PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The relativity of religion
       religions evolved and got selected

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's face it:

If you were born in Saudi Arabia with very convinced Muslim parents in a very convinced muslim town, chances are pretty high you'd be a convinced muslim yourself.

If you were born from latter day saints parents, there's a pretty high chance you're a mormon yourself.

Religons exist today because they're marvelously efficient at transferring the "belief" from one person to another, especially if that happens at a very young and influential age.  This is the sole explanation for why a lot of religions have certain geographic distributions.  

The sheer knowledge that your own religion is defined by where you happened to be born should make you see that your religion is relative.  Yet people who know this are most often still convinced 'their' religion is true.  The religions out there today are the nastiest religions ever: tested through time, religions have evolved to withstand the rigors of science and reason.  In the present, we only see a tiny subset of all the religions that have existed. Evolution at work...  
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 04:36 AM on January 18, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is the problem with religion. It is a vicius cycle that works through brainwashing the younge. It must be stopped or humanity will not be able to progress further and will never be as strong or efficient as we could be.

"religions have evolved to withstand the rigors of science and reason. Evolution at work...  "
A brillent theory. The evolution of religions, now that is intresting. Very different from biological evolution but a form of evolution none the less.

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/18/2009 at 08:23 AM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 08:20 AM on January 18, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you try to stop religion, humanity will break into massive full-scale war, now I would rather not advance as quick, then not exist.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 1:59 PM on January 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No one is going to stop religion - why would that happen?  People draw great comfort from their religion, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:35 PM on January 18, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The question should be, why do people even need religion? Is it somehow an evolved  survival adaptation? Or is it a created need?

I contend that God created man to have an innate knowledge that there is a God. He equipped us to believe in a higher power. But He gave us the free will so seek Him in our own way.
Evolutionists have a higher power that we often refer to as "father time". you know, "Given enough time, ... life"
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:06 AM on January 19, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 1:59 PM on January 18, 2009 :
If you try to stop religion, humanity will break into massive full-scale war, now I would rather not advance as quick, then not exist.


Given the amount of wars and terror that are fought in the name of "God Allah, whatever", I'm convinced the world would be a far better place without.  By no means will the world be war-free, but since religion is the MAJOR discriminator between different ethnic groups, there will be a lot more piece and quiet on this planet.



 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:28 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:06 AM on January 19, 2009 :
The question should be, why do people even need religion? Is it somehow an evolved  survival adaptation? Or is it a created need?

I contend that God created man to have an innate knowledge that there is a God. He equipped us to believe in a higher power. But He gave us the free will so seek Him in our own way.
Evolutionists have a higher power that we often refer to as "father time". you know, "Given enough time, ... life"



It seems it certainly is a 'natural' thing to evoke a God (or several Gods) to explain things. This 'made sense' in older times of lesser scientific status. What we see now is the remains of brainwashing carried over from those older times.  This is so efficient that even inherently smart people cannot remove the veil.

Occasionally, there are also some small religions (sects) still being created at present time, mainly by converting very uneducated and emotionally vulnerable.

But I bet that no well-educated and sane person would become religious if there was no family/environment brainwashing them...  Not to say that religious people are insane - it's just that the brainwashing is so efficient..


 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 03:33 AM on January 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Flippo
If you were born in Saudi Arabia with very convinced Muslim parents in a very convinced muslim town, chances are pretty high you'd be a convinced muslim yourself.


If you grow up being told you evolved from pond scum in a primordial soup, that your relatives were apes and that the fittest survive and gradually change into new kinds of creatures, you would (in conjunction with National Geographic channel) believe in evolution and not be able to see beyond the veil either.
Evolutionists think creationists are blind and creationists are just as convinced that the veil to reality exists in the evolutionist view.
The evidence we need is to find out how new genetic information formed without any intelligent input -we need to know that it is possible - not just be told that even though the only mutations we ever ever see are neutral or negative ones, good ones nevertheless happen when we're not looking and that the evidence for that is all around us.

Genetically, the train is goin' in the wrong direction -downhill all the way -that is why it is called the 'genetic load'. That agrees far better with a perfect creation cursed



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:52 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not all mutations are acturly new DNA components. Most of them are the activation or deactivation of older sections of DNA code. I am not entirly sure how new infomation is created as I am not familiar with most of the internal workings of a cell. I would imagine that extra nucleotypes are added to the DNA secence in the numerius transition and copying stages involved in cell reproduction.

Why do you see all evolution as negative. This is certainly not the case. I hardly see imunity to antibiotics or the ability to metabilise nylon as a form of develolution.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 10:34 AM on January 21, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We observe new "information" all the time in genetic mutations. Aswissrole is correct in saying it's a simple addition of nucleotides to the genome. The only reason creationists stump evolutionists when they ask for "new information" is because "information" isn't relevant to the study of genetics. It's a misnomer; genes code for proteins, and how complex, helpful, or large those proteins are depends on chemistry, not any abstract data contained within the gene itself.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:50 PM on January 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I might point out where does the information come from that directs the formation of a snowflake (crystal formation) or protein folding?

I agree with Entwick - it's all chemistry.  There are articles by experts in information theory, and mathematicians, who have no problem with evolution.  

They look at William Dembski's papers on the subject and say 'huh? This is nonsense'.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:35 PM on January 21, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Snowflakes, bubles and proteins all ocupy the lowest energy forms they can. Usually this is the smallest space possible but sometimes it may be forming stable crystal structures. These structures are a simple function formed by physics that exist as a result of all of the laws of physics acting together and antagonisticly.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:06 PM on January 21, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:52 AM on January 21, 2009 :
Flippo
If you were born in Saudi Arabia with very convinced Muslim parents in a very convinced muslim town, chances are pretty high you'd be a convinced muslim yourself.


If you grow up being told you evolved from pond scum in a primordial soup, that your relatives were apes and that the fittest survive and gradually change into new kinds of creatures, you would (in conjunction with National Geographic channel) believe in evolution and not be able to see beyond the veil either.
Evolutionists think creationists are blind and creationists are just as convinced that the veil to reality exists in the evolutionist view.
The evidence we need is to find out how new genetic information formed without any intelligent input -we need to know that it is possible - not just be told that even though the only mutations we ever ever see are neutral or negative ones, good ones nevertheless happen when we're not looking and that the evidence for that is all around us.

Genetically, the train is goin' in the wrong direction -downhill all the way -that is why it is called the 'genetic load'. That agrees far better with a perfect creation cursed




Wrong.   Evolutionary theory is based on observations.  Evidence is being accumulated every day.  In fact, as a scientists I check the evidence every day.  The data still fit the theory.  Guess what: they don't fit creationism.

This is the most common misconception about science for non-scientists:   science is not about believing what's in a book and about what people tell you. It's about checking the data for yourself through carefully chosen experiments.  Religion is just about believing what's in a book.  

So here's my point: you SHOULDN'T blindly believe evolution, even if people tell you it is true. You SHOULD check it out for yourself.

The only reason why avid believers are not willing to accept the theory of evolution is that either they have never been taught the scientific method, or their indoctrination has been too thorough.

In conclusion:  Science <> indoctrination.  Don't believe, just check the data for yourself.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 10:24 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:52 AM on January 21, 2009 :

Genetically, the train is goin' in the wrong direction -downhill all the way -that is why it is called the 'genetic load'. That agrees far better with a perfect creation cursed



The 'wrong' direction?  How do you define right or wrong here?  
"That's why it is called the genetic load" ???
You're making deductions outside of logics.  Most scientists don't call it 'genetic load', and the ones who do use it in a different context.  

Mutations are random;  there is no direction.

 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 10:34 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I always thought of religions as a product of evolution.

Warrior people need warrior gods.

Some religions got merged, pretty much as the mitochondrion and the animal cell.

Religions live like separate organisms. They live on humans. Sometimes it's a symbiosis. Sometimes a religion is a parasite.
One thing is certain: it never wants to die.

For people who can't think for themselves a religion is very useful. It can provide a moral frame so a group of people can thrive instead of robbing/killing each other.
It can also give people the courage or the justification to kill/rob other groups of people, through the prophets, saying things like "You see that weak group of people who did nothing to you? Well, your god hates them, because they have other gods. Your god presents you with their lands and virgin girls. Go get them."

Religions can ease people's minds, saying things like "You see that strong group of people, who did you a lot of harm? Your god hates them too. But He's slow in His anger. He will crush them later, don't ask when. You will rejoice. Be patient."

When we can think for ourselves, we lose the need for religions. That's when religions become parasitic.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:45 AM on February 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Wisp,
Do you mind if I use this last post in an essay I am working on as a quote?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:22 PM on February 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How kind of you to ask!

I don't mind.

You're free to use it, twist it, misquote it, add things to it... Anything you like. ^_^

I believe religions arose because of self consciousness.

Self consciousness gave us a new set of mental tools, along with a terrible fear of death (i am, but i can cease to be). The notion of the afterlife kept us sane and working. Religious commandments gave us useful moral schemes.

Today some people still need external moral schemes. Since they are external, they believe that they are absolute, and they try to impose that moral schemes onto other people.

If creationists were true bible followers they should kill us for speaking to them against their faith (some of us do just that).

Oh, religions also provide a set of answers, and usually they incorporate real knowledge.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:22 AM on February 2, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, Wisp.
No,I won't add to or twist other than to add your new comments. Your statement stands alone. Perhaps I'll send you a link to the blog in which the essay will appear and you can comment there.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:15 PM on February 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok. I'd like that.

Please, don't take offense from my sarcasm. It's like my weird twisted way of showing respect, i believe.

I laugh at people's beliefs. And i like it when they laugh at mine.

Actually i have a mormon acquaintance... I never laughed at him... Perhaps i don't really respect him enough...

So, do you believe that religions evolve? Do you see anything special about your particular one?

I mean... The better adapted survive and they even produce offspring!

Sometimes they drift so far away from each other that they can no longer mix.

They often come from other lands, and outcompete the native ones, and evolve according to the new environment.

They behave pretty much like living organisms.

How could Evolution be false, when so many things respond to it?

One leading idea among scientists today is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. Shared religious belief would have helped our ancestors form tight groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, allowing these groups to outcompete others. (New Scientist, 28 January 2006, p 30)

Scott Atran, anthropologist of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor says that the benefits of holding such unfounded beliefs are questionable, in terms of evolutionary fitness. "I don't think the idea makes much sense, given the kinds of things you find in religion," he says. "A belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes."

I think he's wrong. It can help individuals go to war, for example. And it can help them ease their minds when a loved one dies. And usually the notion of an afterlife comes with a convenient prohibition to commit suicide.

While religions evolved pretty much on their own, some believe that they are originated in the way our brain works. They seem to be hardwired in our brains.

It's not like we have a "God module" (like we have a "language module", which develops specifically for speaking). There's a trait of the human mind that produces spirits as a byproduct.

This trait is the separation of the animate and inanimate, which appears at a very young age.  

Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life
says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.

So our brains have separate cognitive systems for dealing with living things - things with minds, or at least volition - and inanimate objects.

Babies as young as five months make a clear distinction between objects and people. Show them a toy moving by it's own, and babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise.
To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People have their own intentions and goals, and move the way they want.

So we grow and perceive mind and matter.

The two systems are autonomous. This leaves us with two viewpoints on the world: one that deals with minds, and one that handles physical aspects of the world, which ends up with a "common-sense dualism".

The body is for physical processes, like eating and moving, while the mind carries our consciousness in a separate - and separable - package.

This is how we naturally accept that we can leave our bodies in a dream, or in astral projection or some sort of magic.

We can naturally think of disembodied minds (half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners).

Barrett says that this is an evolutionarily useful skill. We can anticipate the plans of our enemies, even when they are not present. We can rehearse a conversation we plan to have with someone.

Requiring a body around to think about its mind would be a great liability
he says.

Even though it's clearly useful, common-sense dualism also appears to fill our minds with supernatural concepts such as life after death.

In 2004, Jesse Bering of Queen's University Belfast, UK, put on a puppet show for a group of pre-school children. During the show, an alligator ate a mouse. The researchers then asked the children questions about the physical existence of the mouse, such as: "Can the mouse still be sick? Does it need to eat or drink?" The children said no. But when asked more "spiritual" questions, such as "does the mouse think and know things?", the children answered yes.

These and other experiments (even with educated adults) tell us that a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body is the default setting of the human brain.

We educate ourselves to override such concepts, but they never truly leave us.

From there to conjure spirits, dead ancestors and (of course) gods, there's a very short distance.

The fact that people in every culture tend to make up gods that are pretty human makes it seem like gods come from the same brain system that enables us to think about absent or non-existent people.

The ability to conceive of gods, however, is not sufficient to give rise to religion. The mind has another essential attribute: an overdeveloped sense of cause and effect which primes us to see purpose and design everywhere, even where there is none.
says Michael Brooks.

From this ability we see minds everywhere (spirits, gods).

In the darkness (the bogyman). In the light (a creator).

Today the only human predators are human. But we're still afraid of the dark.

In nature, escaping 9/10 times from a predator isn't good enough. So fearing thin air from time to time isn't as bad as getting eaten.

So we see around us, we ask "Why?", and immediately we ask "Who?", and "What for?".

Experiments with 8 years old show that they think that animals and things have a purpose. When you ask them "What are clouds for", they promptly give some answer.

There's evidence that some children can come up with the concept of God without adult intervention.

You see adults saying things like "trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe" or "the sun is hot because warmth nurtures life". Even if they don't say (or even believe in) God, when they speak of purpose, who's purpose might it be?

Some point out that religious adults are not childish. Studies reveal that religious adults have very different mindsets from children, concentrating more on the moral dimensions of their faith and less on its supernatural attributes.

We naturally want to control things, which has been good for our species. So we try to figure out patterns. We will force them if we have to. We resist accidents.

That way we develop rites and magic (and if my team wins, i'll use the same t-shirt the next game). And we sacrifice things to the gods.

These things don't disprove God in any way, for such an entity would not depend on our beliefs. But it's clear that not-believing takes effort (and even training). Believing is the easy path.


(Edited by wisp 2/4/2009 at 3:09 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:30 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the thread "Opinions"

But i want to leave this clear. It's not just about christianity. The evolution of religions happens in an environment of competition. The ones that are best at promoting stupidity and bigotry survive (even at some marginal cost to their hosts).

Stupidity and bigotry. Bigotry and stupidity.

Most religions provide a little something in return. This something is usually a lie (like a blissful afterlife) that can reduce your stress, help you cope with your losses, or provide unity to the group.

But this is not necessary. All a religion has to do to stay alive is being good at staying alive.

You have too look at the way the parasite has to reproduce. If it's the same as it host's, the parasite will eventually start behaving like a symbiont (both the parasite and the host have the same goal). This is what happened with our organelles.

Religions don't just get passed from parents to their children. So if a religion can get away with it, it will betray its host.

It will make it host have a life of celibacy, if that gets it to dedicate to the propagation of the parasite.

It will make its host a martyr, if that gets it to propagate to more hosts.

Just like a cold makes you sneeze to propagate itself.

I have a theory on zombies: they don't just want to eat. They bite to propagate themselves.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:30 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.