fair point, but it does not make religion true. Religion may have been the glue that kept societies together in good and bad times which helped us proposer, but it does not make it true.
The simple answer to your question is this. Evolution is related to biological traits, not social traits. Slavery has been around since the beginning of humanity, but few would say that it is culturally or morally advantageous. Men of status wore powdered wigs for about 300 years in Europe, I can see no way that help[ed them spread their genes.
Religion is a social phenomena, and therefore is outside the realm of evolution.
Oh. I thought this would be an argument against Intelligent Design theory, not against atheistic evolution. Both are incorrect, and religion is not only true but necessary. I agree with you.
There is more to life than Darwin, Freud, Smith, and Marx, people.
Short answer to your question. Things do not succeed because their are advantageous. Being advantageous only gives a particular trait a more likely chance of being passed down. Also, an emotional response such as love can be a result of that emotion lending survivability to a child. Something like religion or spiritual belief is not an evolutionary trait, it is a group dynamic. The biochemical processes that lead to the desire to latch onto religion, however, could be from an evolutionary cause.
I always wonder why people presume God can only exist if he's good. One might at a push argue the bible's claim of a loving God false, but the idea that only a loving God could have made us and that evil is an argument for atheism is ridiculous.
the most religious countries have the highest rates for ALL crimes.
QUESTION, why are you talking about advantages of religion or evolution and comparing evolution to religion as similar subjects? you do know that they are not connected that way right?
there are MANY MANY Theists who accept evolution, because its proven, there's atheists who cant decide if evolution is true or if there's other explanations. religion and evolution are totally SEPARATE subjects! your arguments are nonsensical
Not every adaptation succeeds on its own merits, some changes stay with us as a byproduct of the advantages of other evolved traits. We've seen this in domesticated fox populations. If we breed foxes based purely on how docile they are in the company of humans we also see a lighting of the coat and less coarse hair though these traits were not selected for. The part of our brain that creates/holds ideas about 'god' are likely a byproduct of being able to recall the past and imagine the future.
atheists just wait til something horrific happens in your lives. its inevitable that it will happen to some of you. at that time, your puny human logic wont have the ability to perceive any possible hope in such an event. you'll most likely end yourself in an attempt to get away from the unpleasantness of life. apart from preserving society as a whole, religion also gives one hope, hope you may never experience. its a choice to believe in a god since it can never be fully disproved
@hiks45 im saying god is there to fill in the whole left by horrific happenings. note i never said he exists, yet most humans are not yet clairvoyant enough to get through said happenings i.e. seing a resolution in their conflicts. you will notice most firm believers in religion gained faith through something unfortunate happening to them. also people do evil shit unless they are fearful of retribution.
Now im sure you wont argue that rape is a good thing, even though it is still with us and has been before religion, ofcourse it is arguable if it applies to the earlier forms of mankind etc.
The point is just because people are stupid, just because people buy into this, just because we are scared of death (most are), and we then buy this complete bullshit that goes directly against our logical thinking, doesn't mean it is positive at all, and in our society religion is a huge disadvantage.
Wrong. The fastest growing group at the moment is atheism, So the popularity of theism is declining. And just because it has succeeded for such a long time doesn't make a sound argument for it not being a poison, or something negative.
Rape is also a evolutionairy survival technique which some still practice..... It is a great advantage since you can have many mates and many possibilites for reproduction without having to be the alpha male or get into any other form of seduction.
Atheism, materialism and evolution are 3 separate things. Also you don't understand what, how and in what circumstances a trait can be adventageus during evolution.
You also mistaken about religion "growing" - it is actually pushed back.
Religion uses terror to keep its members. i.e. the penalty for straying away from the muslim faith is death. if you do not accept jesus as your savior you will burn in hell or be "left behind" during the rapture. scientology uses confession recordings, family and social leverage to keep their members. This is why religion still strives today. side effect includes hate war ignorance. evolution takes long time (more then years of Christianity). hopefully in the future religion will be less common
I don't think most Atheists would argue that religion didn't have some evolutionary advantage to hold tribes together in man's past. Just like our drive to eat sweet things made ancient man seek out foods high in energy. Now that same drive is a disadvantage and makes us overweight. In the same way religion once helped primitive man, but now hurts our society.
The destructive nature of religion is not personal nor strictly current, but future-orientated, in that they stunt the potential for human knowledge as a whole. Religion is instinctual, and even though it may have served some purposes in archaic societies, we need to out grow it now. It continues to help some people in the areas of comfort, morality, and peace of mind, and that is why it is so persistent a disease. Magical thinking is natural and enjoyable, but you prioritize it above truth.
You must not be familiar with any of Dawkins's or Dennett's work, or you would know *precisely* what their answer to this question is. Richard Dawkins came up with his "theory of memetics" in The Selfish Gene, and Dennett, in my opinion, champions the concept in Breaking the Spell. I kid you not - the majority of Breaking the Spell focuses on this *exact* question and explains it thoroughly from all angles. Do some research on memetics or read the books. You won't be disappointed :)
Simply stating the lie that there is supposedly no evidence does not magically make it so.
The reason why more than 98% of the world's human population accepts Theism as scientific fact is because there are mountains of evidence in support of Theism, and there is absolutely none in support of atheist dogma.
We need to address your misconception of the idea that all atheists believe in Evolution, The Big Bang, Abiogenesis etc. That is not the definition of an atheist. The term simply defines someone who has a lack of faith in the supernatural realm. What they decide to do with that lack of faith is up to them.
@Purushadasa You seem to have this mountainous pile of hidden evidence. Please do share. It's remarkable how you say that theism is scientific fact. There's not a shred of evidence for the divine or supernatural in the scientific community. Obviously we can't prove there's not a God, but that would be because it's impossible to disprove a negative. However, there is vast research based evidence showing how we arrived through evolution, the creation of earth etc. Evidence before claim my friend.
i wish more people were like u my good friend :).. this is something i can sit down, and just pay attention to, to keep my feeble mind busy, and for that, i thank you :)
I know this one, when things were tough in the past, the use of a comforting lie was what kept us from depression. But we've reached an age where we can objectively look at the world with a positive out look
Religion can be an andvantage to a group. Blind belief in some god or other binds a group together. If this group would care enough about this that they want to eradicate other groups their group prospers. I'm not saying this is the case but it's one possibility.
And as blaiser11 said: the fact that it's an advantage to your group does not tell you anything about whether it's true. It might be an advantage to believe it's moral to rape people, that does not make it right per se.
The Thing is evolution does not mean we evolved from monkey's its just another word for adapting like an animal adapting to its enviroment but evolution gives more advantages for it. For example all the breads of dogs came from a handful of domesticated wild dogs. Same for us, us and the monkeys were once one type of living creature that was split up into 2 differents species. This will continues to happen with every living thing. Plus religion causes nothing but hate
Theism has always been in the vast majority, it is now, and it always will be. Theism shows no signs of weakening -- to the contrary -- it is getting stronger and stronger with every passing day.
Nobody believes the atheist, and he is in the extreme minuscule minority worldwide. Nobody believes him because there is absolutely no evidence for atheist dogma.
For more information, see my video, "The World Rejects atheist Dogma."
The only thing that's really taken on faith in this issue is atheist dogma, not Theism, and that is because there is absolutely no evidence in favor of atheist dogma.
Conversely, God has personally revealed an enormous amount of scientific evidence in favor of Theism, and that is why ALL human beings of normal IQ or higher (98%) accept Theism as scientific fact.
For more information, see my video, "The atheist: Why Such Extreme Minority?"
@Purushadasa "Atheism dogma"? No such thing exist. Atheism is just lack of faith in supernatural gods. If there is real scientific evidence for god, show them, let us test them and repeat them. If they are falsifiable but still not falsified the case is clost. But then it would be no need for faith, just acceptance for a scientific theory of god. And then god is a part of the naturalistic world, and we win anyhow.
There is plenty of scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities, and that is why the vast majority of human beings on the planet accept Theism as scientific fact and reject atheist dogma as utter nonsense.
The lower animal and the atheist lack the intelligence to comprehend the evidence, but ALL human beings of normal intelligence or higher understand it quite easily.
@Purushadasa There is no evidence for God's so-called "factual" appearance and activities. Perhaps there was a Jesus as there is archaelogical evidence to prove his existence, perhaps there was a prophet Muhammed as there is also evidence for his existence, but there is NO physical/factual evidence that there is a god. God still has yet to be proven or disproved. Do not spout lies.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings on the planet accept Theism as scientific fact is that there is ample, solid, scientific evidence in its favor, and absolutely no evidence in favor of atheist dogma.
Also, just like the lower animal, the atheist lacks the IQ to grasp the evidence, but that is his shortcoming, not God's.
Don't try to twist my words, I'm warning you -- I wrote plainly, and attempts at twisting into a straw-man are guaranteed to fail.
@Purushadasa No! There ISN'T "scientific evidence" in it's favour! There IS no empirical evidence, that's the issue! That's why those of us that CHOOSE not to believe in a god/God/gods cannot bring ourselves to believe in what is essentially bronze aged religious dogma!
If you're going to be grossly offensive towards atheists, I would counter your argument by stating that it requires FAR MORE effort and understanding to grasp scientific principles than just taking things on faith.
@Purushadasa To me, "taking things on faith" is an enormous cop out. You and your religious adherents are ultimately too weak willed to accept that we're all alone in an enormous universe, that death is the final door and that you exist here at all, because you can. You're so self deluded that you cannot see past your own religion. I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to question those views and realise that they are in fact, total and utter nonsense.
@Purushadasa Furthermore, mark my words, this species is in a transitional stage of leaving behind those bronze aged dogmas, into an age of true enlightment, not clouded by superstitions or religious mumbo-jumbo. If people choose to believe in some god or other, that's their choice, when they start ramming it down mine and others throats, we'll get pissed off. I don't recall I had atheists knocking at my door asking to talk to me about god/God/gods.
Religion and superstition are proto-science. They are the earliest expressions of our analytical and abstract thinking. They represent our first baby steps towards understanding the universe by trying to see the rules by which it operates. Sometimes they have made genuine advancements and spawned real scientific disciplines. Mostly they hit dead ends. But they did keep the fires of curiosity alive.
.
But now we no longer need superstition. Superstition is a barrier to knowledge, not a conduit.
Viruses are one of the most successful replicating entities on the planet, as well as one of the most diverse. Every species on the planet has viruses specialized for using them as hosts. Being successful from an evolutionary stand point isn't the same thing as being beneficial. The comparison between religion and viruses is not perfect as religion only causes its hosts to explode in rare cases.
Religions is also entities (memes) in them selfs governed by a similar evolutionary process as our genes. Religions transforms as the enviroment (our culture) changes. The god that once where in heaven moved quickly in to a more mystical realm as soon as we invented aeroplanes and space ships.
Religion has been a biproduct of our search for how things works. The evolution of religion has gone from anemism to polytheism to monotheism to....atheism. In a cultural perspective the historical success of religion and the current move towards atheism is not a contradiction. It´s the logical development as fear gives way for understanding.
WHY!! Are we actually discussing whether religion is evolutionarily advantageous or not? This has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection. Religion is not advantageous to a society, that doesn't mean the society cannot survive! Evolution is advantages that help a population survive. RELIGION does not effect that at all. This is so stupid! Go ahead and argue that religion may or may not be advantageous to a person, that has nothing to do with evolution.
I think religions are a perfectly normal, emotionally helpful/healthy human creation. I believe that without some philosophy or religion, most people would probably go mad. Religions and philosophies are obviously necessary for the mental survival of a lot of people and there's nothing wrong with that. If the evolutionary "goal" is survival, then religions probably do more good then bad in that category.
Why do people say a "materialistic framework" like it's limiting...that's like asking: "Oh, so you only believe in reality?" lol. The natural realm (which is, perhaps, the only realm) is all we're aware of--why come to any conclusion about anything "beyond" it? Presumably "supernatural" things could literally be anything and nothing all at the same time...the concept "supernatural" just doesn't mean anything in the natural realm, so why have an opinion about it?
I must say that this is one of the better pro-creationist arguements I have heard so far. But still. You can't claim something is the ultimate theory beacause it has been around the longest. People thought the earth was the center of the universe for thousands of years but that doesn't make it true. Whatever anyone says, the thruth is not democratic. Science might not have all the big answers but the fact that we are able to watch this video is one HUGE plus for the scientific method.
Even if you make the argument that religion has advantages, in no way does that mean that religion is true. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." It is very true that religion can be advantageous, but I think that is a trivial point and no one really cares about it. What should be questioned is whether or not religion is true or false.
Seeking the truth is much better than coming up with reasons on why being delusional is useful.
perhaps that is what it's all about: "how is being delusional about the existence of an afterlife useful to generations?" I think I have part of the answer but I will start by saying that religious beliefs are of course not passed to the next generation through genes. Perhaps the desire to look for a purpose, or better, d necessity of "social animals" such as humans to conform to group behavior . This because in primal societies if you do not conform, u're cast out of d group, n alone u'll die.
I'm going to have to shut down for a moment here. This has been a great discussion so far! Unfortunately it's something I typically do along side my work while I'm.. well, at work. And it's about time for me to head out soon. You're a smart guy. I look forward to further encounters. Feel free to continue replying, you can most certainly expect that I'll read them when I get home, even if I don't immediately reply.
Let's not forget that the world doesn't have to be dependent on one single thing. Democracy, a flawed but important part of our lives, is only required for our nation to exist as it is. It is not a requirement for the advancement of society. Government, maybe, but just because something is a part of what allows our civilization to exist, doesn't mean that other things cannot accompany that requirement, such as the gain of knowledge.
I think it's clear that religion does not confer explicit advantages itself. There is nothing explicit that religion gives us that we cannot gain with other social tendencies. We are, after all, the only species on the planet with this religion problem, and other species do just fine without it. The problem with religion isn't an evolutionary one or a hinderance of biological advancement. It's a technological hinderance.
Our societiy's advancement depends on the gain of knowledge. Knowledge cannot be gained if we believe that those gaps in our knowledge are already filled. Be that as it may, it's in our best interest to gain knowledge by searching for it rather than preventing its gain with faith in false knowledge. So faith of this religious kind is destructive in every way. While it doesn't hinder us biologically, it destroys progress at a scientific and technological level.
"Our societiy's advancement depends on the gain of knowledge." Wrong. The attainment of knowledge on its own advances nothing beyond the knowledge itself. Technology and advancement depend on the creative/philosophical application of said knowledge. You make the same logical mistake that so many seculars do by starting with the obviously false premise that technology is hindered by immaterial beliefs. Please see my video entitled "the trifecta of human advancement"
If advancement is dependent upon the creative use of knowledge, and the gain of such knowledge is dependent on not having false knowledge, wouldn't that suggest a ramping dependency? In order for us to further ourselves, we need higher technology than what we have, which requires more knowledge, which requires us not to base our advancement on false knowledge. While creativity and philosophy allows that advancement, religion is not a prerequisite, and is in fact a hinderance.
Not at all. Firstly you seem to have an altogether unhealthy like of question begging here. You say that religion is tantamount to false knowledge with out ever having presented an argument to substantiate it. In fact I don't think that you can. Moreover, technology is not a prerequisite for advancement. The advent of democracy was not at all tethered to technology was it?
In addition you are conflating knowledge and materialism. You seem to think that knowledge always comes down to material observation. It doesn't. Can you think of an example of non-scientific "knowledge"? How about the recognition of design patterns in software?
I do not think knowledge always come down to material observation. It does come 'first' from material observation however. Followed by inference and experience. Recognition of design in patterns in software could only come about by our prior experience of material observation of similar software.
I disagree, logic can be independent of material observation. One needn't have 4 stones in front of him to deduce that 2 + 2 is 4 yes? There are such things as mental exercises. Writers utilize said skill regularly. In other words Lewis Carrol didn't need to associate a jabberwocky with any existential thing to have summoned it up.
This is not begging the question at all since the original question was not whether or not religion is truth, but whether or not it's dangerous to society. Or at least I believe it was, unless my memory failed me here, which I wouldn't be suprised. Given the context of the original question, the ability for religion to find the truth, since it is the establishment of a faith prior to and regardless of found knowledge, is a hinderance to the persuit of actual knowledge.
It is question begging. Pretend with me that religion is true knowledge. How would your above argument have worked? It wouldn't. It depends on religion as being false. You have not even begun to substantiate that.
Tethered, no. But technology is absolutely necessary for democracy at the scale that we practice today. It didn't perhaps use to be, back when such a thing was irrelevant. But now our population is large enough to where effective communication cannot occur without something even as simple as the invention of paper. Of course technology helps beyond that, but this is definately a good start. As our civilization grows, so too must the technology that supports it.
The point is (and I think that you are now acknowledging it) that advancement is not inexorably tied to the knowledge that you attached it to. In other words your assertion that religion is a hindrance to advancement because it cannot gain knowledge is logically flawed because there can be advancement without said knowledge.
I just watched you're video. You make statements that hold weight but in no way did you show that knowledge is not a preqrequisite to advancement. However, I agree with much of what you said even if I think you're missing a few points. But I don't think those points are relevant to the discussion.
In fact, it wasn't until we developed a true secular society a few hundred years ago that we were able to make vast leaps in our technological capabilities. I'd personally propose that secularism is a kind of compromise between a religious society and an atheistic one. If we went completely atheistic and removed religion altogether, who knows how fast we'd advance. What if we developed a secular society 1000 years ago? Where would we be today?
"There is nothing explicit that religion gives us that we cannot gain with other social tendencies"
Strange that if this is the case so few have replaced religion with one of those other things. A bold statement which is little more than proclamation on your part.
I'll acknowledge that you make a good case here. I should rephrase my statement to say that there is nothing that I recognize that we gain from religion that could not be gained through other efforts. This would perhaps make my statement appear bold from the right perspective.
"We are, after all, the only species on the planet with this religion problem" Really? I would love to see you substantiate that. How does one go about proving that a creature we cannot communicate with does not posses some set of beliefs?
Ok then replace the phrase "set of beliefs" with the word religion in my above response, and the question remains. BTW a set of beliefs is central to a religion yes? Are you saying that you don't recognize a liturgy among animals?
I don't see any animals practicing religion. Not that I commune with animals mind you. However, I think there is a a threshold of common sense we have to partake in when questioning animal societal behavior. Animals do not hold onto tradition for the sake of appeasing a set of beliefs, and if they did, their advancement is not dependent on the gain of knowledge that could potentially be limited by beliefs as basic as theirs. Not that I've seen such beliefs in species to be demonstrable.
there is a a threshold of common sense we have to partake in when questioning animal societal behavior Agreed. But that is not what you are doing here. You are making unsubstantiated claims in order to argue against a third party.
Would you permit that I am only presenting a point of view based on my experience and opinion here? And that if you have an opposing position that you would be willing to present a reason for that rather than simply attacking mine? Simply saying "your opinion sucks" is not an argument.
In the end we really only have our experiences and opinions I think. But I have to say that I presented an argument in the video, and you responded to it. I am only responding to your response. I can't help but argue to your argument.
Religion can help fill the void that we all feel that we are separate other people. If you watch/read Fight Club it delves into this topic a lot deeper than i can here, but essentially religion can give us that social satisfaction that most of us need. oh and just because something has been with us for a long time doesnt mean its not harmful to us. for example, we have had an appendix for millions of years, but it does not provide any benefit to us and in fact can be very toxic/poisonious.
Alright, after giving it a great deal of thought, I've found the flaw in the argument presented by this video:
Evolution doesn't select for across the board improvements. The only thing evolution selects for is reproduction- if you're capable of having babies and keeping them alive long enough to take care of themselves without you, evolution won't do anything further.
There isn't a gene that causes us to grow up with a belief in Yahweh, Shiva, or Apollo. Instead, religion is really based off of two basic elements that are selected by evolution: staying in a group, and obeying your parents.
Religion, is, at its heart, all about maintaining a group identity. Having a strongly bonded social group has, for a very long time been an important thing for humans.
Staying in a group gave a strong advantage over being solitary when it came to food gathering and protection from predators. Therefore, being social was an advantage that evolution selected for.
Second trait: learning from one's parents. This is another important trait. Most people learn by listening and watching their parents. This is also true in apes. Listening to your parents means for a prehistoric human that you didn't eat a poisonous bug and die, and stayed away from snakes. cont-
Most people learn their religion from their parents (or whoever raises them). If your parents were strongly Roman Catholic, you're more likely to be a Roman Catholic. However, if you were adopted by a Zen Buddhist as a baby, you'd be more likely to be a Zen Buddhist.
Following ones parents was an important survival trait, and was therefore maintained by evolution.
Second Point: if it was good in the past, it doesn't mean that it's good today.
Humans have a lot of traits we've inherited, but not all of them are good.
For example, we've got a strong preference for sweet or fatty foods. Thousands of years ago, this was important because food was often hard to come by, and making sure our diet was as calorie rich as possible was important. Today, it gives us heard disease and diabetes. The trait is no longer good, but it's still there.
So, religion derives its origin from two separate traits combining, and while it may have been useful to inspire people to fight against rival tribes in the Stone Age, those things do not necessarily remain good for us here in the 21st century. I hope this answers your question satisfactorally.
Danged 500 character count makes it hard to write. Please scroll down to the lowest post in this sequence first.
God by definition is a being that is of a vastly superior intelligence, is for all practical purposes immortal, and has absolute power....I think thats a fair discription. If it is a given that we exist...and have evolved our own level of intelligence and power over matter and we our selfs evolved from this universe then isnt the template of empirical evidence set for much greater evolved entities that fit our present definition of god. The first and most evolved being the head cheeze! Or God?
Thats why I believe in theistic evolution..however as someone who also believes in evolution I do not support the premise that evolution directly invokes a higher good or greater order or even greater intelligence...If we accept that evolution is nothing more then random mutation that you can conclude that some mutation is bad and some is good depending on the organisms enviorment...You could make a argument that a potatoe is more evolved then a human since it has twice the chromosomes....
so maybe more evolved means...not more intelligent more having a greater survivability rate...or at least more tools in ones genetic tool box...after all apotatoe cant get up and leave if the weather turns nasty or if germs come to attack..its cells must have to have the tools to duke it out from a stationary position. our cells collectively run and hide from bad weather or other threats. social memes like rumours reproduce and evolve based on survivabilty not logic or truth!
not that im saying you cant have some logic truth or higher intelligence that is more evolved or as I say (most survivable) God may just be that ultimate surviver/super intelligent being...the one that has evolved there first....of course it could be that we are here first but that would be statistically arugent given all the time, space, and matter that has come before us??
i think you are probably the most coherent creationist youtuber i've seen so far.
the thing is that there needs to be some time perspective when we consider what has been around for a long time. All of the worlds major religions have not been in existence for any significant period of time when compared to the age of man. just because it remains to today does not mean it will continue to do so.
for 'a long time' women were denied the right to vote, does this make it was good/beneficial?
"If humans ''evolved'' from apes, then how come there are still apes around today???"
Three question marks is superfluous.
Humans are still apes, there is little reason to take us out of that category just yet. Chimps and modern humans both evolved, at some point, from the same ancient ape. We took different paths and evolved into different creatures. And of course that ape we both came from is no longer around. Simple enough, ey?
Technically humans are not apes but rather Primates, moreover humans did not evolve from apes, both had an older ancestor. The dead ends make the whole endeavour a bit difficult to come to terms with, but to the best of my knowledge the above is the latest take.
gnosisandlight: Evolution is a slow process and the advent of major religions such as Christianity and Islam are a relatively new event. This is more a matter of social evolution and not biological evolution. Now if you talk about 100,000 years ago where their may have been some concept of God that would be advantageous for a time when no understanding of the natural world is present. Animals are not usually best suited for their environment. By the time they adapt there's new pressures.
We have plenty of things that were advantageous to us in the past, but now aren't. So where do scientists say that everything that WAS successful is the best?
If you read Dennet you would understand what he's arguing for and what he isn't. It's hard to explain it all in such short space.
But I can tell you the major point of most atheists is religion harbors irrationality in that "moderate" believers are giving shelter for the irrational beliefs of fundamentalists to flurish. People who don't push religion on society and don't try to resist science that goes against a literal teaching are usually not attacked directly.
The basis for this thought is probably in Cliffords writing "The Ethics of Belief" of which William James responds with "The Will to Believe."
Humans meet every categorical measure for what it means to be an ape. You can use whatever names you'd like. The bottom line is that there is nothing to differentiate us from chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, except for the marginally larger frontal lobes which create a level of cognitive control that has manifested significantly unique culture.
Mostly the difference we perceive is little more than the bias we have towards ourselves, which evolution has insisted on.
The man's name was Carl Linnaeus, the inventor of Linnaen taxonomy. He published several books of taxonomy during the seventeen hundreds. This is relevant only to show that the idea that humans are related to chimpanzees, gorillas, and other simians is far older than the Theory of Evolution.
If you want to call Linnaeus a creationist that's fine. I'm pretty sure he was a Lamarckian (evolutionist). Either way its a rather moot point.
And while Darwin may have been the first (or second) to put the idea of "natural selection" (as the force for evolutionary change) into writing, people had espoused the idea of evolution long before him. The idea had been tossed around in various forms centuries before Darwin.
And the categories only make sense in the light of evolution.
Linnaeus himself said that his system of classification was arbitrary and based only on convenience and physical similarities between organisms, not on relation. And it's seriously doubtful that he was a Lamarckian, given that he died in 1778, while Jean-Baptiste Lamarck didn't publish his theory of evolution until 1801. Linnaeus was a staunch creationist when he was younger, and there's no evidence to suggest a serious shift in his views later in life.
Interesting that you only responded to the most meaningless part of what I had to say.
But if you insist, I will reiterate. Evolution as an idea (especially Lamarckian evolution) existed LONG before popular theorerical publications on the subject.
And it doesn't matter one bit what Linneaus thought about categorization; the system we use hardly resembles the initial one he created. Not to mention that he did not have the mountain of evidence we do that reinforces that species are related.
Do apes meet every categorical measure for what it means to be human? Have they written novels? Built cities? Cry at movies? Honor dead apes with a moment of silence? Write poetry?
No. They eat each other and throw feces.
There is a great chasm of difference between humans and apes.
"Do apes meet every categorical measure for what it means to be human?"
Yes because humans do those things, and they are apes. Admittedly, there are some things that only humans do, but there are also things that just chimps do, that just gorillas do, that just orangutans do.
"No. They eat each other and throw feces."
Humans have been known to engage in such behavior as well. Some do little more than this on youtube.
There is a clear difference. Humans and apes don't have identical DNA and we have far better adapted brains. I would argue that we also have souls which separates apes and man. What kind of difference were you thinking? BTW I understand your difficulty here.
I'm completely neurtal to the arguement of evolotion vs creationism. If I had to choose, I would probably favour creationism only because of the way I was bought up.
I really wanted to hear the sides of both stories, but have trouble wrapping my head around a lot of the theories being presented in both arguements.
It's not like Clifford is the first one to come up with the idea that irrational beliefs are a danger to humanity as a whole even if they seem harmless in specific cases. But he seems to make a case worthy of William James to give a serious reply.
Yet, humans and chimps share 99% of the same DNA. And there is no such thing as "better adapted" full stop. Only in some context can you say whether or not something is a beneficial adaptation.
Aside from the trivial examples where it would be much more advantageous to have an orangutan's brain, think about the possibility of man sucking this planet's resources dry because of the brain that allowed him to survive all too well.
"If humans ''evolved'' from apes, then how come there are still apes around today???"
It is a constant evolutionary process, so once a group of apes evolves into a group of humans, there has been another group which has since evolved from monkeys to apes. It is a constant process.
Ok... let me get my head around this for a second... if there was an evolution process going on (apes, humans, whatever) then how the hell did these beings come to exist?? Surely that says something about the agruement behind creationism
That is the one thing that no one has yet been able to answer, similar to how no one can answer how the universe initially came into existence. It very well could be a supernatural force, but as of yet there is no proof.
C) What was once "beneficial" may remain in a species beyond the circumstances under which it was beneficial. Ex: I have an appendix because at one time it was beneficial.
If we are creatures that seek patterns in order to increase our ability to understand and predict, it would be most beneficial to develop belief constructs quickly and adjust "pattern belief" as information is acquired.
Therefore, a belief in something as amorphous as your diety would be particularly resilient.
I will try to make this more clear, but if not, oh well.
Human beings will deduce patterns and determine causality where there is none (e.g. "lucky underwear" or sun gods). Religion could just be the most elegant example of this, and it shouldn't be hard to see why that would be beneficial before science came to town. And Christianity, unlike a sun god, is very difficult to build an argument against. So while we do away with sun gods, we maintain the Christian god.
A) What is advantageous for the individual may not be advantageous for the species. In America, someone like Ted Haggart can become rich and famous while contributing significantly to the corrosion of the essence of the country.
B) Culture and behavior are not subject to a strict Darwinian explanation, which explains reproduction strategy (the example you chose for comparison) better than anything else, especially in a species with a significant cognitive contribution to culture and behavior.
Humans have remained pretty much genetically the same for a VERY long time. However, globalization and intermixing of cultures is very recent. Disagreement between different cultures with different religions causes tension, which often leads to violence (terrorism, the crusades, etc). Thus, theism may have been an evolutionary advantage thousands of years ago (belief in a higher power could provide hope and reason to endure suffering), but it may no longer be beneficial in our modern world.
Atheists of concience DON'T CARE! We don't care that others believe.
That isn't the corrossive effect.
What *IS* corrossive is passing laws that inhibit and prohibit the freedoms we all share as outlined in the US Constitution.
Atheists who admit they are get treated like traitors and lose their jobs. I could go on, but more than Atheists are hurt when Church controls State. Look at Muslim countries.
Atheism is growing by leaps and bounds (and I do not include New Age types).
The only reason that religion is called "obsolete" is because the world is comfortable right now and "the religion of self" has become prevalent. The moment something bad happens, people "turn back" to religion, and it will happen again. Even look IN the Bible (whether you accept it as truth or not) to see this happening over and over again with the Israelites. Anyone who thinks religion is going away is being foolish. Christianity growing like wildfire in African countries, etc.
I think that there are four reasons why religions still persists or even grows.
1: people tend to follow their parents beliefs, therefore religion is hard to get rid of
2: religion is dogmatic and doesnt tend to respond to things proving it wrong
3: religion gives people a sense of belonging or purpose
4: religion has been spread through violence often. Which means that if you were against them you could easily be killed, since if a bigger group fights against a smaller group, then yeah...
Anything that insists that something unproven must be believed is a cancer on society, and mankind in general. It prevents free thought and puts a damper on development.
The success and longevity of religion...I liken these factors to battered spouse syndrome. Married early on (humanity and religion) and while initially bissful and worthwhile, it quickly became a relationship of constant beatings, cajoling, verbal assault and domination through intimidation. Humanity had no one else to help it, so it had to stay in the relationship. Now that we have better options, we can safely end the relatonship and be much better for it. Yet the aggressor claims success.
Religion is like wisdom teeth, or the appendix, or the tailbone. It has been useful in the past, but we don't need it anymore. Religion filled in the gaps in our knowledge, so that we didn't need to freak out every time lightning struck.
But now we don't chew or digest much foliage, we don't have tails, and we know why lightning strikes. Religion is vestigial.
Also, an advantageous idea needn't be true: Belief that asphalt is evil will result in fewer children hit by cars...
simply having the greatest number of members does not mean it is advantages. i am going to assume you are familiar with ESS otherwise dont read on, let me know, and i will describe it, or you could look it up on your own. lets say you have a bird population and there are two types of birds in this popullation. there are type A's (shares resources) and type B's (fights for resources) now obviously if they were to share resources they would all be better off...
(continued) but if you have even one type B, it will have the advantage (for this simple model ignore the risk of injury from fighting) therefore B will increase in size.
i know it is much more complicated than this in real life, but for an example it is sufficient to show how a characteristic that is bad for the group as a whole can increase in number though evolution, not despite evolution
However as can be evidensed in social animals, the type b is often made an outcast. Removed from the group thereby that type would not be able to continue. But as you said real life is much more coplicated than that. I was just reminded of a group African wild dogs were one female horded resources and murdered the other females pups, she was ostrisized and killed by the other dogs in the end.
I think you are missing a vital aspect of the argument on the athiest side. Sam Harris and the likes are not arguing that religion has not had advantages in the past. What they are arguing is that in the modern world its becoming obsolete and even detrimental. Just because something is advantageous in the past does not mean it will continue to be for all time.
2 minutes into your video and I'm confident I know where you're going with it.Ok. Sure. Meme virus to create an army that crosses genetic 'borders' like family and tribe and nation. Ok. But , like the urge to reproduce without stopping and the urge to always have bigger and better weapons and the urge to make bigger and bigger cities, this advantage can become a dumb thing, a hindrance to human survival.
Religion is "successful" because it is forced upon people since birth, and growing religious majority? ATHEISM is growing the most and Christianity is declining by my research. Islam is growing somewhat in the Middle East at the moment because of certain other factors, and Paganism is the most growing RELIGION in America today. Besides, "popularity" is NOT synonimous with "correct."
"Religion is "successful" because it is forced upon people since birth"
Exactly. People are usually born into their religion, and they will fight for their particular "truth" believing it is "truth" simply because they were told it was.
How can you call that advantaged?
That one simple fact shows how silly people are for taking religion seriously.
If you were born thousands of years ago in another country, you would be worshiping Odin or Zeus and believing just as hard in that "truth".
Compare the religious behavior of Christian majorities from today to 100 years ago. Then compare today's Christians to those 500 years ago. Keep going backwards.
What will you find?
We are moving away from religion.
As the understanding of our world increases, we are shedding our ancient mysticisms. All but the most fanatical elements of society recognize these "modern" adaptations of their religion.
ChiTownPartii I accidentally erased your post so am reposting
I researched "In the beginning" - I found "Re'shiyth" = "Beginning." Hence, "In the" is IMPLIED! The Hebrew Bible actually says "Ba'Re'shiyth" - "In Beginning." It doesn't use t/Definite Article "THE." The stmt is INDEFINITE - "In A beginning," In THIS begining," In ONE OF MANY beginnings," "In the Beginning (of a story)." The ENGLISH TRANSLATION INSERTS t/Definite Article "THE" 2 FORCE the text 2 read a particular (INACCURATE) way.
As I understand the language definite articles are often implied and can therefore either fit in or not. But regardless neither translation effects my argument in the vid.
People don't realize that religion is negative therefore it survives. Also, the evolution of the religions mentioned have only been occurring for 6000 years. Compare this with the evolution of humans which has be occurring for millions of years.
Therefore it is likely that religion as we know it will die out eventually.
so on your question; yes it was necessary to invent religion..You see religions popping up everywhere throughout the last 5000 to 7000 years! We as a human species didn`t know anything about our place in the universe and where we came from we wanted answers..The explanation about a god was the perfect answer to ANY question... SO while religion has been helpfull in some aspects it is far less helpfull in our times because our understanding has grown beyond the silly stories of religion..
`religion`it has been with us from the beginning` that`s an ENORMOUS lie... and i get tired of it... Even the vatican accepts evolution! Evolution is proven.. religion came to be; only a few thousand years ago..(we began walking upright about 6 MILLION years ago)!! Throughout recent history there is SO much war desease and destruction people didn`t have a choice and they didn`t NO much about know anybetter.. `If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him` Voltaire (1694-1778)
However, this does not mean that religion is better in terms of morality. Good is a relative term which can be used in a variety of different contexts. One is reminded of the old axiom from a certain unnamed dystopia: "Ignorance is Strength."
Yes, religion is advantaged from an evolutionary standpoint. It is successful because of its ability to give people hope, and to unite them in a community.
Ahhhraa! I did it again Sum sorry! I erased one of your comments. I will reply anyhow. They really need to find a word without an "r" to erase, it is too close to "reply". First a decade of studying cultures of bacteria in a petri dish (something that equates to thousands of generations for bacteria) and the evolutionary capacity has been fairly lack luster. Much as discussed before, oscillation in a general mean. Nothing close to speciation.
In regards to what a secular society is tantamount to, your argument is that it is one that religion doesn't effect science and politics regardless of the make up of that society? Can you name any secular society then? There is no place on earth where religion has no power whatsoever over policy. Even in a secular place like Sweden the growing problem of Islam forces the hand of Government. Moreover the term society indicates the people who comprise it yes? Their views have to be considered.
i guess religion always effects politics at some level. the important thing that defines a secular society is one where religion doesnt inhibit the information flow; as it is prone to doing when it has the power.
I hear your point here but I don't think that it is a question of religion v secularism. I think that you would agree that anything obstructing information flow would be bad for growth. You can't really just assert an information dam as non secular, or a clear path as secular. That which obstructs, obstructs regardless of spiritual persuasion.
i really think that any kind of 'US vs THEM' mentality is detrimental to society. unfortunately, when people think they have some sort of 'truth', that cannot be avoided.
i will simply remake my point. claiming that religion benifits individuals; based on the fact that most people are religious; then concluding that religion benifits individuals, is circular logic; and proves nothing outside the fact that most people are religious. my question was: how does religion promote progress and benefit humanity?
I understand your point here as well but you are not understanding mine I think, and that is probably my fault. I am not asserting that religion benefits its adherents because most people are religious. What I am saying here is two fold. First Religion itself is benefited because it always flourishes. But this, as you pointed out, doesn't mean that religion is good to its adherents. There is no circular logic to this first point. On to the next.
Secondly I will maintain that religion doesn't harm its adherents as does a disease, but it aids them. I use as proof the fact that those who are spiritual reproduce more than those who aren't. The point here is that religion isn't passed on like a genetic trait and being born Christian Muslim doesn't mean that you will remain so. Therefore my assertions are not circular because the spiritual condition of the offspring are of no significance to the argument. and off to the last....
Ok so there is nothing circular about saying that religion is advantaged and then showing how it advantages its adherents those are 2 different arguments. Religion does everything from create legal systems, to fund schools, teach moral lessons, and something you will disagree with fundamentally, theology as well as philosophy ground science. Any reasonable person can think of an enormous mountain of ways that religion progress and benefit people. Art, Poetry, charity.......
ok i guess that clarifies your point of view. it is understandable that many people have a high regard for religion. religion does claim credit where it is not due. i base this claim on the fact that legal systems, morality, education, philosophy, art, poetry, all pre-date organized religion (there is much evidence for this) and all of these systems function perfectly well without it. i do concede to your point that there is a sound reason for the success of religion.
The point isn't that we wouldn't have poetry or other things without religion but that religion has made enormous contributions to those things. A world without Dante or Micheal Angelo would be impoverished when compared to one with them. BTW total dude here.
Atheists don't kill the people that disagree with them.
The Bible and the Qur'an both instruct you to kill infidels, not just Atheists, but also people with a different faith.
Most wars are inspired by religions.
I call that "toxic".
The point is missed here about how evolution disproves the delusion of theism.
Evolution disproves the book of Genesis.
There was no Adam and Eve, Talking Snake or Original Sin.
There never was a Fall From Grace.
Jesus had no sin to pay for on the cross.
Science won
legion1a 3 months ago
fair point, but it does not make religion true. Religion may have been the glue that kept societies together in good and bad times which helped us proposer, but it does not make it true.
MrBoingts 5 months ago
The simple answer to your question is this. Evolution is related to biological traits, not social traits. Slavery has been around since the beginning of humanity, but few would say that it is culturally or morally advantageous. Men of status wore powdered wigs for about 300 years in Europe, I can see no way that help[ed them spread their genes.
Religion is a social phenomena, and therefore is outside the realm of evolution.
colmeweb 6 months ago
Oh. I thought this would be an argument against Intelligent Design theory, not against atheistic evolution. Both are incorrect, and religion is not only true but necessary. I agree with you.
There is more to life than Darwin, Freud, Smith, and Marx, people.
GenghisKhan44 8 months ago
Short answer to your question. Things do not succeed because their are advantageous. Being advantageous only gives a particular trait a more likely chance of being passed down. Also, an emotional response such as love can be a result of that emotion lending survivability to a child. Something like religion or spiritual belief is not an evolutionary trait, it is a group dynamic. The biochemical processes that lead to the desire to latch onto religion, however, could be from an evolutionary cause.
foobee2 8 months ago
I always wonder why people presume God can only exist if he's good. One might at a push argue the bible's claim of a loving God false, but the idea that only a loving God could have made us and that evil is an argument for atheism is ridiculous.
sunshineuklondon1965 8 months ago
the most religious countries have the highest rates for ALL crimes.
QUESTION, why are you talking about advantages of religion or evolution and comparing evolution to religion as similar subjects? you do know that they are not connected that way right?
there are MANY MANY Theists who accept evolution, because its proven, there's atheists who cant decide if evolution is true or if there's other explanations. religion and evolution are totally SEPARATE subjects! your arguments are nonsensical
theUKatheist 8 months ago
athiesm is growing throughout the population of humans, thus we are evolving to beings of logic
hiks45 8 months ago
Not every adaptation succeeds on its own merits, some changes stay with us as a byproduct of the advantages of other evolved traits. We've seen this in domesticated fox populations. If we breed foxes based purely on how docile they are in the company of humans we also see a lighting of the coat and less coarse hair though these traits were not selected for. The part of our brain that creates/holds ideas about 'god' are likely a byproduct of being able to recall the past and imagine the future.
Nonefrog 8 months ago
atheists just wait til something horrific happens in your lives. its inevitable that it will happen to some of you. at that time, your puny human logic wont have the ability to perceive any possible hope in such an event. you'll most likely end yourself in an attempt to get away from the unpleasantness of life. apart from preserving society as a whole, religion also gives one hope, hope you may never experience. its a choice to believe in a god since it can never be fully disproved
nadskofhqwak 9 months ago
@nadskofhqwak so god causes horrific things to happen to people so that they will discover him and be less depressed?
where is the logic in that
hiks45 8 months ago
@hiks45 im saying god is there to fill in the whole left by horrific happenings. note i never said he exists, yet most humans are not yet clairvoyant enough to get through said happenings i.e. seing a resolution in their conflicts. you will notice most firm believers in religion gained faith through something unfortunate happening to them. also people do evil shit unless they are fearful of retribution.
nadskofhqwak 8 months ago
Now im sure you wont argue that rape is a good thing, even though it is still with us and has been before religion, ofcourse it is arguable if it applies to the earlier forms of mankind etc.
The point is just because people are stupid, just because people buy into this, just because we are scared of death (most are), and we then buy this complete bullshit that goes directly against our logical thinking, doesn't mean it is positive at all, and in our society religion is a huge disadvantage.
Dimajo 9 months ago
Wrong. The fastest growing group at the moment is atheism, So the popularity of theism is declining. And just because it has succeeded for such a long time doesn't make a sound argument for it not being a poison, or something negative.
Rape is also a evolutionairy survival technique which some still practice..... It is a great advantage since you can have many mates and many possibilites for reproduction without having to be the alpha male or get into any other form of seduction.
Dimajo 9 months ago
this video = shit
"advatage", lol
naidelchemie 10 months ago
@XbatfroX "Plus religion just causes hate" and love :)
kbawesome101 11 months ago
Atheism, materialism and evolution are 3 separate things. Also you don't understand what, how and in what circumstances a trait can be adventageus during evolution.
You also mistaken about religion "growing" - it is actually pushed back.
gagnashdiak 11 months ago
Religion uses terror to keep its members. i.e. the penalty for straying away from the muslim faith is death. if you do not accept jesus as your savior you will burn in hell or be "left behind" during the rapture. scientology uses confession recordings, family and social leverage to keep their members. This is why religion still strives today. side effect includes hate war ignorance. evolution takes long time (more then years of Christianity). hopefully in the future religion will be less common
hawkister 11 months ago
You forgot to mention that religion is total bat shit too.
Futureplanet 1 year ago
I don't think most Atheists would argue that religion didn't have some evolutionary advantage to hold tribes together in man's past. Just like our drive to eat sweet things made ancient man seek out foods high in energy. Now that same drive is a disadvantage and makes us overweight. In the same way religion once helped primitive man, but now hurts our society.
sjh7132 1 year ago 9
So since so many people believe, they must be right? Nice attempt at trying to sound intelligent or reasonable, but no.
jle201 1 year ago
The destructive nature of religion is not personal nor strictly current, but future-orientated, in that they stunt the potential for human knowledge as a whole. Religion is instinctual, and even though it may have served some purposes in archaic societies, we need to out grow it now. It continues to help some people in the areas of comfort, morality, and peace of mind, and that is why it is so persistent a disease. Magical thinking is natural and enjoyable, but you prioritize it above truth.
thefrozenmercury 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheGreatLineDefined 1 year ago
You must not be familiar with any of Dawkins's or Dennett's work, or you would know *precisely* what their answer to this question is. Richard Dawkins came up with his "theory of memetics" in The Selfish Gene, and Dennett, in my opinion, champions the concept in Breaking the Spell. I kid you not - the majority of Breaking the Spell focuses on this *exact* question and explains it thoroughly from all angles. Do some research on memetics or read the books. You won't be disappointed :)
StrayDawgg29 1 year ago
Religion is evolutionarily advantaged in the same way the common cold is advantaged.
Phage0070 1 year ago
Simply stating the lie that there is supposedly no evidence does not magically make it so.
The reason why more than 98% of the world's human population accepts Theism as scientific fact is because there are mountains of evidence in support of Theism, and there is absolutely none in support of atheist dogma.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
We need to address your misconception of the idea that all atheists believe in Evolution, The Big Bang, Abiogenesis etc. That is not the definition of an atheist. The term simply defines someone who has a lack of faith in the supernatural realm. What they decide to do with that lack of faith is up to them.
PainInTheAssInternet 1 year ago
@Purushadasa You seem to have this mountainous pile of hidden evidence. Please do share. It's remarkable how you say that theism is scientific fact. There's not a shred of evidence for the divine or supernatural in the scientific community. Obviously we can't prove there's not a God, but that would be because it's impossible to disprove a negative. However, there is vast research based evidence showing how we arrived through evolution, the creation of earth etc. Evidence before claim my friend.
guitardave100 1 year ago
i wish more people were like u my good friend :).. this is something i can sit down, and just pay attention to, to keep my feeble mind busy, and for that, i thank you :)
aapch1 1 year ago
I know this one, when things were tough in the past, the use of a comforting lie was what kept us from depression. But we've reached an age where we can objectively look at the world with a positive out look
electorg 1 year ago
Religion can be an andvantage to a group. Blind belief in some god or other binds a group together. If this group would care enough about this that they want to eradicate other groups their group prospers. I'm not saying this is the case but it's one possibility.
And as blaiser11 said: the fact that it's an advantage to your group does not tell you anything about whether it's true. It might be an advantage to believe it's moral to rape people, that does not make it right per se.
Drecon84 1 year ago
The Thing is evolution does not mean we evolved from monkey's its just another word for adapting like an animal adapting to its enviroment but evolution gives more advantages for it. For example all the breads of dogs came from a handful of domesticated wild dogs. Same for us, us and the monkeys were once one type of living creature that was split up into 2 differents species. This will continues to happen with every living thing. Plus religion causes nothing but hate
XbatfroX 1 year ago
Theism has always been in the vast majority, it is now, and it always will be. Theism shows no signs of weakening -- to the contrary -- it is getting stronger and stronger with every passing day.
Nobody believes the atheist, and he is in the extreme minuscule minority worldwide. Nobody believes him because there is absolutely no evidence for atheist dogma.
For more information, see my video, "The World Rejects atheist Dogma."
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The only thing that's really taken on faith in this issue is atheist dogma, not Theism, and that is because there is absolutely no evidence in favor of atheist dogma.
Conversely, God has personally revealed an enormous amount of scientific evidence in favor of Theism, and that is why ALL human beings of normal IQ or higher (98%) accept Theism as scientific fact.
For more information, see my video, "The atheist: Why Such Extreme Minority?"
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa "Atheism dogma"? No such thing exist. Atheism is just lack of faith in supernatural gods. If there is real scientific evidence for god, show them, let us test them and repeat them. If they are falsifiable but still not falsified the case is clost. But then it would be no need for faith, just acceptance for a scientific theory of god. And then god is a part of the naturalistic world, and we win anyhow.
andvil01 1 year ago
There is plenty of scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities, and that is why the vast majority of human beings on the planet accept Theism as scientific fact and reject atheist dogma as utter nonsense.
The lower animal and the atheist lack the intelligence to comprehend the evidence, but ALL human beings of normal intelligence or higher understand it quite easily.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa There is no evidence for God's so-called "factual" appearance and activities. Perhaps there was a Jesus as there is archaelogical evidence to prove his existence, perhaps there was a prophet Muhammed as there is also evidence for his existence, but there is NO physical/factual evidence that there is a god. God still has yet to be proven or disproved. Do not spout lies.
Mystrymeat 1 year ago
State the evidence please.
PainInTheAssInternet 1 year ago
The reason why the vast majority of human beings on the planet accept Theism as scientific fact is that there is ample, solid, scientific evidence in its favor, and absolutely no evidence in favor of atheist dogma.
Also, just like the lower animal, the atheist lacks the IQ to grasp the evidence, but that is his shortcoming, not God's.
Don't try to twist my words, I'm warning you -- I wrote plainly, and attempts at twisting into a straw-man are guaranteed to fail.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa No! There ISN'T "scientific evidence" in it's favour! There IS no empirical evidence, that's the issue! That's why those of us that CHOOSE not to believe in a god/God/gods cannot bring ourselves to believe in what is essentially bronze aged religious dogma!
If you're going to be grossly offensive towards atheists, I would counter your argument by stating that it requires FAR MORE effort and understanding to grasp scientific principles than just taking things on faith.
Jude2Mahoney 1 year ago
@Purushadasa To me, "taking things on faith" is an enormous cop out. You and your religious adherents are ultimately too weak willed to accept that we're all alone in an enormous universe, that death is the final door and that you exist here at all, because you can. You're so self deluded that you cannot see past your own religion. I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to question those views and realise that they are in fact, total and utter nonsense.
Jude2Mahoney 1 year ago
@Purushadasa Furthermore, mark my words, this species is in a transitional stage of leaving behind those bronze aged dogmas, into an age of true enlightment, not clouded by superstitions or religious mumbo-jumbo. If people choose to believe in some god or other, that's their choice, when they start ramming it down mine and others throats, we'll get pissed off. I don't recall I had atheists knocking at my door asking to talk to me about god/God/gods.
Jude2Mahoney 1 year ago
Religion and superstition are proto-science. They are the earliest expressions of our analytical and abstract thinking. They represent our first baby steps towards understanding the universe by trying to see the rules by which it operates. Sometimes they have made genuine advancements and spawned real scientific disciplines. Mostly they hit dead ends. But they did keep the fires of curiosity alive.
.
But now we no longer need superstition. Superstition is a barrier to knowledge, not a conduit.
Noisegator 1 year ago
Viruses are one of the most successful replicating entities on the planet, as well as one of the most diverse. Every species on the planet has viruses specialized for using them as hosts. Being successful from an evolutionary stand point isn't the same thing as being beneficial. The comparison between religion and viruses is not perfect as religion only causes its hosts to explode in rare cases.
Olucatei 1 year ago
'Adherence' ...interesting word.
Faith... adherence. Control.
And the masses follow blindly.
Sends shivers down my spine.
OneWorldHistory 1 year ago
Advantage to theism: blissful ignorance
freethinker923 1 year ago
Religions is also entities (memes) in them selfs governed by a similar evolutionary process as our genes. Religions transforms as the enviroment (our culture) changes. The god that once where in heaven moved quickly in to a more mystical realm as soon as we invented aeroplanes and space ships.
Faidros62 1 year ago
Religion has been a biproduct of our search for how things works. The evolution of religion has gone from anemism to polytheism to monotheism to....atheism. In a cultural perspective the historical success of religion and the current move towards atheism is not a contradiction. It´s the logical development as fear gives way for understanding.
Faidros62 1 year ago
WHY!! Are we actually discussing whether religion is evolutionarily advantageous or not? This has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection. Religion is not advantageous to a society, that doesn't mean the society cannot survive! Evolution is advantages that help a population survive. RELIGION does not effect that at all. This is so stupid! Go ahead and argue that religion may or may not be advantageous to a person, that has nothing to do with evolution.
igotsachubby 1 year ago
I think religions are a perfectly normal, emotionally helpful/healthy human creation. I believe that without some philosophy or religion, most people would probably go mad. Religions and philosophies are obviously necessary for the mental survival of a lot of people and there's nothing wrong with that. If the evolutionary "goal" is survival, then religions probably do more good then bad in that category.
adean2 1 year ago
Why do people say a "materialistic framework" like it's limiting...that's like asking: "Oh, so you only believe in reality?" lol. The natural realm (which is, perhaps, the only realm) is all we're aware of--why come to any conclusion about anything "beyond" it? Presumably "supernatural" things could literally be anything and nothing all at the same time...the concept "supernatural" just doesn't mean anything in the natural realm, so why have an opinion about it?
adean2 1 year ago
I must say that this is one of the better pro-creationist arguements I have heard so far. But still. You can't claim something is the ultimate theory beacause it has been around the longest. People thought the earth was the center of the universe for thousands of years but that doesn't make it true. Whatever anyone says, the thruth is not democratic. Science might not have all the big answers but the fact that we are able to watch this video is one HUGE plus for the scientific method.
Birkirrey 1 year ago
Even if you make the argument that religion has advantages, in no way does that mean that religion is true. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." It is very true that religion can be advantageous, but I think that is a trivial point and no one really cares about it. What should be questioned is whether or not religion is true or false.
Seeking the truth is much better than coming up with reasons on why being delusional is useful.
blaiser11 2 years ago 8
perhaps that is what it's all about: "how is being delusional about the existence of an afterlife useful to generations?" I think I have part of the answer but I will start by saying that religious beliefs are of course not passed to the next generation through genes. Perhaps the desire to look for a purpose, or better, d necessity of "social animals" such as humans to conform to group behavior . This because in primal societies if you do not conform, u're cast out of d group, n alone u'll die.
gattonero583 1 year ago
Comment removed
kcarnivore 2 years ago
This video is terribly complicated and convoluted. I probably agree with it but don't know why.
But simply put, if theism was not effective it would have fallen to the wayside long ago, so its evolutionarily usefull.
That should seem obvious even to an atheist.
However common sense is God given, deny the source and we lose the fruits of the tree we denied.
jonesgerard 2 years ago
Who stopped stem cell research?
Religion is with us, so is VD. All part of evolution which doesn't care if something is good or bad.
Where would mankind be with no religion or just one religion......better off.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I'm going to have to shut down for a moment here. This has been a great discussion so far! Unfortunately it's something I typically do along side my work while I'm.. well, at work. And it's about time for me to head out soon. You're a smart guy. I look forward to further encounters. Feel free to continue replying, you can most certainly expect that I'll read them when I get home, even if I don't immediately reply.
psychosavant 2 years ago
You as well. I love to talk with people like you. You sound like reasonable and smart guy (or gal I don't know). Have a good one.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Let's not forget that the world doesn't have to be dependent on one single thing. Democracy, a flawed but important part of our lives, is only required for our nation to exist as it is. It is not a requirement for the advancement of society. Government, maybe, but just because something is a part of what allows our civilization to exist, doesn't mean that other things cannot accompany that requirement, such as the gain of knowledge.
psychosavant 2 years ago
I agree with you 100% here.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I think it's clear that religion does not confer explicit advantages itself. There is nothing explicit that religion gives us that we cannot gain with other social tendencies. We are, after all, the only species on the planet with this religion problem, and other species do just fine without it. The problem with religion isn't an evolutionary one or a hinderance of biological advancement. It's a technological hinderance.
psychosavant 2 years ago
Our societiy's advancement depends on the gain of knowledge. Knowledge cannot be gained if we believe that those gaps in our knowledge are already filled. Be that as it may, it's in our best interest to gain knowledge by searching for it rather than preventing its gain with faith in false knowledge. So faith of this religious kind is destructive in every way. While it doesn't hinder us biologically, it destroys progress at a scientific and technological level.
psychosavant 2 years ago
"Our societiy's advancement depends on the gain of knowledge." Wrong. The attainment of knowledge on its own advances nothing beyond the knowledge itself. Technology and advancement depend on the creative/philosophical application of said knowledge. You make the same logical mistake that so many seculars do by starting with the obviously false premise that technology is hindered by immaterial beliefs. Please see my video entitled "the trifecta of human advancement"
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
If advancement is dependent upon the creative use of knowledge, and the gain of such knowledge is dependent on not having false knowledge, wouldn't that suggest a ramping dependency? In order for us to further ourselves, we need higher technology than what we have, which requires more knowledge, which requires us not to base our advancement on false knowledge. While creativity and philosophy allows that advancement, religion is not a prerequisite, and is in fact a hinderance.
psychosavant 2 years ago
Not at all. Firstly you seem to have an altogether unhealthy like of question begging here. You say that religion is tantamount to false knowledge with out ever having presented an argument to substantiate it. In fact I don't think that you can. Moreover, technology is not a prerequisite for advancement. The advent of democracy was not at all tethered to technology was it?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
In addition you are conflating knowledge and materialism. You seem to think that knowledge always comes down to material observation. It doesn't. Can you think of an example of non-scientific "knowledge"? How about the recognition of design patterns in software?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I do not think knowledge always come down to material observation. It does come 'first' from material observation however. Followed by inference and experience. Recognition of design in patterns in software could only come about by our prior experience of material observation of similar software.
psychosavant 2 years ago
I disagree, logic can be independent of material observation. One needn't have 4 stones in front of him to deduce that 2 + 2 is 4 yes? There are such things as mental exercises. Writers utilize said skill regularly. In other words Lewis Carrol didn't need to associate a jabberwocky with any existential thing to have summoned it up.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
This is not begging the question at all since the original question was not whether or not religion is truth, but whether or not it's dangerous to society. Or at least I believe it was, unless my memory failed me here, which I wouldn't be suprised. Given the context of the original question, the ability for religion to find the truth, since it is the establishment of a faith prior to and regardless of found knowledge, is a hinderance to the persuit of actual knowledge.
psychosavant 2 years ago
It is question begging. Pretend with me that religion is true knowledge. How would your above argument have worked? It wouldn't. It depends on religion as being false. You have not even begun to substantiate that.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Tethered, no. But technology is absolutely necessary for democracy at the scale that we practice today. It didn't perhaps use to be, back when such a thing was irrelevant. But now our population is large enough to where effective communication cannot occur without something even as simple as the invention of paper. Of course technology helps beyond that, but this is definately a good start. As our civilization grows, so too must the technology that supports it.
psychosavant 2 years ago
The point is (and I think that you are now acknowledging it) that advancement is not inexorably tied to the knowledge that you attached it to. In other words your assertion that religion is a hindrance to advancement because it cannot gain knowledge is logically flawed because there can be advancement without said knowledge.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I just watched you're video. You make statements that hold weight but in no way did you show that knowledge is not a preqrequisite to advancement. However, I agree with much of what you said even if I think you're missing a few points. But I don't think those points are relevant to the discussion.
psychosavant 2 years ago
In fact, it wasn't until we developed a true secular society a few hundred years ago that we were able to make vast leaps in our technological capabilities. I'd personally propose that secularism is a kind of compromise between a religious society and an atheistic one. If we went completely atheistic and removed religion altogether, who knows how fast we'd advance. What if we developed a secular society 1000 years ago? Where would we be today?
psychosavant 2 years ago
"There is nothing explicit that religion gives us that we cannot gain with other social tendencies"
Strange that if this is the case so few have replaced religion with one of those other things. A bold statement which is little more than proclamation on your part.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I'll acknowledge that you make a good case here. I should rephrase my statement to say that there is nothing that I recognize that we gain from religion that could not be gained through other efforts. This would perhaps make my statement appear bold from the right perspective.
psychosavant 2 years ago
"We are, after all, the only species on the planet with this religion problem" Really? I would love to see you substantiate that. How does one go about proving that a creature we cannot communicate with does not posses some set of beliefs?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Beliefs != religion.
psychosavant 2 years ago
Ok then replace the phrase "set of beliefs" with the word religion in my above response, and the question remains. BTW a set of beliefs is central to a religion yes? Are you saying that you don't recognize a liturgy among animals?
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I don't see any animals practicing religion. Not that I commune with animals mind you. However, I think there is a a threshold of common sense we have to partake in when questioning animal societal behavior. Animals do not hold onto tradition for the sake of appeasing a set of beliefs, and if they did, their advancement is not dependent on the gain of knowledge that could potentially be limited by beliefs as basic as theirs. Not that I've seen such beliefs in species to be demonstrable.
psychosavant 2 years ago
there is a a threshold of common sense we have to partake in when questioning animal societal behavior Agreed. But that is not what you are doing here. You are making unsubstantiated claims in order to argue against a third party.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
Would you permit that I am only presenting a point of view based on my experience and opinion here? And that if you have an opposing position that you would be willing to present a reason for that rather than simply attacking mine? Simply saying "your opinion sucks" is not an argument.
psychosavant 2 years ago
In the end we really only have our experiences and opinions I think. But I have to say that I presented an argument in the video, and you responded to it. I am only responding to your response. I can't help but argue to your argument.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
in 2010 ppl still believe in theory's!
ALGfunk 2 years ago
Religion can help fill the void that we all feel that we are separate other people. If you watch/read Fight Club it delves into this topic a lot deeper than i can here, but essentially religion can give us that social satisfaction that most of us need. oh and just because something has been with us for a long time doesnt mean its not harmful to us. for example, we have had an appendix for millions of years, but it does not provide any benefit to us and in fact can be very toxic/poisonious.
eronni 2 years ago
Alright, after giving it a great deal of thought, I've found the flaw in the argument presented by this video:
Evolution doesn't select for across the board improvements. The only thing evolution selects for is reproduction- if you're capable of having babies and keeping them alive long enough to take care of themselves without you, evolution won't do anything further.
Now, I've got two basic premises to cover:
Macrochenia 2 years ago
One: there isn't a "religion" gene.
There isn't a gene that causes us to grow up with a belief in Yahweh, Shiva, or Apollo. Instead, religion is really based off of two basic elements that are selected by evolution: staying in a group, and obeying your parents.
Religion, is, at its heart, all about maintaining a group identity. Having a strongly bonded social group has, for a very long time been an important thing for humans.
continued
Macrochenia 2 years ago
Staying in a group gave a strong advantage over being solitary when it came to food gathering and protection from predators. Therefore, being social was an advantage that evolution selected for.
Second trait: learning from one's parents. This is another important trait. Most people learn by listening and watching their parents. This is also true in apes. Listening to your parents means for a prehistoric human that you didn't eat a poisonous bug and die, and stayed away from snakes. cont-
Macrochenia 2 years ago
Most people learn their religion from their parents (or whoever raises them). If your parents were strongly Roman Catholic, you're more likely to be a Roman Catholic. However, if you were adopted by a Zen Buddhist as a baby, you'd be more likely to be a Zen Buddhist.
Following ones parents was an important survival trait, and was therefore maintained by evolution.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
Second Point: if it was good in the past, it doesn't mean that it's good today.
Humans have a lot of traits we've inherited, but not all of them are good.
For example, we've got a strong preference for sweet or fatty foods. Thousands of years ago, this was important because food was often hard to come by, and making sure our diet was as calorie rich as possible was important. Today, it gives us heard disease and diabetes. The trait is no longer good, but it's still there.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
So, religion derives its origin from two separate traits combining, and while it may have been useful to inspire people to fight against rival tribes in the Stone Age, those things do not necessarily remain good for us here in the 21st century. I hope this answers your question satisfactorally.
Danged 500 character count makes it hard to write. Please scroll down to the lowest post in this sequence first.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
God by definition is a being that is of a vastly superior intelligence, is for all practical purposes immortal, and has absolute power....I think thats a fair discription. If it is a given that we exist...and have evolved our own level of intelligence and power over matter and we our selfs evolved from this universe then isnt the template of empirical evidence set for much greater evolved entities that fit our present definition of god. The first and most evolved being the head cheeze! Or God?
DK0526 2 years ago
Thats why I believe in theistic evolution..however as someone who also believes in evolution I do not support the premise that evolution directly invokes a higher good or greater order or even greater intelligence...If we accept that evolution is nothing more then random mutation that you can conclude that some mutation is bad and some is good depending on the organisms enviorment...You could make a argument that a potatoe is more evolved then a human since it has twice the chromosomes....
DK0526 2 years ago
so maybe more evolved means...not more intelligent more having a greater survivability rate...or at least more tools in ones genetic tool box...after all apotatoe cant get up and leave if the weather turns nasty or if germs come to attack..its cells must have to have the tools to duke it out from a stationary position. our cells collectively run and hide from bad weather or other threats. social memes like rumours reproduce and evolve based on survivabilty not logic or truth!
DK0526 2 years ago
not that im saying you cant have some logic truth or higher intelligence that is more evolved or as I say (most survivable) God may just be that ultimate surviver/super intelligent being...the one that has evolved there first....of course it could be that we are here first but that would be statistically arugent given all the time, space, and matter that has come before us??
DK0526 2 years ago
arrogant...misspell
DK0526 2 years ago
i think you are probably the most coherent creationist youtuber i've seen so far.
the thing is that there needs to be some time perspective when we consider what has been around for a long time. All of the worlds major religions have not been in existence for any significant period of time when compared to the age of man. just because it remains to today does not mean it will continue to do so.
for 'a long time' women were denied the right to vote, does this make it was good/beneficial?
lostinaspoonofpeas 2 years ago
If humans ''evolved'' from apes, then how come there are still apes around today???
JaydeHadfield 2 years ago
"If humans ''evolved'' from apes, then how come there are still apes around today???"
Three question marks is superfluous.
Humans are still apes, there is little reason to take us out of that category just yet. Chimps and modern humans both evolved, at some point, from the same ancient ape. We took different paths and evolved into different creatures. And of course that ape we both came from is no longer around. Simple enough, ey?
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Technically humans are not apes but rather Primates, moreover humans did not evolve from apes, both had an older ancestor. The dead ends make the whole endeavour a bit difficult to come to terms with, but to the best of my knowledge the above is the latest take.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
gnosisandlight: Evolution is a slow process and the advent of major religions such as Christianity and Islam are a relatively new event. This is more a matter of social evolution and not biological evolution. Now if you talk about 100,000 years ago where their may have been some concept of God that would be advantageous for a time when no understanding of the natural world is present. Animals are not usually best suited for their environment. By the time they adapt there's new pressures.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
We have plenty of things that were advantageous to us in the past, but now aren't. So where do scientists say that everything that WAS successful is the best?
If you read Dennet you would understand what he's arguing for and what he isn't. It's hard to explain it all in such short space.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
But I can tell you the major point of most atheists is religion harbors irrationality in that "moderate" believers are giving shelter for the irrational beliefs of fundamentalists to flurish. People who don't push religion on society and don't try to resist science that goes against a literal teaching are usually not attacked directly.
The basis for this thought is probably in Cliffords writing "The Ethics of Belief" of which William James responds with "The Will to Believe."
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
Humans meet every categorical measure for what it means to be an ape. You can use whatever names you'd like. The bottom line is that there is nothing to differentiate us from chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, except for the marginally larger frontal lobes which create a level of cognitive control that has manifested significantly unique culture.
Mostly the difference we perceive is little more than the bias we have towards ourselves, which evolution has insisted on.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Humans were first identified as apes by creationists over a century before Charles Darwin proposed the idea of evolution through natural selection.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
"Humans were first identified as apes by creationists over a century before Charles Darwin proposed the idea of evolution through natural selection."
Feel free to back that up with some evidence, or explain to me what the significance of that would be if true.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
The man's name was Carl Linnaeus, the inventor of Linnaen taxonomy. He published several books of taxonomy during the seventeen hundreds. This is relevant only to show that the idea that humans are related to chimpanzees, gorillas, and other simians is far older than the Theory of Evolution.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
If you want to call Linnaeus a creationist that's fine. I'm pretty sure he was a Lamarckian (evolutionist). Either way its a rather moot point.
And while Darwin may have been the first (or second) to put the idea of "natural selection" (as the force for evolutionary change) into writing, people had espoused the idea of evolution long before him. The idea had been tossed around in various forms centuries before Darwin.
And the categories only make sense in the light of evolution.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Linnaeus himself said that his system of classification was arbitrary and based only on convenience and physical similarities between organisms, not on relation. And it's seriously doubtful that he was a Lamarckian, given that he died in 1778, while Jean-Baptiste Lamarck didn't publish his theory of evolution until 1801. Linnaeus was a staunch creationist when he was younger, and there's no evidence to suggest a serious shift in his views later in life.
Macrochenia 2 years ago
Interesting that you only responded to the most meaningless part of what I had to say.
But if you insist, I will reiterate. Evolution as an idea (especially Lamarckian evolution) existed LONG before popular theorerical publications on the subject.
And it doesn't matter one bit what Linneaus thought about categorization; the system we use hardly resembles the initial one he created. Not to mention that he did not have the mountain of evidence we do that reinforces that species are related.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Do apes meet every categorical measure for what it means to be human? Have they written novels? Built cities? Cry at movies? Honor dead apes with a moment of silence? Write poetry?
No. They eat each other and throw feces.
There is a great chasm of difference between humans and apes.
del4830 2 years ago
"Do apes meet every categorical measure for what it means to be human?"
Yes because humans do those things, and they are apes. Admittedly, there are some things that only humans do, but there are also things that just chimps do, that just gorillas do, that just orangutans do.
"No. They eat each other and throw feces."
Humans have been known to engage in such behavior as well. Some do little more than this on youtube.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
Well ok. But I thought there would have been a clear difference between humans and apes.
JaydeHadfield 2 years ago
There is a clear difference. Humans and apes don't have identical DNA and we have far better adapted brains. I would argue that we also have souls which separates apes and man. What kind of difference were you thinking? BTW I understand your difficulty here.
gnosisandlight 2 years ago
I'm completely neurtal to the arguement of evolotion vs creationism. If I had to choose, I would probably favour creationism only because of the way I was bought up.
I really wanted to hear the sides of both stories, but have trouble wrapping my head around a lot of the theories being presented in both arguements.
JaydeHadfield 2 years ago
It's not like Clifford is the first one to come up with the idea that irrational beliefs are a danger to humanity as a whole even if they seem harmless in specific cases. But he seems to make a case worthy of William James to give a serious reply.
LotusGreenX 2 years ago
"Humans and apes don't have identical DNA"
Yet, humans and chimps share 99% of the same DNA. And there is no such thing as "better adapted" full stop. Only in some context can you say whether or not something is a beneficial adaptation.
Aside from the trivial examples where it would be much more advantageous to have an orangutan's brain, think about the possibility of man sucking this planet's resources dry because of the brain that allowed him to survive all too well.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
"If humans ''evolved'' from apes, then how come there are still apes around today???"
It is a constant evolutionary process, so once a group of apes evolves into a group of humans, there has been another group which has since evolved from monkeys to apes. It is a constant process.
MikeCampochiaro2 2 years ago
Ok... let me get my head around this for a second... if there was an evolution process going on (apes, humans, whatever) then how the hell did these beings come to exist?? Surely that says something about the agruement behind creationism
JaydeHadfield 2 years ago
That is the one thing that no one has yet been able to answer, similar to how no one can answer how the universe initially came into existence. It very well could be a supernatural force, but as of yet there is no proof.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Thank you for your reply :) the easiest one to understand by far.
JaydeHadfield 2 years ago
C) What was once "beneficial" may remain in a species beyond the circumstances under which it was beneficial. Ex: I have an appendix because at one time it was beneficial.
If we are creatures that seek patterns in order to increase our ability to understand and predict, it would be most beneficial to develop belief constructs quickly and adjust "pattern belief" as information is acquired.
Therefore, a belief in something as amorphous as your diety would be particularly resilient.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
so your saying religion was beneficial once but isn't now, it has something to do with a pattern, and it is amorphous...
sorry but how are those wild accusations logical??
rjpolk 2 years ago
I will try to make this more clear, but if not, oh well.
Human beings will deduce patterns and determine causality where there is none (e.g. "lucky underwear" or sun gods). Religion could just be the most elegant example of this, and it shouldn't be hard to see why that would be beneficial before science came to town. And Christianity, unlike a sun god, is very difficult to build an argument against. So while we do away with sun gods, we maintain the Christian god.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
A) What is advantageous for the individual may not be advantageous for the species. In America, someone like Ted Haggart can become rich and famous while contributing significantly to the corrosion of the essence of the country.
B) Culture and behavior are not subject to a strict Darwinian explanation, which explains reproduction strategy (the example you chose for comparison) better than anything else, especially in a species with a significant cognitive contribution to culture and behavior.
Zarathustra34 2 years ago
the good religiions are good, the religeous nuts are bad... Cars are good, car sales men are sometimes ripoffs.
AlbiCollier 2 years ago
Humans have remained pretty much genetically the same for a VERY long time. However, globalization and intermixing of cultures is very recent. Disagreement between different cultures with different religions causes tension, which often leads to violence (terrorism, the crusades, etc). Thus, theism may have been an evolutionary advantage thousands of years ago (belief in a higher power could provide hope and reason to endure suffering), but it may no longer be beneficial in our modern world.
CSalvarani3 2 years ago
Atheists of concience DON'T CARE! We don't care that others believe.
That isn't the corrossive effect.
What *IS* corrossive is passing laws that inhibit and prohibit the freedoms we all share as outlined in the US Constitution.
Atheists who admit they are get treated like traitors and lose their jobs. I could go on, but more than Atheists are hurt when Church controls State. Look at Muslim countries.
Atheism is growing by leaps and bounds (and I do not include New Age types).
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
The only reason that religion is called "obsolete" is because the world is comfortable right now and "the religion of self" has become prevalent. The moment something bad happens, people "turn back" to religion, and it will happen again. Even look IN the Bible (whether you accept it as truth or not) to see this happening over and over again with the Israelites. Anyone who thinks religion is going away is being foolish. Christianity growing like wildfire in African countries, etc.
AgentSmithClan 2 years ago
I think that there are four reasons why religions still persists or even grows.
1: people tend to follow their parents beliefs, therefore religion is hard to get rid of
2: religion is dogmatic and doesnt tend to respond to things proving it wrong
3: religion gives people a sense of belonging or purpose
4: religion has been spread through violence often. Which means that if you were against them you could easily be killed, since if a bigger group fights against a smaller group, then yeah...
Knowntje 3 years ago
Anything that insists that something unproven must be believed is a cancer on society, and mankind in general. It prevents free thought and puts a damper on development.
JamesThWilliams 3 years ago
In evolution success simply means continued survival. And through-out history religion has been wildly successful!
So has war.
The persistance of particular phenomena does not mean that they are neccessarily 'good' for people - just that they are good at persisting.
Some religions have flourished while reducing suffering in the world (Christianity?), whilst others have thrived on cruelty.
Personally, I'm sceptical about religion, but I found Dawkin's book to be smug and disappointing.
B7Scorpio 3 years ago
I wouldn't ask accused witches, non christians in Rwanda and so one if christianity improved things in the world.
JamesThWilliams 3 years ago
The success and longevity of religion...I liken these factors to battered spouse syndrome. Married early on (humanity and religion) and while initially bissful and worthwhile, it quickly became a relationship of constant beatings, cajoling, verbal assault and domination through intimidation. Humanity had no one else to help it, so it had to stay in the relationship. Now that we have better options, we can safely end the relatonship and be much better for it. Yet the aggressor claims success.
TheGunpowderTreason 3 years ago
Religion is like wisdom teeth, or the appendix, or the tailbone. It has been useful in the past, but we don't need it anymore. Religion filled in the gaps in our knowledge, so that we didn't need to freak out every time lightning struck.
But now we don't chew or digest much foliage, we don't have tails, and we know why lightning strikes. Religion is vestigial.
Also, an advantageous idea needn't be true: Belief that asphalt is evil will result in fewer children hit by cars...
bottlezone 3 years ago
simply having the greatest number of members does not mean it is advantages. i am going to assume you are familiar with ESS otherwise dont read on, let me know, and i will describe it, or you could look it up on your own. lets say you have a bird population and there are two types of birds in this popullation. there are type A's (shares resources) and type B's (fights for resources) now obviously if they were to share resources they would all be better off...
TheChristianAtheist 3 years ago
(continued) but if you have even one type B, it will have the advantage (for this simple model ignore the risk of injury from fighting) therefore B will increase in size.
i know it is much more complicated than this in real life, but for an example it is sufficient to show how a characteristic that is bad for the group as a whole can increase in number though evolution, not despite evolution
TheChristianAtheist 3 years ago
However as can be evidensed in social animals, the type b is often made an outcast. Removed from the group thereby that type would not be able to continue. But as you said real life is much more coplicated than that. I was just reminded of a group African wild dogs were one female horded resources and murdered the other females pups, she was ostrisized and killed by the other dogs in the end.
JamesThWilliams 3 years ago
I think you are missing a vital aspect of the argument on the athiest side. Sam Harris and the likes are not arguing that religion has not had advantages in the past. What they are arguing is that in the modern world its becoming obsolete and even detrimental. Just because something is advantageous in the past does not mean it will continue to be for all time.
twopieye 3 years ago
2 minutes into your video and I'm confident I know where you're going with it.Ok. Sure. Meme virus to create an army that crosses genetic 'borders' like family and tribe and nation. Ok. But , like the urge to reproduce without stopping and the urge to always have bigger and better weapons and the urge to make bigger and bigger cities, this advantage can become a dumb thing, a hindrance to human survival.
gandalf2069 3 years ago
Religion is "successful" because it is forced upon people since birth, and growing religious majority? ATHEISM is growing the most and Christianity is declining by my research. Islam is growing somewhat in the Middle East at the moment because of certain other factors, and Paganism is the most growing RELIGION in America today. Besides, "popularity" is NOT synonimous with "correct."
Yansver 3 years ago 3
"Religion is "successful" because it is forced upon people since birth"
Exactly. People are usually born into their religion, and they will fight for their particular "truth" believing it is "truth" simply because they were told it was.
How can you call that advantaged?
That one simple fact shows how silly people are for taking religion seriously.
If you were born thousands of years ago in another country, you would be worshiping Odin or Zeus and believing just as hard in that "truth".
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
"Besides, "popularity" is NOT synonimous with "correct.""
Another excellent point.
The Christian world proclaimed the absolute "truth" of the bible and the flat earth and murdered those who took the side of Heliocentrism.
The popular majority ruled, until they were forced to accept what became obvious truth.
Even with a majority, Christianity has become "modernized" and accepted a number of invalid claims their book makes.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
How do you think the knowledge of our world and our level of technology improved?
It certainly wasn't because of popular vote, nor was it because of the opinion of the majority just chose to do something new.
The minorities have always brought change. That is how it is, and how it always will be.
The majority NEEDS the minority to keep them advancing.
Its as simple as that.
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
Compare the religious behavior of Christian majorities from today to 100 years ago. Then compare today's Christians to those 500 years ago. Keep going backwards.
What will you find?
We are moving away from religion.
As the understanding of our world increases, we are shedding our ancient mysticisms. All but the most fanatical elements of society recognize these "modern" adaptations of their religion.
How can you ignore that?
ThatOneQuestion 3 years ago
ChiTownPartii I accidentally erased your post so am reposting
I researched "In the beginning" - I found "Re'shiyth" = "Beginning." Hence, "In the" is IMPLIED! The Hebrew Bible actually says "Ba'Re'shiyth" - "In Beginning." It doesn't use t/Definite Article "THE." The stmt is INDEFINITE - "In A beginning," In THIS begining," In ONE OF MANY beginnings," "In the Beginning (of a story)." The ENGLISH TRANSLATION INSERTS t/Definite Article "THE" 2 FORCE the text 2 read a particular (INACCURATE) way.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
As I understand the language definite articles are often implied and can therefore either fit in or not. But regardless neither translation effects my argument in the vid.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
People don't realize that religion is negative therefore it survives. Also, the evolution of the religions mentioned have only been occurring for 6000 years. Compare this with the evolution of humans which has be occurring for millions of years.
Therefore it is likely that religion as we know it will die out eventually.
imthunder 3 years ago
so on your question; yes it was necessary to invent religion..You see religions popping up everywhere throughout the last 5000 to 7000 years! We as a human species didn`t know anything about our place in the universe and where we came from we wanted answers..The explanation about a god was the perfect answer to ANY question... SO while religion has been helpfull in some aspects it is far less helpfull in our times because our understanding has grown beyond the silly stories of religion..
Dutchdrummer99 3 years ago
`religion`it has been with us from the beginning` that`s an ENORMOUS lie... and i get tired of it... Even the vatican accepts evolution! Evolution is proven.. religion came to be; only a few thousand years ago..(we began walking upright about 6 MILLION years ago)!! Throughout recent history there is SO much war desease and destruction people didn`t have a choice and they didn`t NO much about know anybetter.. `If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him` Voltaire (1694-1778)
Dutchdrummer99 3 years ago
``..and they didn`t have an alternative. ``
ps. I accidentally pressed post before i finished...(see message below)
Dutchdrummer99 3 years ago
again!
Even so, social darwinism is not considered as a moral standard by atheists. We move towards enlightenment.
gldjmp 3 years ago
(srry computer freeze)
However, this does not mean that religion is better in terms of morality. Good is a relative term which can be used in a variety of different contexts. One is reminded of the old axiom from a certain unnamed dystopia: "Ignorance is Strength."
Even so
gldjmp 3 years ago
Yes, religion is advantaged from an evolutionary standpoint. It is successful because of its ability to give people hope, and to unite them in a community.
However, this does not mean that
gldjmp 3 years ago
Ahhhraa! I did it again Sum sorry! I erased one of your comments. I will reply anyhow. They really need to find a word without an "r" to erase, it is too close to "reply". First a decade of studying cultures of bacteria in a petri dish (something that equates to thousands of generations for bacteria) and the evolutionary capacity has been fairly lack luster. Much as discussed before, oscillation in a general mean. Nothing close to speciation.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
In regards to what a secular society is tantamount to, your argument is that it is one that religion doesn't effect science and politics regardless of the make up of that society? Can you name any secular society then? There is no place on earth where religion has no power whatsoever over policy. Even in a secular place like Sweden the growing problem of Islam forces the hand of Government. Moreover the term society indicates the people who comprise it yes? Their views have to be considered.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
i guess religion always effects politics at some level. the important thing that defines a secular society is one where religion doesnt inhibit the information flow; as it is prone to doing when it has the power.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
I hear your point here but I don't think that it is a question of religion v secularism. I think that you would agree that anything obstructing information flow would be bad for growth. You can't really just assert an information dam as non secular, or a clear path as secular. That which obstructs, obstructs regardless of spiritual persuasion.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
i really think that any kind of 'US vs THEM' mentality is detrimental to society. unfortunately, when people think they have some sort of 'truth', that cannot be avoided.
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
i will simply remake my point. claiming that religion benifits individuals; based on the fact that most people are religious; then concluding that religion benifits individuals, is circular logic; and proves nothing outside the fact that most people are religious. my question was: how does religion promote progress and benefit humanity?
P.S no hard feeling about the deleted comments
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
Part1
I understand your point here as well but you are not understanding mine I think, and that is probably my fault. I am not asserting that religion benefits its adherents because most people are religious. What I am saying here is two fold. First Religion itself is benefited because it always flourishes. But this, as you pointed out, doesn't mean that religion is good to its adherents. There is no circular logic to this first point. On to the next.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Part 2
Secondly I will maintain that religion doesn't harm its adherents as does a disease, but it aids them. I use as proof the fact that those who are spiritual reproduce more than those who aren't. The point here is that religion isn't passed on like a genetic trait and being born Christian Muslim doesn't mean that you will remain so. Therefore my assertions are not circular because the spiritual condition of the offspring are of no significance to the argument. and off to the last....
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
Ok so there is nothing circular about saying that religion is advantaged and then showing how it advantages its adherents those are 2 different arguments. Religion does everything from create legal systems, to fund schools, teach moral lessons, and something you will disagree with fundamentally, theology as well as philosophy ground science. Any reasonable person can think of an enormous mountain of ways that religion progress and benefit people. Art, Poetry, charity.......
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
ok i guess that clarifies your point of view. it is understandable that many people have a high regard for religion. religion does claim credit where it is not due. i base this claim on the fact that legal systems, morality, education, philosophy, art, poetry, all pre-date organized religion (there is much evidence for this) and all of these systems function perfectly well without it. i do concede to your point that there is a sound reason for the success of religion.
BTW are you a woman?
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
The point isn't that we wouldn't have poetry or other things without religion but that religion has made enormous contributions to those things. A world without Dante or Micheal Angelo would be impoverished when compared to one with them. BTW total dude here.
gnosisandlight 3 years ago
if you were a woman i would have asked you out ;D
sum1unxpected 3 years ago
i really have nothing against spirituality; for it is benign overall. when it becomes a dogma, like NAZI-ism it becomes
a threat; like a metastasized tumor!
sum1unxpected 3 years ago