It's pretty easy to make an evolutionary argument that some form of "superstition" was advantageous in our ancient evolutionary environment. Not superstition in the sense of religion (a social phenomenon), but the individual ability to think in a way that allows faith and religion to even develop in the first place.

Early humans were faced with the problems of discerning causal relationships and inferring intent without much information. Take the migration of prey animals as an example. They didn't need to know why animals migrated at times in the year when certain stars were in certain places in the sky. Just recognizing the association conferred an advantage.

Our ancestors had no way of knowing whether their prey migrated to mate or was mystically controlled by the stars. Being able to make the association and act on it conferred a much greater selective advantage than determining precise causal relationships. We're predisposed to making these sort of superstitious connections because the cost of making a false positive (time lost to silly ritual that accomplishes nothing) is less than the cost of a false negative (not eating, or being eaten yourself).

On NPR the other day I got a slice of a conversation regarding life and death and humans' defense mechanisms that we have developed to cope with the ultimate fact that this is kind of a shitty deal as in the end, we just die.

To make that ultimate ending a little more easy to deal with, humans created stories to tell.

And so began the first religion.

To make that ultimate ending a little more easy to deal with, humans created stories to tell.

Telling a story to yourself that this is all there is, there isn't any more, and when you're dead you're gone, could easily serve as a defense mechanism in it's own right and obviously often does.

There's an adaptive, as well as a psychological advantage, to thinking nothing you do in this particular moment has any larger meaning. Many people experience that as emotionally liberating, and as the start of a business opportunity.

Some theorize that as mankind became aware of their own mortality, the brain evolved a "G-d part" of the brain that there is something after this to help us cope.

Belief that an invisible being watches everything you do is a good deterrent for most folks.

Well when you have idiots that refuse medical care for their children because their religion tells them to, it can only be a net gain for the survival of the human race.

#4 and #5 and belief in heaven and hell is a good deterrent to keep less than civilized people from killing, stealing, etc.

In the white collar fraud world, the perception that someone is watching transactions is a much more powerful deterrent than the actual controls themselves.

I am in the middle of a book called, Have a Little Faith that involves this question. My parents didn't raise me with any Religion, thank fucking God, but my Dad sent me the book.

It's a true story from a guy that was raised Jewish, and went along with it until he got into college and just set it down completely. Years later while visiting his family, his old Rabbi that he hadn't seen in years pulled him aside and asked him if he would perform his Eulogy.

So the book is basically the man getting to know the man behind the robe that is his former Rabbi.

It's a good thought provoking read and lends one to the thinking of "So what if they are just stories. Isn't it better to have stories to tell and dreams to dream than not?"

The particular stories be damned. Just have some. One doesn't need to be religious. Just, Have a Little Faith.

Not only on a personal level can belief in god help some through life, on a societal level as well. It was probably a lot easier for the tribal chieftans to control their subjects if they knew there was a hell awaiting them if they didn't behave.

Now that we are more enlightened and this god thing is increasingly being shown to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, society should move on.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to deny something big happened at the Fatima apparitions. The miracle of the sun was witnessed by a large number of atheists and scoffers who came along just to jeer, and the predictions made came true. Sometimes the invisible can be deduced from the visible.

#8 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-01 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reminds me of a movie. I think it was called The Stolen Summer. Has a similar message in the end.

I am in the middle of a book called, Have a Little Faith that involves this question. My parents didn't raise me with any Religion, thank fucking God, but my Dad sent me the book.

It's a true story from a guy that was raised Jewish, and went along with it until he got into college and just set it down completely. Years later while visiting his family, his old Rabbi that he hadn't seen in years pulled him aside and asked him if he would perform his Eulogy.

So the book is basically the man getting to know the man behind the robe that is his former Rabbi.

It's a good thought provoking read and lends one to the thinking of "So what if they are just stories. Isn't it better to have stories to tell and dreams to dream than not?"

The particular stories be damned. Just have some. One doesn't need to be religious. Just, Have a Little Faith.

#8 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-01 12:27 PM

But...............

Cryin won't help ya
Pryin won't do you no good..............
NNnnnnnooooo..................
..

.

I find it far more likely that animism came first, leading to tribes identifying certain objects as their spirit of choice, which would have eventually become their tribal deity.

You're talking about something that probably evolved from a whole slew of factors, not any one starting point.

Just off the top of my head, things to take into account:
-creation myths being embellished and expanded over time
-the much shorter average lifespan, a shorter more ephemeral life seeming to feel like it would have to be part of something larger
-religions/superstitions growing at the hands of early politicians using them to push moral doctrine or religious patriotism. (our god can beat up your god - a favorite during wartime)
-early philosophy: the ebb and flow of seasons, plants seeming to die and be reborn simply linked to the very old question of "what will happen to me when I die?"

Just some random thoughts. Beyond that, what are some of the oldest religions? Judaism, at what,4k years old - a tribal deity. Egyptian gods were a collection of moral and political tales, linked directly to their rulers on one side, and the seasons, particularly how they affected the nile, on the other. Hinduism, I believe the oldest surviving at around 5k years old, is animism on steroids, Shinto, a much more passive version that I know little about, but I think still much as would have appeared millennia ago.

Personally, I wish mankind had stuck with philosophy and kept it's spirituality a little more empirical, like the Buddhists. Less concerned with stories, gods, and superstition, more concerned with personal peace and happiness, and social harmony.

it is very difficult to deny something big happened at the Fatima apparitions

Indeed.

spirituality a little more empirical

I wonder what an empirical piece of poetry would look like?

this god thing is increasingly being shown to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, society should move on.

Let's move onto NDE research. Interesting that serious researchers are now stating that the phenomenon means either:

1) There's a entire level of physicality we never had the first freaking clue concerning.

2) Consciousness isn't necessarily tied to the brain, or even a living one.

Maybe so many people believe in God because it seems the universe is so vast that there must be more to it than meets the eye. It is so complex that it defies a person's abilities to rationalize. So we either give up rationalizing it all (beyond slowly and painfully taking it one small scientific step at a time) or we resort to Godly beliefs.

NDE research. The study of the perceptions of dying brains cells under the effects of hypoxia and a torrent of uncontrolled electrical impulses, as well as oxytocin, endorphins, and other rushes of completely unbalanced brain chemistry.

a torrent of uncontrolled electrical impulses, as well as oxytocin, endorphins, and other rushes of completely unbalanced brain chemistry

Including DMT. Perhaps the most twisted, intensely mind-bending psychedelic substance known to man.

NDE research. The study of the perceptions of dying brains cells under the effects of hypoxia and a torrent of uncontrolled electrical impulses, as well as oxytocin, endorphins, and other rushes of completely unbalanced brain chemistry.

That doesn't seem to be the direction any of it is going.

Maybe when someone walking deep in a primordial forest stumbles upon a pocket watch, they think that perhaps there was a watch maker rather than that the watch evolved into being over billions of years.

There's a entire level of physicality we never had the first freaking clue concerning.

And your reasoning for this is...?

Consciousness isn't necessarily tied to the brain, or even a living one.

As demonstrated by...?

NDE research. The study of the perceptions of dying brains cells under the effects of hypoxia and a torrent of uncontrolled electrical impulses, as well as oxytocin, endorphins, and other rushes of completely unbalanced brain chemistry.

As a matter of fact, in at least some of the best NDE cases, these sorts of explanations can be ruled-out. That's why you've got people like Penrose digging into it now.

There's been a paradigm shift in the making for a bit now.

Maybe when someone walking deep in a primordial forest stumbles upon a pocket watch, they think that perhaps there was a watch maker rather than that the watch evolved into being over billions of years.

That analogy was silly in 1860 and it's still silly today. Watches aren't evolvable systems composed of self-organizing components. Organisms are.

Damn it, Zombiehunter, why does someone always have to bring up DMT? I just want to get my hands on it once, but nooooo, I live in the midwest, I'm not allowed to partake :(

As a matter of fact, in at least some of the best NDE cases, these sorts of explanations can be ruled-out.

I'm sure you've got mountains of studies that show this to be true, but do indulge the rest of us infidels by posting a link to one of them. Preferrably one that wasn't designed by Bozo the Clown.

#25 | Posted by ZombieHunter

All things are subject to evolution. There are different types of evolution; biological, social and even technological.

Preferrably one that wasn't designed by Bozo the Clown.

CORKY'S brought up at least one case like this in the past. the surgeons involved might react to being called Bozo.

Maybe when someone walking deep in a primordial forest stumbles upon a pocket watch, they think that perhaps there was a watch maker rather than that the watch evolved into being over billions of years

???

Evolving watches? Are there really people here stupid enough to make such an absurd assertion?

I guess so

Zed, as near as I can tell, the paradigm shift is some people are silly enough to put postcards out of view in OR's and see if anyone can report back what they say. No one has done it yet.

Yes, some NDE's indicate that dying brain cells no longer functioning together in tandem well enough to generate a "brain wave" can still process occasional sensory input, generally sound, for longer into the death process than we would have thought originally, but that doesn't require any sort of supernatural explanation.

"Maybe when someone walking deep in a primordial forest stumbles upon a pocket watch, they think that perhaps there was a watch maker rather than that the watch evolved into being over billions of years.

That analogy was silly in 1860 and it's still silly today. Watches aren't evolvable systems composed of self-organizing components. Organisms are."

Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-09-01 02:07 PM | Reply

Some moron dropped his watch.

Biological evolution necessarily depends on reproduction. Watches can't have babies, corky. Thought you'd like to know.

Some moron dropped his watch.

Corky found it and has it in an incubator waiting for it to hatch.

All things are subject to evolution.

In a sense. The evolution of jazz music or the internal combustion engine does not share the same mechanism as the evolution of self-replicating systems like lifeforms and arguably memes.

Those forms of "evolution" are not, at their most basic levels, blind walks through sequence space.

Yes, some NDE's indicate that dying brain cells no longer functioning together in tandem well enough to generate a "brain wave" can still process occasional sensory input, generally sound, for longer into the death process than we would have thought originally, but that doesn't require any sort of supernatural explanation.

You need to look into the case of Pam Reynolds. I assume you aren't a medical doctor. Some of them aren't quite as arrogant as you seem to be.

#35 | Posted by ZombieHunter

You don't think jazz was found by accident? Hendrix found distortion by randomly fucking with his equipment and found the by punching holes in the amps it gave a cool distorted sound.

I think it's safe to say most if not all NDE's could be completely understood if we had a better understanding of what consciousness itself really is. I tend to lean a little toward the "quantum consciousness" view myself, but not in any extreme - i.e. none of that entangled-with-the-universe-
expanding consciousness mumbo-jumbo, simply that in the way quantum processes guide electrons in photosynthesis, there are still processes going on at a molecular/atomic/subatomic level that never even notice the moment of death, because it is not so much of a "moment" as it is a process.

One might argue that the watch did evolve. Humanity, who designed and manufactured it, was the final step in it's multi-billion year journey into creation. It's "evolution" rode piggy back on humanity, all the way into eventual existence...

One might argue that the watch did evolve. Humanity, who designed and manufactured it, was the final step in it's multi-billion year journey into creation. It's "evolution" rode piggy back on humanity, all the way into eventual existence...

hmm. You must've read Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan", too.

some NDE's indicate that dying brain cells no longer functioning together in tandem well enough to generate a "brain wave" can still process occasional sensory input, generally sound, for longer into the death process than we would have thought originally

Some NDE's? What a crock. Some websites indicate that the queen of england is a shape-shifting reptile.

Methinks you have no clue whatsoever how to tell what an observation "indicates". Mountains of currently nonexistent experimental evidence would be required to actually back up a claim like the one you just made. You don't say X indicates Y because it would make a good story and Y doesn't refute the possibility of X. The fact that the queen of england consumes water regularly is consistent with her being a reptile, but it does not indicate it.

Mountains of currently nonexistent experimental evidence would be required

The evidence is accumulating under controlled conditions in much the same way and for many of the same reasons that split-brain investigation proceeded.

think it's safe to say most if not all NDE's could be completely understood if we had a better understanding of what consciousness itself really is.

The nature of consciousness is entirely to the point.

I've never read Sirens of Titan. But I have read other books by Vonnegut. Does he posit the same evolution-of-watches theory in that book? Hmm. I guess great minds really do think alike. :)

#44 Sort of. Throughout the whole book, a kid carries a "lucky charm" and a complete Vonnegutian story ensues. (spoiler alert) In the last chapter, an alien from Tralfamadore who crash landed on one of the moons of Neptune over a billion years earlier is visited by this kid. Ends up his "lucky charm" is a vital part that is needed on the alien's spacecraft to get him home. It seems when he had crash landed a billion years earlier, his homies decided it was easier to evolve the human race and this part and have a human bring it than to send one from the home planet.

Let's call it Occam's razor. On one hand, you have verifiable evidence of people having some sensory perception, as I said, generally sound, since most cases I personally have read about have conversations of the surgeons and supporting staff brought up. The simpler, generally more likely option then is that on some level the brain is still functioning. The level that would require a mound more evidence is that a "spirit" is leaving the body and comes back. Because that then requires an explanation of what that spirit is made out of, what it's properties and behaviors are, etc. The whole "more extreme claims require more extreme evidence" bit.

Now, the nature of consciousness, that is a whole different discussion. All comes down to that first question - is there an "I" that drives the brain, or is "I" just an illusion created by the brain? Have at that one.

You don't think jazz was found by accident?

Jazz "evolved" out of other musical styles, but the point is that music does not evolve by the same mechanism as a self-replicating system. For music to evolve like life, it would have to play itself millions or billions of times over. No musician. And it would carry a chance of being randomly altered in any way that music can be altered, without consideration as to the result.

Cogito ergo sum

BTW, love Vonnegut. Slaugherhouse 5 was always my favorite.

The evidence is accumulating under controlled conditions in much the same way and for many of the same reasons that split-brain investigation proceeded.

So instead of speaking about it in vague generalities, share it.

The adaptive trait called "hunger pangs" points to its referent = Food

The adaptive trait called "thirst" points to its referent = Water

The adaptive trait called "hunger for something transcendent" points to its referent = _________ ?

SL5 was very good, but I liked Cat's Cradle better. Sirens of Titan is where I get the quote on my user page:

Every passing hour brings the Solar System forty three thousand miles closer to Globular Cluster M13 in Hercules -- and still there are some misfits who insist that there is no such thing as progress.

"I" just an illusion created by the brain?

I imagine that this interaction would be an illusion as well, then?

it's referent = survival instinct clashing with inevitable mortality

Occam's Razor---is not a physical law---It's a decision rule that could never be entirely correct.

Not necessarily Zed. When speaking of "I" as an illusion, I am speaking of the personality as a separate entity from the physical brain, which is how one tends to think of oneself. This may be little more than a linguistically generated fiction, though. One explanation of consciousness it that it is the sum of all of a person's sensory input at once, and that in an effort to sift out relevant information from all the background noise, "consciousness" is merely what we call the higher functions of the brain surfing that wave of data. A kind of "thought hologram." It doesn't make what it experiences illusory, just it's perception of itself.

I am desperately digging through my bookshelf to find my reference on this lol

I've got it narrowed down to either Chalmers "The Conscious Mind" or Hofstadter's "I Am a Strange Loop."

The adaptive trait called "hunger for something transcendent" points to its referent = _________ ?

You haven't demonstrated that this pseudo-trait is adaptive or anything more than a social phenomenon. Nice try, shit for brains. The only "adaptive trait" pertaining to spirituality is the tendency of humans to make a type 1 errors when inferring causal relationships and intentation. Combined with ignorance of the natural world, this permits the development of superstition. Superstition in a social environment permits the development of religion.

So to correct you:

The adaptive trait called "predisposition to type 1 error in inferring causation with limited evidence" points to its referent = the greater deleterious effects of type 2 error under the same circumstances.

am speaking of the personality as a separate entity from the physical brain, which is how one tends to think of oneself.

Whether the mind can separate from the physical brain is a question that will rise or fall on whether people stuck "dead" in operating rooms can in fact bring back accurate information they had no sensorial (or flatly spatial) opportunity to acquire.

There are, I understand, over 250 cases of people doing exactly that.

it's referent = survival instinct clashing with inevitable mortality

Quite reasonable.

More so than the absurdity that gets tossed around here.

There are, I understand, over 250 cases of people doing exactly that.

As is typical, you understand poorly.

A kind of "thought hologram." It doesn't make what it experiences illusory, just it's perception of itself.

"It" is imagining itself? That would make "It" real.

As is typical, you understand poorly.

You were doing so well until this point. As to the stat----I merely report what others have determined. This isn't an uncommonly reported phenomenon.

I merely report what others have determined.

You report, you decide. Very Fox-ish of you. Now kindly share these groundbreaking experimental data, or piss off.

or piss off.

You can't help yourself, one supposes.

No. Misunderstood. The eyes send an impulse down a nerve to the rear of the brain. Undifferentiated data. Subconsciously, you see all of it, however, only a small fraction is pertinent. Jungle undergrowth, insect crawling, roots rising out of soil, tiger. One of these things is unlike the others in that it may try to eat you, so for that person perceiving these things to pass on any genes, some part of the brain has to take that data and extract useful information. What gets strange and goes into the nature of consciousness, what I call the "thought hologram" here, is when whatever part of that brain processing data tries to think about itself. Suddenly, it is forced into the abstract, the very nature of the processed data is changed. And, it may all be little more than a linguistic invention.

A hologram, remember, looks 3 dimensional, yet is still only 2D. So might be the perception of self. Lots of details thrown together that take on the appearance of a greater whole.

You can't help yourself

I can't help but wonder if you are trying to pass off ghost stories or circus research as fact because you desperately want to believe that there is some shred of physical evidence to back your supserstition.

Some of them aren't quite as arrogant as you seem to be.

#36 | POSTED BY ZED

That's pretty rich coming from you.

You haven't demonstrated that this pseudo-trait is adaptive or anything more than a social phenomenon.

The adaptive trait called "predisposition to type 1 error in inferring causation with limited evidence" points to its referent = the greater deleterious effects of type 2 error under the same circumstances.

#59 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Are hunger pangs an adaptive trait? At some point in the evolutionary past when Mr. Tunicate cut loose from the ocean floor and eventually arrived at hanging from land based trees, what happened in the early times that gave this tree-dweller a mechanism to let it know it needed nourishment? If such a trait did not develop to let the organism know "food" was needed, such an organism would die from lack of nourishment. Can you trace the chain of causation that led to this trait we now call "hunger pangs?" And can you do so with strong evidence, and not limited evidence (relying more on conjecture than evidence) of this causation?

FACT, all humans of every time and culture have had this common "trait" called religion. Humans are wired for it. You wish to treat it like some mistake, or some vestige of the past, something we haven't been able to "optimize" out of our circuitry. Where you go wrong is in your own assumptions. Religion did not spring from questions about the origin of the universe, but from something else. You would like it to be about "origins", that's why you get your panties in a knot when it comes to science and religion, Mudbone. But if you knew anything of anthropology or archeology, you would also know that the ancients didn't just sit down and think, "Hmmmmmm, I wonder where I came from...I wonder where the earth came from...I wonder where the sun moon and stars came from? Hmmmmmm...I know!...I will call it God." Did you happen to know that the Hebrew creation story came after the story of the Exodus? But perhaps that's too much for you to chew on!

You seem to think that because you have a better explanation of causation within the universe, you've somehow made superfluous this universal trait in human beings. And when you fail, you next attempt to show it to be some evolutionary mistake. You really are clever Mudbone, but you're also a dunce!

oh noes! he wrote fact in caps!

Meh, the Babylonians had a great creation myth going long before the Hebrews.

However, the direction of your logic is incorrect. All humans coming up with supernatural explanations at some point in the past does not make us wired for such belief - it means that such belief is a side effect of our being wired to attempt to understand causal relationships. Lacking an explanation, we invent it.

No. Misunderstood

There has to be something there that misunderstands.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

Want to fight?

And, it may all be little more than a linguistic invention.

Who's doing the inventing? You keep presupposing subjects and then dismissing their existence. I wouldn't fault the language. It's not confusing the rest of us.

Can you trace the chain of causation that led to this trait we now call "hunger pangs?" And can you do so with strong evidence, and not limited evidence (relying more on conjecture than evidence) of this causation?

I'm sure there's plenty of information on how the nervous system senses and signals hunger.

Look it up.

FACT, all humans of every time and culture have had this common "trait" called religion.

Well, if you don't count atheists you're correct.

Where you go wrong is in your own assumptions.

Methinks your own assumptions are in question as well, hence the defensive response.

It always amazes me that people with such "strong" faith are so easily riled by people questioning it.

Want to fight?

Sure.

At some point in the evolutionary past when Mr. Tunicate cut loose from the ocean floor and eventually arrived at hanging from land based trees, what happened in the early times that gave this tree-dweller a mechanism to let it know it needed nourishment? If such a trait did not develop to let the organism know "food" was needed, such an organism would die from lack of nourishment. Can you trace the chain of causation that led to this trait we now call "hunger pangs?"

The traits you're looking for concern the ability to detect changing nutrient levels and modify behavior accordingly. Mr. Tunicate already had those. Even lowly Mr. Bacterium will move up a nutrient gradient. Enzymes that catalyze key steps of metabolic pathways are often inhibited by buildup of their products and/or stimulated by buildup of their starting materials. Nervous systems capable of creating the subjective experience of hunger evolved in the presence of these extremely ancient systems.

Now is there a point you're trying to make, or is this a passing attempt at prefacing a bit of incoherent fundiebabble with something that passes for intelligable english?

FACT, all humans of every time and culture have had this common "trait" called religion. Humans are wired for it.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "trait". Religion is a social phenomenon. The capacity to discern causal relationships is a trait. Superstition is just the by-products of evolution's imperfect solution to the challenge of determining those relationships with limited information. Religion is neither a vestige of our past nor an evolutionary accident. It is the inevitable result of an encounter between our innate bias toward type-I error and cultural information that dictates what false conclusions those errors will lead us to.

We are no more "wired" for religion than we are "wired" for susceptibility to smallpox. Our societies and cells are just permissive environments where those bits of information can replicate.

Religion did not spring from questions about the origin of the universe, but from something else.

And your justification for this is what? A bit of wishful thinking? A yearning to bitch and moan about evolution despite a pitiful understanding of biology?

Want to fight?

-Sure.

Should be the motto of the retort.

And your justification for this is what? A bit of wishful thinking? A yearning to bitch and moan about evolution despite a pitiful understanding of biology?

#78 | Posted by zombiehunter

I got no problem with evolution, as in change. I'm just not a Darwinist. The survival of the fittest is a crappy concept, based on a tautology and thus unscientific as it can't be falsified, nor is it testable.

The survival of the fittest is a crappy concept, based on a tautology

If you think this is true you haven't even the slightest clue what "tautology" means. Or you have a miserably poor understanding of evolution. Or both.

it can't be falsified, nor is it testable

My god, that is probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in at least a day. You're confusing the idea of unfalsifiability with success. Evolution has withstood every conceivable test devised in the last 150 years. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable. That makes it accurate.

Now is there a point you're trying to make...

No, there's not.

But since he can't comprehend the answer nor summon the intellectual curiosity to see if someone else has figured it out, he has to present it as a profound point where such a complete lack of knowledge (in his perception at least...) exists,so therefore God did it.

I've never met a fundy who didn't suffer from lazy thinking.

as it can't be falsified

Bullshit. There are TONS of hypotheses that can be derived from evolution. It happens all the time in evolutionary biology labs across the world.

Any one of them turning out false and remaining unexplainable is a problem for evolution. As of yet, that hasn't happened.

And no, something not being completely explained is NOT a falsification of a hypothesis.

nor is it testable.

damnit.

Sadly, these marginally useful sacks of shit leach off of those they rag on.

Sabbatai doesn't even realize it's science that's allowed his brainless ass to survive for as long as it has.

The catch is the lack of lactic acid metabolism is usually a distinguishing characteristic of E. coli.

Yeah, well lactic acid is made by lactic acid bacteria in milk products and also by the anaerobic metabolism of glucose in the human body. Honey has a lot of glucose in it. Milk. Honey. Are you seeing what I'm seeing? The evolution of lactic acid metabolism was actually god leading this population of bacteria to the promised land of metabolic pathways. They had to wander for 40 generations because one of the bacteria lacked the requisite faith, but after a few hours the Chosen Bacteria arrived. Oh... and here's the kicker. Lactate has 3 carbons and 3 is the same number as the trinity. YEah.. FACT.

Ergo, god did it.

You know, that post probably has more thought and scientific information in it that 99% of the fundy babble I've read.

Don't let Zed get to you, the force is too strong in you to turn to the dark side.

I kind of gave up when I realized Zed was being intentionally obtuse. I gave a lot of effort to explain that of lot of what we refer to as "consciousness" is actually the brain acting as a neural network linking all of it's various perceptions of sensory input with emotional and intellectual responses, which when attempting to perceive itself really forms a kind of loop - literal "circular reasoning."

Not that that is the only One True Theory of Consciousness. I know better. Even if consciousness is an artifact of the mind attempting to understand it's own awareness, we still know very little about the actual "seat" of consciousness. For instance, memory - we can show on an MRI, PET scan, whatever, when certain portions of the brain light up showing increased bloodflow, metabolism, whatever the test may use, we can tell that emotional markers trigger the brain to store memories, yet we don't have the faintest clue how they are stored and recalled. As yet, we are like a stone-age man looking at a computer, catching on that when it does something, the hard drive whirs, and maybe discerning that it is doing something, but with no idea how the code is read, recalled, or even that there is a code.

But that debate becomes pointless when someone remains intentionally uncomprehending of what you are saying. Zed kept arguing that something separate must be there to understand, even while I keep pointing out that it is the function of the brain to understand, even when directed inwards.

If he had started discussing how the brain works, encodes, and recalls all the information that makes a person "themself," it may have been a very different conversation.

ZPG....have you been watching The Brain series on Charlie Rose? It's fascinating.

I kind of gave up when I realized Zed was being intentionally obtuse

That's zed's MO when he gets forced into a corner. That, and bizarre metaphors and analogies that are usually completely irrelevant. Zed's not stupid, but let's face it -- it's getting harder and harder for fundies to fill in the gaps with anything but their god. Zed would've been very convincing 300 years ago, but today, not so much.

btw, for what it's worth, I recognized the thought put into your replies to zed and was impressed.

That's zed's MO when he gets forced into a corner. That, and bizarre metaphors and analogies that are usually completely irrelevant.

I always figured those were the communion wine talking.

Don't let Zed get to you, the force is too strong in you to turn to the dark side.

Yeah, but you have to admit the ability to shoot lightning out of your fingers is pretty cool.

No, but I'll look that up Danforth - thanks. Goatman, thanks, Zombie had some great ones too. And I believe you're right about Zed - certainly not stupid, but not even willing to address that which conflicts with his world view.

Oh, and I'm totally with Zombie on that one. I would fall to the dark side just for the force lighting. Pretty.

"No, but I'll look that up Danforth - thanks."

It's a multi-installment series that focuses on one aspect each time. The last three nights they've covered aging, positive emotions, and tonight, negative emotions. I couldn't turn away.

Goatman, thanks, Zombie had some great ones too

Yes he did. But that's a given when he engages zed. I've never seen you go mano a mano with him before, though.

it can't be falsified, nor is it testable

My god, that is probably the dumbest thing I've read on this site in at least a day. You're confusing the idea of unfalsifiability with success. Evolution has withstood every conceivable test devised in the last 150 years. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable. That makes it accurate.

#81 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Oh I see, it is testable, that is your point?

OK, here is the thing… a certain valley has two types of vegetation. One is grass and another is minty plant, that is really a disgusting chew. The fast horses go for juicy grass area and leave the minty stuff for the slowlies.

While lunching, a pack of wolves observe the fasties, and one runs toward the herd (standard wolf tactic). Horses start running away, as they do. The slowlies are naturally behind.

The pack goes to action, the mark is selected (wolves howl with each other to denote the mark). The alpha has the task of taking down the mark. He runs like crazy towards the mark and the wind changes direction and blows directly towards the wolf. He stops on the spot.
Other wolves run towards alpha and the following discussion ensues:

Female alpha: " Are you nuts? Why did you stop?"

Male alpha: "It was another of them minty ones. I hate mints!"

So, you see, the fitness is not really that predictable. You assume that the criterion is the speed and it is actually mint!

OK, I hear, it is not a probable scenario. I would love to be so sure.
So how about an Island, with a volcano off to my left side. There are lemurs all over the island. The vegetation on the volcano slopes is juicier (more volcanic ash fertilizer ) and the lemurs are plumper than the cousins on the flat side of the island. They are very fit and the cousins are barely getting by on substandard chew.

The plumpies are frolicking (in their slowish kinda way) as usual and occasionally grimace with disdain towards a cousin that got too close to their territory. And then… boom! The volcano goes off and in a few minutes, the plumpies are plumpies flamboaux, roasted under a cover of volcanic ashes, ashes, dust to dust.

The nutrition deficient cousins, skinnies (also called derogatory other names by plumpies, like "skeletor"), on the opposite side that is removed from the volcano wrath are still moving, cuz their goose is not cooked.

Nobody knew they are fit until the volcano went boom. But yes, they survived and hencetoforth they are the fittest.

Once again, I'll iterate to let that sink it. They are fittest because they survived, they did not survive because they are the fittest. Post hoc.

And that is my beef with the theory.

All communities which operate with the "common good" in mind (socialistic cooperation) enjoy a higher degree of prosperity. For poorly educated communties, which represents most of mankind's history, religion has provided the purpose for people to rise above simple selfishness and operate as a group with common interests and goals.

Where this model fails is when one group bumps into another and fights for resources. Different groups with contradictory religions frequently engage in destructive wars.

In "Man's Search for Meaning" a holocaust survivor found that it doesn't matter what a person believes, but to survive difficult conditions it is necessary to find meaning to have any chance of survival. Only those people who instilled purpose in their own lives were able to survive. It was not sufficient to survive, but it was necessary. This points to the importance of religious freedom as one of our founding principals.

Zed's not stupid,

Thanks, GOATMAN. Neither are you.

but let's face it -- it's getting harder and harder for fundies to fill in the gaps with anything but their god. Zed would've been very convincing 300 years ago, but today, not so much.

I use religion to fill in no gaps whatsoever. Neither have I personally met anyone who does. We're coming from an entirely different place. However, that you guys are hung up on that idea helps illustrate why there's such a misunderstanding between us.

I've seen nothing, ever, on these pages that makes me question the existence of God. Quite the reverse, in fact. Conversations here have provided the basis for more than one Sunday school lesson----Language toned down, of course.

I kind of gave up when I realized Zed was being intentionally obtuse.

Nah. When it's intentional it works better.

I gave a lot of effort to explain that of lot of what we refer to as "consciousness" is actually the brain acting as a neural network linking all of it's various perceptions of sensory input with emotional and intellectual responses, which when attempting to perceive itself really forms a kind of loop - literal "circular reasoning."

Not that that is the only One True Theory of Consciousness. I know better

As do I. That's why we were having a debate.

but not even willing to address that which conflicts with his world view.

Even if your personal idea concerning what you cutely lable "consciousness" were the correct one, it wouldn't conflict with my world view one whit.

You've stayed inside your own head for much too long, or the heads of people too much like you. I've been you and done that. Time for you to move on and experience something new. That's not the same thing as surrender, and once you understand that you (a concept I'm not sure you credit) can truly be open-minded.

There is no evolution.
God says so in his written letters to us.

Who you going to believe, a high school teacher who is trying to keep his job or eyewitness record 2000 years old and never proven wrong?

Voltaire (not a slouch) said he would study the Bible and in two years prove error and prove it wrong.

He never did.

Voltaire was wrong.

Evolution is mass hypnosis perpetrated over the last 100 years by the evil confederacy to make perfect slaves that run on handouts of pleaseure and live in a dream world connected by iphones and internet.

There never will be and never was physical matter involved in star travel, it is impossible.

"God says so in his written letters to us."

Must've gotten stuck in the Dead Letter Office.

"Who you going to believe, a high school teacher who is trying to keep his job or eyewitness record 2000 years old and never proven wrong?"

Do you have even one of those "letters," a physical object, you can demonstrate is 2,000 years old?

"...and never proven wrong."

I'd be more convinced if they'd been proven correct, which they haven't.

I've seen nothing, ever, on these pages that makes me question the existence of God.

I've seen nothing, ever, on these pages or elsewhere that suggests the existence of any god ever worshipped by human beings throughout their history.

Your point?

God says HE MADE US and WE DID NOT MAKE OURSELVES.

Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Rom 3:4 Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

Settles it for me.

At least I have a future.

Where in all of nature or history is an example of something making themselves?

Some oaf in the cath church tried to perpetrate spontaneous generation.

Always proved wrong.

they been trying to pull this over on us for thousands of years so that we will not fear to sin, so the world will become a den of sin and perversion, and so the enemy will then have the right to kill us with nukes

wich is what is going to happen, men will become irritated to the poing of the last war, because they knew not God and he will no longer prevent the war as he has for 50 years.

There have been over 20 near cases of starting WWIII and all have miraculously been averted, but man has come to the point where the next event will not be averted.

Sodom and gomorrha suffered the same fate.

Get ready and enter into his pavillion of safety, the word of God

you have about 8 months to read it.(KJV)

God bless.

So if every man is a liar and the KJV of the Bible was written by man, what does that tell you about the KJV of the Bible?

I've seen nothing, ever, on these pages or elsewhere that suggests the existence of any god ever worshipped by human beings throughout their history.

Your point?

That you don't get out nearly enough.

I see proof of G-d everyday. G-d is not separate from science- science is the language of G-d. Science gives us the how and why, but not the inspiration behind it IMHO.

Go ahead and mock me for this belief, but you will not change it.

Evolution proves the existence of God!

They are fittest because they survived, they did not survive because they are the fittest. Post hoc.

You have a piss-poor understanding of evolution, my friend. Nowhere in the theory of evolution will you find the assumption that the most common genotype in a population is always the fittest. Nor will you find that natural selection is the only mechanism by which a species can evolve.

"Fitness" describes a lot of things, none of which you seem to understand. For most simple purposes, you can reduce fitness to the likelihood that an individual with a given genotype will reproduce under a given set of conditions.

High fitness genotypes are not guranteed survival, nor are they assured of becoming fixed. A high fitness genotype just produces more viable offspring than one of lower fitness. Rigorously defining a causal relationship between genotype and reproductive success is hardly a post-hoc fallacy.

It's no different than defining a similar relationship between fuel composition and engine performance. I don't see you whine about post hoc fallacies when you look at your owner's manual and see that it recommends using fuel with no more than 10% ethanol or whatever.

#105 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-09-02 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

That seems a little dishonest there Zombie.

You are saying that there has never been any reason to think that it might be possible that some ultimate being existed?

I would say that is a lie. You may not think the possibility is high or probably, but I am sure you have pondered.

The fact that we exist should cause you to ponder this. The fact of the inability for an infinite regression of causes to be plausible should cause you to ponder this.

Why do you lie?

That you don't get out nearly enough.

Getting out has nothing to do with it. Getting a bit of common sense does.

Like most religious fools, you suffer from a bad case of confirmation bias.

You are saying that there has never been any reason to think that it might be possible that some ultimate being existed?

Certainly not in my experience, and as As far as the experiences of other go

The fact that we exist should cause you to ponder this.

The fact that we exist should cause me to ponder biochemistry. Which I do.

The fact of the inability for an infinite regression of causes to be plausible should cause you to ponder this.

What a crock of shit. Your god is susceptible to the same "infinite regression of causes". Physics is far more qualified and far better equipped to address the origin of the universe than a pathetic collection of tribal myths.

Why do you lie?

I've done no such thing, and you would know if if you had a shred of common sense left in your skull. Why do you choose to live your life as a willfully ignorant sack of shit?

Evolution proves the existence of God!

www.youtube.com

Sabbatai proves the existence of idiots on youtube.

Getting out has nothing to do with it. Getting a bit of common sense does.

I have to keep recalling I'm talking with someone who is, what? Twenty-three-years-old?

Of course you need to get out. You've seen and done nothing up to this point. Unless you'd like to tell me you did a combat tour in Iraq.

It's bound to cure you of the quaint notion you've got common sense. Rule Two of Life: When you meet someone who makes a point of saying something like that to you---Run.

"Fitness" describes a lot of things, none of which you seem to understand. For most simple purposes, you can reduce fitness to the likelihood that an individual with a given genotype will reproduce under a given set of conditions.

#111 | Posted by zombiehunter

Actually my point was more about "mint" and "volcanoes." Survival of the fittest is nothing more than survival of the survivors.

Tautology - using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity.

"infinite regression of causes".

I'm thinking this is a limitation imposed by human psychology. That should represent both good and bad news from your point of view---

1) Good: It implies that it might be possible to get to the root of origins afterall.

2) Bad: It reminds us it won't be human beings who do that.

I have to keep recalling I'm talking with someone who is, what? Twenty-three-years-old?

I thought I was supposed to be 14. Do try to stay consistent, fundo.

Of course you need to get out. You've seen and done nothing up to this point. Unless you'd like to tell me you did a combat tour in Iraq.

Sure. I was there from 2003-2005.

Welcome to the internet, zed. People adopt any sort of persona they wish. I just pretended to be a veteran. You, on the other hand, just pretended to be in possession of wisdom greater than that of toe fungus.

I've seen nothing, ever, on these pages that makes me question the existence of God. Quite the reverse, in fact. Conversations here have provided the basis for more than one Sunday school lesson----Language toned down, of course.

#100 | Posted by Zed

Isn't that special!

Just as Conversations here have been the basis of many discussions with my boys preparing them to be able to withstand the circular illogic of the bible and its lost sheeple. I teach them everyday to question the existence of the God of the KJV Bible and to study the history of religion...all religions and to study and question the science of Man and to come up with their own understanding of Spirituality and to not be leaves blowing in the wind to be gathered up by some Cult like the Death Cult of Christianity.

God says so in his written letters to us.

A letter from a God would be quite impressive if we actually had one. As would ANY evidence of any Alien life form from the great Beyond. All we actually have are letters from Men. So it appears that Men HAVE created God not the other way around. Just as the Sun appears to rise in the East when in fact it is the Earth that is rotating things are not always as they seem. But, who am I to destroy your precious illusions. If it gets you through the night then enjoy your preferred drug. And I wouldn't even care at all if you and your Prophets of Doom would stop trying to foist your illusions onto the rest of us.

Some people need the comfort that comes with thinking that there is a invisible "Sky Daddy" listening and watching and waiting for them to "come home"...it makes the suffering of Life and the Human condition somehow seem bearable. It creates the illusion of Order out Chaos. Just don't expect that all of us need that particular crutch to get us through the dark nights.

"All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost; the old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring; renenwed shall be blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king."

thought I was supposed to be 14.

I used to think you were. Then you'd said you'd graduated university. Feel free to state your true age. Or lie about it, what you term "persona".

Thanks, DONNERBOY. Uplifting as ever.

The fact of the inability for an infinite regression of causes to be plausible should cause you to ponder this.

What a crock of shit. Your god is susceptible to the same "infinite regression of causes". Physics is far more qualified and far better equipped to address the origin of the universe than a pathetic collection of tribal myths.

#114 | Posted by ZombieHunter

This common response doesn't address the question of the impossibility of infinite regression of the universe. The universe had a beginning. Any and every elementary and advanced Astronomy book says this. If you have a problem with it, it is not a problem with religion, but a problem with science. Things that come into being have a cause. The universe had a cause. There is nothing in the universe that can answer the question, "Why is there a universe?" or "Why does the universe exist in its present form and not another?" Quantum physics, with it's quantum fluctuations, quantum vacuums, virtual particles...etc., cannot answer these questions, for such things are part an parcel of the universe itself. Thus the "cause" of the universe, which has a finite regression, cannot be answered by the universe. The answer must come from something which transcends the universe, standing apart/outside of the universe. The embargo on God is now over!

Sure. I was there (Iraq) from 2003-2005.

That would have been enough to nail your "persona" as that of liar. Glad you took it back. Might be some hope for you.

This common response doesn't address the question of the impossibility of infinite regression of the universe. The universe had a beginning.

Beginning from what? From absolutely nothing? That would be absurd, akin to the belief in magic.

Actually my point was more about "mint" and "volcanoes."

Natural disasters and can change the distribution of alleles without regard to their fitness. The people killed in the boxing day tsunami did not die because of anything to do with their reproductive fitness. Likewise, the survivors were just lucky. No biologist would say that their genes conferred a selective advantage.

Your point?

Survival of the fittest is nothing more than survival of the survivors.

The universe had a cause.

Every cause is the effect of a prior cause, another prior cause etc. etc. Yes, infinite regression is impossible. So is the causal explanation.

Every cause is the effect of a prior cause, another prior cause etc. etc. Yes, infinite regression is impossible. So is the causal explanation.

#127 | Posted by Ray

But science is all about causal explanations. I mean, why build the Hadron Collider if causal explanations are now off the table?

Go for it. If causation is a defunct method for explaining the universe, what method would you employ? How would you answer the question of the origin of the universe?

The universe had a beginning. Any and every elementary and advanced Astronomy book says this.

I suggest you read a little further in those books. Somehow I doubt you got more than halfway through the table of contents.

Things that come into being have a cause. The universe had a cause.

In common experience, yes. In cosmological experience, absolutely not. The "beginning" of the universe is nothing more than a boundary in spacetime. There is nothing mysterious about it.

Another thing that is just interesting to me, but inconvenient as hell to creationists... The energy of a gravitational field is negative. The energy of matter and the other three forces is positive. The universe is, to the best anyone can observe, flat - meaning the contribution of gravity is balanced by the contribution of everything else. It would therefore possess zero net mass/energy. Does nothing need a cause?

There is nothing in the universe that can answer the question, "Why is there a universe?" or "Why does the universe exist in its present form and not another?"

Sure there is. You just do not wish to consider these things because you do not allow yourself to entertain thoughts that do not permit the existence of god.

Quantum physics, with it's quantum fluctuations, quantum vacuums, virtual particles...etc., cannot answer these questions, for such things are part an parcel of the universe itself. Thus the "cause" of the universe, which has a finite regression, cannot be answered by the universe.

At least put some croutons in that word salad.

Oh shit. Ray and sabbatai are going to start burning the candle of idiocy at both ends.

I'm going to step back and watch this throwdown between Mr. Electric Universe and Mr. God Did It.

The Electric Koolaid God War

The Electric Koolaid God War

I'm on the bus. How about you?

I have to keep recalling I'm talking with someone who is, what? Twenty-three-years-old?
Of course you need to get out. You've seen and done nothing up to this point.

Match-Zombie.

Once the condescending 'you'll understand when you're older' line comes out it's over.

Then you'd said you'd graduated university.

Did you graduate in May, Zombie? Is grad school on the table?

Where do codes come from?

coded information that is.

1,400,875

Once the condescending 'you'll understand when you're older' line comes out it's over.

OK, you do want to fight.

Is Belief in God an Evolutionary Advantage?

No. Just compare secular societies to non-secular theocratic ones. QED

#138 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2010-09-02 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Belief in God /= theocratic society.

"Belief in God /= theocratic society."

And yet, a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god.

it is easier to agree with the masses than to explain to them there is no santa claus.

Thus the "cause" of the universe, which has a finite regression, cannot be answered by the universe. The answer must come from something which transcends the universe, standing apart/outside of the universe.

I don't have the "answer", therefore, let there be God!

#140 | Posted by Hans at 2010-09-02 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is not true. Depending on how you are defining God.

If you are talking ultimate's, then theocratic societies still exist. Run by the simple rules of reality.

Thanks, DONNERBOY. Uplifting as ever.

#122 | Posted by Zed

sorry...not as comforting as your "After Life".

I didn't start this fire.

#142 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does not have to be God, but it is not the universe either. You have a limited understanding of what God means in the philosophical argument as well.

All around you seem limited.

Bearing false witness many a time, you are, Donnerboy.

#141 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2010-09-02 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not in the long run.

I didn't start this fire.

But pouring lighter fluid on it you've never had qualms concerning.

"That is not true. Depending on how you are defining God."

Of course it is.

Unless, of course, you can name one theocratic society which did not have a belief in (a) god.

Good luck with that one.

Oh shit. Ray and sabbatai are going to start burning the candle of idiocy at both ends.
I'm going to step back and watch this throwdown between Mr. Electric Universe and Mr. God Did It.
#130 | Posted by ZombieHunter

You're doing fine. I hate to interfere.

#148 | Posted by Hans at 2010-09-02 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag

Again, how are you defining God?

But science is all about causal explanations. I mean, why build the Hadron Collider if causal explanations are now off the table?
Go for it. If causation is a defunct method for explaining the universe, what method would you employ? How would you answer the question of the origin of the universe?
#128 | Posted by Sabbatai

Causation from nothing is impossible. I've said it innumerable times. Existence is eternal. There is no other explanation consistent with the laws of physics, thermodynamics and chemistry.

"Again, how are you defining God?"

That is irrelevant.

Name one (1) theocratic society which did not have a belief in (a) god.

If you can't then my original statement stands:

Bearing false witness many a time, you are, Donnerboy.

#145 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

But pouring lighter fluid on it you've never had qualms concerning.

#147 | Posted by Zed

ahhh yes...being observant and questioning the authority of your version of God always has been considered heresy by the Church hasn't it?

In the olden Dark days you would have tried to kill me for my thoughts.

That is irrelevant.

Name one (1) theocratic society which did not have a belief in (a) god.

If you can't then my original statement stands:

...a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god.

#152 | Posted by Hans at 2010-09-02 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have to define your terms to make a point. Otherwise you can make it whatever you want. How are you defining God, because there are many definitions of God or concepts of God, outside of personal, intelligent, and intentioned.

#153 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your missing the point. In your statement, you posited that thoughts preceded death. I think you are safe thus far in your example of the dark ages.

#151 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't know jack shit about the laws of physics, thermodynamics and chemistry.

"How are you defining God, because there are many definitions of God or concepts of God..."

Not the bright one, I see.

It is the definition of theocratic (or theocracy) which makes my point...

It says "a god", therefore the definition of God does come into play.

The god that I will use as the definition is the ultimate cause of the things we know and see, the constants of the universe, human social interaction and morals.

America functions on morals. America functions on recognition of non changing universal facts or constants. America applies these morals and constants to human interaction to determine what is objectively "good" and "bad" (value statements) as well as "right" and "wrong" (obligatory moral duty statements).

Thus, America is a theocratic nation, as god is the ultimate constants of the things we see around us.

This is why the definition is important.

America functions on recognition of non changing universal facts or constants.

Bullshit. Our culture has changed markedly in our short history as a nation. Those "non changing universal facts" once supported slavery. Today they are used to explain why it is an affront to humanity.

America applies these morals and constants to human interaction to determine what is objectively "good" and "bad" (value statements) as well as "right" and "wrong" (obligatory moral duty statements).

The basis for making objective moral judgments boils down to the ethic of reciprocity - a culturally invariant, biologically driven concept. Superstition has nothing to do with it, however much it may pretend to the contrary.

Now it's Zombiehunter verses Exp. Who could have imagined?

The basis for making objective moral judgments boils down to the ethic of reciprocity

It's moral purely if it's reciprocal? Interesting. Dangerous, but interesting.

So there's never such a thing as a bad transaction, as long as it's mutual?

Reminds me of a story I once read about two mothers offering each other's children up as meals during a famine. That fits your definition, right?

#159 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-09-02 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you opened your eyes, I did not say superstition has anything to do with it. I did state that America does function on what it believes to be objective truths or morals. I.e. human rights. If we followed the animal kingdom, there would be no human rights. So, America thinks there is some objective standard that cannot be taken from others.

Via this, with the definition of god posited in response to Hans' claim, America is a irreligious theocratic society.

Once the condescending 'you'll understand when you're older' line comes out it's over.
OK, you do want to fight.

I already said sure.

"Thus, America is a theocratic nation..."

Which again, confirms what I said: "...a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god."

"This is why the definition is important."

No it isn't.

Again, name one (1) theocratic society which did not have a belief in (a) god.

The definition of (a) god is irrelevant.

Tell me a society that does not have a belief in (a) god, taking into account all definitions of God?

I would say there is none. Therefore, all societies are theocratic.

I already said sure.

Await my psychic attack.....Tell me when you feel something.

A society based on truth, would be theocratic.

Await my psychic attack.....Tell me when you feel something.

You'll probably be fended off by my psychic defense. Let me know when your psychic attack isn't working.

Tell me a society that does not have a belief in (a) god, taking into account all definitions of God?

The same way they take account of tooth fairies.

A society based on truth, would be theocratic

Iran? Saudi Arabia?

"I would say there is none. Therefore, all societies are theocratic."

Then we're back to confirming my statement: "...a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god."

And, yet, curiously, your latest statement renders this earlier statement of yours: "Belief in God /= theocratic society" ... moot.

Because now it is "all societies are theocratic" regardless of the definition of (a) god and one's belief (or not).

"A society based on truth, would be theocratic."

No it wouldn't.

Because a truthful ("based on truth") reading of the definition of theocratic society (a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler...) has nothing to do with "truth," and everything to do with a god or deity serving as the state's supreme civil ruler.

You can call an apple a "giraffe," but it is still an apple (unless, of course, the theocratic society declares that an apple is a giraffe, and the truth be damned).

The god that I will use as the definition is the ultimate cause of the things we know and see, the constants of the universe, human social interaction and morals.

You just gave your God a demotion...

As your God IS the Universe as all those things can be explained in terms of the Laws of this Universe from when the Universe was formed (for whatever reason) and as the Universe Itself rising up to take a look at itself. AS someone once said, "It is a sparkling realm of continual creation, transformation, and annihilation."

What then about the other Universes (assuming they exist)? If they have different Natural Laws do they have different Gods to oversee them? So then do we have create new Gods to explain them or do we just give yours a promotion?

#174 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag Can't keep up with multiple and different arguments at once.

#171 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Multi-faceted concepts confuse me.

#172 | Posted by Hans at 2010-09-02 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Based on my statement you asked me a question that cannot be answered, if all societies are theocratic societies currently.

Also, just because someone believes in God, does not mean they have to legislate as such.

For instance, someone can believe in Allah, and yet not legislate their country as such.

So, not all nations that believe in a god are theocratic

therefore, Belief in god /= theocratic society

"Because a truthful ("based on truth") reading of the definition of theocratic society (a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler...) has nothing to do with "truth," and everything to do with a god or deity serving as the state's supreme civil ruler."

Now you are defining God to what you want it to be, so therefore, the definition of God matters, is this what you are saying?

Also, just because someone believes in God, does not mean they have to legislate as such.

Then why do they? When someone is a Dominionist they legislate with the End of the World in mind. We just had about eight years of that didn't you get enough of the foreign policy of Armageddon?

For instance, someone can believe in Allah, and yet not legislate their country as such.

Too bad it doesn't work that way in the Real World. Only in your mind.

Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable and that the purpose of life is to worship God. You seriously believe that that won't influence their ability to be neutral to that belief system as a leader of all those potential souls? Since Islamic law (religious law)touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, encompassing everything from banking and warfare to welfare and the environment that seems impossible to me that a leader (who is also a believer) would not be influenced by it.

Maybe you could give us some examples of someone who really believes in Allah yet does not legislate his country "as such".

"So, not all nations that believe in a god are theocratic"

Nations don't believe in (a) god. People do.

"therefore, Belief in god /= theocratic society"

And therefore, a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god.

"Now you are defining God to what you want it to be..."

No, I am not.

"...so therefore, the definition of God matters..."

No, it doesn't.

"...is this what you are saying?"

No. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying that a theocratic society would be impossible without a belief in (a) god.

Unless, of course, you can name one (1) theocratic society...

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler...

But of course, you can't.

Now that we are more enlightened and this god thing is increasingly being shown to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, society should move on.

#9 | Posted by goatman

Enlightened? Yeah, we're so enlightened that we have a domestic economy that's imploding and we continue with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Mexican druggies mow down innocent people. Bankers and wallstreeters are ultra-greedy and ultimately attempt to bring down our society. If this is enlightenment then God help us when we really become enlightened. In every age you have those that think they're more "enlightened" then the generation before them but they're just as perverted as those that came before.

The LORD is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.-Psalms 34:18

If good is God and God is good, then I can believe in that;)

Organized religion....not so much.

"But what could be the evolutionary advantage of believing in God?"

It's a crutch for the weak and it gives parents something nice to tell their kids when little Timmy asks "Mommy, what happens when we die"

"Religion is a crutch" is such a boneheaded statement! As if crutches were something to ridicule.

You see a man with a broken leg; he's walking with a crutch. You say to him, "Silly man, you're only using those pieces of wood under your arms because you need a crutch to walk!" LOL

Yeah, religion is a crutch. And the arrogant seem to think this is a ridiculous thing? FOOLS!

You see a man with a broken leg; he's walking with a crutch. You say to him, "Silly man, you're only using those pieces of wood under your arms because you need a crutch to walk!" LOL

But when a person needs the mental crutch of an imaginary deity, it tells me his reasoning skills are limited. Politics runs along similar lines. From what I've learned about human society, human ignorance and delusion in society is the norm, not the exception.

Holy crap!

Goatman lives...again!

Welcome back to the madhouse. Are you sure this is time well spent? LOL.

I've not been around much lately, but such a miraculous resurrection leads me to believe that there is a (blog) God who cares about us very much!

Oh, and before I forget:

The very first tribal shaman, priest, rabbi, imam, fill-in-the-blank, etc., was merely an opportunist.

The question was, "How can I best control this herd-mob of credulous, very stupid and ignorant animals, and bend them to my political will?"

Quite easily!

Scare the hell out of them with promises of eternal damnation and hellfire/attacks from a Kraken/lightning strikes/multihanded beat-downs from Shiva/etc, etc. etc.

People are basically stupid, incapable of independent thought, and generally terrified by superstitious stories transmitted through the generations.

It tends to help the effort if there are a few monotonous, voluminous tomes to accompany the fairy-tale.

Psychopaths have built social order upon foundations of blood and terror since the dawn of humankind; the pattern repeats itself throughout history to the present day. It's been said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", but this quaint saying is all bass-ackwards: it's the psychopaths - those who can lie, cheat, kill, steal, and ruin thousands to millions of lives without a hint of remorse - who are seeking positions of prominence.

Those who fit this psychological profile are willing - and unfortunately too often able - to dispense with any and all who would obstruct or question their rise to power. Psychopaths quite literally don't FEEL or experience emotion like most people, and they're quite adept at manipulating others in pursuit of their ascent.

It's not even necessary (or worth the time or bandwidth) to review the long list of Hol(e)y Men (and, occasionally, women) who brandish their perceived piety for all to see while slaughtering all who could possibly stand in their way.

Certainly not something Jesus would've done.

The sheeple will be sheeple, however; it's all too easy to hoodwink the common idiot into irrational hatred.

Can't we avoid threads that always eventually lead to Gay Marriage
Jk
lol

To Hell with Gawwwwwuhhhd...

...the words of the late, great George Carlin are very wise, and quite worth reproducing:

Benevolence, goodness as tones and hues of a mind... interesting stuff. True stuff.

But then of benevolence, goodness, is whatever that is subject to interpretation? That is to say benevolence, goodness could be interpreted as a punishment of say death by stoning, for the society.

It would seem these concepts, to get their greatest benefits, might necessarily never arise from an organized power as in a religion where empowered priest, imams and the like initiate interpretation of what is benevolence or goodness.

Yes, benevolence, goodness as tones and hues of a mind... interesting stuff. True stuff. But it would seem the truest and greatest benefit would come from individual to individual as true non judgemental selfless care of strangers.

George Carlin is "Bullshit" as you say.

I guess you give equal weight to what everyone says, if they say it to enough people.

Interesting view on life.

It's a crutch for the weak #182 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

As opposed to leaning on big government to tend to your every need from cradle to grave?

and it gives parents something nice to tell their kids when little Timmy asks "Mommy, what happens when we die" #182 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

As opposed to telling little Timmy that Obama (a simple man) will protect him from the evils of the world?

My point is that we are a herd and brain washing does work. It is better to place our minds in the hands of a higher power (what ever form that higher power might come in) than that of a simple man. Including our selves which are understood to be weak on occasion. Our minds are simply muscles that move chemicals around....make sure those chemicals are moving in the right direction.

Faith in government is misplaced faith.

Faith in another man to solve your problems is foolish and is always a let down.

He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20

Don't confuse organized religion or even the religious with the bible. There is good information in these ancient text and it belongs to all of us. This information on how to deal with the mind was passed on to all of us from our ancestors for both Christians and atheist alike.

One does not have to go to church in order to "believe"....quite the contrary in my opinion.

Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9"This, then, is how you should pray:

" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.'

14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matthew 6:5-15

Posted by Dirk at 2010-09-03 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag: has faith in imaginary friends

Ohhhh, ... babble quotes.
I'm so underwhelmed, Dork.

Calling on a god or gods to help you out when you fail to wrap your brain around an idea is a very bad way to hide from the future.

I believe there is no afterlife. Assuming we escape childhood, we all get about seventy or so years to create ourselves in a manner that people from the future will remember us in a positive way.

Proud DFH, emeritus

#193 | Posted by john47 at 2010-09-03 09:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

What does a dumbfounded humanist have to do with your statement?

First of all, most people that are looking into the existence of God as the cause of the universe or "something" instead of nothing, are not using it in order to keep their brains from wrapping around an idea.

If that was so, just because it seems to answer a lot of the first cause questions, why then when we settle for different explanations (of which the facts don't necessitate) for the supposed resurrection of Jesus, such as someone stole the body, the story was made up, etc etc, are we not just calling on false answer because we cannot wrap our brain around the instance of someone rising from the dead?

It is not a matter of not wrapping your brain around things, it is a matter of what is the answer. if that is one of the possible answers it must be explored. It is logical, and reasoned, that some intelligence or being put the constants in place in order to get what we have now.

To claim it as a crutch is disingenuous at best, completely wrong and misunderstood in the middle, moronic and void of any form of knowledge at worst.

we all get about seventy or so years to create ourselves in a manner that people from the future will remember us in a positive way.

The people from the future are awaiting their own turn to be forgotten. If there is no God, there's certainly going to be no one to recall you.

I believe there is no afterlife.

One of the more fascinating things about the New Testament is that the Apostles, and many others, gave little or no indication they did either.

They had to be hit on top of the head with the fact of it.

They had to be hit on top of the head with the fact of it.

Except that there are no "facts of it". What you mean is the myth of it.

FACT: verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.

The resurrection is not a provable concept. That is why they call it FAITH...you either believe or you don't.

The same goes for Life After Death. Not a provable concept.

Apparently, I don't have that "true believer" gene.

-The resurrection is not a provable concept.

Not scientifically, no, but then, neither is the true source and nature of gravity or much of QM at this point.

And neither is much of philosophy.

It is however, arguable given the facts. People seem to forget that before laboratories, there was rationality of thought and logical conclusions given the known facts in philosophy.

If we're a theocratic nation, where does that leave those that might "believe" in one of the more exotic deities that constitute the alleged 3000 faces of God, say...Tjilpa? Anyone leading a secret life as a raging furry would naturally gravitate towards a spiritual philosophy that's based around cat people. Which is just fine until Fluffy and his fellow ecclesiastical yiffers in congress start coming with with laws making it mandatory to consume all your food by stalking it and eating it raw. The trouble with theocracies is when they start legislating on anything they consider blasphemy. Free will has always been the enemy of those who cling to vague parables gleaned from spooky campfire stories.

Or did you just mean a theocracy based around that inept invisible vengeful sky fairy with the Jewish zombie son YOU believe in? Or how about those that know that Sunday is just another day to watch sports on TV? Tell me that is not a religion to some.

It will be just my luck that if there is indeed a biblical Jehovah--and his swell special afterlife spot is Heaven--it will be run by fundamentalist Christians. This county is not--and never will be--a theocratic nation, no matter how many times you click the heels on your ruby slippers, Dorothy.

--it will be run by fundamentalist Christians

Not hardly.

#200 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-09-03 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Two days late and a highly inflation influenced dollar short.

Again, just because there is a beginning the the universe, or the potential of God it does not mean that being in question is the Christian concept of God, unless our course that is where the natural conclusion of the premises take the investigator and they for some reason don't want to have that be true so they make up pre-preemptive nonsensical thought to combat something that hasn't been concluded yet.

I guess you would say that Hawking has proved that you "Believed God didn't exist before God didn't exist, therefore your unbelief is the cause of itself, not anything else. I guess you have no argument against God then.

Not scientifically, no, but then, neither is the true source and nature of gravity or much of QM at this point.

Yet I can prove to you that Gravity (which I cannot see) exists.

Can you prove there is an Afterlife in the same way?

We can combine experiments to save time.

You go jump off a cliff and you will see Gravity in action in then you can come back from the Beyond and tell me all about the Afterlife!

Except that there are no "facts of it". What you mean is the myth of it.

I'm thinking you miss the point. Those 1st Century Judeans, for being as superstitious as many like to paint them, appeared remarkably, even bloody-mindedly, materialistic when it came to their day-to-day lives.

Something moved them off the dime. Not just one shock to their naturally developed meat-and-potatoes paradigm of what was real and what could be real, but an entire series of shocks.

Yet I can prove to you that Gravity (which I cannot see) exists.

No. What you are hoping for is a demonstration of theory, which you'll get. The ancients did the same thing and demonstrated other sorts of theories just as handily.

#203 You can be facetious if you like, but what I proposed was that rational arguments exist where there is no scientific experimentation currently possible.

When you figure out how to measure "spirit", defined in your dictionary as "the animating force" in a lab, pls do let me know.

For now I'll take it that the rational argument I provided was over your head.

Free will has always been the enemy of those who cling to vague parables gleaned from spooky campfire stories.

This is funny. I'm forever getting into debates with atheists who are dead-set against the notion of free will from top to bottom.

Does a belief in God have an evolutionary advantage?

Interesting question.

On the one hand it's a no-brainer.

Organized religion has traditionally been an unparalleled societal control mechanism that tolerated no deniers.

Which is to say if you didn't actively profess a belief in wotever version of God yer society was invested in you would prolly get killed as a result.

Usually horribly, as an example to others.

So, in that sense, obviously an evolutionary advantage in that you gotta stay alive to play the game.

But in the sense that it made societies more prone to co-operation over competition, brought some sort of order to chaos and allowed more complex and larger societies to form?

Yeah, Spud'll buy that.

That sed, Religion's days as being the supreme arbiter in a society are all but over now except in parts of the Islamic world and within various cults.

And that's a good thing.

Be Well.

Ohhhh, ... babble quotes.
I'm so underwhelmed, Dork.

#192 | Posted by Zatoichi

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Matthew 7:5-8

Zatoichi....you are forgiven.

Have a great weekend!

Something moved them off the dime. Not just one shock to their naturally developed meat-and-potatoes paradigm of what was real and what could be real, but an entire series of shocks.

#204 | Posted by Zed

They weren't that bright. Not a single one could read or write. It's called the power of suggestion. The Expectancy Factor. The Prophecies were fulfilled. Just as they "believed" they would be.

You can be facetious if you like...

oh you got me!

When you figure out how to measure "spirit", defined in your dictionary as "the animating force" in a lab, pls do let me know.

We use an fMRI. functional magnetic resonance imaging...Your "spirit" shows up as electrical impulses that can be color coded and matched to different "thoughts" or actions.

Someone touched on it before...YOU (as a spirit or a soul) are an "illusion" created by your brain as it processes the massive amounts of data that it processes. Your higher functions are like the command center where "decisions" are made. When your brain dies that is it. "You" are gone. Never to be reproduced...as of yet.

Does a belief in God have an evolutionary advantage?

a "group" always has an advantage over an individual.

"group think" however is not always a good thing so we also need those individuals that keep themselves apart from the "group" as an "insurance policy" against the mob mentality.

Religious thought has been refined for thousands of years until it's circular logic is almost perfect. It takes a very strong Meme to break out of it's "loop".

I call it Education.

You merely measure electronic activity, not what it represents.

Anthony Flew, the famous atheist apologist philosopher became a theist because he could no longer deny the design he found in nature.

But he didn't believe in an afterlife because he could not find how consciousness could be held together after death.

Which only means he couldn't find it.... as of yet.

But I will again take it that the rational argument was too much for your synaptic aptitude.

"Damn it, Zombiehunter, why does someone always have to bring up DMT? I just want to get my hands on it once, but nooooo, I live in the midwest, I'm not allowed to partake "

Very rare to find it on the street anywhere. It's too intense and short-lived to be a recreational drug. If you want it, you'll have to make it yourself, quite easy, or so I've heard.

" pre-preemptive nonsensical thought to combat something that hasn't been concluded yet. "

Does that word salad come with croutons? I made my point, bible thumper. You're still fumbling around trying to come up with something that doesn't circle back to your provincial prejudices against others with spiritual beliefs that vastly differ from yours.

They weren't that bright. Not a single one could read or write. It's called the power of suggestion. The Expectancy Factor. The Prophecies were fulfilled. Just as they "believed" they would be.

1) Well, 90% of the general population was illiterate in the 1st Century. Had nothing to do with how smart anyone was. But I'm pretty sure Matthew could at least read, given his occupation. There's Scripture indicating Christ could read, which is only what you'd expect.

2) You missed the point. Scriptures clearly describe a group of men who weren't expecting anything, who in fact largely didn't comprehend what was in fron of their eyes.

"Power of suggestion"? Interesting to interject a 21st century meme into a 1st century story. But before you try again, spend a little more time knowing, uh, what the story actually was.

YOU (as a spirit or a soul) are an "illusion" created by your brain as it processes the massive amounts of data that it processes.

Which begins to make you understand why so many of the irreligous have trouble with the concept of free will.

#214 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-09-03 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

And how so? You start your premise by stating that God does not exist, which factually we cannot know. You start on a false premise, means you continue on a false premise, means you end on a false premise.

I doubt you are even dutch.

Had nothing to do with how smart anyone was.

oh yes it did. They may have been "smart" in the ways of survival but as man does not live on bread alone they were looking for more...just like you. But, they had to go on what those Leaders who could read or write would tell them. They had no way to fact check anything and they had no clue that they should.

Scriptures clearly describe a group of men who weren't expecting anything...

basically not true... they were all victims of the "Messiah Complex" just as you are.

Interesting to interject a 21st century meme into a 1st century story. But before you try again, spend a little more time knowing, uh, what the story actually was.

just because they didn't have a name for it doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

As for the Story...I know what the "Story" actually was...enjoy yer arrogance?

....concept of free will.....

#216 | Posted by Zed

subject for another thread

They had no way to fact check anything and they had no clue that they should.

I'm wondering how you fact-checked whether Christ was the Son of God?

#219 | Posted by Zed at 2010-09-03 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

He surely did not consult the every possibly world theory.

Ah...still fumbling I see. Perhaps you can copy/paste my alleged quote where I stated that "God does not exist." Here's where your argument zooms right into the side of the mountain. Your narrow, parochial world view has deluded you into believing that your "God" is the only "God." My example is that I would be just as prone to believe in an obscure aboriginal cat deity as your vengeful, bearded white bread man in the sky and that zombie son of his.

And well done, Inspector Clouseau...you got me. I'm not from Holland.

Idiot.

I'm wondering how you fact-checked whether Christ was the Son of God?

#219 | Posted by Zed

I used the Google.

It said we are all the Son of "God".

#221 | Posted by dutch46 at 2010-09-03 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Prove it.

#222 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-03 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't forget that the Kookaburra is gay, but not homosexual.

I suppose you failed on the possible meanings of words. Here is another one for you,

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically valid sentence in the English language, used as an example of how homonyms and homophones can be used to create complicated linguistic constructs. It has been discussed in literature since 1972 when the sentence was used by William J. Rapaport, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo.[1] It was posted to Linguist List by Rapaport in 1992.[2] It was also featured in Steven Pinker's 1994 book The Language Instinct.[3]

Prove what? That you're an idiot? You're doing all the heavy lifting for me.

You freaking buffalo

#224 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Oh yee of little faith...

Google "Gnostic Gospels" the Nag Hammadi scrolls

or go here for some interesting lectures on the subject.

#226 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-03 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again buffalo, they do not escape from the transience of definition either.

When were the Gnostic gospels written? Research it.

When was the earliest Christian writing written? Research it.

Do they conflict? Research it.

What do the Gnostic's believe? Research it.

Did Jesus present himself this way? Research it.

Buffalo.

Did Jesus present himself this way? Research it.

Buffalo.

#227 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

the Gnostic Gospel were written in the same era as the other gospels

MAYBE YOU should research it....I already have.

The Gnostic Gospels were written within 100 years of Jesus.

The Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic texts found preserved in the Nag Hammadi Library, gives these words of the living Jesus:

Jesus said, `I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... 12

He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.' 13

Professor Helmut Koester of Harvard University notes that though ultimately this Gospel was condemned and destroyed by the evolving orthodox church, it may be as old or older than the four canonical gospels preserved, and even have served as a source document to them.

I may be a Buffalo (White Buffalo?) but...YOU sir, are a drunk monkey.

Everyone must have something to believe in, I beleive I'll have another beer....WC Fields

I beleive I'll have another beer....WC Fields

#229 | Posted by flyer1969

I believe I will have another hit... of sweet California sunshine!

enjoi!

What do the Gnostic's believe? Research it.

Did Jesus present himself this way? Research it.

Do you realize how stupid those questions were?

It's pretty obvious what the gnostics believed. How Jesus presented himself is another story entirely.

His was certainly not a gnostic philosophy if you mindlessly assume the accuracy the bible - a book edited by sects that opposed the gnostics. On the other hand, if you believe the texts that were deliberately omitted from the bible, you have an entirely different picture altogether. In all likelihood, any of these "gospels" contain an amalgamation of concepts attributed to Jesus. Similar to Tupac coming out with books of poetry a decade after he's dead.

History is always written (and re-written) by the victors.

The only evolutionary advantage was in the dark ages when the only organized institution was religious and they gave out food and protection which helped propagate the gene that trust religion.