The problem of Religion.

[S.A.M.]

Yes , I am right here - if you disagree , then please argue your case ....

If you cannot see the contradiction in your own statement, then you are beyond salvation.

Either we are subject to evolutionary pressures or we are not.

Decide.

 

[Lord Insane]

Sweet Sam , if you mean a religious salvation , then I am beyond salvation ...

We are subject to evolutionary pressures, but evolution only results in changes of genes and thereby survival of the fittest ......

Genes DOES NOT affect our actions and free will , and I can prove it :
Identical twins (who has the EXACT same genes) reacts differently in same situations , and are doing different things - get different jobs - and so on....

If your actions and your free will was only decided by genes , then that would not be the case !!!!!!!!!

 

[S.A.M.]

Sweet Sam , if you mean a religious salvation , then I am beyond salvation ...

We are subject to evolutionary pressures, but evolution only results in changes of genes and thereby survival of the fittest ......

Genes DOES NOT affect our actions and free will , and I can prove it :
Identical twins (who has the EXACT same genes) reacts differently in same situations , and are doing different things - get different jobs - and so on....

If your actions and your free will was only decided by genes , then that would not be the case !!!!!!!!!

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

 

[Lord Insane]

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

Hah,Hah - good try Sam !!
Please read about evolution - I just gave you the link before ....
Ever heard about Speciation ?? That can happen in one individual and create a new species .....

The definition of natural selection is the proces by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce ......

If one of the individuals are better suited - it will start new generations , that will have increased chances for survival .....



Resistent bacterias start with one mutated surviver having the gene that makes it drug resistent - then it multiplies - and you have a drug resistant strain ........

 

[charles cure]

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

you need to study evolution a little more. every evolutionary change has begun as a change in one individual within a species that enventually leads to a species-wide change, or an entire new species.

 

[Roman]

But we aren't bacteria. We reproduce sexually.

 

[Lord Insane]

But we aren't bacteria. We reproduce sexually.

Good point Roman !!

However the new mutation of the gene only happens in one person - or egg or spermcell or fertilized egg or embryo !!!!!!!!

After that it might be passed on .........
So it doesn´t matter that it takes two to tango ....

 

[charles cure]

On the contrary the holes presented by advancements in science seem to be widening - the old aphorism "The more you know the more you don't know" being a suitable epitah for empiricism

you appear to misunderstand the nature of the aphorism. it is more aptly expressed by saying "the more you discover, the more you realize is yet left to discover". this does not indicate a failure on the part of the scientific method to act as an explainer, in fact, it seems to vindicate its role as explainer.
religious belief however, especially traditional religions, are increasingly at odds with observable reality on even a basic level. i do not believe that you can compare the eaxpansions and limitations of scientific methods to the inherent unreality of theology.

 

[Sarkus]

you need to study evolution a little more. every evolutionary change has begun as a change in one individual within a species that enventually leads to a species-wide change, or an entire new species.

A single human, though, can NOT undergo a speciation event and create a new species. At most they would be considered sterile.

A speciation event is only such 'cos the new species can not sexually reproduce with another species.
If a single human underwent a speciation event from the rest of humanity - it would DIE OUT - as it could only produce offspring with someone of the same species!! And there wouldn't be any.

So a new species requires at least TWO people from the same species in order to survive and propagate.

Also, if you have a chain of mutations from A to B to C, and C can no longer reproduce with A and are thus different species - then surely B, who can reproduce with A AND C, must be a member of TWO species???

 

[S.A.M.]

Hah,Hah - good try Sam !!
Please read about evolution - I just gave you the link before ....
Ever heard about Speciation ?? That can happen in one individual and create a new species .....

The definition of natural selection is the proces by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce ......

If one of the individuals are better suited - it will start new generations , that will have increased chances for survival .....



Resistent bacterias start with one mutated surviver having the gene that makes it drug resistent - then it multiplies - and you have a drug resistant strain ........

All precepts created by man. Evolution itself is not bound by species.

Will the destruction of man mean a failure of evolution?

Did the destruction of dinosaurs mean a failure of evolution?

Evolution is a process of selection pressure on all species, the advantages and disadvantages of the species themselves are based on random mutations which may be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another.

e.g. the Pima Indians who are adapted to survive in environments that provide low access to nutrition are now affected by severe obesity, since their genes are now disadvantageous.

So is this a favorable trait? Or not?

 

[Lord Insane]

A single human, though, can NOT undergo a speciation event and create a new species. At most they would be considered sterile.

A speciation event is only such 'cos the new species can not sexually reproduce with another species.
If a single human underwent a speciation event from the rest of humanity - it would DIE OUT - as it could only produce offspring with someone of the same species!! And there wouldn't be any.

So a new species requires at least TWO people from the same species in order to survive and propagate.

Also, if you have a chain of mutations from A to B to C, and C can no longer reproduce with A and are thus different species - then surely B, who can reproduce with A AND C, must be a member of TWO species???

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!!

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents ( a recessive gene slowly spreads out into the genepoole and suddenly two persons , with the same recessive gene have offspring with the condition ) !!!!!!!!!

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!!

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents !!!!!!!!!

Still random, still dependent on beneficial environment continuing and selection pressures and no changes in environment following spread of said gene.

A bloody miracle, in fact!

 

[S.A.M.]

So to get back on topic :


how do atheists want to solve the problem of religion?

 

[Lord Insane]

Still random, still dependent on beneficial environment continuing and selection pressures and no changes in environment following spread of said gene.

A bloody miracle, in fact!

The funny thing is, that it not only happens every day - IT HAPPENS MANY TIMES EVERY DAY !!!!!!!

So many children are borne that many genetic conditions are created every day - some succesfull - some less succesfull .....

Sam - I wonder if the "godgene" is dominant or recessive

 

[S.A.M.]

The funny thing is, that it not only happens every day - IT HAPPENS MANY TIMES EVERY DAY !!!!!!!

So many children are borne that many genetic conditions are created every day - some succesfull - some less succesfull .....

Sam - I wonder if the "godgene" is dominant or recessive

Why only children? Still focused on humans?

Do you see dophins ruling the world someday?

Or rodents?

If not, why not?

And yes there are 100,000 insults to a cell every day, combated by repair mechanisms which either succeed or fail.

What direction do you see in this?

 

[S.A.M.]

So to get back on topic :


how do atheists want to solve the problem of religion?

Lord Insane,

Would you like to answer this question?

 

[Lord Insane]

All precepts created by man. Evolution itself is not bound by species.

Will the destruction of man mean a failure of evolution?

Did the destruction of dinosaurs mean a failure of evolution?

Evolution is a process of selection pressure on all species, the advantages and disadvantages of the species themselves are based on random mutations which may be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another.

e.g. the Pima Indians who are adapted to survive in environments that provide low access to nutrition are now affected by severe obesity, since their genes are now disadvantageous.

So is this a favorable trait? Or not?

Yes , all precepts created by man ....
No , evolution not bound by species ......
No , destruction of man will not be a failure of evolution - we are not above nature !!!
No , destruction of the dinosaurs were not a failure of evolution ....
there is no such thing as good or bad evolution ONLY succesfull or unsuccesfull evolution
Yes , sometimes evolution is beneficial - if the environment changes , then suddenly your genes might have difficulties in succeding !!!!!

Pimas were great in old days - now after changing of environment - not quite so great ........

Please think of the sable tooth tiger - greatly adapted and a survivor untill things changed - now extinct ......

 

[Lord Insane]

Lord Insane,

Would you like to answer this question?

Sweetheart - I actually thought , that I had answered that question !!!!!

I will just look back into the posts of this thread !!!

 

[Sarkus]

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!!

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents ( a recessive gene slowly spreads out into the genepoole and suddenly two persons , with the same recessive gene have offspring with the condition ) !!!!!!!!!

Not sure how this relates to what I said, though.

If a speciation event occurs between parent and child then the child is NO LONGER OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THEIR PARENT - BY DEFINITION - and can not sexually reproduce with the same species of the parent - BY DEFINITION.

If only one person has speciated away from humanity then they can no longer breed with humans - or else they would NOT be considered a different species and no speciation event would have occurred.

 

[spidergoat]

Religion itself is an aspect of evolution, it confers certain survival benefits such as solidarity with a family of like minded people larger than a family, village, city or country, promotion of charity (distribution of wealth), inhibition of sexual behavior that in the past led to disease, dietary customs that may have originated for health...and it backs it up with certain phantom fears. All of this can be accomplished without religion simply through understanding their worth to society.

I don't have that much of a problem with people having religious views, some of my best friends are deeply religious, almost excessively so. I support having a diversity of ideas in society, the more the better. My biggest problem with organized religion is that it promotes conformity. It subverts what I think is the product of evolution-a distinctly unique individual, a flower of novelty that never existed before. Evolution is somehow an engine for the preservation of novelty. In one sense, we are assemblies of cells, bacteria that learned a new way to preserve their genes, but they happened to stumble upon a synergy that created a creature much more than the sum of it's parts. Organized religion, and culture in general, is the opposite of this. It's intention is to inhibit the creation of unique individuals, to legislate the problems of society to such a degree that novelty is supressed, stability ensured. Humans are special, our cerebral cortex is the most densely ramified matter in the known universe, a universe that itself seems to grow from the simple toward the complex, simply by cooling. That's not to say that we aren't also animals. Evolution is not random, it is not chance, it has structure.

When I said that evolution is based on history, I don't mean just recorded human history. Evolution proceeds from what went before. It seems to build on complexity, occaisionally going through sudden leaps of radical change, which is what occurred with human beings, and their ability to preserve knowledge from generation to generation. We do destroy, but destruction is often the catalyst for growth and novelty, these are the birth pains.

I want to solve the problem of conformity to fixed cultures and religions by promoting freedom and diversity of thought, even if that includes theistic ideas. The more Gods, the better. I don't buy it personally, but I don't expect everyone to be like me. The dwindling of resources is making everyone desperate, and in their desperation, they cling to stable forms. The way forward is a leap into the unknown, into uncertainty.