Thread: Imagine a world without religion

It's easy if you try (John Lennon).

Reading Flights of Fancy by Richard Dawkins, I'm beginning to wonder why he takes just 3 paragraphs to bash religion when this is supposed to be a book about the evolution of flight.

There's no doubt religion has inspired great architecture and music, and was once more creative than destructive.
Atheists don't have a church, but like Dawkins says, you can't herd cats.

So what would a world without religion look like?
Would humans just find another reason to fight?

Originally Posted by ox

So what would a world without religion look like?

Politicians and famous actors, singers, writers etc, would be idolized, much like they are now.

Putin and Xi are behaving like gods with their power over people. And presidents-for-life, etc.

Neil Young and others just humbled Spotify - to some extent.

Many others have dictated policy without religious backing, and other boycotts have been effective at times.

It seems we are already seeing a great deal of what the world would be like without religion. Hmmmm.......

Hard to make a call on this one since we are all brainwashed to some extent from the influence of religions during the evolution of civilization(s).

But in the end, probably not a lot different. The ultimate behavior of people seems molded more by mortals than by religion. Money and power are the ultimate religions, and they have probably had more influence than any other format.

can somebody pls suspend Double Helix? i know this forum is dead but why it turned into a youtube comment?

edit: i just submitted a report but i cross my fingers

Your report (like the majority of them) has been ignored as baseless.

You probably wouldn’t have to cross your fingers or perform any ritual the way people who believe in some sort of magical fix do. Perhaps more emphasis placed on calculating percentages of success before putting plan into action.

Originally Posted by xingha

can somebody pls suspend Double Helix? i know this forum is dead but why it turned into a youtube comment?

edit: i just submitted a report but i cross my fingers

The forum isn't dead. Looking at all the members and guests who read the posts tells us that - there are many every day. There are almost 800 members and guests on line right now!

What the forum lacks are many boneheads posting drivel. We can do without them. It is one of the reasons most of us post here. But many people read these forum posts, which is what you really want to stop.

For instance, this post (click on the title here to read it): Is China a Global Threat?! Sanctions initiated to prevent the use of U.S. technology in their supercomputers." has been viewed by almost 1,800 members and guests. Most of them doubtlessly agree.

And there are a lot of important things on youtube, like global news telling us the truth. Here is one of them (many hundreds more like it can be posted if you need convincing):


"China committed genocide against Uyghurs, independent tribunal rules – BBC News"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bng0pr94QOc


Try some spirited debate instead of futile attempts at suppression. The truth might set you free!

I wonder how many theists try to imagine no religion but an inner voice tells them they better not because, well, some unseen entity is watching, listening and waiting to send your soul to Hell for having those thoughts.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I wonder how many theists try to imagine no religion but an inner voice tells them they better not because, well, some unseen entity is watching, listening and waiting to send your soul to Hell for having those thoughts.

Do you mean like in Orwell's 1984 and the thought police (Thinkpol)?
It might be where AI is heading, as in knowing your thoughts.

What started with superstition became religion became the candle in the dark (science) is set to become a total loss of individual freedom.
Caught hundreds of times a day on CCTV cameras is nothing compared with what might come.
Devices everywhere to detect your brain patterns and prevent crime well before it happens.
There will be outrage, but we'll be told it's there to keep us safe.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Politicians and famous actors, singers, writers etc, would be idolized, much like they are now.
Putin and Xi are behaving like gods with their power over people. And presidents-for-life, etc.

This might be of interest:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...ndbody-history

I hear today that a mammal by the name of Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury admits that despite his unshakeable faith he suffers from severe depression and self contempt.
Could it be something to do with his departure from the world of reality in order to embrace supernatural beliefs or might it simply be a medical condition?
The statistics for faith and depression suggest that if you have faith you are more likely to suffer depression.
90% of monks report this condition. I have to feel sorry for these guys who have chosen to lock themselves away or live up a tree or on a remote island.
Whatever real life throws at you, by not having faith I think you are more likely to be able to deal with it.

Originally Posted by ox

The statistics for faith and depression suggest that if you have faith you are more likely to suffer depression.

What statistics?

It would prove nothing to present statistics here, but if 90% of monks really are affected then just what is the point of shutting yourself away from the world?
I've met some monks and found them to be gloomy, irritable, lazy, greedy, sarcastic, and of course ignorant of the outside world. That would also apply to faith leaders.
There is a likelihood that once a child who has been got at by people of faith and after becoming adult retains the superstitious beliefs of religion, a feeling of frailty and inferiority may well lead to depression.
They have effectively cornered themselves and it takes a special person to admit to being wrong.

Originally Posted by ox

It would prove nothing to present statistics here, but if 90% of monks really are affected..

Yes it would.This is a " science of religion" subforum

What do you base your 90% figure on?

The figures I have is that over 89% of monks suffer at least some category of depression and 2% suffer it severely.
To live with it they frequently take to smoking, and are unaware of the direct and passive effects.
Nearly all Buddhist monks are likely to be smokers.
It is also supposed to subdue their sexual desire.

When one Christian monk was asked on TV why he smoked, he replied: But the Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not smoke."
Another told me he doesn't like outdoor walking.
There is also a widespread belief among Christian faith leaders that simple yoga and tai chi moves which promote your well being are evil.

My conclusion is that religion is bad for both physical and mental health.

Look,just give a reliable source for your 89% figure or you are making it up (God knows why ,maybe you are just obtuse?)

The source I'm referring to says this.

Responses in the current study indicate that 89.3% of monastics fall in the minimal and mild range for depression. Interestingly over 10% of the monastics fell in the moderate and above range, with 2% categorized as experiencing moderately severe or severe depression.

I don't know the person who wrote it and I don't know how reliable it is. I don't know if it applies to all types of monks.
But if someone locks themselves away for years they are very likely to have mental health problems. These problems may have arisen before they incarcerated themselves.
If it makes you happy I'll withdraw the claim, but I know if I entered such a place I'd be worried about my mental health.
Read The Spiral Staircase by Karen Armstrong. She didn't last long.
People that stay in these institutions seem to be lost souls or act like they have spiritual intoxication.
What I do know is that no cleric ever speaks rationally.

Originally Posted by ox

The source I'm referring to says this.

Responses in the current study indicate that 89.3% of monastics fall in the minimal and mild range for depression. Interestingly over 10% of the monastics fell in the moderate and above range, with 2% categorized as experiencing moderately severe or severe depression.

I don't know the person who wrote it and I don't know how reliable it is. I don't know if it applies to all types of monks.
But if someone locks themselves away for years they are very likely to have mental health problems. These problems may have arisen before they incarcerated themselves.
If it makes you happy I'll withdraw the claim, but I know if I entered such a place I'd be worried about my mental health.
Read The Spiral Staircase by Karen Armstrong. She didn't last long.
People that stay in these institutions seem to be lost souls or act like they have spiritual intoxication.
What I do know is that no cleric ever speaks rationally.

Well that wasn't hard

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.752820/full

Not sure I can be bothered to go through it now **as it seems quite detailed ,but it looks like it might be reliable for Tibetan monks living in those circumstances.

No idea if that would carry through to other cultures,circumstances etc

** put it on to my to do list

I think Dawkins made the point that only religion has the power to self imprison you, and no doubt it applies to monks of all faiths.

In the case of Tibetan monks their hero from the past is Milarepa.
This guy seems to have been as much of a superman as Jesus or Mohammed.
While the latter ascended up to heaven either unaided or on the back of a horse, Milarepa was fond of flying through the air.
He could also control the weather by sending hailstorms to rain down on his enemies.

Religion is the prime mover of the supernatural and it only takes a rational mind to doubt it.

I can’t even imagine being religious. My mind refuses to go there. So maybe it’s just as hard to be religious and then leave it.

Some people can't leave it.
If I believe in anything it's naturalism as proposed by Sean Carroll.
Can you ever make a case for supernatural religion. I don't think so.
Can you make a case for everything having a natural cause. Yes.

Originally Posted by ox

Can you ever make a case for supernatural religion. I don't think so.

Proponents of a simulated universe by suggesting we don’t really exist, including our interaction with the simulated world, are they considering this existence as supernatural?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Proponents of a simulated universe by suggesting we don’t really exist, including our interaction with the simulated world, are they considering this existence as supernatural?

There is natural and supernatural religion.
I'd define the former as anything which is real to our senses. Sport as one example.
The latter is an anything goes non scientific belief in the likes of gods, miracles, virgin births, people rising from the dead.
Christians talk of the unseen world. As usual they don't know what they're talking about.

Could you enlarge on the simulated universe idea.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Proponents of a simulated universe by suggesting we don’t really exist, including our interaction with the simulated world, are they considering this existence as supernatural?

There is natural and supernatural religion.
I'd define the former as anything which is real to our senses. Sport as one example.
The latter is an anything goes non scientific belief in the likes of gods, miracles, virgin births, people rising from the dead.
Christians talk of the unseen world. As usual they don't know what they're talking about.

Could you enlarge on the simulated universe idea.

Was standing in a line at the airport recently to buy a coffee, a long queue so took some time. While slowly edging forward couldn’t help but notice this teenage kid nearby wearing the visor/headset and other attachments that were producing a visual game of sorts he was obviously playing, if you take into account all of his movements. I would say that his senses were definitely reacting to something that really isn’t there, a simulated reality in my books. But I can’t say if that falls into what you’re saying, real if sensed.

Plenty of vids out about the universe being a holograph or simulation, not sure if that’s one and the same though. Think some French scientists came up with the idea. Of course the suggestion is if it’s simulated then some entity/life form must be responsible.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Plenty of vids out about the universe being a holograph or simulation, not sure if that’s one and the same though. Think some French scientists came up with the idea. Of course the suggestion is if it’s simulated then some entity/life form must be responsible.

I blame ashrams.



I'm sure this is a simulation of sorts.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Plenty of vids out about the universe being a holograph or simulation, not sure if that’s one and the same though. Think some French scientists came up with the idea. Of course the suggestion is if it’s simulated then some entity/life form must be responsible.

I blame ashrams.



I'm sure this is a simulation of sorts.

Is hypnosis reality? When under the spell are senses playing out some weird visual/sensual reality? The folks in video look like they’ve been led to think they’re on a vintage belt exercising machine. Might be good way to lose weight.

Don't think they'll lose weight. It's supposed to be healing from shaking.
If it does work, maybe it only work in a crowd.
The guru or whoever he is looks overweight to me which proves it doesn't.

It would help if we had a control group who just went for a walk.
Hypnosis only works if you know you are being hypnotized, I understand. And then probably only 5% of the time.
I guess we need to know more about the different parts of the brain to draw any conclusion.
There again, if you think something is good for you, maybe it is in some strange way.

Originally Posted by ox

It's easy if you try (John Lennon).


So what would a world without religion look like?

All we have to do to answer this is understand that there’s no evidence that the concept of ‘religion’ existed anywhere in the world prior to its very modern invention by Christian High Scholastics in the 13th century. The same with the concept of ‘supernatural”.

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Originally Posted by ox

It's easy if you try (John Lennon).


So what would a world without religion look like?

All we have to do to answer this is understand that there’s no evidence that the concept of ‘religion’ existed anywhere in the world prior to its very modern invention by Christian High Scholastics in the 13th century. The same with the concept of ‘supernatural”.

Are you saying the word didn't exist? Religions were around before.

Originally Posted by mathman

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Originally Posted by ox

It's easy if you try (John Lennon).


So what would a world without religion look like?

All we have to do to answer this is understand that there’s no evidence that the concept of ‘religion’ existed anywhere in the world prior to its very modern invention by Christian High Scholastics in the 13th century. The same with the concept of ‘supernatural”.

Are you saying the word didn't exist? Religions were around before.

Not just the word. There was no concept of ‘religion’ and no term for it in any culture. Proto Indo European has no even slightly similar concept. Japan had no term for it. Neither did Classical Greek, Chinese, Islamic or Native American cultures. Religions didn’t exist before because the concept of ‘religion‘, which is necessarily dependent on the concept of ‘supernatural’, was unknown as was the concept of ‘supernatural’. Both concepts are very modern inventions that were forced onto long existing mnemotechnical traditions that weren’t religion and had no supernatural component. Ancient mnemotechnical traditions were deeply rooted in highly advanced astro-mathematics / astrophysics and geological, biological and psychological science. Rites and ceremonies were mnemonic tools used to preserve knowledge / data in the greatest number of biological hard drives for the longest period of time.

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Ancient mnemotechnical traditions were deeply rooted in highly advanced astro-mathematics / astrophysics and geological, biological and psychological science.

Source?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Ancient mnemotechnical traditions were deeply rooted in highly advanced astro-mathematics / astrophysics and geological, biological and psychological science.

Source?

Not sure what you are asking for here. Are you asking for a link to someone else saying this? I’ve grabbed a couple of relevant links for you and there has been tons of peer-reviewed literature generated during the past four decades re: this. Search relevant keywords and include .edu and / or .pdf in your query.

Ancient people tens of thousands of years ago were tracking very long cycling celestial mechanics with an accuracy of (at least) within 250 years. Our Neanderthal cousins were tracking the approx 26k year cycle of axial precession at least 40k years ago and the astro-mathematics of it are encoded in geoconstructions and gnomons and in the mnemotechnical oral / symbolic traditions of cultures around the world. For example, they are encoded in the Borobudur construction and the Classical Chinese ‘historical prose’ Mu Tien Tzu Chuan (Narrative of the Son of Heaven, King Mu) is now known to be a wholly symbolic narrative of celestial mechanics and specifically of one segment of the precessional cycle, not the story of a mundane king’s journey. Evidence of this knowledge is found in the material culture of premodern / ancient cultures around the world. No woo woo.

- - -

“They reveal that, perhaps as far back as 40,000 years ago, humans kept track of time using knowledge of how the position of the stars slowly changes over thousands of years.

The findings suggest that ancient people understood an effect caused by the gradual shift of Earth's rotational axis. Discovery of this phenomenon, called precession of the equinoxes, was previously credited to the ancient Greeks.

Around the time that Neanderthals became extinct, and perhaps before humankind settled in Western Europe, people could define dates to within 250 years, the study shows.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...khhyWEBL5UPumA

- - -

“We show here that this level of astronomical sophistication was known already within the last ice- age, and very likely by the time Homo sapiens entered western Europe around 40,000 years ago”

https://www.athensjournals.gr/his.../2019-5-1-1-Sweatman.pdf

- - -

Ancient people had very good reason to track celestial mechanics which function as a grand clock. Every approx 13-15k years, a geomagnetic excursion occurs. These excursions radically weaken / unravel the terrestrial geomagnetic field and expose terrestrial lifeforms to high levels of interstellar, galactic and solar radiation that impair reproductive function, disorder terrestrial operating systems and trigger back-to-back extreme climate catastrophes, supervolcanic or converging volcanic activity, mass extinction, culture collapse, dangerous human population reduction and places the last remaining iteration of ‘human’ in extreme extistential crisis over and over like clockwork. Peer-reviewed every which way and noting that the most recent excursion occurred 13k years ago and that nine iterations of ‘human’ have extincted during just the past 300k years leaving just us. Ancient people obsessively tracked the Sky. Modern people babble about their feelies and ‘worship’ fictions.

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Not sure what you are asking for here. Are you asking for a link to someone else saying this?

More or less.

I’ve grabbed a couple of relevant links for you and there has been tons of peer-reviewed literature generated during the past four decades re: this.

So, out of "tons of peer-reviewed literature, you manage to provide TWO links - both by the same guy.

Search relevant keywords and include .edu and / or .pdf in your query.

Um, no. It's not up to me to search for support for your contention.

No woo woo.

Yeah? Opinions differ...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Jeff108

Not sure what you are asking for here. Are you asking for a link to someone else saying this?

More or less.

I’ve grabbed a couple of relevant links for you and there has been tons of peer-reviewed literature generated during the past four decades re: this.

So, out of "tons of peer-reviewed literature, you manage to provide TWO links - both by the same guy.

Search relevant keywords and include .edu and / or .pdf in your query.

Um, no. It's not up to me to search for support for your contention.

No woo woo.

Yeah? Opinions differ...

“you manage to provide TWO links”

You may not be but you sure sound very young. Did you expect me to gather it all and do a data dump here just for you? I assumed that you would do your own research based on the info I provided but that’s not trending high these days apparently.

“It's not up to me to search for support for your contention”

Nice dodge, sweetie, but I posted the tip to encourage you to do some research before emotionally reacting. That you didn’t bother to and instead played the person instead of the ball tells us everything we need to know about you.

Originally Posted by Jeff108

You may not be but you sure sound very young.

And you, apparently, are incapable of checking a poster's profile. But I'll take the "young" as a compliment.

Nice dodge, sweetie, but I posted the tip to encourage you to do some research before emotionally reacting. That you didn’t bother to and instead played the person instead of the ball tells us everything we need to know about you.

Still wrong. It's YOUR contention, ergo it's up to YOU to support it. Like I said, it's not up to me to search for support for your claim.
Do you have anything more than links to a probable loon?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Jeff108

You may not be but you sure sound very young.

And you, apparently, are incapable of checking a poster's profile. But I'll take the "young" as a compliment.

Nice dodge, sweetie, but I posted the tip to encourage you to do some research before emotionally reacting. That you didn’t bother to and instead played the person instead of the ball tells us everything we need to know about you.

Still wrong. It's YOUR contention, ergo it's up to YOU to support it. Like I said, it's not up to me to search for support for your claim.
Do you have anything more than links to a probable loon?

You seem intent on hijacking this thread for your own emotional gratification. Can we get back to talking about religion or must everything be all about your anger, resentment and hostility? So boring and very typical of old 20th century men.

[ Dywyddyr: set to ‘ignore’ ]

Originally Posted by Jeff108

You seem intent on hijacking this thread for your own emotional gratification.

Oops, wrong.

Can we get back to talking about religion

Sure. So long as you keep the woo out of it.

or must everything be all about your anger, resentment and hostility? So boring and very typical of old 20th century men.

Oh, is that playing the man and not the ball?

[ Dywyddyr: set to ‘ignore’ ]

Good luck with that: most fora don't allow posters to put mods/ admin on Ignore.


Given your response, may I assume that the "tons of peer-reviewed literature" doesn't actually exist?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Jeff108

You seem intent on hijacking this thread for your own emotional gratification.

Oops, wrong.

Can we get back to talking about religion

Sure. So long as you keep the woo out of it.

or must everything be all about your anger, resentment and hostility? So boring and very typical of old 20th century men.

Oh, is that playing the man and not the ball?

[ Dywyddyr: set to ‘ignore’ ]

Good luck with that: most fora don't allow posters to put mods/ admin on Ignore.

Given your response, may I assume that the "tons of peer-reviewed literature" doesn't actually exist?

Oh look. How cute. Mr. Fighty McAngry is exhibiting more fighty and angry in his attempt to hijack the thread and work out his 20th century daddy issues (hey, you’re good with playing the person so, yeah ...ok ... ]

“So long as you keep the woo out of it.”

Tell us ... which premodern / ancient mnemotechnical traditions have you extensively and formally studied in the academic environment and in the field? Preferably this century.

“Given your response, may I assume that the "tons of peer-reviewed literature" doesn't actually exist.”

I guess you’ll never know since you’re too resentful, angry, hostile to do even minimal research so that you actually can play the ball and too uncivil to hold an adult conversation.

“Good luck with that: most fora don't allow posters to put mods/ admin on Ignore.”

Watch me.

And again you'd rather make personal attacks than provide support for your claims. Keep it up and you won't be here much longer.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

And again you'd rather make personal attacks than provide support for your claims. Keep it up and you won't be here much longer.

It’s people like you that are the reason why forums died. Little tyrants with limited knowledge and unresolved psychological issues. Go blow up another thread because you feel dated and obsolete and intellectually challenged. I’m already gone, angry dude. This place is dead and toxic.

Originally Posted by ox

The source I'm referring to says this.

Responses in the current study indicate that 89.3% of monastics fall in the minimal and mild range for depression. Interestingly over 10% of the monastics fell in the moderate and above range, with 2% categorized as experiencing moderately severe or severe depression.

I don't know the person who wrote it and I don't know how reliable it is. I don't know if it applies to all types of monks.
But if someone locks themselves away for years they are very likely to have mental health problems. These problems may have arisen before they incarcerated themselves.
If it makes you happy I'll withdraw the claim, but I know if I entered such a place I'd be worried about my mental health.
Read The Spiral Staircase by Karen Armstrong. She didn't last long.
People that stay in these institutions seem to be lost souls or act like they have spiritual intoxication.
What I do know is that no cleric ever speaks rationally.

That actually tells me that it is a good thing. Anyone who doesn't delude them self would be depressed in the world humanity has lived in.

Humanity for 10,000 years has been caught in a malthusian dillema. Perpetually having children at a rate the creates exponential population growth until, on a per capita basis, resources get to be too scarce for the next generation to possibly feed itself. Then there is a war, and we kill a bunch of each other. The per capita resource quantities go back up again, and then we feel really bad about what we did and say we won't do it again. Then we go have huge oversized families, to start the process over again.

Xianity and some of the other major monotheistic religions do a really good job of making us ask ourselves why we kill one another. Tell ourselves how horrible we are for doing it. But then.... offer no counsel in how to avoid doing it again. Indeed, many groups, such as Catholics and Muslims, actively encourage their followers to do exactly the thing that will inevitably cause the next war : have big families.

And for 10,000 years we didn't have much choice. Without a favorable young to old ratio, there simply wouldn't be enough workers to raise enough crops or hunt enough animals (depending on which path society was taking for food.)

Of course any Xian who actually reads their holy book is going to get depressed!. When they realize they shouldn't kill each other, but they are probably going to have to.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

And again you'd rather make personal attacks than provide support for your claims. Keep it up and you won't be here much longer.

"
https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?3,664063,664090#msg-664090"

"Please note that UFO topics should be posted on the Supernatural board.

Cheers,
Richard Fusniak
Moderator"

Are you paying attention?That is proper moderation.(and you might tone down the bs detector while you are at it)

Last year I met a man who who insisted Hancock was right on all things.
I insist he's wrong on everything. I'll improve the link to his forum.

https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?3,664063,664090#msg-664090"

Originally Posted by The Raven

That actually tells me that it is a good thing. Anyone who doesn't delude them self would be depressed in the world humanity has lived in.

So after millions of years of human evolution to create a more resilient species to fight against disease and settle disputes we're are still depressed?

Humanity for 10,000 years has been caught in a malthusian dillema. Perpetually having children at a rate the creates exponential population growth until, on a per capita basis, resources get to be too scarce for the next generation to possibly feed itself. Then there is a war, and we kill a bunch of each other. The per capita resource quantities go back up again, and then we feel really bad about what we did and say we won't do it again. Then we go have huge oversized families, to start the process over again.

Just say Darwinism next time.

Xianity and some of the other major monotheistic religions do a really good job of making us ask ourselves why we kill one another.

That's because they don't understand Darwin.

Of course any Xian who actually reads their holy book is going to get depressed!.

Strange how God, Moses, the prophets ever mention anything about evolution.

When they realize they shouldn't kill each other, but they are probably going to have to.

That's because the don't understand evolution and would prefer their ancient unscientific text to all others.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by The Raven

That actually tells me that it is a good thing. Anyone who doesn't delude them self would be depressed in the world humanity has lived in.

So after millions of years of human evolution to create a more resilient species to fight against disease and settle disputes we're are still depressed?

We didn't evolve to live the way we live. Most species are happy when they follow their instincts.

For 80,000 years during the ice age, our ancestors hunted mammoth and giant deer. They bred at replacement level, and consequently didn't reach large population levels. Many skeletons are found with healed fractures, but not much in the way of tell tale signs of warfare. (The fractures make sense from hunting 5+ ton animals with tusks and/or antlers.)

Ask yourself: why do most video games involve killing monsters, which then drop xp and gold? Looks to me like a "hunting and gathering" simulator, designed to placate a being that derives satisfaction from hunting and gathering.

Only the last 10,000 years have been humans killing humans, and all that other stuff. 10,000 years isn't long enough to completely adapt.

Humanity for 10,000 years has been caught in a malthusian dillema. Perpetually having children at a rate the creates exponential population growth until, on a per capita basis, resources get to be too scarce for the next generation to possibly feed itself. Then there is a war, and we kill a bunch of each other. The per capita resource quantities go back up again, and then we feel really bad about what we did and say we won't do it again. Then we go have huge oversized families, to start the process over again.

Just say Darwinism next time.

What I should do is point out how this differs from the 80,000 years prior. Which do you think determined more of our DNA? The 80,000, or the 10,000?

Xianity and some of the other major monotheistic religions do a really good job of making us ask ourselves why we kill one another.

That's because they don't understand Darwin.

Darwinism doesn't necessarily favor animals killing their own species. There are cases of it, like Black Widow Spiders, and some animals are territorial. Male lions are known to kill all the cubs left over from a prior male when they take over a pride.

But most animals, apart from lemings and locusts, don't go through the kind of "boom" and "bust" population cycle that humans do.


When the Mammoths died, humanity had to scramble to find another way to subsist, and unfortunately found one that creates "boom" and "bust" population cycles. Our intelligence allowed us to whip something up, but we haven't yet had time to evolve to enjoy it. (And with nuclear weapons now, we had best not continue trying to...)

Of course any Xian who actually reads their holy book is going to get depressed!.

Strange how God, Moses, the prophets ever mention anything about evolution.

The ancients had an even more dismal view than Darwin does. They believed it was all downhill. That's why peasants couldn't become nobles, even though nobles could fail and fall from nobility.

When they realize they shouldn't kill each other, but they are probably going to have to.

That's because the don't understand evolution and would prefer their ancient unscientific text to all others.

Or it could be because humans didn't evolve to kill each other.

I think generally, whenever you feel an emotion, it is because you evolved to feel it. Feeling sad about killing another human being is an evolved trait, not a constructed one.

Please don't post waffle.

I'm just expanding. I've been studying this for a long time. Trying to figure out why people have the social instincts they have.

Then it occurred to me: evolution is slow. If you want to know why a trait has evolved, you need to look at a very, very large amount of time. I started watching documentaries about things like the "natufian" culture, which is the earliest known agricultural culture. A lot of very unhappy transitions took place, which mostly coincide with the "Younger Dryas" event cold snap that took out most of the Mammoth population.

Family size increased dramatically in order to provide sufficient labor to grow and harvest crops. The crops provided enough food, but each generation had to expand its lands for it to work. 10 kids can't just subdivide their parents' plot 10 ways (and if they can, then the next 10 won't be able to subdivide it again... etc....) Earth is big, but not infinitely big, and inevitably the land runs out.

The ones who continued to hunt/gather, had to hunt small game, which took more work per kilogram of food.

It's a hard pill to swallow, to realize that we are living a worse way of life than our ancestors. An even harder pill to realize we can't go back.


But there is some hope: automation. With enough automation we can go back to replacement population growth. If you're already looking at putting half your young population on welfare because there are no jobs for them, then you might as well just put a higher percentage on pension. Young to old ratio can shift back, but we'll need to continue industrializing.

Originally Posted by The Raven

Then it occurred to me: evolution is slow.

Does that apply to viruses?

Family size increased dramatically in order to provide sufficient labor to grow and harvest crops...It's a hard pill to swallow

Contraceptive?

to realize that we are living a worse way of life than our ancestors.

A lawless society full of fear with no chance of going far, it was a world of raw survival only.

An even harder pill to realize we can't go back.

Correct, but why would you want to go back to a world ruled by superstition?

But there is some hope: automation. With enough automation we can go back to replacement population growth. If you're already looking at putting half your young population on welfare because there are no jobs for them, then you might as well just put a higher percentage on pension. Young to old ratio can shift back, but we'll need to continue industrializing.

You're expert at contradiction.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by The Raven

Then it occurred to me: evolution is slow.

Does that apply to viruses?

It's slow relative to the lifespan of the species. Viruses have incredibly short life spans.

Family size increased dramatically in order to provide sufficient labor to grow and harvest crops...It's a hard pill to swallow

Contraceptive?

to realize that we are living a worse way of life than our ancestors.

A lawless society full of fear with no chance of going far, it was a world of raw survival only.

They get painted that way, but there actually is no evidence, none at all, that they really were lawless or barbaric.

An even harder pill to realize we can't go back.

Correct, but why would you want to go back to a world ruled by superstition?

We still live in a world ruled by superstition. They're called "Christians" and some are called "Muslims". They blow up buildings and lobby to keep their gods' decrees in law.

But there is some hope: automation. With enough automation we can go back to replacement population growth. If you're already looking at putting half your young population on welfare because there are no jobs for them, then you might as well just put a higher percentage on pension. Young to old ratio can shift back, but we'll need to continue industrializing.

You're expert at contradiction.

To an extremist, any moderate position appears contradictory.

Originally Posted by The Raven

They get painted that way, but there actually is no evidence, none at all, that they really were lawless or barbaric.

So evidence of skull damage from sharp objects was due to falling on their own swords?

https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/f...-neolithic.htm

I will concede that humans have not changed that much in their type of behaviour from the stone age to the phone age.

https://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoo...-to-phone-age/

I will also concede that for some people the Earth is flat and they still don't understand that it's the Earth that is actually spinning.

Originally Posted by ox

I will also concede that for some people the Earth is flat and they still don't understand that it's the Earth that is actually spinning.

Reading some of these recent posts suggests some people's brains are also spinning.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Reading some of these recent posts suggests some people's brains are also spinning.

Everything is an illusion and our brains are being constantly deceived.

The sun rises and sets but it's the Earth that's spinning.
The Earth only appears to be flat
Matter appears solid but it's a field.
The natural world appears to have been designed but it never was.
The present does not exist and the future never comes.

Out of our failure to understand reality comes religion.
Sacred texts are interpreted in any way possible, even if it means believing in the supernatural.
Jesus was both man and god depending on your point of view.
He was both Jew and Gentile.
There is nothing so strange as what people want to believe.

Originally Posted by ox

There is nothing so strange as what people want to believe.

And if anything is infinite, it would seem that this aspect of human behavior approaches that definition.

"Sacred texts" were written by people. Later people deemed them "sacred".

Originally Posted by mathman

"Sacred texts" were written by people. Later people deemed them "sacred".

If a ranking member of the political structure has a message he or she wants to get across they could say it came from a deity of some kind.

That would give it extra force as well as allowing them to plausibly deny authorship.
The origins of religious belief must surely be very very hard to fathom but once the idea took hold it was the gift that kept on giving (to this day Putin uses the concept to maintain his hand on the throat of Publicus Russus)

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by The Raven

They get painted that way, but there actually is no evidence, none at all, that they really were lawless or barbaric.

So evidence of skull damage from sharp objects was due to falling on their own swords?

https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/f...-neolithic.htm

You'll notice the word "neolithic" in that link? The Neolithic began after the Younger Dryas. I was discussing the era prior to the Younger Dryas.

Indeed, my whole point was that the events of the Younger Dryas were what drove humanity into an era of larger than replacement reproduction and consequently human vs. human warfare.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/his...olithic-Period

The stone age continued for a while after the transition to agriculture, larger families, and the rise of human vs. human warfare. I can understand the confusion.

But actually the link fully SUPPORTS my point. It doesn't in any way contradict it.



---

A point I intend to make further on is that that Abrahamic religions, and many other religions of the neolithic era were actually meant to address the "new, harder way of life".

Codify it into law, and teach people the "live by the sweat of their brow", or be warriors, or otherwise engage in the new survival paradigm. The "flood myth", and its intentional vilification of those who lived prior to the Younger Dryas event as sinful, was an attempt to wipe out the memory of the older (and now impossible) way of life.

Originally Posted by The Raven

A point I intend to make further on is that that Abrahamic religions, and many other religions of the neolithic era were actually meant to address the "new, harder way of life".

References would be helpful please.

I'm going to need to devote some time to this. (I did mention that I intended to make this point later on, and not immediately, right?)

Let's start with farming being a worse way of life. We can turn to our old friend Jared Diamond:

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race

As for the claim that agriculture encouraged the flowering of art by providing us with leisure time, modern hunter-gatherers have at least as much free time as do farmers. The whole emphasis on leisure time as a critical factor seems to me misguided. Gorillas have had ample free time to build their own Parthenon, had they wanted to. While post-agricultural technological advances did make new art forms possible and preservation of art easier, great paintings and sculptures were already being produced by hunter-gatherers 15,000 years ago, and were still being produced as recently as the last century by such hunter-gatherers as some Eskimos and the Indians of the Pacific Northwest.
Thus with the advent of agriculture and elite became better off, but most people became worse off. Instead of swallowing the progressivist party line that we chose agriculture because it was good for us, we must ask how we got trapped by it despite its pitfalls.
One answer boils down to the adage "Might makes right." Farming could support many more people than hunting, albeit with a poorer quality of life. (Population densities of hunter-gatherers are rarely over one person per ten square miles, while farmers average 100 times that.) Partly, this is because a field planted entirely in edible crops lets one feed far more mouths than a forest with scattered edible plants. Partly, too, it's because nomadic hunter-gatherers have to keep their children spaced at four-year intervals by infanticide and other means, since a mother must carry her toddler until it's old enough to keep up with the adults. Because farm women don't have that burden, they can and often do bear a child every two years.
As population densities of hunter-gatherers slowly rose at the end of the ice ages, bands had to choose between feeding more mouths by taking the first steps toward agriculture, or else finding ways to limit growth. Some bands chose the former solution, unable to anticipate the evils of farming, and seduced by the transient abundance they enjoyed until population growth caught up with increased food production. Such bands outbred and then drove off or killed the bands that chose to remain hunter-gatherers, because a hundred malnourished farmers can still outfight one healthy hunter. It's not that hunter-gatherers abandoned their life style, but that those sensible enough not to abandon it were forced out of all areas except the ones farmers didn't want.

I don't always agree with him, but I agree with him on this, and there are other supports for this, but I'm trying to limit myself to things that aren't pay walled, and try to avoid long documentaries that can be boring to watch (although I do love them.)

The farming communities supported larger numbers, at a cost of worse health. And they accordingly won more wars by weight of sheer numbers.

I believe the worst mistake in human history is not agriculture but allowing the climate to change by human activity following the industrial revolution.
Religion plays a big part. 'Look what God has given you to exploit.'

To what extent does Diamond plagiarize this book?
https://www.routledge.com/Man-the-Hu.../9780202330327

Yeah.... I don't always see eye to eye with Jared Diamond.

Wiki generally agrees the change wasn't entirely toward better living. I prefer to find better sources than wiki, but I'll settle for it right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolit...#Social_change



My interpretation of the Bible is that some of the allegory of the "Garden of Eden" coming to an end relates to the transition to agriculture. Eating "By the sweat of your brow", for example. Even the transition toward a single afterlife, as opposed to continual reincarnation.

It's kind of speculative, but I think in a population stable society, people could form beliefs in literal reincarnation similar to how the Dali Lama is believed to be the same person reincarnating again and again. A person could believe they are the 20th incarnation of Methusela. (And consequently believe Methusela has been alive for 800+ years...) But once the population starts exploding, you start to have to wonder where all the new souls are coming from.

Also people relegated to a life of hard labor in the field, with crumby nutrition and no upward mobility....... they might not WANT to reincarnate, if it's to the same life again. Better to tell them there is a paradise awaiting somewhere beyond, which they can go to. (But only if they are a good little worker, and do everything their leaders have told them to do.)

Religion is an operating system for man to adjust his thoughts and actions according to it.
Religion consists of worldview, rules and prayer.
Ancient religions are revelations.
In ancient religions, the inventor of religion falsely attributed all his opinions and orders to the creator of the world to claim that no one has the right to doubt or criticize these opinions and orders.
On the contrary, in today's religions such as liberalism, opinions and orders are based on philosophy, logic, and empirical sciences, and can always and quickly be changed and modified for the benefit of man and society.
If you look carefully, you will see that religion and philosophy are similar in a sense that they have a worldview and rules, but the existence of sacred things in religion and that they falsely consider the worldview and rules of religion to be the words of God is a big obstacle to reform and that many of its propositions are wrong. And it is superstition.
But philosophy now presents a world view and rulings that can be reformed and heretical very quickly by examining the modern human and experimental sciences.


In fact, the people of the world should choose humanism and liberalism as their religion instead of Islam, Christianity and other ancient religions.
When you are a humanist or a liberal, you respect all women and men who are not oppressors, and you don't condemn or harass anyone because of their race, religion, sexual relations, or clothing.


In fact, in religion, you must respect yourself, other people, God and nature.
Ancient religions are too prying in the privacy and privacy of God.
In modern human religions, privacy of God are so respected that a person has no right to pry about the other in these two privacy. However, regarding interpersonal relationships, it has a limited right to the extent that it calls into question individual freedom, security, and respect.
For example, a woman's right to have sex is that woman's privacy, and it only concerns herself, and you have no right to snoop, reprimand, or punish, and the law must protect that woman. Modern religion can only instruct.
If a person wants to be a worshiper of God or insults God, other people do not have the right to pry and want to. Modern religion can only advise.
But interpersonal relationships can be intervened to the extent that no one can oppress anyone. Therefore, in the relationship between men and women. Religion and law intervene so that a man cannot harass and rape a woman or a man cannot beat a woman, but if a man and a woman do any sexy act with each other in sexual relations with friendship, consent and understanding, the law and religion do not have the right to determine the duty.


In the religious government of Iran, which is based on Islam. The government can arrest, imprison and flog women if they wear the world's most fashionable clothes. If the police sees an 18-year-old girl making friends with a boy on the street, they can arrest both the girl and the boy. For example, the father of a 25-year-old girl can put his daughter in prison or put her boyfriend in prison if his daughter has a boyfriend. If men harass a girl, the police will not be very supportive. Sometimes a girl who lives alone in an apartment is always disturbed by men, and the police are less supportive. In some cases, single women are attacked by the police or men for having sex in their apartment, and the police imprison them because of whose permission you had sex. If a woman sings at a party and the police or Muslim men find out, they will attack the party and the woman can be imprisoned for up to 4 years because she sang at the party. This is an example of the anti-human laws of the satanic religion of Islam.


This is the difference between the rule of Islamic law and the rule of liberalism in a country.
Of course, in order to free the people of a country from the tyranny of Islamic laws, it is not necessary to change the religion of the people from Islam, because with the liberal constitution or the human rights , it is a technical blow.
Now, with the constitution based on human rights, even if the people's religion is Islam, it will no longer be possible to implement Islamic laws, and there will be no more snooping on women's clothing, snooping on women's sexual programs, and other anti-human laws.
In Turkey, despite the fact that the people are Muslim, Islamic laws are not applicable due to the secular government and the liberal constitution.
If anyone in Turkey implements Islamic laws, he will be imprisoned and executed.
During Pahlavi's time in Iran, the country was not as free as Turkey, and Iranian women had less freedom in sex and clothing than in Turkey, but the implementation of evilly Islamic laws such as whipping, stoning, and execution was prohibited.


Now, if the uprising of the people of Iran wins, iran will like Turkey, the implementation of Islamic laws will be prohibited, and the people will have both the religion of Islam and the disadvantages of implementing the laws of the Islamic religion that allow religious mobs to harass women.


But it is recommended that people change their religion from Islam to humanism and liberalism after the victory of the new uprising.


The point is that liberalism and humanism are philosophies. Philosophy and religion are similar, with the difference that philosophy is stronger and more valid than religion, and religion is full of superstitions, cruelty, and ignorance.

"The point is that liberalism and humanism are philosophies. Philosophy and religion are similar, with the difference that philosophy is stronger and more valid than religion, and religion is full of superstitions, cruelty, and ignorance."

Religion involves belief in supernatural. Philosophy does noy. Both could be used for good or evil.

Originally Posted by mathman

"The point is that liberalism and humanism are philosophies. Philosophy and religion are similar, with the difference that philosophy is stronger and more valid than religion, and religion is full of superstitions, cruelty, and ignorance."

Religion involves belief in supernatural. Philosophy does noy. Both could be used for good or evil.

yes
But please note:
In base, Religion is bad and phylosophy is good becase:

1) in religion creator of religion ,claim his theories and his idea blong to God therefore is impeccable and faultless and you do not permit say it is false!
But in modern phylosophy , philosopher do not use God for peremptory of his ideas and he use modern experiential science for crating his phylosophy.

2) In religion you must peremptory accept all ideology and rulls of religion, otherwise you will be punished.
but phylosophy is not such religion.

3) The creator of religions likes to speak vaguely and mysteriously.Because he is illiterate and does not know about the future.

4)The creator of religions raises people and sacred topics.
The existence of sacred things in religion is to flatter the people and humiliate the leaders of the religion.

Originally Posted by mathman

"The point is that liberalism and humanism are philosophies. Philosophy and religion are similar, with the difference that philosophy is stronger and more valid than religion, and religion is full of superstitions, cruelty, and ignorance."

Religion involves belief in supernatural. Philosophy does noy. Both could be used for good or evil.

yes
But please note:
In base, Religion is bad and phylosophy is good becase:

1) in religion creator of religion ,claim his theories and his idea blong to God therefore is impeccable and faultless and you do not permit say it is false!
But in modern phylosophy , philosopher do not use God for peremptory of his ideas and he use modern experiential science for crating his phylosophy.

2) In religion you must peremptory accept all ideology and rulls of religion, otherwise you will be punished.
but phylosophy is not such religion.

3) The creator of religions likes to speak vaguely and mysteriously.Because he is illiterate and does not know about the future.

4)The creator of religions raises people and sacred topics.
The existence of sacred things in religion is to flatter the people and humiliate the leaders of the religion.

Originally Posted by mathman

"The point is that liberalism and humanism are philosophies. Philosophy and religion are similar, with the difference that philosophy is stronger and more valid than religion, and religion is full of superstitions, cruelty, and ignorance."

Religion involves belief in supernatural. Philosophy does noy. Both could be used for good or evil.

yes
But please note:
In base, Religion is bad and phylosophy is good becase:

1) in religion creator of religion ,claim his theories and his idea blong to God therefore is impeccable and faultless and you do not permit say it is false!
But in modern phylosophy , philosopher do not use God for peremptory of his ideas and he use modern experiential science for crating his phylosophy.

2) In religion you must peremptory accept all ideology and rulls of religion, otherwise you will be punished.
but phylosophy is not such religion.

3) The creator of religions likes to speak vaguely and mysteriously.Because he is illiterate and does not know about the future.

4) The creator of religions, holy people and holy subjects.The existence of sacred things in religion is to flatter and sycophant the people and humiliate the leaders of the religion.

5) Almost all religions are anti-women, and anti-good-subculture and are racism.

6) Almost all religions permited slavery and have violency rulls and punishments that are all anti-human and anti-humanity

7) Almost all religions are populist and they educating and preparing religional hoodlums.