It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Can you please point to gravity? I don't think so. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. What do you think separates us from other animals and plants? The ability to walk upright? No, the existance of a soul. That is where our individuality and personalities come from.




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by keeb333
 


This is the best rendition I've seen, once I get it properly loaded.
Hold on...........






[edit on 27-5-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Can you please point to gravity? I don't think so. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. What do you think separates us from other animals and plants? The ability to walk upright? No, the existance of a soul. That is where our individuality and personalities come from.


I can see the effects of gravity, just as I can sense and feel the effects of being "conscious", which is what separates us from animals. "Soul" is an abstract construction of man designed to lessen fears regarding the unknown and post-death non-existence.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by keeb333]



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


You must referring to a different species...that doesn't look anything like the human body I am familiar with



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
OP, have you actually read your own link or do you just not understand it fully?

okay, the original premise is so socially inept that i'm tempted to call the programmer an idiot before i start. his idea that a small proportion of a population of humans will be predisposed to pass on unverifiable facts is stupid, most humans will do it, ever seen how quick a rumour spreads. as far as i'm concerned the whole thing is flawed off the bat.

however, if you do accept it as good science then your extrapolation from the programs results is frankly baffling. the result says it is possible that human society could have evolved to encompass religion automatically. so what? i could have told you that, the fact that religion exists within society tells you that. all a believer will assume is that god made us that way.

the interesting thing, from the perspective of your, and NS magazines conclusion, is that it also says that in order for this to happen, non-believers must find the belief of believers a sexually attractive trait!?!?


The model looks at the reproductive success of the two sorts of people – those who pass on real information, and those who pass on unreal information.

Under most scenarios, "believers in the unreal" went extinct. But when Dow included the assumption that non-believers would be attracted to religious people because of some clear, but arbitrary, signal, religion flourished


have i missed something here, do girls secretly get together and admire the worshipping skills of men? i'm sure i've never heard any guy admiring the praying style of a certain female.

oh yeah, he does mention that this attractive feature may not function in modern times. as far as i'm concerned, that just means that common sense suggests his assumption is flawed and he is clutching at straws to hold on to his original belief, because we still have all out other attraction indicators intact.

is this the flexible science you hold so dear OP?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

There is a deeply entrenched and perhaps fundamental need that humans have, and that is the need to believe in something, whether that be science, "mother earth", organised religion etc - they are all products of humanity in one way or another and serve to address this need.



i think that 'need' is fallout of our right-brain activity...

in that individually. we are at different levels of acceptance of others right-brain attributes such as creativity and empathy...

thus the scientific model the OP presents would naturally come about as
we as a group will tolerate or accept certain levels of religious practices which can be a range of religious practice including:
Wicca, or new-age, or cults, or organized religion, or science, or philosophy, or music or art or wealth accumulation.... just to name a few which are all forms of a disciplined internal world & driving force in one's life, sometimes shared with kindred 'souls'...i.e. 'religious community'

my 2 bits



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


just for the sake of clarity, the community must find religious belief to be sexually attractive. the program looked purely at reproduction and secession of genes.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I tend to think that religion was born out of mans inability (natural or not) to accept without understanding. a toddler accepts that the sky is blue, but when he gets older, he wants to know why it's blue. In this way, religion behaves as a universal compartment for unhandled exceptions. If it doesn't compute, God did it. Is it just coincidence that most religions, namely the largest ones, are all fear based? Is it further coincidence that fear based religion is the most effective method of control existing in our society today?

In the end, it's not what you believe that matters, it's why you believe it.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333

Could you please point to the "soul" on a diagram of the human body? I can't seem to find this particular item anywhere...


Ok, that's good from a "scientific"point of view. There are some things in life that science will never, ever be able to prove or do. I could list quite a few but, I am sure you know what they are. Your soul being one of them. My "soul" belongs to GOD and nothing in this world could ever change that.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333

Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests


www.newscientist.com

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved.

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.
(visit the link for the full news article)



I really get bored with repeating myself but here goes. The idea that our genes/DNA give us a predisposition is now old science and there is more than enough proof that our surroundings effect our "belief system".
Our belief system in turn effects how our "genes react" either our cells are in a "flight" or "fight" position. So our body as a whole is either in "growth" or "death". So your point is completely invalid and basically unfounded now a days. Science is saying this stuff now not religion.

And i personally understand why religion seems as a fairy tell but in reality its a genetic/DNA war thousands of years old and our creator got pissed off enough to manifest himself as a human to win us back through entanglement and yet you hint to that being a fairy tell?pff you better get deeper fast, cuz you are missing it for sure. I'm sorry as I can be to be the one to have to tell you ... your just mistaken.It's not your fault science has been telling half truths for a long time simply because it contradicts what they have been feeding us for years and years.Pathetic thing is we all gobble up every thing they say like its the final truth.
I can post a video that details these new findings in great length. It's strictly science based too not religion based.So everyone reading this post understand this information is just bogus and your genes and DNA are not what decides anything besides basic features.What you believe is what will manifest itself in your life, be it a sickness or be it a predisposition to be addicted to things ... it's what you believe and feed that will grow.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333


This pretty much verifies what I already suspected. Go ahead and believe in whatever fairy-tales or superstitions make you feel better about yourselves, because in the end it doesn't matter a hill of beans!

Now if people would kindly quit trying to force their version of "morality" down each others throats, and accept that there is no such thing as "absolute good" or "absolute evil", this species may still have a chance!

Peace!


www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Let me begin by saying that religion has no monopoly on morality. And any religion would be hard pressed to push any form of morality as they are all guilty of abandoning it when it suited their grip on the minds of the many.

Secondly, this article can be interpreted in many different ways, if religion is part of our evolution, then wouldn't that also suggest that we are in some way created by a God? Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it? Just because it is part of evolution doesn't make it any less part of the creation of God. I find it hilarious that people actually argue over this as if they truly knew what the will of God is in a world so frustratingly complicated. I don't make this claim. I am human, anything that could create a universe this vast and this old could not be understood by beings that have barely made it out of their diapers. If we're the epicenter of creation then I feel really bad for the rest of the universe. This also doesn't make us any more favored by God than any other creature in this VAST universe. Because the evidence of god(in my opinion) can be found in every cubic inch of the cosmos. That said God, by definition, is not relegated to the opinion of man..NO matter how hard we try, one way or the other, we just don't know. It's part of evolution I guess...Maybe one day we will know. And I guess that's what I take comfort in, knowing this isn't it. There's always more. If there wasn't, then the universe would still be the size of a pea.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't look at this through the goggles of religion, look at it through the goggles of your spirit. Because it is really the only thing that matters. There aren't any wrong or right questions or answers. As long as something is learned and passed on in the hopes we can better ourselves, and each other. If this is really that much a part of who we are, then why fight over it? Should it not be something that brings us closer together no matter how we see God? I think this has to count for something more than ammo for why we shouldn't seek to meet our spiritual side. We should use it as a means to convince others that the only way we're going to get there is together.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 




No, the existance of a soul. That is where our individuality and personalities come from.


Oh? And personalities can't come from genetics and experience?

Why are you fixated on individuality? If you really believe in God then you'd realize that everything has to be God by definition of God. Therefore, the reason you can think, experience, and feel like an individual is for God's benefit (to understand itself). It's not because you're a completely seperate entity from the universe who will get invited to God's little afterlife party. That's just you screaming me me me!



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Guided
 




There are some things in life that science will never, ever be able to prove or do.


Wow. We have been a modern technological civilization for around 100 years and within those 100 years we have learned to fly, discovered the theory of the structure of an atom, defined what gravity is, etc etc.. Yet I suppose that's as good as it gets right???

We'll never figure out the human brain, consciousness, the origin of the big bang, what lies beyond the universe etc etc... Just that simple huh? I guess we should stop trying to figure out our environment, ourselves, or making progress in general. We are better off browsing the shopping malls on saturdays and praying to the invisible man on sundays??



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76


Hi Scramjet! That's not what I meant. I meant science will never be able to prove this:

1)Why are we here?
2)Why do we die?(Yes, our heart/brain stops but, why?)

Those are the main things, I could on but, thats I meant!



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Guided
 





1)Why are we here?


Well we might just be a random anomoly caused by physical change within a physical system.

But if I were going to guess I'd say we are here to experience. There is no avoiding experience. Even if you choose to pull the trigger you would end your physical body but not before going through quite the experience.



2)Why do we die?(Yes, our heart/brain stops but, why?)


Well science is working on that stay tuned. There are many theories which I'm sure you're aware of (often time depending on which branch of science you use to tackle the question).

Why do we die?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76

Thanks for your link Scramjet!. I know we could go on and on about this. My belief is GOD created life and death. Things surrounding that will never be answered or reproduced. Such as life will never be able to be re-created (in a science lab). Won't happen.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Interestingly, I have a friend in the financial industry who wrote a model which predicted that oil would be trading back at about $45 a barrel in the first quarter of this year. My friend lost a boat load of money shorting oil.

Obviously, computer models are only as accurate as the people who program them.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
"By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information"

This goes on the assumption that 1.) The information was unverifiable (which the life/death/resurrection of Christ was definitely NOT) 2.) Religious belief fits into that category, which it most likely does not considering the mass amount of people who do not believe in any religion at all or believe that it is impossible to ever know.

From personal experience (see signature) I know what it's like to have something truly divinely inspired occur but not have direct evidence (photographs, video, etc.) to directly prove it. However, even if I did all would immediately be discredited as fake. If we somehow had video of Christ's resurrection many people would say that it was all staged.

I think human's have a genetic predisposition to disbelieve anything that is unverifiable judging from my experiences (especially the people on this website
)



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InterestedObserver
"By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information"

This goes on the assumption that 1.) The information was unverifiable (which the life/death/resurrection of Christ was definitely NOT) 2.) Religious belief fits into that category, which it most likely does not considering the mass amount of people who do not believe in any religion at all or believe that it is impossible to ever know.



Ummm...you do know that there are many religions in the world besides xtianity, and many that existed in the past which are no longer practiced. I bet the ancient Greeks believed every bit as fervently in Zeus as you do in Jesus. How many Zeus worshippers are around today?

The assumption is that religious information is unverifiable, and in fact the entire premise of the article rest on this. I think that they make a good point. You are failing to open your eyes to the wider historical aspect of man's religious experience because you are so brainwashed into believing YOURS is correct. Well, there are an awful lot of people in the world who will disagree with you (as well as a lot who will agree). The point is we don't know, ergo, unverifiable.

Jeez, I didn't think was going to be such a radical proposition.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

just for the sake of clarity, the community must find religious belief to be sexually attractive. the program looked purely at reproduction and secession of genes.


oh, yeah. i inadvertently skipped the sex expression & driving force as a component....

but you'll have to admit, more often than not, the sexual drive you are adamant in including, is generally not in the altruistic sense,
but rather reduced to the realm of blatent 'lust'...
i acquiese to your POV...

good night friend

[edit on 27-5-2008 by St Udio]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join