Religulous

[Blarg]

I don't think the part about evolution and religion are different topic. Evolution tell us it should have disappeared if it was useless, but it's still here. If evolution is considered good for you, then religion can't be as bad as some people make it sound.

Anyway, "good" can be understood in many way. Personal satisfaction, optimized evolution, ratio of healthy individual...etc. You will need a ton of arbitrary parameter to determine if something is good or not.


And what happen to woman in saudi arabia isn't really different from what happen with many animal species. Is it a behavior specific to religion? I'm sure many men would give anything to have their own harem if they had the possibility to do it.

Evolution also says we had tails and fins and we had those for a hell of a lot longer than 30-150k years, as can obviously be seen, they are of no use to us anymore. Religion may have facilitated group interaction way back when making those who had that belief able to breed more. Humans nowadays have no problems breeding so this benefit from religious belief is hardly necessary to continue the species. Just because something exists today in an evolved (and still evolving) creature does NOT mean it is perfectly good and required.

Comparing what the animals do to the female species to what happens in Saudi Arabia is just silly. Just because roles are taken by sexes in different species of animals doesn't mean its completely natural for thinking and aware humans. Equality of women was/is a huge driving force to human advancement

You are being far too ambiguous with your good and bad btw. Like I said earlier, for certain questions of good and bad it may be necessary to define the words exactly but that's only for questions that are close to the middle ground of the two. The types of good and bad that we are/should be talking about are outside that middle ground.

[0ni0n]

The brain is such a simple tool, DNA and evolution obviously had no impact on it works.

If your brain wasnt inclined to postulate thing, you wouldn't be able to rationalize at all. You need to be able to assume that something is true if you want to make a logical reasoning. The postulate that there is something greater is needed if you want to start defining everything else.

No offense, but that's idiocy. The brain is the most complex object that we have come to know, and evolution has contributed hugely to the increased size of our brain because that's our competitive advantage.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of science. You don't start with a conclusion, you arrive at one after you analyze the data you collected. This is not some sci-fi or anime that you cannot just imagine things to make them true.

[Kaylia]

Evolution also says we had tails and fins and we had those for a hell of a lot longer than 30-150k years, as can obviously be seen, they are of no use to us anymore. Religion may have facilitated group interaction way back when making those who had that belief able to breed more. Humans nowadays have no problems breeding so this benefit from religious belief is hardly necessary to continue the species. Just because something exists today in an evolved (and still evolving) creature does NOT mean it is perfectly good and required.

Comparing what the animals do to the female species to what happens in Saudi Arabia is just silly. Just because roles are taken by sexes in different species of animals doesn't mean its completely natural for thinking and aware humans. Equality of women was/is a huge driving force to human advancement

You are being far too ambiguous with your good and bad btw. Like I said earlier, for certain questions of good and bad it may be necessary to define the words exactly but that's only for questions that are close to the middle ground of the two. The types of good and bad that we are/should be talking about are outside that middle ground.

Sex facilate group interaction way more than religion. Religion is one of the premise people postulated to have a stable environment, instead of something not defined.

I brought this topic to answer the question "is religion useful?". Why the "religious tribe" survived over the "non religious tribe"? Why every society around the world ended up with similar spiritual beliefs?

How am I ambiguous with "good" and "bad". I asked you to define it, and you said it can't be done. I could define it for you if you want, but I would rather follow your definition (because it's a bitch to define, and you would probably disagree with mine)

[Kaylia]

No offense, but that's idiocy. The brain is the most complex object that we have come to know, and evolution has contributed hugely to the increased size of our brain because that's our competitive advantage.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of science. You don't start with a conclusion, you arrive at one after you analyze the data you collected. This is not some sci-fi or anime that you cannot just imagine things to make them true.

Ugh...How could you not see the sarcasm? I thought it was obvious.


"Do you know anything about evolution? Kids aren't born with a belief. A belief is taught or imposed later in life"

I was replying to this comment. Having "beliefs" is something natural for the the brain, it need them to works (can't do logic if there is no "true").

A brain that doesn't wonder what is "behind" the limit of his sight is doing it wrong.

[0ni0n]

Ugh...How could you not see the sarcasm? I thought it was obvious.


"Do you know anything about evolution? Kids aren't born with a belief. A belief is taught or imposed later in life"

I was replying to this comment. Having "beliefs" is something natural for the the brain, it need them to works (can't do logic if there is no "true").

A brain that doesn't wonder what is "behind" the limit of his sight is doing it wrong.

That's a conjuncture, a ridiculous one at that. Are you saying atheists who don't have a belief are incapable of rational thoughts or intellectually inferior? Wondering is not tantamount to believing something entirely untrue or unproven.

[Kaylia]

That's a conjuncture, a ridiculous one at that. Are you saying atheists who don't have a belief are incapable of rational thoughts or intellectually inferior? Wondering is not tantamount to believing something entirely untrue or unproven.

No, I'm saying the brain is prone to postulate the existance of something we cant understand to give a sense to the rest.

It doesn't matter if you're atheist or theist, you have to postulate this.

[Denchi]

We don't exist purely as sensory beings, we use our reason and intellect to wade through our sense experience. Those things are innate.

[Roranora]

Before this thread, the number of times I've heard, read, and said the word postulate I could count on one hand.

[Neosutra]

Jesus titty fucking christ. "A finite brain cannot conceive of an infinite universe". Get that fucking concept out of your tiny brain.

Just because YOU cant concieve of these solutions doesnt mean the models and possibilities dont exist. Just stop. Stop saying that. It is so blatantly wrong it completely destroys any other point you are trying to validate.

Stop making statements about what we cant know. You are not the standard for the limitations of the human brain.

Fuck.

[Kaylia]

Jesus titty fucking christ. "A finite brain cannot conceive of an infinite universe". Get that fucking concept out of your tiny brain.

Just because YOU cant concieve of these solutions doesnt mean the models and possibilities dont exist. Just stop. Stop saying that. It is so blatantly wrong it completely destroys any other point you are trying to validate.

Stop making statements about what we cant know. You are not the standard for the limitations of the human brain.

Fuck.

You're fucking dense, sorry.


You can't define an infinity, not physically, not mathematically.

[Neosutra]

You're fucking dense, sorry.


You can't define an infinity, not physically, not mathematically.

No, let me correct you.

YOU cant define it or concieve it. YOU dont understand the models possible that help define infinite causality in a closed system. YOU dont have any background in astrophysics/string theory/quantum mechanics/any science. YOU cant fathom these concepts and have NO idea what YOU are talking about.

Stick to arguing the definitions of "good and bad" and stay the fuck away from statements that quantify what everyone else can know about the universe, because YOU obviously dont have a clue.

[Kaylia]

I will use caps lock, because clearly, you're deaf and blind


YOU CAN ONLY CONCEIVE AN INFINITY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A HIGHER DIMENSION. THE LINE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THE DOT, THE SPACE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THE LINE.

FOR EVERY DIMENSION, THERE IS ANOTHER DIMENSION THAT IS HIGHER, AND IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSION OF YOUR MODEL, YOU HAVE TO POSTULATE A HIGHER ONE.

HOWEVER, ONCE YOU POSTULATED THE EXISTENCE OF THIS NEW DIMENSION, YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE SAME PROBLEM AND NEED TO BRING ANOTHER DIMENSION. REPEAT THIS FOREVER AND YOU GET THE PROBLEM.

YOU dont understand the models possible that help define infinite causality in a closed system

I obviously don't understand those model, since they are PROVEN to be inconsistent (wrong)

[Blarg]

Sex facilate group interaction way more than religion. Religion is one of the premise people postulated to have a stable environment, instead of something not defined.

I brought this topic to answer the question "is religion useful?". Why the "religious tribe" survived over the "non religious tribe"? Why every society around the world ended up with similar spiritual beliefs?

How am I ambiguous with "good" and "bad". I asked you to define it, and you said it can't be done. I could define it for you if you want, but I would rather follow your definition (because it's a bitch to define, and you would probably disagree with mine)

I didn't say you can't define good or bad, I said it wasn't important for what I was trying to say. It's like trying to find out if a number is .999999 or 1.000000, when you are just going to add it to a million anyway it doesn't really matter. I hope you understand the analogy.

The point with the group interaction/evolution/religion thing was that a byproduct of religious thinking may have been beneficial for the groups of people, not exactly religion itself. It's kind of like how many people like going to church because they meet their friends, not because they like to eat crackers and hear how great jesus is. The real benefit is a byproduct of the religion. So to say that religion was necessary for humans to survive may only be partially accurate.

I'll try to think of an example. Say a civilization grew up playing soccer, someone would say (you in this example) 'why would evolution have selected for soccer?, it must be necessary'. What is much more likely is that physical fitness is a byproduct of soccer and those people/societies that played soccer were more fit and therefore able to reproduce more effectively.

[Kaylia]

I'll try to think of an example. Say a civilization grew up playing soccer, someone would say (you in this example) 'why would evolution have selected for soccer?, it must be necessary'. What is much more likely is that physical fitness is a byproduct of soccer and those people/societies that played soccer were more fit and therefore able to reproduce more effectively.

Your example is 100% correct and that's how evolution works.

However, it's also where I wanted to go with religion example. Why the bigger brain living in a religious society survived over the rest? Why the tribe with religion survived over the other? Religion has been synonym to organization in the past, and it definitively give an edge to certain group.

[Blarg]

Your example is 100% correct and that's how evolution works.

However, it's also where I wanted to go with religion example. Why the bigger brain living in a religious society survived over the rest? Why the tribe with religion survived over the other? Religion has been synonym to organization in the past, and it definitively give an edge to certain group.

Isn't this about if religion is needed now? It or a byproduct of religion appears to have served a purpose in the past but do you think that means that if religion were to be gradually taken away that humans wouldn't be able to survive as well? Many things used to serve a purpose and were practically a requirement (steam powered vehicles and whatnot) but are no longer required and the world isn't falling apart now without them.

[Neosutra]

Oh your caps locks convinced me.

All our models for time space are incorrect and no such model exists.

How naive we were. BRB running through the halls of my lab and telling everyone to stop working.

Dear god, please stop whatever degree you are working on. You wont contribute to any field of relevance.

[Kuya]

I don't think Kaylia is saying that you should stop trying just because it may potentially be an endless endeavor, just that it may very well be an endless endeavor. Which is kind of a good thing, if you look at it from a certain perspective.

[Denchi]

It seems like he's arguing what I always try to get across (Ineffectively unfortunately) which is we don't know everything, and we can't know everything, so stop acting like you do because it makes you sound and look like a total fuckwad. If you think you have all the answers, fact is you don't, and you're not convincing anyone.

[Tristam]

I am aware of that, but there is nothing structural within Buddhism that mandates that you not take medicine from the modern world, that would be a personal decision, and for the most part there is nothing within the basic structure of spiritualism that would imply this either, most everything else that may be added is going to be subjective to the given culture's accepted values which tend to merge into their spiritual beliefs for sake of coherency and homogeneity.


Let me try to simplify your argument and i'll respond to that and you see if you agree with it.

Your contention is that by tying certain ideas to spiritual beliefs they become absolute and unquestionable, even if they are detrimental? Well the problem with this is that is isn't very specific, non theism and theism are qualitatively different in many aspects. This absolutism that you are referring to, which i briefly mentioned, is hardly relevant to a belief of reverence toward nature and or one's ancestors. The quality you are referring to generally manifests itself in theist beliefs because they possess hierarchies, in fact, a belief in a deity will generally only manifest as a justification of a hierarchal reality in any given culture, and because this hierarchy generally requires obedience, this absolutism will probably only come to pass when a spiritual belief turns what was once a simple anima into a god, for institutional purposes. Though while i understand the troublesome aspect of a religion that professes absolute truth, this is generally a quality of a theist belief, and not quite a rule of thumb for the non theist spiritual ones, and even so, as can be observed from reality, even a theist religion can't hold their members if they are sufficiently convinced and not in a state of emotional distress.

Adding this: You may also already know, that other religions seek metaphysical truth, such as Buddhism, so absolute truth and loyalty, aren't exactly a quality that they make the norm.

Ah, I think I see. The problem with medicine I think still remains, an unintended consequence of spiritualism is quackery, even if it is not specifically endorsed by any non-theist religion. Surely you can agree that ancient systems of healing, couched in mystic language, dating to a time when there was no alternative, are easily abused by people out to make a buck off the credulous.

Otherwise I think we are in agreement that any supernatural invocation of an absolute truth is a bad thing. Or at best a neutral thing. So absent absolutes, the argument boils down to whether or not the components of the system of belief that have a supernatural aspect are of any benefit to the individual or society as a whole? I would say no, I fail to see how any supernatural belief advances our understanding of the natural world or gives us anything but a false sense of security. You can respect and admire ancestors and nature without any supernatural reason to do so, I think historians and scientists do this quite admirably. Keep in mind that I am not arguing that these things are bad, just that the belief in ghosts dosen't add anything.

[Kaylia]

Isn't this about if religion is needed now? It or a byproduct of religion appears to have served a purpose in the past but do you think that means that if religion were to be gradually taken away that humans wouldn't be able to survive as well? Many things used to serve a purpose and were practically a requirement (steam powered vehicles and whatnot) but are no longer required and the world isn't falling apart now without them.

If religion dissapears, it's because it's not needed anymore (from an evolutionary standpoint).