, look at heliocentricity, which the Catholic Church didn't officially acknowledge until 1991, some 477 years after Copernicus hypothesized about it and 381 years after Galileo proved it.

Why did you ask if you knew

How about the last one, number 5.

I'm sure you have a good answer for that

Either way science (or what ever way you want to twist it) can, and will be wrong from time to time. And you can huff and puff about it all you like. Also trying to make me look like I am deluded (as it has been put) will not change that fact.

Mike

MikePhil said1) A scientific establishment said that "A stone cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky"...

Actually, Mike, you'll then have to admit that science got all these right in the long run (it certainly wasn't religion that provided the correction).

Your post makes the mistake of identifying science as a set of conclusions about the world, when in fact it's a METHOD for arriving at conclusions. And in every case you list, the methods of science led to a correction of the error.

So in fact, your post ultimately shows the power of science, not its weakness.

Squarejaw said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite]Atheists are pretty organised on here.

Dammit, guys, Mike must have heard about our weekly meetings, carpooling, and phone chains! Who let the cat our of the bag?[/quote]


Have you not heard I'm a terrorist I have ways and means

Squarejaw said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite]1) A scientific establishment said that "A stone cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky"...

Actually, Mike, you'll then have to admit that science got all these right in the long run (it certainly wasn't religion that provided the correction).

Your post makes the mistake of identifying science as a set of conclusions about the world, when in fact it's a METHOD for arriving at conclusions. And in every case you list, the methods of science led to a correction of the error.

So in fact, your post ultimately shows the power of science, not its weakness.[/quote]


Well I'm surprised that smart ass Global_Citizen did not pull me on that one

You are missing my point. I am not trying to put science down. I am not a great writer so it is not as easy for me to say what I want to say, as some of you can. My point is just because science says (for example) today mikephil is an alien, but tomorrow it may find out mikephil is in fact human. Yet some people think that what ever science says now, that that is it. It will never change. Do you get my point now? This does not just apply to science it applies even to my job.

Mike

Just as I will never side with America's christo-fascists who seem intent on taking away the freedoms our country was founded on (and electing war-mongering idiots, but that's another thread), I can't side with the atheists either if their overarching point is -- if you can't prove it then it doesn't exist. After all, God can't be proven OR disproven.

Searching for spirituality in life and meaning in existence is quintessentially human, and part of the experience of being alive.

And though it's a shame that so many religions and religious figures use faith (or dogma) as a hammer to pound people into submission, get rich, or further political ambitions, the atheists' call to put an end to the search for God leaves me equally cold.

MikePhil said Yet some people think that what ever science says now, that that is it. It will never change.

Is that what other people think about science or is that what YOU think other people think about science?

If that's the case, why are we still referring to evolution as a theory?

Global_Citizen said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite] Yet some people think that what ever science says now, that that is it. It will never change.

Is that what other people think about science or is that what YOU think other people think about science?

If that's the case, why are we still referring to evolution as a theory? [/quote]

It is what I think other people think, because that is how they behave. The religion threads show that every time.

We are all deluded because we cant scientifically prove God exists. That is the argument

MikePhil said[quote][cite]Pattison said[/cite][quote][cite]
So the Muslims have one bad day. September the 11th. yet they are labeled terrorist. I feel this is not initially just.

Muslims are not labeled terrorists by me. Who here thinks Muslims are terrorists Who here thinks I'm a terrorist

Pattison, as always you are talking nonsense.

I don't believe for a moment that September the 11th had anything to do with religion. Religion may have been used as the means, but that is about it.

Mike[/quote]

Mike if it helps you to rise, by bringing One down please do so. One is grounded enough to be confident in oneself, to allow you to do this if you have the need, and it seems you do.

One is confident in Oneself, and beliefs to allow others to think differently, and not feel a need to be pugnacious, if others do not share Ones views.

If One is talking nonsense, well so be it. But One is Grateful for Henry the Eighth Kicking The Micks out of England, and starting his own church. The Church of England. because this has led Oz to be a protestant country, and helped us become the great Southern land we are. We would not be this Great Southern land we are if we Were A Catholic Country.

Yet Catholics flock to OZ, to have a life, and opportunities, that They are unable to obtain in their own Catholic Country. Because Vat City has raped the soul of their land.

No if Vat City, had of stayed out of Oz, and our Politics. I have no doubt, that Oz would of been one the the most advanced countries on father earth. The gays would of had equality for one. But vat city will fight, threaten, abuse county's whom try to give the gays equity.

Pattison said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite][quote][cite]Pattison said[/cite][quote][cite]
So the Muslims have one bad day. September the 11th. yet they are labeled terrorist. I feel this is not initially just.

Muslims are not labeled terrorists by me. Who here thinks Muslims are terrorists Who here thinks I'm a terrorist

Pattison, as always you are talking nonsense.

I don't believe for a moment that September the 11th had anything to do with religion. Religion may have been used as the means, but that is about it.

Mike[/quote]

Mike if it helps to to rise, by bringing One down please do so. One is grounded enough to be confident in oneself, to allow you to do this if you have the need, and it seems you do.

One is confident in Oneself, and beliefs to allow others to think differently, and not feel a need to be pugnacious, if others do not share Ones views.

If One is talking nonsense, well so be it. But One is Grateful for Henry the Eighth Kicking The Micks out of England, and starting his own church. The Church of England. because this has led Oz to be a protestant country, and helped us become the great Southern land we are. We would not be this Great Southern land we are if we Were A Catholic Country.

Yet Catholics flock to OZ, to have a life, and opportunities, that They are unable to obtain in their own Catholic Country. Because Vat City has raped the soul of their land.

No if Vat City, had of stayed out of Oz, and our Politics. I have no doubt, that Oz would of been one the the most advanced countries on father earth. The gays would of had equality for one. But vat city will fight, threaten, abuse county's whom try to give the gays equity.[/quote]







Are you serious

Who called who a terrorist And don't say you didn't because if you belong to a terrorist organisation then you are a terrorist.

So who is bring one down

From some of your posts, I think Ireland is a much better place to be gay in, in fact, a much better place over all, so I don't know what you are rambling about

Global Citizen, I'm a big fan of Galileo and Copernicus and I'm quite sure they were grateful for the knowledge of math and engineering that was passed on to them. Which is my point, religion was a vehicle for passing along that knowledge. Religion was a means of organizing the disorganized. We owe it that much recognition.

John43620 saidGlobal Citizen, I'm a big fan of Galileo and Copernicus and I'm quite sure they were greatful for the knowledge of math and engineering that was passed on to them. Which is my point, religion was a vehicle for passing along that knowledge. Religion was a means of organizing the disorganized. We owe it that much recognition.

That's a novel and generous interpretation considering that for centuries the church refused to allow the Bible to be translated into any language the people could actually read.

And I'm not so sure it was the church that educated anyone in math and engineering, but if you'd like to prove that assertion, I'm listening.

John43620 saidGlobal Citizen, I'm a big fan of Galileo and Copernicus and I'm quite sure they were greatful for the knowledge of math and engineering that was passed on to them. Which is my point, religion was a vehicle for passing along that knowledge. Religion was a means of organizing the disorganized. We owe it that much recognition.

Yes. But nothing man would not of obtained without religion. Yes man has done great things for their gods, with architecture. When I go to Russia next year. I will spend alot of time in church, looking at so many of their Churches. I love architecture.

MikePhil said[quote][cite]Pattison said[/cite]Mikephil.

one has never, ever called you a terrorist! yet you do belong to a terrorist organisation.

Can you belong to a terrorist organisation and not be a terrorist [/quote]

I belonged to a religious organisation, but have never been religious.

I have a few friends whom are Muslim, yet they are not terrorist!

This entire forum, and the spontaneous self-aggregation around a simple hypothesis like gay men interested in health and sport, easily fit that definition of transcendental social, group, or nation.

Where does that transcendental effect come from (is it from the network itself, from the desire to aggregate, and so forth - which came first the chicken or the egg) seems like something incredibly difficult to prove.

A the same time we can prove religious belief (be it what it may from animism to devil worship) practically from our ability to date homo-sapiens (and HS's predecessors, or so it would seem of late).

I don't know what my doggies, dolphins, cats, or computer networks might believe. (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?).

I suspect that the impulse toward belief in transcendental systems extends well beyond human belief, and very probably functions at a nearly mechanical level. If the "Music of the Spheres" proves to be nothing more than Doppler-shifted light from the big bang that knocks around as microwave radiation, then it still has an effect, and it is still "heard" on some level by everything animate and inanimate (in this case defining hearing as vibration at the atomic and sub atomic level which rocks do just as surely as we do).

I do wonder how Maurice Bloch proves what imagination is, let alone that human's are its only possessors (sounds suspiciously like a religious conviction as opposed to a scientific proof)?

Frankly, I don't buy that premise. It just doesn't seem likely that we are the only creatures who imagine. I am open minded enough to be willing to entertain the idea that rocks, trees, and rivers might just imagine too.

Maybe I am a religious nut (and I am at-least religious because I choose to be) or a flipped-out animist, but as a sailor anyone will have a very difficult time convincing me that the sea is not a living being with its own reason, motives, moods, and ample imagination.

The argument itself is a Koan, and useful only to the extend that any Koan serves - as a starting point for meditation. "What is the sound of one hand clapping", "Humans alone practice religious because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination" - Isn't it curious that Bloch uses "they're" - what is he a Porpoise?

Terry







Swim Bike Run says,


"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Pattison said[quote][cite]MikePhil said[/cite][quote][cite]Pattison said[/cite]Mikephil.

one has never, ever called you a terrorist! yet you do belong to a terrorist organisation.

Can you belong to a terrorist organisation and not be a terrorist [/quote]

I belonged to a religious organisation, but have never been religious.

I have a few friends whom are Muslim, yet they are not terrorist![/quote]


Pattison,

I'm starting to think you are just a figment of my imagination.

I take it you don't believe in God

So why do you belong to a religious organisation

How do you belong to it Explain

If you are not religious, and don't believe in God, then you don't "belong" to any religious organisation.

And your friends do not belong to a terrorist organisation, as I do not.

Mike

Its sad people are so terrified that God might not exist. Its ok guys, if God exists or not, we are all still here right? The world is still in one piece, re