Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Do you agree?
No, evil-ution is a Liberal myth 20%
No, I'm happy with my delusions 4%
No, we should just exterminate them 6%
Yes, let's start rounding people up! 12%
Yes, it's for the good of humanity 16%
Yes, I want to rid myself of this taint 18%
I'm too stupid to have an opinion 22%

Votes: 49

 Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 26, 2001
 Comments:

Millions of years ago, our appendix allowed our ancestors to eat plants, providing a valuable addition to their diets which allowed them to prosper when game was scarce. Today the only time the appendix plays any role in our lives is when we get appendicitis and it has to be removed. In evolutionary terms we have moved beyond the need for this organ, and through the mechanism of natural selection eventually it will atrophy and then vanish, without long-term effects. This process may take hundreds of thousands of years to occur, but the harm caused by the appendix is minor, and easily fixed by medical science.

But what most people in today's world have missed is that the while the appendix can be dangerous to an individual, there is another genetic malaise that can be lethal not only to the individual, but to society as a whole. Each year this malaise claims the lives of thousands and condemns millions more to lives of abject poverty and misery, while at the same time affecting every human being on the planet. And yet few have even recognised this problem, let alone begin to deal with it before its ever-spreading reach consumes us all and terminates the existance of the human race.

Its name? Religion.

religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
What shall we give up for Lent?
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
manifold

Eugenics: The choice for a superior generation
Electronica: The threat to our youth
The Myth of "Facts"

The evidence for religion being nothing more than an evolutionary adaption is there for all to see, yet few are brave enough to come out and say it outside of the pages of dry journals about anthropolgy, evolution and neurology. The forces of religion are as strong, if not stronger, than they were before the Renaissance, when zealotry and bigotry bestrode the land destroying all that dared question God. In America, the world's last remaining superpower, religion is everywhere from run-down trailer parks to the White House, and those that dare to question its beliefs are mocked and derided, or even marked for death. Is it any wonder that the evidence is so little known?

But what is the evidence? It rests upon the science of sociobiology, which explains how many human behaviours are based upon our biological nature - or more specifically by genetically-directed traits that arose through natural selection to further the goal of passing on our DNA as successfully as possible. And while it must be noted that as thinking beings we can override our genetic predispositions to certain behaviours, many of them are so unconscious that they can rule our lives with an iron fist from which few escape.

While sociobology obviously deals with individual behaviour patterns, it also has a subtle effect on group behaviours as well through "gene-culture coevolution". What this says is that while individual genetic tendancies influence how a group acts, the cultural influences of the group also influence natural selection through the mechanism of favouring individuals that display traits that the group holds to be worthwhile. Such favoured individuals are more likely to be successful breeders, and their DNA will come to dominate those that do not share this valued genetic traits.

So how does this apply to religion? Religion satisfies several needs which tend to make people happier and more productive, traits which make them more valuable to a primitive society. Firstly religion explains the unknown, and serves to make it less mysterious and frightening. Secondly it provides a way for people to deal with the fundamental questions of existance - why we are here and what happens when we die for instance. By having the concept of reincarnation or an afterlife with some kind of reward and punishment mechanism, it both allays people's fear of death and encourages them to be better members of society. It also provides a way to encourage social cohesiveness through the bonds of a shared religion, which serves to keep members of the group leaving and weakening it as a whole.

For all these reasons and more religious behavioural patterns would be beneficial to a society, and those members that had them would be more successful, outbreeding those without such traits. And the vast number of religions in the world supports this - while they differ in details, they all share the same traits of explaining the unknown, allaying fears and increasing social bonding. And so, as soon as the first primitive societies formed, religious genes began to inflitrate our DNA, providing benefits to those societies whose members had them.

Additional evidence comes from the fact that so-called "mystical" experiences have a known and tested neurological explaination. When praying humans experience depressed activity in the orientation association area of their brains, the area which separates the self from everything else and allows us to move without constantly walking into things. Depressed activity in this brain area would lead to feelings of a loss of separation of self and the rest of the Universe; of being "at one" with everything - consistent with descriptions of religious ecstacy.

All this would be well and good if religion today played the same beneficial role in helping people work and live together in groups, making people happier and more productive. But look in any paper or history book and you see a different story - religious persecution, holy wars, rejection of knowledge, inquisitions, pogroms, child abuse and a whole host of other evils. Throughout the last two thousand years religion has killed more people than any other cause, and its influence upon the human mind and human society has given rise to a host of less obvious evils - cultural imperialism, overpopulation, terrorism, illness and ignorance. All of these things are hugely detrimental to the evolution of humanity, and even its survival is uncertain in the face of the blind hatred and xenophobia religion inspires.

Of course, there is a solution to this malaise. Despite opposition from religious groups afraid of losing their control over their herds, the science of genetic engineering has advanced in leaps and bounds in the last thirty years, and such marvels of modern science as the Human Genome Project are providing us with ever increased understanding of the workings of our genetic codes. Scientists are finding out the genetic mechanisms for our phenotype, inherited illnesses and even aging and death - surely it isn't beyond belief that a concerted effort could be made to discover the exact locations and functions of the religious genes that exert such a pathological influence! And then, once these genes have been located, it is only a matter of time and study before we can determine how to turn them off and render them harmless.

Once we have this knowledge it only takes courage then to take the final step towards liberation, to begin the large-scale modification of humanity's germ-line to prevent further inheritance of such dangerous genetic codes. Only then will humanity truly be free to move from barbarism under the yoke of religion to an enlightened future in which we can make our own decisions based upon ethics and logic for the good of all.

Unfortunately it is all too likely that faced with the threat of extinction, religious fanatics around the world will, like any rabid animal backed into a corner, respond with violent attack against those that threaten their existance. This must not stop us from doing what it right, and we must not hate these people - they are merely slaves of their genetic imperatives, not truly evil. In the long run, our actions will benefit their children as well as our own, and future generations will thank us.


Good proof of God-given freewill (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:43:07 AM PST
is that this manifold character was able to write and post this solopsistic rant. Of course, he's very, very wrong. I only pray he finds the right course before he spends an eternity burning in Hell.


A. Rightmann

pathetic (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 10:13:35 AM PST
You sure throw that "you're going to hell" crap around a lot. Who do you think you are, the almighty himself?


 
Sorry (3.66 / 3) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 01:36:13 PM PST
Only God gets to make the whole afterlife decision.


yeah... (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:36:45 AM PST
>Only God gets to make the whole afterlife decision.

... and Adam is telling them _which_ decision God will make.


Nonsense (none / 0) (#73)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:01:42 AM PST
I don't speak for God, and have no say on what happens in the afterlife. What I do have is faith in God, and rules He has handed down for living.


A. Rightmann

 
That manifold guy (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 06:13:59 PM PST
He must be on some serious pharmaceuticals to come up with stuff like this. My guess is DMT or Ketamine.


 
study (none / 0) (#12)
by alprazolam on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 11:33:50 AM PST
"It's interesting that the nuns' prayer, which was more involved with words, showed activation in the brain's word areas," Newberg said. Such findings reinforce the validity of the study.

A masterful article, with an interesting and revolutionary conclusion. Unfortunately, as the above quote indicates, the study you base your assumptions on isn't exactly the most rigorous, nor does it appear to be entirely objective. To paraphrase, you're applying a technological answer to a sociological problem. Which we know won't work, because the quote is famous, and says it won't.


 
Religion (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 01:43:52 PM PST
You said that religion itself isn't to blame -- it's intolerance. While I thought you brought up some very good points, intolerance (which is sometimes, but not always, borne from religion) should have been the focus rather than religion. If intolerance is eradicated through genetic manipulation, religion could continue to promote moral behavior.


genetic engineering is the new frontier (none / 0) (#23)
by philipm on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 08:23:14 PM PST
Just like drinking with russians, so is intolerance a muslim gene.

For those of you that are uncomfortable with the author's assertion that genetic engineering can can rid of the evils that religion has artificially let happen to the world - don't worry - when the genetic revoulution comes, the doctors will not be testing for muslimism. They will be testing for greed, stupidity and hate; and muslimists will naturally be excluded based on that. We also will see extreme advances in the quality of the human race. Once all the bad genes have been eliminated, the human race will be free to be creative, and it will truly be a millenium of peace.

The author is very forward thinking and desreves praise for his brave view point. Its a brave new world out there, and sometimes with have to give evolution a little help. Its unfortunaty that apologists like Mama Theresa and Gumby persist in taking care of the weakminded. We have to be visionary and not let them hurt us.

Who could possibly be against a warm summer day with children laughing?


--philipm

 
This flawed reasoning been around for centuries (none / 0) (#16)
by angry android on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 01:55:57 PM PST
For those who give consideration to this article give some thought to what the author is saying. He begins his argument that religion is a part of us, that is is inherent in our nature (even though his functional explanation is obviously off balance). However, because many horrible things have been done in the name of religion he argues that we should take drastic steps (genetic modification <=> genocide: rwanda, nazi germany, countless other examples) to have our "inheritance" of religion removed from within us.
The implication that (bad religious practices) -> (destroy religion) does not hold when religion causes people to practice good. Yes Christendom is in bed with all the world powers, and it has caused the death and untold suffering of millions. Should we though, dismiss all religion because of this?
The article is plagued with numerous historical and biblical refences that are either taken out of context or completely false.
Before I start ranting too much, I'll conclude that the author is grossly uneducated, disinformed, and unqualified to write anything on the subject.


I agree (none / 0) (#26)
by dissolutions on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:29:53 PM PST
The original author is poorly informed in history. Religions has been used as an excuse to kill. Those offenses were sadly misguided and wrong. The crusades which you use as an example contradict's the teachings of Jesus.

Athiest have killed more people than non-athiest.
Pol Pot, Hilter, Stalin, Augustus Caesar, Caligula, Alexander the great, etc...
Each of these are responsible for the murder of millions!


hrm (none / 0) (#28)
by Frithiof on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 10:15:46 PM PST
I thought "Hilter" was a Catholic, and I am also pretty sure that he had promoted amongst his Aryan peoples a variation of what Sigmund "Oedipus Complex" Freud coined "Wotanism"... I could be mistaken, though.

and even you have to admit, while certain people may have helped cause millions of people to be killed, there had to have been millions of willing soldiers to do the killing, right? there are always people willing to commit unprecedented atrocities during times of war...


-Frith

 
Your examples aren't very useful... (none / 0) (#30)
by Hammurabi on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 11:30:36 AM PST
If they're incorrect. Hitler was a devout Catholic. Caligula was a quite devout follower of the Roman religion, as was Augustus Ceasar, and neither one of them killed nearly 'millions'. I don't know about Alexander the Great, but his killings were made in open warfare, for the most part, and if you're going to include war in the equation, then we have many more billions of people who were mostly killed in wars supporting one religion or another.

Your assertion, that 'Athiests have killed more people than non-atheists' is ludicrous at first glance, and contradicts the simplist knowledge of history. The only reasonable examples that can be given are Stalin and Pol-Pot, and their killings are negligible compared to, say, Hitler, Kisssinger, the Crusaders, and the Inquisition combined. (and that's just one religion)


Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

Was Hitler Catholic? (none / 0) (#45)
by hauntedattics on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:46:53 PM PST
Was Hitler really a devout Catholic, even as the Fuhrer? Or was he just brought up as one, since most Austrians were then and still are today? I'm not exactly sure about this, but I think the Nazi higher-ups were quite dead set against religion in general. They just used Christianity as part of their emphasis on an ideal 'Aryan' construct. Does anyone know more about this?



No, he was not. (none / 0) (#46)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:29:19 PM PST
He and his buddies (Himmler, etc.) were neo-pagan. Theirs was a syncretic Germanic pagan cult, not much different from the modern-day Wiccans. (Gasp!) Basically, Wiccans put more emphasis on the "female" part of the cult, Himmler put more emphasis on the "male" part of the cult. (o.b. Wagner.)


--
Peace and much love...




 
Not quite. (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:14:53 PM PST
Hitler was a devout Catholic.

Perhaps by birth, but by the time he rose to power he had become atheist. He was not averse to using other peoples' religions as tools of manipulation, however.

Caligula was a quite devout follower of the Roman religion, as was Augustus Ceasar, and neither one of them killed nearly 'millions'.

On this, you're correct.

I don't know about Alexander the Great, but his killings were made in open warfare, for the most part...

As was the case for most of the atheists mentioned above.

and if you're going to include war in the equation, then we have many more billions of people who were mostly killed in wars supporting one religion or another.

According to recent studies, one-fifth of all the people who have ever lived are alive today. Given some six billion on the planet at this moment, that means that over the course of history, probably about 24 billion people have died, total.

I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of these people did not die in any wars at all. You'd probably be hard pressed to bring the total to even one billion, because as you go back over the course of history, as population decreased, so to did the number of people involved in war and, therefore, the people who died in wars.

...and their killings are negligible compared to, say, Hitler, Kisssinger, the Crusaders, and the Inquisition combined. (and that's just one religion)

As I stated before, Hitler's aims were not religious in nature at all. Nor, I'd be willing to bet, were Kissinger's. I'll concede on the Crusades and the Inquisition. But I doubt that if you totalled up all the deaths from the Crusades and the Inquisition, that you would even get two million. Add in other religious wars and the figure goes up, but even so, I'd be shocked if the figure came to ten million total. Still a high number, to be sure, but Stalin alone killed that many people.

But the point isn't that atheism has killed people. It hasn't. Atheists have certainly killed people, but seldom because of matters of belief. The same, however, is true, of religious people; while many have killed people, it is not always on the basis of religion. Most of the time, religion doesn't even enter the picture at all.


 
Define "religion" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by frosty on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 01:56:10 PM PST
Could youplease define exactly what falls under the umbrella of "religion" as you use the word. Does one need a "god" to have a religion?

Personally I think everyone has a "religion", whether or not they would call themselves religious. Atheists are their own god, Capitalists worship money, ad on it goes. Are there specific characteristics that make beliefs a "religion"?

Would just like some clarification

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Common misconception about Athiests (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 03:47:30 PM PST
Athiests do not worship themselves, but rather, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who ascended into Godhood in 1995. This knowledge isn't widespread, since Athiest churches tend not to prolesthesize much, but it's nonetheless true.


 
Good question (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by Dexter Descarte on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:52:24 PM PST
Does a religion require belief in the supernatural or are all belief systems religions? Most atheists' belief system, including my own, is science. Capitalism is neither a belief system nor a religion, it's an economic theory... unless one believes the universe was created by capitol outlay by God I suppose.

Websters defines religion as: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

According to the first phrase science is a religion but not according to the rest of the definition which is, confusingly enough, not definite (especialy, usualy, often... do these words belong in a definition?). Personally I do not classify rational beliefs as religion, to me a religion requires faith, belief without evidence, which makes science most definately not a religion. God is, however, still optional; Buddhism (of the Greater Path at least) does not believe in a God per se, but still has faith in it's supernatural beliefs and is therefore a religion by my definition.


How ridiculous. (none / 0) (#68)
by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 08:52:10 AM PST
So we should judge reality by websters dictionary, hmmm? Words do not make reality. They are an inaccurate reflection of reality. Your cute little definition rules out buddhism now doesn't it. As for your assertion that science is provable, how much of that do you take on faith. Have you ever actually tested to determine the gravitational constant.

I'm just curious about something. Since you're an atheist you can answer this question. Why shouldn't I kill people? What empirical evidence is there to prove that murder is wrong? If atheist really don't need religions, why do they all follow their basic tenets of morality? Surely, a true atheist wouldn't be limited by the morality of murder, rape, or theft. There is no morality outside of a higher belief system. There are only actions which please you and actions which don't please you. I see now why all atheists are murderers and rapists.


-John Milton

Why People Shouldn't Kill People (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:53:20 AM PST
I'm just curious about something. Since you're an atheist you can answer this question. Why shouldn't I kill people?

Not sure how atheists do it, but agnostics don't kill people because we wouldn't want people to kill us. Also, killing people tends to have some detrimental effects, like being locked up in a prison or being executed. It seems religion can blind some people to the fact that some things aren't a good idea to do whether or not a God tells us so.


 
Read before you reply (none / 0) (#81)
by Dexter Descarte on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:32:03 PM PST
You sure are asuming a lot of my beliefs for me. Funny for someone who obviously didn't even bother to read my whole post. My cute little definition specifically addressed Buddhism thank you. Nor did I assert proveability of anything, that a theory is falsifieable is the defining characteristic of a scientific theorom not proveability which is manifestly impossible given that one can never test against the infinite variability of the universe. I take nothing on faith, science has the evidence of it's successes to back it up.

As for your philosophy 101 questions on mores; Logic, science, and empathy determine my ethical, not moral, stance. Science shows me that all humans share the same basic physical structure and empathy tells me they want to live and be happy just like me while logic tells me that they are more likely to respect my need to be alive and happy if I respect their's. The simple fact that followers of these ephemeral 'higher belief systems' have a long track record of murder, rape, and pillage blows your feeble attempts to marginalize atheists out of the water.

Now, does anyone want to discuss the original thread or is this just going to be another theistic circle jerk?


I'm quite ready to answer (none / 0) (#82)
by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 03:40:53 PM PST
You're right. I overlooked that last part of your comment. I'll apologize for that. My eyes were watering. As for your other assertions, I'll address them.

The simple fact that followers of these ephemeral 'higher belief systems' have a long track record of murder, rape, and pillage blows your feeble attempts to marginalize atheists out of the water.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. -I John 2:3-4


Murder has always been a sin. Those who commit sin are not Christians. This is merely an attempt to blame Christianity for the sins of those who merely pretended to be followers of Christ. I could claim to be an aerobicist if I wanted. However, if I was four hundred pounds and sat on the couch all day, I wouldn't be one. Furthermore, you would not go around telling people that aerobics was unhealthy based on my testimony. Why then do you blame Christians for the actions of those who do not practice Christianity, but claim it.

Science shows me that all humans share the same basic physical structure and empathy tells me they want to live and be happy just like me while logic tells me that they are more likely to respect my need to be alive and happy if I respect their's.

That's as I suspected. You are not kind because you believe in love. You only pretend to love in order to escape personal suffering. You blatantly admit that your so called "morality" is really just a preference. Not only do you just prefer to be kind to your brothers, but you admit that this preference is only based on your own weakness. You choose to be kind, because you fear the retribution of others for your actions. Then you admit that given the opportunity to commit acts against your fellow man with no fear of justice or retribution, you would see no immorality. I'm sorry, but I would never trust my children or loved ones alone with an atheist. Your cold reptilian logic has no place in the light.


-John Milton

Begone. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:53:23 AM PST
You, Sir, are a closet Satanist.

Every person commits sin, every day, continuously. It is part of being human; if we didn't sin, we would be mindless automatons.

A Christian is somebody who has the internal courage to admit his own sinfulness, and tries to make amends.

Important: BEWARE any person who claims that he "doesn't sin". That person is most probably a Satanist.


--
Peace and much love...




 
You answer nothing (none / 0) (#88)
by Dexter Descarte on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 08:11:27 AM PST
Those who commit sin are not Christians.

Ah, so really there are absolutely no Christians at all then for you are all sinners (Romans 3:23). I agree wholeheartedly, you are all really Paulists (or Peterists in the case of Catholics) anyway.

I blatantly said that I am not moral at all; I am ethical, I do not need my actions to be determined by another for I can think for myself thank you. I do not chose to be kind in fear of retribution or justice but rather in hope of my actions being returned in kind unlike the Christian principle set forth in Luke 6:31-35 which relies on the fear of hell to enforce the maxim. As for preference, do you not prefer to believe in God in preference to going to hell? Your love is hollow, formed not by any decision of yourself but rather dictated by those who control your orthodoxy and backed up by the threat of eternal damnation. My love is purely of myself, given freely by my own will to all who will return it.

Your cold reptilian logic has no place in the light.

That's all right, I can make my own through the miracles of science.


 
To whom did God give free will? (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:57:47 PM PST
If you walked into your neighbor's house with a gun, held it to her head, and said "give me a blow job, or I'll blow your damn brains out," and she said "no," and you blew her brains out, would you then stand in front of the judge at your trial and say "Your Honor, I gave her a choice?"*

This is the delusion of freewill. "Believe in me and obey me, or suffer eternal torment." Is it your cowardice that compels you to obey, or your ability to differentiate between an act that is harmful, and an act that is not?

Morality does not depend from faith, or religious commandments. Morality can also be arrived at through empathy, sympathy, and compassion. These are traits that most intelligent mammals share. It is our agreement as civilized beings to treat others as we would wish others to treat us. Jesus (probably) said it, but Jesus (or whoever) was a human being, and no proof of his divinity has ever been performed.

I find it insulting in the extreme that you can say that my morality is derived from my fear of retribution. Just as I'm sure you find insulting my assertion that you believe in God and follow his teachings only because you fear damnation. However, I think my assertion is probably just as likely to be true as not. The only thing you've taught me with your postings is that you don't know jack shit about humanism or atheism.

*with acknowledgements to Phineas Narco's "Free Will," from the Droplift CD project.


 
Atheism is a science? (none / 0) (#72)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:59:18 AM PST
Well, that certainly is news to me, can you relate some of your scientific atheistic theories and experiments?


A. Rightmann

Go back and read it again... slowly (none / 0) (#80)
by Dexter Descarte on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 01:19:30 PM PST
I said Most atheists' belief system, including my own, is science.

Now, does this say atheism=science? No it does not. You see, atheism is not a belief system as it only denies belief in a God. It has no beliefs of it's own. Most atheists are rationalists and the most popular, and succesfull, rational system of belief is science.

If you need me to use smaller words let me know.


 
Mathematics (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 05:47:34 PM PST
Human behaviour stems from human genes, just like it is with every other organism on this planet. The basics are preprogrammed. That's why all humans act the same on a basic level.

If you take into account that:
- Humans are social animals,
- Humans are relatively smart compared to other species,
then you can put together this little addup:

genetics
sociality
human hierarchy
human intelligence
------------------- +
religion!

In words, it says above that for social organisms that evolve to be able to reflect on themselves and on the world, and that use a hierarchy for good order, religion is an inescapable effect.

Faith is an extremely emotional and animalistic property in any organism.


Bad Science! (none / 0) (#24)
by dissolutions on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:17:54 PM PST
I see some comments about God and science by some people who know little science. As a scientist it scares me when people quote science to back their actions, belief or morals, when their scientific facts are completely wrong.
For example,One person compares religion to the appendix as a vestigal organ of society. An old belief in science was in the theory of vestigal organs, such as the appendix. Actually, the appendix emits enzymes that Aid the GI tract. Every organ in the human body is now known to serve a purpose. You are worse off with out it. There is no such thing as a vestigal organ.
Please use accurate comparisions if you are going to back your belief with this theory.

The next "fact" is "behaviour stems from human genes". That is a false statement. For example, there was the whole gay gene hoax. The gay gene was dispoven. The researcher threw out data that disagreed with his desired results. The actually data stated that gays are not a product of their genes, but rather their upbringing, beliefs, and enviroment. There was no genetic determining factor! This was hard proof that behavior was not genetic.

The next use of wrong science is this formula:
genetics
sociality
human hierarchy
human intelligence
------------------- +
religion!

This is bad mathematic and science. Again the genetic control was disproven. People are not machines.

Someone descibed faith as animalistic and emotional. Faith is not emotional, it involves study, the practice of self control, and the decision to love your neighbor. The lack of love, lack of discipline and lack of knowledge is animalistic and emotional.

As a scientist, I reject your science as wrong. Almost all people on Earth believe in God( not religion, there is a difference to be spiritually close to God and to be religious). Science has shown, with true data from cumulative studies, that those who actively believe in God are happier, more successful and treat other people better.

I agree religion is bad. But belief in God is not religion! Religion is tradition, not faith.
<B>Science says that God is good for us, atheism is bad for us!</B>


Not much of a scientific attitude, though... (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 08:56:42 AM PST
It's funny when someone says "I'm a scientist!" and then gives irrational arguments pro religion. Let me show you.

As a scientist, I reject your science as wrong.

OK, so here I was expecting a reasonable answer, but instead we got...

Almost all people on Earth believe in God( not religion, there is a difference to be spiritually close to God and to be religious).

Oh, come on! That's a Protestant Christian idea. Most faiths discern no difference between "belief" and "practice". Their religious services are a fundamental and inseperable part of their faith. Many Christian groups, such as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, believe this, too.

I agree religion is bad. But belief in God is not religion! Religion is tradition, not faith.

Again, a Protestant Christian outlook. See above.

Science says that God is good for us, atheism is bad for us!

No, what science shows you is that the more comfortable you are with your life, the less stress you have and the healthier you are. This is proven fact. Find an atheist who is comfortable with his life and has the same relaxation of attitude that some religious folks have, and he'll skew your data. :-)

Try, as hard as it is, to step back and be truly objective. I did so, after 10 years of truly sincere religious belief and life, and I now see it has no use to me and, in some cases, can be seriously detrimental.


Protestant Christian outlook? (none / 0) (#99)
by dissolutions on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 03:27:34 AM PST
It interesting that you suggest that a protestant christian outlook is wrong?
I would be called a bigot if I said that just a ___ _____ outlook. Fill in the ethnic/racial/other group. Your past is revealed by your bitterness toward protestant christian views. Actually I am not a protestant.

Try to shoot down my arguements without that ammunition! I am still a scientist and I am pointing out bad science!


 
Bad science, inaccurate history. (none / 0) (#25)
by dissolutions on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:20:16 PM PST
Need I say more?


Yes, you do need say more... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by FifthVandal on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 05:01:56 AM PST
...like explaining the flaws that you claim are evident in the writer's science and history instead of just dismissing them as 'bad'.

This isn't Slashdot, you know!
--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

 
Liberal Myths? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by CorporateRepublic on Fri Oct 26th, 2001 at 09:32:37 PM PST
Shouldn't this be posted under Liberal Myths, since this article is a Liberal Myth?


Prove it. (none / 0) (#31)
by spacejack on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 01:50:00 PM PST


When push comes to shovin,
I'd rather make some lovin.



 
Mathematics again (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 02:38:34 PM PST
Yeah, that little sum isn't real science, of course. I knew that before I typed it. You won't get good grades if you put that in your paper, hehe. But it's true, nonetheless.

People aren't machines?
Then why do they all act the same? There's no real difference between people, just on a sublte level. We're biological robots. Everything is automated, just like it is in virtually every other animal. However, the difference lies in that little bit of added brainpower. Human beings aren't more holy than other animals, though. That's misplaced arrogance.

We're conscious minds inside robot bodies (although many do seem like brainless robot sheep, programmed, by upbringing, to follow the rules of society). A body is a tool. And one can derive pleasure from it, and/or interact with the world.

Genes, they even dictate your personality ( that's genotype), but of course, your surroundings dictate which parts of your personality grow and develop to be more dominant (that's phenotype).

There is no gay gene. It's not a hereditary thing. You can't get it from your parents. It's a small bug during the creation of the brain, that causes men to like men and women to like women - or someone to like both. You're gay whether you like it or not. It's not biologically natural to be gay, but that's not really a problem, is it?

Yes, I can see how religious people are generally happier and kinder. It's very comforting, a religion. All they have to do is follow a prewritten rulebook. Bringing up the discipline to do that is hard, but still nothing compared to what it takes to write that entire rulebook all by yourself, by trial and error, constantly, every day, and NO holy scriptures to fall back on. I also want to be sure that every decision I make is truly my own, not from a prejudiced scripture.

You can see it by the time it takes. Religious children 'know' (they don't, of course) everything by the time they're 5. Me, I'm 20, and I STILL don't know half of the whole story. I doubt I'll even get the whole picture when I'm 80, and have seen it all. That would be a real bummer.

I also like - I got emotions too, y'know - to think that 'atheism' is the result of humanity growing up. Of stepping out from under God's wing. Of COURSE you're happier underneath it. Hardly a care in the world. God will save you. Isn't it time to start thinking for yourself instead of basically letting a mind-image-mirage do it for you?


 
My Thoughts (none / 0) (#33)
by egg troll on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 04:40:19 PM PST
The French mathematician Pascal once said, "The only way I can lose is if there is a God and I do not believe in him. Therefore, I shall choose to believe." Thats kinda my thoughts on religion.


Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

Oh, how clever. (none / 0) (#34)
by RobotSlave on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 05:06:53 PM PST
Pascal's wager. Sheesh. Let's see if a two-minute google search can find any objections to that old chestnut.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Which God is Pascal talking about? (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 28th, 2001 at 09:54:24 PM PST
Yahweh? Zeus? Odin? Shiva? Kali?

Pascal's Wager is an intellectually-embarassing exercise in mental masturbation, and I for one think it is shameful that such a banal piece of pseudo-philosophy had to come from an otherwise brilliant man. As stated, Pascal's Wager basically assumes that all gods are fake, except for the Christian god. It then assumes that if such a god exists, it will punish non-belief with eternal torture, slaughter, etc. It then says "just to be safe, I'll believe in it."

If you can't see any problems with this, there is something really wrong with you. If you really harbor god-belief because you're scared of being wrong, to be consistent you should equally believe in all gods, past and present. Alternatively, you could just admit that you don't know and be an agnostic/deist/whatever and hope that if a god or gods do exist, they will smile upon intellectual honesty. I will say this: If I were an all-knowing god, I would be able to tell the difference between people who really do believe in me and those who were just pretending to in order to cover their ass.


Theologically unsound, my man. (none / 0) (#40)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:11:10 AM PST
You don't seem to understand. There is only one, and can only be one God. By the very definition of the word "God" -- really, how can you have two different omnipotent, omniscient creators of the universe?

As always, atheists are quick to criticise religion when in fact their own understanding of it is laughable. "Zeus" and the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims are completely different concepts. I don't see what "Zeus" has to do with anything at all.


--
Peace and much love...




Too easy (none / 0) (#41)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 11:29:23 AM PST
By the very definition of the word "God" -- really, how can you have two different omnipotent, omniscient creators of the universe?

Definition of "god" thoughtfully supplied by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


Therefore, you can have a pantheon if your beliefs dictate that the Universe is not under the control of a single omnipotent, omniscient being, but a host of beings each devoted to a specific aspect of life or nature. Therefore, the poster's premise is still accurate, if not popular. It still works if you suppose that a single omnipotent, omniscient being created lesser gods to keep things running smoothly. Historically, gods tend to be awfully lazy unless aroused (in all senses of the word). Even the Judeo-Christian god is recorded as taking a brief holiday.

That was too easy. At least try to post something logically defensible!



A troll's true colors.

Fuck off, dictionary boy. (none / 0) (#42)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 01:22:45 PM PST
Reread my commentary again, and learn to think without the aid of a dictionary.

The original premise still stands. Pascal was specifically talking about the Christian God, not some abstract "god" that you invented out of thin air. The thing is, there is no way to know whether God (the God, not some fairytale fantasy you happened to make up) exists or not. Either way, you just have to take it on faith. (Or personal experience.) The crutch is, you would lose nothing if you assume that God exists, (except your own sinful pride, of course) while you would lose eternal salvation if you assumed that God does not exist.

I still don't see what "zeus" has to do with anything. It's not like anybody is threatened with eternal damnation for not believing in "zeus".


--
Peace and much love...




pascal's wager... (none / 0) (#43)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 03:00:40 PM PST
Listen, if God is such an unbelievable pansy that he'll let me get away with flagrant shit like 'believing' in order to cover my own ass, five minutes after I'm up there, he'll be my bitch, doing my fetch-and-carry, dig?

Presupposing the existence of the Christian God is indefensible unless you dilute Him to nothing by talking about the omnipotent creator of the universe rather than in Christian terms that apply specifically to the God under discussion. It's not clear that, eg, the omnipotent creator of the universe has to be a triune divinity, a portion (person?) of which took on the form of a Jew circa 3 BCE. Anyway, if faith is all you have to go on, you've already lost, because you'll waste the only life you'll ever get trying to prepare for a fictitious afterlife.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

But of course... (none / 0) (#44)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 03:22:21 PM PST
...God is love. He loves us so much that He forgives us for acting like jackasses. (If you think that love makes you a "pansy", then I suggest you kill yourself now, so that you can go to hell as soon as possible and meet like-minded individuals.)

Again, all arguments about the existence or non-existence of God are indefensible. All it takes to attain eternal salvation is to submit, to bridle your pride. Even that, however, seems too much to ask. *sigh* God must have infinite patience...

P.S. Please do not confuse the Christian definition of "God" with a concrete concept of the God Christians believe in. Indeed, there is nothing that says that God is a tri-union of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This doesn't follow from the definition of "God", but Christians choose to believe in the concept for a variety of reasons. Although, it was not always that way; at the dawn of Christianity, there were other competing versions that rejected the tri-unity -- the so-called arian and monophysite heresies. The belief in the tri-unity is a concious, rational choice.


--
Peace and much love...




God may love us... (none / 0) (#48)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:34:42 PM PST
but that has nothing to do with Pascal's wager, which is about belief on our parts, rather than love on God's. Pascal's wager tells us that we should believe in God, because hell is worse than nothingness. The question of our belief has nothing to do with what's "right" or "wrong." It's enlightened self-interest. He's not even asking us to love God, only to play the odds intelligently (as he sees it.)

You'll notice that that otherworldliness licenses us to ignore most of the evil going on in the world. After all, if what matters is Heaven and God's love, you ought to worry about your status with God rather than the world, others, or even your worldly self.

It seems to me that a loving God would demand, not belief, but humble struggle against evil for the good of your fellows. I guess that makes me a Communist. I'll just have to live with my evilness.

Your Orthodox church doesn't have such a clean record, either. Byzantine is a term of derogation for a reason. The old Roman Orthodox empire was content to keep its peasants down while ceaseless intrigue of the foullest kind bubbled in the courts. This, like Soviet history, says more about the corrupting nature of power than about the inherent evil of a religion or social movement. In fact, any social or religious movement is going to get blood on its hands sooner or later.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Yeah... (none / 0) (#49)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 07:19:54 PM PST
The relationship between man and God is always strictly personal. It's as simple as that; anything else isn't God's work.


--
Peace and much love...




I'm baffled! (none / 0) (#54)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:59:41 PM PST
So what does that do to your defence of Pascal's Wager? For the record, I like this religion more the more it divorces itself from theocratic policy... maybe there's something in it after all...

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
A little better (none / 0) (#57)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:42:20 PM PST
I use the dictionary because you invoked it. "The very definition of God..." My apologies if rising to your challenge rouses your ire. However, when attempting to flame someone for their words, one must be very careful of one's own phrasing.

I was vaguely familiar with the reference to Pascal, although I'd never done any serious reading on it. For the sake of argument I decided to look it up and see what people on the Net had to say.
  • The first hit returned a society of free-thinkers who rejected Pascal's argument on the grounds the dependence on an almighty creator denies the power of the individual. It is their position that we demean ourself and limit our potential by clinging to God like children to a parent.
  • The second hit returned a poorly argued stance that Pascal's argument is definitive proof that we all ought to believe in God. It does not address my original concern, that it doesn't answer the question of which God, since humans have invented so many. Just because you prefer one doesn't make it the default selection.
  • The third hit returned much better arguments, but still ignores the issue that people disagree on God Herself and what She wants.
  • The fourth hit returned a mathematical argument, defining Pascal's Wager in mathematical terms. Very enlightening and fascinating if your'e into that sort of stuff, but still failing to address an underlying problem with the argument.
  • The fifth hit is when the athiests sound off again (About.com has a whole section on it) pointing out my question about polytheistic religions. I guess I wasn't so far off the mark after all.
  • The sixth and last hit I researched reviews Ravi Zacharias' work, Can Man Live Without God from an athiest's viewpoint. With regard to Pascal's Wager, Jeff again questions which God we're supposed to believe in, using Pascal's logic.


Obviously, for you the answer is "believe in the Christian/Catholic Western God." That's good for you. For those of us who aren't convinced by Christian/Catholic arguments and history, the answer is slightly less simple.



A troll's true colors.

 
Give Pascal some credit (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:43:21 PM PST
I still don't see what "zeus" has to do with anything. It's not like anybody is threatened with eternal damnation for not believing in "zeus".

This is actually a pretty valid point. Out of all the known world religions, Christianity is by far the most violent and terrible when it comes to predictions about what will happen to non-believers. This, along with the military might that accompanied it during its early years, does well to explain its widespread nature. Therefore it stands to reason that if you were going to believe in any god out of fear of torture, Yahweh would be the obvious front-runner. However, it does not explain why any legitimate religion with any measurable worth would require its adherents to be frightened into submission.


Islam is just as bad. (none / 0) (#55)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:00:25 PM PST

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

No, it isn't (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 08:11:53 PM PST
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson and all of these right-wing ideologues who preach that Islam is a religion of war and murder. The Koran actually has a chapter called "The Unbelievers" (translated to English, of course.) Here is the complete text:
The Disbelievers
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
Challenge: Demonstrate a passage from the Bible that promotes tolerance of this sort.


yes, it is! (none / 0) (#67)
by nathan on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:39:59 AM PST
My politics are so far to the left that it hurts my brain. Please shut up about Limbaugh. And please don't assume your opponent is stupid.

The Koran != Islam, and there are lots of obnoxious things in both the Koran and tradition. Reread your sources, and if you cite primary sources, you better respect both sides of the argument, or you're no better than the lowest apologist. Christ.

Here's a relevant link.

NAthan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Refutation (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:41:48 AM PST
Actually buddy, the Koran has some vivid descriptions of the Hell you are going to face when you die (assuming you are not Moslim).

The Koran has no pity for non-believers, as a multitude of passages contained within describe the relentless torture to which they will be subjected in Hell. Another indication of this occurs in the Koran. Regarding those who deny the Lord, it is written, "for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), 'Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!' (Koran 22:19-22:23, www.islamicity.com)."


 
can do (none / 0) (#98)
by johnny ambiguous on Sun Nov 4th, 2001 at 08:17:11 AM PST
Challenge: Demonstrate a passage from the Bible that promotes tolerance of this sort.

Too easy. Matthew seven:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

HTH but I guess it won't; organized Christianity has been systematically ignoring this quote, along with the preceding chapter, so effortfully these last two millenia, that it's a wonder all the priests haven't popped blood vessels in their brains from the strain.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net


Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

 
Unsound? (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:37:04 PM PST
There is only one, and can only be one God.

Is that so?

Try telling that to Hindus, or any number of African tribes. Yes, I know .. they're all "blacks" and not worth worrying about, but your flippant dismissal of polytheism speaks volumes about how heavily skewed your views are. Are you prepared to argue that no polytheistic religions exist, or ever have existed?

By the very definition of the word "God" -- really, how can you have two different omnipotent, omniscient creators of the universe?

*doubletake*

Wha?

Since when has the definition of a god contained the qualifiers "omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe?" Come on, man .. say what you mean. Say "as a Christian, my perception of God is that he is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe." Other religions may have (or had) similar ideas, but you aren't speaking for all of the world's tens of thousands of (past and present) belief systems. I realize that the standard counterargument to this is "yeah, but they're all wrong and we're right", but you must realize that there are 4.8 billion people saying the same thing about you.


Our language. (none / 0) (#59)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:09:30 PM PST
Our language is founded in Christian culture. Therefore, when we say God (not "a god".) we mean the Christian, Judaic and Muslim concept of the onmipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the universe. Not a guy with an elephant's head who lives in a cloud.

Pascal's wager is talking about God (capital 'G'), that is, about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of the universe. Throwing in pagan "gods" (which is much different from "God" in our language!) is a red-herring. Typical of atheists, who usually spend too much time slandering God to actually stop and use their brains for once.

P.S. Actually, pagan "gods" should be properly called "demiurges", but that term hasn't reached wide-spread use for some reason.


--
Peace and much love...




Language (none / 0) (#60)
by SpaceGhoti on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 11:18:39 PM PST
The English language is no more founded on Christian principles than Latin is founded on the Roman pantheon. Such claims are pure nonsense. English is a Germanic language, mixing Saxon with Norman cultures to produce a bastard language such as we have today. The fact that it has so many religious references to it is a mark of the effect religion has had on our culture, but the language itself is not built on any religious principles.

Pascal himself was attempting to put a logical spin on what is an inherently emotional and irrational topic. This is hailed by some as a philosophical coup, and by others as rhetorical nonsense. His topic was, in fact, the Western God but the argument goes far beyond that. Just because Pascal was limiting his thinking to Western society doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Everyone gets to choose the path they follow, and not everybody thinks your religion has all the answers they need.



A troll's true colors.

Yeah, whatever. (none / 0) (#61)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 11:59:45 PM PST
You can go on debating perfectly obvious things, while some of us have better things to do.

Typical atheist demagoguery -- sidetrack the argument into ridiculous red-herrings when you have nothing of value to say. To claim that the English language does not have deep roots in Christianity is ridiculous. Do you realize that besides sounds and syntax, language usually tends to carry across meaning??! Obviously, a millenia of Christianity cannot fail to make an impression on the semantic structure of the language. To claim otherwise is just plain stupid, I'm sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




Okay, prove it. (none / 0) (#62)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:16:56 AM PST
You're the one who brought up a Christian basis for the English language. Much of what the English incorporated into the language with regards to Christianity was brought to them from French, Greek and Latin-speaking people, mostly Clerics. The Romans brought with them the law that they must either worship Christ or die. At the same time they assimilated those cultures they conquered as best they could, changing language and attitudes toward what they considered "civilized." Christianity has been grafted into English, not rooted. It is possible to have a full conversation in English without once bringing up a religious reference. Were English to have the Christian roots you claim, that would not be possible.

But I'll allow myself to be convinced. If Christianity is so deeply engrained into the English language, prove it. Show me how.



A troll's true colors.

Clever liberalist trick. (none / 0) (#63)
by tkatchev on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:05:46 AM PST
This is another clever liberalist trick -- to try and sidetrack the discussion into useless "prove this, prove that" flamewars. Liberalists really love situations when they can denigrate opponents by tricking them into proving ridiculous things.

(Like, for example: "prove that water is wet", "prove that the sky is blue", "prove that people have five fingers", etc.)

However, I'll bite. There are three levels of meaning to any language -- the lexical, (sound and words) the syntactic, (sentences and parts of speech) and the semantic. (Thoughts and concepts.) You can, for example, construct a perfectly valid sentence from a lexical and syntactic point of view that is completely meaningless.

Now, from the lexical and syntactic point of view, English is not influenced by Christianity. Duh. With the semantic point of view, Christianity has a tremendous influence. From special concepts that make sense only from a Christian perspective (i.e. "God", "evil", "wrongdoing", "immoral", "kindness", the list is huge) to Christian words and phrases that we use without even noticing it. ("Thank God", "sodomite", "go to hell", "armageddon", "revelation", etc.)

Face it, Christianity is an ingraned part of our mentality. You cannot escape the weight of the millenia of generations of Christian ancestors.


--
Peace and much love...




Bravo! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:25:42 AM PST
I salute you, tkatchev, as the most capable promoter of controvery that the adequacy has seen to date. Your skill is remarkable, your methods irreproachable, and your intent, to date, ineffable (at least to most). That you, alone, can bring such controversy to a site that claims to cultivate the controversial is (to a few) laudable, indeed.

Please, carry on. I find your views fascinating, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


 
Liberalist trick (none / 0) (#83)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 03:46:46 PM PST
Yes. My clever liberalist trick has called you on your shit, and I'm forcing you to spend valuable time to defend it. Lawks. But the funny thing about whater is you can prove that it's wet. You can't prove that it's dry. Therein lies the rub.

Your reasoning is still nonsense. Your breakdown of language is impressive, but the "Christian concepts" such as "god," "evil," "kindness" and the rest are laughable. You presume that no such words existed in language without Christianity. Does the fact that words with similar semantics abound in other languages mean they have Christian roots as well, or is it just a staggering coincidence? Let's take your very Christian word, "revelation" (Source: your favorite Webster's Dictionary). It first appeared in English in the 14th Century, borrowed from Middle French. The French took it from Late Latin, revelatio from the Latin word revelare, which means "to reveal." Does that sound religious to anyone else?

It sounds to me like this is a hilarious discussion about the chicken and the egg. Is language formed around religion, or is religion formed around language? As you'll find the same concepts in every language that predates Christianity (Latin, Greek, etc), I believe that the latter situation applies.



A troll's true colors.

Don't dodge the issues. (none / 0) (#84)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:46:58 AM PST
Actually, these concepts do not exist in non-Christian cultures. Simple as that.

Let's take "revelation", for example. You say that it simply means "something that has been revealed"; but, if you spend even a few moments thinking about it, you'll see that your statement is patently false. Let me give an example:

"The slipping bathrobe revealed her naked body."

"Her naked body was a revelation."

Quite a bit of difference, no?


--
Peace and much love...




You have brown eyes, right? (none / 0) (#86)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 04:41:31 AM PST
Concepts such as god, kindness and evil don't exist in other cultures? So Loki and Nithog of Norse mythology were just playful children? In India, Bakotahl just got bad press? And certainly, you'll find no mention of "evil" if you research Japanese mythology.

You can argue that none of these cultures used the Western definitions of good and evil. That doesn't mean they didn't have their own definitions of good and evil that worked for them. Whether you approach it from a Western, Eastern or prehistoric perspective, good and evil, god and demon are concepts that have pervaded thinking and language without any help from Christianity. If anything, most of the modern "demons" and "saints" that pepper Western mythology are gods and demons that got assimilated from ancient cultures. Your argument is still baseless.

Let's go back to "revelation." If I have a "revelation" about a concept, I'm likely to cry "eureka," just like Archimedes did when he figured out how to test the purity of gold. Does that mean that the Greeks dictate religious overtones in language to me? To me, a "revelation" means that an idea that I previously had not understood has become clear to me. It has been "revealed." There is no religious overtone to this whatsoever. The closest I'm going to have to a religious experience if a woman's naked body is a revelation to me has very little to do with God as you understand it.

For that matter, I'm sure the Apostle John didn't title his work "Revelations" when he put pen to paper. The Roman Catholic Church refers to the book as the "Apocrypha," and as I recall they tacked it on to the end of the New Testament reluctantly. But it's late and my memory could be faulty, there.

So, what other specious do you have to try to prove your point?



A troll's true colors.

You just disproved yourself. (none / 0) (#87)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:41:24 AM PST
Yes, non-Christian cultures have the concepts loosely related to our "good" and "evil", but they are not our Christian concepts of "good" and "evil". I'm not saying that they are worse or better, all I'm syaing is that our particular concepts of "good" and "evil" are throughly Christian in nature.

You seem to agree with me on that point; case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, like I said in my original post, someone who uses the word "revelation" most probably doesn't mean anything religious; it is just a cliche that we picked up, a somewhat meaningless phrase.

However, the concept of "revelation" is rooted in Christianity. Someone from a culture that has had no exposure to Christinity will have a hard time understanding what exactly "revelation" means. Sure, they might try to find a close concept in their native language, but that is not the same. Without Christianity, the word "revelation" loses the cultural and historical context that gives it meaning.


--
Peace and much love...




Disproved what? (none / 0) (#91)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 11:54:03 AM PST
I have disproved nothing. The fact that other cultures have different definitions of good and evil means nothing. Nor do you or I know how those definitions differ. You and I have different definitions of good and evil, I promise you. My definition of evil has nothing to do with God or Satan; it has far more to do with how humans relate to each other. Does that mean the concept of evil doesn't exist for me? That's what you're trying to argue, and frankly I find nothing valid about it.

Look, the word "revelation" has a lot of meaning for Christians, I'll grant you that. The word "revelation" itself is not inherently Christian. I say again that I can use it in a sentence without having any religious pretext or connotation whatsoever. The word would still mean the same to me if it had no meaning for Christians. I can claim the word "baptise" for my own meaning without changing it for you. English is not inherently founded in Christianity as you claim, Christianity merely assigns its own meanings to English words. Any other questions?



A troll's true colors.

You seem incredibly dense. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:17:58 PM PST
I already answered your complaints in the parent post. Read it again; if you still don't understand, then I guess you and I have nothing to talk about. I thought I made my point as clear as possible.


--
Peace and much love...




Yes, I get your point. (none / 0) (#93)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:41:04 PM PST
You're a devout follower of relious beliefs who chooses to interpret facts to favor your already-established conclusions. This may bring you some satisfaction, but I'm afraid it does nothing to validate your credibility.

When you choose to make spurious, unsupportable statements to further your arguments, you're going to suffer people like me calling you on them. I'm afraid it's just something you're going to have to get used to. Either that, or stop making statements you can't justify.

But I agree, this conversation is concluded.



A troll's true colors.

Sigh... (none / 0) (#95)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:20:01 PM PST
I fully justified my points three times. You seem too dense to understand what I'm saying; instead, you resort to the typical atheist tactic of steering the discussion to a whole other, unrelated issue.


--
Peace and much love...




 
bah, shut up all of you (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 10:36:24 AM PST
This whole thing is pointless. Pascal?? gimme a break, the guy was a fucken drunk. The only thing that he ever produced besides his gay wager was some stupid triangle where all the numbers added up. utterly pointless and a complete waste of time. Watching all of this mental masturbation and trollbaiting makes me want to slam my head repeatedly into a brick wall. Personally it would make me happy to see the goddies and the skeptics just leave eachother alone for once. this whole thread is like watching a debate between the Taliban and Joey "the stash" Stalin. "oooh, oooh, look at me, i am a believer!!" "oooh, oooh, look at me, i am NOT a believer!!" here's an idea .. FOAD. if i wanted to see communists debate lunatics i would watch the show "cross fire" on CNN


 
right... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by ihopninja on Sat Oct 27th, 2001 at 10:17:27 PM PST
Once we have this knowledge it only takes courage then to take the final step towards liberation, to begin the large-scale modification of humanity's germ-line to prevent further inheritance of such dangerous genetic codes.


"Sieg heil! Mein Fuehrer, the plans will be drawn according to your will!" Give me a break. Your eugenics smacks less of "liberal myth" as some people have claimed and more of nazi-esque posturing.
Only then will humanity truly be free to move from barbarism under the yoke of religion to an enlightened future in which we can make our own decisions based upon ethics and logic for the good of all.


Yes, for the good of the larger group. Sort of defeats your argument when you fall back on the methods and tendencies you claim belong to the groups you are attacking. If we come to a point where we can manipulate genes at will, everyone is going to have their own idea of what genes should be preserved and what should be tossed out. People will disagree. They'll kill each other in the name of preserving the human genome. Sort of reminds you of those violent religious sects, doesn't it? If the above quote doesn't sound like your definition of religion, then English must not be my native language.

There's not much more I can say. You are a moron. I have killed brain cells reading your worthless article. But maybe they were the ones with the religion genes in them.


 
yeah right (none / 0) (#37)
by John Milton on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 01:26:38 AM PST
Throughout the last two thousand years religion has killed more people than any other cause

You'll have to back up that assertion with some real evidence. Actually, the predominant cause of death in the last two thousand years, and today, is communicable diseases. Mosquitoes have killed more people than any other factor.


-John Milton

And who is in charge of the mosquitos? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 02:26:05 AM PST
Why, they work for God, do they not? See?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Surely not (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by John Milton on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:01:53 AM PST
Mosquitoes are servants of the pagan god Baalzebub. They are not the servants of the one true saviour. Repent now and you will be forgiven.


-John Milton

Flies. He is 'Lord of the *Flies*', not mosquitos (none / 0) (#77)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 11:17:57 AM PST
And they are all God's creatures. God made them, and he controlls them. They don't have free will, so who is deciding what they do? God, of course.

Unless you, too, are a Gnostic. That seems to be the popular fall back position these days.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
yeah wrong (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 04:55:59 PM PST
I think he means "cause" in the ideological sense, not as in "cause and effect"


 
Confusing real science with pop science (none / 0) (#39)
by Jonathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 03:49:04 AM PST
I am not a religious person myself, and I agree that religion has caused much misery (but so have non-religious ideologies such as Marxism and Fascism -- I think the real problem is ideologies in general) However, when you mention Sociobiology and the Human Genome Project in the same article, I as a molecular biologist who has worked on genomics have to object. To the outsider they might seem similar but nothing could be further from the truth. Genomics is based on the hard evidence of the "source code" of living things, whereas sociobiology has no such foundation. Much of human behavior may indeed be genetic, but until we understand more about the genome, any speculation about how these behaviors evolved belongs more to science fiction than science. But because much of the general public wants to believe that behavior is genetic without real evidence, pop science books about sociolobiology (generally written by non-molecular biologists like Dawkins, social scientists like Pinker or complete non-scientists like Wright) sell well.


By dhromed (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:51:09 PM PST
I suppose that (for instance), a cat, no matter how well-fed, will still chase birds as if its life depended on it, is a subtle indication that at least part (possibly a very large part) is genetically preprogrammed into the juicy, dual, multitasking RAM chip that we like to call brain.
Or am I missing something?


Even a cat is more complicated than that (none / 0) (#56)
by Jonathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:18:48 PM PST
For starters, even a cat is more complicated than you seem to think -- mother cats must teach their young to hunt -- it isn't all instinct. Secondly, I don't object to the idea that many behaviors in animals and humans are probably instincts and therefore genetic. But until we actually discover the systems of interacting genes responsible for such behaviors, any evolutionary explanation for the behaviors is premature and likely to be completely meaningless.


 
Or... (none / 0) (#50)
by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 07:21:20 PM PST
...maybe the cat is simply having fun.

Besides, you are confusing man and animals. Man is the only creature that has free will.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Tell me, Manifold... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 05:22:55 AM PST
Apparently, there are certain receptors in the human brain which are specifically geared towards THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

Seeing as this area has the same characteristics as the one responsible for religious experiences (promotion of destructive behavior, encouraging otherwise-pointless behavior by making it "feel good", etc.) should we alter the human genome to make people immune to marijuana's effects? While we're at it, surely it would be possible to extend the effects, making people immune to the rest of the current crop of illicit drugs as well.

So, do you also support altering the genome to limit the human mind, such that no one will feel the effects of drugs anymore?


 
Something that should be pointed out... (none / 0) (#70)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:32:44 AM PST
Only then will humanity truly be free to move from barbarism under the yoke of religion to an enlightened future in which we can make our own decisions based upon ethics and logic for the good of all.

Define "barbarism", "ethics", and "the good of all". Or, if you do not feel comfortable doing this, please state who or what should define these things, and exactly where this entity's right to do so comes from.

Why do I ask this? Because religion is an attempt at answering these questions. Wanting to get rid of religion is all well and good, but you need to then have an alternative ready which answers these questions at least as well. Otherwise, your "atheist utopia" crumbles.


Lots of things attempt to answer those questions. (none / 0) (#76)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 11:13:53 AM PST
Engineering. Social Science. Philosophy. Pornography.

Just because the ostensible purpose is "the good of all" doesn't mean that religion is worth keeping around. Based on the evidence, religion has failed at this goal worse than just about anything, and has had side effects that are intolerable.

So if religion is making things worse, we should get rid of it post haste, regardless of whether we have something to replace it with. That very idea presumes that religion was necessary to begin with. If it wasn't then no replacement is needed. And even if it fills some necessary role, if religion is causing more harm than good, we are better off without it regardless.

How come you don't know what "barbarism" means?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Um... (none / 0) (#78)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:16:57 PM PST
Engineering. Social Science. Philosophy. Pornography.

Interesting. Last I checked, neither engineering nor pornography attempted to define barbarism, ethics, or "the good of all". Social science doesn't go much into this either; its point is to observe and define trends, and not these things I have mentioned. As for philosophy, this depends on the individual philosophy being examined; some don't even bother with these, while others do (there is one school of thought which says that religion is a form of philosophy, by the way). Also, you have yet to state from which these things define their right to do this (you may, of course, use their own arguments in the process of doing this).

Just because the ostensible purpose is "the good of all" doesn't mean that religion is worth keeping around.

Oh, certainly not. There has to be some measure of success in this first. But religion has had as many successes in this area as it has failures. So, for that matter, have certain philosophies.

Based on the evidence, religion has failed at this goal worse than just about anything, and has had side effects that are intolerable.

Please explain this evidence. As a start, let's find any historically-verifiable account of any person who was ever killed by a deity or some other supreme being.

So if religion is making things worse, we should get rid of it post haste, regardless of whether we have something to replace it with.

It would be very unwise to get rid of something with nothing to replace it.

Let's say that you have a building. One of the load-bearing support columns has been shown to be severely flawed, and will need to be replaced. If you remove the column without replacing it, the building will collapse. Even if the column is currently making things worse, it should be kept until a new one can be put into place, because at least the building is still holding up.

That very idea presumes that religion was necessary to begin with. If it wasn't then no replacement is needed.

Indeed. Now, show me that religion was never necessary to begin with.

And even if it fills some necessary role, if religion is causing more harm than good, we are better off without it regardless.

Not if that role goes unfilled, we're not. Even half a loaf is better than none. And you still have yet to show that religion is causing more harm than good. For every Osama bin Laden, there is a Mother Theresa.

This is one thing I've noticed about most anti-religion arguments. They are very happy to point out the bad things that religion might be responsible for, but conveniently ignore the good things that religion has done.

How come you don't know what "barbarism" means?

One man's barbarism is another man's civilization. I have my own ideas about what barbarism is. I want to hear yours.


 
Just look at this discussion, and you'll see... (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 08:33:44 AM PST
As you can see, this discussion is mainly just raw, unadultered emotion and illogical attacks. Welcome to religion.

I spent 10 years as various forms of Christian, really trying hard to be "good". It got me nowhere. I wasted so much time with religion, I'd like to kick myself. I've never been "blessed", never been the recipient of what could be termed "miraculous" happenings, despite large amounts of prayer.

My 10 year scientific experiment in religion is over. My conclusion: That there is no god, or he/she/it doesn't care. Now, onto real life.


 
Bakunin on God (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 03:56:47 AM PST
"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." -Mihail Bakunin


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.