Thread: Points to ponder

Originally Posted by tomcat

...the rise of Jebus, however, reflects a mental aberration known to afflict the ignorant...

The origins of religious belief are an interesting anthropological and evolutionary psychology field.

Early religion (spiritual belief) did not involve any kind of morality or right and wrong.

Hunter gatherers were just looking for ways to explain good and bad luck and they invented spirits that could affect our lives, in order to explain good and bad events.

Our brains are specifically evolved around trying to figure out causality in relation to the behaviour of our peers and we naturally impute causality to agency and the model of agency that our brains are evolved to think about is the agency of other humans.

So early humans created imaginary spirits that have human qualities (anger, desire, jealousy ect.) and then imagined these spirits to reside in trees and rivers.

These spirits could be propitiated to bring about good luck (or bad luck on our enemies).

Later when civilization began to arise humans lived in larger communities and crime began to be a problem (hunter gatherer tribes do not have these problems as the communities are too small).

Only then did more organised large scale religions start to assume responsibility for moral behaviour by telling people they had to behave in certain ways in order to receive the benefits of good will from the gods.

...So,

Originally Posted by Looper

The origins of religious belief

...reflect a mental aberration known to afflict the ignorant then...

Originally Posted by Looper

Later when civilization began to arise humans lived in larger communities and crime began to be a problem (hunter gatherer tribes do not have these problems as the communities are too small).

So, within a group of 20, there is no theft, no GBH due to envy or jealousy, for example? An interesting proposal.

Btw, isn't "crime" defined by breaking of the law...

Originally Posted by stroller

So, within a group of 20, there is no theft, no GBH due to envy or jealousy, for example?

Justice works a bit differently in a small autonomous group than within an organised society.

It tends to be meted out more quickly and emotionally.

But in-group crimes like theft and rape are also likely to be much rarer since you will be dealing with the same small group of people for the rest of your life you cannot afford to risk losing your allies as life without allies is short in pre-civilised times.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

in an immeasurable universe......

Unprovable

Originally Posted by tomcat

...So, ...reflect a mental aberration known to afflict the ignorant then...

List of Ignorant Christians:
Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Farady, William Kelvin, Max Planck.
List of smart Atheists:
Tomcat..........................I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I rest my case

...no case noted...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...So, ...reflect a mental aberration known to afflict the ignorant then...

Scientists have identified the "God gene", better labelled as the gullibility gene. This gene shows up significantly more often in religious people than non-religious people.

" a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."

So there may be an argument that the deluded fools can't help themselves and that we should not condemn them for it.
Let me rephrase that in the spirit of PC: there may be an argument that the unfortunate people can't help themselves.....

Originally Posted by Maanaam

a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."

...also known as the idiot gene as it further predisposes the affected to mass murder, intolerance of "the other", fear of the unknown and, in the severest cases, a love of fancy dress...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...also known as the idiot gene as it further predisposes the affected to mass murder, intolerance of "the other", fear of the unknown and, in the severest cases, a love of fancy dress...

Well, to be fair, the gene only makes one gullible and thus fall for the directives of the manipulative organisations that have been invented by cunning megalomaniacs to be self-sustaining in congregation numbers, wealth-gathering, and servant-providing.

It could be quite a good gene that benefits society, if only the mystical leaders were truly altruistic and had the whole of whole of humankind's welfare at heart.
Society needs obedient servants, but human nature is such that to be an obedient servant, you have to fear something intangible that lives in the sky that tells you what to do.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Scientists have identified the "God gene", better labelled as the gullibility gene. This gene shows up significantly more often in religious people than non-religious people.

" a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."

.

No. That work has never been accepted by the scientific community. It was proposed by Dean Hamer in a book, but has never been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

^ Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Poor old Manny shot down again. Must be that ol' gullibility gene. I'm sure you would be a nice guy in real life if you could every remove that rather large chip on your shoulder. The alternative is to be like TC with a chip on both. less pressure on the spine but does tend to cause myopia.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Scientists have identified the "God gene", better labelled as the gullibility gene. This gene shows up significantly more often in religious people than non-religious people.

" a specific gene, called vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2), predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences."

You're wrong.

It is nothing but a hypothesis, based on one unpublished, un-replicated study.

Just like being taken in by that Abo Fauna myth that you repeatedly shouted about, until I informed you that it never happened, is there anything you won't blindly believe, take as fact, then declare as such?


How stupid are you?

Originally Posted by nidhogg

No. That work has never been accepted by the scientific community. It was proposed by Dean Hamer in a book, but has never been published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Quite right.
Hamer is a scientist and his hypothesis has never been disproved is the other way to look at it.
Where some of the contention comes from is his naming of the gene the "god gene". The very name starts contoversy. Since the gene could be an influence for belief in anything from religion to Santa Claus, from tree spirits to the infallibility of a certain monarch, and as a gene is hereditary, it does seem to occur more in religious enclaves than non-religious ones.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Poor old Manny shot down again.

If a counter-opinion is being "shot down", then you've just been shot down by me.

Originally Posted by Luigi

You're wrong.

It is nothing but a hypothesis, based on one unpublished, un-replicated study.

Just like being taken in by that Abo Fauna myth that you repeatedly shouted about, until I informed you that it never happened, is there anything you won't blindly believe, take as fact, then declare as such?


How stupid are you?

Maybe I have the gene? So don't blame me for my genetics
And see my post above.

You being blindly gullible due to genetics would explain why you're so often wrong, I suppose.

And once again, Lu and his pack of pedantic soi dogs, instead of offering civilised debate resort to name calling and put-downs.
Wow, I must really make you feel inferior for you to be so obsessed.

That must be it.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Quite right.
Hamer is a scientist and his hypothesis has never been disproved is the other way to look at it.
.

Yeah, but in your post you said "scientists" (plural), not "a scientist". So you are wrong from the get go.


Your point is not a counter-opinion, same as flat-earthers do not have a "counter-opinion", just ignorance.

Now, I am sure we will get to see you digging yourself yet further into this hole, as you do each time.

Have at it.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Yeah, but in your post you said "scientists" (plural), not "a scientist".

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Have at it.

OK.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

pack of pedantic soi dogs,

QED

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Scientists have identified

An author/filmmaker/scientist has hypothesized....

Originally Posted by Maanaam

pedantic soi dogs

That's not very nice.


Perhaps only post about what you actually know about?


Errrr, beeves n' hair bobbles.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Perhaps only post about what you actually know about?

So how many times did Manny make a complete tit of himself before lunchtime today?