NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

I guess an argument against that could be that Apes have many of the same qualities as humans, though not as intelligent. They even develop societies, and are on the verge of developing culture (they don't pass information down, such as new inventions, so the chances are low that it will continue and be adapted).

So it is not as if we are the only intelligent lifeforms on this planet, we are just the most intelligent. So saying we are the chosen ones seems a bit presumptuous.

I'm bitter, cynical and jaded, which is why I don't like these kinds of threads, of which there are about 92. In the last week.

Oh also, other animals simply adapted to do what they do best. We make tools, and have been getting better at it for a very long time, fleas can now jump higher and frogs can now croak a bit lower.

Coming back to old places and occassionally leaving things there is also not unique. Lobsters do it, for example.

That other animals do not care for each other is also a false statement, elephants and chimps, amongst others, do care for their physically and/or mentally handicapped brethren.

If we're the only ones with intelligence, and that intelligence is a gift from god, then why would we not be all equaly intelligent? Just to make things unfair?

Also, one could say we don't know how intelligent we are (maybe we're just like monkeys compared to aliens or a hypothetical "maximum" intelligence).

Evolution only concerns itself with survival, high intelligence is not necessary for survival however...

Much like a zip can only drop down, intelligence can only go up, there's a zero point for intelligence at its base - no intelligence - but there's no ceiling on how high intelligence can go.

Therefore, we'd expect to see rising levels of intelligence.

As for compassion, and this relates to a point in another thread about herbivores and carnivores. In general, omnivores are more intelligent and practically all omnivores are actually scavengers. To be a scavenger, where the evolutionary push is not to be stronger or faster, it tends to be intelligence that makes the difference.

As a scavenger, though not true across the board, there tends to be safety in numbers - given that, it's likely that something like compassion, or an instinct to help your fellow scavenger, would also be an advantage for survival.

The thing is, we'd both expect to see rising intelligence as well as communities through evolution and that expectation is borne out by reality.

Perhaps dinosaurs would have become highly intelligent given time but as cold-blooded animals, they had different evolutionary pressures in terms of survival, and it didn't help that they were wiped out.

In my opinion, the concept of squandering resources on the old and handicapped is an unfortunate consequence of liberalism. I wholeheartedly agree that such people deleteriously impact the efficiency of society. However, this irrational compassion bestowed upon these individuals is not an innate human quality. In different historical periods, the prevailing view was diametrically opposed to the current zeitgeist. Sadly, corruptive socialist ideas have permeated throughout many industrialized countries (including policies such as Social Security) that ensure that valuable assets will continue to be wasted in perpetuity. Nonetheless, these are unnatural blemishes upon our civilization; as such, they are not indicate of any intrinsic human propensity to care for the worthless.

So you would rather euthanize people who are no longer useful to society? How would you feel if it was someone you loved and wanted to live?

In my opinion, the concept of squandering resources on the old and handicapped is an unfortunate consequence of liberalism. I wholeheartedly agree that such people deleteriously impact the efficiency of society. However, this irrational compassion bestowed upon these individuals is not an innate human quality. In different historical periods, the prevailing view was diametrically opposed to the current zeitgeist. Sadly, corruptive socialist ideas have permeated throughout many industrialized countries (including policies such as Social Security) that ensure that valuable assets will continue to be wasted in perpetuity. Nonetheless, these are unnatural blemishes upon our civilization; as such, they are not indicate of any intrinsic human propensity to care for the worthless.

You can't debunk it as proof of god because it's not proof of god, at all. So one species developed intellect. That doesn't actually prove anything.

As far as survival goes, humans are very poor equipped. We're not nearly as strong as most animals (ever try to wrestle a bear?) not nearly as fast (try to catch a squirrel without a trap?), we can't fly, or hold our breath. We have generally very poor healing properties and no natural defenses. Our teeth are short and round, or nails are thin and grow slow. We have no real fur to keep warm, or shells to protect us. What kept us alive is that our evolutionary ancestors were clever. To say our intelligence has no evolutionary benefit is foolish. Our species is very incapable of surviving "in nature" if not for us being smart. We can't outfight the bear, outrun the tiger, out swim the shark. We would barely survive if not for our ability to be clever.

or unnaturally stupid.

We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it.Well, we've survived, haven't we? The evolutionary change made for something that has worked to this day, and thus we remain.

Given a large enough timeframe, some other species with "higher intelligence" would be likely to end up developing sooner or later (and if given the opportunity, so may well occur in the future). The species leading up to the modern human simply got there first, and that's why we are alone in having this ability.

No; we should simple allow people who are unable to independently support themselves, and will not be able to do so in the future, to die.
...

Starts as : "aye, nice idea."

Ends as : "Todesursache : Masern"

Click Stand;13487334']So you would rather euthanize people who are no longer useful to society? How would you feel if it was someone you loved and wanted to live?

No; we should simple allow people who are unable to independently support themselves, and will not be able to do so in the future, to die.

...

Starts as : "aye, nice idea."

Ends as : "Todesursache : Masern"

Sorry, I'm not very sharp when it comes to the German language, but my translator says that you said "cause of death : Measles.

Is that what you said, or will I have to find a new internet translator.

Click Stand;13487433']Sorry, I'm not very sharp when it comes to the German language, but my translator says that you said "cause of death : Measles.
Yep.
Is that what you said
And what the doctors in charge of killing handicapped children in mental hospitals in the Third Reich said, too. They chose cases like measles because nobody would bother to investigate thoroughly.

Perhaps dinosaurs would have become highly intelligent given time but as cold-blooded animals, they had different evolutionary pressures in terms of survival, and it didn't help that they were wiped out.
Perhaps they did become intelligent. A little too intelligent for a certain asteroid-tossing deity's liking...

Given a large enough timeframe, some other species with "higher intelligence" would be likely to end up developing sooner or later (and if given the opportunity, so may well occur in the future).

I have a strange feeling that we won't let another species have that opportunity if we can help it.

Perhaps they did become intelligent. A little too intelligent for a certain asteroid-tossing deity's liking...

Indeed, it's a strong contention of Bob Hubbard, amateur dinosaurologist, that the first and only words spoken by a dinosaur were 'what the fuck is that?'

BOOM!

IIRC lot's of animals can feel compassion...primates and elephants to name a few..

Also a lot of energy and protein are required for brain functions. Early hominids were just better at acquiring food and acquiring meat than other animals (ex Using rocks to get at Bone Marrow, which is high in Protein and fat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_Marrow#Bone_marrow_as_a_food), that other animals can't). After this, hominids started using tools allowing us to evolve further.

NOTE: All of that Info is from a Discovery Channel Program I watched...

You can't debunk it as proof of god because it's not proof of god, at all. So one species developed intellect. That doesn't actually prove anything.

As far as survival goes, humans are very poor equipped. We're not nearly as strong as most animals (ever try to wrestle a bear?) not nearly as fast (try to catch a squirrel without a trap?), we can't fly, or hold our breath. We have generally very poor healing properties and no natural defenses. Our teeth are short and round, or nails are thin and grow slow. We have no real fur to keep warm, or shells to protect us. What kept us alive is that our evolutionary ancestors were clever. To say our intelligence has no evolutionary benefit is foolish. Our species is very incapable of surviving "in nature" if not for us being smart. We can't outfight the bear, outrun the tiger, out swim the shark. We would barely survive if not for our ability to be clever.

On the contrary; I'd say we are very well equipped to survive, but instead of teeth, fur or speed, we have intelligence. Its a feature of a species that should be considered alongside physical characteristics.
Indeed, it's a strong contention of Bob Hubbard, amateur dinosaurologist, that the first and only words spoken by a dinosaur were 'what the fuck is that?'

BOOM!
:D

...I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

Sounds to me like you don't really want to get confirmed if you have to come onto the forum, and have us tell you that your proof of God is valid or not.

Rather, it sounds more to me like you've already made up your mind.
Additionally, trying to rationalize God seems a little beside the point to me.

<snip>
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
No evolutionary advantage?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!1
Humans: 7 billion spread across the globe.
Chimps: A few million, mainly in Africa.
Try telling me there's no evolutionary advantage to intelligence.

Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

That also provides an evolutionary advantage.
Because without compassion, we would still be at chimp level despite intelligence, because nobody would have a reason to spread the wheel or fire or spears or anything like that.
One person would invent it, use it, die, and that'd be it.
Not to mention, it also provides a bunch of free bodyguards called friends in return for being a free bodyguard for all of them.
Since you will all have lots of backup in these cases, the chances of any of you dying is reduced by a good bit. Better for evolution.
Also friends help if you run out of food, or lack a cave, etc. because of the same you-help-me, I-help-you agreement.

Someone please address these arguments.
Done.

Click Stand;13487303']I guess an argument against that could be that Apes have many of the same qualities as humans, though not as intelligent. They even develop societies, and are on the verge of developing culture (they don't pass information down, such as new inventions, so the chances are low that it will continue and be adapted).

Actually, I just read a piece in National Geographic the other day about some orangutans that do preserve culture. One of the "traditions" they pass down is the way in which they build their beds--each group has its own method and materials, which they continue to use even though they all share the same environment. Just an interesting idea.

I also read about apes (I forget what species) who had been learning sign language for many years that tried to teach others.

Click Stand;13487334']So you would rather euthanize people who are no longer useful to society? How would you feel if it was someone you loved and wanted to live?

Mother nature does it every single day. :rolleyes:

To be back on topic, the logic of "there must be a God since Human beings are intelligent" is not logical.

I'll rephrase:

"There must be a God since Reeses are great".

There are numerous other species that show a great capacity for compassion. Elephants have long been known to grieve for extended periods of time; bonobos, our most closely related ancestors, show a number of characteristics mostly thought to be "human" such as compassion, humor, maternal behavior towards young which are not their own, jealousy, grief and curiosity.

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

The fact that we've managed to inflate our population to near 7 billion peaks for the evolutionary advantage in the way we do things. Besides that, evolution is not coldly efficient. It is messy. A basic sense of compassion will hold the species together and overall will get it through the tough times, even if parts of that compassion are useless. And besides, the promise that you will be cared for when you are old helps convince you to contribute while you are young. Also the old are good at raising children.

so yeah, there's a big evolutionary advantage in both intelligence and compassion.

From the questions and the title it appears that you are actively trying to disprove God, meaning that you believe in a creator but would rather not. Well as little sense as that makes, so be it. Also the word you were looking for for your parents is most likely secularist and not progressive, though you know them better than I and I will let you be the judge if that is accurate or not.

In complete contrast to your acctual questions, as they arnt acctualy asking to prove something you are unsure of, but rather to validate disbeliving something you seem to already belive you can read through these three sites which give some pretty clear answers as to if there is or is not a creator. In short there is absolutly zero statistical chance of creation, evolution, or God being random.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html
http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/8830/prophecy.html

a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier placeSo would a world in which human rights were respected, but unfortunately, merely wanting something to be isn't evidence...
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.Animals can be quite as intelligent as humans (particularly dolphins, octopi, and a couple others). Note that something these creatures lack is ambition and opposable thumbs.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)Not unlike some species of animals, particularly mammals that live in close knit families.
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.That's not really evidence. It's an attempt to attach a reason to the fact that humans carve stone.

If humans are so intelligent, why do we keep making hundreds of religion threads?

If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.

Why? Belief is (also) about choice.


The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.

Actually, I've seen (in a documentary) some great apes (gorillas, I think) who were travelling in a group. They had to cross a river. One of the older ones began wading in, while the others waited on the shore. The "scout" saw that the water was deep. He (or she, cannot remember) went back on the shore, chose a branch out of a nearby tree, cleaned it of its leaves making it into a proper stick, and used that to check the depth of the water. Finally, after some minutes, he/she found a suitabily shallow ford, crossed, and only then the whole tribe crossed the river.
This is intelligent behaviour, social behaviour, and use and fabrication of tools. Give them some other millennia and they'll start chipping stones.


Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
Oh yes, the sick etc provide us with no direct social advantage: but this works as a promise. Now I care for the sick ones: if I'll become sick, some other fellow of my group will care for me, just as I did before for some other guy.
Apes do that: they give food to their tribe-fellows when they have got it and others don't, and expect to be given food when they haven't got any and others have.
Also, dolphins do that, too: when a pregnant she-dolphin is about to give birth, the other she-dolphins of her group help her and the newborn.


These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.


Look for ape behaviour and dolphin behaviour on google and wiki, you'll find surprising things.
Also, take cats and dogs: many females of those species have been known to show maternal instinct (a thing very similar to an ethical behaviour, although it's unlikely that it's based on choice) even to individuals not of their own species.

Face it: maybe were the first species to reach such complex technological and social levels... but other species have some similar potential, too.

This is not to discourage you from believing in any kind of god, of course: just, don't base your faith on some "exclusive gifts" we humans have been given, because it looks like some other species have been given them (or, as I think, have developed them), too.

If humans are so intelligent, why do we keep making hundreds of religion threads?

Actually, we have a betting ring set up purely to gamble on whether you'll post in them - that's another $100 I've made today.

Now it's time to set up a thread on some obscure government leader and see if AP posts a Communist rant - I see Thaksin Shinawatra's been detained in Thailand

*heads of to create thread*

... there's no evolutionary advantage for it.

Are you serious?

Click Stand;13487303']
So it is not as if we are the only intelligent lifeforms on this planet, we are just the most intelligent.
It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons.

Also, God created the Big Bang and evolution, and now He's sitting back and snickering.

Actually, I just read a piece in National Geographic the other day about some orangutans that do preserve culture. One of the "traditions" they pass down is the way in which they build their beds--each group has its own method and materials, which they continue to use even though they all share the same environment. Just an interesting idea.


Not just apes, I was in a talk on animal cognition last year talking about a species of bird on an isolated pacific island also passed down "traditions" such as tool use from one generation to another.

Animals, they're smarter than we like to think.

Also, God created the Big Bang and evolution, and now He's sitting back and snickering.

Do you mean by that, eating chocolate? The bastard!

Intelligence, you say?

Chimpanzees can learn sign language, as can other apes and primates.
They can express joy, ask questions, and relay sympathy all in language completely foreign to thier species.

Dolphins are also incredibly smart, as are dogs, and even parrots.

None of those species are destroying thier own habitats on a steady basis.

Are we really so smart?

Human intelligence is not proof of anything except an inherent need to destroy.
If "god" created us "in his own image", then he too, desires destruction of everything his creation touches.

Like viruses...with shoes.

Intelligence hasn't always been the sole domain of Homo Sapiens (and arguably isn't even now). Neanderthals were very smart, probably as intelligent as our own ancestors. They were an offshoot of our own lineage, not in our own line of descent. They however weren't as ruthless as our species and lost out in the competition for survival.

Incidently, how do creationists explain them?

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

Since the whole idea for you is for argument to 'debunk' this evidence...nomatter how people classify this evidence...then this debate is pointless. You've made up your mind.
But what concerns me a little, is why you need validation not to believe in God...or perhaps i'm mistaken. :(

Intelligence hasn't always been the sole domain of Homo Sapiens (and arguably isn't even now). Neanderthals were very smart, probably as intelligent as our own ancestors. They were an offshoot of our own lineage, not in our own line of descent. They however weren't as ruthless as our species and lost out in the competition for survival.

Incidently, how do creationists explain them?

I believe in evolution and creationism. The writer of Genesis, would have only been able to work within his own context. But I think with the advances in science we now have a better idea of how to describe things.
E.g. Adam being made from dust. What if dust is the writer trying to describe something too small to see etc etc.
In the bible, there was actually more than one bloodline before the flood. The Sons of God, and the sons of man. And the sons of man, were wiped out.

Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)


Oh I dont know, I know a lot of Deaf people (who are universally accepted to be handicapped) and believe me they have no problem with procreating - in fact they seem to spend a lot of their time in the attempt! ;)

I cant comment on the hunting and gathering part of it all, as theres not much call for hunters in sunny suburbia but I'm sure, if pressed. they could make a valid attempt.

Stop lumping all the so-called 'handicapped' together!

I believe in evolution and creationism. The writer of Genesis, would have only been able to work within his own context. But I think with the advances in science we now have a better idea of how to describe things.
E.g. Adam being made from dust. What if dust is the writer trying to describe something too small to see etc etc.
In the bible, there was actually more than one bloodline before the flood. The Sons of God, and the sons of man. And the sons of man, were wiped out.:rolleyes: Oh puhleez don't quote that best-selling work of fiction to me, I'm trying to take you seriously.

The biggest fallacy of most organized religions, including the Abrahamic offshoots that hold that particular piece of literature in so high reguard, is an obsessive desire to assign human thought process, concerns, intelligence and concepts to the design and conception of the universe. This usually coincides with an illogical designation of mankind as holding some sort of most-favored status in this design. It's a comforting explanation of our existance, but I prefer to look unflinchingly out at the cosmos and confront our insignificance with eyes wide open rather than clutch a security blanket and hide from the unknown.

The biggest fallacy of most organized religions, including the Abrahamic offshoots that hold that particular piece of literature in so high reguard, is an obsessive desire to assign human thought process, concerns, intelligence and concepts to the design and conception of the universe. This usually coincides with an illogical designation of mankind as holding some sort of most-favored status in this design. It's a comforting explanation of our existance, but I prefer to look unflinchingly out at the cosmos and confront our insignificance with eyes wide open rather than clutch a security blanket and hide from the unknown.
:D :D :D

The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

It is reckoned that a chimp is about on par with a four year-old child in terms of intelligence. You may also recall recently that a chimp beat some students at a basic memory test. Other animals such as octopus, dolphins etc all have high levels of intelligence. So yes humans are more intelligent but not by a huge amount.

There isn't that much evidence that humans carry out purely altruistic acts any more than other animals. What appears to be altruistic more often than not has a hidden 'selfish' motive behind it.

Not just apes, I was in a talk on animal cognition last year talking about a species of bird on an isolated pacific island also passed down "traditions" such as tool use from one generation to another.

Animals, they're smarter than we like to think.

You've put your finger on it, right enough. People don't like the idea that they are just another type of animal - they want to feel that they're a bit different and a bit special.

That's why you get these daft claims being banded about - humans are the only creatures that use tools / communicate with each other / have recreational sex / look after the old and the infirm...
None of it true, all of it just dreamed up to support the idea that we are god's chosen species.

:rolleyes: Oh puhleez don't quote that best-selling work of fiction to me, I'm trying to take you seriously.

The biggest fallacy of most organized religions, including the Abrahamic offshoots that hold that particular piece of literature in so high reguard, is an obsessive desire to assign human thought process, concerns, intelligence and concepts to the design and conception of the universe. This usually coincides with an illogical designation of mankind as holding some sort of most-favored status in this design. It's a comforting explanation of our existance, but I prefer to look unflinchingly out at the cosmos and confront our insignificance with eyes wide open rather than clutch a security blanket and hide from the unknown.

You asked for an explanation, I gave you one :) My point was that creationism and evolution don't have to be in competition. One is religious, another is scientific, but they don't have to contradict each other. What you believe is up to you :)
Well, I'm glad you can look out into the cosmos with unfliching confidence in your own insignificance...but that doesn't mean your eyes are any more open than mine. And I don't see how having faith is hiding from the unknown...I'd say being narrow minded is hiding from the unknown....which I don't think creationism does.
Whether you believe it is by design or by chance, mankind has held favour on the earth. We are the dominant species. We no longer adapt to the earth, we adapt it to us, and have done so for a very long time. So I don't see how bringing that into religious doctrine would be illogical..? Or is that not what you were taking about?

I believe it's not evolution, it's adaptation. About the same but I imply it began with God and we have been growing ever since. Also God can do anything so why is the Big Bang theory a dissproval of him either? Things like "God can't have created the universe in a week" forget what time may be like for an immortal who has always been.

I hate saying the same general thing though so to save you the time, BB, here are some of the things I don't think many are saying. Its not whether you can prove God or not. When man debates God to fellow man who do not believe, he does it with words of man and it looses the luster to those deaf to the word of God. I think that God makes it deliberately hard to believe in him with our physical senses and that is why as his children we should come to him in blind faith. We have been given the choice to love Him. You don't have to worry whether He's real or not. Seek him out, find how he speaks to you in His unique way. And He is there. You will know it.

I believe in evolution and creationism. The writer of Genesis, would have only been able to work within his own context. But I think with the advances in science we now have a better idea of how to describe things.
E.g. Adam being made from dust. What if dust is the writer trying to describe something too small to see etc etc.
In the bible, there was actually more than one bloodline before the flood. The Sons of God, and the sons of man. And the sons of man, were wiped out.

What, then, if that same writer had just used "god" as a metaphor for the lengthy process of abiogenesis and natural selection?
What if he knew there was no god, but wanted to humour his audience with an image they could relate to?

You asked for an explanation, I gave you one :) My point was that creationism and evolution don't have to be in competition. One is religious, another is scientific, but they don't have to contradict each other. What you believe is up to you :)
Well, I'm glad you can look out into the cosmos with unfliching confidence in your own insignificance...but that doesn't mean your eyes are any more open than mine. And I don't see how having faith is hiding from the unknown...I'd say being narrow minded is hiding from the unknown....which I don't think creationism does.
Whether you believe it is by design or by chance, mankind has held favour on the earth. We are the dominant species. We no longer adapt to the earth, we adapt it to us, and have done so for a very long time. So I don't see how bringing that into religious doctrine would be illogical..? Or is that not what you were taking about?

We've lived here for a couple hundred thousand years, and I daresay we'll be lucky if we make it another 100. Dinosaurs had inhabited the earth for a few million years before they went extinct.

Dominance, just like absolutely everything else, is a temporary pleasure.

I believe it's not evolution, it's adaptation. About the same but I imply it began with God and we have been growing ever since. Also God can do anything so why is the Big Bang theory a dissproval of him either? Things like "God can't have created the universe in a week" forget what time may be like for an immortal who has always been.

I hate saying the same general thing though so to save you the time, BB, here are some of the things I don't think many are saying. Its not whether you can prove God or not. When man debates God to fellow man who do not believe, he does it with words of man and it looses the luster to those deaf to the word of God. I think that God makes it deliberately hard to believe in him with our physical senses and that is why as his children we should come to him in blind faith. We have been given the choice to love Him. You don't have to worry whether He's real or not. Seek him out, find how he speaks to you in His unique way. And He is there. You will know it.


NSG is in desperate need of a barfing smilie, I think.

Okay, so apart from all those weak points about there being a God.
I wonder what makes you so sure your God is nice?
And why is the world a better place if there is a God?
You know you would have done better with looking at the ontological arguments (can be found in Wiki) which have better premises for there being a God.
Humans intelligent?
Yes so as another poster said why are some people more intelligent than others, and the old what created God can be a tricky one to get around.

Also does your God command things because they are good, or are they good because he commands them?

(i think this is plato's idea, can't recall where i heard this)
If God commands things because they are good then you don't need God for them to be good, if they are Good because God commands them, then if God commanded murder would that make it good?

you could say God doesn't exist because a perfect God wouldn't need to exist in order to create the universe, and then leave it be.

There are loads of arguments i can conjure up about God.(and that's not including the Christian God, who is even easier to trip up)
Which one do you wish me to address?

EDIT: and one more thing your premise about 2) he can't be disproven. is a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance, Ghosts can't be disproven so they must exist eh? What about the giant invisible elephant sitting in your room, you can't prove it doesn't exist so it must. That is quite an obvious flaw in your reasoning.
EDIT: EDIT: your first premise 1) A world in which i imagine a God is a happier place. so what? that's an appeals to consequences, by wishing a certain thing to make the world happy. Really is a poor OP for God

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

geez BB, if you decide that humans came about by virtue of intelligent design dont you still have a few problems?

how do you go from "there must have been an intelligent hand in guiding the evolution of humanity" to "that intelligence is the god that is worshipped in my local church"?

I believe in evolution and creationism. The writer of Genesis, would have only been able to work within his own context. But I think with the advances in science we now have a better idea of how to describe things.
E.g. Adam being made from dust. What if dust is the writer trying to describe something too small to see etc etc.
In the bible, there was actually more than one bloodline before the flood. The Sons of God, and the sons of man. And the sons of man, were wiped out.What you describe is not what is commonly known as "creationism" though.

I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.


Excellent!

I figure God exists because: If you trace back cause-and-effect I would imagine you would have to come upon something which did not require creating. Something like that could might be termed "God", although anything more about it could not be said.

For some reason many atheists consider God just a form of magic. I would agree with them when it came to many of depictions of God, with so many different personalities and names. How would one particular God be any more likely than Zeus?

To be honest, I would not think humans can even comprehend it, let alone depict it properly. Most (if not all) attempts to do so fall under the definition of "mythology". All I believe is that all the electrons, positrons and neutrons came from somewhere. I also find it curious that energy cannot be created, yet there is an abundance of it.

Therefor: I believe in evolution, I believe in the "Big Bang" and I believe in "God".

Excellent!

I figure God exists because: If you trace back cause-and-effect I would imagine you would have to come upon something which did not require creating. Something like that could might be termed "God", although anything more about it could not be said.

For some reason many atheists consider God just a form of magic. I would agree with them when it came to many of depictions of God, with so many different personalities and names. How would one particular God be any more likely than Zeus?

To be honest, I would not think humans can even comprehend it, let alone depict it properly. Most (if not all) attempts to do so fall under the definition of "mythology". All I believe is that all the electrons, positrons and neutrons came from somewhere. I also find it curious that energy cannot be created, yet there is an abundance of it.

Therefor: I believe in evolution, I believe in the "Big Bang" and I believe in "God".

so you believe in a supreme being of some kind but dont believe in any specific god?

Therefor: I believe in evolution, I believe in the "Big Bang" and I believe in "God".

Hey me too!

The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence,

Firstly, we only developed those very recently (in geological terms).

Secondly, other branches of the tree of life are known to have been intelligent (Neanderthals for example) but simply died out. Chimpanzees today are extremely intelligent, as are other great apes and dolphins.

and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it.

But there is: being a bipedal monkey works quite well, but if there are tigers on the prowl I'm sure you'd rather be a bipedal monkey who understood how the concept of the bow and arrow. :p Every animal has its own niche: ours is intelligence.

Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.

Well, I'd start by pointing out that compassion has been observed in numerous other animals. To take just one example, an elephant herd was observed where one cow elephant was walking a lot slower than normal because she was carrying the body of her dead calf. The rest of the herd slowed their pace for her until she was ready to leave it behind.

Besides, not all human societies behave in such a way: numerous humans societies, both ancient and recent, have practised eugenics, and many groups left their elderly to die once they were incapable of fending for themselves (sometimes the infirm actually went off to die of their own accord).

Does refute the evidence satisfactoraly for you?

I believe in evolution and creationism. The writer of Genesis, would have only been able to work within his own context. But I think with the advances in science we now have a better idea of how to describe things.
E.g. Adam being made from dust. What if dust is the writer trying to describe something too small to see etc etc.
In the bible, there was actually more than one bloodline before the flood. The Sons of God, and the sons of man. And the sons of man, were wiped out.

Firstly, there was more than one 'author' of Genesis.

Secondly, why do you assume that Genesis was based on anything supernatural at all, rather than on previous Creation myths and contemporary political ambitions?

That's why you get these daft claims being banded about - humans are the only creatures that use tools / communicate with each other / have recreational sex / look after the old and the infirm...
None of it true, all of it just dreamed up to support the idea that we are god's chosen species.

Which anyone who spent any time around dolphins would know was bunk... :rolleyes:

I figure God exists because: If you trace back cause-and-effect I would imagine you would have to come upon something which did not require creating.
Why do you imagine that? Because infinity is harder to imagine, and your imagination is a little lazy?

NSG is in desperate need of a barfing smilie, I think.

:gundge: looks a little bit like barfing if you close your eyes a little bit. But yeah, we could drop the stupid gunsmilies and the upyours and add some useful ones.

But there is: being a bipedal monkey works quite well, but if there are tigers on the prowl I'm sure you'd rather be a bipedal monkey who understood how the concept of the bow and arrow. :p


No, no, don't do that. If you shoot it with a bow and arrow you'll just make it angry. Use a spear.

Lordy, lordy, how did we EVER make it out of the stone age?

Why do you imagine that? Because infinity is harder to imagine, and your imagination is a little lazy?

Now why do people do that I wonder? I mean it certianly seems to be the case that each indivdual thinks that they are right. Why though tack on the insult at percived infereior intelegnce?

Meself I think there is room for both types of thought, religoous and not, and more.

I read elsewhere about the growing number of Autisic people joining the 'net community, and forceing people to re-think their attitudes about them.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism

I have to ask, if somebody has a differant way of thinking about things than you, does that make them somehow, in any way inferior?

I have to ask, if somebody has a differant way of thinking about things than you, does that make them somehow, in any way inferior?

Well...

If they are connecting a safety line, and their "different way" involves choosing what to tie back to based on the number of birds perched on the object rather than sound evaluation of the physics, yes, they are inferior.

Probably not for too long.

Remember, every time you apply your car's brakes, you are affirming your belief in Objective Physical Reality.

My father once taught me, if a man does not keep pace with his fellows, perhaps he marches to the beat of a different drummer, or perhaps he just can't walk very well.

Well...

If they are connecting a safety line, and their "different way" involves choosing what to tie back to based on the number of birds perched on the object rather than sound evaluation of the physics, yes, they are inferior.

Probably not for too long.

Remember, every time your car's brakes, you are affirming your belief in Objective Physical Reality.

My father once taught me, if a man does not keep pace with his fellows, perhaps he marches to the beat of a different drummer, or perhaps he just can't walk very well.

Pah pick and choose huh. Why not pick up on where I said there is room for both types of thought. What makes you think that a woman cannot be religous and a scientist at the same time?

No you failed to answer the question, and instead just drew attention to what I wished to point out.

So are you saying that your father taught you bigotry, and a smug sense of superiority over your fellow man?

Pah pick and choose huh. Why not pick up on where I said there is room for both types of thought. What makes you think that a woman cannot be religous and a scientist at the same time?

No you failed to answer the question, and instead just drew attention to what I wished to point out.

So are you saying that your father taught you bigotry, and a smug sense of superiority over your fellow man?thinkers > believers

thinkers< > believers


*Fixed*

Pah pick and choose huh. Why not pick up on where I said there is room for both types of thought. What makes you think that a woman cannot be religous and a scientist at the same time?

What makes you think I think that? And is your answer based on analysis of evidence, or on faith?


No you failed to answer the question, and instead just drew attention to what I wished to point out.

Actually, the answer is there in my post and quite evident to those with a keen sense of the obvious. The answer is, as usual, "depends on the situation".


So are you saying that your father taught you bigotry, and a smug sense of superiority over your fellow man?

No, that's what you just said, but it is pretty irrelevant to my meaning.

But, assuming for moment this was true, let's have some fun: how would you feel about it? Would you consider me... inferior? Or do you believe that bigotry is just another equally valid, equally acceptable way of viewing people?

*Fixed*sorry, no cigar

AUFKLÄRUNG ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines andern zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without leadership from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without leadership of another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!” — that is the motto of enlightenment.

- Immanuel Kant, November 1784


People who believe in the biblical god replace independent thinking by adherence to doctrine. Those people are inherently unenlightened.

Which anyone who spent any time around dolphins would know was bunk... :rolleyes:

Anyone who knew much about natural history would have known that the examples I gave were completely false. That's why I described them as 'daft'.

Now why do people do that I wonder? I mean it certianly seems to be the case that each indivdual thinks that they are right. Why though tack on the insult at percived infereior intelegnce?
Failing to perceive one of the possibilities is, in fact, objectively inferior to perceiving both. If we trace back the chain of cause-and-effect, maybe there is a first point, and maybe there isn't. One can give arguments for either position, of course, but saying "I can't imagine that there could be a starting point" (not "I have reasons to think there wasn't one" but just, "I can't see that") would be precluding a possibility from sheer lack of ability to understand, every bit as much as "I can't imagine that there wasn't a starting point".

The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent.

Even if that were the case, why would this be an argument for the existence of God? Couldn't it just as easily be an argument for humans having been engineered by an alien race or something?


Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc.

Untrue. Social insects have civilizations, complete with social hierarchy and caste systems, and they frequently build massive cities. Some species of ants build cities that are as large as human huts or houses, and if you consider the size difference between our species that's pretty fucking impressive.


We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it.

Erm, how on Earth could anybody possibly claim that human intelligence doesn't provide evolutionary advantages?

Our intelligence actually provides so much of an advantage that our species experiences physical disadvantages just to allow for our intelligence. Human infants are born relatively early in development compared to many other mammals, because our massive brains require massive heads and we've got to be born early so that our heads aren't so big that they kill our mother in the process. A third of your body's resources (or more) goes straight to that fabulously swollen cortex of yours. Selection has guided us toward this gloriously conscious state, because our intelligence is the single greatest asset of our species.


Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)

Evolution and natural selection aren't just about making babies as fast as possible. Being compassionate and caring for others absolutely DOES provide advantages, particularly for social primates like us!

Example: Grandma is old and infirm, and long past the point of producing new offspring of his own. But Grandma knows all the best ways to make a spear to hunt with. If we care for Grandma and keep her alive, she'll help us make better spears, and teach the grandkids to make good spears, and we all get more mammoth tonight.

Another example: Uncle Bill fell down and broke his legs, and now he can't hunt. But Uncle Bill can contribute in plenty of other ways, like caring for the youngins, or helping prepare meals, or teaching history-songs by the camp fire.

Selection generally doesn't favor the human individual who fucks over his comrades at the first opportunity, because even if the asshole does manage to produce offspring his offspring will be much less likely to be cared for throughout their lifespans (particularly since they've got at least one asshole for a parent), and because the asshole himself is less likely to receive help and support and is far more likely to be left bleeding in the dirt if he's gored by a mammoth. If you're nice and helpful, you increase the odds that others will want to be nice and helpful toward you, which increases your odds of survival, which increases your odds of having successful offspring.

You get the idea.

There's plenty to be gained from being kind to others, so it makes sense that selection would have favored individuals who are caring toward their tribe.


These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

None of what you presented would be evidence of a higher power, even if it were remotely accurate.

so you believe in a supreme being of some kind but dont believe in any specific god?

So to speak. A supposed being, but not probably not alive in the traditional sense. Possibly it would have an obscenely complex decision making process.

As far as typical notions of God go (some dude that goes around smiting disbelievers and answers prayers) I am an atheist.

Why do you imagine that? Because infinity is harder to imagine, and your imagination is a little lazy?

What I imagine is not necessarily so. As it stands, I am just some mooncalf hypothesizing. I find the concept of a universe that has existed forever to be absurd. I assume that something created the energy and the matter to begin with.

AUFKLÄRUNG ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines andern zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without leadership from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without leadership of another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!” — that is the motto of enlightenment.

- Immanuel Kant, November 1784


People who believe in the biblical god replace independent thinking by adherence to doctrine. Those people are inherently unenlightened.

The final object of metaphysics is God. Following some of his predecessors, Kant defined God as the most real being. As an object of metaphysics, God transcends the world of experience, and the world of experience cannot provide proof of the existence of such a being. We cannot say that the world is created by God, since we cannot know that it was created at all, rather than existing on its own. And we cannot say that the world was designed by God, since we cannot know the world well enough to tell that it is the work of the most real being.

source: http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi001/kantlec.htm (and my german literature professor)

So there could be a god like the biblical god.

I find the concept of a universe that has existed forever to be absurd.
I find the concept of a god that has existed forever to be absurd.

So there could be a god like the biblical god.But not the biblical god.

I find the concept of a universe that has existed forever to be absurd.
Not for any reason, just because it makes your head hurt? You seem to preclude possibilities without consideration a lot.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent. No, in that case he'd just be indifferent.

"supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. "

What the fuck...using spears to kill other animals isn't advantageous...?

If you 'believe in' natural selection then seeing why humans are more intelligent than other species should be a little more obvious.

Friends don't let friends do God.

Epicurean paradox:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Erm, how on Earth could anybody possibly claim that human intelligence doesn't provide evolutionary advantages?
.

50% of the time, it doesn't matter much.
49.9% of the time, intelligence is a great advantage.
0.1% of the time...

Sri Lanka, December 2004. Elephants are seen rapidly moving away from the coast. All the other animals are following them. All except the bipedal hairless apes. They see the elephants fleeing and think "Look at the elephants, I wonder what they are afraid of. Something down by the water. I should go check it out and see."

Epicurean paradox:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

One solution is: there is more to this Good/Evil thing than the Human mind can percieve.

You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up! - Deteriorata

Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
Someone please address these arguments.


Humans are usually compassionate to family and friends. (And I know of many horiffic stories where family and friends hurt people instead of care for them) The further an individual is from you the less compassion they usually receive. Do you feel bad about the family that lost everything in a fire in your town? Probably. Did you feel that bad about a family who lost everything in a fire on the other side of the country? Maybe. Do you feel that bad about people on other continents that don't even have anything to lose? Probably, but do you do anything about it?

(this isn't directoed at the OP BTW) The point is our compassion is limited. We might protect disabled or elderly but part of that is because we know that might be a loved one we are helping, or that that will be us one day.

I'm pro God, just anti God of classical theism. i.e the four omnis. It just doesnt seem possible to me. And slightly contradictory. Its true when people say God works in mysterious ways which could easily be true. But I think applying our subjective thoughts to God, instead of applying God to us is wrong. :(

I don't think the OP was referring to intelligence that helps us kill animals, but the intelligence we have, like using quantum physics to recreate the origins of the universe and test it for scientific purposes, not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.
It's the same intelligence.

My hands did not evolve for the purpose of making musical instruments and playing them to create music, but I could use my hands for such activities.

My intellect might not have evolved specifically with quantum physics in mind (no pun intended), but I can apply my intelligence to such problems if I want.

I don't think the OP was referring to intelligence that helps us kill animals, but the intelligence we have, like using quantum physics to recreate the origins of the universe and test it for scientific purposes, not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.

Erm, how on Earth could anybody possibly claim that human intelligence doesn't provide evolutionary advantages?
This calaim is usually a misinterpretation of the evolutionary cost of intelligence.

Large brains (like ours) require a tremendous amount of energy, thus making us less efficient at a lot of stuff. Also, having a big brain requires that we be born less well developed than other placental mammals (they can usually walk within a few hours), thus creating a greater and longer-lasting burden on the group.

As such, intelligence can only arise under fairly specific circumstances, because otherwise the development of intelligence would wipe out the species. Not having intelligence, but developing intelligence.

I'm not trying to support the OP here, I am just curious about why we are so intelligent, I am not going to attempt to deduce the existence of God or any other crap,


My intellect might not have evolved specifically with quantum physics in mind (no pun intended), but I can apply my intelligence to such problems if I want.

But once human intelligence evolved to an extent where it was fully evolutionary beneficial, is that really the same amount of intelligence we have today? I mean surely it would only need a sufficient amount to create tools that can help us farm and hunt and ensure the survival of our species, not the sort of intelligence that we have today.

Edit: Christ there were a lot of syntax errors in that!

One solution is: there is more to this Good/Evil thing than the Human mind can percieve.

Ah, so mass genocide might be a good thing? Thanks God, never thought of it that way. :rolleyes:

I mean surely it would only need a sufficient amount to create tools that can help us farm and hunt and ensure the survival of our species, not the sort of intelligence that we have today.
Actually, to do all that really calls for an open-ended intelligence, which can take on any kind of novel problem, and that is what we have.

Ah, so mass genocide might be a good thing? Thanks God, never thought of it that way. :rolleyes:

Ever heard of necessary evil? Its possible - however bad it may seem to us

Click Stand;13487334']So you would rather euthanize people who are no longer useful to society? How would you feel if it was someone you loved and wanted to live?

Actually, to use the word euthanize correctly, the person being killed in question would have to desire to die (hence it's relationship to suicide).

The word you were looking for was "execute", I believe, after all, that you were trying to imply killing them against their will.

Yeah, seems kinda barbaric but the human race evolved with the weak being wiped out because they couldnt survive. We wouldnt be having this discussion today if they hadnt

I don't think the OP was referring to intelligence that helps us kill animals, but the intelligence we have, like using quantum physics to recreate the origins of the universe and test it for scientific purposes, not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.

It IS the same kind of intelligence really. The intelligence which allows us to develope technology.

If we don't understand how the world around us works then we cant use it to build shelter and find food and keep warm.
Like if we didn't know what the sun's energy was we wouldn't have been able to make solar power.

In every "is god real or not" discussion, there's one thing I hope the god or one of his/her believers can explain to me:

WHY THE PARASITICAL WASPS???

If a believer can explain to me why those things need to exist, I might consider joining said religion.

He hasnt got round to killing them off yet =P

maybe there isn't an explanation other than God. you seem to know that, you say yourself in the original post. my question is, why are you so determined to disprove God when your own post suggests that he exists?

who was that directed at?
At the opening poster, I would assume.

who was that directed at?

http://insects.tamu.edu/images/insects/common/images/cd-43-c/img329.jpg

God, what did that caterpillar ever do to you? :(

It could have lived on to become a beautiful butterfly. :(

Instead those damn parasitical wasps you supposedly created, will eat it from inside out and kill it in a horrible way! :upyours:

Evolution can explain even such vile creatures - can you, god?

http://insects.tamu.edu/images/insects/common/images/cd-43-c/img329.jpg

God, what did that caterpillar ever do to you? :(

It could have lived on to become a beautiful butterfly. :(

Instead those damn parasitical wasps you supposedly created, will eat it from inside out and kill it in a horrible way! :upyours:

Evolution can explain even such vile creatures - can you, god?

1. Everything has got to die some day no matter how it does.
2. Not God's fault - the wasps are hungry =) Its no different from human tapeworms tbh

Plus, nature cares little for butterflies flying round a nice green meadow so we can drive by in our 4x4s and take in the imagery. Nature is strongest survives. Wasps are stronger than the caterpillar by using strength in numbers, so thats just the way the cookie crumbles im afraid. Sowi :(

1. Everything has got to die some day no matter how it does.
2. Not God's fault - the wasps are hungry =) Its no different from human tapeworms tbh

1. That's an evolutionary answer, not a belief one.
2. Tapeworms don't eat humans out from the inside, they live on the stuff the human eats, but my comment goes for all parasitical things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapeworm

Plus, nature cares little for butterflies flying round a nice green meadow so we can drive by in our 4x4s and take in the imagery. Nature is strongest survives. Wasps are stronger than the caterpillar by using strength in numbers, so thats just the way the cookie crumbles im afraid. Sowi :(

Again, an evolutionary answer.

And then my answer is that 1 and 2 were made by God. ^^

additionally if you were serious about joining said religion, if i were you I wud join humanism. sounds like ur kinda thing =P Dont join mainstream Christianity, especially Catholicism. They are all deluded to the true message of Christ and God. I personally think theyve got it all wrong

I find the concept of a god that has existed forever to be absurd.

Understandable. If something could exist forever, who is to say it is not God though? If you believe the universe always existed you might want to consider that Eastern thing that considers God and the universe to be one.

Aside: God would have created time.

Not for any reason, just because it makes your head hurt?

That might be one way of putting it. Energy and matter always existed? Perhaps I think too much, because my brain will not stop there. Something that existed before time falls out of the realm of conventional physical, and thereof is not likely physical.

You seem to preclude possibilities without consideration a lot.

I have considered long and hard many-a-time, and I mostly end on the thought: "What the hell do I know?"

Actually, to use the word euthanize correctly, the person being killed in question would have to desire to die (hence it's relationship to suicide).

The word you were looking for was "execute", I believe, after all, that you were trying to imply killing them against their will.

Euthanize is just a killing out of mercy, otherwise it would be very hard to get a dogs consent...
At least that's what Webster said, though I do agree that execute would have been a better word to use, since euthanize is usually also tied to a mercy killing.

No, in that case he'd just be indifferent.
In the Bible indifference to evil when you are easily able to stop something, let's say like an omnipotent god for instance, is evil. Look it ups!

In the Bible indifference to evil when you are easily able to stop something, let's say like an omnipotent god for instance, is evil. Look it ups!

Well duh. Its the Bible. Possibly the most contradictory book ever. But what do u expect being written by hundreds of different people. Thats like sending a text to someone made up by 50 people each one getting to choose a word, and not actually seeing or knowing eachother. Tbh im surprised the Bible made any sense at all!

Ever heard of necessary evil? Its possible - however bad it may seem to us

How would an omnipotent being have a need for "necessary evil"?

I have considered long and hard many-a-time, and I mostly end on the thought: "What the hell do I know?"
OK, I can buy that. It sounded like you were saying you were absolutely sure, on grounds that you couldn't grasp the alternative.

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.
I don't know if this has been answered yet, but here is my oppinion. About the dinosaurs and our intelligence - you musn't forget that our evolution didn't start only a few thousands of years ago. We didn't just become a human one day, with all our intelligence. No, our far predecessors, small mammals (well not direct predecessors, but they share many features with us- hot blood circulatory sistem, hairy skin, sweat glands-including the milk ones, for the babyes...) were running arround back when the dinosaurs were still rullers of Earth. And they developped from their own predecessors and so on. So basically, we humans have been evoluting for millions of years, ever since life appeared on Earth, before we slowly shaped into what we are today.
So why did dinosaurs die out, why didn't their intellect evolve and howcome mammals survived untill today? The answer is simple, dinosaurs were just a blind path in the evolution process. They had big bodies and were cold blooded and that just doesn't go very well together. When the climate changed and became colder, they couldn't adapt, their cold bodies needed warmth and sun, so they slowly died-out. Yes, there were also smaller dinosaurs which could have survived, but they layed eggs, which were easy targets for mammals to steal. In the end, mammals were just tougher and prevailed, maybe because they were hot-blodded, maybe they just reproduced faster-and therefore were larger in numbers-we will never know.
As far as compassion goes, it's just a result of our developped intelligence. Animals are compassionate too, just not as much as people, because they don't think about it so much, it's in their natural instinct.

What, then, if that same writer had just used "god" as a metaphor for the lengthy process of abiogenesis and natural selection?
What if he knew there was no god, but wanted to humour his audience with an image they could relate to?
Yeah I get what you're saying. And its tricky...
While I think the bible is a great piece of literature, I also believe that it is inspired by God. I don't think that the author would have been able to use metaphors for natural selection etc. because there was no science advanced enough, or knowledge of natural selection. But if God inspired it, then its possible.
Well, if we look at the Old Testament...this wasn't a God that people were able to relate to easily. So, if the author did make him up, he did a piss poor job because it would have been easier to make up a God who would indulge them...?
Dominance, just like absolutely everything else, is a temporary pleasure.
Yeah, I was just saying that since we've been able to use language and communicate, we've been the dominant species. So its not suprising that that comes through in religious doctrine.
What you describe is not what is commonly known as "creationism" though.
I know. But wouldn't it be nice if we were all a little more flexible :)
Firstly, there was more than one 'author' of Genesis.
Secondly, why do you assume that Genesis was based on anything supernatural at all, rather than on previous Creation myths and contemporary political ambitions?
As far as I knew, the first 5 books of the bible, were written by Moses. And there's debate over whether he's also the author of Job...oh, and he wrote a psalm as well i think.
And the second question: I think that comes down to personal belief. You can logic things out to a point, but then its faith. And my personal belief is in a supernatural God....so the leap for me isnt so hard.
And as for previous creation myths....seeing as the writer was Moses, wouldn't his invention of creation have been similar to the Egyptians? And the God produced is unique. Anyway, thats just my opinion.

In the Bible indifference to evil when you are easily able to stop something, let's say like an omnipotent god for instance, is evil. Look it ups!
Yes, but if God is indifferent to us, why shouldn't w be indifferent to his instructions?

Yeah I get what you're saying. And its tricky...
While I think the bible is a great piece of literature, I also believe that it is inspired by God. I don't think that the author would have been able to use metaphors for natural selection etc. because there was no science advanced enough, or knowledge of natural selection. But if God inspired it, then its possible.
Well, if we look at the Old Testament...this wasn't a God that people were able to relate to easily. So, if the author did make him up, he did a piss poor job because it would have been easier to make up a God who would indulge them...?

He did indulge them.
The Israelites needed a war god and got a war god.
Jesus wanted a peace god and got a peace god.



<snip>

As far as I knew, the first 5 books of the bible, were written by Moses. And there's debate over whether he's also the author of Job...oh, and he wrote a psalm as well i think.

In theory, that's (about) right.
In practice, it's not even a credible theory.
The most prominent theory of who wrote says the first five books were written by a source called J, a source called E, a priestly source, and a deuteronomist, and were compiled by some other guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis).

And really, look at the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Explain to me how Moses wrote the verses about his own death.

<snip>

And as for previous creation myths....seeing as the writer was Moses, wouldn't his invention of creation have been similar to the Egyptians? And the God produced is unique. Anyway, thats just my opinion.
No, it wouldn't.
First of all, the books were written after the Israelites had been in Israel for a long time.
Second, even if Moses wrote the books, I think he'd have a pretty hard time adapting an ejaculating creator god. Just my opinion, though. :p

Yes, another thread about religion! I'd like to welcome the bitter, cynical, tired, and jaded.
I'm part of a Christian family. My grandpa was a chaplain in Vietnam. My whole family's involved with the church. I live in a Christian town. My parents, however, are the most "progressive" of the bunch (I don't know if that's the right word) and don't want me to get confirmed into the church unless I sincerely believe in God.
If I believed in God for either of these common reasons:
a) A world in which I imagine a God is a happier place
b) He can't be disproven
I'd feel like a hypocrite.
The only "evidence" I've heard that I can't debunk is that humans are unnaturally intelligent. Other animals existed for millions of years (such as the dinosaurs, they had over a hundred million years... I'm not looking it up...) and never built civilizations, developed written language, left behind monuments or idols, etc. We're the only ones who got this intelligence, and supposedly there's no evolutionary advantage for it. I believe in evolution, by the way. And the Big Bang. Just so we're clear.
Also, humans seem unnaturally compassionate (we care for the old, sick, and handicapped, despite the fact that they cannot hunt, gather, or produce more children. They provide us with no advantage.)
These things together are taken as evidence that we were designed by a higher power, intended to achieve something other animals couldn't.

Someone please address these arguments.



first of all you are right the existance of a higher power, at this point in time, it is impssible to disprove. however the details of the higher power set by each religion can be easily disproven. one must consider the law of conservation of matter as well, which states that neither matter or energy can be created or desroyed, which actualy could disprove a god.
and superior human intelegnce does have evolutionary benifits, for instance when our ancestors invented the hand axe (baisicly a sharp rock) those that had the intelegence to use the new tool were naturaly superior and lived on to re-produce. their children learned the use of this tool and continued the chain of superior breeding until we are who we are today. furthermore human compassion is nothing more than baisic maternal instinct which exists in both males and females (though more with the former). actualy we hear of animals looking after those of other species as well (real-life stories of wolves taking care of infants and such).


im not trying to disprove a religion im just stating the facts.

I'm bitter, cynical and jaded, which is why I don't like these kinds of threads, of which there are about 92. In the last week.

Thank you for sharing.

Oh also, other animals simply adapted to do what they do best. We make tools, and have been getting better at it for a very long time, fleas can now jump higher and frogs can now croak a bit lower.

A fair point, except that you seem to think evolution changes animals to do "what they do best," although actually, animals are the best at what they do because evolution makes them that way. Given the environment, certain traits emerge. Those who do not have these traits die, and the more successful animals pass these traits on to their offspring.
The ability to build a spear is an ability less useful in hunting than the ability to run at 65 mph like a cheetah. Don't believe me? Between a guy with a spear and a cheetah, who's gonna have an easier time bagging antelope?
Also, consider that we haven't evolved in the past... say, ten thousand years, at least... yet our technology continues to advance. Apes, however, have continued evolving and are still catching ants on sticks.
There was no niche in nature that called for a species capable of writing, of creating art, of building temples, of philosophy, of tool-making, etc. Intelligence is less useful in a hunter-gatherer sense than claws are.

Coming back to old places and occassionally leaving things there is also not unique. Lobsters do it, for example.

What do they leave behind? Skyscrapers?

That other animals do not care for each other is also a false statement, elephants and chimps, amongst others, do care for their physically and/or mentally handicapped brethren.

Now this I did not know. I'll bring that up with the folks. Thank you.

first of all you are right the existance of a higher power, at this point in time, it is impssible to disprove. however the details of the higher power set by each religion can be easily disproven. one must consider the law of conservation of matter as well, which states that neither matter or energy can be created or desroyed, which actualy could disprove a god.

Yes, but gods or no gods, energy and matter got here somehow. I think that if there can be a Big Bang where the universe spontaneously explodes from a point smaller than the head of a pin (which I believe there was), then there can be a god who planned it out. Why not?

and superior human intelegnce does have evolutionary benifits, for instance when our ancestors invented the hand axe (baisicly a sharp rock) those that had the intelegence to use the new tool were naturaly superior and lived on to re-produce. their children learned the use of this tool and continued the chain of superior breeding until we are who we are today.

Yet no other species "evolved" the hand axe. Most of them got claws and sharp teeth, in which we are lacking. Evolution has never, in any other case, provided another species with the means to create weapons when it could just provide them with weapons (i.e. claws, teeth, poison).

furthermore human compassion is nothing more than baisic maternal instinct which exists in both males and females (though more with the former). actualy we hear of animals looking after those of other species as well (real-life stories of wolves taking care of infants and such).

Maternal instinct would probably more prevalent in females, I would think. But I've been wrong before. Or maybe that was a typo, in which case I understand.
You're right, maternal instinct is present in animals. It's necessary for the perpetuation of the species. But keeping a 50-year-old woman with down syndrome who will never breed, never provide for anyone on her own, and will basically leech off of our society, is not beneficial to the species. But we do it anyway, because of something we possess that other animals do not seem to possess (except elephants, I guess. Like I said, I'll have to look into that).

im not trying to disprove a religion im just stating the facts.

The point of this thread is to see whether or not people can disprove religious beliefs. Faith needs to be tested.
However, I think I know what you're saying and thank you for stating the facts. That's the best thing to do.

Yes, but if God is indifferent to us, why shouldn't w be indifferent to his instructions?

I smell a bumper sticker. That's really good.

Not just apes, I was in a talk on animal cognition last year talking about a species of bird on an isolated pacific island also passed down "traditions" such as tool use from one generation to another.

Animals, they're smarter than we like to think.

Another thing I had not previously heard about. I'll have to bring that up, too. Thank you for the input :)

You can't debunk it as proof of god because it's not proof of god, at all. So one species developed intellect. That doesn't actually prove anything.

Proof and evidence are not the same. I'm talking about evidence.

As far as survival goes, humans are very poor equipped. We're not nearly as strong as most animals (ever try to wrestle a bear?) not nearly as fast (try to catch a squirrel without a trap?), we can't fly, or hold our breath. We have generally very poor healing properties and no natural defenses. Our teeth are short and round, or nails are thin and grow slow. We have no real fur to keep warm, or shells to protect us.

And yet every other animal confronted with this situation did not develop human intelligence. They developed strength, speed, flying, breath-holding, healing properties, teeth, claws, fur, and shells. We are the exception. You're arguing for me, not against me.

To say our intelligence has no evolutionary benefit is foolish. Our species is very incapable of surviving "in nature" if not for us being smart. We can't outfight the bear, outrun the tiger, out swim the shark. We would barely survive if not for our ability to be clever.

EXACTLY. I'm going to ignore that first sentence, since it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Anyway, my point (that is, that our environment did not call for the ability to perform complex mathematics, speculate on the meaning of life, etc) still stands. We sure as hell didn't evolve the atom bomb, or space travel, or the microchip. And for all their evolving, the most we've seen from other animals is the occasional shoddy shelter, a stick being used to catch ants, or hitting things with rocks until they break. This is made even more remarkable when you consider what a relatively new species we are.

Yeah, seems kinda barbaric but the human race evolved with the weak being wiped out because they couldnt survive. We wouldnt be having this discussion today if they hadnt

The fact that it seems kinda barbaric separates us from most other creatures on the face of the Earth.

What, then, if that same writer had just used "god" as a metaphor for the lengthy process of abiogenesis and natural selection?
What if he knew there was no god, but wanted to humour his audience with an image they could relate to?

This person must have had access to far better science than others living at the time. And he must have figured it out alone. And he must have felt like playing a joke on the rest of humanity just for the hell of it, or to prove that he was in fact unreasonably knowledgeable for his time.
I respect this guy a lot.

Since the whole idea for you is for argument to 'debunk' this evidence...nomatter how people classify this evidence...then this debate is pointless. You've made up your mind.
But what concerns me a little, is why you need validation not to believe in God...or perhaps i'm mistaken. :(

It's about being scientific. If you have a theory, you try to disprove it. If it stands up to these attempts, it is probably true.
I don't want to believe in God because it makes me happy. If people never test their faith, how do they know they have strong faith?
If I were to find something that seems out of place, something that seems unnatural, something never before seen in the world, that would imply some sort of plan or design behind it. It certainly wouldn't prove the existence of a god, but it would lend enough credence to the idea that I would consider being confirmed.
I think argument is best used to discover the truth. When two people present every possible validation or justification for their worldview, eventually, a larger picture will form. The correct answer has a chance of emerging. By hearing both sides, you become a more complete person. Contradicting for the sake of contradicting can yield new and interesting ideas that would not have been thought of otherwise.
What concerns me a little is that you seem to want me to believe everything I hear, rather than challenge it :(

In every "is god real or not" discussion, there's one thing I hope the god or one of his/her believers can explain to me:

WHY THE PARASITICAL WASPS???

If a believer can explain to me why those things need to exist, I might consider joining said religion.

I don't think parasitical wasps were apart of God's plan, if there is a God.
Even if there was a god, I still doubt there's a "reason for everything," and that includes insects, ebola, and televangelists. Although I can't say any of that for certain.

Ever heard of necessary evil? Its possible - however bad it may seem to us

If man kind was intelligent enough there would not need to be one - I understand your thinking though.

If man kind was intelligent enough there would not need to be one - I understand your thinking though.

I'm not sure how frequently God, if there is a God, interferes with man's doings.
If I did start believing sincerely in God, then the most rational vision of Him seems to me something like this: He created the universe, and at least one life-sustaining planet. He had a general plan for humanity and what He wanted humanity to accomplish. He had a very good idea of many of the pitfalls that humanity would encounter on the way. He sometimes appeared early on to show people who He was and that He was real. He made the rules, and then let the scenario play out. If He exists, He seems pretty non-interventionist to me.

No evolutionary advantage?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!1
Humans: 7 billion spread across the globe.
Chimps: A few million, mainly in Africa.
Try telling me there's no evolutionary advantage to intelligence.

May not have been the best word choice.

That also provides an evolutionary advantage.
Because without compassion, we would still be at chimp level despite intelligence, because nobody would have a reason to spread the wheel or fire or spears or anything like that.
One person would invent it, use it, die, and that'd be it.

Please explain.

Not to mention, it also provides a bunch of free bodyguards called friends in return for being a free bodyguard for all of them.
Since you will all have lots of backup in these cases, the chances of any of you dying is reduced by a good bit. Better for evolution.
Also friends help if you run out of food, or lack a cave, etc. because of the same you-help-me, I-help-you agreement.

If these people are retarded or old, then no, they are not of much use as bodyguards.

Done.

Well, you tried.

As much as I value of a good intellectual discussion and whatnot, the idea of trying to prove the existence of a deity is silly to me. Religion is based on faith, not proof, and proof undermines faith, therefore proving god does exist would prove that him/her/it is does not exist, or would make him/her/it no longer exist. QED.

He did indulge them.
The Israelites needed a war god and got a war god.
Jesus wanted a peace god and got a peace god.
In theory, that's (about) right.
In practice, it's not even a credible theory.
The most prominent theory of who wrote says the first five books were written by a source called J, a source called E, a priestly source, and a deuteronomist, and were compiled by some other guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis).
And really, look at the last few verses of Deuteronomy. Explain to me how Moses wrote the verses about his own death.
No, it wouldn't.
First of all, the books were written after the Israelites had been in Israel for a long time.
Second, even if Moses wrote the books, I think he'd have a pretty hard time adapting an ejaculating creator god. Just my opinion, though. :p

Israel didn't have a God that indulged them. This God gave them rules for everything. Rules that couldn't be achieved. A God that was regularly angry at them for disobedience. And seeing as I believe Jesus is God, I can't comment on that really. Except to say that the Jews needed a God of war when Jesus arrived as the messiah. They wanted someone to kick the romans out, make Israel great and to rule over them. What they got was someone who gave them the exact opposite, a peaceful God. So, I don't quite see the indulgence.
I'm not entirely convinced about your theory on E, J, a priest and a judge. Seeing as most theologians believe it was Moses. And the logical explaination for the writings about the death of Moses, is that it was finished by his 2nd in command, Joshua, who then went on to write the bk Joshua.
No-one quite knows when the books were written. There's the theory that Job was the first book, written by Moses during the 40 years he was exiled from Egypt. And that the others were written during the 40 years in the wilderness, before the Israelites entered Caanan.
Not quite sure what you'd mean by an ejaculating God...meant to be funny? A lot of the history about the Jewish people, was not invented by Moses, but he simply wrote it down. The Jews as slaves in Egypt already had their God, culture, customs etc. and would have passed down the origin of their people orally. eg. the covenant between God and Abraham, the flood, the bloodlines. The bloodlines in particular are of extreme importance to the Jews. So, I doubt he would have had problems convincing the Jews, seeing as they already had their religion...and Moses was raised Egyptian. But the law, the events of the wilderness etc are more likely to be a first hand account, rather than documenting history.

It's about being scientific. If you have a theory, you try to disprove it. If it stands up to these attempts, it is probably true.
I don't want to believe in God because it makes me happy. If people never test their faith, how do they know they have strong faith?
If I were to find something that seems out of place, something that seems unnatural, something never before seen in the world, that would imply some sort of plan or design behind it. It certainly wouldn't prove the existence of a god, but it would lend enough credence to the idea that I would consider being confirmed.
I think argument is best used to discover the truth. When two people present every possible validation or justification for their worldview, eventually, a larger picture will form. The correct answer has a chance of emerging. By hearing both sides, you become a more complete person. Contradicting for the sake of contradicting can yield new and interesting ideas that would not have been thought of otherwise.
What concerns me a little is that you seem to want me to believe everything I hear, rather than challenge it :(
Okay, I've misinterpreted how you meant it. I wasn't asking you to believe everything you hear, that would be a little daft. But as I've said before, with the existence of God, there is only so far logic and science can take you. At some point you make a decision to believe without having every question answered. I encourage you to keep pursuing a larger worldview, but when I first read the thread I saw it more as a 'help me disprove God, because I don't want to believe'. And if that were the case, all I was saying was you don't need other people's permission not to believe, just make peace with it.
But thats not what you said. I was wrong.

Yeah I get what you're saying. And its tricky...
While I think the bible is a great piece of literature, I also believe that it is inspired by God. I don't think that the author would have been able to use metaphors for natural selection etc. because there was no science advanced enough, or knowledge of natural selection. But if God inspired it, then its possible.
Well, if we look at the Old Testament...this wasn't a God that people were able to relate to easily. So, if the author did make him up, he did a piss poor job because it would have been easier to make up a God who would indulge them...?

No, I don't think you're right there.
Keep in mind, the Israelites at that time were farmers already. They had been breeding animals and crops for generations already, and they were well aware what changes could be achieved by only breeding the traits you wanted.
See, Darwin didn't actually know so much more about nature when he set out on the Beagle, he just was a good observer and merciless thinker. He reached the conclusions he reached despite himself, he was actually rather worried and unsettled by his discoveries.
It's not streching it too far to assume that people who live in a harsh and unforgiving environment, and are forced to live of the land as best they can, will be able to make similar observations about their surroundings.

And I daresay the god of the old testament was exactly what the Israelites could relate to easily : a strict, headstrong, proud, unforgiving, rash, vengeful patriarch. Have a look at Middle Eastern societies : God in the old testament behaves very much like men there still do (and are encouraged to do).


Yeah, I was just saying that since we've been able to use language and communicate, we've been the dominant species. So its not suprising that that comes through in religious doctrine.

Well, in sheer biomass we've only recently have become dominant, really. The last 200 years were rather crucial at that.
But in self-centeredness we've always taken the cake indeed ;)

And as for previous creation myths....seeing as the writer was Moses, wouldn't his invention of creation have been similar to the Egyptians? And the God produced is unique. Anyway, thats just my opinion.

I recommend you read up on Akhenaten (aka Amenhotep IV), then, if you believe that Moses' god was in any way unique ;)

This person must have had access to far better science than others living at the time. And he must have figured it out alone. And he must have felt like playing a joke on the rest of humanity just for the hell of it, or to prove that he was in fact unreasonably knowledgeable for his time.
I respect this guy a lot.

Why do you assume it was only one guy?
Erich van Daniken (much as I dislike him otherwise) gave a nice example of what can happen to knowledge once the civilisation that discovered it disappears :

Imagine that our civilisation is largely wiped out. Some sort of catastrophe, let's assume only about 10% of humanity survives. Far too few people to keep anything going, really. And they'd mostly be occupied with surviving.
Now imagine one day a father and a child (the child having been born after the catastrophe) watching some birds, and the father telling the child that once, there were machines just like those birds, and people would fly in them, in their bellies.
How long do you think it would take for knowledge to degrade into myths and metaphors?

Now, I'm not claiming that there used to be this massive super-civilisation that we haven't found a trace off yet. But there were civilisations in Egypt, Babylon, Ur, all over the fertile crescent really, who might well have made observations on how animals can change physically over several generations, depending on outer circumstances, and who might also have noticed how some species are more closely related than others.
But I think it's well possible that the Isrealites (themselves only a tribe of wandering barbarians at best) came into contact with the early great Mesopotamian civilisations and took some of their knowledge on board. But since they had no written records themselves yet, that knowledge got handed down orally and was distorted over time, eventually to turn into the genesis fable.

Failing to perceive one of the possibilities is, in fact, objectively inferior to perceiving both. If we trace back the chain of cause-and-effect, maybe there is a first point, and maybe there isn't. One can give arguments for either position, of course, but saying "I can't imagine that there could be a starting point" (not "I have reasons to think there wasn't one" but just, "I can't see that") would be precluding a possibility from sheer lack of ability to understand, every bit as much as "I can't imagine that there wasn't a starting point".

Agreed.

What makes you think I think that? And is your answer based on analysis of evidence, or on faith?

To you I applogies, I was feeling in a bit of a shitty mood when I typed that, and seeing(once more) dismissal of a person for the way they think does get my goat.

In all honesty I don't mind the religous nor the unreligous, but it does seem that if you can't at least admit that there are other options, then you do your self a disserive.

In the end when I percive a statement to come from a closed mind, it tends to make me angry, thats me though not you.

But once human intelligence evolved to an extent where it was fully evolutionary beneficial, is that really the same amount of intelligence we have today? I mean surely it would only need a sufficient amount to create tools that can help us farm and hunt and ensure the survival of our species, not the sort of intelligence that we have today.

I would counter that our current level of intelligence (on a species scale) is not yet sufficient to ensure the survival of our species. We've still got some "evolving" to do.

May not have been the best word choice.

Then rephrase it.



Please explain.


Suppose Bob just invented a spear.
The smart thing for Bob specifically is to keep it to himself, because that way he gets more mammoth.
But that's stupid for the species, because the species can also benefit from the spear.


If these people are retarded or old, then no, they are not of much use as bodyguards.


First of all, evolution isn't as clean as you seem to think. It is EASIER to make it just compassion for humans rather then compassion for humans that can possibly benefit you in some way at all, especially since that's almost anyone.

Anyway, in the wild, the retarded person dies pretty quickly, and the old person knows about all the inventions from previous generations.

Actually, to use the word euthanize correctly, the person being killed in question would have to desire to die (hence it's relationship to suicide).

The word you were looking for was "execute", I believe, after all, that you were trying to imply killing them against their will.

Actually Euthanasia is a blanket category which includes voluntary euthanasia (where the patient has expressed a wish to die), non-voluntary euthanasia (where the patient's wishes are unknown) and involuntary euthanasia (where the patient is known not to want to die).

OK, I can buy that. It sounded like you were saying you were absolutely sure, on grounds that you couldn't grasp the alternative.


I am absolutely opinionated, on grounds that I cannot grasp the alternative.

I am not even sure of my own existence.

As far as I knew, the first 5 books of the bible, were written by Moses. And there's debate over whether he's also the author of Job...oh, and he wrote a psalm as well i think.
And the second question: I think that comes down to personal belief. You can logic things out to a point, but then its faith. And my personal belief is in a supernatural God....so the leap for me isnt so hard.
And as for previous creation myths....seeing as the writer was Moses, wouldn't his invention of creation have been similar to the Egyptians? And the God produced is unique. Anyway, thats just my opinion.

That's the traditional view, but it's almost universally rejected by modern scholars. For a start, the Pentateuch includes:
-events which happened after Moses' death (e.g. the end of the Mana from Heaven as the Israelites crossed the Jordan)
-references which clearly imply a historical perspective from after the time of Moses (all the uses of the phrase 'to this day', especially in the context of the location of Moses' tomb being unknown 'to this day' which is incoherent if written by Moses)
-phrases which demand a geographical location which is inconsistent with the story of Moses (talking about events taking place in the Sinai as being 'across the Jordan': as Moses never crossed the Jordan this was clearly written by someone in Israel)
-anachronisms (e.g. Abraham is said to have pursued an army 'unto Dan', but Dan only got its name when it was captured by the Tribe of Dan during the conquest of Canaan)
-and finally, irony: Moses is described in the Torah as being 'the meekest man who ever lived'. Do I need to spell it out? :p

These are just a few of the reasons why no mainstream scholars accept Mosaic authorship anymore. Instead, the Torah is viewed as the merger of four separate documents: J, E, P and D. If you're interested I'd recommend Richard Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible?. It's very accessible and provides a good basic grounding to the origins of the Torah.

I would counter that our current level of intelligence (on a species scale) is not yet sufficient to ensure the survival of our species. We've still got some "evolving" to do.


Considering that Survival is an open ended issue (Assume we survive the heat-death of the universe. Then what?) our evolution will never be sufficient.

But it does demonstrate that retreating from technological development to a "sustainable" lifestyle is a false path. We can wear all the recycled hemp we want and it will not count one bit towards humanity surviving the eventual red giant phase of our sun, or even the next ice age.

I should have noted in my last post that this is exactly the issue that will make science and religion ultimately incompatible.

Religion will tell you that survival is not an open ended question. All we have to do is last long enough for god to declare the game over and reward all his/her/its/their beleivers. Could happen tonight! Science does not assume any final ending, so there can be no end to Human development.

But once human intelligence evolved to an extent where it was fully evolutionary beneficial, is that really the same amount of intelligence we have today? I mean surely it would only need a sufficient amount to create tools that can help us farm and hunt and ensure the survival of our species, not the sort of intelligence that we have today.

That's not really how evolution works I think. It might have been enough to just be intelligent enough to create tools for survival, but those who were more intelligent apparently got an evolutionary benefit. Now that we're getting more intelligent (I don't know if we're getting more intelligent, we just have more knowledge to fall back to, cavemen raised as modern humans might have been as intelligent as us) being stupid might be an evolutionary benefit so in the future we will become more stupid overall.
You might as well ask why we have five fingers while 3 would be sufficient. Surely we would only need a sufficient amount to create tools and help us hunt...

That's not really how evolution works I think. It might have been enough to just be intelligent enough to create tools for survival, but those who were more intelligent apparently got an evolutionary benefit.

It is much more than just tool making. In fact, the evolution of Human tool making stalled for a hundred thousand years (or more, I forget) and then suddenly took off again. But consider what else went on:

Living in small groups, those with brains better able to process the social dynamics prospered.

Living in a highly dynamic environment, those better able to interpret complex signs and patterns based on fundamentals rather than precise matches to the familiar prospered.

With the upper arms free, and with a lot of upper body strength still left after evolving as a tree dwelling ape, Humans were the first species that could throw with real strength and accuracy. This meant, of course, that those with brains capable of calculating the ballistics could use this to prosper.

Being social animals, Humans with brains capable of coordinating team activities prospered. No team activity is as important as fighting, from an evolutionary perspective. The team that fights better will prosper at the expense of the team that doesn't.

Put it all together, and Humans evolved their intelligence to accomplish these tasks: social coordination, fast reaction to a dynamic environment, calculating the trajectories of moving objects, and team tactics in a conflict.

Ask yourself, why are Humans are so fascinated with competitive team sports involving small moving objects?

I smell a bumper sticker. That's really good.
It's not nearly as good as:

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

That's mine, too.

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

:p

If these people are retarded or old, then no, they are not of much use as bodyguards.


Ah, but what natural selection selects for is not a conscious awareness of what's good for your genes--it selects for traits that are generally useful, even if they sometimes "misfire."

For example, your brain's imaging software works, for the most part. Except those damn optical illusions, in which it is fooled.

In the same way, compassion generally helps you, or at least people with similar genes to you. However, because evolution works with rules-of-thumb, it also causes you to be compassionate to people that absolutely cannot help society anymore.

(Of course, old people are invaluable, even in our evolutionary history: their experience and knowledge can be genuinely helpful. Grandpa might know the best fishing and hunting spots, for example, so keeping him alive would be quite beneficial, because you get more food, even if you have to share it with him.)

Okay, I've misinterpreted how you meant it. I wasn't asking you to believe everything you hear, that would be a little daft. But as I've said before, with the existence of God, there is only so far logic and science can take you. At some point you make a decision to believe without having every question answered. I encourage you to keep pursuing a larger worldview, but when I first read the thread I saw it more as a 'help me disprove God, because I don't want to believe'. And if that were the case, all I was saying was you don't need other people's permission not to believe, just make peace with it.
But thats not what you said. I was wrong.

An easy mistake to make. Sorry if I came off as hostile.
To be honest, I'd be much happier believing, but not if that belief depended on consistently denying my doubts.
Maybe you're right about science and logic, but really I don't think there's anything that can exist outside the bounds of science and logic. That may sound a bit narrow-minded, and maybe it is. Eventually, I might change my mind about that, too. I'm almost as undecided as a person can get.

Then rephrase it.

I did, in at least two earlier posts. Evolution doesn't give you the ability to make a spear when it could just give you wings and talons. We're the only spear-makers. Gospel.

Suppose Bob just invented a spear.
The smart thing for Bob specifically is to keep it to himself, because that way he gets more mammoth.
But that's stupid for the species, because the species can also benefit from the spear.

Actually, what benefits the species benefits Bob as well. Ancient man hunted in packs. I don't want to take this mammoth all by myself, with or without my spear. I want you to have a spear, so we can kill the mammoth together and share, rather than me being impaled on a tusk.
We do things outside our self-interests. We sacrifice ourselves for each other. Try imagining a gorilla sacrificing its life for a much older, much less useful gorilla. Hard to picture. But for a person? Then the situation becomes more likely.

First of all, evolution isn't as clean as you seem to think. It is EASIER to make it just compassion for humans rather then compassion for humans that can possibly benefit you in some way at all, especially since that's almost anyone.

Actually, no. Even herd animals leave behind stragglers. Lions oust pride leaders when they become too old, and let them starve in the desert. Most animals lay eggs and leave their young on their own. Some even eat their young.
In nature, only the fittest survive. But not with people. We are unnatural.

Anyway, in the wild, the retarded person dies pretty quickly, and the old person knows about all the inventions from previous generations.

I don't really know what you're trying to accomplish by saying that. "Sure, we try to save our handicapped and elderly, but since they would die in the wild anyway, it doesn't count."
As for the inventions thing, it seems that this knowledge would be passed onto your offspring while they are young. If I have a son, I don't wait until I become old and useless to tell him my secrets- I tell him right away, while I'm still a teenager (if I'm not mistaken, that's when our ancestors did their procreating, what with short life expectancy and all), so that if I die, he can go on.
Besides, look around you. Technology doesn't stand still. The people who know the most about inventions aren't old geezers with secret wisdom. The most inventive people are YOUNG, and it's usually the young who have to teach the old about technology, not the other way around.

Ah, but what natural selection selects for is not a conscious awareness of what's good for your genes--it selects for traits that are generally useful, even if they sometimes "misfire."

For example, your brain's imaging software works, for the most part. Except those damn optical illusions, in which it is fooled.

In the same way, compassion generally helps you, or at least people with similar genes to you. However, because evolution works with rules-of-thumb, it also causes you to be compassionate to people that absolutely cannot help society anymore.

An idea that I have thought of and cannot discount. I don't know. Maybe it's true, but maybe compassion is not an evolutionary fluke. Maybe it's intentional. I don't lean one way or the other. I'm kind of hoping we can figure that out with argument.
I'm a little scatterbrained right now and can't think of a response to what you said there, so... sorry. Gimme time :)

(Of course, old people are invaluable, even in our evolutionary history: their experience and knowledge can be genuinely helpful. Grandpa might know the best fishing and hunting spots, for example, so keeping him alive would be quite beneficial, because you get more food, even if you have to share it with him.)

But once you know what Grandpa has to pass down to you, you no longer need him. He's going to have to reveal a secret at a time until he reaches very ripe old age and dies of natural causes. I don't see this happening much anymore, but maybe it used to.
This is the second time I've seen this idea posted, and what bugs me is: someone must have figured things out for Grandpa in the first place. Someone found that good fishing or hunting spot. There's new information all the time. I don't ask my grandpa how to send a telegram, because I have e-mail. It's how we advance. See what I'm trying to say? I don't really need him to survive.
People figure things out, they don't just learn them from others. All knowledge, no matter how old, started as a sudden realization. Sure, grandpa might have some geographic secrets, but he figured them out on his own and I probably can, too.

But once you know what Grandpa has to pass down to you, you no longer need him. He's going to have to reveal a secret at a time until he reaches very ripe old age and dies of natural causes. I don't see this happening much anymore, but maybe it used to.

Again, rules of thumb-- you don't evolve "be nice to Grandpa unless he's already told you everything," you evolve "be nice to Granpda so he can teach you things.
indeed, it's strong evidence for an evolved trait because rules of thumb would be easier to evolve than complex rules for compassion.


This is the second time I've seen this idea posted, and what bugs me is: someone must have figured things out for Grandpa in the first place. Someone found that good fishing or hunting spot. There's new information all the time. I don't ask my grandpa how to send a telegram, because I have e-mail. It's how we advance. See what I'm trying to say? I don't really need him to survive.
People figure things out, they don't just learn them from others. All knowledge, no matter how old, started as a sudden realization. Sure, grandpa might have some geographic secrets, but he figured them out on his own and I probably can, too.

New knowledge almost always builds upon the old. Maybe Grandpa's father taught him how to hunt, and showed him a few places. Grandpa, then, found a few more, some of which might be even better than the old ones. Grandpa now knows all the spots his father taught him plus those he himself discovered.

Furthermore, situations might quite often come up that you can ask the elders of the tribe for advice, and they're more likely to have experienced a similar situation in the past and therefore be able to make a wise choice of action. Remember, for most of our evolutionary history, we didn't have the internet, or books, or anything like that. So elders who have lived long and experienced many trials are likely to be able to run the tribe best-- and consider how many ancient societies were run by a council of elders, mostly for this reason!