I think i do believe in God

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

You are confusing progress with evolution. the lenght of .

elementary my dear 5uspect

evolution is progress

5uspect

Evolution is survival, progress only goes in one direction towards some idealised goal. Evolution can act in many directions, increaded complexity, reduced complexity or no change at all. How are todays animals any more progressive or advanced than the dinosaurs? The development of human intelligence shows an new evolutionary development - you may call this progress but also many deep water fish loose their vision what do you call this? It is evolution but it is not progress.

Why do you think that evolution is progress, can you show me where you read this idea exactly? Do you think we are evolutionarly destined to learn the secrets of the universe?

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

extract from

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm
It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.


Again the author far more qualified to discuss the subject than you or I, I will argue therefore I am not using the term evolution in a confusing way.

Hmm. Can't accept that. The evolution of human intelligence? What isn't known about that would fill several very large books, and has done so!

Impeding it? First, you'd need to find evolutionary biologists who would accept that human intelligence is still evolving (no, it isn't an open and shut case); second, you'd need them to agree what the constraints on that evolution were (ie what the selection pressure was); third, you'd need to show that religion was a selection pressure; fourth, you'd need to show that the selection pressure of religion caused the evolution of human intelligence to be steered in a direction that was generally agreed to be a bad one; fifth, you'd need to be able to show that the alternatives were better....

Well, one could go on, obviously, or one could just say that the author is probably not more qualified to discuss the question, since he has either failed to address these points, or failed to make it sufficiently clear that he is using "evolution" only in the sense of progress, and not in the sense of evolution.

In brief, the state of scientific understanding of the evolution of human intelligence is so preliminary that the author cannot possibly be using the term correctly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Stevejazzx, I think you're confusing the words evolution and Evolution. One is the english word, meaning to adapt or advance, used in the context of "evolution of human intelligence" while the later is Darwin's theory, used in the context of "Evolution allowed the species to survive in the post-volcanic environment".

The first is a simple concept that can be applied to any valid target, while the later is a biological phenomenon using genetic variation and natural selection that results in diversification of species.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

Stevejazzx, I think you're confusing the words evolution and Evolution. One is the english word, meaning to adapt or advance, used in the context of "evolution of human intelligence" while the later is Darwin's theory, used in the context of "Evolution allowed the species to survive in the post-volcanic environment".

The first is a simple concept that can be applied to any valid target, while the later is a biological phenomenon using genetic variation and natural selection that results in diversification of species.

You're right I would say but I was never arguing evolution in on biological terms. I've tried to explain this.

Post no. 24 this thread

stevejazzx wrote:

I'm discussing evolution with a specific focus on intelligence. I am arguing the dumbing down of and controlling of societies throughout generations, I take your point however that the evolutionary process as a whole is generally unstoppable but it can be interfered with or altered, no?

I've cited examples

Stephen Hawkins wrote:

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.

Daniel Dennet wrote:

Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs. ....?

Alexis Dolgorukii wrote:

It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.

So I'm not mixing anything up. I arguing the same point I was at the begining of this thread. People have come in and either a. not read the thread properly or b. thought they would give me lessons in biological evolution.

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

Evolution is survival, progress only goes in one direction towards some idealised goal. Evolution can act in many directions, increaded complexity, reduced complexity or no change at all. How are todays animals any more progressive or advanced than the dinosaurs? The development of human intelligence shows an new evolutionary development - you may call this progress but also many deep water fish loose their vision what do you call this? It is evolution but it is not progress.

Why do you think that evolution is progress, can you show me where you read this idea exactly? Do you think we are evolutionarly destined to learn the secrets of the universe?

Here s one of four million articles

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/index.htm

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

Sapien

stevejazzx wrote:

People have come in and either a. not read the thread properly or b. thought they would give me lessons in biological evolution.

Perhaps you could avoid confusion by disambiguating your use of the word "evolution" by synonymous substitution. "Advancement" seems apt for the meaning you intend.

stevejazzx wrote:

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

If you have not already, read Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", or if you haven't the time, read the Penguin short "The View from Mount Improbable", which is an excerpt from the former, dealing specifically with the eye. It describes how decadence, degeneration and disappearance of sophisticated organs and biological structures is common in evolution, and can frequently pave the way for new evolutionary opportunities. Excellent book.

stevejazzx

Sapien wrote:

Perhaps you could avoid confusion by disambiguating your use of the word "evolution" by synonymous substitution. "Advancement" seems apt for the meaning you intend.

No I will use the word evolution as it is exactly the word I want to use
and I think I have defended it's context and usuage to anyone who has read this thread.

sapien wrote:

If you have not already, read Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", or if you haven't the time, read the Penguin short "The View from Mount Improbable", which is an excerpt from the former, dealing specifically with the eye. It describes how decadence, degeneration and disappearance of sophisticated organs and biological structures is common in evolution, and can frequently pave the way for new evolutionary opportunities. Excellent book.

I have read it, actually as it happens.
and it shows progress ultimately, not devolution.
If I have missed your point please clarify.

ScumLord

Damn it all. I only have access to the net at work so I'm a bit pressed for time. You all make very valid and logical points but I still belive it's wrong to ignore religion altogether, it's as bad as religious folks completely ignoring obvious facts. I really do think religious thinking/meditation are linked to what seperates humans from other animals I'm not on about magic and such but it seems that when people began to notice the systems in nature and the bigger picture was the same time religion poped up. There has been no Athiest civialised society in the history of the human race. Do you think Evolution went down this road?

Its only now with our ultra-stable democratic societies that we can afford such luxuries as human rights and equality.

Where did these things come from, the human has been slowly moving from a self centred animal to an enlightend compassionete person. Allot of pain and sufering may have been caused by religious people that's not unusual war and murder is common in living things, what is odd even for a social animal like us is that humans get on so well together.

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God. I actually think the ten comandemts are a pretty good set of rules for living in a large social group. Even the 1st one has it's uses one God means no arguing.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

Dades

ScumLord wrote:

There has been no Athiest civialised society in the history of the human race. Do you think Evolution went down this road?

That reminds me of Ghandi's alleged quote when asked about western civilisation - "I think it would be an excellent idea".

ScumLord wrote:

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

I always though religion has been about getting answers to questions for which we have no answer. Some talk about being nice to each other alright - albeit on pain of eternal torture if you're not.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God.

No but Leviticus and Exodus probably did.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Here s one of four million articles

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/index.htm

Reads more like social engineering than evolution.

stevejazzx wrote:

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

It depends by how you define progressive
You can argue that the Red Queen effect is not progressive. There are many examples of animals with the loss of body parts that are no longer useful in their current enviroment. I mentioned blind fish earlier but also there are many examples such as the T-Rex "arms" and flightless birds. Loosing the ability to fly is ecomonical but can be considered a major step backwards for a progressive process. More info can be found here.

stevejazzx wrote:

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

Fair enough, but in order to aviod confusion it would just be easier to use words in a context that everyone understands. I did read the thread before I commented but I still disagreed with your use of the word evolution. I hope my whinging has at least shed some light on the meaning of the word.

So go to Hell (by which I mean have a nice day!)

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people? Says who?

Religion since human civilisation began has been about two things

1 - Control of population groups under a common dogma
2 - Attempting to explain what is not understood

Getting the "best" out of people is normally defined by the people who are at the top of the pyramid of point 1, ie those who control the religion. They are the ones that decide how a person should act so that they can achieve their "best," which funnily enough is normally how those in control wish them to act.

Morality was not invented by religion. Yes some points of some religion contain nice things, about being nice to each other, but that is more a reflection of the fact that religion is just another social construct. Humans can be nice, so you will find elements of religions that are nice. Humans can also be very horrible, so you will also find elements of religions that are very horrible.

Religion did nothing that wasn't being done anyway, good or bad. Nothing new about human behaviour or humanity emerged from religion. Religion reflects human nature, not that other way around.

Scofflaw

ScumLord wrote:

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God. I actually think the ten comandemts are a pretty good set of rules for living in a large social group. Even the 1st one has it's uses one God means no arguing.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

It has been argued that the major religions largely arose because they enable the social bonding of large groups of unrelated people. They provide: a coherent worldview for use between believers; a set of rituals in which anyone can participate; an automatic other who is excluded (the unbeliever); an explanation for the universe; a balancing of scales after death that helps reconcile tensions in this life; and last a set of arbitrary instructions as to behaviour (usually entailing charity and orderliness).

One can argue that all that religion provides can equally well be provided by politics, and to a large extent now is - the geographical nation-state, for example, provides a lot of the above. However, it may be that the nation-state turns out to be just a particular phase - as geography becomes less important, religion increases in importance again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ScumLord

I hope the politics we've seen so far isn't the norm for the future (celeb attention whores) but at the same time I don't want to go back to Catholic or Islam rule.

Wicknight wrote:

Religion since human civilisation began has been about two things

1 - Control of population groups under a common dogma
2 - Attempting to explain what is not understood

I suppose you could look at it that way and I suppose that, seeing as religion or believing in spirits and higher powers probably came about gradually it can't be said that it was invented for any particular reason. It does seem to me though, that it always had the best intentions for people as a whole even if they ways they went about aplying it went completely against the good intentions.

I still think it's an important part of the human condition and can't be ignored, maybe upgraded for the modern society. Just look at the power of meditation which is controlled by the religious part of the brain. My point is the thinking process involved in religion could be benificial. I think that's my point anyway I see religious thinking to be almost the same drive that makes scientists constantly question he world. That part of the brain is unique and special and I still think it's possible something planted it there.

Religion reflects human nature, not that other way around.

Ya I'd go along with that.

Maybe I don't believe in God after all Just the power of the human mind but I'll still hold out on the possibility.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

that it always had the best intentions for people as a whole even if they ways they went about aplying it went completely against the good intentions.

What is "it"?

"Religion" isn't a single body or entity. There are religions that advocate mass suicide. There are religions that claim that all non-believers should be killed.

When you say "it" do you mean the Judeao/Christian religions (Jews, Chrisitians, Muslims) that was spawned by the Hewbrews around 3,000 BCE?

ScumLord wrote:

I still think it's an important part of the human condition and can't be ignored,

Who is ignoring religion. There is a difference between ignoring something and recongising that something is not what it claims to be. Atheists don't "ignore" religion, they abandon it because they realise it is what it is, simply a social construct for control and explination.

ScumLord wrote:

Just look at the power of meditation which is controlled by the religious part of the brain.

There is no "religious" part of the brain. There are parts of the brain that develop concepts like religion, but they develop lots of other things to.

Meditation is great, but there is no religious origin of meditation, humans were resting and meditating long before they came up with religion.

Seriously people have to stop attributing things to religion which it did not create. Religion did not create morality. Religion did not create meditation or inner peace or inner fullfilment etc etc.

All these things are a product of the way our brain chemistry functions. Evolution and biology created these things, religion just uses them, as do all aspects of humanity. Religion is a human invention, and as such reflects human nature. If religion didn't exist we would all probably be still acting in similar ways

ScumLord wrote:

My point is the thinking process involved in religion could be benificial.

Well most atheists would probably argue that you can get all the benefits without believing in the silly mumbo jumbo, by looking at what really is going on in things like meditation, rather than the made up religous explination

ScumLord

There is no "religious" part of the brain. There are parts of the brain that develop concepts like religion, but they develop lots of other things to.

There is a part of the brain that seems to deal specifically with religious (religious probably isn't the right word to use here as it lights up during meditation too) thinking, damage to this region of the brain can cause people to think there God or see angles and generally turn into a religious nut.

Seriously people have to stop attributing things to religion which it did not create. Religion did not create morality. Religion did not create meditation or inner peace or inner fullfilment etc etc

I think there linked and you couldn't have one without the other, now you can because the change has already taken place.

Well most atheists would probably argue that you can get all the benefits without believing in the silly mumbo jumbo,

That's what I've been saying! I said from the start that I didn't belive in the christian or any version of the mumbo jumbo stuff but that religious/spiritual thinking and instilling morals in people at that level of the brain had value to society and that we needed to update the way we used that way of thinking.