Spontaneous Religion.

[FUNKbrs]

I think it's funny how many atheist just ASSUME all religion comes from tradition. It doesn't.

You see, the human brain is DESIGNED to operate effectively within parameters it doesn't understand. Cavemen had no concept of chemistry, but they mastered the use of fire quite effectively without it because of their ability to think mystically. The building of a fire was a ceremony, not a chemistry problem, and because of that a caveman was capable of creating the parameters of heat, oxygen, and fuel on a predictable basis while having very little understanding of why they work.

And that's my point, really. Not all parts of the world have militant religion such as Christianity or Islam. Hinduism, for example is the result of thousands of years of SPONTANEOUS religion, where an expert at a certain thing, a guru, if you will, will come up with an enlightened philosophy of dealing with things. That guru understands the spirit, or heart of what he's talking about, and it is that reverance to a non-corporal concept that grants the guru to manipulate things he has no other basis for understanding. People study the guru and the guru's teachings about the spirit of a phenomenon, and they too gain mastery without the necessity of understanding. The Hindus have more gods than people, so they say, and that's because every concept mastered by hindu culture is understood in religious terms as opposed to scientific ones.

Individuals have these spontaneously religious experiences all the time, many times right after having a baby, a near death experience, or an encounter with nature. You don't have to be taught or have any beliefs about religion beforehand; in fact, most so called "athiests" have these moments all the time when encountering philosophy or sciennce. They don't master the science, but their faith in science and the validity of the rituals in the scientific method (variable isolation, for example, has many paralells to the concept of spiritual purity. For example, before germs were ever discovered under a microscope, religious people washed themselves for spiritual reasons to be spared a curse of pestilence from God. Mastery without understanding, see?)

So, I want you to ask yourself:

Is bumbling through your life in the name of "science" really worth it, knowing you could be perfectly happy with a minimalist lifestyle and religious meditation instead?

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 01:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Cavemen had no concept of chemistry, but they mastered the use of fire quite effectively without it because of their ability to think mystically.

It's called "experimenting".
Aka part of science.

will come up with an enlightened philosophy of dealing with things.

Yeah I think it's pretty obvious that all religions had to be invented at some point.

and they too gain mastery without the necessity of understanding.

Right like an artist can draw a body without knowing biology... yes it all makes sense now, that's the same thing as religion somehow!

Individuals have these spontaneously religious experiences all the time,

You mean "emotions"?

Mastery without understanding, see?)

Yeah animals have been doing it for millions of years too.

religious meditation instead?

The only ones who actually are happier are those Buddhist monks who spend all their time meditating and learning how to not give a shit about anything.
That's great except it's not very productive and science can yield things that will make you a fuckton more happy.

Popping a Viagra pill will trump meditation any day of the week.

[Elfer]

Without science we couldn't have applied science, and without applied science we never would have invented lasers.

Furthermore, unless we continue to further our understanding of applied genetics, we may never be able to clone dinosaurs and attach lasers to them.

[dySWN]

Sorry, OP, but no one I've met so far has been successfully able to prove that science is a religion. Science can have a dogma at times (see the recent university cover-up of global warming information) and has the faith of millions (most people just accept what prominent scientists say on face value), but that certainly does not qualify it as a religion.

The only thing the two concepts have in common is that both are philosophies that seen to make sense of the world we live in - not mutually exclusive unless we make it so, but different enough to be entirely separate concepts.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/20/09 01:54 PM, poxpower wrote: It's called "experimenting".
Aka part of science.

But if you ALREADY know how to do something, why experiment? Isn't that less "experimenting" and more "fucking up like a dipshit"?

Right like an artist can draw a body without knowing biology... yes it all makes sense now, that's the same thing as religion somehow!

More like how you can learn perspective from studying renaisance art without having to learn how to be a surveyor.

You mean "emotions"?

I did say they were hardwired into the brain, didn't I? Like it or not, people are built for religion. That doesn't require a creator god, though.

PUT DOWN THE STRAW!!! STOP STUFFING THOSE OLD CLOTHES WITH IT!!! I SEE WUT U DO THAR!!!

Yeah animals have been doing it for millions of years too.

Wait... wut?

The only ones who actually are happier are those Buddhist monks who spend all their time meditating and learning how to not give a shit about anything.
That's great except it's not very productive and science can yield things that will make you a fuckton more happy.

Popping a Viagra pill will trump meditation any day of the week.

What about hindu tantra? Didn't those guys use the Kama Sutra to basically fuck all day thousands of years BEFORE viagra?

Sounds like science is awfully dumb. I mean, it's like the kid who didn't learn how to tie his shoes 'till he was 21 because he couldn't just remember the stupid poem about the rabbit because he couldn't figure out what rabbits had to do with shoelaces.

OMFG I JUST EXPLAINED EASTER!!!

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/20/09 02:09 PM, dySWN wrote: Sorry, OP, but no one I've met so far has been successfully able to prove that science is a religion. Science can have a dogma at times (see the recent university cover-up of global warming information) and has the faith of millions (most people just accept what prominent scientists say on face value), but that certainly does not qualify it as a religion.

So wait, what you're saying is that 2=/=2?

TWO EQUALS TWO. WALK LIKE DUCK, QUACK LIKE DUCK IS DUCK

The only thing the two concepts have in common is that both are philosophies that seen to make sense of the world we live in - not mutually exclusive unless we make it so, but different enough to be entirely separate concepts.

Sounds like the ol' religion vs cult argument Christians use. "Mormonism isn't a religion, it's a cult... because... um... I'm NOT mormon.... and mormons are crazy,,, um... yeah... I mean, we believe all the same things, BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME BECAUSE IT'S ME AND I'M NOT SILLY."

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 03:26 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

But if you ALREADY know how to do something, why experiment? Isn't that less "experimenting" and more "fucking up like a dipshit"?

I'm saying they experimented until they figured out how fire works, how is this mystical?

Like it or not, people are built for religion.

That doesn't make it useful.

What about hindu tantra? Didn't those guys use the Kama Sutra to basically fuck all day thousands of years BEFORE viagra?

I have no idea, sounds like complete bullshit to me.
As if I'll just believe 2000 year old hearsay coming from dudes who pretend they're hot sex beasts.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/20/09 03:36 PM, poxpower wrote:
I'm saying they experimented until they figured out how fire works, how is this mystical?

But... they didn't have a scientific method. So by definition, they weren't capable of REAL experiments, just kind of dicking around and failing alot.

That doesn't make it useful.

I just explained how people with a sense of religious purity washed their butts and avoided getting staph with all of 0 knowledge of infectious disease. The non-religious people... died of staph, so I don't know what they believed. I know they didn't believe it for very long, though.

That's pretty fucking useful.

I have no idea, sounds like complete bullshit to me.
As if I'll just believe 2000 year old hearsay coming from dudes who pretend they're hot sex beasts.

But 100 year old hearsay from Darwin is just fine? I've never been to Galapagos or Madagascar. Have you? Because otherwise, it's just hearsay.

[Bacchanalian]

At 12/20/09 03:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: But... they didn't have a scientific method. So by definition, they weren't capable of REAL experiments, just kind of dicking around and failing alot.

This is all just "satire" this is all just "satire" this is all just "satire" this is...

[Yorik]

At 12/20/09 01:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I think it's funny how many atheist just ASSUME all religion comes from tradition. It doesn't.

You see, the human brain is DESIGNED to operate effectively within parameters it doesn't understand. Cavemen had no concept of chemistry, but they mastered the use of fire quite effectively without it because of their ability to think mystically. The building of a fire was a ceremony, not a chemistry problem, and because of that a caveman was capable of creating the parameters of heat, oxygen, and fuel on a predictable basis while having very little understanding of why they work.

And that's my point, really. Not all parts of the world have militant religion such as Christianity or Islam. Hinduism, for example is the result of thousands of years of SPONTANEOUS religion, where an expert at a certain thing, a guru, if you will, will come up with an enlightened philosophy of dealing with things. That guru understands the spirit, or heart of what he's talking about, and it is that reverance to a non-corporal concept that grants the guru to manipulate things he has no other basis for understanding. People study the guru and the guru's teachings about the spirit of a phenomenon, and they too gain mastery without the necessity of understanding. The Hindus have more gods than people, so they say, and that's because every concept mastered by hindu culture is understood in religious terms as opposed to scientific ones.

Individuals have these spontaneously religious experiences all the time, many times right after having a baby, a near death experience, or an encounter with nature. You don't have to be taught or have any beliefs about religion beforehand; in fact, most so called "athiests" have these moments all the time when encountering philosophy or sciennce. They don't master the science, but their faith in science and the validity of the rituals in the scientific method (variable isolation, for example, has many paralells to the concept of spiritual purity. For example, before germs were ever discovered under a microscope, religious people washed themselves for spiritual reasons to be spared a curse of pestilence from God. Mastery without understanding, see?)

So, I want you to ask yourself:

Is bumbling through your life in the name of "science" really worth it, knowing you could be perfectly happy with a minimalist lifestyle and religious meditation instead?

I mostly skimmed after this point.

Are you basically saying it's fine to be ignorant? Your final statement says it all. "Yeah, who needs to know anything when we can just think happy thoughts, it's the same thing. We don't need things that actually sterilize and kill germs like alcohol or bleach, all we need is to wash ourselves and our items ritually with holy water and say some prayers. Teacher, why do I need to worry about how and why living things change over time or the dynamics of the interactions of individuals or groups in an environment when it's just so much easier to say 'God did it?' I mean, he did, right? So..."

I don't see how science causes anyone to bumble through life. Science is honestly the only thing that has ever gotten anything done throughout history, and one scientific breakthrough leads to another. That is mostly why the sophistication of our technology has exploded in the last few decades and will surely continue to do so.

As an example, look at ancient Egypt. At one time they were among the most advanced civilizations in the world. There was a time when they CERTAINLY would have had the best medical practices technology on the planet (they were even fairly good by today's standards) but there was one thing that held them back. At some point in some treatments they often somehow reverted back to black magic and pseudo-science. That kind of thing holds us back. The Greeks were some of the most progressive peoples to walk the earth, especially for their time, and they also happened to be some of the first people who actually attempted to explain things beyond "the Gods did it." I might suggest that this isn't a coincidence.

When you try to explain a problem in spiritual or theological terms the result is almost always bad. This is the case with such things as epilepsy and things of that nature where at one time in human history people having seizures were believed to be under the possession of the devil and sometimes even killed for it. Lepers didn't just suffer from a disfiguring disease, they were being punished by God. Even in Hinduism, mentioned here in this thread, if you are a lower class individual you aren't just poor and less fortunate because you happened to be born to a poor family or because you are just down on your luck, you live in poverty because you were a fucked up person in a past life which you don't even remember and now you are paying the price (and on top of that, nobody in the higher classes wants anything to do with you.)

To answer your question, yes, I think it's worth it. I don't think a humble, religious existence would be very happy. There was a time in history when religion was calling the shots. It has been called "the dark ages."

[Yorik]

Man... I meant to delete all of OP's text after "DESIGNED" when I was done with my post. My mistake.

[Locke357]

I like how the OP starts out his post complaining that Atheists always assume things about religion, which is in of itself an assumption about Atheists, which I find incredibly amusing and ironic.

I like how the OP makes bold statements such as "fire was a ceremony, not chemistry" when we have only guesses as to how fire was regarded in such stages of man, and nothing conclusive. Also, the discovery/invention/continuation of fire building techniques hardly derives from your completely made up "ability of the human brain to think mystically", and is a shining example of the quality of experimentation that allows human beings to rise above other species of mammal.

Labeling euphoric experiences or moments of intense emotion as "spontaneous religion" is pure hogwash. Some people interpret this said flood of emotion as religious or divine, and some don't, there's no certain facts involving how people interpret this.

Atheists and/or scientists do not in any case have "blind faith" in science. The whole POINT of science is that it's ever-changing, ever-evolving to get closer and closer to the truth, and that no topic is safe from refutation, provided with enough supporting evidence.

The OP's post is really interesting, because it attempts to establish facts or truths that are based in nothing, but then poses a philosophic question about lifestyle choices near the end. It seems the OP can't make up his mind, and doesn't realize that without science he would never have been able to post this on the internet to people from all over the world in the first place.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/20/09 01:54 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/20/09 01:41 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Cavemen had no concept of chemistry,

;;;
Yet they would eat plants etc. that just blew their fucking minds (if what these plants do to our minds now is any indication)

It's called "experimenting".

;;;
I like experimenting with different herb's & spices... bud's are a fun thing to experiment with.

The only ones who actually are happier are those Buddhist monks who

;;;
Have you ever seen a male porn star in a bad mood ?
No matter what the type of sex is going on...he's getting laid & that's always better than "NOT getting laid"

Popping a Viagra pill will trump meditation any day of the week.

;;;
I'm so glad science is looking out for us... validates how much importance is placed on a erect penis, & my earlier comment about how getting some is better than not !

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 03:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

But... they didn't have a scientific method. So by definition, they weren't capable of REAL experiments, just kind of dicking around and failing alot.

really...

I just explained how people with a sense of religious purity washed their butts and avoided getting staph with all of 0 knowledge of infectious disease.

Yeah that doesn't make religion useful, that makes washing your ass useful.

Again this is behavior animals do because if doing it gives you a survival advantage, then the ones who do it will live and the ones who don't will die.
It's just simple experimenting, nothing to do with why you do it.

But 100 year old hearsay from Darwin is just fine?

Wow, really?

[Locke357]

At 12/20/09 05:28 PM, Ericho wrote: I think that you are very intelligent for making this. People, even scientists, keep saying over and over how religion is terrible and some would even say it's a neurological disorder. If it is actually a neurological disorder, wouldn't we have simply evolved out of it? That is in no way how diseases work. Why do we have homosexuality if evolution proves that the purpose of life is to reproduce? It's hard to say why, but it clearly does have an evolutionary purpose. If you are pro-gay but anti-religious, then that is hypocritical.

Really? So some people call it a neurological disorder, but once again the pro-religious prove how quick they are to call out people for stereotype, when they in fact stereotype in the sheer act of doing so.

Evolution is an incredibly complex process, and one that can be influenced by many external factors. In this day and age, survival advantage isn't a large process in human evolution, since most human beings live old enough to procreate.

I've never heard of such a ridiculous comment as "If you are pro-gay but anti-religious, then that is hypocritical."

[Proteas]

At 12/20/09 01:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Popping a Viagra pill will trump meditation any day of the week.

I think it's an interesting statement about scientific efforts that we solved the issue of erectile dysfunction before we cured cancer or aids. Because which is more important; keeping the old guys erect, or living a relatively long and healthful life that doesn't end in an excruciatingly painful death?

[Proteas]

Also...

At 12/20/09 05:24 PM, poxpower wrote: Again this is behavior animals do because if doing it gives you a survival advantage, then the ones who do it will live and the ones who don't will die.

Given that most animals don't like to wash themselves because it eliminates their scent (which in turn lowers their ability to attract a mate), I question the accuracy of this statement.

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 05:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

I think it's an interesting statement about scientific efforts that we solved the issue of erectile dysfunction before we cured cancer or aids.

Almost as if some things were easier to do than others.
HMMMM

At 12/20/09 05:50 PM, Proteas wrote:

Given that most animals don't like to wash themselves because it eliminates their scent (which in turn lowers their ability to attract a mate), I question the accuracy of this statement.

Just about every animal washes itself in some way, even insects.
I'm sure there's a few of them who don't have any hygiene-related behavior but I can't really think of one at the moment.

Maybe... some fish / whales...

[Proteas]

At 12/20/09 05:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Just about every animal washes itself in some way, even insects.

Not in the same sense that we as Humans do, with soap and water as you implied.

[Locke357]

At 12/20/09 05:57 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/20/09 05:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

I think it's an interesting statement about scientific efforts that we solved the issue of erectile dysfunction before we cured cancer or aids.

Almost as if some things were easier to do than others.
HMMMM

Took the words right out of my mouth xD

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 05:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

Not in the same sense that we as Humans do, with soap and water as you implied.

Soap and water were never mentioned lol.
It doesn't even matter anyway.

Funk is making the "point" that mystical thinking is great because sometimes, randomly, it'll make you do things that are good for you.
My argument is that animals do it to and it's called "natural selection" and it's not great, it's really slow and stupid.

We can achieve far better results at everything through scientific inquiry.

[Proteas]

At 12/20/09 06:11 PM, poxpower wrote: Soap and water were never mentioned lol.

He mentioned humans bathing, and you mentioned that animals do the same thing for the same purpose. What exactly does that comparative analogy entail, pox? Are you going to tell me that there are animals out there who can remove deadly disease from themselves with a simple bit of saliva on the back of their paw? Really?

We can achieve far better results at everything through scientific inquiry.

Which brings me to my point about Viagra. How much effort was put into that cure over other diseases? How much effort was put forth into making Viagra knockoffs like Cialis and Enzyte? Doesn't that show a kind of skewed set of priorities on the part of Science, which you so love? Yes, we can continue to fuck and spread disease long into our old age, what a wonderful world we live in.

[Yorik]

At 12/20/09 06:29 PM, Proteas wrote: Which brings me to my point about Viagra. How much effort was put into that cure over other diseases? How much effort was put forth into making Viagra knockoffs like Cialis and Enzyte? Doesn't that show a kind of skewed set of priorities on the part of Science, which you so love? Yes, we can continue to fuck and spread disease long into our old age, what a wonderful world we live in.

That has little to do with science and everything to do with marketing.

By the way, viagra wasn't supposed to be an ED medication. I'll let you do the research if you want to learn more.

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 06:29 PM, Proteas wrote:

He mentioned humans bathing

Yeah, bathing.
Animals bath. There's no implied mention of soap or shower caps.

How much effort was put into that cure over other diseases?

How should I know?
But I doubt it's even 1% of what we've spent on cancer.

Doesn't that show a kind of skewed set of priorities on the part of Science, which you so love?

Anyone's free to do whatever research they want, it has nothing to do with the validity of science.

[Proteas]

At 12/20/09 06:51 PM, poxpower wrote: Yeah, bathing.
Animals bath. There's no implied mention of soap or shower caps.

Animals don't bathe to be clean and free of disease(as you implied), they bathe to ensure they have their own scent on them. So even if you didn't mean to imply that bit about soap and water, you're still wrong.

How should I know?

Aren't you pox? Aren't you supposed to know everything?

Anyone's free to do whatever research they want, it has nothing to do with the validity of science.

What about the validity of the scientists themselves?

[Yorik]

At 12/20/09 07:07 PM, Proteas wrote: Animals don't bathe to be clean and free of disease(as you implied), they bathe to ensure they have their own scent on them. So even if you didn't mean to imply that bit about soap and water, you're still wrong.

This is unbelievably wrong and you should stop posting in here.

[poxpower]

At 12/20/09 07:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

Animals don't bathe to be clean and free of disease(as you implied), they bathe to ensure they have their own scent on them.

They bathe and groom for various reasons. Removing parasites, protecting from mosquitoes, keeping feathers impermeable / straight etc.
Some even bathe just for fun like Monkeys in japan who just sit around in hot springs.

I don't think they bathe to "ensure they have their own scent on them" though. I can't think of any animal that does that. In fact that goes against the whole principle of odors.

Anyone's free to do whatever research they want, it has nothing to do with the validity of science.

What about the validity of the scientists themselves?

What about it?
?
What does this have to do even with your viagra tangent ?

[Proteas]

At 12/20/09 07:17 PM, Yorik wrote: This is unbelievably wrong and you should stop posting in here.

Have you ever pet on a cat for a long period of time, only to have it get up to go in a corner somewhere and bathe itself? It's getting your scent off of it's fur.

Ever given a dog a bath, only to have it go out in the yard and roll around in a pile of shit or other mess? It's trying to get rid of that shampoo smell you gave it.

Now, kindly go jump off a bridge.

At 12/20/09 07:22 PM, poxpower wrote: What does this have to do even with your viagra tangent ?

My point is that human beings (scientists in particular) have a very skewed set of priorities if they managed to cure erectile dysfunction before they cured something that actually shortens lifespans, like cancer or aids. I also question you as a human for being so happy about the fact that you can have a boner every day for the rest of your short life, which will likely end in a painful death that could have been prevented.

[FUNKbrs]

I know for a fact not all humans bathe.

So then, you can't really make all or nothing statements about bathing.

So a man walks up to this christian, and he says:
"Hey, wow, you're religious. That's cool. I know a Wiccan, she's religious too. You two should hook up!"

Christian replies :

"HELL NO!!!! WICCA IS A VILE CULT!!!"

So a man walks up to a scientist, and he says:

"Wow, so you think you know where the universe came from. I know a Christian who thinks the same thing. You two should hang out someime.

Scientist replies:

"HELL NO!!! CHRISTIANITY IS A RELIGION, OPIATE OF THE MASSES!!"
---

Point:

All major philosophies claim to be the only "right" one. Children used to be indoctrinated to believe in religion by formalized education, because formalized education was funded by religions. Now it's scientists who have a need for educated recruits, so now major drug companies etc. are funding schools. All of a sudden "religion" is out and "science" is in.

Bottom line: You stupid humans don't know shit. Stop trying to claim that you do. Spend your life wondering "why" and you'll wake up one day old as shit and wondering what the fuck happened. Science, religion, it doesn't matter. Just accept whatever you think best on faith and hope like hell it works.

[Yorik]

At 12/20/09 07:40 PM, Proteas wrote: Now, kindly go jump off a bridge.

Simply implying that humans are the only animals concerned with cleanliness and grooming is asinine. We should try to refrain from posting ignorant things in topics about ignorance.