Leaving the community

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Learning right from wrong comes from evolution.

Evolution comes from learning right from wrong.

Both are correct. Populations of organisms "learn" the right way to survive
in their environments or they perish. The ability to do this is coded into
their genes. The coding changes over time due to a combination of mutation
and natural selection, i.e., by evolution.

Humans have evolved complex behaviors that allow successful, large-scale
tribal organization. Simpler analogues of these behaviors are seen among
animals, particulary the other apes. In groups of chimps, means to settle
disputes without violence exist but are not always followed, and murder has
been observed, just as in human society.

Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

That's called "progress" and "building on foundations of knowledge".

It's just using what evolution gave us. "Progress" in terms of human
behavior is ephemeral, and quickly reverts to savagery given the proper
circumstances. It will require some more biological evolution to change
human nature; Homo Sapiens will have to give way to Homo Something Else.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

What you said was: "Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
Biological evolution, then that's a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe.
But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law."

I focused on this portion, which I made sure I was not taking out of
context: "But what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of
those with influence."

My point was, the early Christians, who had almost no influence, drove a
great deal of societal change. And it was this societal change that later
drove an increase in influence of Christians.

"Funny" wasn't involved in my end of the discussion...





"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...
Bill Denton wrote:

Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?


I did not say the Christians were funny.

You sig, attributed to "Epicurus"...

When my son was young and learning how to ride a two-wheel bicycle

I was ABLE to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

I was WILLING to keep him from falling over on his bicycle

Many times I kept him from falling over on his bicycle

But sometimes, I let him fall over, so he could learn




" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the
right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear
of
retribution from God either.


No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete


What distinction? Moral vs religious?

There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
group.


That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
I've
heard in a long time.

What's funny about it?

It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.

Think: cause vs. effect.

That's not much of an explanation.

A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from
evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should
be so.

Still curious,

Dan
C-172RG at BFM

jls wrote:

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message
om...

wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:



"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...


Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to

strike

you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.


No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.


It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but

don't

be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better

argument

if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete


What distinction? Moral vs religious?

There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
group.


That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm


Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus



I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

You said you were not surprised by my post. May I ask you to clarify
that? Was it based on previous posts I have made or did you think it
was more in line with what you thought people in this group would post?
Good or bad I am womdering now how my posts come across to people.

I am told I can seem very cold at first. One interesting event was when
I was at a bar with a friend of many years and a couple of his other
friends I had never met before. Out of the blue one of the "new guys"
says to me, "You don't like me, do you?" I was a little shocked by that
and only said, "excuse me?" before my friend jumped in saying, "if he
didn't like you, you would know..." and continued to explain my
personnality. It was interesting to say the least. But I have had no
further misunderstandings with them since. I am just glad I have a
friend that can explain myself to others.


By the way, regarding your sig, Scott Adams has an interesting take on
God in his books. Not his Dilbert books but the ones you find the
business and philosophy sections of book stores. "God's Debris" is a
pretty good one found under philosophy. He goes into exactly what your
sig is about.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
wrote:





I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though.
Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population
were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is.
Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.



I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of
atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times
the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an
assertion of which I am uncertain)

I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these
facts (assuming they are both correct).

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
harsh to rationally accept.

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
the existence of GOD.

Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
and doesn't care.

Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:

"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."

"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."

"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."

Cheers
Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:32:55 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
wrote:


Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they
say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is
falling, which I find surprising.

Probably so. Religion and revolution always rise when existence becomes too
harsh to rationally accept.

I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion".

As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no
holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns,
indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with
religion..

If one were to define religion as a "belief a theory which cannot be proven
by scientific inquiry (i.e.. a faith) then atheism would qualify as a
religion since you can no more prove the absence of GOD then one can prove
the existence of GOD.


My definition of a real, authentic religion is that it requires at
least a few people who are willing to kill others who don't believe as
they do. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, even Buddhism, (I
believe), all qualify.

Other than that, it's just a belief system.

As far as I know, no atheist has ever killed anybody simply because he
didn't believe what the atheist believed. Stalin probably came close,
but I think his persecution of Jews and christians was political
rather than religious.

But I suppose that's arguable as well.

At any rate, religion is indeed the opiate of the masses, used by
leaders all throughtout history to sedate their followers. Never been
truer than today.



Now agnosticism is not a religion especially if the agnostic doesn't know
and doesn't care.

Couple of quotes to top off this IFR discussion:

"Are you familiar with the theory that mankind has invented myths of all
kinds - romantic, religious, transcendental, and mystical - to deny the
bleak, unmitigated horror of biological life: that human beings no less than
other living creatures are simply part of an immense food chain."

"We hope that technological innovation will do what Western political and
social thought can no longer do -- rescue the Western world from its
spiritual and moral paralysis to prove its superiority in material terms.
Through technology the Western world is free to reinvent itself,
unfortunately we cannot reinvent the people."

"Not every god has to exist in order to do his job."

Cheers
Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:04:12 -0600, "Dan Luke" wrote:


"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
I've
heard in a long time.

What's funny about it?

It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.

Think: cause vs. effect.

That's not much of an explanation.

A couple of posters have written that the idea of morality arising from
evolution is funny, but no one's been able to give a reason why that should
be so.

You can find the following in virtually any good introductory
sociology book.

As a specis evolves it aquires instinctual survival traits.
Like tends to join together and those different are either shunned or
destroyed. It's a standard across the entire animal kingdom of which
humans are a part.

As the specis develops (evolves) socially the same survival traits
apply. Whether consciously or not, we develop social survival rules
that follow the same structure as the specis survival traits. Like
tends to join together and shun or destroy what is different.

As a specis becomes widely spread across the world they slowly
diversify in both physical and social traits.
As we evolved we had another trait, which is also a survival trait.
We keep asking, "why". We have a driving need to know why things
happen. What causes them?
Society also developed survival rules to further aid the survival of
the species. These rules in general, were to reduce conflict and
promote the well being of the individual and the specis as a whole.
A well ordered society stands a much better chance of survival than
one where there are no rules.

Morals, or more correctly the mores of society developed along these
lines. It should come as no surprise that morals vary from society to
society and each believes its own mores are absolutes. This holds
true for religions as well. Although religions teach morality, the
morailty developed as a survival trait.

When there is not enough knowledge to supply an answer we invent one.
Superstitions developed around happenings, we invented gods who
controlled the weather, the harvest, war, love, hate, life, and death.
As the harvest, seasons, weather, war, love, hate...etc are common
where ever we exist each group developed their own names for the gods
controlling these events. The superstitions developed into the
primitive religions. With each group having gods of different names
for the same things they inevitably argued and fought over which was
right although they were basically arguing over names.

As society developed the religions became powerful and controlling. As
science developed it came up with ansers to questions that differed
from the religions. Religion had the power, science was the new kid
on the block. Science was relagated to herresy with its
practitioners being persecuted unless they went along with the
teachings of the church.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Still curious,

Dan
C-172RG at BFM

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


"mike regish" wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.


No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete


What distinction? Moral vs religious?

There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
group.



Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters...

Matt