Thread: Darwin is right, but...

I have seen it several times in discussion about religion, where a religious person would say:

'I know evidence shows Darwin is right, but still I believe God created the world in just a few days.'

... so basically denying the countless scientific evidence that explains how Evolution is true.
Now my question is not about religion or Evolution.... but I wish to understand how people them selves can say they know they are wrong but still believe in something totally different.

I can only come up with one thing: 'Indoctrination'. But I think the answer must be more complicated.

Another field to study concerning this matter would be racism. When I grew up there was alot of racism that spilled into my field of observance as a kid. Via the TV, books, or just from family members directly. It indoctrinates and I notice it is hard to get rid of a stereotypical way of thinking. My rational mind however knows better, and I can prevent myself from speaking dumb things, by letting my rational mind speak before my immediate thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for others to overcome? Why do people say one thing is true, knowing full well rationally it is not, even when provided with countless evidence?

Any thoughts on it? Or sources I can check up on, to get a better understanding of this odd twist of our brains?

Because they want to believe in something.

Because it's difficult to disbelieve in something so existentially consoling.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Because they want to believe in something.

That is obvious. They have a desire to belive in something else.
The point is though they fully and consciousness know rationally it is not so. They know better.

Perhaps I should have added the reason for asking this question. If someone knows better but still has the desire to believe in something else... What would be the best way to appraoch them if you have the desire to change their mind?

It often requires an event in a persons life to finally accept the rational for the irrational. Something needs to happen for the rationality to be able to take over. However in a discussion this is difficult to do. You need to know the trigger perhaps (for lack of a better word). So how do you find the trigger?

Like the guy in this article:
Elwin Wilson: Former KKK member who apologised for his racist years - Obituaries - News - The Independent

The article does not mention his life changing event, as it only says:
'He had it on his heart for years.'

So clearly it is possible. People can change their minds. I would have to read more about this guy to know why he finally changed his mind. I only quickly googled an example.
But I specifically mean cases like that.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

What would be the best way to appraoch them if you have the desire to change their mind?

Unknown.
There are a great many unaccountable complex factors that would weigh into that "Click" moment where suddenly, a person realizes their error consciously and cannot deny it.
If we knew what would make it happen... that moment would not be so rare, teachers would all be successful, Universities would be filled to the brim and there wouldn't be numerous books on parenting tips.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

However in a discussion this is difficult to do. You need to know the trigger perhaps (for lack of a better word). So how do you find the trigger?

See above.
Again, I know exactly what you mean.

Sometimes, a rude and harsh reality check will do it. Other times, it requires a gentle and subtle cue and others, patient explaining.

This is why I encourage, for whatever my opinion is worth, that all of those forms be welcome on this forum.
Harshness, gentleness and patience, alike.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

So clearly it is possible. People can change their minds. I would have to read more about this guy to know why he finally changed his mind. I only quickly googled an example.
But I specifically mean cases like that.

Mother Theresa had something kind of like that as well.
It was not known about until after her death, when letters revealing that she doubted the existence of any God surfaced.

In the end, sometimes, you must allow people to be a little bit stubborn.

Most religious people I talk to take the 'seven days' allegorically...

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

I have seen it several times in discussion about religion, where a religious person would say:

'I know evidence shows Darwin is right, but still I believe God created the world in just a few days.'

... so basically denying the countless scientific evidence that explains how Evolution is true.
Now my question is not about religion or Evolution.... but I wish to understand how people them selves can say they know they are wrong but still believe in something totally different.

I can only come up with one thing: 'Indoctrination'. But I think the answer must be more complicated.

Another field to study concerning this matter would be racism. When I grew up there was alot of racism that spilled into my field of observance as a kid. Via the TV, books, or just from family members directly. It indoctrinates and I notice it is hard to get rid of a stereotypical way of thinking. My rational mind however knows better, and I can prevent myself from speaking dumb things, by letting my rational mind speak before my immediate thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for others to overcome? Why do people say one thing is true, knowing full well rationally it is not, even when provided with countless evidence?

Any thoughts on it? Or sources I can check up on, to get a better understanding of this odd twist of our brains?

Social Identity Theory (Henry Tajfel) states we have a cognitive bias when it comes to prejudice. People will favour other people who they perceive to belong to their own group without any physical or material basis for it. For example if you put 10 complete strangers in a room and don't allow them to converse and designate half of them as group x and the other half as group y. Send them off to separate rooms and tell them you will give them a £100 to divide between all the other people, they will give slightly more to the people in their own group than to the others. Tajfel was very specific in pointing out that he didn't consider this cognitive bias to be deterministic of prejudiced behaviour but rather that should social conditions arise which exploits this natural kind of bias it can be quite difficult to overcome. But not impossible obviously as we do overcome it on a daily basis.

The social conditions he was talking about would be one of polarised groups that need to establish a positive identity in society or dominant social groups that want to maintain the status quo. No-one likes being the underdog..... Because we invest emotionally in our social groups, ie people belong to a social group because it reflects their innermost beliefs and feelings, its very easy to promote bigotry through fear, for example religious groups might be scared a secular society will take away their identities or vice versa. And so it spirals into conflict.

If you are interested in the cognitive bias you can find experiments you can participate in here....they are quite eye-opening. Apparently my unconscious brain is misogynistic....which to me means my social conditioning has taught me to associate women with bad things...but my conscious brain is very much the feminist.

https://implicit.harvard.edu.implicit/uk

Sorry - I realised your post was more to the question of why people don't behave rationally rather than why they are racist/prejudiced - so maybe Henry (Henri?) Tajfel wont help you....

But people are generally not rational actors as evidenced by everyday life. People generally act on the emotions that occur at the time and quite happily provide contradictory accounts of what they believe in because of it. Context is key to understanding the decisions people make.

And also change is painful - people who have long held beliefs about anything find it hard to change. Its taking away everything they have based their life upon and giving them something new and if the something new isn't easy to understand then they will resist it and why wouldn't they? If someone came along now and proved Darwin wrong it would turn my world upside down - nearly everything I understand of the world is wrapped up in there somewhere.

I think you might find some snippets to help answer your questions in here too.... James Flynn. Its more about how intelligence has changed but shows how some people can be cognitively rigid.

What would be the best way to appraoch them if you have the desire to change their mind?

When? exactly do you want to change their minds. It is well nigh impossible to have someone admit they are wrong and you are right and it's all because of what you've said to them in the last hour/ day/ week.

There are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, advertising campaigns. I don't know what the most recent stuff on this is, but 20 odd years ago, the basic structure of advertising was that a person needed to see/ hear your message at least 23 times before they even registered the name of your product. Then you could start being persuasive. On top of this, an advertiser of a product like shampoo or deodorant or car tyres does not have to get their message through a barrage of opposing messages that it's better to have lank, greasy hair, smell like an unwashed dog or drive with bald tyres. There are competitors but their message is that your product is a good idea, but theirs is a better version, so it's actually reinforcing the notion that you should buy the product. This doesn't happen when you're talking about someone who's committed to an idea and you want them, let's be honest, to discard it and replace it with some version of what you're proposing. They'll hear you once or twice, and you're competing against years of reinforcement of the opposite/ different and against repeated opposition after you've given your message.

Which brings us to the other problem. It's now pretty well established that when you give correct information to someone who has an ideological commitment to rejecting that information, that additional information can make their rejection stronger. This has been demonstrated quite clearly for politics and also for anti-scientific, religiously based beliefs. So presenting well-researched material might make some people even more strongly opposed to the material presented.

All you can hope for is to sow seeds. They may seem to fall on barren ground and frustrate you terribly. Just be satisfied that those seeds will stay there and may sprout and grow strong months or years later when the time and circumstances allow - and you may not even be around to see it happen.

Whether you do or don't display impatience with any particular person really depends on your judgement of your relationship and the importance or urgency of the topic. It's one thing to get a bit tired of dealing with evolution or climate change or anti-vaccine nonsense and just drop the subject when it gets too much. It's another thing entirely if the person is telling rape jokes or talking offensively about racism or other nasty notions - regardless of the relationship it may be appropriate to demonstrate your distaste (or your raging fury) by leaving the room or blocking the person on FB or Twitter. (Though personally I'd not allow even closest family to visit a baby less than 18 months old if the possible visitors are not immunised. A relationship is not worth a child's life or health.)

Only you can judge whether and when you might do such things.

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Sorry - I realised your post was more to the question of why people don't behave rationally rather than why they are racist/prejudiced - so maybe Henry (Henri?) Tajfel wont help you....

But people are generally not rational actors as evidenced by everyday life. People generally act on the emotions that occur at the time and quite happily provide contradictory accounts of what they believe in because of it. Context is key to understanding the decisions people make.

And also change is painful - people who have long held beliefs about anything find it hard to change. Its taking away everything they have based their life upon and giving them something new and if the something new isn't easy to understand then they will resist it and why wouldn't they? If someone came along now and proved Darwin wrong it would turn my world upside down - nearly everything I understand of the world is wrapped up in there somewhere.

I appreciate your posts, and yes I was wondering about the rational decision making,... while all evidence is presented to them, they rationally know the evidence is clear... but still make an irrational decision which makes no sence based on the evidence provided.

I tried to make it a general topic,... but I wish to know how it works, pure and simple because I think I can use this knowledge -understanding the other mind- in any discussion I as an atheist may have with a religious person. I realize it is not that simple. But even if it helps a bit...

I figured myself party of the "problem"... is indoctrination,... perhaps imprinting is a better word from a biological viewpoint. And if you are part of a very social structure which churches tend to be,... it is very difficult to find a way in,... into the way of the indoctrinated social religous mind. For them the church is a huge part of their social structure.

But nobody will ever win... if they do not try.

So knowing I wish to present a viewpoint,... that will totally destroy their world, undo their social structure, and give them a whole new world to explore rationally. ... How would I best go into a discussion with such a person?

I am brainstorming,... but I would need to present my ideas to them,.... and perhaps give them freedom of thought, add rationallity,.... in such a way,... they will think they will gain... not loose... following the new concept provided to them.

Originally Posted by adelady

What would be the best way to appraoch them if you have the desire to change their mind?

When? exactly do you want to change their minds. It is well nigh impossible to have someone admit they are wrong and you are right and it's all because of what you've said to them in the last hour/ day/ week.

There are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, advertising campaigns. I don't know what the most recent stuff on this is, but 20 odd years ago, the basic structure of advertising was that a person needed to see/ hear your message at least 23 times before they even registered the name of your product. Then you could start being persuasive. On top of this, an advertiser of a product like shampoo or deodorant or car tyres does not have to get their message through a barrage of opposing messages that it's better to have lank, greasy hair, smell like an unwashed dog or drive with bald tyres. There are competitors but their message is that your product is a good idea, but theirs is a better version, so it's actually reinforcing the notion that you should buy the product. This doesn't happen when you're talking about someone who's committed to an idea and you want them, let's be honest, to discard it and replace it with some version of what you're proposing. They'll hear you once or twice, and you're competing against years of reinforcement of the opposite/ different and against repeated opposition after you've given your message.

Which brings us to the other problem. It's now pretty well established that when you give correct information to someone who has an ideological commitment to rejecting that information, that additional information can make their rejection stronger. This has been demonstrated quite clearly for politics and also for anti-scientific, religiously based beliefs. So presenting well-researched material might make some people even more strongly opposed to the material presented.

All you can hope for is to sow seeds. They may seem to fall on barren ground and frustrate you terribly. Just be satisfied that those seeds will stay there and may sprout and grow strong months or years later when the time and circumstances allow - and you may not even be around to see it happen.

Whether you do or don't display impatience with any particular person really depends on your judgement of your relationship and the importance or urgency of the topic. It's one thing to get a bit tired of dealing with evolution or climate change or anti-vaccine nonsense and just drop the subject when it gets too much. It's another thing entirely if the person is telling rape jokes or talking offensively about racism or other nasty notions - regardless of the relationship it may be appropriate to demonstrate your distaste (or your raging fury) by leaving the room or blocking the person on FB or Twitter. (Though personally I'd not allow even closest family to visit a baby less than 18 months old if the possible visitors are not immunised. A relationship is not worth a child's life or health.)

Only you can judge whether and when you might do such things.

About two decades ago I had a discussion with a religious person who swore to me that during a praying session, the one shorter leg of another person, grew to the same length as the other leg. There is no rationallity behind this. Nothing in science will ever be able to back this up, for him. Sure some Salamanders grow new limbs.
How can I ever hope to win in a discussion which goal is rational,... in a discussion with a person believing in irrational things, thinking they are normal.

How can I break that way of thinking?

Why? Why? Why do people believe in such stupid things? It surely cannot be school alone. You hear many people say that as long as you learn the illiterate to read and write,... it will solve alot of problems. Well I doubt it. Sure it will solve alot of things,.... but this guy I talked too... I was in school with. We had the same education. Yet our rational brains seemed to have two different outcomes on stuff like... praying... god... the universe.

I just do not understand it. Its been bugging me for decades.

How can I ever claim my rational way of thinking is right,... if I am unable to dismiss the irrational towards a person who thinks his irrational way of thinking is rational?

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

How can I ever claim my rational way of thinking is right,... if I am unable to dismiss the irrational towards a person who thinks his irrational way of thinking is rational?

Thinking that an irrational person can be persuaded to abandon their irrationality through the application of rational argument is irrational.

To quote Jonathan Swift ....

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

Equally, it is reasonable and rational to use additional or different approaches than just "rational" or "logical" when dealing with people and issues that carry a lot of baggage - whether it's personal, emotional, ideological or some other non-rational baggage.

I've had many of my irrational beliefs challenged and destroyed. I was not raised an atheist, for example. I've seen many other people come around and many on forums, such as this one. I think it is quite rational to stand against bunk. Countries with better education statistically have less superstition and impulsive superstitious behaviors.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Sorry - I realised your post was more to the question of why people don't behave rationally rather than why they are racist/prejudiced - so maybe Henry (Henri?) Tajfel wont help you....

But people are generally not rational actors as evidenced by everyday life. People generally act on the emotions that occur at the time and quite happily provide contradictory accounts of what they believe in because of it. Context is key to understanding the decisions people make.

And also change is painful - people who have long held beliefs about anything find it hard to change. Its taking away everything they have based their life upon and giving them something new and if the something new isn't easy to understand then they will resist it and why wouldn't they? If someone came along now and proved Darwin wrong it would turn my world upside down - nearly everything I understand of the world is wrapped up in there somewhere.

I appreciate your posts, and yes I was wondering about the rational decision making,... while all evidence is presented to them, they rationally know the evidence is clear... but still make an irrational decision which makes no sence based on the evidence provided.

I tried to make it a general topic,... but I wish to know how it works, pure and simple because I think I can use this knowledge -understanding the other mind- in any discussion I as an atheist may have with a religious person. I realize it is not that simple. But even if it helps a bit...

I figured myself party of the "problem"... is indoctrination,... perhaps imprinting is a better word from a biological viewpoint. And if you are part of a very social structure which churches tend to be,... it is very difficult to find a way in,... into the way of the indoctrinated social religous mind. For them the church is a huge part of their social structure.

But nobody will ever win... if they do not try.

So knowing I wish to present a viewpoint,... that will totally destroy their world, undo their social structure, and give them a whole new world to explore rationally. ... How would I best go into a discussion with such a person?

I am brainstorming,... but I would need to present my ideas to them,.... and perhaps give them freedom of thought, add rationallity,.... in such a way,... they will think they will gain... not loose... following the new concept provided to them.

Social psychoanalytic theories suggest that we introject "things" into our "being". What they mean is people have emotional investments in who they are. So if I consider myself to be generally a nice person I will strongly reject any suggestion I am not because my whole life has been based on me seeing myself one way. People make emotional investments in the groups they belong to and they make relational associations between themselves and other groups, mostly along the lines of my group is good and yours isn't. So any attempt to change peoples views is an attempt to change them personally and an attempt to take them away from everything they consider good and into the bad.

In effect you are not attempting to change an individuals view you are attempting to change a whole lifetime of belief in the rituals and practices of their group and therefore change their entire identity. In essence you are turning an entire life upside down and if what you are proposing in its place doesn't make sense to them they will reject it strongly.

I think you are partly confused by peoples reactions simply because you are expecting them to be rational in the first place. Like I said - people are mostly driven by their emotions and will react rationally sometimes and not others. I would generally consider myself to be rational but I cry at good news stories and behave like a little child in the presence of my older brother (so does he though...... ). You might find that the most stubbornly irrational religious person can display immense rationality on other topics that don't have any emotional investment and when they don't feel threatened.

In essence you are turning an entire life upside down and if what you are proposing in its place doesn't make sense to you they will reject it strongly.

Should say...

In essence you are turning an entire life upside down and if what you are proposing in its place doesn't make sense to them they will reject it strongly.

Don't have the facility to edit in post seemingly....sorry

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Don't have the facility to edit in post seemingly....sorry

Not sure why you couldn't edit it. I've done it for you.

I think that one of the misperceptions Estheria Quintillesimo referred to comes from the fact that many people interpret the Bible literally whereas it actually is full of symbollisms and allegories related to the fact that it was intended for unsophisticated ancient people of the time. -For example, my belief is that "Noah" refers to more than one person, and there was more than one Ark. Likewise, "Adam and Eve" was an allegory to refer to an ancient race (Adamic Race.) This is not my original interpretation, but although it's been spoken of often, most people still cling to the literal interpretations, although I think most people do regard the "eating of a forbidden apple" as an allegorical reference.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

For example, my belief is that "Noah" refers to more than one person, and there was more than one Ark.

And these numerous arks were required because...?

Likewise, "Adam and Eve" was an allegory to refer to an ancient race (Adamic Race.)

Humans, you mean?

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

my belief is that...

And this is the crux of the problem. How can you get anything from something that is completely open to your personal interpretation?

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

"Noah" refers to more than one person, and there was more than one Ark.

If this made the Ark story more logical or even possible, I'd consider it. However, the notion is still absurd, regardless of how many people were involved. There is still no historical record of anything like the flood event in the Bible (unless that is an analogy or metaphor or something else which can be conveniently re-interpreted)

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Likewise, "Adam and Eve" was an allegory to refer to an ancient race (Adamic Race.)

Which is, again, a very convenient way to get around scientific data.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

This is not my original interpretation, but although it's been spoken of often, most people still cling to the literal interpretations, although I think most people do regard the "eating of a forbidden apple" as an allegorical reference.

Are we going to see a divide between literalists and interpretive Biblical believers now? Does this even matter since it lends no more credence to the idea of a God?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

Don't have the facility to edit in post seemingly....sorry

Not sure why you couldn't edit it. I've done it for you.

Thanks - I think its a browser problem. I can get into the post to actually edit it but then the "save" button doesn't work. If I use Chrome I don't have the problem - I'm just not keen on Chrome to be honest.

the fact that many people interpret the Bible literally whereas it actually is full of symbollisms and allegories related to the fact that it was intended for unsophisticated ancient people of the time.

It's more than that. It's an entirely different mindset from the modern hard and fast distinction between factual and real versus the imaginative and poetic.

We are pretty well incapable of getting the idea that the poetic and vivid is the way to present a view of the world. It's obviously a good technique for maintaining stories in illiterate, verbal traditions, but it's very hard for us to understand - if we ever could - how this changes the perception of what is "real". When you have Australian dreaming stories that tell a group how their landscape was made by a snake or a lizard or something and that story also tells you where and when you can get water in what looks like barren desert, the real and the poetic are inextricably intertwined. And that affects the way you think, not just the words you say.

This is probably one area where, even if we study anthropology and religious texts and traditions, we'll always mentally be in the position of laboriously learning the words of the song but never being able to dance to the all in one intellectual-factual-superstitious-poetic music. Our intellectual, mental and emotional world is completely foreign to these ways of understanding the world.

(Just as an aside, I remember hearing someone say once that the kind of literal interpretation of the Bible that we see has become so strong in recent decades because of the prevalence of engineering and computer professionals and the lack of familiarity in the population with poetic and other forms of writing. These people read the Bible in a completely different way from many people with a literature or language or theology training. When most of your reading materials are blueprints or instruction manuals or management guff and you couldn't read Dante's Inferno to save your life, you're not in a good position to read writings based on vague, unfamiliar concepts. Reading the old testament as a to-do list or a newspaper report is a recipe for disaster. Literature students are perfectly happy with the notion that written words are best read in context and in light of the poet's or writer's intentions.)

I'm not a believer in God, and i believe the universe simply was always there, cyclisticly evolving, big bangs repeating etc.

But one couldn't really rule out the possibility of 'some process' or 'some organism' (called 'God' by some)
who installed this entire Darwinian-Newton-Einstein evolving system,
simply because we can never know that, from our infinitely small viewpoint towards the whole area of space.

(Just spicing up the conversation a bit)

Can't rule it out- but not worthy of attention, either. IF there was such a being, as you described, he'd be as aware of me as I am aware of an individual quark in my room.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

For example, my belief is that "Noah" refers to more than one person, and there was more than one Ark.

And these numerous arks were required because...?

Likewise, "Adam and Eve" was an allegory to refer to an ancient race (Adamic Race.)

Humans, you mean?

Dywyddyr: The idea that there was more than one Noah was suggested to me because field investigations in the neighborhood of Mt. Ararat in Turkey have revealed at least two fairly compelling sites for an ark type vessel having been there very long ago: one is high up on the mountain, where a number of purported witnesses have described seeing the remains of a huge wooden vessel, and the other is near the base of the mountain, where there is a impression in the ground that is shaped like the outline of a huge vessel. The "multiple arks" idea would be consistent with the basic theory that stories in the Bible are often told allegorically to simplify then for the ancient audience. -The idea that "Adam and Eve" refers to an early race of humanity is not mine. Anyone at all conversant with the esoteric literature as it relates to early man has encountered this idea many times from many sources.

Unusual thought on Darwinism.I was researching some anthropology one afternoon and met up with guy talking about jesus doing the same.He tried to tell me the 7 day story,I listened,then asked about fossils.He said that someone made them up.I let him have his beliefs.Most people I've met accept Darwin.Ok here is the unusual thought.What if the someone making up the fossils was god.7 day and prefab fossils.Coulda happened.

so basically denying the countless scientific evidence that explains how Evolution is true.
Now my question is not about religion or Evolution.... but I wish to understand how people them selves can say they know they are wrong but still believe in something totally different.

I just let others believe in whatever they think is right to them as long as they do not try to tell me that they are right and I'm wrong. If that happens I slowly back away from them and wish them well.

PhDemon,that was an unusual response concerning fossils being faked by god.Reason is that if they were faked by man, with all of his flaws,you might see fossils of PINK FLUFFY BUNNIES.

if darwin was right butt
was wallace left butt?

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Why do people say one thing is true, knowing full well rationally it is not, even when provided with countless evidence?

...

I can only come up with one thing: 'Indoctrination'. But I think the answer must be more complicated.

I am one of those above people, who holds faith in certain beliefs regardless of evidence. I wasn't raised to have faith but arrived at it through logic.

First example: I can't possibly believe in deities or afterlife. I suppose that I will want to someday - like when I'm shriveled and gasping survival through a respirator - but even this prediction is to me just another reason to dismiss those possibilities. Maybe I'll hallucinate the presence of Jesus or somesuch - but knowing that I'm predisposed to lose touch with reality (having it in the family) I just cannot trust my own senses... or my own reason. Any thought toward religosity looks like a slippery spiral to madness, for me, so I made up my mind to utterly, willfully, reject religion, no matter what I experience or think in future. You see how stupid it would be for me to reconsider? BTW I was raised atheist/agnostic so this isn't a rebellion thing. Ironically, it's a matter of Faith.

Originally Posted by LuciDreaming

people are generally not rational actors as evidenced by everyday life. People generally act on the emotions that occur at the time and quite happily provide contradictory accounts of what they believe in because of it. Context is key to understanding the decisions people make.

Is rationality less fickle? Think about it: rationality is all about constantly re-evaluating one's position, believing and doing just what seems best with current information. As conditions and evidence change, so the rational man changes. The rational decision hinges on the moment. It may swing alot!

Second example: marriage vows. I decided to take these more seriously than myself. After long meditation, I decided that rationality - that is: re-evaluating one's position based on current circumstances - was to blame for all the divorces around me. People keep changing their minds. They promise, and then when things look impossible (they will sometimes) they rather break their word than stick with a seemingly losing situation. While to the selfish individual this seems best, it's not helping families or the larger society. I think this ancient institution depends on people's capacity to make and keep vows. For that we need faith more than reason.

I suppose that irrational stubbornness is a trait advantageous not to individuals but to social order. Then I speculate that, just as bees evolved their suicidal stingers, social humans evolved this often self-defeating capacity to sacrifice personal judgement for sake of consistency or tradition. Who do you trust to water your plants while you're away? I personally wouldn't trust someone who can promise only to rationalize his next action as new information unfolds. I'd like some telltale sign that the person is capable of being faithful, to my houseplants. What could be an outward sign or test of that capacity..?

Anyway, the new social order is ditching all that. When future generations try to understand the archaic practice called faithfulness, they'll be right to guess it was somehow related to religion.

@Pong:

Should it not be that you are NOT one of those people?

If not... then I do not get it. What part or kind of faith do you hold regardless of evidence?
To reject the idea of god, afterlife and such... is not taken on faith. Faith is, or more particular Religious claims on the world,... opinions and ideas without providing scientific evidence. No, yours is not a matter of faith. It is your rational mind working, imho. I do not see how you can compare rational thinking being the same as taking something on faith. ... Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here.

Your second example is a difficult one, one I still myself have an incomplete opinion about. From an evolutionary point, it is illogical for a male and female to have just one sexual partner. However from the viewpoint of a cultural society, it makes sence. It would become impossible to live in tight communities together, if we had not invented the bonding between man and woman via the institute a man and wife 'being officially' together. Feelings of jealousy and the potential unrest this may cause without it, perhaps leading to fighting and killing of eachother (as you see sometimes in the rest of the animal world) would make communal living in village and cities impossible. The institute invented of the man-female bonding, is to prevent mahem and anarchy. Though ofcourse, it still happens.
I think though religion over the centuries has taken this too far, by the concept of marriage. There should always be a way out. And we do. We daily show in secret it does not work completely. Walking the street with his wife an average male will look at other women, and women do the same, looking at other males.

Me tarzan, you Jane .... Who knows if Jane will meet a bigger and better ape later on.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

@Pong:

Should it not be that you are NOT one of those people?

If not... then I do not get it. What part or kind of faith do you hold regardless of evidence?

I think you'll get it if you keep the terms in check. Resist the temptation to conflate "rational" thinking with all thinking good or agreeable. Resist the temptation to dismiss "faith" as a product of religion.

Faith is belief in absence of - or especially regardless of - evidence. My mind is made up (regarding deities, afterlife, the supernatural) in such a way that no evidence can change my belief. Neither can I think my way out of this belief.

I would love to puff up and claim my atheism is rational - and dismiss faith as some kind of cooties spread exclusively through churches. But I've learned that faith in itself is not always a bad thing, and religion doesn't really own it. I've also learned that rationality must settle for agnosticism - because the rationalist must admit a possibility of deities or afterlife. Agnosticism wasn't good enough for my life. I'm an atheist at heart, and I appreciate the practical values of making up one's mind & telling people where one stands. So, from agnosticism, I chose to get on with life as an atheist i.e. I made a leap of faith.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

I have seen it several times in discussion about religion, where a religious person would say:

'I know evidence shows Darwin is right, but still I believe God created the world in just a few days.'

... so basically denying the countless scientific evidence that explains how Evolution is true.
Now my question is not about religion or Evolution.... but I wish to understand how people them selves can say they know they are wrong but still believe in something totally different.

I can only come up with one thing: 'Indoctrination'. But I think the answer must be more complicated.

Another field to study concerning this matter would be racism. When I grew up there was alot of racism that spilled into my field of observance as a kid. Via the TV, books, or just from family members directly. It indoctrinates and I notice it is hard to get rid of a stereotypical way of thinking. My rational mind however knows better, and I can prevent myself from speaking dumb things, by letting my rational mind speak before my immediate thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for others to overcome? Why do people say one thing is true, knowing full well rationally it is not, even when provided with countless evidence?

Any thoughts on it? Or sources I can check up on, to get a better understanding of this odd twist of our brains?

because they right... just try to change god with big bang or a supernova... there where things before evolution started... and you can go always a step further...

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

I have seen it several times in discussion about religion, where a religious person would say:

'I know evidence shows Darwin is right, but still I believe God created the world in just a few days.'

... so basically denying the countless scientific evidence that explains how Evolution is true.
Now my question is not about religion or Evolution.... but I wish to understand how people them selves can say they know they are wrong but still believe in something totally different.

I can only come up with one thing: 'Indoctrination'. But I think the answer must be more complicated.

Another field to study concerning this matter would be racism. When I grew up there was alot of racism that spilled into my field of observance as a kid. Via the TV, books, or just from family members directly. It indoctrinates and I notice it is hard to get rid of a stereotypical way of thinking. My rational mind however knows better, and I can prevent myself from speaking dumb things, by letting my rational mind speak before my immediate thoughts.

Why is it so difficult for others to overcome? Why do people say one thing is true, knowing full well rationally it is not, even when provided with countless evidence?

Any thoughts on it? Or sources I can check up on, to get a better understanding of this odd twist of our brains?

because they right... just try to change god with big bang or a supernova... there where things before evolution started... and you can go always a step further...

Actually you can not,... when you observe the universe through the eyes of the scientific perspective.

According to some, and as I understand it, the big bang theory,... at the moment of the big bang everything we observe and experience in this universe came into existence. This includes such concepts as time and gravity. Before the big bang none of the laws of physics and what not all not,... did not exist. Emphesis on time here,... according to the current working theory for most scientists,... time did not exist either prior the universe.

But... we all know science has still alot to figure out. Honor to those 6 or 7 scientists that worked on the Hicks Boson particle theory, and three (or was it two?) of these will be getting a nobel price this year. A proposed theory for the explanation for gravity (as I understand it through my understanding of it, more correctly the actual weight of particles explained), now it seems to have been proven.

I can not phantom the decades of work. Im not a scientist. Such dedication, only the human mind, the only mindful animal able with tools to seek out the questions,... to accomplish this.

I think at this time there are about 6 or 7 working theories that try to explain the Big Bang. The BIG BANG as known to common media and populus on our small planet is just one of many working thesis.

So there is still a lot of work to be done on in this field. We still have not gotten all the way back to 0.0 second BIG BANG

So I would agree with you partially,.... however as I understand it,... purely and simply calculating in t (Time)... it may be simplistic,... but if time is a serious engine for measuring stuff in our universe, and time did not exist prior,... then per definition,... nothing existed prior according to the laws of physics in our current universe.

This does however, not open up any room for god. We still have to unify the working theories still,... we still have to figure out 0.0 seconds,... this is so important. And untill we are capable to do so,... then according to the laws of physics and according to religious scripture...

... there was nothing before this universe,... which for me personally excludes god still. It is actually the getting mocked by so many religious people over the years that made me aware of this.

'So you believe all of this came out of nothing?'

No,... that is not what I am saying at all. But you guys (religious people) clearly know absolutely not what you are talking about. Religious goal is not to explain anything, but to prefer humanity to not ask and just accept, by HUMANS provided doctrines. I shall never adhere to such principles. My intellectual brain shall never accept domination by a none intellectual concept I could teach to my dog,... like .. 'If you listen to me and accept I am your lord and master,... you get a cookie.'

Screw that!

My human brain is hardwired by evolution,... to seek out knowledge. And nothing will hold me back but the ultimate fate to all creatures, considered sentient or not... Death.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

@Pong:

Should it not be that you are NOT one of those people?

If not... then I do not get it. What part or kind of faith do you hold regardless of evidence?

I think you'll get it if you keep the terms in check. Resist the temptation to conflate "rational" thinking with all thinking good or agreeable. Resist the temptation to dismiss "faith" as a product of religion.

Faith is belief in absence of - or especially regardless of - evidence. My mind is made up (regarding deities, afterlife, the supernatural) in such a way that no evidence can change my belief. Neither can I think my way out of this belief.

I would love to puff up and claim my atheism is rational - and dismiss faith as some kind of cooties spread exclusively through churches. But I've learned that faith in itself is not always a bad thing, and religion doesn't really own it. I've also learned that rationality must settle for agnosticism - because the rationalist must admit a possibility of deities or afterlife. Agnosticism wasn't good enough for my life. I'm an atheist at heart, and I appreciate the practical values of making up one's mind & telling people where one stands. So, from agnosticism, I chose to get on with life as an atheist i.e. I made a leap of faith.

I had to look of the word 'cooties'... as this was a word I was unfamiliar with.

Partial from wiki:

Cooties are, in American and Canadian childlore, a kind of infectious disease. It is also a term used for body lice^[1] and for a wooden container used for food or drink.^[2] A child is said to "catch" cooties through any form of bodily contact, proximity, or touching of an "infected" person or from a person of the opposite sex of the same age. Often the "infected" person is someone who is perceived as "different" and bears some kind of social stigma:^[3] of the opposite sex, disabled, someone who is shy or withdrawn, someone who has peculiar mannerisms, etc. The phrase is most commonly used by children aged 4–10; however, it is also used by many others older than 10 in a sarcastic or playful way.^[4]

The reason I bothered to look up that word is because I wanted to be sure I got the full understanding of what you tried to say to me.

And I am glad I did,... because it gives a whole different meaning to what you said. I was thinking previously looking up the word,... thinking it was just another word for flue. But it clearly means much more.

One of the great arguments against any biblical interpretation of the bible, is that the text have been translated so many time. Seriously King James Bible?

I would first ask any biblical scolar first... what is your point adding the text 'King James Bible'?

What? Does the 'Knock Knock, Who Is There? I am the Lord Trinity Jesus' Bible ... have other things to say then the King James Bible?

Besides the fact that a HUMAN named Constatine and founder of the Catholic Church was repsonsible for censoring the faith in the very very early stages of the faith becomming what it is today, the Catholic Church from which most modern USA churches have their origin from ,.... thereby nullifying -most likely- any resource to the potential true original historical Jesus,.... you would still have to consider the many translation of text that have occured over the century.

'The Kings James Bible'... ???

Why would you need to refer to King James,... for your Bible... If what in the Bible is correct?

What language was the original Bible written in?

What Language did Jesus Speak?

If Religious people think Darwin is their enemy,... they seem to have little concept of language and interpretation.... Which ofcourse suits them fine.

...


I think it is time I should go and talk to my uncle,... He restores ancient books for a living.

Religions developed and played an important role in providing answers of life meaning, and consequently in creating social order (through the social values and believes they are based on) in human societies.
Scientific knowledge that developed consequently after religion, such as C. Darwin's evolutionary theory for example, provided insight of life mechanism, creating controversy at its time, as it compromised those religious believes that shaped personal and social identities, so social order. (religion and its values are embedded in political, social and personal codes of behavior).

As much as scientific studies provides understanding of life mechanism, at this stage in time they can cannot answer or explain meaning of life's questions.
Because the powerful social importance of religion (INDOCTRINATION) ( its importance of creating social and personal identity) religion is still the popular understanding of life, which pushes science on a side as scholastic discipline. Many prefer to believe what is not true because we cannot change our past (part of our identity) so easy, because science has not yet provided for ultimate question, for a sense of belonging and because for some (who do not know science) it offers comfort in their reality constructed by religious views.


I personally believe that we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion (especially in western countries or Christians) and getting closer to science as with more accessible technology, information and knowledge is easier spread across different social backgrounds.

Racism is a complex subject and it does involve differences between individuals and groups, whether they are ideological or physical. Related studies involves personal identity (Erick Erickson) ( Sigmund Freud ) (Woodward), social identities (Henri Tajfel) and cognitive mental processes, such as categorization (Bruner) (Darley and Gross 1983).

hi

Originally Posted by alex888

I personally believe that we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion (especially in western countries or Christians) and getting closer to science as with more accessible technology, information and knowledge is easier spread across different social backgrounds.

I am playing the Devil's advocate here:

Yes, but religious teachings and dogmas can also be spread easier across the world.
Why do you think that the number of people "getting closer to science" is greater than the number of those getting closer to religion?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by alex888

I personally believe that we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion (especially in western countries or Christians) and getting closer to science as with more accessible technology, information and knowledge is easier spread across different social backgrounds.

I am playing the Devil's advocate here:

Yes, but religious teachings and dogmas can also be spread easier across the world.
Why do you think that the number of people "getting closer to science" is greater than the number of those getting closer to religion?

I first wanted to respond to alex888 untill I read your responds Cogito Ergo Sum.

Where do you get the numbers from? Perhaps this may be true in the western world,.... but the western world is also the area where the least babies are born. Most babies are born in the porer area's of this planet. Like Asia and Africa and what not. These happen to be also the places organisations like the Catholic Church says,... they are heavy growing.

I live in one of these Western Countries. I do not grave domination. I do not want to see other people suffer or die from hunger. I can not change the past,... perhaps I can change the future in my own little way. Providing sence and understanding of the real world. I have seen video's of witch burning in africa,... in these same area's the Catholic Church says... 'we are expanding'... These numbs are just replacing one dum,b faith with another, worst is that it will intermix and create new faiths,,, which will make no sence.

This has happened before. Religions influenced by other faiths,.... then transforming in a new faith.... I'd say ... look at VooDoo... or perhaps just look at Chritianity.

You said:

we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion.

IU see absolutely no evidence for this. Religion is as strong as it was in ancient days.

Those that do not believe in religions,... are not organized. They are no fighting force. They do not have a common goal. Non believers are all so randomized, they p[ose no threat to any religion.

Yet being a non-believer is the worst crime in many nations in this world.

We have a lot more work ahead of us.

The following link is an aleged WITCH BURNING,... it was uploaded on LiveLeak. Please do not let your children watch it. This is no fantasy,... it is real.
Humanity ... at its.... ... best...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dae_1236854361

wiches voodoo sensationalism mass histeria religions .why do these things exist.does man have some kind of bent need?voodoo is in africa hoodoo is in new oleans and south they both stick pins in dolls,sounds like a girl thing,i wonder.on the internet there is a link that said that witches were really hanged and one was crushed by stones but not burned,not sure of the credance of the link.religions and crazys,in my opinion its all fear motivated.then theres the chosen ones which seperate themselves from everybody else,so what does that mea?that everybody else is in hell?now i'm scared.

Originally Posted by sapien

wiches voodoo sensationalism mass histeria religions .why do these things exist.does man have some kind of bent need?voodoo is in africa hoodoo is in new oleans and south they both stick pins in dolls,sounds like a girl thing,i wonder.on the internet there is a link that said that witches were really hanged and one was crushed by stones but not burned,not sure of the credance of the link.religions and crazys,in my opinion its all fear motivated.then theres the chosen ones which seperate themselves from everybody else,so what does that mea?that everybody else is in hell?now i'm scared.

The chosen ones?

Besides you write like crap.... you have a point? Or is there a reason you write like a moron? The Chosen Ones? And from the crap you just wrote,... you seem to not feel for those that got burned in that video I linked you too.

You perhaps think those kinds of things,... like burning people alive... is a joke?

If not... then I propose you next time make a better post.

At this moment,.. your morals digust me.

Estheria Quintessimo

Speaking of quality of posts.

Your own posts would be vastly improved by much reduced use of large fonts in bold print. Preferably none at all.

Where do you get the numbers from? Perhaps this may be true in the western world,.... but the western world is also the area where the least babies are born. Most babies are born in the porer area's of this planet. Like Asia and Africa and what not. These happen to be also the places organisations like the Catholic Church says,... they are heavy growing.

You are completely wrong about this.

The birthrate in all but a handful of countries across the world has gone down and is staying down. Watch this video once, and then watch it again. Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com

heavy video... the biggest problem accours when faith is mixed with feelings and culture... but lets not blame it all on faith... it wouldent last for 2 milleniums if it was that bad...

Originally Posted by blackscorp

but lets not blame it all on faith... it wouldent last for 2 milleniums if it was that bad...

Smallpox lasted for over 10 milleniums.
But it was finally eradicated 30 years ago.

Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by alex888

I personally believe that we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion (especially in western countries or Christians) and getting closer to science as with more accessible technology, information and knowledge is easier spread across different social backgrounds.

I am playing the Devil's advocate here:

Yes, but religious teachings and dogmas can also be spread easier across the world.
Why do you think that the number of people "getting closer to science" is greater than the number of those getting closer to religion?

My personal thought (not inherent with Esteria question) did not want to quantify at this moment in time the amount of people who are closer to religion not to science, but how as the power of religion is shifted, scientific knowledge could rise taking over religion, (in a very distant future). After all there is a thin line between the two. They both aim to try to explain life but in very differnt ways.

Today, western societies are not politically ruled by the church by dictating law and consequently 'thinking' (indoctrination), as it used to be centuries ago (Dark Ages).

Today western societies operate a democratic level, pushing religious believes as INDIVIDUAL needs, (that is why we have different religions in a same territory) which indicate how socially we recognise religions as subjective (as they are all based on faith and not scientific proves). The power of religion has shifted from a national (law) to individual (community) level.

Democratic Capitalistic cultures (which developed by PROTESTANT countries such as UK and USA) - liberal - are influencing the rest of Europe and the world (conflicts with islam cultures for example). As leading economic powers they are spreading new liberal (from religious extrime rules) social practises and 'thinking', as the Romans spread christianism around Europe at their time. To their economic growth, scientific discoveries (studies) plays a fundamental role, which in turns influence the society itself.
The social impact this had in modern societies are visible. Radical Christian social behaviours, such as going to the church every sundays, have been pretty much replaced by going to the shopping centers instead, for example (this do not mean that people are closer to science but that they are more distant from religion)(many churches in England are closing, sold and converted to apartments) (in Italy many monastries are empty). As with wealth is linked education (and the centre role for science) more people would be offered more opportunity to education - to scientific understanding and practices in their life. Today when people are ill, they rely on medicine more than the priest to get cured.
The two realities coexist, by viewing and living religion in a liberal way rather than an orthodox way (shifted power). But is more than evident that today our resources and survival depends more from science than religion (rise power). With the advance of scientific knowledge (thinking) in a distant future maybe religion would be an abstract concept.

Of course today religion is still part of our life, it is still part of our identity. Christian religious groups provide for sense of belonging for comunities and for the support of the most vulnerable in society (the poor or lower structure of society), which is a symbiotic inter relationship. Mostly the poorest are those who belive literally what is written in the bible (as with wealth is linked to education). After all their belief represents the resource from which depend their survival (financial and spiritual support). And is not a coincidence as Esteria commented, Christianism is spreading in Asia and Africa.

Increasing wealth involves increasing resources which are linked to more studies opportunities so new practises. The middle structure (science) of society will consequently influence more the social practices and thinking of the lower structure. it is the new thinking that people will acquire because linked to resources so survival.

In the process religion will still evolve as it did untill now. But maybe one day scientific understanding of ourselves would produce the most powerfull mediatic 'self conscious society' structure (body) which will balance power relations between the different social structures of society (inequality and differences), from which, at the moment religious groups are there for.

this is my "scientific visionary imagination"

Originally Posted by alex888

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by alex888

I personally believe that we are living a transitional evolutionary period in which human are separating themselfes from religion (especially in western countries or Christians) and getting closer to science as with more accessible technology, information and knowledge is easier spread across different social backgrounds.

I am playing the Devil's advocate here:

Yes, but religious teachings and dogmas can also be spread easier across the world.
Why do you think that the number of people "getting closer to science" is greater than the number of those getting closer to religion?

My personal thought (not inherent with Esteria question) did not want to quantify at this moment in time the amount of people who are closer to religion not to science, but how as the power of religion is shifted, scientific knowledge could rise taking over religion, (in a very distant future). After all there is a thin line between the two. They both aim to try to explain life but in very differnt ways.

Today, western societies are not politically ruled by the church by dictating law and consequently 'thinking' (indoctrination), as it used to be centuries ago (Dark Ages).

Today western societies operate a democratic level, pushing religious believes as INDIVIDUAL needs, (that is why we have different religions in a same territory) which indicate how socially we recognise religions as subjective (as they are all based on faith and not scientific proves). The power of religion has shifted from a national (law) to individual (community) level.

Democratic Capitalistic cultures (which developed by PROTESTANT countries such as UK and USA) - liberal - are influencing the rest of Europe and the world (conflicts with islam cultures for example). As leading economic powers they are spreading new liberal (from religious extrime rules) social practises and 'thinking', as the Romans spread christianism around Europe at their time. To their economic growth, scientific discoveries (studies) plays a fundamental role, which in turns influence the society itself.
The social impact this had in modern societies are visible. Radical Christian social behaviours, such as going to the church every sundays, have been pretty much replaced by going to the shopping centers instead, for example (this do not mean that people are closer to science but that they are more distant from religion)(many churches in England are closing, sold and converted to apartments) (in Italy many monastries are empty). As with wealth is linked education (and the centre role for science) more people would be offered more opportunity to education - to scientific understanding and practices in their life. Today when people are ill, they rely on medicine more than the priest to get cured.
The two realities coexist, by viewing and living religion in a liberal way rather than an orthodox way (shifted power). But is more than evident that today our resources and survival depends more from science than religion (rise power). With the advance of scientific knowledge (thinking) in a distant future maybe religion would be an abstract concept.

Of course today religion is still part of our life, it is still part of our identity. Christian religious groups provide for sense of belonging for comunities and for the support of the most vulnerable in society (the poor or lower structure of society), which is a symbiotic inter relationship. Mostly the poorest are those who belive literally what is written in the bible (as with wealth is linked to education). After all their belief represents the resource from which depend their survival (financial and spiritual support). And is not a coincidence as Esteria commented, Christianism is spreading in Asia and Africa.

Increasing wealth involves increasing resources which are linked to more studies opportunities so new practises. The middle structure (science) of society will consequently influence more the social practices and thinking of the lower structure. it is the new thinking that people will acquire because linked to resources so survival.

In the process religion will still evolve as it did untill now. But maybe one day scientific understanding of ourselves would produce the most powerfull mediatic 'self conscious society' structure (body) which will balance power relations between the different social structures of society (inequality and differences), from which, at the moment religious groups are there for.

I can only but agree with you alex888. What you said is basically what I think. But there is a problem.

Religion is not about to sit down and take the punches science has been giving it for atleast the last 100 years. Sure fine,... the Roman Catholic Church accepts Darwinism,... and yeah the guy that game up with the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest,... that does not mean anything.

For all we know the guy that invented the wheel was a female cavegirl wanting to make a cool toy for one of her children.

Religion will have its limits on the punches science has been giving religion over the years. You can see this happening already in the USA, where over the last 2 decades it seems to be very troublesome to get Evolution on the public school Agenda.
The trouble? The religious attempts to prefer their version of stuff,...

Democratic Liberal Capatilist Cultures (developed by protestant countries as UK ans USA) are influencing Europa, the EU, and the rest of the world, as they have conflict with Islamic Cultures for an example.

You serious thinking that? I do not know country you are from,... but as a citizen from one of the well developed european nations,... nobody... and I mean NOBODY... no citizen of the EU I know and have ever met and talked about these things about, thinks this.
Yeah the USA is a big influence in the EU, and many EU nations, particular only the politicians, like to suck up to the USA. Not many citizens in the EU think the USA has any real value anymore.

Great movies, big army, big mouth....

I mean seriously,.....

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Geez....

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

This will end at some point.

$ 17,000,000,000,000+ National Debt ... and counting.... What a joke nation.

Geez lets make the debt 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 ... Yeah the USA is such a great country ruling the world,.... yet not able to rule their own nation.

...


Perhaps it is just as well... The religious pressure in the USA compared to their founders initial intend is very high.... It needs to collapse at some time.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Any thoughts on it? Or sources I can check up on, to get a better understanding of this odd twist of our brains?

If you have some time, have a read of "Thought as a System" by David Bohm. It's probably best to get your head into it before you write it off as 'woo'. Over many years investigating some of the queries you have raised his theory provides an interesting insight into collective thought and knowledge stemming from false concepts about a sense of self derived from thought which leads to incoherence and dysfunction in culture. His dialogues and seminars are also available on U-tube. :-))

People have a deep need to fit in with a group. That need can be emotional and spiritual, at times it gets to be rather pragmatic and economic. I think a large part of why people seem to believe in two or more contradictory sets of ideas is because they have to fit into more than one group that hold contradictory ideas. As an example, at home some kid's parents have a lifelong commitment to religious beliefs, and expressing disagreement can lead to severe difficulties. At school he has to fall in line with accepted scientific thought or risk being thought a troublemaker. The poor kid, stuck between two conflicting world views, does not dare disagree with either, and gives every semblance of believing both.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

May I ask you from which country you are from?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

May I ask you from which country you are from?

We are all Europeans, deeply imbued with the sense of unity that can only come from having warred with each other for more than a millennium.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

I live in the US and your comment is scary.

People here think WE'RE the biggest disaster in the world right now. We're in a shambles. Hundreds of thousands of government employees laid off to shut down the government just to avoid passing something that was voted in by popular majority.

People suck up to us because of our military, not because we're a bastion of democracy.

Politicians are adept at recognising where the money is and proficient at sucking up to those with a view to getting some. I don't think this is reflection of some admiration for the US. It is a reflection of practical politics. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of European politicians believe that the European political system, probably, and the systems of individual coutries definitely, are superior to those of the US. (Obviously this does not include Italy, as it does not have a system of any kind.)

Originally Posted by John Galt

(Obviously this does not include Italy, as it does not have a system of any kind.)

Is nepotism, cronyism and corruption not a system (of sorts)?

I'm not up to snuff on my Italian political process, but isn't the prime minister there the "bunga bunga" guy?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

...isn't the prime minister there the "bunga bunga" guy?

Yes.
Silvio Berlusconi.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

...isn't the prime minister there the "bunga bunga" guy?

Yes.
Silvio Berlusconi.

I thought Mr. Berlusconi lost the elections?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

...isn't the prime minister there the "bunga bunga" guy?

Yes.
Silvio Berlusconi.

I thought Mr. Berlusconi lost the elections?

True.
And convicted for several crimes.

But he still runs the country.
That's what being the 194th richest man in the world buys you in Italy.

Does anyone agree that the one of the primary reasons for the persistence of religious belief is the indoctrination of children? Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by John Galt

(Obviously this does not include Italy's, as it does not have a system of any kind.)

Is nepotism, cronyism and corruption not a system (of sorts)?

Yes, but acknowledging that would have prevented me making a cheap joke at Italy's expense.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by John Galt

(Obviously this does not include Italy's, as it does not have a system of any kind.)

Is nepotism, cronyism and corruption not a system (of sorts)?

Yes, but acknowledging that would have prevented me making a cheap joke at Italy's expense.

And it allowed me to also make a cheap joke at Italy's expense.

Originally Posted by RobinM

Does anyone agree that the one of the primary reasons for the persistence of religious belief is the indoctrination of children? Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

We drifted off topic, whatever it was. You have (probably) brought it back on line. Keep in mind that a religious person would not call it indoctrination, but good parenting. I am sure if we made a list of the practices children have been taught to follow and the beliefs they are expected to have, going back over the last two thousand years, we should find many we disagreed with and some that we considered reprehensible.

We would describe any parent introducing/teaching/insisting upon those beliefs or practices as indoctrinating their children. We would describe the encouragement of practices and beliefs we thought to be positive as being education and proper upbringing.

That's by way of preamble to agree with your intent, but not your wording. Individuals develop their beliefs in large measure as a consequence of their environment. Those who learn, or have a natural aptitude for, critical thinking are more successful at divorcing themselves from that formative environment.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by John Galt

(Obviously this does not include Italy's, as it does not have a system of any kind.)

Is nepotism, cronyism and corruption not a system (of sorts)?

Yes, but acknowledging that would have prevented me making a cheap joke at Italy's expense.

And it allowed me to also make a cheap joke at Italy's expense.

And me to learn something about Italy.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

May I ask you from which country you are from?

The Netherlands....

There seems to be a general tendicy, atleast from the perspective of the general voting populus,... that politicians in my country only become politicians to better themselves,... rather then working their behind off for the people they are suppose to represent. In the last years we have seen a large number of "written off" politicians within my country, that gotten well payed jobs at other positions, after the general populus wanted to get rid of these fails. Positions in either the EU-gov,... or within global organisations like the UN....

So these Dutch politicians suck at their job within the Netherlands,... the Dutch populus want them GONE (by process of voting most of the time, but sometimes by heavy dispute in media),.... so they get basically promoted away to other jobs, well payed,... as they will only need references from friendly politicians within their own sphere of influence,... to get that layed back and well payed job,...

Seriously,... A politician SUCKS at its job, so do the voters say,... but any international organisation will still accept these loosers, just soley based on references provided by their political friends and kindsmen (who one day may go the same way),... and not looking at what the populus in that politicians country had to say about them?

It makes no sence.... It is one of the reasons, why people have so little faith in organisations like the UN,... as this is one of the organisations that harbor, maintain and pay well for these political refugees.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

I live in the US and your comment is scary.

People here think WE'RE the biggest disaster in the world right now. We're in a shambles. Hundreds of thousands of government employees laid off to shut down the government just to avoid passing something that was voted in by popular majority.

People suck up to us because of our military, not because we're a bastion of democracy.

Ha please. Ever since WW2 politicians in Europe have considered the USA its biggest ally. That is no mistery. It is caused by effective distributing money, showing military power, and telling a lot of times all the time ... how awesome the USA is.

I am sure in all this doctrine, evil communism fits in too, too shape perspective. If you have the big guns and have the big money,... surely some sweet honeys in short skirt will start walking around you, willing to copulate with ya.

Such is the attractive power... of... well... power.

I did not say politicians of other countries would suck up to the USA because of they are a bastion of democracy.

If you think people suck up to the USA, because of its military power,...then that is a really sad state of affairs. You really think people consider the USA allmighty, because of its military?

If that is the general concensus within the USA,... then you have a real problem. The moment a nation would consider its military more important then its governement,... in this case democracy,... that governement stops existing (being important). If your country becomes your military,... you are a threat and a danger to every other country you have a relationship with,... and you also signed your cultural death-warrant.

You have signed your death-warrant in that case,... because you will be absolutely unable to sustain your military momentum forever. At some time... something will give.....

North Korea will not last forever,.. and that is an extreem example....

If the USA's power is also solely based on its military,.... just as it is in North Korea,... then at some point in time it will brake. It is impossible to sustain a momentum of power solely based on one parameter.

I hope you are wrong, for your countries sake.

Originally Posted by RobinM

Does anyone agree that the one of the primary reasons for the persistence of religious belief is the indoctrination of children? Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

Completely. My indoctrination as a Catholic gave me a lot of problems as I shed my faith. It was more than rational versus irrational. It was dealing with guilt for even thinking that science showed a more promising means and more accurately representation of reality. It was breaking from family and dealing with intolerant relatives who were deeply moribund in their own faith and openly thought I'd go to hell if I left the church. It was deciding to choice an extremely unpopular path that's I'd not only have hide from friends and family or risk loosing them, but also from strangers who all too often in the US assume atheist less thrust worthy, lack morals or other bad things making them lesser people.

My indoctrination as a Catholic gave me a lot of problems as I shed my faith. It was more than rational versus irrational. It was dealing with guilt ....

Not quite your point, but this made me smile. It reminded me of something my husband sincerely believes. He was raised Catholic, I was raised protestant. Makes for interesting differences. (How many Catholics do you know who can recite the names of the books of the Bible from memory. Lots of protestants can.)

He reckons Catholics are raised on guilt, protestants are raised on shame. People might sound the same when they're talking about various problems in morals and theology and religion generally, but they're coming from different emotional places.

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

May I ask you from which country you are from?

The Netherlands....

There seems to be a general tendicy, atleast from the perspective of the general voting populus,... that politicians in my country only become politicians to better themselves,... rather then working their behind off for the people they are suppose to represent. In the last years we have seen a large number of "written off" politicians within my country, that gotten well payed jobs at other positions, after the general populus wanted to get rid of these fails. Positions in either the EU-gov,... or within global organisations like the UN....

So these Dutch politicians suck at their job within the Netherlands,... the Dutch populus want them GONE (by process of voting most of the time, but sometimes by heavy dispute in media),.... so they get basically promoted away to other jobs, well payed,... as they will only need references from friendly politicians within their own sphere of influence,... to get that layed back and well payed job,...

Seriously,... A politician SUCKS at its job, so do the voters say,... but any international organisation will still accept these loosers, just soley based on references provided by their political friends and kindsmen (who one day may go the same way),... and not looking at what the populus in that politicians country had to say about them?

It makes no sence.... It is one of the reasons, why people have so little faith in organisations like the UN,... as this is one of the organisations that harbor, maintain and pay well for these political refugees.

I was not aware that the political system in the Netherlands was regarded with aversion by the people.
Is the majority of the voting populus also against the UN membership?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by RobinM

Does anyone agree that the one of the primary reasons for the persistence of religious belief is the indoctrination of children? Forgive me if this has already been mentioned...

Completely. My indoctrination as a Catholic gave me a lot of problems as I shed my faith. It was more than rational versus irrational. It was dealing with guilt for even thinking that science showed a more promising means and more accurately representation of reality. It was breaking from family and dealing with intolerant relatives who were deeply moribund in their own faith and openly thought I'd go to hell if I left the church. It was deciding to choice an extremely unpopular path that's I'd not only have hide from friends and family or risk loosing them, but also from strangers who all too often in the US assume atheist less thrust worthy, lack morals or other bad things making them lesser people.

You are a strong willed person to have accomplished this!

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo

It saddens me as a civilian of the EU,... my countries politicians still like to suck up to the USA, most likely thinking they can get a nice job in some institute in the USA, after their political career in our countries are over. It is very clear to me as a plain citizen of a whatever country, the economics of my country sucks, the politicians do not give a shit, if they think the USA is king or god in politics,... while this country is clearly not worth its reputation, and is only consuming itself like a canibal.

May I ask you from which country you are from?

The Netherlands....

There seems to be a general tendicy, atleast from the perspective of the general voting populus,... that politicians in my country only become politicians to better themselves,... rather then working their behind off for the people they are suppose to represent. In the last years we have seen a large number of "written off" politicians within my country, that gotten well payed jobs at other positions, after the general populus wanted to get rid of these fails. Positions in either the EU-gov,... or within global organisations like the UN....

So these Dutch politicians suck at their job within the Netherlands,... the Dutch populus want them GONE (by process of voting most of the time, but sometimes by heavy dispute in media),.... so they get basically promoted away to other jobs, well payed,... as they will only need references from friendly politicians within their own sphere of influence,... to get that layed back and well payed job,...

Seriously,... A politician SUCKS at its job, so do the voters say,... but any international organisation will still accept these loosers, just soley based on references provided by their political friends and kindsmen (who one day may go the same way),... and not looking at what the populus in that politicians country had to say about them?

It makes no sence.... It is one of the reasons, why people have so little faith in organisations like the UN,... as this is one of the organisations that harbor, maintain and pay well for these political refugees.

I was not aware that the political system in the Netherlands was regarded with aversion by the people.
Is the majority of the voting populus also against the UN membership?

Depending on the particular UN topic,... YES. Most Dutch citizens are all to happy being a member of the UN.

They are happy being part of the UN,... but most citizens have no clue what is actually means.

Darwin on Darwin: Darwin
speaking on his own theory: "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."




Darwin said of the eye being formed by evolution: "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Thor Hyderdhal wrote: "Modern science has discovered that about a billion years ago a great variety of highly complex sponges, tribolites, and jellyfish suddenly apPeared. Some extiNct tribilites were then already equipped with more complex and efficient eyes than any of their living relatives today."
"If man evolved from the family of apes, why then did all the missing links disappear, and not the apes? The apes are there, and man, in the fossils and in the flesh and blood. How can evolution have been caused by the surival of the fittest if the apes proved to be better fit for survival than all the missing links between them and man?
"In dissecting life into its most minute component particles, modern scientists have found themselves trapped into a totally impossible deadlock. They have found somEthing termed 'protein,' which is absolutely necessary for the formation of any kind of life. And they have found something else which they have termed DNA, which in turn
is absolutely necessary for the formation of proteins. But proteins are also absolutely necessary for the formation of DNA. Neither of the two can be formed before the other is there already. Scientifically speaking, life can never have evolved unless DNA and protein had been created simultaneously and independantly.
But science has discovered that it is mathematically impossible that any of the two evolved by chance. DNA is composed of five parts, which have been termed 'histones.' The likelihood that even the simplest Of these histones are formed by chance, is estimated to be one in 20 to the hundredth power, a number larger than the total of all the
atoms in the visible parts of the universe. The chance that the first proteins in the ocean are formed at random from drifting atoms has been calculated by scholars to be one in ten followed by 113 zeros, a chance dismissed BY mathematicians as never happening."

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

"In dissecting life into its most minute component particles, modern scientists have found themselves trapped into a totally impossible deadlock. They have found somEthing termed 'protein,' which is absolutely necessary for the formation of any kind of life. And they have found something else which they have termed DNA, which in turn is absolutely necessary for the formation of proteins.

More or less correct.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

But proteins are also absolutely necessary for the formation of DNA. Neither of the two can be formed before the other is there already. Scientifically speaking, life can never have evolved unless DNA and protein had been created simultaneously and independantly. But science has discovered that it is mathematically impossible that any of the two evolved by chance.

Wrong. RNA solves this issue. It can carry genetic information (as observed in viruses) and is capable of catalyzing reactions the way proteins do (ribozymes).

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

DNA is composed of five parts, which have been termed 'histones.'

Wrong. DNA consists of (mostly) two sugar-phosphate backbones and four different bases (A, C, G, T).
Histones are proteins that form the unit around which DNA is coiled in nucleosomes.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The likelihood that even the simplest Of these histones are formed by chance, is estimated to be one in 20 to the hundredth power, a number larger than the total of all the atoms in the visible parts of the universe. The chance that the first proteins in the ocean are formed at random from drifting atoms has been calculated by scholars to be one in ten followed by 113 zeros, a chance dismissed BY mathematicians as never happening."

The feasibility of abiogenesis depends on biochemical reactions, not coin-flipping.
Yet, feel free to provide who did the calculations and how this has any relevance to the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Darwin on Darwin: Darwin
speaking on his own theory: "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

Been reading that Old Time Creationism again, have we?

You seem to have missed the bit of that paragraph where he goes on to say: "To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis."

Note that there was an awful lot that wasn't known by Darwin: plate tectonics, the genetic code, the number of fossils that have been foiund since, etc. So it is very slightly dishonest to pick a single line and try and use it, out of context, as evidence against evolution.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

"The Quote Miner only quotes the question, not the answer that follows, in which Darwin states his belief that the geological record is incomplete, and then outlines which transitional forms he would expect to find if they're found at all."
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Darwin said of the eye being formed by evolution: "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"The Talk.Origins Archive has two articles on this famous and flagrantly out-of-context eye quote: Evolution of the Eye and An Old, Out of Context Quotation. ... Reading what Darwin wrote following the text the creationists quote mine clearly shows that Darwin did not in any way find the evolution of the eye absurd. "
Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

Thor Hyderdhal wrote: "

Who?

The chance that the first proteins in the ocean are formed at random from drifting atoms has been calculated by scholars to be one in ten followed by 113 zeros, a chance dismissed BY mathematicians as never happening.

You may be taking this out of context again but even if not, the whole point is that they didn't form at random. Obviously.

Originally Posted by Strange

You may be taking this out of context again but even if not, the whole point is that they didn't form at random. Obviously.

I have looked for the argument on Google, but it does not seem to come from a source.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I have looked for the argument on Google, but it does not seem to come from a source.

I wouldn't be surprised if Aristarchus, or the creationist site he copied it from, just made it up. It wouldn't be the first time.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

I have looked for the argument on Google, but it does not seem to come from a source.

I wouldn't be surprised if Aristarchus, or the creationist site he copied it from, just made it up. It wouldn't be the first time.

Perhaps.

If AiE feels the need to make a separate thread about it and incorporates the critiques, I might encourage him to do so since I do not wish to drift off topic any further, nor do I want to deteriorate the thread of member Estheria Quintessimo.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

The chance that the first proteins in the ocean are formed at random from drifting atoms has been calculated by scholars to be one in ten followed by 113 zeros, a chance dismissed BY mathematicians as never happening."

If it makes you feel better, most of us in the sciences dismiss that primordial soup hypothesis as well. I'm not sure why it is relevant to this discussion, though.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Darwin on Darwin: Darwin
speaking on his own theory: "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

Been reading that Old Time Creationism again, have we?

You seem to have missed the bit of that paragraph where he goes on to say: "To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis."

Note that there was an awful lot that wasn't known by Darwin: plate tectonics, the genetic code, the number of fossils that have been foiund since, etc. So it is very slightly dishonest to pick a single line and try and use it, out of context, as evidence against evolution.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of intermediate links? geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

"The Quote Miner only quotes the question, not the answer that follows, in which Darwin states his belief that the geological record is incomplete, and then outlines which transitional forms he would expect to find if they're found at all."
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Darwin said of the eye being formed by evolution: "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

"The Talk.Origins Archive has two articles on this famous and flagrantly out-of-context eye quote: Evolution of the Eye and An Old, Out of Context Quotation. ... Reading what Darwin wrote following the text the creationists quote mine clearly shows that Darwin did not in any way find the evolution of the eye absurd. "
Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

Thor Hyderdhal wrote: "

Who?

The chance that the first proteins in the ocean are formed at random from drifting atoms has been calculated by scholars to be one in ten followed by 113 zeros, a chance dismissed BY mathematicians as never happening.

You may be taking this out of context again but even if not, the whole point is that they didn't form at random. Obviously.

If you haven't heard of Thor Hyerdhal you don't have much interest in science. Yes, a lot has been discovered since Darwin, and none of it refutes his own statements.

Source: Green was the Earth on the Seventh Day .. Thor Hyerdhal. He doesn't quote the source of his mathematics, but he was honoured with several Doctorates from several universities so I think he has much more relevance than any of the moderators or posters on this forum.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

If you haven't heard of Thor Hyerdhal you don't have much interest in science.

Of course I have heard of him. He was famous as an explorer, etc. Not as an expert on evolutionary biology.

Yes, a lot has been discovered since Darwin, and none of it refutes his own statements.

Apart from the fact you are quoting him out of context to change the meaning. And, more recent research does answer the questions he raised (not always with the answers he suggested).

See the links I provided for more details.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Source: Green was the Earth on the Seventh Day .. Thor Hyerdhal. He doesn't quote the source of his mathematics, but he was honoured with several Doctorates from several universities so I think he has much more relevance than any of the moderators or posters on this forum.

So that's an argument from authority then. "no need for him to back up his claims. I think he's credible so whatever he says must be true". Is that it? You just have no clue do you?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Source: Green was the Earth on the Seventh Day .. Thor Hyerdhal. He doesn't quote the source of his mathematics, but he was honoured with several Doctorates from several universities so I think he has much more relevance than any of the moderators or posters on this forum.

So, no evidence (again) but another argument from authority. In this case not even an authority on the subject, but an "honorary authority" with degrees he didn't earn.

As noted, even if the mathematics were correct (I see no reason to think it is) it is irrelevant because these things didn't come about by chance.

And if you have such a low opinion of people on this forum, why are you still posting here?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

If you haven't heard of Thor Hyerdhal you don't have much interest in science.

Of course I have heard of him. He was famous as an explorer, etc. Not as an expert on evolutionary biology.

Yes, a lot has been discovered since Darwin, and none of it refutes his own statements.

Apart from the fact you are quoting him out of context to change the meaning. And, more recent research does answer the questions he raised (not always with the answers he suggested).

See the links I provided for more details.

Hyerdhal was much more than an explorer and you would do well to study his sciences and his methods. He actually PROVED his theories at risk of his own life. He was awarded several Doctorates from several universities. His methods and team were so scientific they are continuing long after his departure from this planet. He was what no one on this forum comes close to approaching.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Source: Green was the Earth on the Seventh Day .. Thor Hyerdhal. He doesn't quote the source of his mathematics, but he was honoured with several Doctorates from several universities so I think he has much more relevance than any of the moderators or posters on this forum.

So, no evidence (again) but another argument from authority. In this case not even an authority on the subject, but an "honorary authority" with degrees he didn't earn.

As noted, even if the mathematics were correct (I see no reason to think it is) it is irrelevant because these things didn't come about by chance.

And if you have such a low opinion of people on this forum, why are you still posting here?

I have an extremely low opinion on most of the moderators and Kalster as an administrator .. some of the posters are open to science but most of the mods and Kalster are not, and they are simply exercising the psychotic pleasure of control over other peoples' lives AS FAR AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. I won't return to this forum after today. Some of the posters here are in the same mind as the spirit of moderation, which is why they are still here where they can vent their psychopathic teneancies by venting on others, and the Admin encourages them. What a waste of technology this forum is.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

He actually PROVED his theories at risk of his own life.

As a "scientist" you should know that scientists never "prove" anything. But it seems that this claim isn't entirely true, either:

Heyerdahl's theory of Polynesian origins never gained acceptance among anthropologists.[18]
...
Anthropologist Robert Carl Suggs included a chapter titled "The Kon-Tiki Myth" in his book on Polynesia, concluding that "The Kon-Tiki theory is about as plausible as the tales of Atlantis, Mu, and 'Children of the Sun.' Like most such theories it makes exciting light reading, but as an example of scientific method it fares quite poorly."[24]

Anthropologist and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Wade Davis also criticised Heyerdahl's theory in his book The Wayfinders, which explores the history of Polynesia. Davis says that Heyerdahl "ignored the overwhelming body of linguistic, ethnographic, and ethnobotanical evidence, augmented today by genetic and archaeological data, indicating that he was patently wrong."[25]

Thor Heyerdahl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, someone who ignores evidence in favour of his own pet beliefs. No wonder you are so enamoured of him. Was he sent into exile?

He was awarded several Doctorates from several universities.

Not for any academic work. Do you know what an "honorary degree" is?

Was he sent into exile?

Glad I didn't have liquids in my mouth then!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

He actually PROVED his theories at risk of his own life.

As a "scientist" you should know that scientists never "prove" anything. But it seems that this claim isn't entirely true, either:

Heyerdahl's theory of Polynesian origins never gained acceptance among anthropologists.[18]
...
Anthropologist Robert Carl Suggs included a chapter titled "The Kon-Tiki Myth" in his book on Polynesia, concluding that "The Kon-Tiki theory is about as plausible as the tales of Atlantis, Mu, and 'Children of the Sun.' Like most such theories it makes exciting light reading, but as an example of scientific method it fares quite poorly."[24]

Anthropologist and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Wade Davis also criticised Heyerdahl's theory in his book The Wayfinders, which explores the history of Polynesia. Davis says that Heyerdahl "ignored the overwhelming body of linguistic, ethnographic, and ethnobotanical evidence, augmented today by genetic and archaeological data, indicating that he was patently wrong."[25]

Thor Heyerdahl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, someone who ignores evidence in favour of his own pet beliefs. No wonder you are so enamoured of him. Was he sent into exile?

He was awarded several Doctorates from several universities.

Not for any academic work. Do you know what an "honorary degree" is?

An honourary degree is something you cannot even begin to approach. Hyerddhal DID have university degrees. You have certainly swallowed the who package, including the lie that scientists cannot prove their theories. Opposition to Hyerdhal was based on misconception that he was trying to displace theory, not supplement it. But the administration of this forum is opposed to science so I won't be back after today. By the way, Hyerdhal's 'American Indians in the Pacific' is an 800 page book available in public libraries. IF you read it you will see what may be the first example of pure science in their entire life.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Was he sent into exile?

Glad I didn't have liquids in my mouth then!

Perhaps had less liquid in your mouth less often your mind might work to the edification of science. Alcohol stuns.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Was he sent into exile?

Glad I didn't have liquids in my mouth then!

Perhaps had less liquid in your mouth less often your mind might work to the edification of science. Alcohol stuns.

That's a nice jab there. Well done. Pow, right in the kisser.

I won't be back after today

Fine. Your unsupported claims, ignorance of the scientific method and much basic science, gratuitous insults, and generally unpleasant demeanour probably wont be missed much.

[QUOTE=KALSTER;485807]

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Was he sent into exile?

Glad I didn't have liquids in my mouth then!

Perhaps had less liquid in your mouth less often your mind might work to the edification of science. Alcohol stuns.

A juvenile quip that is undermined by how drunk you sound.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

You have certainly swallowed the who package, including the lie that scientists cannot prove their theories. .

This is a very odd statement. Why do you think it is a "lie" that scientific theories are not proved? Surely it is absolutely standard in science that theories are models of reality that are provisional in nature - due to being open to modification in the light of new evidence. How, then, can a theory be "proved"? What could constitute proof, when they might in future be shown wrong or incomplete?

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Source: Green was the Earth on the Seventh Day .. Thor Hyerdhal. He doesn't quote the source of his mathematics, but he was honoured with several Doctorates from several universities so I think he has much more relevance than any of the moderators or posters on this forum.

So, no evidence (again) but another argument from authority. In this case not even an authority on the subject, but an "honorary authority" with degrees he didn't earn.

As noted, even if the mathematics were correct (I see no reason to think it is) it is irrelevant because these things didn't come about by chance.

And if you have such a low opinion of people on this forum, why are you still posting here?

I have an extremely low opinion on most of the moderators and Kalster as an administrator .. some of the posters are open to science but most of the mods and Kalster are not, and they are simply exercising the psychotic pleasure of control over other peoples' lives AS FAR AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. I won't return to this forum after today. Some of the posters here are in the same mind as the spirit of moderation, which is why they are still here where they can vent their psychopathic teneancies by venting on others, and the Admin encourages them. What a waste of technology this forum is.

Hooray.

Always better to jump before you are pushed.

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

I have an extremely low opinion on most of the moderators and Kalster as an administrator .. some of the posters are open to science but most of the mods and Kalster are not, and they are simply exercising the psychotic pleasure of control over other peoples' lives AS FAR AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. I won't return to this forum after today. Some of the posters here are in the same mind as the spirit of moderation, which is why they are still here where they can vent their psychopathic teneancies by venting on others, and the Admin encourages them. What a waste of technology this forum is.

This is all a steaming pile of horse crap.

Of course you have a problem with mods and admin here. You don't follow rules, you're arrogant and belligerent, you offer nothing of substance or value... If I were a mod, you wouldn't be here right now. You should be thanking the current set of moderators for having the patience to let you remain.

Think this thread has gone on long enough. Feel free to report this post and ask for it to be split off from the off topic stuff if anyone feels it is worth saving.