|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted November 19, 2009 04:38 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
No, it's not. I think, if I understand you right, the reason for this is that your theory is based on wrong assumptions  : religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary. Most old religions have no problem whatsoever with sex, celebrating it even with all kinds of rites, orgies and so on.
My opinion is that religion is a product of evolution, a product of the fact that a authoritative moral structure was important for the survival of early human society.
Sort of like this:
Love is a biochemical function that keeps humans together, which is important for ensuring the survival of children. Humans have a better chance of survival (in the "wild", so to speak) if they stick together and form cohesive units. Morality is the glue that binds society together, protecting it from (thermodynamics!) forces which would naturally act to tear society apart.
Religion, then, evolved to provide a moral structure for society. And of course, it's not really necessary.
Well, that's a summary of what I believe, anyway. I was just wondering if the POV described in God Delusion was similar - he is an evolutionary scientist, after all, and I was curious if Dawkins thought religion was a product of evolution, even if its something of a vestigial organ: once useful in our evolutionary past, no longer necessary, and quite prone to infection.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
|
Yes, of course does he think that religion is a product of evolution: since all still living (surviving) human people do have a religion one way or another, it's clear it must have been helpful for survival. His personal view is a bit more complex and does not involve morality as glue of society.
I'd say that a certain "morality" in a dangerous environment is a DIRECT necessity for survival. Humans would have died out if they wouldn't have organized themselves at least to small groups. Small groups on the other hand would have been no advantage without trust in each member of the group, because of the intimate contact - group members are a lot more vulnerable against members of their won group since they are so near, so without developing trust between the group members there would heve been no survival, which means that a certain morality has been there - in my opinion - necessarily before any kind of organized or common religion.
A group morality.
If you estimate that 10000 to 120000 BC suchs groups already existed, I'd estimate about 5000 to 6000 years from hunter/gatherer groups with a morality to more complex social structures like city-states with temples and gods and priests, and I suppose that religion would have to be developed WITHIN already existing "moral" groups.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it's not. I think, if I understand you right, the reason for this is that your theory is based on wrong assumptions : religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary. Most old religions have no problem whatsoever with sex, celebrating it even with all kinds of rites, orgies and so on.
That's really odd to say. It's like saying "religions have served their purpose, they are an old concept" on one hand, but on the other hand "the caveman way seems to be much better", one wonders which one is more barbaric and unneeded.
Sort of like saying "Hey, Pentium 4s have served their purpose, they are pretty old, let's go back to Pentium 1". 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Love is a biochemical function that keeps humans together, which is important for ensuring the survival of children.
It's quite unevenly balanced between different individuals, though. And often rather temporary - time not being related to children in any way. You know, all those nasty bits when a man falls in love with a different woman and leaves his wife and child.
Besides, you may have craploads of children and not love the wife. See the middle ages.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
as does Glenn beck who abuses his position as a journalist in order to preach his hatred of the reasonable left, non-whites and non-americans....
Lol! Totally false and the left is unreasonable.
Quote:
For the God Delusion fact is - readable - that it's only about the monotheistic religions - which is the issue here.
Ahem. Page 5.
“I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, 'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion.'”
Yes, he has a special hatred for Christianity but he trashes all religon.
Quote:
No, it's not. I think, if I understand you right, the reason for this is that your theory is based on wrong assumptions : religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary. Most old religions have no problem whatsoever with sex, celebrating it even with all kinds of rites, orgies and so on.
For the record Christianity places value on both love and sex.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
'When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion.'
Wise words here!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 09:18 PM |
|
|
Quoting the whole paragraph is of course even more interesting:
"The word ‘delusion’ in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about. Three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: ‘relusion’. Maybe it’ll catch on. But for now I am going to stick with ‘delusion’, and I need to justify my use of it.
The Penguin English Dictionary defines a delusion as ‘a false belief
or impression’. Surprisingly, the illustrative quotation the dictionary gives is from Phillip E. Johnson: ‘Darwinism is the story of humanity’s liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself.’ Can that be the same Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America today? Indeed it is, and the quotation is, as we might guess, taken out of context. I hope the fact that I have stated as much will be noted, since the same courtesy has not been extended to me in numerous creationist quotations of my works, deliberately and misleadingly taken out of context. Whatever Johnson’s own meaning, his sentence as it stands is one that I would be happy to endorse. The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as ‘a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of psychiatric disorder’.
The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 09:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it's not. I think, if I understand you right, the reason for this is that your theory is based on wrong assumptions : religions do not generally place value on love as opposed to sex - on the contrary. Most old religions have no problem whatsoever with sex, celebrating it even with all kinds of rites, orgies and so on.
That's really odd to say. It's like saying "religions have served their purpose, they are an old concept" on one hand, but on the other hand "the caveman way seems to be much better", one wonders which one is more barbaric and unneeded.
Sort of like saying "Hey, Pentium 4s have served their purpose, they are pretty old, let's go back to Pentium 1".
I'm really sorry to say that, but I just can't - yet again - find any connection between the quote and your comment. I mean, not even distantly. No idea, what you are thinking.
Not to mention that if anything seems odd, then it seems to be a comparison of religions with processors.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 09:34 PM |
|
|
Nice that you read the book, Elodin, and I appreciate your feedback. Is it really that fierce? I hear his criticism can be rather mild most of the times, with the exception of a few passages. Or is that wrong?
By the way, speaking of religious values being used to bully children, I recommend to everyone the new movie of the autrian cineast Michael Haneke, called "Das weisse Band". It deals with the protestant education of children in a small village in Germany short before the first war. Its a rather psychologic violent thriller dealing with child education and values.
A bit claustrophobic as usual Haneke, but definately worthy, well placed criticism.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm really sorry to say that, but I just can't - yet again - find any connection between the quote and your comment. I mean, not even distantly. No idea, what you are thinking.
Not to mention that if anything seems odd, then it seems to be a comparison of religions with processors.
Doh it was about the evolution argument for religion. (i.e it was necessary for evolution or survival)
and obviously there's no connection between that and hardware, it's not like hardware evolution isn't called evolution. [/sarcasm]
If you don't want hardware, here's a simpler phrase: "Rejecting something on the basis that it's old and it served its purpose to go back to something even older, is 'odd' and hypocritical"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
Evolutionary spoken, Death, something isn't lost because it's old, but because it's unnecessary. If you have P4, but need only a P1, after some time, you'll have a P1.
But I can't believe you mean that, so I'm still at a loss here.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Evolution" means simply that since all surviving human cultures have religion, it must have helped survival in some way, otherwise humans has lost religion or there would be cultures without a religion.
What you quoted was part of my reasoning for disagreeing with Corribus' explanation for the developing of religion as I understood it at that point, saying that the earlier religions didn't value love/familiy over sex.
Yes it's about evolution, in a more broad sense of course (rather than just genetics).
Here's another way to look at it:
#1: "Old religions" have sex rituals
#2: "Common religions" value love over sex
#3: ????
The direction which this goes would be something along the lines, not going back to #1 for instance. I mean surely you consider people who prefer #1 over #2 while hating religion for that reason (evolutionary, i.e it has served its purpose) hypocrites, right?
The thing is #1 has "served its purpose" far before #2 did.
So what would #3 be? Artificial reproduction?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
That's completely beside the point. The question isn't what is better - the question is why there is something. So if the claim is, REL exists because it supports LV versus SX which is helping survival, but in fact not all REL are doing that (and in fact especially the earlier ones don't), that cannot be the reason why REL exists.
It has nothing to do with one is better than the other.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 01:19 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 13:50, 20 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
as does Glenn beck who abuses his position as a journalist in order to preach his hatred of the reasonable left, non-whites and non-americans....
Lol! Totally false and the left is unreasonable.
what, so it's unreasonable to give housing benefits to those who have nought? or to have health care at the point of need for everyone? or to allow all children to receive a decent education, rather than grow up in crime? maybe have a little equality as well? or a broadcasting network that listens to the public and pokes fun at the politicians, as well as producting some of the best shows ever that are being broadcast world wide?!
Glenn Beck is so hilariously opposed to the left and is such an up-himself moral crusader that he comes across as a joke. how could that man be so up the country he loves but not support the president who was elected by the people, for the people? I would understand if it was bush, after the whole voting rigging thing in florida, but obama won in a landslide. was there a conspiracy from the communists to infiltrate the system, bribe everyone who was in an important position to allow them more votes, in order to push obama in? if yes, then americas democratic system was F***ed to start with to let that happen.
more importantly, no nation, to history, is ever totally atheist through it's history. I think to record there has only been one nation that was governed by a secular government, and that was Turkey after the first world war. Even then, in the 70's, that was taken over by a religious government. the Secular government in Turkey had no pillages, murders, or anything like that, Ataturk (the guy who set it up, I'd doubt you'd know him) managed to salvage Turkey from the wreckage of the ottoman empire and establish it as a major power, supplying the Allies with supplies and munitions during the Desert Rats campaign.
the USSR doesn't count, nor does north korea. both turned to state worship, both worshiping their dead revolutionary leader's, lenin and kim-jong-il I, as well as the current ones, Stalin and Kim-jong-il II. Even after the purges, 65% of russian still believed in the othodox church, so relax christians, You won! no matter the trials and tribulations, Russia by statistics, remained a christian nation during it's communist years.
I'm british and have grown up listening to boring Radio 4 my information about world events. Boring, Straight facts, red by a news reader with no need to put their own spin on it. so when I watch Glenn beck, I consider his manner of entertainment with the same level as Jeremy Kyle and Robert killroy silk (for evil isn't red, it is orange), in that they are not reporting or doing serious journalism, they are sensationalist bits of entertainment for the easily scared masses. this is My consideration, however, to a long time fan who reacts scared and worried when a foreign person walks in the room, they might be the dogs bollocks, but to me, they are throw away bits of entertainment. All three are white, well off and hard right, all three have tried to be more than they deserve or are capable off, all three have an oppinionated view so toxic it would turn a resevoir un-usable in seconds, and all three are enormous, collosal, undeniable jokes, and if you don't get it, your one too.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 04:49 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:54, 20 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
The first part captures religious faith perfectly. As to whether it is a symptom of a psychiatric disorder, I am inclined to follow Robert M. Pirsig, author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, when he said, ‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’"
So I can call atheists deluded under your definition and there will be no objections, right? Because athesits definately have unsupported and false beliefs.
Christianity, however, is not false beliefs and so Christians are not deluded.
Although athesists love to say religion is a mental disorder, it makes no sense to say that most of the world's population has a mental disorder. Atheists make up a very small percentage of the world's population so one can reasonably conclude it is atheism that is a mental disorder.
http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism
Quote:
Another traditional bastion of atheism has been the belief that religion is a form of psychological pathology. This view was promoted by Freud, and more recently by R. Stark & W. S. Bainbridge in their work, Theory of Religion. The traditional argument was that religion was both the result of neurosis, and the cause of further deterioration into neurosis.
Recently, however, these ideas have come under fire by medical and psychological research. The Mayo Clinic did an analysis of 850 mental health studies involving religious belief and involvement and found that mental health was positively affected by faith. [2]
Subsequently, 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions. For example, Psychologie Heute, a German journal, cites the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources." [3]
Professor Vitz did a study of the most prominent professed atheists in the last 400 years; it appears that those individuals neither were nor are paragons of mental health, and that a disproportionate number had strained relationships with their fathers. [4] [5]
Some challenge Prof. Vitz's argument that the temperament of an atheist arises from a strained relationship with his father, without addressing the possibility that both the atheism and the strained paternal relationship may have stemmed from the child's native cantankerous and rebellious temperament.
As a result of these facts, many have become convinced that religion is psychologically beneficial, and that it is atheism which is both a cause and a result of mental illness.
http://creation.com/atheism#suicide
Quote:
The Barna Group reported the following about atheists and agnostics:
“They are less likely than active-faith Americans to … volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit … to describe themselves as ‘active in the community’ … and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person …The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults … atheists and agnostics were more likely than were Christians to be focused on … acquiring wealth …
[Barna Group President, David Kinnaman, stated] ‘Proponents of secularism suggest that rejecting faith is a simple and intelligent response to what we know today. Yet, most of the Americans who overtly reject faith harbor doubts about whether they are correct in doing so. Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.’”125
11.2 Atheism and suicide
“Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members.
“Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.”126
Oh my! Religion is good for you and atheism is an indication of a mental disorder! Religious people tend to help others, atheists tend not to help others.
I wonder if atheism will be treated under the new health care bill in America? I sure hope so, they could use the mental health care from the looks of things. 
Quote:
Nice that you read the book, Elodin, and I appreciate your feedback. Is it really that fierce? I hear his criticism can be rather mild most of the times, with the exception of a few passages. Or is that wrong?
Yep, very wrong. If you read any of his writings dealing with religion it is all the same. Shoddy research, a poor understanding of the precepts of the religions, and a lot of unsupported insults and allegations. His books are not scholarly at all.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 07:48 AM |
|
|
Elodin, maybe youi can help me fixing a problem here.
Let's assume for just a moment that your particular strain of Christianity with x million people are not deluded, but smack on, bull's eye. What does that mean for rest of the world's population? What does it mean for the world's population before that right belief? And why would that make atheists deeluded, but, say, Catholics, Hindus or Schiits not?
If you assume that you and yours are right, then it follows automatically that everyone else is wrong, and ifb everyone else is wrong, it means that everyone else is deluded.
However, interestingly enough, you don't seem to have any problem at all with people being deluded, as long as their delusion has a specific form. I mean, does it matter whether you believe some mumbo-jumbo that can't be right or that there is nothing to make mumbo-jumbo about? Wrong is wrong - or is it?
And what's more, shouldn't you LOVE them all? All those deluded people, including Dawkins and the atheists, instead of calling them names and branding and fighting them? Didn't you say a couple of posts ago it was possible to love everyone and to hate only the sin and not the sinner?
If that's true, it seems you still have a lot to learn, brother - and that's true for your brothers in mind as well.
Shouldn't people try to practise what they preach? If so, why are your posts oozing so much hate out of every pore?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 08:11 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:12, 20 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
If that's true, it seems you still have a lot to learn, brother - and that's true for your brothers in mind as well.
Shouldn't people try to practise what they preach? If so, why are your posts oozing so much hate out of every pore?
You sir are a liar if you say my posts are oozing hatred. Or, do give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps your reading comprehension skills are just poor.
Yes, I love all poeple. You said in this thread that we should not love all people. I heartily disagree with you.
I showed how foolish your statemnt that religious people are deluded is so now of course you are just going in personal attack mode.
I've never said people of other religions are deluded. A person can be mistaken about something and not be deluded.
Since you were having fun calling religious people delusional I just thought it would be appropriate to refer to some studies that show in fact religious people suffer far less from mental disorders and commit suicide less and help people more (typically.) Sorry if showing the acutal facts made you mad.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 08:46 AM |
|
|
|
Yes, thanks for once again underlining your points.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 04:15 PM |
|
|
What a farce!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2009 04:49 PM |
|
|
Well, yes and no.
I think, it really helps understanding history, doesn't it?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
