Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should all religions be banned?


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#161 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 11:23 PM

recent DNA evidence has pretty clearly indicated that our ancestors did not inter-breed with neanderthal,
we do not carry any of their characteristic genes
so if we did ever breed with them
no descendants survived.

#162 wtoad

wtoad

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 61 posts

Posted 09 November 2006 - 11:47 PM

Interesting. I swore I watched something that said just the opposite. I need a DVR for proper recall...

Well, if not Neanderthal, than purple sea urchin!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15640431/

----

I see your house is indeed bigger, but we used many of the same kind of bricks....

----

I always find it interesting when they announce a new genome mapping and give a relative percentage of how similar something is to humans on the genetic level.

Sort of like how many animal fetus' look exactly like human fetus' during the first few weeks of pregnancy. Every animal seems to have something in common.

#163 InsidiousDecrepancy

InsidiousDecrepancy

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 455 posts

Posted 10 November 2006 - 12:24 AM

Well we all started as single cell organisms did we not?? Technically speaking we all came from the same place, it was the environment which those cells lived their lives that determined how they evolved.

#164 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 12:26 PM

recent DNA evidence has pretty clearly indicated that our ancestors did not inter-breed with neanderthal,
we do not carry any of their characteristic genes
so if we did ever breed with them
no descendants survived.

additional info =

Scientists with the U.S. Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif. sequenced DNA from Neanderthal fossils.
The results indicate their genomes were at least 99.5-percent identical to ours, the researchers said.

In the new work, Rubin and colleagues extracted the DNA in the thigh bone of a 38,000-year-old male Neanderthal from Vindija, Croatia. They recovered 65,250 base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, out of a total of an estimated three billion base pairs.
Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes showed that in many places the Neanderthal code matched chimp DNA but not human, Rubin said. “This enabled us to calculate for the first time when in pre-history Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis [Neanderthals] coalesced to a single genome,” he added.
The analysis found that the common genetic ancestor of Neanderthal and modern humans lived about 706,000 years ago, he continued. This would be the time when the two line ages began to diverge, the researchers said;
the final split, though, came some 330,000 years later.
Rubin and his colleagues said they also shed new light on the long-standing question of whether Neanderthals and humans mated during the thousands of years the two species cohabitated parts of Europe. Some scientists have suggested that rather than die out, Neanderthals as a species were bred out of existence by the overwhelming populations of Homo sapiens.
Said Rubin, “While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level.”


from http://www.world-sci...neanderthal.htm

#165 wtoad

wtoad

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 61 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:05 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

#166 Bobcat

Bobcat

    Selah!

  • Expired Member
  • 3,573 posts

Posted 19 November 2006 - 10:04 PM

That is fascinating. Not only the findings themselves, but the idea that they have found genetic material so well preserved they could work with it still. Like the scientists who found material that was not fossilized in a T-Rex bone recently.

#167 InsidiousDecrepancy

InsidiousDecrepancy

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 455 posts

Posted 19 November 2006 - 11:14 PM

That is fascinating. Not only the findings themselves, but the idea that they have found genetic material so well preserved they could work with it still. Like the scientists who found material that was not fossilized in a T-Rex bone recently.


Jurassic Park here we come! :greenboun

#168 dice

dice

    Jack of all trades.

  • OG VIP
  • 2,488 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 October 2007 - 04:43 PM

wow this is one of those threads that really is a touchy subject. I think the thought of banning religion is insane. I feel that religion helps give hope to those with none, growing up i lost family very close to me that i needed from then on it was a steady down fall, i felt if god the god christians believe in was really real that he would never do that to a child, i was told he had a plan for me well I said FUCK that for a very long time. I have not stepped foot in a church for a very long time, i dont feel that you have to go to church to speak with god or whatever we believe in. I belive strongly that there is a higher power just dont know if its him, How could there be so many different religions how could so many people believe so strongly to completely different aspects. Also how can people not believe in the chance of there being other life out there, all the stars are suns with planets around like ours there has to be something else maybe like us maybe not, but for religions to say that we were the only intelligent beings created is crazy why would the higher power only create us with the whole galaxy at there finger tips we as a people only believe in things we see or learn, most of the world would not be able to live there day to day life if they knew everything they ever learned was wrong, it would ultimately destroy us, there would be know more hope. I started praying a couple years back and things didnt change till i really tried to change we cannot wait for a miracle, every day we awake is a miracle to me the trees grass sun moon and starts its amazing. I love that we will most likely never really know about space and how much there really is out there. All the rockets and spacecraft with cameras aboard always vanish either lost signal cause its to far away or unexplained circumstances. I dont look down upon anyone for what they believe its free will, same as homosexuality if thats the way they are who cares just done try that shit with me. And i am not afraid to tell them so they know, they talk about there sex life just cause its gross to me dont mean i should put them down if they have to listen to us then we should have to listen to them if you dont like it leave. Its that way with everything our world has got so fucked up its crazy. People need to realize there are some things that will never change once that is realized things will change but as long as the people in charge try to control things they cannot we will stay the same. Believe in what you want and never let that go, just dont try to force your beliefs upon others listen and learn from others and take out of life what you want your either open minded or close minded there is no in between. Man im rambling on here sorry the friday night trip is kicking in im sure thinking about and writing this is really gonna get me out there later.

#169 BlacHaze

BlacHaze

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 457 posts

Posted 26 October 2007 - 08:45 PM

Religion is God's word on crack!

#170 infinity

infinity

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 250 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:42 AM

I look at it like this. If we could have had religions that show the people that different levels of analysis will give you different results, and that each individual is responsable for thier actions and thoughts due to a macro level of independance as far as thier inner world is concerned, that would be great. Also, this teaching would say that if we were to examine ourselves on a microscopic level, we would reach a point in singularity where everything is seen as a system in which everything in this system operates dependantly on the other components and that when one thing changes, another thing is affected. This is what Science says. Just depends on your level of analysis.

These religions that suggest to aim your awareness at something mystical that is higher than you is what I call a "gateway religion". Because it starts you off on the path, but then it starts to put forks in the road and eventually leads you in the path that ends up in microlevel analysis while still on the macrolevel theory. You could see how that could be troublesome. Some of these religions can bring you to a point of realization, but they are often misunderstood sine when these teachings were first created, they were misunderstood, just like the effects of psychedelics are often misunderstood.

When we look at the world, we say that is him/her or his/hers, and not me or mine. Then when truly examine our reality with no preconceptions, we start to see it is all me, because I create it all with my mind. Not the case with thiestic religions, who keep the macro level theory's (that are useful for survival) into the micro level realm of mystical experience. You see, it's a simple mistake of logic.

Motus tollens is a simple rule of logic. If P, then Q. (watch the capitilzation for the meaning of this analogy.
Thiestic religion- Macro theory-If P. Then Q/Micro theory-If p, then Q.
Non thiestic religions-Macro theory-If P, then Q/ Micro theory-If p, then q.

Christianity among other thiestic religions break the rule of logic, because things change when you shift the level of analysis either way, and they can't compensate for that because they never knew why they adopted those tradtions. The point of devotion is not to make you feel helpless to the point of begging for divine intervention, it's to soften up the ego and appeal to your higher self. Once you see your higher self, which is like following the holographic trails from the present to the begining, your supposed to reckognize your micro level self and not make a split between that and your macro self. This is where there is a fork in the road.

All the while, these things have been happening, it's too late to tell these people that what they have been doing is wrong, because until someone comes forth and tells us so, we all have to depend on critical thinking and analysis, while engaging in a practice of self examination.

As far as law goes, I would say that any religion that tries to monopolize the mystical aspect of life should not be treated as a religion as far as tax exemption and things like that. Religions should be about finding the divinity within and not fueling the ego even more by being in the right "in group"

If someone tells me that I am going to suffer because I don't ask for help, I say how do you know? Usually a biblical source or word of mouth. The point is that every religion in one way or another will argue with each other about what to do to have a happy afterlife.

The only religions that I would suspect as fraud are the ones that don't offer you the microscope to see for yourself whether or not it is an ultimate truth or subjective opinion. They are also frauds if they try to "warn" you of the evil temptations of other "untrue" religions. Once again, just critical thinking.

#171 infinity

infinity

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 250 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:58 AM

Also, to make my point a little bit more understandable, think about the relativity of space and time. They are connected and proportionate.

Same with perception, your level of experience determines what you percieve. Some aspects of perception are innate, and others are learned. Depth perception is actually learned. There was an experiment where an african guy in the rain forrest was brought out onto the plains by a psychologist. They pointed at a large animal, and asked what it is, he said a small insect. He believed it was a small insect because he never had to see more than 20 feet away from himself, so everything was always up close and he never had to generalize size by distance. So when they actually brought him up close, he saw that it was an animal and got pissed. He called them witchdoctors and told them to take him back home.

#172 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 08:13 AM

There was an experiment where an african guy in the rain forrest was brought out onto the plains by a psychologist. They pointed at a large animal, and asked what it is, he said a small insect. He believed it was a small insect because he never had to see more than 20 feet away from himself, so everything was always up close and he never had to generalize size by distance. So when they actually brought him up close, he saw that it was an animal and got pissed. He called them witchdoctors and told them to take him back home.

don't think i quite believe that one,
got a reference ?

#173 cheshire

cheshire

    Holding Tank

  • Expired Member
  • 639 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 10:59 AM

''All matter is merely energy condensed, to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we the imagination of ourselves.

The world is like a ride at an amusement park and when u choose to go on you think its real because that’s how powerful our minds are, the ride goes up and down and around and around, has thrills and chills, is brightly coloured and is very loud. And its fun for a while, some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question, is this real? Or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered and they come back to us and they say, hey don’t worry don’t be afraid, never because this is just a ride.. and we…. Just kill those people''




said better than i can at this time in my life :hippie:

#174 hallucinogeneti

hallucinogeneti

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 373 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:30 PM

first of all, wow what a great thread. Very interesting replies

We live in a best guess society and we do the best we can.


Lets look at this quote for a second and apply it to the question at hand.

Should we ban all religion?

Our "best guess society" is what phalanx obviously wants to encourage judging by his question. And by saying he wants to only teach proven theories I'll bypass the hair splitting, and assume that he means the current theories we have the most evidence for. Seeing how these theories are based on certain logic it makes sense that a population raised on logic based theories would become more logical. And logic is what gets the job done. Not religion.

So if we were to only teach our best guess, it should be based on what we have the most factual evidence for. Right? Like right now for instance, the most factual evidence we have at hand suggests evolution. That's, I think, what he's getting at. Religion we have little to no proof of. So it loses...it doesn't get taught. If it didn't interfere with science, it wouldn't be a problem, but it does (literally sometimes, I'll talk later about that).

Also I want to point out, spreading only our best theories, knowledge gained through the scientific method and logic, doesn't mean we squash creative thinking....we still can disprove and revise science through creative thinking (as long as it's based on certain logic)....after all, scientists have been doing it for years! Not priests.

So even if we can't prove our scientific theories totally,(as if we really can prove anything :eusa_wall)

AND EVEN if theories become disproved over and over,

it is our scientific methodology (NOT RELIGION) that leads us onward. Lets us not forget that our scientific method (which in my opinion is all that science is) is what got us across the land, across the seas, to the moon, into this forum, regardless of it's imperfections and corrections along the way.

And so if we judge religion based on these same criteria, (no offence to anyone religious is meant)
it's plain to see that religion has gotten us into all sorts of messes and delayed advancement,(the literal example: the ruining some of Archimedes most breakthrough manuscripts by dumb ass priests writing over them!) Where has religion gotten us? in all of it years of existence it has produced little for human kind as a whole, granted there are miracles, good feelings, and comfort for the masses,etc.. which could be considered good for the beneficiaries, but, science scored us a way to fly across land!

everyone can fly in a plane if they have the money.

Do you see my point?

So assuming what phalanx values is, the overall advancement of the human race, religion loses

With the religious warfare, the divide between left and right wing, and just having the overall differences caused by religion, taken out of the equation, and because we were taught theories based on logic instead of religion, we all just used the scientific method, (which I stress, unless you believe we know everything already, still holds room for every miraculous event you can imagine to be explained) don't you think that we could collaborate at an unprecedented level and accomplish some amazing shit?............I think so.

So I see your point I think, phalanx. It's makes a certain sense.

But what is ridiculous is the literal act of banning religion....it simply couldn't be done, I don't even think I need to explain why.

So what I think of your statement, is that it's an interesting idea, but good luck trying to pull it off.

#175 Seee

Seee

    Corn Commander

  • Free Member
  • 352 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 10:19 PM

yes.

#176 Toecutter

Toecutter

    Former Member

  • Banned Member
  • 338 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 06:37 AM

And so if we judge religion based on these same criteria, (no offence to anyone religious is meant)
it's plain to see that religion has gotten us into all sorts of messes and delayed advancement,(the literal example: the ruining some of Archimedes most breakthrough manuscripts by dumb ass priests writing over them!) Where has religion gotten us? in all of it years of existence it has produced little for human kind as a whole, granted there are miracles, good feelings, and comfort for the masses,etc.. which could be considered good for the beneficiaries, but, science scored us a way to fly across land!

everyone can fly in a plane if they have the money.


Your entire statement ignores one aspect. How many of the men
and women that made advancements such as flight were
themselves religious? If you remove that aspect, you present a
compelling argument. Being from Ohio, I personally know that the
Wright brothers were Christians. Did this help give them strength and
fortitude to succeed where so many have failed? Perhaps, but I dont
know. It is a factor that can not be easily dismissed.

#177 Nexus

Nexus

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 04:33 PM

People should be able to make their own choices, banning choice is not the right way to go. I do agree on separating church and state. Do you think we would have anywhere near the amount of religious people if they weren't bombarded by 'religious advertising' since birth? Hell no.

If 10 people gather up and decide that every sunday they would go to a lake and bow down to god salmon I would have no problem with it. I see it no different than any other gathering of like-minded people. As long as I am not expected to bow down to the fish and am not somehow persecuted by these people I don't see the problem.

What you do in your proverbial bedroom is none of my business, same as it's none of yours what I do in mine. I believe that science has the best track record so far of explaining things so to me it's a no-brainer that theory of evolution is probably much more accurate than any other non-scientific theory out there. Science is evolving and always self-checking, religion is stagnant. It's easy to grow up believing in the cross since you were a kid, it's much harder to go study many different things and actually come to your own educated conclusion. Lots of people pick the easiest way out.

#178 stochastic

stochastic

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:25 PM

Freedom of religion is a good thing. Banning all religions would not only be a difficult task semantically, but would violate the basic human rights that most all Westerners hold sacred (such as right to self-determination, property rights). Furthermore, why even consider such an idea? Sure religion CAN be a destructive force, but more often the ultimate culprit behind man's atrocities is human nature, not any particular human institution. Most religious people do not interfere with the rights of others, even when proselytizing. To deny people the right to assemble and believe certain things is immoral and inhumane.

#179 fender1212

fender1212

    Mycophiliac

  • Expired Member
  • 52 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:57 PM

You may be interested in William Clifford. He was a famous philosopher who was a main force in the scientific revolution. His point was that when someone accepts an idea or theory out of faith, they start to build a web, where if someone presents them with something (even with supporting evidence) if it goes against their faith, they call it a lie. And so this web of ideas accepted on faith grows, as with the persons ignorance. Clifford's other main point is that religion is immoral. Morality is essentially defined as our interaction with each other and society as a whole. how our actions affect one another. Religion puts itself on a pedastool as being too holy to be judged against the reason of morality. An instance of this would be in the story where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. If this story were to have happened in modern day times, imagine the head lines "Father murders son. says voice of god told him to", would you consider this man to be moral? would you hold him up as someone who should be honored and respected for what he did? Clifford's main point is that religion is above and outside of the societal morality structure, and we've gotten to a point where people of religious faith, are offended if their own religion be judged in the realm of scientific scrutiny, while they would applaud the judging of other religions, other than their own, by use of scientific scrutiny

Look at the attack on the Muslim religion by the general Christian body. Or the fight between Mormonism being the "true Christianity" and Christianity. What amazes me is how quick someone of religious faith is offended by their own religion being questioned, but how quick they are to judge anothers. Cliffords final point is that religion ultimately is immoral

Granted, i personally am not thrown ENTIRELY to Clifford's side, although he makes some VERY good points. I think religion can and should be allowed, however, I also believe that it ought to be subject to scientific scrutiny. The idea of accepting a concept on faith over reason is simply ridiculous, and if it follows reason, why not just drop the faith and argue it on reason alone? I do believe faith does have its merits, but not in proving the literal absolutes. Nor do I believe faith is something to kill for

#180 infinity

infinity

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 250 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 05:45 PM

don't think i quite believe that one,
got a reference ?



I don't have a source because it's from a lecture at school and not out of a book, but it was an example of size constancy, which is a sub catagory of perceptual constancies. The reason for the experiment was to show that humans learn to determine and object from different angles and distances. The ability to percieve the world as we do is not innate, we judge the distance or angle to determine what we are looking for. It's an idea from gestalt psychology of figure-ground.




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!