BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 01:52 PM

Organised religion seems to depend on the fact that the existence of God/s cannot be proved. From my own, admittedly cynical, point of view, the scam just wouldn't work if there was a real god with actual power.

That aside though, I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 02:57 PM

"I can't see how the known laws of physics could ever change enough to accommodate what seems to be commonly posited as 'God'."

We'll Smokey, many people in past made similar personal observations, (not being able to see future change, of course) and were proven wrong. Inclluding, but not limited to, the flat Earth folks, and scientists adhering to the RC church :)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:06 PM

"I can respond to any point in any post I like, I think. That's the interweb for ya."

Yes,and I see ya feel free to do so. Anyone can also loudly fart in public, not take showers, smell and look like a skunk, and call folks rude names, if they want. Imature kids rudely interupt folks in discussions clearly directed at others, and, most often get away with it. That's life and what most of us we must deal with, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:13 PM

There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past, but nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

"There were far fewer known laws of physics in the past"

Smokey:
Maybe so, but, folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace. It wasn't that long ago when Einstien indicated that what is current known in some areas of science was not possible.   

"nevertheless gambling on a rank outsider seems illogical to me"

Smokey:

What seems "illogical" to you obviously is not seen in the same light by many in the world (right or wrong).

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God? And, I do not mean following the dogman of an organized religion, which I do see as, in many cases, as having many risks for society.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

folks in the future may say the same of us in a few hundred or thousand years, as scientific progress seems to be moving at a faster pace.

I expect they will, providing we're still here. In the meantime we have to make the best of what we know.

So, what is the actual risk ( as you note) of such a gamble to a belief in a God?

I never actually mentioned a risk; I was talking about odds and logic, but since you ask, the track record of religion so far hasn't exactly been trouble-free.

On an individual basis, however, so long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't seek to control, influence or assume superiority over others I don't think it's a problem. Unfortunately that isn't what happens, and there's your risk.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:04 PM

"I never actually mentioned a risk; I was talking about odds and logic, but since you ask, the track record of religion so far hasn't exactly been trouble-free.


Smokey

OK, my mistake. However, as I indicated, I agree that religion has a very risky track record. I will take it much farther than your modest assessment.

"On an individual basis, however, so long as people keep their beliefs to themselves and don't seek to control, influence or assume superiority over others I don't think it's a problem. Unfortunately that isn't what happens, and there's your risk."

Smokey
I suspect that most individuals who believe in a God (the thread topic) do keep their religious belief to themselves, as do most individual Athiests. As to organized religion (not the thread topic), there lies the risk, but I suspect it is mostly limited to those (who claim to speak for others) at the extreme end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are easily led.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM

Ed, if you wish to have a private conversation with someone, have a bloody private conversation. You have email. You don't have to post it up here. If you do post it up here you can expect people to wade in. That's what it's all about. I know you find it inconvenient, but if you don't like it you should ask yourself whether posting on public forums is such a good idea for you.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM

Aren't the obvious risks to society of which you wrote enough?

The risk if you believe in deity are twofold; one is that your susceptibility to believe things for which there is no evidence may be a symptom of an inability to think critically or rationally at all; and the other, your susceptibility to believe *one* thing for which there is no evidence leaves you susceptible to believe *other* things for which there is no evidence.

Especially if the persuader claims to backed up by the deity in which you already believe.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM

"Aren't the obvious risks to society of which you wrote enough?"

If you are asking me: I did not give any risks related to a belief in a God? Please do not confuse this with risks from organized religion.


"The risk if you believe in deity are twofold; one is that your susceptibility to believe things for which there is no evidence may be a symptom of an inability to think critically or rationally at all; and the other, your susceptibility to believe *one* thing for which there is no evidence leaves you susceptible to believe *other* things for which there is no evidence"

Beyond your suggestion, can you provide any evidance that the two matters (the condition you describe) you bring up are in any way related? Or, that a "cure" of this affliction would be for a person to abandon a belief in a god?

I suspect that thinking in a manner that you describe would fall more closely under the category of a "prejudice" against those who believe in a God.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:50 PM

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are easily led"

Well said, Smokey, by many organizations, societies and goverments. Many of these stating to the gullible masses that they represent something which they do not. Religious organizations are indeed among them. But, it is surely not limited to these groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:53 PM

Mrrzy, that's exactly why it is better for organised religion if there is no evidence to support God's existence. Whilst it may be possible to manipulate free-thinking, critically-thinking cynics, it's a hell of a lot more difficult and they don't part with their money or personal freedom anything like as readily.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:55 PM

it is surely not limited to these groups.

No, it's certainly not, but we aren't discussing the other groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:14 PM

Right, Smokey; it should take faith to have faith.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM

No, it's certainly not, but we aren't discussing the other groups.

Sorry, Smokey,in case you did not notice, I was actually agreeing with you.

IMO, it is very appropriate to add a broader perspective that any organization is open to similar risky behaviour...whether it is based on a god belief or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:19 PM

the last word on the subject

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:28 PM

LOL, LH

Or, "What the fuck am l here for"?
Pretty much sums it up beyond 2000 posts, or so, ago.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM

Sorry, Smokey,in case you did not notice, I was actually agreeing with you.

I know, Ed. I was agreeing with you too.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

"I know, Ed. I was agreeing with you too"

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

You any good at arm-wrestling?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:04 PM

Heh heh heh, reminds me of a great cartoon I saw once, you know the typical amoeba to human transitional forms idea, each with a thought bubble:

Amoeba: eat... survive... reproduce...
Fish: eat... survive... reproduce...
Lungfish: eat... survive... reproduce...
Mammal: eat... survive... reproduce...
Primate: eat... survive... reproduce...
Human: What's it all about?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 12:08 PM

Que voici.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

stringsinger-i am not denying religious abuses and would agree to a large extent with your listing.however,since that is again wheeled out as though that is an argument against the existence of a creator God,i again remind you that the record of deity deniers and evolution embracers has been far from pretty.[not that i think darwin envisioned his doctrine used thus].
i note that you did not address my point directly but merely comment on my ignorance.nonetheless i am heartened that you concede the pro darwin BBC site is"rubbish"!.

ed-i had to LOL at one of your posts,though i probably did,nt ought to.i wont say which one!.

mrrzy-at least you appear to accept that humans are separate from other life inasmuch as we engage in thought other than"eat,survive,reproduce"?.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:38 PM

i again remind you that the record of deity deniers and evolution embracers has been far from pretty.[not that i think darwin envisioned his doctrine used thus].

There are no deity deniers. There are deity pushers, like you, who have no grounds for the pushing but who push blindly on anyway. Evolution embracers, a term which I presume is your weak attempt at being pejorative, are people who realise that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that says evolution is true. And what right have you, who cheerfully admits to complete ignorance of Darwin, to pontificate as to how he envisioned his doctrine? You are a complete fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:31 PM

mrrzy-at least you appear to accept that humans are separate from other life inasmuch as we engage in thought other than"eat,survive,reproduce"?. - well, we have a different degree/type of consciousness, but so may have dolphins and african elephants; separate, as are all other species, which is to say, not very.

But eat, survive, reproduce is where it's at, man!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:01 PM

"We are ugly, but we have the music" (Joplin via Cohen)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:30 PM

do you have anything intelligent to add,steve

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 07:06 PM

Whether you think I have anything intelligent to add is entirely up to you to judge, Pete, old boy. The points I try to make are based on knowledge that I have painstakingly acquired (which doesn't mean they're correct, of course). In contrast, and most frustratingly, you make the same ridiculous points about creationist scientists and you pontificate on Darwin, about whom you have admitted you know nothing. And you do it over and over again. If there really is a God he'd be bloody embarrassed to see what you are up to down here. In fact, I think you are running the risk of turning him into an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 07:40 AM

as far as my comment about darwin is concerned,steve;i merely indicated that i did not apportion blame to him for the atrocities the worst of his adherents used his theory for.if you object to that,, i bow before your deeper knowledge of the man if you think he did forsee it thus used.
i actually hear of him as being kindly.i understand that he wrote off some islanders as hopeless savages on one voyage but later when through missionary work these people were transformed from what they were,he became a lifelong supporter of that missionary society.
i guess it also indicates a measure of humility on his part.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:14 AM

This is going away from the God Delusion thing but apparently Darwin was one of the biggest male chauvinists going and ironically treated women (family members) exactly in the same way as in a religious household back then. It seems he had the need to go with the mode of the times in his private life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:49 AM

It is getting away from the topic, but just to say that isn't what I've read about him. It's probably fair to say, going from the troubles and doubts with his theory we know he had, which weighed heavily on him all through his life, that he wasn't an instinctive revolutionary, and, as such, was hardly the man to initiate Victorian Women's Lib. I'd never presume to defend the man's private life, as that isn't what really interests me most about him. Newton was apparently an absolute shocker of a chap, but his science wasn't too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 09:55 AM

the atrocities the worst of his adherents used his theory for

Like the Nazis for example. You could argue that they were not adherents of his theory at all, but adherents of a very perverted version of it, brutally and deliberately misinterpreted to suit their own ends. We have done this one before.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 10:50 AM

No I suppose you are right everything changes with time. I only mentioned it because of something I read about women in the Victorian household discouraged from education etc.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Darwin's relationship with his wife was complicated. She was religious. He was not.
He loved her and respected her throughout his life. She finally realized that Evolution was something to be respected and supported her husband in later life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

What atrocities? I mean, really. Do you really think one on one you'd stack up those slaughtering babies *in the name of Darwin* against those onward Christian (or pick another deity) soldiers? I point and laugh in your general direction, if that's the level of your argument.

But if you want to make sensible and reasonable discourse, this would be a good place for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

steve-i understand that hitler etc were admirers of darwin,but im sure the favour would not have been returned.as you have read darwin and i not ,i am happy to accept that the megamaniacs interpreted darwin for their own ends.the same could be said about "christian" atrocities,certainly not following Christs example.
mrrzy-as above.this theme came up again following a post earlier from stringsinger.i think that those using evolution as their rationale for their crimes do excel those using religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:21 PM

They didn't interpret Darwin. They deliberately and mischievously misinterpreted Darwin. There is a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

Darwinian theory and the kind of genetic super-race manipulation used as rhetoric by the Nazis are about as closely related as Torquemade was to Jesus. They may have used similar words, but viva les differences!


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

It all comes back to God in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:45 PM

any religions offers plenty of positive incentives to their followers Ð the promise of life after death, for instance. But why have religions that involve self-sacrifice and punishment survived? The link between support for a religion and a willingness to inflict punishment may point to the answer.

To study this link, Ernst Fehr at the University of Zurich in Switzerland and his team enrolled 304 people, mainly students. They were sorted into pairs and played 20 rounds of a game in which the first player was shown a monetary reward and had to choose one of two ways to split it with their partner: they could either share it equally or take a greater share for themselves.

The second player then had the option of punishing the first one by deducting from their reward. Dishing out punishment came at a cost, however: the punisher lost a reward unit for each three units they deducted from their partner.
Subliminal words

Fehr wanted to find out what motivated people to punish others. Before deciding on the punishment, the second player was subliminally shown a group of words. These either related to religion Ð like "divine", "holy", "pious" and "religious" Ð to secular punishment, or were neutral words like "tractor".

After the game, all players were asked if they had donated money to a religious organisation in the previous year. The team found that those who had donated Ð about 15 per cent of participants Ð exacted the most severe punishments, but only after they had been shown the subliminal religious cues. When primed in this way, this group deducted roughly three times as many points on average as other players.

"We think that the cues give them a reminder they are being watched," says psychologist Ryan McKay of Royal Holloway University of London, who co-led the study with Fehr. "To please the supernatural agent they worship, they exact higher punishments. The other possibility is that the cued words awakened the concepts of appropriate punishment in their minds."

New Scientist

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM

It all comes back to God in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM

LOL! Good cartoon, Amos. There's no getting rid of something that's infinite, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:05 AM

dont stop some people trying though!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:37 AM

"Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction," said Chaeyoon Lim, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the study. "In particular, we find that friendships built in religious congregations are the secret ingredient in religion that makes people happier."

In their study, "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction," Lim and co-author Robert D. Putnam, the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, use data from the Faith Matters Study, a panel survey of a representative sample of U.S. adults in 2006 and 2007. The panel survey was discussed in detail in the recently published book American Grace by Putnam and David E. Campbell.

According to the study, 33 percent of people who attend religious services every week and have three to five close friends in their congregation report that they are "extremely satisfied" with their lives. "Extremely satisfied" is defined as a 10 on a scale ranging from 1 to 10.

In comparison, only 19 percent of people who attend religious services weekly, but who have no close friends in their congregation report that they are extremely satisfied. On the other hand, 23 percent of people who attend religious services only several times a year, but who have three to five close friends in their congregation are extremely satisfied with their lives. Finally, 19 percent of people who never attend religious services, and therefore have no friends from congregation, say they are extremely satisfied with their lives.

"To me, the evidence substantiates that it is not really going to church and listening to sermons or praying that makes people happier, but making church-based friends and building intimate social networks there," Lim said.

According to Lim, people like to feel that they belong. "One of the important functions of religion is to give people a sense of belonging to a moral community based on religious faith," he said. "This community, however, could be abstract and remote unless one has an intimate circle of friends who share a similar identity. The friends in one's congregation thus make the religious community real and tangible, and strengthen one's sense of belonging to the community."

(PhysOrg)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 12:43 PM

i thought this thread had expired!

thanks amos for a fuller picture of these findings

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 01:52 PM

Yah. Anybody watch House? The patient, who was being willing crucified annually to keep his daughter cancer-free, said that faith was not a disease. House answers No, but it is transmissible, and it does kill an awful lot of people...

And note that the above adds to the evidence that the intangible isn't helpful in real life.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 12:04 PM

"Social Darwinism" in the 1900's was introduced by robber barons who used the phrase "Survival of the fittest" to rationalize their exploitation of poor people. The term "Survival of the fittest" did not come from Darwin but the philosopher Herbert Spencer.

This is part of the reason for misinformation about Darwin.

Remember that "strengthen(ing) one's sense of belonging to the community." could easily be applied to the rise of Nazism. I suspect that there was a strong religious component to those times.

Amos, I take exception to your source, "Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction," Lim and co-author Robert D. Putnam, the Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University" and take it with a grain of salt. This is pure opinion based on prejudicial research.

Of course you are going to find conclusions in research based on what you are looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:25 PM

Hell, Frank, I didn't say you had to agree! I do think though that the basic hypothesis that it is the social web of agreement that makes religion compelling topeople is an interesting one, and has merit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:38 PM

is,nt it true that darwin incorporated "survival of the fittest" in a later edition of "origins....preservation of the favoured races.."i could be mistaken?