egran078 - 17 January 2012 03:40 PM

TimB - 16 January 2012 10:16 AM

Tazman - 16 January 2012 07:38 AM

Yes this is what I am saying. I think it maintains the idea that it’s the killing that is most important.

Maybe a sugar coated way of saying it would be, religion is an adaptation that allows humans to continue to evolve in the way of our ancestors.

Well, I am not saying that I am in perfect agreement with your proposition, but evidence to support it could be the preponderance of Christianity and Islam in the world today, as both religions, despite presenting themselves as religions of peace, have had murderous elements and murderous justifications, historically, that have apparently supported their establishment and growth.

There are lots of atheists that have justified murder without introducing god into the equation as well.  All that we’ve established is that humans have a capacity to kill each other, not that it is based in religion.  There are correlations, sure, and many historical events were carried out for religious reasons, but not all of them.

Yes, there are some problems with Tazman’s proposition as he is stating it.  And as you say murder can and has and will happen in the absence of religion.  The kernel of truth that I see, is that murder has historically been an instument that has been effective in the spread of certain religions.  Modern day Christianity, fortunately, though (IMO) still somewhat malignantly, depends more on non-violent evangelism than murder for its continuing spread.

Tazman - 15 January 2012 02:54 PM

“Did you read the post? “
Yes
“The contention is that religion is hard wired INTO the brain, therefore it doesn’t hijack it, it’s part of the thinking process.”

Religion is not part of a thinking process, if it were smart people would not be religious. It’s a non thinking process caused by the intentional failure of logic. (virus of the mind)
The aggression part of human nature resides in the reptile portion of the brain and has nothing to do with thinking. When the other layers formed there had to be a way of hijacking the logic of the new brain. If the reptile brain was to function as designed, a work around was needed. We all experience this trickery even if we are not religious.
When people think they are in love it is nothing more than this same type of trickery. Reptile brain says reproduce and the thinking part says I am in love.

” Chimps are as aggressive as humans and don’t rely on religion to kill or maim for territory.”

They don’t need religion because there is no need for it. There is no highly developed language or thinking process that needs to be short circuited.

If aggression and rage was need cause early life to for killing to obtain territory or resources and if religion allows this to continue , I maintain that it’s the most important reason whey religion exists.

In my first post I said “cause” but the word should have been “allow”[/quote. The cause for aggression in order to survive doesn’t need any help from religion;it seems to exist just fine on it’s own.

Imagine no religion.

If no homo-sapien had ever considered the existence of a god.  What would human society be like today?

TimB - 17 January 2012 08:44 PM

Imagine no religion.

If no homo-sapien had ever considered the existence of a god.  What would human society be like today?

Much the same IMO. Unless the lack of belief caused some other biochemical changes.

mid atlantic - 17 January 2012 08:59 PM

TimB - 17 January 2012 08:44 PM

Imagine no religion.

If no homo-sapien had ever considered the existence of a god.  What would human society be like today?

Much the same IMO. Unless the lack of belief caused some other biochemical changes.

I think things would be drastically different. Better or worse, I don’t know, but very different.

Diseases don’t exist for a purpose.  Diseased cells simply try to exist as do all living things.  Killing is not on the diseases mind because they don’t have one.

deros - 18 January 2012 04:28 AM

Diseases don’t exist for a purpose.  Diseased cells simply try to exist as do all living things.  Killing is not on the diseases mind because they don’t have one.

But that is not the point. The point is that evolution works faster if there are things that help kill the weakest.  It’s a balancing act.
I am saying religion is just one more of these deadly things.

Tazman - 18 January 2012 09:53 AM

deros - 18 January 2012 04:28 AM

Diseases don’t exist for a purpose.  Diseased cells simply try to exist as do all living things.  Killing is not on the diseases mind because they don’t have one.

But that is not the point. The point is that evolution works faster if there are things that help kill the weakest.  It’s a balancing act.
I am saying religion is just one more of these deadly things.

I think it is important to separate out the evolution of organisms from the evolution of cultural systems.  The processes are analagous but different.

From my perspective, your argument is mixing the two up.

Tazman - 18 January 2012 09:53 AM

deros - 18 January 2012 04:28 AM

Diseases don’t exist for a purpose.  Diseased cells simply try to exist as do all living things.  Killing is not on the diseases mind because they don’t have one.

But that is not the point. The point is that evolution works faster if there are things that help kill the weakest.  It’s a balancing act.
I am saying religion is just one more of these deadly things.

Diseases don’t necessicarily kill the “weakest” only those biological specimens that fit theri needs.  Could be the physically strongest or brightest in the area.