3 of 14
3
Man is by Nature Religious
Posted: 29 January 2012 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

What if we were all exposed to right versus wrong as small children, what possible need would there be to terrorize the kids with a monster god in the sky?  Very few of us get our moral values from an occult spirit and I can see no need to pass this crap on to our children.  Living my life smack dab on the San Andreas Fault, I was trained as a kid to get away from glass and under the piano.  In the history of quakes, did God ever stop one? 

Apparently there are millions of humans who have never given a thought to their responsibilities of being an individual.  It is amazing that humans still think of themselves as masses under the watchful eye of the sky daddy.  These are the same fools who go to church and wait for the minister to tell them how to vote.  America might just die in an epidemic of stupidity.  I am anxious to see if the new University graduates will be able to handle their lives without the monster God in the sky.  I’ve been an Atheist since I was 9 years and had it confirmed at 13 when I read Darwin. 

We have our work cut out for us to keep this religious crap out of our homes.  Turn off the TV and get the kids reading books.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 08:55 AM

“The statement that there are nations or tribes which possess no religion, rests either on inaccurate observations, or on a confusion of ideas. No tribe or nation has yet been met with destitute of belief in any higher beings, and travellers who asserted their existence have been afterwards refuted by facts. It is legitimate, therefore, to call religion, in its most general sense, an universal phenomenon of humanity (C.P. Tiele, Outlines of the History of Religion [London: Trubner & Co., 1877], 6).

And why should we care what CP Tiele said in 1877?

Religion as such is a construct of complex societies which could support a class of holy men to codify the laws and regulations. No hunter-gatherer society, for instance, can be said to have a religion in that sense; hunter-gatherer societies had notions of magic, ancestor worship, superstitions of various sorts, but no religion.

As far as we can tell the impulse for this sort of superstition comes in the brain’s miswiring. We tend to see agency even where it does not exist: for example, thinking that Thor is responsible for the thunder, or Chac-Mool responsible for the rain. Once we learn how things really work, and that agency is a complex phenomenon borne of evolution, we realize that these proto-religious ideas are nonsense.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22

Jerry:

The problem with Muller’s and Thiele’s (and many other’s thesis) is that they use too broad a definition of what religion is.  In hunter-gatherer societies, trees, rocks, bodies of water, etc. are all considered spirits, not necessarily supernatural but individual personalities.  This was a very useful set of beliefs because the human mind remembers stories and can apply these story’s lessons much more readily than learning a diverse and unconnected set of facts.  These hunter-gatherer spirits can be friendly (good) if they give edible fruit, protect the front of your cave, or flow quietly in the direction you need to go.  They can be unfriendly (evil) if the fruit is poisonous, the rocks are tumbling towards you, or the creek rises, fills with rapids and destroys your habitat.  The creation of these “spirits” may not have been intended with this in mind but the hunter-gather societies that did develop (evolve) these “beliefs” survived and those who did not develop them did not survive.

This “religion” is far different than the organized religions of agricultural societies which developed towns, trade, and separation of labor such as a military caste, religious/political bureaucracies,etc.  Many of these developed a god or pantheon of gods that were projections of human personalities used to to describe their political structure so that theses were better understood and manipulated by the humans involved.  Among the most successful today are those of the Judea-Christian-Muslim traditions which worship what they call one god but in practice seems to be many competing ones, (an example of how historical accident may have influenced today’s beliefs is that if the original “Hebrews” had not either invented the alphabet or had access to this at a very early stage, they may not have become the “People of the Book” and some other “religion may be what we are talking about.  See http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/alphabet.html); the Hindu-Buddhist traditions that believe in reincarnation as well as several gods; and Confucianism which is concerned with ancestor worship.

Even in today’s technological society some who have no belief in any supernatural power are beginning to theorize that “science” is becoming their “religion”, and this type of belief is needed not for “spiritual reasons” but for the obvious fact that no single human has the time to investigate using the scientific method every situation they are thrust into and therefore has to accept much scientific knowledge as established by experts (don’t call them priests shut eye ) on “faith” or what many of these people want to call “confidence.”

  If you call all these different social phenomenon “religion” then we may all have it.  But doing so tends to confuse and obscure the social structures that underly what you are trying to define, and many people use this confusion to as an excuse to demonstrate and justify that they are right and all others are wrong in their particular set of beliefs. 

This is its danger, as we are all humans with the same needs and must live on this single planet together.  We can either try to survive by creating competing social groups that injure and harm each other, many using the “supernatural beings” that humans of the past have created as their rational for their own purposes in their own times, and hope that the particular group we belong to comes out on top.  Or we can cooperate, accept reality, control our emotions and wants and hopefully we all survive.  The best of any past religion are those parts that promoted human cooperation anderstanding and help for the downtrodden, the worst caused wars, inqusitions and much human suffering.  Pick your side, there is no “big daddy in the sky” to bail you out, and competeing beliefs in the various “big daddies” may destroy us all in todays hyper-connected world.

As far as Paul goes, he was one on the great founders of Western Civilization, although that was not his intention.  He expected to see the return of Jesus and the end of the world in his own lifetime.  Another example of unintended consequences.  There was no seperation of church and state in Paul’s day and his writings, as well as the rest of the writings in the Bible should not be read as objective history, they were in no way intended as such. You will gain a better understanding of what the various writers where attempting if you read the Bible as a collection of political tracts dealing with specific situations and presenting (the many different) specific viewpoints of thesde various writers.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2012-01-28
Sandy Price - 29 January 2012 11:14 AM

I am anxious to see if the new University graduates will be able to handle their lives without the monster God in the sky.  I’ve been an Atheist since I was 9 years and had it confirmed at 13 when I read Darwin.

What do you say about the fact that Darwin himself obviously believed in a Creator?:

“. . . many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion).” (Darwin, Charles; ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION: OR, THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE; Modern Library, 1859).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 01:21 PM
Sandy Price - 29 January 2012 11:14 AM

I am anxious to see if the new University graduates will be able to handle their lives without the monster God in the sky.  I’ve been an Atheist since I was 9 years and had it confirmed at 13 when I read Darwin.

What do you say about the fact that Darwin himself obviously believed in a Creator?:

“. . . many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion).” (Darwin, Charles; ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION: OR, THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE; Modern Library, 1859).

Much knowledge has been gained since Darwin’s time.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

You really don’t have any idea how to think, do yo?.  You merely parrot stuff that you read and accept without any bit of examination.  Theile’s opinions are just that.  Your quotation doesn’t give the slightest proof to verify the value of his statements.  Give us proof for your own ideas, not some babble without any reason to accept it.  Don’t expect us to accept these silly statements as premises then try to discuss them as reality rather than the fairytales they are.

Do you realize that you have NEVER, not once, responded to my questions or challenges with actual documented data, rather than dumb quotations from people who were basing their ideas on mythology rather than real, physical world information?

I expect that you’ll avoid responding rationally to this post, too.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 01:21 PM

What do you say about the fact that Darwin himself obviously believed in a Creator?

This is false. Darwin’s clearest statement of his religious views is HERE:

... whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

For more, see the wiki on Darwin’s religious views. (Though why it matters what Darwin thought about religion is beyond me. For one thing, in his social circle atheism would have been anathema. It took decades before scientists began to understand his advances enough for atheism to become more or less standard).

[Edited to correct broken URL.]

[ Edited: 29 January 2012 08:08 PM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2012-01-28
dougsmith - 29 January 2012 02:11 PM

This is false.

Here Darwin speaks of God so what I said is not false:

“He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause.  It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells living on the seashore.”

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2012-01-28
Occam. - 29 January 2012 01:57 PM

Do you realize that you have NEVER, not once, responded to my questions or challenges with actual documented data, rather than dumb quotations from people who were basing their ideas on mythology rather than real, physical world information?

Nothing you have said has been supported by anything other than your opinion. At least I have quoted men on subjects which they have studied and are quoted by other learned men because they accept their writings as being informed.

Who quotes you? Are you considered an expert on the subject of this thread?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3249
Joined  2011-08-15

Fame and honours brought a stream of enquiries about Darwin’s religious views, leading him to comment “Half the fools throughout Europe write to ask me the stupidest questions.”[63] He sometimes retorted sharply, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God”,[64] and at other times was more guarded, telling a young count studying with Haeckel that “Science has nothing to do with Christ; except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself I do not believe that there ever has been any Revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”[65] He declined a request by the Archbishop of Canterbury to join a ‘Private Conference’ of devout scientists to harmonise science and religion, for he saw “no prospect of any benefit arising” from it.[66]

Jerry, in reference to Darwin’s religious belief, see the above from wiki. He came to this conclusion after the publication of The descent of Man and maintained it throughout the rest of his life. Also, in reference to Gary’s contention that science seems to be replacing religion as the modern philosophy the major difference is in our ability to test the hypotheses for facts. And even though the layman may not have the time to research for him/herself, the information is available from many sources academic and popular. For ex., many people first learn about scientific breakthroughs and discoveries in National geographic, a magazine I grew up with in the 50’s. You can even find this mag in the local barber shops. Also, with the Internet connections that we have today you can access instant info on your IPhone. So, the info is out there at the touch of a button. How do most people here back their claims? The Internet, instant information at our fingertips. Now if you wish to have the more complete picture the published material is also available at a cost of time and I will admit that I’m a slow reader. But it’s there just the same.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 02:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 02:22 PM
dougsmith - 29 January 2012 02:11 PM

This is false.

Here Darwin speaks of God so what I said is not false:

“He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause.  It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells living on the seashore.”

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

Don’t be naïve. That usage (“the works of God”) is clearly a manner of speaking, and implies nothing about his considered beliefs in the matter. The letter I quoted is about as sterling an account as you will get from him.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2012-01-28
dougsmith - 29 January 2012 02:33 PM

Don’t be naïve. That usage (“the works of God”) is clearly a manner of speaking, and implies nothing about his considered beliefs in the matter. The letter I quoted is about as sterling an account as you will get from him.

Just a manner of speaking! LOL!

Why would Darwin use the words the “works of God” and capitalize the word “God” if he was not actually referring to “the works of Deity”? Your so-called “sterling” account has certainly lost some of its luster with Darwin’s own words in view!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  130
Joined  2012-01-28
dougsmith - 29 January 2012 02:11 PM

Though why it matters what Darwin thought about religion is beyond me.

When we look at Darwin’s “theory” we can see that in order for it to be true then the idea of “abiogenesis” or “spontaneous generation” must be true. But that is nothing but a philosophic theory. So in essence the “theory” of evolution is based on nothing more than another theory.

As Huxley himself said, “If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter” (Professor Huxley, Encyc. Britt, “Biology.”)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2711
Joined  2011-04-24
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 02:29 PM
Occam. - 29 January 2012 01:57 PM

Do you realize that you have NEVER, not once, responded to my questions or challenges with actual documented data, rather than dumb quotations from people who were basing their ideas on mythology rather than real, physical world information?

Nothing you have said has been supported by anything other than your opinion. At least I have quoted men on subjects which they have studied and are quoted by other learned men because they accept their writings as being informed.

Who quotes you? Are you considered an expert on the subject of this thread?

As a matter of fact, Occam is a scientist;it follows that he has some expertise with empirical data.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2711
Joined  2011-04-24
Jerry Shugart - 29 January 2012 03:41 PM
dougsmith - 29 January 2012 02:11 PM

Though why it matters what Darwin thought about religion is beyond me.

When we look at Darwin’s “theory” we can see that in order for it to be true then the idea of “abiogenesis” or “spontaneous generation” must be true. But that is nothing but a philosophic theory. So in essence the “theory” of evolution is based on nothing more than another theory.

As Huxley himself said, “If the hypothesis of evolution be true, living matter must have arisen from not-living matter” (Professor Huxley, Encyc. Britt, “Biology.”)

Living matter has arisen from non living matter,just not in the blink of an eye.  Evolution is not a theory,it’s a fact - very testable,unlike God’s creation in seven days.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 14
3