Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[ThaFleastyler]

damn you and psyche using chance incorrectly - you dont think that men finding woman sexually attractive would be a trait that was beneficial for natural selection?

Along that same line, theres something I've wanted to ask you for a long time Cobra, but wanted to wait till it was right.






Can you please change your avatar?
It haunts my sleep

[Retardobot]

Ok, this is how i read and understood your reply. Just so you can see where i am coming from.

damn you and psyche using chance incorrectly - you dont think that men finding woman sexually attractive would be a trait that was beneficial for natural selection? -  Therefor coupling attractive people with other attractive people, therefor creating more attractive people through the offspring

First off, Don't lump me in the same barrel as Psyche.

Being beautiful has absolutely no relation to providing attractive offspring.

2 of the most unattractive people can provide by what society would call a "hot babe".

So your implementation of Natural Selection in this context doesn't apply. And Natural Selection being put to use when finding a mate is almost pretty much redundant. One man can find a woman attractive and a potential mother of his children when another man can find that same woman absolutely repulsive.

For Natural Selection to succeed in this situation, a woman or man would need to be deemed unattractive by every single possible mate, denying her the chance to copulate. But that isn't the case.

Another man's trash is another mans treasure.

I for one am one of those men. I can be attracted to a lot of girls that my friends otherwise wouldn't bat an eyelid at. I mean christ, i was keen on this girl who worked in the Plaza, turns out she is a raving Lesbian with a gf already.

[cobra]

Ok, this is how i read and understood your reply. Just so you can see where i am coming from.



First off, Don't lump me in the same barrel as Psyche.

Being beautiful has absolutely no relation to providing attractive offspring.

2 of the most unattractive people can provide by what society would call a "hot babe".

So your implementation of Natural Selection in this context doesn't apply. And Natural Selection being put to use when finding a mate is almost pretty much redundant. One man can find a woman attractive and a potential mother of his children when another man can find that same woman absolutely repulsive.

For Natural Selection to succeed in this situation, a woman or man would need to be deemed unattractive by every single possible mate, denying her the chance to copulate. But that isn't the case.

Another man's trash is another mans treasure.

I for one am one of those men. I can be attracted to a lot of girls that my friends otherwise wouldn't bat an eyelid at. I mean christ, i was keen on this girl who worked in the Plaza, turns out she is a raving Lesbian with a gf already.

yeah.......not what i meant, i was suggesting that you finding woman attractive has been selected for, not attractiveness in woman - if you were genetically predisposed to not finding woman attractive your genes wouldn't be here

[ThaFleastyler]

yeah.......not what i meant, i was suggesting that you finding woman attractive has been selected for, not attractiveness in woman - if you were genetically predisposed to not finding woman attractive your genes wouldn't be here

Which in a way takes us back to the homosexuality question from about 50 pages ago. Genetically speaking, how does homosexuality - "men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women:|" - benefit humankind, or help further our evolution? This is what I was saying, and I was laughed at - yet here you are, cobra, basically saying the same thing but from the other angle ("men being attracted to women is beneficial")

(not being a hater towards homosexuals - sorry if anyone is offended)

[KiLL3r]

Which in a way takes us back to the homosexuality question from about 50 pages ago. Genetically speaking, how does homosexuality - "men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women:|" - benefit humankind, or help further our evolution? This is what I was saying, and I was laughed at - yet here you are, cobra, basically saying the same thing but from the other angle ("men being attracted to women is beneficial")

(not being a hater towards homosexuals - sorry if anyone is offended)

humanity has quite a few genetic abnormality's, homosexuality is just one of the more obvious ones.

[Ngati_Grim]

Again, to be directed back to the previous times we've broached this subject, homosexuality is not the exclusive domain of humans and occurs in the extra-human animal world (I say this because we are animals too!).
It may well be that the majority of our ancestors practiced homosexuality at some time a) as a form of 'safe sex', b) as a way of forming closer bonds within a community (i.e. the Spartans) c) or just because they felt like it?
I must add that this is conjecture and entirely off the cuff.

Now,
I had an interesting meeting with a Theologian yesterday over a coffee. The gist of it was that he said that Religion (I will use this term in the broader sense, to include those who call themselves Christian but not religious...come to that later) is all myths to which we apply interpretive frames.
St Paul mentioned 'inclusivity' early in the Christian Epoch (something like"no one shall be denied access to Christ) and that the Enlightenment secularised 'inclusivity (also that while being inclusive, Chrisitianity was exclusive as well).

Basically, people who call themselves Christian but not Religious are post-denominational, and this leads to them not knowing, or denying their own history and constructing a 'new', 'imaginary' history. This can be traced essentially to Karl Barth who described Christianity as revelatory versus 'Religion' and is essentially a form of spiritual superiority (and can be traced back to the ultimate in ego with 'Jesus' saying "No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through me" : a nice way for the early Church Fathers to retain their power).

Essentially, the gist of the whole discussion was that, even though c.95% of the world are 'Religious' in some form or another, it doesn't mean they have any basis beyond the interpretation of myths and that essentially they are 'sheep' and on the whole do not like to ask difficult questions.

So, they are Human constructs, with 'prescriptions for living', but people get too caught up with the supernatural aspect and lose sight of the framework of mythos and logos.

It was a good discussion and I will be having more periodically, so if (I reiterate) anyone has any questions they would like me to ask, I will do my best to oblige.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Which in a way takes us back to the homosexuality question from about 50 pages ago. Genetically speaking, how does homosexuality - "men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women:|" - benefit humankind, or help further our evolution? This is what I was saying, and I was laughed at - yet here you are, cobra, basically saying the same thing but from the other angle ("men being attracted to women is beneficial")

(not being a hater towards homosexuals - sorry if anyone is offended)

Homosexuality survives because it is a product of the mother enhancing the chances of her genes survival, not her son.  Homosexuality is far more common amongst men with an older brother, so the genes will be passed on by the sibling

Humans are tribal, having men around whose first loyalty is not to offspring  would be an advantage to a tribe, so it keeps occuring.

Another factor is that homo/heterosexualtiy is not boolean. sexuality is a spectrum and people who find others of the same sex arousing or attractive are quite capable of still be sexually active with the opposite sex and therefore breeding.

[Tiwaking!]

check through this thread to see the discussion on the historical Jesus.

It seems that he may not have been real, rather a fabrication!

Actually: Check through THIS thread to find out about Historical Jesus. Or I'll just post it here

Historical proof please.

Just remember this: Saul of Tarses never met Jesus in life. Josephus never met Jesus. Tacitus never wrote anything about a character named Jesus.

So where is your proof?

Tacitus did write about him.
Maybe you should check your own proof before using it as evidence. Kind of backfired on you this time.

Originally Posted by Tacitus
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0078&loc=15.44

Actually it is YOU who should check your own proof before using it as evidence

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
Originally Posted by infidels.org
Tacitus and Jesus

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:
Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.

[cobra]

Which in a way takes us back to the homosexuality question from about 50 pages ago. Genetically speaking, how does homosexuality - "men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women:|" - benefit humankind, or help further our evolution? This is what I was saying, and I was laughed at - yet here you are, cobra, basically saying the same thing but from the other angle ("men being attracted to women is beneficial")

(not being a hater towards homosexuals - sorry if anyone is offended)

I am not saying the same thing, saying that being attracted to the opposite sex is beneficial is not saying that homosexuality offers no advantages, obviously if everyone was homosexual then humans would die out but what i said 50 pages ago still stands

[dirtyape]

Well I have faith that there aren't little green pixies living under the surface of the sun. Is that the same?

No, that's irrational faith based on nothing..

It's actually a very strong inductive argument that comes from understanding the situation and from experience.  So strong it justifies a cetain level of certainty without it truly being 'faith' or being open to the kind of challenges a more debatable belief has.

Science disagrees.

While there is evidence of helical structures forming in plasma's, if life existed in that state it would probably not be green.

There are an infinite number of impossible things we can imagine. Is not believing in all of them, even the ones we haven't thought of yet, faith?

Do you have faith that Zeus doesn't exist? what about the pixies I mentioned?

Not believing something is not faith. Not believing every unmeasurable, unprovable creation of the human imagination is not faith.

My point, as always, is that not believing something you are told without any evidence, or even a supportable rational chain of reasoning, is not faith, any more than nymphomania is virginity.

What you are saying is mostly correct. But it is clouded by your examples.

Also, it looks like you are addressing this as if it this were a duality - either you believe or your disbelieve. This is not true.

In order to discuss this properly we really do need to put aside our preconceptions. Lets think about something completely objective, something simple.

Like if I said to you, I have a coin - is it in my left or my right hand? If you answer either way you have made an assumption. You have expressed you faith that it is in one hand and not the other. A guess. The degree of faith may vary, from absolute belief to just slightly more than the alternative.

But you can say you don't know which hand the coin is in. And you would be correct.

Whether god created the big bang or not is pretty much the same is as saying which hand do I have the coin in. We just don't know. There is no information either way. The answer is undefinable as it falls within a singularity, beyond which nothing is certain.

Oh, i should state again that the term "god" does not refer to Yahweh, Zeus, Ptah, Allah, or any other entity used to give description to the concept of the creation of existence. It could, but there is no reason to believe it does.

But what is the difference between 'God' and 'pixies'?
They are both manifestations of overactive imaginings....or are they?
The 'proof' for 'pixies' is as strong as the 'proof' for 'God'.

No, not quite the same thing really. The proof for pixies is nil at the moment, and as they are claimed to exist within the universe they should really be observable, so we can find this one out for sure (eventually). While the proof for god is possibly nil but we cannot be sure as it is possible that god is beyond our observation.

LOL yea, but I'd still want to fly it.

PS the anthropic principal, is the most self centered arrogant misguided and just plain ignorant thing I have ever seen quoted.

The idea the an entire universe was created for the purpose of some ridiculously small spec planet in some rather remote and tiny corner of a equally remote and insignificant galaxy, is so dumb ,that just entertaining the idea probably makes you stupider.
Hello we're a result of the way the universe is. If it was different no doubt some other form of being would be busy wiping out it's own intelligence with proposterously backward theories. The theory is stupid mostly because we know so little about a) LIFE b) the universe. All our experiences with lifeforms are earth based, so no doubt our full knowledge of what life requires is pathetic at best, and just a little biased towards our own enviroment. Considering further the size of the universe and the little we can see, let alone go to (wooo robots on mars!) To extrapolate a complete binding principal from such a tiny amount of information and then come to the conclusion it's all about us, is mind numbingly deluded.

Interesting perspective, I've never really considered the Anthropic principle as being arrogant before. You must be referring to the strong Anthropic principle.

But I think you shouldn't take the principle at name basis, it's not really all about us anthropoids. It's really all about this universe we can see.

The principle is more of a tool for reasoning, an understanding, and not necessarily a truth.

Anyway, I hope you didn't arrive at that conclusion by reading psyches misquoted wiki article. Yeah, he kinda missed out the original principle and focused on the interpretations - ones that explore differing aspects of the principle.

Here is the principle as suggested by Carter,

   * Carter's Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." Note that for Carter, "location" is a space-time position.

    * Carter's Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, 'cogito ergo mundus talis est'." The Latin tag ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]") makes it clear that "must" indicates a deduction from the fact of our existence; the statement is thus a truism.

[Dr Woomanchu]

Whether god created the big bang or not is pretty much the same is as saying which hand do I have the coin in. We just don't know. There is no information either way. The answer is undefinable as it falls within a singularity, beyond which nothing is certain.

I was oversimplifying, but the issue we face is that the term god is purely subjective, and to some extent self referential. God(s) are what we believe/define them to be.

Whether sentience, or anything, existed before the event horizon of the big bang, let alone whether that sentience had anything to do with the event itself is unknowable, but I'm pretty comfortable if one did exist it would pretty well fit the parameters of the definition of gods.

[cobra]

Like if I said to you, I have a coin - is it in my left or my right hand? If you answer either way you have made an assumption. You have expressed you faith that it is in one hand and not the other. A guess. The degree of faith may vary, from absolute belief to just slightly more than the alternative.

the difference is that there is a coin - there is some evidence to indicate that the coin is in a hand and it is a 50/50 guess

With god it is an unlikely option out of infinite options

[Tiwaking!]

i overheard a conversation today.

two people were saying "GOD IS LAME!!!"

and a third butted in and said, "excuse me, i think god is great, perhaps you shouldnt express your opinions so loudly as to keep from offending people."

on of them said, " oh im sorry, ar you religious?"

she replied, "no, im christian"

ummmm. wut???

//edit science ftw

Thats what I'm trying to say - the definition of "religion" as pertaining to sets of rules controlling a practice of faith is a purely Christian idea, which is what the lady was speaking about. The dictionary definition of "religion" is at odds with the way in which Christians use the word.

You can use a fairly simple test to figure out if someone is Christian Religious or Christian Spiritualist. Just ask "Do you agree with the idea of Tabula Rasa?(The idea that everyone is born not knowing anything)"

If the answer is, or is similar to "I follow Christs example" then their belief is most probably Spiritually based

If the answer has anything to do with "Original sin" then they are Religious. Plain and simple...and incredibly simple

[ThaFleastyler]

Dude, if I said to someone, "hey, do you agree with the idea of Tabula Rasa?" and they answered me by saying "I follow Christ's example", I would proceed to say "... what?!"

I don't see how either of those answers actually answers the question.

(for the record, I think the general answer would be "do you mean the RPG game or the philosophical idea?" :chuckle:)


I may be over-simplifying the idea of Tabula Rasa by saying this, but surely the state a baby is in (innate knowledge on feeding aside), and the effect that life experience has on a child, should prove Tabula Rasa is a very real part of the human condition, shouldn't it?

"I follow Christs example" is really an answer for "Knowing that Tabula Rasa means you have a blank slate (so to speak), how do you then decide what to put on that blank slate?"

[KiLL3r]

Just ask "Do you agree with the idea of Tabula Rasa?"

if someone asked me that id just tell them that anything Richard Garriott usually makes is rubbish

[Ngati_Grim]

link

I'll let this do the talking for the while, as I've only just found it.
Interesting though!

[Ngati_Grim]

general link



trailer link



interview link

[dirtyape]

The Experiment:
1. Take single bacterium and grow a culture
2. Divide culture into 12 sub cultures
3. Feed and observe them for 22 years.
4. Discover 1 of the 12 child cultures has developed the ability to metabolise citrate.
5. Mock young earth creationists.

Finally, some good proof for evolution.

So when a young earth creationist tries to mock evolution by saying "If evolution is true then you should be able to do it in the lab!" we'll be able to say "Well actually - you can!"

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

[Dr Woomanchu]

I'm pretty sure YEC will still plonk that one under the "change within species" umbrella, with a dash of microorganism not  macroorganism thrown in for luck.

You're supposed to be able to change an amoeba into a sentient animal for a Year 10 science project for it to qualify as demonstrated evolution in the lab.

BTW if anyone reads Analog the latest edition deals with science/god in a couple of essays and a  short story. Well worth a read if you can find it

[Wandarah]

People with higher IQ's less likely to believe in God?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

[Zarkov]

People with higher IQ's less likely to believe in God?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

Obvious, but interesting when you think about it.

Is there a correlation with parts of the world where belief is almost universal?

Nature or nurture?

[cobra]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4599856a10.html

dear god no, religious nutjobs pushing for superstition to be taught in science classes

[Dr Woomanchu]

I've had my road to Damascus moment. This thread keeps being resurrected

[ThaFleastyler]

Exhibit A:

dear god no

Exhibit B:

religious nutjobs pushing for superstition to be taught in science classes

Hmm. Irony much?

[cobra]

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Hmm. Irony much?

i do use the expressions dear god and god bless - English language is filled with old sayings that have lost connection with there original meaning, but i dont believe in any superstitious creatures

I guess you are pro your religion trying to brainwash children with lies?