A case for religion, and against AA.

[PingviN]

It does seem like an odd thing to argue.

Really, it doesn't matter whether they were smart or not, we have good reason to doubt their cosmology based on the tiny basis of data and theory they had available. With limited knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and nothing more advanced then their own eyes, they wouldn't have any way to correct flaws in their guessing. Even if their entire civilization was composed of super geniuses, they simply didn't have the tools or the skills to reach a reliable conclusion.

I agree with all of the above.

Smart or not, we have more data, more advanced models and methods, more computing power and better tools. We build on and refine the advancements made way back, but we're on a totally different level.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No. Skills have hardly anything to do with intelligence. You can learn to do certain things, and when you exercise enough, you can score very high. Intelligence doesn't work that way. It is a hardly variable part of you brain.

so sorry that feel that way!! This is another subject where you say your right yet others say your wrong...so we all agree to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.....

So let me guess by your definition almost everybody on the earth would be considered not intelligent.........unintelligent, stupid, naive, naif, unintelligent, unreasonable, irrational, brainless, stupid, headless, awkward, clumsy, foolish

 

[witeken]

so sorry that feel that way!! This is another subject where you say your right yet others say your wrong...so we all agree to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.....

So let me guess by your definition almost everybody on the earth would be considered not intelligent.........unintelligent, stupid, naive, naif, unintelligent, unreasonable, irrational, brainless, stupid, headless, awkward, clumsy, foolish

I'm not wrong, apparently; here's Wikipedia's definition:

Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

No. Skills have hardly anything to do with intelligence. You can learn to do certain things, and when you exercise enough, you can score very high. Intelligence doesn't work that way. It is a hardly variable part of you brain.

I think you're under valuing just how much intellect is required to make proper use of primitive survival skills.

Ever read Sagan's "Demon Haunted World"? He's got a chapter in there discussing one of the few remaining primitive tribes, in particular the skills they use tracking and hunting. I think it's the iKung, or something like that.

Something like tracking prey isn't just a matter of following the tracks. One of his examples is figuring out when an animal passed by from looking at it's tracks in relation to nearby shade. Hot African sun beating down, so the herd is going to change their course every so slightly to make use of available shade from trees.

To turn that into knowing when they passed though, you have to be able to work out where the shadow was, and when during the day it would've been there. Figuring out where the sun was requires geometry - not formalized, but it's the same basic principle. Turning that into a time requires a solid understanding of the variations in the seasons, as the suns location at any time in the day varies between different parts of the year.

Making the connection between the position of a track, the time of year and the time of day is not intuitively obvious. And this is only one of many techniques of a similar nature they use to survive. Each bit likely figured out by some primitive genius, and passed on - but understanding these and applying them is not equivalent to typing or running. The kind of intellect you need to make real use of these skills is more along the lines of understanding mathematics then simple rote memorization.

Well, except for the caveat that you don't generally stave to death if you fail to understand math.

So, don't underestimate the intelligence of primitives. That's not to say trust them with things they didn't need to understand, just to say that in their way, they made some remarkable feats of intelligence just to survive.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's isn't intellect, that are skills. People today need much different skills than ancients. That has nothing to do with intelligence.

Different skills, sure, but that doesn't make them better, though.

Do you think it takes more or less skill to hunt for your own food than it does to simply walk to Kroger and buy whatever you need?

I'm willing to bet you cannot last two hours in the shoes of a person who, in some under-developed country with no roads, brick housing, or running water, has to hunt for and clean his own food and water.

So I know for sure that are people who have never heard of a cell phone that posses much more skill needed for everyday living than you do for your everyday living.

You can be completely unskilled, fat, lazy, and dumb and get by here in America...whereas in places with none of these advantages, you'd probably die if you try that.

 

[lotus503]

That's a very moot point.............

You go back 1,000 years when you had to hunt and fish and trap for your food and know how to skin what you caught and grow vegetables and find water a very high percentage of individuals living today would starve to death due to lack of knowledge concerning how to do these things that were fundamental to survival........

so now we have established that previous generations in effect knew exactly what they needed to know to survive yet previous generations lacked the foundational knowledge of current generations. Has nothing to do with IQ etc and i'm sure for the day these folks were highly educated.

about the bolded, its not Moot at all given the context of our discussion, which is surrounding God and knowledge of the natural world and how it operates.

My 14 year old daughter has a lot more understanding of our universe than scholar from the 1400s. Man typically applies incorrect assumptions(Beliefs) to that which he does not understand. So no its very relevant to the topic when were referencing a book written 2000 years ago in some cases.

 

[lotus503]

so we have two pages of people confusing intelligence with knowledge. furthermore its required we consider it in context of the thread and discussion.

the Mayans were badass and highly intelligent, they would still sacrifice people in droves to please some God and hopefully get a bit more rain for crops.

Point being the knowledge base of the ancients was laughable by today's standards. and if we are to use the ancients in any sort of context of God, Creation and the natural world you have to consider the average Jr high school student knows much much more by a large margin. So no I'm not taking the world of people that lived 2,000 years ago on the principles of our God, our universe and how it was created, I may as well have that conversation with my 4 year old, it would be about the same level.

Presents under the tree, holy hell it must be santa

 

[Retro Rob]

and if we are to use the ancients in any sort of context of God, Creation and the natural world you have to consider the average Jr high school student knows much much more by a large margin. So no I'm not taking the world of people that lived 2,000 years ago on the principles of our God, our universe and how it was created, I may as well have that conversation with my 4 year old, it would be about the same level.

Presents under the tree, holy hell it must be santa

You're wrong on one front -- the Bible doesn't tell us how the Universe was created, it just tell us who did it...there are virtually no details regarding the intricacies of the creation of the Universe, assuming you're talking about the Bible, so there's nothing to compare with modern astronomy in that regard.

Secondly, we have no more scientific information on the "principles" of God than you claim ancient people didn't have.

All we have now is people denying the existence of God -- they're not offering any details about him, except the ones they take from scripture.

 

[lotus503]

You're wrong on one front -- the Bible doesn't tell us how the Universe was created, it just tell us who did it...there are virtually no details regarding the intricacies of the creation of the Universe, assuming you're talking about the Bible, so there's nothing to compare with modern astronomy in that regard.

Secondly, we have no more scientific information on the "principles" of God than you claim ancient people didn't have. You cant have scientific principles on a concept there is literally no evidence of.

All we have now is people denying the existence of God -- they're not offering any details about him, except the ones they take from scripture.
I don't deny the existence of God, rather accurately state there is no evidence of God existing at all.

I could be wrong related to the bible (Haven't read it since I was a kid), but I suspect genesis discusses it to a degree. My main point is I am certainly not going to take the word of people 2,000 years ago that God exists, because the foundation knowledge they had was nothing compared to today.


Frankly this entire thread could be summed up in two statements.

Some people choose to believe in God absent evidence.

Some people choose not to believe in God absent evidence.

Anything else is fluff around those two main points and arguing over what constitutes evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

You cant have scientific principles on a concept there is literally no evidence of

Well, you surely implied that there are principles to be had...only that you're not trusting theirs.

I could be wrong related to the bible (Haven't read it since I was a kid), but I suspect genesis discusses it to a degree. My main point is I am certainly not going to take the word of people 2,000 years ago that God exists, because the foundation knowledge they had was nothing compared to today.

OK, that's your choice. I think they had knowledge about the existence of God that science is yet to be privy to.

Who knows with absolute certainty?

And Genesis does not go into detail about the process of Creation...all it states that "God created the Heavens and Earth" and doesn't tell us how all that came about.

Science attempts to explain the "how" parts.

The only reason why I called you out on that is because you kinda hinted at the Bible being wrong about how the Universe came to be. I wanted to make it clear that it doesn't discuss the "how"...just that it exists.

 

[lotus503]

Well, you surely implied that there are principles to be had...only that you're not trusting theirs.

OK, that's your choice. I think that had knowledge about the existence of God that science is yet to be privy to. And thats fine to think that and hold that opinion/position, I have yet to see evidence of it and have seen evidence I would classify as contradictory to that.

Who knows with absolute certainty?

And Genesis does not go into detail about the process of Creation...all it states that "God created the Heavens and Earth" and doesn't tell us how all that came about.

Science attempts to explain the "how" parts.

The only reason why I called you out on that is because you kinda hinted at the Bible being wrong about how the Universe came to be. I wanted to make it clear that it doesn't discuss the "how"...just that it exists.

If I am wrong I want to be called out(Bible is not my strong suit from a knowledge standpoint), my original reference really wasn't about the bible, rather the foundational knowledge of of the ancients in general.

I wouldn't trust them on God and I wouldn't trust them on most things that deal with the fundamental understanding of the natural world. Not because they were dumb, simply they didn't have the benefit of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and discovery to draw from.

 

[Retro Rob]

If I am wrong I want to be called out(Bible is not my strong suit from a knowledge standpoint), my original reference really wasn't about the bible, rather the foundational knowledge of of the ancients in general.

Gotcha.

I wouldn't trust them on God and I wouldn't trust them on most things that deal with the fundamental understanding of the natural world. Not because they were dumb, simply they didn't have the benefit of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and discovery to draw from.

I do accept that you see it that way. With me, the reason why I trust their [Biblical] knowledge is because I believe it came from a Higher Source, someone with infinitely more knowledge than what any branch of science can offer.

I'm just a believer, and we see things differently. If God doesn't exist, then I can do nothing more than agree with you, but if he does, then He can forget in two seconds what science can ever learn.

 

[alzan]

You're wrong on one front -- the Bible doesn't tell us how the Universe was created, it just tell us who did it...there are virtually no details regarding the intricacies of the creation of the Universe, assuming you're talking about the Bible, so there's nothing to compare with modern astronomy in that regard.

Secondly, we have no more scientific information on the "principles" of God than you claim ancient people didn't have.

All we have now is people denying the existence of God -- they're not offering any details about him, except the ones they take from scripture.

The Bible gives an opinion as to who(what?) created the universe; there were and are other religions that had/have their own creation myths.

We will never have any scientific information about the "principles", nature, etc. of G-d because the concept and/of existence of a supernatural entity falls outside of the realm of science.

Atheists deny the existence of deities; the Christian deity or otherwise, because there is no physical or logical evidence. Theists offer only belief-based details about G-d and insert G-d as the answer for all things not understood (as well as for things people do not want to understand).

Don't understand why your precious five year-old died, it's "Part of G-d's plan"; it certainly doesn't have anything to do with genetics, bacteria, viruses, congenital defects, etc.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Don't understand why your precious five year-old died, it's "Part of G-d's plan"; it certainly doesn't have anything to do with genetics, bacteria, viruses, congenital defects, etc.
__________________

It could still be part of God`s plan....

 

[PingviN]

I do accept that you see it that way. With me, the reason why I trust their [Biblical] knowledge is because I believe it came from a Higher Source, someone with infinitely more knowledge than what any branch of science can offer.

I'm just a believer, and we see things differently. If God doesn't exist, then I can do nothing more than agree with you, but if he does, then He can forget in two seconds what science can ever learn.

Yeah we know that already. We're just wondering why you would put your faith in a book that you can't even remotely prove actually are the words of a god. Please disregard from your faith and think it over. We know you are a believer, we just don't know why.

It could still be part of God`s plan....

As if someone capable of creating everything would be interested in the individual human.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah we know that already. We're just wondering why you would put your faith in a book that you can't even remotely prove actually are the words of a god. Please disregard from your faith and think it over. We know you are a believer, we just don't know why.

Sounds to me like you are trying to convert Retro Rob to Atheism.....or Proselytize him....I thought Atheism was not a religion...hmmmm

As if someone capable of creating everything would be interested in the individual human.

Yeah, it`s kind of awesome that God cares about each and every one of us!!
That's what the Bible says.......
But I guess if you don`t believe the Bible you wouldn`t know about God`s Love for us............

 

[PingviN]

Sounds to me like you are trying to convert Retro Rob to Atheism.....or Proselytize him....I thought Atheism was not a religion...hmmmm


Yeah, it`s kind of awesome that God cares about each and every one of us!!
That's what the Bible says.......
But I guess if you don`t believe the Bible you wouldn`t know about God`s Love for us............

Take your incoherent nonsense somewhere else. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time because you are incapable of rational thought. Rob is a big boy, he doesn't need your "help".

 

[alzan]

It could still be part of God`s plan....

Like I said in a previous post; belief, faith, hope, etc. are coping mechanism's for events and circumstances for which we have no explanation. Employing "part of G-d's plan" upon the sudden death of a loved one gives consolation and comfort to those that are grief stricken. It's "truth" lies in the faith of the believer; a subjective truth.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Like I said in a previous post; belief, faith, hope, etc. are coping mechanism's for events and circumstances for which we have no explanation. Employing "part of G-d's plan" upon the sudden death of a loved one gives consolation and comfort to those that are grief stricken. It's "truth" lies in the faith of the believer; a subjective truth.

so we agree it could still be part of God`s plan!!

 

[lotus503]

so we agree it could still be part of God`s plan!!

Could is an interesting term. It literally could be anything. If I said it was and imaginary diety I made up off the top of my head, there would be just as much chance it was that diety too intervining in life and death etc.

Pick a greek God, it could be any one of them too.

 

[alzan]

so we agree it could still be part of God`s plan!!

No

 

[jackstar7]

Odin, the All Father.

Also, that Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ramen.

I'm partial to the owl-god Moloch, King of Shame!

But there's no telling that it's not Quetzalcoatl. That snake was special.

 

[serpretetsky]

I think the original OP is interesting.
If we assume that there is no higher power (all you thiests play along!) then is religion bad? Does it change people for the worse or for the better? Or are the actions of an individual rooted in some other part of their character and not affected by religion?

Obviously many religions imply existences that cannot be verified with science, but let's ignore that since that has been exhausted without consensus.

Many Christian's oppose gay marriage. However, if those same Christian's were never introduced to Christianity, would they still oppose gay marriage?

Islam in the middle east, from an American perspective, is stereotyped as being violent and dangerous. But would extremists from the middle east be fundamentally different if they had never been introduced to Islam. Or is this violence a product of the pressure and conflict they feel.

Many religions teach, in one way or another, of being a "good samaritan". Would these same individuals still try to be "good samaritans" if they never learned their religion?

 

[Scotteq]

Odin, the All Father.

Also, that Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ramen.

I'm partial to the owl-god Moloch, King of Shame!

But there's no telling that it's not Quetzalcoatl. That snake was special.

Jesus promised to save us from the wicked...

Thor swore to save the world from the Frost Giants...

Easy to see which Gets Things Done!

 

[jhbball]

Could is an interesting term. It literally could be anything. If I said it was and imaginary diety I made up off the top of my head, there would be just as much chance it was that diety too intervining in life and death etc.

Pick a greek God, it could be any one of them too.

It's funny, if his own child died, I'm sure he wouldn't be saying "it's all part of God's plan".