off topic discussion

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
off topic discussion

 There is no mystery to religion. It is a product of human's flawed perceptions. Humans make up religions, but they have never been a requirement for evolution. Life was around long before our species, and long before any written tradition or modern superstition.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: There is no

Brian37 wrote:

 There is no mystery to religion.

 

  Exactly, because as you contantly remind us all "religion is poison".   Gotcha.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
It is a product of human's flawed perceptions.

 

   When it comes to knowing about flawed perceptions I trust you more than anyone.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
Humans make up religions...
 

 

     That's a given.

 

Brian37 wrote:
...but they have never been a requirement for evolution.

 

          now you're going off on an unrelated tangent.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:
Life was around long before our species, and long before any written tradition or modern superstition.

 

                   "Life" was around long before internet porn, so what ?

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Do you treat a volcano as

 Do you treat a volcano as if it is an ice cream cone just becuase it makes land and looks pretty when it is dormant?

Right wing atheist? No, hardly. I do get sick of people equating mere blasphemy as on par with religious laws and physical violence done in the name of religion as being equal. If you are more concerned with my blasphemy than the acutal laws and violence done in the name of religion you have your priorties way out of whack.

I don't want laws banning religion, nor do I blow things up or murder people because they center their lives arround absurdities, that does not mean that what comes out of their mouths deserves taboo status. 

Human rights can be valued on a government level and should be, but that does not mean claims deserve hands off or should be free from criticism or blasphemy. 

I hate claims of invisible fictional sky heros. I especially hate religions that promote sexism and homophobia and bigotry. Liberals don't get a pass from me simply because they say "not everyone thinks like that". It isn't a matter of "not everyone" it is a matter of just enough of people in all religions cause enough division, and that is why it must be challenged. Do not ask me to sugar coat reality.

I'll make religious people a deal, when they can get along and stop killing each other over it and stop oppressing others over it, I'll shut up. But do not get angry at me because they use our planet as a giant pissing contest.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Religion has everything to

 Religion has everything to do with human evolution just like any other superstition or false belief. For the same stupid reason someone falsely believes a Ouija board works, or that big foot is real. It is a result of humans gap filling. The probem is it goes way beyond a personal false perception  and becomes a poli.tical entity.

Accepting that this false perception will happen, does not mean it should never be questioned because someone might get offended. If our  species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
             

  

 

          Dude, your posts are definitely spiraling down into an  incoherencent word salad. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Religion has

Brian37 wrote:

 Religion has everything to do with human evolution just like any other superstition or false belief. For the same stupid reason someone falsely believes a Ouija board works, or that big foot is real. It is a result of humans gap filling. The probem is it goes way beyond a personal false perception  and becomes a poli.tical entity.

Accepting that this false perception will happen, does not mean it should never be questioned because someone might get offended. If our  species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

Religion has nothing to do with evolution. Do you even know what evolution is? (Hint: it isn't the answer to every question in the world)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Religion has everything to do with human evolution just like any other superstition or false belief. For the same stupid reason someone falsely believes a Ouija board works, or that big foot is real. It is a result of humans gap filling. The probem is it goes way beyond a personal false perception  and becomes a poli.tical entity.

Accepting that this false perception will happen, does not mean it should never be questioned because someone might get offended. If our  species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves.

Religion has nothing to do with evolution. Do you even know what evolution is? (Hint: it isn't the answer to every question in the world)

.

The fuck it does not . If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on. Same reason people falsely see shapes in ink blots and clouds.

Evolution does not have a primary goal of getting facts right, if a bullshit gap answer gets enough people to follow it can create the safety in numbers to get that group to the point of reproduction. Our flawed perceptions are part of evolution.

It is the same flawed perception that can cause a moth to go for a lightbulb instead of moonlight. But you'd know that if you had read "The God Delusion". But what would an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins know?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Do not ask me

Brian37 wrote:
Do not ask me to sugar coat reality.

 

 

 

                     I would be happy if you could simply recognize reality....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If humans did not evolve

"If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"If humans did

Vastet wrote:
"If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ok so an earthworm with no human brain can center an entire colony of worms around a worm god. GOTCHA.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Evolution produces pattern

 Evolution produces pattern seeking, but far too often the answers we fill in are a resut of gap filling. For the same reason a gazzel on the African plains mistakes wind moving tall grass as a lion stalking it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"If humans did not evolve with our senses we would have no input to make bad guesses on" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ok so an earthworm with no human brain can center an entire colony of worms around a worm god. GOTCHA.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm

 

Brian37 wrote:

I hate claims of invisible fictional sky heros. I especially hate religions that promote sexism and homophobia and bigotry. Liberals don't get a pass from me simply because they say "not everyone thinks like that". 

I'll make religious people a deal, when they can get along and stop killing each other over it and stop oppressing others over it, I'll shut up. 

 

I can appreciate this sentiment. My fantasy deal is that when the monotheistic religions excise the vilification, bigotry and exhortation to hate crime from their texts I'll shut up.

The trouble is that monotheistic doctrines like Islam and Christianity are 'morality' cults whose underpinnings demand an acceptance of the genetic fallacy of global human guilt.

Armed with the belief all humans deserve to die for not believing doctrinal assertions, monotheists are uniquely equipped to de-humanize others to the death. 

In my opinion Brian, our real enemy is the core doctrine of the Fall. In a better world, the teaching of this doctrine to defenceless children would be legislated out of existence.

Ultimately, it is never rational to argue by insult (all humans are wicked), never rational to argue by threat (hell/death/separation from god).

Consider what christianity would be left with if you removed original sin and the supporting threat of hell from its doctrine. 

There would be no need for a sacrificial lamb. There would be nothing left at all. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is the changes

Evolution is the changes that take place in DNA to give one species an advantage or disadvantage in a environment.

Species created a tool to pick out ants from an ant mound, which is the DNA or larger brain (maybe?), which allows the animal to see the tool in use. Thus they replicate the use of the tool as they see it in their mind.

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.

Two interesting books that I have read by Ernest Becker (Denial of Death and Escape From Evil) reach into this subject exclusively. Now while Becker's work are not meant to be the work of an anthropologist, he does provide some really interesting insights about the psychology of our inability to accept mortality. While many people found his work controversial for its time (the 70s) I found them rather thought provoking.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.

Two interesting books that I have read by Ernest Becker (Denial of Death and Escape From Evil) reach into this subject exclusively. Now while Becker's work are not meant to be the work of an anthropologist, he does provide some really interesting insights about the psychology of our inability to accept mortality. While many people found his work controversial for its time (the 70s) I found them rather thought provoking.

I have read some excerpts from the books. From what I have read, yep, dead on. I find it is all ego. I see people today in a different light now that I understand the human ego. I see it in my family, in kids, in strangers, in politics. It's fucking every where.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Evolution is the changes that take place in DNA to give one species an advantage or disadvantage in a environment.

Species created a tool to pick out ants from an ant mound, which is the DNA or larger brain (maybe?), which allows the animal to see the tool in use. Thus they replicate the use of the tool as they see it in their mind.

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.

No shit sherlock. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods which no one believe in anymore. That does not change the fact that those gap answers allow people to set up social pecking orders. 

It is about safety in numbers and reproducing and resources. You readly accept that there is no Isis atom or Horus atom. The fact that religion exists is not the issue. The reality that people can center intire societies around false claims IS the issue.

Quote:
Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA

No, it is a human invented placebo, it isn't a tool. If any one religion were a requirement to fuck and reproduce we should expect humanity to only have one religion. I only agree that it is in our evolution to default to wishful thinking much more than we do to questioning. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  You readly

Brian37 wrote:

 

 You readly accept that there is no Isis atom or Horus atom. 

 

Of f the topic here, (not meaning to derail) but speaking or atoms and the "goddamn particle" I found this video to be pretty cool :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOaYu-AxsI

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, it is a

Brian37 wrote:
No, it is a human invented placebo, it isn't a tool.

no, it is a tool, by definition. you may not believe the job for which it was created exists, but it is a tool nonetheless.

Brian37 wrote:
If any one religion were a requirement to fuck and reproduce we should expect humanity to only have one religion.

that's the only thing that requires a tool?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Faith" is a

Brian37 wrote:
"Faith" is a personal sugar pill, not a microscope  or tellescope.


don't engage me until you man up and show some integrity.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:
Sure they aren't required to believe it, but do those Buddhist have faith that the Buddha really ended his rebirth?

sure, but faith is not always faith. i mean to say, "faith" can be defined in myriad ways. the "faith" of a theravadin is much more akin to the western man's "faith" that his scientific model of the universe is generally reliable, and will continue to be generally reliable, rather than the "faith" of the christian that jesus rose from the dead.
you have to understand that by the time of the buddha, reincarnation, moksha, etc., were not matters of "faith" in india. they were generally accepted as facts of life. if you read the upanishads (and the buddha by most estimates was contemporaneous with the middle upanishads), you will find them to be methodological documents, and in them a person who has attained moksha, mukti, nirvana, kavalya, or what have you, is said to exhibit certain characteristics. these characteristics were not dictated by some god or prophet, but were identified through trial and error (please remember i'm speaking from the point of view of the sages). shakyamuni was accepted as the buddha precisely because he exhibited those characteristics. in other words, he had his credentials in order (and of course, "credentials" literally implies "you can believe me&quotEye-wink. he was followed as a doctor, not as a prophet or an avatar.
yoga, i.e. the method of attaining moksha, is scientific in a methodological and theoretical sense. of course, it does not qualify as western science because it has far too many presuppositions--but these presuppositions exist in buddhism, hinduism, and jainism precisely because they were considered accepted facts, not because they were revealed articles of faith.
so if you're going to apply the broadest definition of "faith" possible to your syllogism, i.e. any basis of a worldview other than direct perception (and honestly we have "faith" in our direct perception as well), then you might as well throw empiricism in there with religion.

People can define "faith" whatever way they want. But there is only one way to settle disputes of competing claims. "Faith" is not the way to do that.

If "presupositions" exist in those oriental religions as you just admitted, then you do a disservice by not reading "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.

 

Just like you can accept that Newton got physics right without accepting Alchemy or any god he might have believed in.

 

There is only one way to insure quality of data and "faith" is not the way to do that. "Faith" is a personal sugar pill, not a microscope  or tellescope.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Interesting. i reverses the

Interesting. i reverses the post order during a graft. Good to know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Evolution is the changes that take place in DNA to give one species an advantage or disadvantage in a environment.

Species created a tool to pick out ants from an ant mound, which is the DNA or larger brain (maybe?), which allows the animal to see the tool in use. Thus they replicate the use of the tool as they see it in their mind.

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.

No shit sherlock. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods which no one believe in anymore. That does not change the fact that those gap answers allow people to set up social pecking orders. 

It is about safety in numbers and reproducing and resources. You readly accept that there is no Isis atom or Horus atom. The fact that religion exists is not the issue. The reality that people can center intire societies around false claims IS the issue.

Quote:
Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA

No, it is a human invented placebo, it isn't a tool. If any one religion were a requirement to fuck and reproduce we should expect humanity to only have one religion. I only agree that it is in our evolution to default to wishful thinking much more than we do to questioning. 

I disagree. The Egyptians were successful not because of their "gods" but because they ruled the way rulers are supposed to rule the people. And if religion was used by the leaders to keep the others in control it was a TOOL used against the people.

Tryanny of the majority. The Mob Rules!

What the fuck is an Isis atom or Horus atom and what does it have to do with this discussion?

False claims? You think societies rely on a religion to exist?

Religion is a tool when leaders use it to manipulate people. Religion can't be a placebo because you don't find it harmless. In fact I'm betting some where in the 15,000 posts you have on this website, there is a post talking about how religion is a posion or harmful to people.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
My heart, my mother; My heart whereby I came into being !

 Hey DigitalBeachBum . . .  I am not sure what the reference could be to either 

#22and#23

 

  Wave/Particle Duality  may perhaps be his mistaken allusory reference to the concept of the Soul Ba Bohr Heisenberg & Schrodinger described particles, so I cannot understand his meaning either.

 Although it seems that the ancient Egyptians  believed  that the human soul was made up of five parts. In the earliest examples, Primarily it was spoken of in but two parts, often times. The Ba and the Ka (THE BREATH OF LIFE= आधार ).  Ba and Ka, one being the breath given and the other a more everlasting primary aspect or eternal 'soul'.  One of the five aspects constituent parts their conception of a human soul, was the shadow .. where the shadow is most often related to the ba, these references come to us from ''the Coffin Texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. Hence, the shadow could be viewed as a mode of existence after death. In some references, the shadow and ba could even appear to be parts of an single entity. For example, in one such instance, we find the command, "Go, my ba and my shadow, that you (singular) may see the sun". Because of such references, and the fact that the ba was regularly said to have physical attributes enabling it to eat, drink and copulate, Egyptians may have thought that the ba had its own shadow..''

 

  There is the spherical eye,  as in one instance of  an  eye for an eye,  he (Brian) may be confusing, like when there's the time Set ripped out Horus' eye, and in the struggle Horus literally ripped out one of the desert chaos god's own testicles.

 

  

 


 

''In the medical papyri (e.g. the  Ebers Papyrus) it say nothing much about the normal conduct of labor, ..Delivery took place in special surroundings, ''on the cool roof of the house, or in an arbor or confinement pavilion, a structure of papyrus-stalk columns decorated with vines. A mattress, headrest, mat and cushion and a stool were arranged in the area. At delivery, only female helpers were present, not physicians.''  Many numerous rutals were completeled during the delivery, one example of one of the delivery  sayings were repeated, such as one that asked Amun to "make the heart of the deliverer strong, and keep alive the one that is coming."  "The identifiying of the Ka with the heart of the individual new born seem to go back to somewhere at least as far back as the Old Kingdom period, the new life was suppended ''in order to ascertain the destiny of new-born children''

 

 

 

The heart ( jb )

    A special part of the body was the heart, (transliteration jb), was seen as  the essence of life, seat of the mind with its emotions, intelligence, and moral sense.
My heart, my mother; my heart, my mother! My heart whereby I came into being!

 

     I am  sure  he can tell us more though . . .

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4889
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Hey

danatemporary wrote:

 Hey DigitalBeachBum . . .  I am not sure what the reference could be to either 

#22and#23

 

  Wave/Particle Duality  may perhaps be his mistaken allusory reference to the concept of the Soul Ba Bohr Heisenberg & Schrodinger described particles, so I cannot understand his meaning either.

  There is the spherical eye,  as in one instance of  an  eye for an eye,  he (Brian) may be confusing, like when there's the time Set ripped out Horus' eye, and in the struggle Horus literally ripped out one of the desert chaos god's own testicles.

''In the medical papyri (e.g. the  Ebers Papyrus) it say nothing much about the normal conduct of labor, ..Delivery took place in special surroundings, ''on the cool roof of the house, or in an arbor or confinement pavilion, a structure of papyrus-stalk columns decorated with vines. A mattress, headrest, mat and cushion and a stool were arranged in the area. At delivery, only female helpers were present, not physicians.''  Many numerous rutals were completeled during the delivery, one example of one of the delivery  sayings were repeated, such as one that asked Amun to "make the heart of the deliverer strong, and keep alive the one that is coming."  "The identifiying of the Ka with the heart of the individual new born seem to go back to somewhere at least as far back as the Old Kingdom period, the new life was suppended ''in order to ascertain the destiny of new-born children''

 I am  sure  he can tell us more though . . .

 

I'm sure he can, but do we really want him to? : )

I gotta ask you, what is your background? What is your job?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Evolution is the changes that take place in DNA to give one species an advantage or disadvantage in a environment.

Species created a tool to pick out ants from an ant mound, which is the DNA or larger brain (maybe?), which allows the animal to see the tool in use. Thus they replicate the use of the tool as they see it in their mind.

Humans did not invent religion to get more food, get more land or to control others. Humans created religion to fill a void of needing to know where they came from. It was greed and fear which later became used by leaders who saw a chance to abuse the power they found by controlling religion.

Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA.

No shit sherlock. The Ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing in their polytheistic gods which no one believe in anymore. That does not change the fact that those gap answers allow people to set up social pecking orders. 

It is about safety in numbers and reproducing and resources. You readly accept that there is no Isis atom or Horus atom. The fact that religion exists is not the issue. The reality that people can center intire societies around false claims IS the issue.

Quote:
Religion is a human created tool, it is not a change in the human DNA

No, it is a human invented placebo, it isn't a tool. If any one religion were a requirement to fuck and reproduce we should expect humanity to only have one religion. I only agree that it is in our evolution to default to wishful thinking much more than we do to questioning. 

I disagree. The Egyptians were successful not because of their "gods" but because they ruled the way rulers are supposed to rule the people. And if religion was used by the leaders to keep the others in control it was a TOOL used against the people.

Tryanny of the majority. The Mob Rules!

What the fuck is an Isis atom or Horus atom and what does it have to do with this discussion?

False claims? You think societies rely on a religion to exist?

Religion is a tool when leaders use it to manipulate people. Religion can't be a placebo because you don't find it harmless. In fact I'm betting some where in the 15,000 posts you have on this website, there is a post talking about how religion is a posion or harmful to people.

 

Either religion was part of their ruling or it was not, you cannot have it both ways. If no one beleived in those gods the rulers could not have used it as a "tool", as you described it.

THAT is why I call religion a poison, it makes it too easy for powers to peddle utopias to get lemmings to follow.

You are missing my point. It is the fact that people treat religion as a "tool" that they cannot see it as the sugar pill it really is. It may create safety in numbers for that particular group, but it comes at the expense of setting up in group vs out group.

Religion is what causes people to do all storts of insane things, from denying kids health care, to denying girls educations, to racism, and homophobia, to entire wars. The insiders of a particular label would not be lemmings if they did not treat delusions as fact, nor could the powers that be use that delusion as a tool.

I am not he only one who calls religion poison, there is an entire book by Christopher Hitchens "God Is Not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything".

Now again, time after time after time, thread after thread you, and other people here have a needless knejerk reaction to that discription. While at the same time my same detractors start threads blasting Islam and Catholic preists molesting kids, and all sorts of other things. AND RIGHTFULLY SO.

Mt Fuji is inactive most of the time. It is pretty to look at when it is inactive. But only a fool pretends it is never distructive and only spews ice cream. You cant remove Mt Fuji but you are stupid to say "It is inactive so it will never cause problems". 

 

Science has today a much better understanding of evolution and the planet and the universe and even human psychology. Do you want our species to progress, or do you want us hiding behind myths and superstitions just because it makes some people feel good? 

I think we are better off knowing the earth is not flat. I think we are better off not believing the sun is a god. And just because a religion might bring someone comfort, If they can live without believing other's gods, and they can live without belonging to another's religion, then the truth is they do not need theirs either.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, you call religion a

No, you call religion a poison because you're a tool who doesn't know what religion or poison is. YOU are the poison, asshole. Even creationists are smarter and less damaging to our species than ignorant assholes like yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1520
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Mmm,fairly well agree here--but--

Brian37 wrote:

 There is no mystery to religion. It is a product of human's flawed perceptions. Humans make up religions, but they have never been a requirement for evolution. Life was around long before our species, and long before any written tradition or modern superstition.

Religions have been manufactured mostly due to  ignorance of physics, biology and other things that needed to be known and understood. What we have is an inheiritence from previous generaltions. One also has to consider---how were they to know when knowledge is acquired over time and generations. Just as the knowledge of physics gives understanding of factors studied and found and then also inheited by succeeding generations, so it was with the misinformation and guess work of religions. The cumlitive knowledge of physic and other subjects of knowledge then conflicts with religious beliefs of which are carried into societies by leaders of religions. What's to understand is, religion provides 1- a living for those promoting it, 2- maintains the leaders in a social status and authority which most members of a society may be seeking. So, one cannot expect them to change and loose their livelihood and status. Also,religions are good for an economy and job creation, so what would they do if proven wrong. There's a difference in "knowing" they're wrong and "proving" it.

 So how are they to be proven wrong? There's only one way. Their information has to be analysed, and the source of that information must be studied. Analysis shows that via all practical reasoning by a neutral party(ies) that they are wrong. BUT, merely critisizing the information and source isn't going to change their thinking because they're relying on the misinformation to gather their sustanance. Does the "source" of thier information substaniate their claims and practices.

If it is to be assumed that their information is correct and aligned with the source then there is no case contrary, would that not be correct. The problem is--- tghose critisizing (and rightly so) assume that their information is correct with the source. But, what if it isn't? What then?

Their information "and" source have to be shown faulty. If not, they can keep operating. Does the information match the source????? If you think their information and source are faulty you'll get nowhere because they are existing and proceeding on false information and the source of that false information. "Is" the source faulty and what happens if it's not---"then" you can prove their religion---false.

Addition-8/1/14- The people/masses have to be brought to an understanding of "what" was inherited.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Placebo? Tool? Poison? I'm

Placebo? Tool? Poison? I'm not sure what the argument is or why Brian keeps insisting that religion is not a "tool." You can use all of these terms to describe religion depending on how you define them. It's just semantics.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4109
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: I'm not

butterbattle wrote:

 I'm not sure what the argument is or why Brian keeps insisting that religion is not a "tool."

 

 

                                            Brian is a "tool".

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Placebo?

butterbattle wrote:

Placebo? Tool? Poison? I'm not sure what the argument is or why Brian keeps insisting that religion is not a "tool." You can use all of these terms to describe religion depending on how you define them. It's just semantics.

 

Sadly, Brians contributions to the site over the last year or two have significantly devolved. He now repeats himself well past the point of absurdity, constantly misrepresents the positions of people he quotes, and frequently accuses people of doing or saying things that never happened. He lies about various things and when proven wrong doubles down on ignorance instead of enlightenment. He's basically just a troll now, though he doesn't seem to be aware of it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:butterbattle

Vastet wrote:
butterbattle wrote:

Placebo? Tool? Poison? I'm not sure what the argument is or why Brian keeps insisting that religion is not a "tool." You can use all of these terms to describe religion depending on how you define them. It's just semantics.

 

Sadly, Brians contributions to the site over the last year or two have significantly devolved. He now repeats himself well past the point of absurdity, constantly misrepresents the positions of people he quotes, and frequently accuses people of doing or saying things that never happened. He lies about various things and when proven wrong doubles down on ignorance instead of enlightenment. He's basically just a troll now, though he doesn't seem to be aware of it.

Devolved? Not at all. 

I think some here have egg on their face they cant get over.

 

Here it is again.

Humans evolved to seek patterns. More often than not humans mistake success as being right. You can be successful centered around a false belief. That is where religion stems from. Get enough like minded people in a group, they have more opportunity to create offspring. That does not mean what they are centered around is true, it only means it beifits the group.

Dawkins discribes god belief as being the same false positive as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". But what would an evolutionary biologist know?

And further more, if one person in one group rightfully admits another not belonging to that group is capable of the same compassion they have, then the truth can only conclude that our behavior is not in the labels we invent but in our evolution.

 

Bottom line is that our ability to be cruel or compassonate as a species is in us, not the labels we invent and hide behind.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Devolved? Not

Brian37 wrote:
Devolved? Not at all.

That you are unaware of the quality of your posts devolving is not surprising.

Brian37 wrote:
I think some here have egg on their face they cant get over.

You're the only one with egg on his face.

Brian37 wrote:
Here it is again.

And the broken record of lies and ignorance continues to devolve.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
butterbattle wrote:

Placebo? Tool? Poison? I'm not sure what the argument is or why Brian keeps insisting that religion is not a "tool." You can use all of these terms to describe religion depending on how you define them. It's just semantics.

 

Sadly, Brians contributions to the site over the last year or two have significantly devolved. He now repeats himself well past the point of absurdity, constantly misrepresents the positions of people he quotes, and frequently accuses people of doing or saying things that never happened. He lies about various things and when proven wrong doubles down on ignorance instead of enlightenment. He's basically just a troll now, though he doesn't seem to be aware of it.

Devolved? Not at all. 

I think some here have egg on their face they cant get over.

 

Here it is again.

Humans evolved to seek patterns. More often than not humans mistake success as being right. You can be successful centered around a false belief. That is where religion stems from. Get enough like minded people in a group, they have more opportunity to create offspring. That does not mean what they are centered around is true, it only means it beifits the group.

Dawkins discribes god belief as being the same false positive as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". But what would an evolutionary biologist know?

And further more, if one person in one group rightfully admits another not belonging to that group is capable of the same compassion they have, then the truth can only conclude that our behavior is not in the labels we invent but in our evolution.

 

Bottom line is that our ability to be cruel or compassonate as a species is in us, not the labels we invent and hide behind.

 

 

Lol, again you demonstrate that you don't know what the fuck evolution is. The only person with egg on their face is you, and you don't even have the ability to realize it. When are you going to admit the iwbiek that you were completely wrong? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:When are

Beyond Saving wrote:
When are you going to admit the iwbiek that you were completely wrong? 




the fucking kicker is that they were factual things he got wrong. "marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." no, he didn't. "marx mistook capitalism for a form of government." no, he didn't. "you called hitchens a maoist." wtf???


there's no black and white here, no question of interpretation, he's just flat wrong. and i don't even hold that against him. we all get our facts mixed up now and then, we all jump the gun without double-checking our sources. i just want to see if he has the humility to own it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: there's no

iwbiek wrote:

there's no black and white here, no question of interpretation, he's just flat wrong. and i don't even hold that against him. we all get our facts mixed up now and then, we all jump the gun without double-checking our sources. i just want to see if he has the humility to own it.

Don't hold your breath. My money is solidly on him never owning up to it and I can damn near guarantee he will ignore these posts and continue to misquote Hypatia, appeal to what Anne Frank would have thought if she survived (while misspelling her name), and will pull out the fake quote of Marie Antoinette. Counting how many times he uses the word 'evolution' out of context in a year will continue to be the RRS version of "how many M&Ms are in this jar". 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I think you just confused me

I think you just confused me more, and now, I have even less of an idea of what you're trying to argue.

Brian37 wrote:
Here it is again.

Humans evolved to seek patterns.

Right, okay.

Quote:
More often than not humans mistake success as being right. You can be successful centered around a false belief.

You mean people tend to believe the claims of successful individuals? Or an experiment confirms a hypothesis due to a coincidence? Sure, I guess, if that's what you're saying.

Quote:
That is where religion stems from.

Kind of a bad oversimplification. 

Quote:
Get enough like minded people in a group, they have more opportunity to create offspring. That does not mean what they are centered around is true, it only means it beifits the group.

Um, I guess. Like-minded people are more likely to procreate with each other. They'll have an advantage over other groups if they hold some belief that encourages procreation.

Quote:
Dawkins discribes god belief as being the same false positive as "the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". But what would an evolutionary biologist know?

Not sure what you're getting at...

Quote:
And further more, if one person in one group rightfully admits another not belonging to that group is capable of the same compassion they have, then the truth can only conclude that our behavior is not in the labels we invent but in our evolution.

Bottom line is that our ability to be cruel or compassonate as a species is in us, not the labels we invent and hide behind.

It's "in" us, but it's not "in" our labels? I think you need to be more careful with the way you describe concepts, and I'm not sure if the main argument you're pushing with this thread is as meaningful as you think. Of course, I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing, so I'm going to take some guesses.

Certainly, we instinctively have the capacity to be cruel or compassionate. In fact, our ability to think or do anything that we are able to do is something that's allowed by our biology and hence, evolved (I don't want to get into nature vs. nurture right now). That's...kind of a tautology.

Yes, our emotions and morals are "in" us. Our ability to ignore "labels," be compassionate, and try to think objectively are "in" us. However, our ability to create and follows "labels" are also "in" us in the same sense. As a social species, we instinctively group other humans into two groups: the in-group and the out-group. We benefit as individuals from recipricol altruism in our in-group, but we wouldn't benefit from helping people that aren't in our group, so we treat these two groups differently, and "labels" are frequently influenced and/or born from this basic predisposition, and, in some cases, religions. 

Sooo, if you're trying to say that humanity should move past the old in-group/out-group mentality and be compassionate towards all other human beings, I would agree with that....but, you're saying it in a really weird way. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But what would

Brian37 wrote:
But what would an evolutionary biologist know?



quite a lot about evolutionary biology. not necessarily dick about religion. i may still only be a ph.d. student in the field, but that means i literally have more education in it than he does.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15607
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, you call

Vastet wrote:
No, you call religion a poison because you're a tool who doesn't know what religion or poison is. YOU are the poison, asshole. Even creationists are smarter and less damaging to our species than ignorant assholes like yourself.

No jackass, I call it a poison because that is what it does to humans. It causes us to seek gap answers and on top of that it divides humans at a political level to the point of bloodshed. I don't deny it brings people comfort but the ignorance of it's dark nature and the refousal of far to many of that dark nature causes problems for our species.

 

Religion is the lion cub to the in group, but the adult lion who kills rivals cubs  that people ignore. It is our species ignorance of our real evolutionary group survival instincts. It is a anthropomorphic gap answer. 

Humans of all labels certainly can be good and do good, but so can anyone of any label, and that that is what is divisive about religion, it turns a human invented construct into a patent holder of human morality and even if individuals in that group accept outsiders, it still sets up a social pecking order. At best for the liberals of all religions it still sets up "Yea you are special, but I am more special" And on a national scale at best it says" Yea you are equal, but merely a guest in my house".

Our species abilitly to be cruel or compassionate is in US, our evolution, not or labels. Our morality is in our evolution, not books of myth or superstition.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4196
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
everything has a "dark

everything has a "dark nature." absolutely everything. nothing only brings benefits. your grand point that you keep driving into the ground is nothing more than a truism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13070
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No jackass, I

Brian37 wrote:
No jackass, I call it a poison because that is what it does to humans.

No moron, it merely CAN do that to humans. It doesn't always, or even most of the time. Which is just one of the reasons why you're a hopeless fucking idiot.

Brian37 wrote:
It causes us to seek gap answers

Religion doesn't do that at all. In fact, religion usually does the opposite. Brainless twatwaffle.

Brian37 wrote:
divides humans at a political level to the point of bloodshed.

Don't need religion for that fuckwit. People will always have reasons to disagree to the point of bloodshed.

Brian37 wrote:
Religion is the lion cub to the in group, but the adult lion who kills rivals cubs  that people ignore. It is our species ignorance of our real evolutionary group survival instincts. It is a anthropomorphic gap answer. 

You sound more like a theist every day. This shit doesn't even make any sense.

Brian37 wrote:
Humans of all labels certainly can be good and do good, but so can anyone of any label, and that that is what is divisive about religion,

Neither does this.

Brian37 wrote:
it turns a human invented construct into a patent holder of human morality and even if individuals in that group accept outsiders, it still sets up a social pecking order.

So do a billion other things completely unrelated to religion. News flash moron: a social pecking order is part of SOCIETY. So why don't you start calling society a poison? Fucking idiot.

Brian37 wrote:
Our species abilitly to be cruel or compassionate is in US, our evolution, not or labels. Our morality is in our evolution, not books of myth or superstition.

Way to go! You just destroyed your own argument! ROFL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll take Poison for $500

Brian37 wrote:

Humans of all labels certainly can be good and do good, but so can anyone of any label, and that that is what is divisive about religion, it turns a human invented construct into a patent holder of human morality and even if individuals in that group accept outsiders, it still sets up a social pecking order. At best for the liberals of all religions it still sets up "Yea you are special, but I am more special" And on a national scale at best it says" Yea you are equal, but merely a guest in my house".

"a human invented construct that sets up a social pecking order, seperates one group of people from another and creates a framework of morality and social norms to be followed, as well as a method of punishment when it isn't followed."

What is government.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X