What's the most evil/controversial thing the Prophet has asked you to do?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You are asking the question bassackwardly.

I saw the ruse you were setting up and refuse to go through the door. Hitchens and his kin like to set it up. A lawyer never walks through the door of a ruse.

Nice try. The fact is that you read it too quickly and completely misunderstood the question, proceeding to embarrass yourself as you rattled off a list of answers that would have been oh, so wonderful if not for the fact that they were answers to a question that I didn't, and would never, ask. That wasn't you avoiding a trap; that was you making an ass of yourself.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Nice try. The fact is that you read it too quickly and completely misunderstood the question, proceeding to embarrass yourself as you rattled off a list of answers that would have been oh, so wonderful if not for the fact that they were answers to a question that I didn't, and would never, ask. That wasn't you avoiding a trap; that was you making an ass of yourself.

No it was diverting you from a f..ing dumbass question asked awkwardly.

You make the argument which isn't true, "just because it was involved doesn't mean it was necessary."

However, it ignores the fact that for the most part if it was always involved, it must be necessary. That is the point you miss.

I saw your question, but the fact that evil exists among men, diverts from the typical ruse that religion is the sole, or major, or significant supplier of evil, when in fact mankind is the supplier of evil.

And then you couple your weak-minded argument of involvement not necessarily being necessary while ignoring other factors.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Spoken like an anthropologist.



The very fact they always seem to have played a role dictates in favor that they were necessary. That is the point, which seems to fall short of your soft scientific senses.

Says the lawyer. No, we hard science folks are versed in critical thinking, one aspect of which is to seek out all plausible explanations before attempting to narrow them down. In this case, there is no control group. If all civilizations are assumed to have had some sort of religion, then there's no way of knowing how a non-religious civilization would have worked. It would be like injecting mice with acid, finding that they all died, and concluding that acid injection must be necessary for death.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Says the lawyer. No, we hard science folks are versed in critical thinking, one aspect of which is to seek out all plausible explanations before attempting to narrow them down. In this case, there is no control group. If all civilizations are assumed to have had some sort of religion, then there's no way of knowing how a non-religious civilization would have worked. It would be like injecting mice with acid, finding that they all died, and concluding that acid injection must be necessary for death.

Weak sauce, soft scientist.

Come back after you become a quantum physicist, an engineer or inorganic chemist.

[woot]

Wow!

Originally Posted by Archaea

No it was diverting you from a f..ing dumbass question asked awkwardly.

Give it up. You misunderstood the question. Just admit it, as it's painfully obvious.

You make the argument which isn't true, "just because it was involved doesn't mean it was necessary."

That's not true? So does that mean the Hitler's mustache played a role in the holocaust? His boots? His car? The color of paint on his walls? They were all involved, so by your reasoning they must have been necessary. I must have severely overestimated your intellect.

for the most part if it was always involved, it must be necessary. That is the point you miss.

At least you added the qualifier "for the most part," but it doesn't make you any less wrong. There are a huge number of competing explanations for the rise of religion as a natural phenomenon, none of which necessarily include "it was necessary for civilization."

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Weak sauce, soft scientist.

Come back after you become a quantum physicist, an engineer or inorganic chemist.

Ah, the death throws of an inferior position. It's fun to watch.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Wow!



Give it up. You misunderstood the question. Just admit it, as it's painfully obvious.



That's not true? So does that mean the Hitler's mustache played a role in the holocaust? His boots? His car? The color of paint on his walls? They were all involved, so by your reasoning they must have been necessary. I must have severely overestimated your intellect.



At least you added the qualifier "for the most part," but it doesn't make you any less wrong. There are a huge number of competing explanations for the rise of religion as a natural phenomenon, none of which necessarily include "it was necessary for civilization."

And you are equating Sumerian religion with the color of Hitler's boots?

Although I tease you about being a soft scientist, if you are unwilling to concede the significant role religion played in early societies, then I find you dishonest.

There are alternative explanations, but I've also read where it seems the human being seeks out metaphysics. Those are the most appealing explanations to me. The fact that you don't like those, doesn't detract from their validity.

[Archaea]

For some reason, all societies, even those which seek to extinguish religion, such as Russia and China can't seem to stamp it out. It seems part of the human equation and you are too cavalier to dismiss its usefulness, too smug and probably not as well-read as you deem yourself.

You're in Fowler's fourth stage given your current academic stage of development.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And you are equating Sumerian religion with the color of Hitler's boots?

No, it was simply a great way of demonstrating how wrong you are on that point. You declare that if religion was involved, it must have been necessary. I declare that such a viewpoint is utterly, unbelievably, absurdly, wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I tease you about being a soft scientist, if you are unwilling to concede the significant role religion played in early societies, then I find you dishonest.

Again, I have never denied that. Every group of people, of any size, that we have ever found (with the possible exception of one, but I forget their name and it's clear that they're an outlier and were relatively insignificant anyway) had some sort of supernatural, or at least pantheistic, belief system. It would be ludicrous to assume that all of these beliefs were thrown aside long enough to create civilization. That they did have beliefs does not speak to whether said beliefs were necessary for the creation of civilization. These beliefs were obviously incorporated into civilization. I think it's important that we stick with the term "civilization," however, as it is absolute fact that "society" is possible without religion. Various non-human primates have very complicated social hierarchies.

There are alternative explanations, but I've also read where it seems the human being seeks out metaphysics. Those are the most appealing explanations to me. The fact that you don't like those, doesn't detract from their validity.

Why do you assume that I don't like those? Hypotheses that I find compelling often include an evolutionary desire to find God. These might include:

A propensity to see agency where there is none (the individual who sees a branch move and thinks "Leopard!" even if it was the wind, is more likely to survive than someone who assumes wind, for obvious reasons). It doesn't seem a stretch to think that this evolutionary advantageous penchant may have morphed into less advantageous penchants that may have piggy-backed on the more useful one, leading people to find agency in lightning, the sun, etc.

Explanations for the existence of menopause in human females include the importance of the older generation, and their ability to provide for their daughters' or other relatives' children, in addition to their greater knowledge about where to find food in times of drought, etc., could have led to a great desire to respect and honor one's ancestors, which may have continued even after they have died. Indeed, most of the earliest religions involved ancestor worship (This particular explanation for menopause, and even the current working definition of menopause, I have lots of problems with, and I actually just had a really long discussion with a professor about its relative merits, but that's somewhat beside the point and the ancestor worship stuff seems perfectly viable).

Humans seem to have a desire to understand the world around them, and again, this desire as it pertains to natural things would have been evolutionarily beneficial and likely to be passed on. It makes sense that societies would create myths to explain things they couldn't otherwise understand.

A child believing everything a parent or elder tells him/her would have been extremely beneficial. While not an explanation for religion's origins, this would work as an explanation for its proliferation and perpetuity.

I'm sure there are many more, but those are a few with which I'm familiar.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For some reason, all societies, even those which seek to extinguish religion, such as Russia and China can't seem to stamp it out. It seems part of the human equation and you are too cavalier to dismiss its usefulness, too smug and probably not as well-read as you deem yourself.

You're in Fowler's fourth stage given your current academic stage of development.

I would argue that these societies, Stalinist Russia and modern day North Korea especially, sought not to extinguish belief in god so much as to set themselves up as something more than human to be revered.

See my last post to learn more about how poorly you've comprehended my position on these matters.

I thought the accusation of having faith was a nice touch. It's always fun when a faith-head, as a last resort, will try to accuse his interlocutor of exactly the sin of which he himself is most guilty. In my experience it happens nearly every time. Strange.