(August 17, 2012 at 4:27 am)apophenia Wrote:


I disagree with the OP. The OP sounds like little more than back of the envelope conjecture and is likely of as much substance as the fables it's meant to criticize.

I don't feel like hauling out all the brain science and crap, so I'll just leave it at that. You need to spend more time studying what science has to say on the matter and less time making up just-so stories to comfort you in your prejudices.

So you are saying that the application of force is actually a good thing, then. I dunno what you mean by "just-so stories," in fact your entire post sounds really vague, but I'd be interested in hearing what you meant in a solid, concrete fashion and why you feel the way you do. After all I post this stuff to see what other people think about it.

(August 17, 2012 at 3:09 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Heh, Lion, ya took me a bit too literally on the point about history and who it is written by. Context, good sir. Lemme address your counterpoints in the number they were brought up:

1: Name me a single major worldwide religion, as in sizable enough to affect political matters, where a woman can attain the highest rank available to a man. Catholicism, islam, protestant christianity, judaism, buddhism, shintoism, hinduism...hmm...nope, none of those have any gender-equality going for their hierarchies...quite the opposite, in fact...

“Political matters” exist no matter whether religion is involved or not and religious females get involved in politics too – often doing a better job than males. So I don’t think politics is relevant.

Now, I could argue that Eve played a key role in the foundation of Abrahamic religion and Mary played a key role in the foundation of Christianity (certainly Catholicism) and that Hinduism has female deities, and that Taoism affirms male/female, yin/yang, etc etc. But that would be quibbling. And in any case, I don’t accept that hierarchy structures are the best way to measure the influence of genders in a religion.

In fact, I don’t think gender is particularly relevant at all because so many women freely choose to belong to those religions irrespective of whether (for example) Jesus was a man.

I think care needs to be taken when (male) atheists try to talk about and on behalf of women and their religion.

---

(August 17, 2012 at 3:09 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Heh, Lion, ya took me a bit too literally on the point about history and who it is written by. Context, good sir. Lemme address your counterpoints in the number they were brought up:

Quote:2: Well we can naturally select to get rid of them. I naturally selected to do so myself. Naturally, the selection has actually done a fantastic job of becoming far more curious about the world surrounding me.

Yes. And religion also concerns itself with curiosity about the past, the present and the future.

I find that present day science isn’t so much answering questions as it is ADDING new questions to the list of things about which know very little.

I’m not sure who needs a God of the Gaps more – the cave man who thought the universe was no more than perhaps a hundred miles wide or the modern day cosmologist who contemplates an infinity of multiverses and who, like Nick Lane, wonders whether we will ever be around long enough to find out.
We dont have forever. It's getting darker. Everythings getting further away.

(Nick Lane suggests a theory about advanced alien civilizations self-destructing long before they ever get a chance to use their advanced technology in a way that might give rise to inter-galactic panspermia.)

(August 17, 2012 at 1:55 am)Lion IRC Wrote: (And women-made) But in any case, how did the first man (and woman) happen to stumble across religion?

Humans have pattern seeking brains. It is much better for survival to create a pattern where a 'rustling bush = hungry bear', than to create a pattern where 'rusting bush = wind'.

This same pattern seeking also leads to creating patterns (where there are none) with supernatural aspects.

"Pattern recognition combined with post hoc reasoning can lead to a strong form of magical thinking. Basically, people are prone to see patterns where there are none (such as in occurrences of "bad luck" and "good luck") and then attempt to attribute them to some sort of correlation (such as the clothes worn that day). This has been correlated to a feeling of loss or lack of control.

In simple cases this can lead to basic superstitious beliefs (such as not walking under ladders) but when applied on a more sophisticated and larger scale it may serve as the impetus for such major cultural artifacts as religion or conspiracy theories."

Quote:Why wouldn’t natural selection eliminate such an extravagant drain on human resources?

Because they may have a more important survival aspects. Like a unifying factor for groups of humans.

Quote:Not a fan of the oral tradition I see. What would you favor as a replacement? Wikipedia? Mr Assange's unsourced, anonymously reported hearsay?

The oral tradition is great for story telling, where it doesn't matter if details get change over time. It is horrible for relaying facts, where if details are changed the credibility is destroyed.

Quote:Hmmm. Thats a great big slap in the face to historians. There are entire university faculties doing what you describe. One wonders what victorious New Atheism might tell lies about if ever some day they eventually rule the world. And what do we then make of the so-called Higher Criticism/Historical Method?
You know Bart Ehrman is a historian right?

Not at all. Historians do a great job using all sources, when available, to reconstruct history. They do not speak in terms of certainty with regards to history. They know their limitations.

Quote:Something needs to be done about modern archaeologists who dig up stuff which corroborates bible history. (Solomon, Caiaphas, Shishak, the lost city of Petra.)

So...

There are archeological and historical accuracies in the Bible. What's your point? You're not trying to smuggle in supernatural claims on the back of some archeological and historical accuracies, are you?

If so, you must have some real problems with the archeological and historical accuracies of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Quote:I disagree. I say miracles happen every day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/life-g...racle.html

You're claiming that sexual reproduction and birth is a miracle? Really?

Quote:Almost a million words. "cobbled" together over 1000 years. By 40 known writers.
Oh yeah, and it just so happens to be the most widely read and published book in human history.
Tale of Two Cities - 150 million.
The bible - over 6 billion!

The Bible writers are not known.
Who cares how many Bibles are read or published? This is a fallacious appeal to popularity and appeal to tradition. The Quran has sold about 3 billion copies. Does that mean it's 50% as truthful as the Bible?

Quote:Yes and atheism is either a religion or it isnt.
If not, then you are effectively arguing for DISUNITY...the opposite of unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc.

It isn't. That was an easy one.

(August 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: [quote='Lion IRC' pid='324218' dateline='1345182912']

Quote:Yes and atheism is either a religion or it isnt.
If not, then you are effectively arguing for DISUNITY...the opposite of unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc.

It isn't. That was an easy one.

I always include an "easy one".

But if;
- atheism isnt a religion,
- and religion is a force for unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc
- and atheism seeks to rid the world of religion

---

At a forum I used to visit, *sniff* :-(
a few of the atheist Mods accused me of being very "unxtian" (pretty sure they meant Un-Christian)

I asked them, isnt that what you guys WANT?

Quote:and you are named "Minimalist," implying cutting through the bullshit and saying it quick and simple.

Actually the term derives from the school of thought which holds that there is minimal historical reliability in the OT. I picked it years ago to annoy the shit out of some fundie asswipe. Assholes who think bible stories are true are called maximalists....although I prefer the term "asswipes" as noted above.

(August 17, 2012 at 6:47 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: I always include an "easy one".

But if;
- atheism isnt a religion,
- and religion is a force for unity, cooperation, harmony, teamwork, family, etc, etc
- and atheism seeks to rid the world of religion

---

This is faulty logic.
Just because religion is a force for unity, does not mean it's the only force for unity. Or the best.

Quote:At a forum I used to visit, *sniff* :-(
a few of the atheist Mods accused me of being very "unxtian" (pretty sure they meant Un-Christian)

I asked them, isnt that what you guys WANT?

Being 'un-Christian' and being an atheist are 2 very different things.

Atheists would rather there be less theists in the world because important decisions made using logic, reason and evidence are usually better than those based on faith in ancient superstitions.

Quote:Actually the term derives from the school of thought which holds that there is minimal historical reliability in the OT

Ah, I thought it referred to a taste in decor.

The same can be said for perhaps the majority of ancient history. It seems to me it often comes down to credibility and probability. EG what we know of Julius Caesar and the Julio-Claudians is both. The Bible is neither.

(August 17, 2012 at 7:54 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Actually the term derives from the school of thought which holds that there is minimal historical reliability in the OT

Ah, I thought it referred to a taste in decor.

I thought is might have been related to the 20th century classical musical form by the same name.

Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Philip Glass, et al.

(August 17, 2012 at 1:55 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Not a fan of the oral tradition I see.

No, we're not. Oral stories passed down over generations are sure to be embellished and changed over time. I recall an experiment in grade school where the teacher told a story to one kid, who then had to pass it on to another kid.... and so on until the story was finally told to the last kid, who then had to retell the story to the class. When it was compared to the original story, there were some BIG differences.

Quote:I disagree. I say miracles happen every day.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/life-g...racle.html

This is not a miracle. A miracle is an unexplained occurrence that violates natural laws. Somebody jumping off a building and levitating in midair would be a miracle. Childbirth is not. We can explain the process and we know why it happens.

This reminds me of a comic I saw once who scoffed at supposed "miracles" like yours. He said, "I saw a headline in a paper yesterday. It said "Miracle of childbirth occurs for 20 billionth time!"

Now, do you have an actual, verified miracle to present?

I'm betting no.

Quote:Almost a million words. "cobbled" together over 1000 years. By 40 known writers.

We have no idea who wrote the books of the Babble.

Quote:Oh yeah, and it just so happens to be the most widely read and published book in human history.
Tale of Two Cities - 150 million.
The bible - over 6 billion!

A lot of copies of the Babble have been sold.

Yeah.... so what?

Lion IRC Wrote:Hmmm. Thats a great big slap in the face to historians. There are entire university faculties doing what you describe. One wonders what victorious New Atheism might tell lies about if ever some day they eventually rule the world. And what do we then make of the so-called Higher Criticism/Historical Method?

I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate the crimes of the religious. However, it's quite possible that, in this scenario, the negatives of religion will be more accentuated in history texts.