Science finds cure for Religion
Discussion
shakotan said:
So you're saying the Northern Ireland conflicts have nothing to do with two groups of people believing to two 'slightly different' versions of the same religion, and actually they just don't like the way each others pint is looking at their girlfriend?
What ignorant rubbish!
I think the point there would be. Which of these labels is religious:What ignorant rubbish!
Unionist
Republican
Muslim
Shay HTFC said:
Its a bit of a stupid venture in my opinion.
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm atheist, but there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
Some people need religion. You will never get rid of it completely because then they'll just turn to the next source of guidance/support/comfort/distraction from above (celebrity/commercialism culture maybe... )
The most surprising thing though is that some people's hate of religion is more vehement than the passion of those who follow religion. Its mad.
The argument isn't 'I believe in religion because it brings comfort. The argument is 'I believe in religion because it is true'.I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm atheist, but there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
Some people need religion. You will never get rid of it completely because then they'll just turn to the next source of guidance/support/comfort/distraction from above (celebrity/commercialism culture maybe... )
The most surprising thing though is that some people's hate of religion is more vehement than the passion of those who follow religion. Its mad.
Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 8th May 14:44
Quite different propositions, and few atheists would contest that religion brings comfort.
shakotan said:
Shay HTFC said:
shakotan said:
Shay HTFC said:
The most surprising thing though is that some people's hate of religion is more vehement than the passion of those who follow religion. Its mad.
Probably because religion has been the basis of most of the worst atrocities known to mankind. I think that's pretty deserving of a hatred.Religion has just been a convenient way of splitting people into "us and them". War is about gaining power, not religion.
If there was no religion, people would find another way of ratifying their actions. (all in my opinion)
What ignorant rubbish!
Two different groups of people with different underlying cultures will always come into conflict. Religion just happens to be one way of determining what a given culture consists of.
Like I said, I'm atheist and not exactly a fan of the concept of mass religion, but good luck getting rid of it. People will always find something to believe in, something to give them faith, something to make them feel at peace with the world.
BIANCO said:
Shay HTFC said:
Its a bit of a stupid venture in my opinion.
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm atheist, but there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
Why does love not make analytical sense? Does the feeling of hunger or jealousy not make sense?, I would say they do, all emotional behaviour makes sense in a evolutionary way. Its no coincidence that things that are beneficial to survival have positive feelings and things that are detrimental to survival have bad feelings. I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm atheist, but there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
And the odd occasions when you get someone that seems to contradict the norm can be normally explained by simple evolutionary/ biological diversity or medical conditions.
We like to think that we have freewill to make our own personal decisions and chooses but untimely we are just pre programmed machines, slaves to our evolutionary gained instincts and emotions. Love is a good example of this just because it makes you personally do things that don’t make analytical sense to you that doesn’t mean it doesnt in the big picture.
The fact is, life is tough and religion (or a belief in a higher being) acts as a crutch to keep people going. It serves a purpose to society. When it is no longer useful, surely it will fade away automatically like anything does when it comes to evolution.
I'm an atheist but I think its foolish to rule everything out, if I die and end up meeting st peter at the pearly gates I'll admit I was wrong.
The human race has always looked to something for comfort and to make them feel better about the hardships of life. Look at the ancient greeks believing in the various gods, Zeus etc and we have progressed on to jesus, allah and so on. They can't all be right. The bible imo is as reliable as a game of chinese whispers.
The difference is Religion tells you what you should and shouldn't do and gives no real reason as to why. Whereas science says we think there are blackholes in space here's our evidence we have based this on but we still have no concrete proof so make your own mind up.
The human race has always looked to something for comfort and to make them feel better about the hardships of life. Look at the ancient greeks believing in the various gods, Zeus etc and we have progressed on to jesus, allah and so on. They can't all be right. The bible imo is as reliable as a game of chinese whispers.
The difference is Religion tells you what you should and shouldn't do and gives no real reason as to why. Whereas science says we think there are blackholes in space here's our evidence we have based this on but we still have no concrete proof so make your own mind up.
Caesar9 said:
I'm an atheist but I think its foolish to rule everything out, if I die and end up meeting st peter at the pearly gates I'll admit I was wrong.
That's no use. Since you won't have left the church owt in your will, St Peter's not going to be impressed by penniless, dead old angel-you saying "blimey, it's true" at that point. It is VERY important that you give them the money while you're alive.Even if its on your deathbed, that's ok. When the kindly priest pops round for last rites, and to ask in his gentle way if you want to give him any dosh, just croak "yes". Screw your kids and the donkey sanctuary and buy that ticket.
Shay HTFC said:
Its a bit of a stupid venture in my opinion.
. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
On the assumption that you meant love, rather than merely the act of love:. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
I would suggest that 'love' is a survival mechanism. If it was just a case of wham, bam, thank-you ma'am then your child would be left to fight for survival with just one provider, and a female at that. With two, one who has not direct function of caring for said child by feeding so able to fetch food, gather berries and open bottles, the genes have a bitter chance of survival.
I don't like kids. Never have. Along came mine and I was cooing with the best of the grandmas. If anyone tried to harm a hair on the head of any of my four I'd certainly do my best to 'discourage' them, even at serious risk to myself. It is illogical but this love thing drives apparently sensible responses away.
I was holding my youngest kid, when he was about six months and I suddenly realised that if it came to a choice between saving my wife or baby I had not idea which I'd choose. It was quite a sobering thought. I came all over girly, so to speak. Later I realised that for my wife, there was no question. She'd tread me into the dirt.
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
Derek Smith said:
I don't like kids. Never have. Along came mine and I was cooing with the best of the grandmas. If anyone tried to harm a hair on the head of any of my four I'd certainly do my best to 'discourage' them, even at serious risk to myself. It is illogical but this love thing drives apparently sensible responses away.
I was holding my youngest kid, when he was about six months and I suddenly realised that if it came to a choice between saving my wife or baby I had not idea which I'd choose. It was quite a sobering thought. I came all over girly, so to speak. Later I realised that for my wife, there was no question. She'd tread me into the dirt.
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
It is not illogical at all. You see it throughout the animal kingdom where animals will put themselves at risk for the sakemof their offspring. The desire to see your own genes continue is the basic aim, and whether you live of die is frankly irrelevant when it comes to those genes continuing. You see it with birds attacking a large predator near their nest, cats fighting off dogs, and so on. It is entirely logical behavior. I was holding my youngest kid, when he was about six months and I suddenly realised that if it came to a choice between saving my wife or baby I had not idea which I'd choose. It was quite a sobering thought. I came all over girly, so to speak. Later I realised that for my wife, there was no question. She'd tread me into the dirt.
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
We do not have litters of 5 or 10 animals, we have one, maybe 2, so we look after that critter until it can fend for itself. Critters who have thousands of eggs forsake that by sheer numbers. As long as some get through to reproducing age, we are good to go.
Derek Smith said:
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
Not just clever, it is crucial. My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
In environments perhaps tougher than ours, individuals who value their own survival over that of their offspring might live longer, but are less likely to have offspring who live to reach their own reproduction. This is clearly a reproductive disadvantage.
We would die for our kids because we carry the genes of forebears who did die for their kids.
Derek Smith said:
Shay HTFC said:
Its a bit of a stupid venture in my opinion.
. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
On the assumption that you meant love, rather than merely the act of love:. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
I would suggest that 'love' is a survival mechanism. If it was just a case of wham, bam, thank-you ma'am then your child would be left to fight for survival with just one provider, and a female at that. With two, one who has not direct function of caring for said child by feeding so able to fetch food, gather berries and open bottles, the genes have a bitter chance of survival.
I don't like kids. Never have. Along came mine and I was cooing with the best of the grandmas. If anyone tried to harm a hair on the head of any of my four I'd certainly do my best to 'discourage' them, even at serious risk to myself. It is illogical but this love thing drives apparently sensible responses away.
I was holding my youngest kid, when he was about six months and I suddenly realised that if it came to a choice between saving my wife or baby I had not idea which I'd choose. It was quite a sobering thought. I came all over girly, so to speak. Later I realised that for my wife, there was no question. She'd tread me into the dirt.
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
Likewise, my belief is that faith in some higher being, or higher force is also some sort of evolutionary trait designed for the benefit of society in some way and hence creates an environment that helps to foster successful breeding.
Why would every single civilisation to date have believed in gods of some sort? The Mayans, the Romans, the Greeks... they all believed in higher forces. Surely it is the result of evolution which somehow allows people to live for longer, keeps society cohesive, or just brings people peace so that they can hunt deer with a clear, unburdened mind?
Edited by Shay HTFC on Wednesday 9th May 18:25
Shay HTFC said:
Derek Smith said:
Shay HTFC said:
Its a bit of a stupid venture in my opinion.
. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
On the assumption that you meant love, rather than merely the act of love:. . . there are loads of things in our lives that don't make perfect analytical sense, but that bring comfort, joy and whatever else to people. The act of love for starters.
I would suggest that 'love' is a survival mechanism. If it was just a case of wham, bam, thank-you ma'am then your child would be left to fight for survival with just one provider, and a female at that. With two, one who has not direct function of caring for said child by feeding so able to fetch food, gather berries and open bottles, the genes have a bitter chance of survival.
I don't like kids. Never have. Along came mine and I was cooing with the best of the grandmas. If anyone tried to harm a hair on the head of any of my four I'd certainly do my best to 'discourage' them, even at serious risk to myself. It is illogical but this love thing drives apparently sensible responses away.
I was holding my youngest kid, when he was about six months and I suddenly realised that if it came to a choice between saving my wife or baby I had not idea which I'd choose. It was quite a sobering thought. I came all over girly, so to speak. Later I realised that for my wife, there was no question. She'd tread me into the dirt.
Love is odd. It is illogical but very powerful. Darwin in action I think.
My belief is that love is a really clever survival modification.
Likewise, my belief is that faith in some higher being, or higher force is also some sort of evolutionary trait designed for the benefit of society in some way.
Why would every single civilisation to date have believed in gods of some sort? The Mayans, the Romans, the Greeks... they all believed in higher forces. Surely it is the result of evolution which somehow allows people to live for longer, keeps society under control, or just brings people peace so that they can hunt deer with a clear, unburdened mind?
Species less intelligent than ours do not evolve gods, because they don't need them to get by. Species more intelligent than ours won't evolve gods because they'll know enough to know they aren't there.
We're in the uncomfortable middle-ground where we're clever enough to search for meaning, but not clever enough to be comfortable with not finding it.
God fills-in some awkward gaps in our heads.
Do we need gods now that we have science? Whilst it does not answer everything, nor does it promise to, it gives believable explanations of why if not how. We are no longer bewildered just aware that we don't know everything. Angels don't hold onto our ankles to stop us drifting off. Gravity does the job. We might not know what gravity is but we know it's not some ghostly thing.
It bewilders me when people profess belief in creationism. I'm still not convinced they do wholeheartedly believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, but if I'm right then the fact that they know they are talking rubbish but continue to do so is even more weird.
Not every civilisation had gods by the way. Some worshipped ancestors, indeed still do. Other worshipped the Sun not as a god but as a form of central heating and lighting even longer lasting than low-energy light bulbs. Interventionist gods are far, far from common. In fact at times in the past some christian religions, even the big ones, stated that god doesn't give a damn about us. This period lasted for hundreds of years.
Further, some (insert your own percentage) religions were nothing more than trickery and were often forced on the proles. Whether they believed in their own sacrifices is a matter that is open to doubt. I went to church as a kid but didn't believe. Many people do that same I feel sure. In some societies there is an obligation to attend but once that duty is over there is no problem with having your secretary over the desk.
That some societies perished and others survived may or may not have something to do with how religious they were. Perhpas there is something worthwhile in everyone getting together frequently. Perhaps a reglatory conduct requirement is useful. So perhaps it is not religion at all but a side effect. My father was given some pills because of their side effects and not their main purpose. Perhaps the same with religion.
Many religions are nothing more than social gatherings, a sing song, and then make your way home feeling nice. Maybe kareoke can replace it.
It bewilders me when people profess belief in creationism. I'm still not convinced they do wholeheartedly believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, but if I'm right then the fact that they know they are talking rubbish but continue to do so is even more weird.
Not every civilisation had gods by the way. Some worshipped ancestors, indeed still do. Other worshipped the Sun not as a god but as a form of central heating and lighting even longer lasting than low-energy light bulbs. Interventionist gods are far, far from common. In fact at times in the past some christian religions, even the big ones, stated that god doesn't give a damn about us. This period lasted for hundreds of years.
Further, some (insert your own percentage) religions were nothing more than trickery and were often forced on the proles. Whether they believed in their own sacrifices is a matter that is open to doubt. I went to church as a kid but didn't believe. Many people do that same I feel sure. In some societies there is an obligation to attend but once that duty is over there is no problem with having your secretary over the desk.
That some societies perished and others survived may or may not have something to do with how religious they were. Perhpas there is something worthwhile in everyone getting together frequently. Perhaps a reglatory conduct requirement is useful. So perhaps it is not religion at all but a side effect. My father was given some pills because of their side effects and not their main purpose. Perhaps the same with religion.
Many religions are nothing more than social gatherings, a sing song, and then make your way home feeling nice. Maybe kareoke can replace it.
wormburner said:
That's no use. Since you won't have left the church owt in your will, St Peter's not going to be impressed by penniless, dead old angel-you saying "blimey, it's true" at that point. It is VERY important that you give them the money while you're alive.
Even if its on your deathbed, that's ok. When the kindly priest pops round for last rites, and to ask in his gentle way if you want to give him any dosh, just croak "yes". Screw your kids and the donkey sanctuary and buy that ticket.
Looks like I'm going into nothingness then 'cause they're not getting a penny off me.Even if its on your deathbed, that's ok. When the kindly priest pops round for last rites, and to ask in his gentle way if you want to give him any dosh, just croak "yes". Screw your kids and the donkey sanctuary and buy that ticket.
I've always found asking the religious folk why this life isn't enough tends to get them.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff