RonPrice Posted August 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Now that I have had a good breakfast, freeztar, I will read the rules.-Ron in Tasmania:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonPrice Posted August 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 It has been over a year since I, or anyone else, posted in this thread. That's okay. The definition of religion, its origins and development, its myriad of modern forms in terms of people's basic value systems really requires a book and can not be properly dealt with in these little boxes. Thanks, though, to all who played a part in this exchange. Greetings to you all from Tasmania as we head into the last weeks of winter.-Ron:phones: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Personal view; Why need to unify anything? All about life is diversity manifest and still fundamental oneness in "deep in its core"..So there is no need to actively unify anything. Just relax, "life" knows what it is doing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) Two. We have fossils from Greenland and Australia that are 3 BYr old or more, but we do NOT have any DNA that old. The oldest DNA I have heard of is far, far less than 1 million years old. DNA decays very quickly under all but the most extreme conditions of intense cold. Mammalian Sperm gene within us should be the oldest what have been able to track back. But it do not stamp "human" on it.. Human sperm gene is 600 million years old - Sci/Tech - DNA Edited August 8, 2010 by Vox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 If we are still pursuing religion 100 years from now much less 500,000 I think the human race is doomed to live and die out on this planet leaving no legacy what so ever other than it would been better if we never existed at all. My personal take is that you have created additional meaning on top of life which then naturally creates also meaningless with it.. if leaving legacy is your own creation of life´s meaning then if that is not achived, life is deemed meaningless...Why create willingly meaningless to life in our minds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) The core problem what I am seeing here is that first we want to separate events and create separate names and meanings to the life. Then naturally urge to create "unifying theories" emerge to unify these things which we have (artificially) created and separated in/by our minds.. If I am chopping wood ..Am I religious or not..? Should religion be something which is not chopping wood? If not the same then I can not be fully religious all the time due aI have to do something else also than being religious, or think religion all the time. But if chopping wood is part of the (religious) life then all is good and we can relax..no unification needed due all is unified? Religion is just one concept of many created in /by our minds..like North and South, Up and Down, Good and Bad..they do not exist in space without human mind... Edited August 8, 2010 by Vox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 this is probably one of the most disturbing concepts that i have come across. Why ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonPrice Posted August 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 It is a matter of units of social organization. The human community has had the following units of social organization in its long social evolution: chieftoms, clans, tribes, city states, nations and now----to survive---we must obtain some level of global cooperation sometimes referred to as a federation of states for the sake of peace and to overcome the great problems humanity faces. The subject requires more discussion. -Ron :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vox Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 It is a matter of units of social organization. The human community has had the following units of social organization in its long social evolution: chieftoms, clans, tribes, city states, nations and now----to survive---we must obtain some level of global cooperation sometimes referred to as a federation of states for the sake of peace and to overcome the great problems humanity faces. The subject requires more discussion. -Ron :D And with this so called social evolution, how we have been able to cope with "wars and peace" in every climb in the social evolution ladder we have been able to create more and more massive destruction..What would change this pattern if and when we would go further and further to same direction. My personal view is the opposite, it is all about the individual..all so called development happens individually..not outside, in imaginary" federations" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) One of the problems with the scientific view of humans is it bases itself on genetics. Don't get me wrong. This view helps us know how human relate to other species, but it ignore the wild card variable called the human mind. For example, using will power, I can alter/ignore my genetic based instincts. A simple DNA analysis might say I have these given genetic based instincts. It might then extrapolate what it thinks should be my behavior based on these genes. But because of will power, the behavioral DNA analysis would be wrong. The analysis may work up to a given point in human history, but where human begin to depart from the logical DNA extrapolation, is the time when the humans of religion appear. If you look at religion and god, and use the atheist and scientific assumption, that god can not be proven and is therefore imaginary, god represents a wild card variable, where the DNA animal extrapolation breaks down. For example, many older religions repress instincts meaning the DNA instincts were being over ridden. Any DNA behavioral analysis will not be correct, since the path splits in another direction. The question them becomes, if human will power can create a fork in the DNA based behavior, which of the two paths in the fork was more progressive? I would guess the path that over rides the DNA, was the more progressive. One reason is evolution is not about progress, so that path in the fork is not progression. Based on selective advantage, civilization was the path humans took at the time religion. Civilization still dominates the world today. Civilization, in turn, removes humans from their jungle origins where DNA instinct ruled. To live in civilization, one needed to learn to alter their DNA instincts. Religious behavior, common to only humans, appears about the same time as civilization and was not about walking the path of the DNA behavior of the ape, but modifying the behavioral DNA into a new human, where a new clock starts. Religion uses this new clock and not the science clock, of 2M years ago, when the scientific DNA behavior analysis was easy to extrapolate. If science is able to figure out the nature of progressive human instincts, and not just try to force fit backward to fork in the road, where the theory works better, this would be useful. Edited August 8, 2010 by HydrogenBond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 8, 2010 Report Share Posted August 8, 2010 Drama Queen ;) hey! i resemble that remark, i miss you T-Bird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.