Biochemist Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 If someone could give any evidence what so ever for the existence of god you would be correct but there is none.Moon- This is categorically untrue. There is no evidence that can be demonstrated by the scientific method (that I know of), but that certainly does not mean there is no evidence. You are trying to get the existence of god to be just as likely as his non existence,. While there is quite a bit of evidence that shows no need for god there is none that shows a need for god. so no god is the default position. You must have meant "no need for God in the scientific method". That is a long way from "no need for God".Yes there could be a god but what do i gain by assuming this in connection with investigating reality? For one, you would stop ruling out viable possibilities, as discussed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Moon- This is categorically untrue. There is no evidence that can be demonstrated by the scientific method (that I know of), but that certainly does not mean there is no evidence. Could you list any examples of such evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Could you list any examples of such evidence?Sure, but we would have to go to the philosophy forum for further discussion. Wouldn't want to break any rules. The short answer is that if you really think (or believe) that 1) we have free will or 2) that love is possible/real, you have to take a position other than raw determinism. If the world is not deterministic, what is it? If you want to discuss, we have to change fora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 If someone could give any evidence what so ever for the existence of god you would be correct but there is none.Moon- This is categorically untrue. There is no evidence that can be demonstrated by the scientific method (that I know of), but that certainly does not mean there is no evidence. Could you list any examples of such evidence? Sure, but we would have to go to the philosophy forum for further discussion. Discussion regarding "evidence... for the existence of god" does not belong in the philosophy forum. If you can indeed "list examples of such evidence", Biochemist, then this forum and this thread are as appropriate as any. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Sure, but we would have to go to the philosophy forum for further discussion. Wouldn't want to break any rules. The short answer is that if you really think (or believe) that 1) we have free will or 2) that love is possible/real, you have to take a position other than raw determinism. If the world is not deterministic, what is it? If you want to discuss, we have to change fora. Nah. "Evidence" is not about what someone thinks or believes. Suppose for example that everyone on Earth either thought or believed that there is a Lazy Boy recliner in orbit around Neptune. That WOULD NOT be evidence that a Lazy Boy recliner was in fact orbiting Neptune. Evidence furnishes proof and it's not based on simple belief. You also cannot assert A is true simply because B is false. Arguing that the world is not deterministic provides no evidence that any other scenario is true, only that determinism is false. That's like trying to claim creation is true by disproving evolution. One could completely disprove evolution and it would not prove creation. If nature is not deterministic then its not deterministic but that says absolutely nothing in favor of any other theory. Galapagos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 we really do live in different worlds, i never meant that as an attack to you in any way. and your response leaves me, puzzled :confused:my point was, your moral training is merely your point of viewOk. More simply: to in effect suggest that my statement "X leads to Y" must necessarily lead to the conclusion that I would agree to "therefore Y leads to X", is a form of rhetoric often called "putting words in the other's mouth". It is a suggestion, implied by the question, that the speaker advocates or has in effect advocated, "Y leads to X". Why would you say moral training is merely a point of view? On the surface, this makes no sense. Did you mean to say that my statement about sources of moral training was merely my point of view? Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with my point of view? Are you suggesting that if I have a point of view that it is necessarily suspect or bogus? Spit the gravel out of your mouth, boy, and speak clearly. :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 This is from Wikipedia The world's principal religions and spiritual traditions may be classified into a small number of major groups or world religions. According to the 2005 survey of Encyclopædia Britannica, the vast majority of religious and spiritual adherents follow Christianity (33% of world population), Islam (20%), Hinduism (13%), Chinese folk religion (6.3%) or Buddhism (5.9%). The irreligious and atheists make up about 14%, and about 4% follow indigenous tribal religions. In terms of evolution, religion appears to have selective advantage, unless some of the fundamental premises of evolution are off. Is there a religion gene or genes that have evolved in humans to account for this? What is interesting, animals do not practice religion. This seems to indicate that religion is fully human. Based on this, if there was a gene or genes for religion, it would only be found in humans. Since animals don't believe in god and atheist don't believe in god they may share certain genes that are not exclusive to humans Maybe that is the biological difference. The extra purely human genes might account for the observed selective advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 This is from Wikipedia In terms of evolution, religion appears to have selective advantage, unless some of the fundamental premises of evolution are off. Is there a religion gene or genes that have evolved in humans to account for this? What is interesting, animals do not practice religion. This seems to indicate that religion is fully human. Based on this, if there was a gene or genes for religion, it would only be found in humans. Since animals don't believe in god and atheist don't believe in god they may share certain genes that are not exclusive to humans Maybe that is the biological difference. The extra purely human genes might account for the observed selective advantage. HB how do you know animals don't have religion? How do you know that when wolves howl at the moon they aren't saying their prayers? How do we know anything about what animals think? It's very possible that animals have some form of religion that is connected to what we think of as religion in the same way the emotions animals seem to show are connected to the emotions we seem to show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 What is interesting, animals do not practice religion. This seems to indicate that religion is fully human. Based on this, if there was a gene or genes for religion, it would only be found in humans. Since animals don't believe in god and atheist don't believe in god they may share certain genes that are not exclusive to humans Maybe that is the biological difference. The extra purely human genes might account for the observed selective advantage. HB's inductive reasoning is always so much fun. Let me give it a try,Apples are red. People with red hair have freckles. Based on this, if there is a freckle gene then it would be found in apples :DNo—I'm not very good at it. It seems too contrived :shrug: HB, Atheism and religiosity represent an informed opinion or a belief concerning supernatural concepts. There is absolutely no indication that animals other than human have any such concept as the supernatural, let alone an informed decision regarding that concept. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 There is no evidence that animals have religion. Animal behavior is usually traced to instinct which is traced to genetics. Religion appears to be distinct to humans since there is no data to suggest otherwise. I am going with the known data. Whether this is from genes or not, is up for debate. But genetics would explain the propensity to pursue religion in spite of logic that could be used to repress this. We can repress hunger with logic such as the logic of health or diet, but it doesn't make the hunger go away, since it is part of the DNA and instinct. It sort of buries it but it is still there. Religion often teaches one to control many of the animal impulses in favor of this uniquely human instinct. There can often be a repression of natural animal instinct, which is often evident in some religious people. Atheism teaches us to control this purely human instinct in favor of more animal instinct. The selective advantage of using more human instinct, based on the population numbers, shows evolution on earth has favored purely human genes ever since this human instinct appeared. The religious equate the appearance of these genes to a intervention by God, with the genes allowing the pursuit of the religious behavior which makes one aware of the assumed cause of the religious affect. There is a good sized group of atheists, which appear to be human-animal hybrids that seems to have some selective advantage. This group could be sort of the link between purely human and purely animal. They might tell us something about some of the earliest days of human evolution when animal instinct was a lot stronger and pure human instinct had not yet fully differentiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 There is no evidence that animals have religion. Animal behavior is usually traced to instinct which is traced to genetics. Religion appears to be distinct to humans since there is no data to suggest otherwise. I am going with the known data. Whether this is from genes or not, is up for debate....The propensity to have or observe a religion is far more likely to come from OTHER properties of the human brain that differ from animals. For example, we have an over-developed cerebral cortex, which permits us to: engage in symbolic language, conceive and communicate concepts, and interpret events in the light of concepts, logic and reasoning. I propose that our propensity for religion is bound up with THIS, NOT some gene which only codes for a protein. For example, we understand "operant conditioning" very well. We use this to train pigeons to peck at colored buttons in certain sequences in return for treats. Their simple widdle brains use primitive temporal association: "if I peck these buttons, I will get a treat". Since the treat follows soon after the pecks, the pecks are associated with the treat. Pigeons and dogs (and even humans) also engage in a random form of operant conditioning often called "superstition dances". Say we set up the pigeons in a cage with buttons--but the treats are dropped in totally at random. The buttons do nothing. And yet many pigeons will still become conditioned from RANDOM associations of RANDOM actions with treats. One pigeon will peck the blue button, peck the red button, do a backflip and stand on one leg, then wait for a treat--because ONCE it "worked". Another pigeon in the same cage will develop an entirely different superstition dance. I suggest that humans do this too: if I get on my knees, mumble this mantra, go to that building on certain days and put this icon on the wall, then I will be blessed (the "treat"). In addition, this superstition dance is heavily reinforced by all the other humans in the same community who not only have the same superstition dance, but rigorously train all their children in the superstition dance from infancy. The latter is not "operant conditioning" like the pigeons, but intentional training. Once a community or culture develops such a tradition of self-reinforcement, training and of course, punishing the non-conformists, then the propensity for religion is guaranteed to be passed on to future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Once a community or culture develops such a tradition of self-reinforcement, training and of course, punishing the non-conformists, then the propensity for religion is guaranteed to be passed on to future generations.This seems to equate religious activity with any fad or partisan opinion. It is certainly true that political partisanship (for example) does indeed have familial tendencies. Last I heard, something approaching 70% of voters vote the same as their parents did. But if you look at the drift in political party positioning, it moves much faster that religious position. And there are really a relatively small number of religions that have stood in substantially the same form for extended periods (discounting the atomistic spirituality of tribal peoples). So, something about this does not quite ring true. In particular, if you look at the history of the Jews, with the series of dramatic abuses (Babylonian captivity, Assyrian captivity, Roman rule, the Holocaust, etc) yet this tiny group survives and accrues significant power. And feeds the transition to the other two large religions (Christianity and Islam). Suggesting this is just cultural training seems a little bit light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I bet you couldn't take a half dozen people at random from your Church and get them all to agree 100% on what your church believes, much less get everyone that claims to be a member of your sect to agree. I've been to many of those little Baptist Churches, following preachers around, they all preach different in different churches. They even preach in Churches that differ greatly from each other adjusting their sermons to each church. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but to say it doesn't happen is really hiding your head in the sand. probably right, not everyone can agree on everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 probably right, not everyone can agree on everything Goku, what I was responding to was your insinuation that your church had the correct interpretation of the bible and that you all agreed on what those interpretations meant. You said you could all agree when someone was saying something that was not correct. I say you cannot say that and be truthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 ...So, something about this does not quite ring true. In particular, if you look at the history of the Jews...Suggesting this is just cultural training seems a little bit light.After giving this a rather ridiculous amount of thought, I have concluded that you may, indeed, have a valid point here. Please don't do it again. ;) :lol: :) :lol: :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REASON Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Suggesting this is just cultural training seems a little bit light. After giving this a rather ridiculous amount of thought, I have concluded that you may, indeed, have a valid point here. Please don't do it again. :naughty: ;) :shrug: :lol: B) I don't agree. The difference with these primary world religions is that they are based on long standing religious doctrines or scriptures. The Torah was not wiped out in any of those detrimental periods that were faced by the Jews, so the cultural training was able to proceed based on those foundational writings. Political parties evolve more rapidly because the platform changes more rapidly. The issues that are important to Democrats and Republicans today are not necessarily the same as they were fifty or a hundred years ago, and there is no long standing doctrine for them to follow. It is interesting to consider, for instance, that during the Lincoln/Douglas debates, Lincoln, the Republican, was advocating federal control while Douglas, the Democrat, was arguing for states' rights. This seems counterintuitive today. In either instance, I think political persuasion and religious tendencies are environmentally driven, not genetic. Religion particularly has stood the test of time because of the way in which it appeals to one's emotions. And it does not surprise me that people are, and have been, drawn to concepts that are emotionally satisfying, even if they can't be supported by logic or reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted January 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Goku, what I was responding to was your insinuation that your church had the correct interpretation of the bible and that you all agreed on what those interpretations meant. You said you could all agree when someone was saying something that was not correct. I say you cannot say that and be truthful. i also gave an example of something we would all agree as being wrong. the same could be said of scientists in reference to the interpretation of test data (talking about your post 133) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts