Has anyone been on the Alpha Course?

PrayerMAX 5000

FFS the same religions cannot even live side by side can they?
Catholics /protestants Suffis / other muslims Orthodox / non orthodox jews even in Israel what utter nonesense to even suggest this.

Completely irrelevant. Maybe religion has been very effective in helping one society to defeat another society, it does not take away the fact that religion has, throughout history, been an indispensable and vital characteristic of human society. There no evidence that the obvious success of human society could have been achieved without religion.

Giraffes with long necks could eat leaves on tall trees when the low down leaves were in short supply. Giraffes with short necks starved and long-necked ones re-produced. Over time the long-necked Giraffes became the norm.

You have completely missed the point. The comment about giraffes was made in reference to the claim that I should look out of my window as proof that society does not need religion.

Giraffes do not need long necks to survive – giraffes in zoos can eat perfectly adequately without the need for their long necks. But the success of the species is down to giraffes having long necks.

In the same way I could have my left arm amputated and still survive to procreate successfully, and pass on my genes. But it would be nonsense to claim that two arms weren't vital for the success of the species.

Religion has been vital to the success of human society. Only those who feel that it would contradict their own belief system, would reject this self-evident truth. A bit like the creationists which reject evolution, you could say.

There no evidence that the obvious success of human society could have been achieved without religion.

or that it couldn't

Actually, as ernie's remarks become more strident eg "would reject this self-evident truth" I'm starting to suspect he's having us on :o)

I dunno, I reckon Aethism has only got easy in the last couple of hundred years.

Ernie you naughty troll

or that it couldn't

Well yes, there is actually. Despite the whole multitude of different societies throughout the existence of the species, including ones which have developed in complete isolation, there is not a single example of a society which has successfully evolved without religion at it's core.

EDIT : Religion is nature, not nurture.

there is not a single example of a society which has successfully evolved without religion at it's core.

or fleas or the appendix – perhaps they were responsible ? In order to establish that religion is responsible you have to remove it and observe the results. But people won't let you. Otherwise religion may just be an artifact

In order to establish that religion is responsible you have to remove it and observe the results. But people won't let you.

Actually that has been done. Admittedly for only very short periods of time…………..but presumably, that was because it wasn't successful.

And btw, I don't think 'fleas or the appendix' have had a huge input in the order of human society.

Giraffes do not need long necks to survive – giraffes in zoos can eat perfectly adequately without the need for their long necks. But the success of the species is down to giraffes having long necks.

And your point is?

In the same way I could have my left arm amputated and still survive to procreate successfully, and pass on my genes. But it would be nonsense to claim that two arms weren't vital for the success of the species.

and your repeated point is?

And your point is?

One which you have completely missed. Apparently.

In order to establish that religion is responsible you have to remove it and observe the results.

I think that to a large extent this is what the UK and many other countries have done in recent years. Contrary to what the god-botherers say, it hasn't caused society to collapse.

Haven't you read the Daily Mail recently, MrA?

Giraffes did not evolve over many years in the environment of a zoo.
Of course, If a zoo provides food at great height then a long neck is an advantage.

If you become disabled and there is enough support, you can survive and pro-create. If there is insufficient support/resources you won't.

there is not a single example of a society which has successfully evolved without religion at it's core.

Define successful? Sweden seems to be doing OK right now…

There are lots of societies who 'evolved' spectacularly unsuccessfully with religion at their core – anyone for 1960's Ireland? Lovely place for children…….

And btw, I don't think 'fleas or the appendix' have had a huge input in the order of human society.

well I think likewise about religion, that it's an irrelevant outcome, sometimes used as a spurious rationalisation. But conjecture and evidence are 2 different things. Also millions of (flea borne) plague victims might disagree – that caused a major shift of power away from the aristocracy

BTW well done on the devil's god's advocate thing :o)

Can we just get a comment from the Christians (Catholic or not) about the Catholic Church's position on their use in Africa and HIV infection. Genuinely interested to see how it's viewed and whether anyone beyond those wearing funny hats does genuinely agree.

I think it's just the funny-hatted ones.

No human society has ever developed without hunting or sport or art or story telling or family bonds either at the VERY Core of it . . Not sure we can credit everything to religion but yes it is effective in making disparate individuals act as kin (as do say tribes or clans or nations etc) and therefore is an excellent evolutionary strategy.

It is however still wrong and not true.

Religion is nature, not nurture

I don’t really understand what you mean here TBH. It seems to me it is very much nurture. I mean do we have tribesmen in the Amazon finding God or Allah or Shiva or do they find the same God/s as the rest of their society?
Seems more nurture than nature.

It is an interesting point that no human society has been truly atheist and there does seem to be something about the human condition that we cannot help but stare in wonder at the world and not think there is some kind of divine provenance at work. Unfortunately though there is only random changes and time.

I don't think 'fleas or the appendix' have had a huge input in the order of human society

We used to need the appendix prior to becoming meat eaters/cooks so without it we would have been dead. Vegetation being much easier to get and consume than meat as proposed by Mr Darwin

well done on the devil's advocate thing :o)

Not at all SFB …. you are wrong,

Unlike some atheists who have a strange, almost religious belief – you could say, that humans are unique, superior, and to whom the laws of evolution don't apply, I believe that humans are no different to any other species. Apart that is, for the fact that they are marginally more intelligent and, religion.

This is the one I'm scared of

Haven't you read the Daily Mail recently, MrA?

I don't have to bother since discovering this website.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

Unlike some atheists who have a strange, almost religious belief – you could say, that humans are unique, superior, and to whom the laws of evolution don't apply,

What atheists who DONT believe in evolution you really are confused now.

Nice study here on the effects of religion on society my fav quote below

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
[concluding that]
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted

article here

full archive/report here somewhere

LOL at Dail Mail link

What atheists who DONT believe in evolution you really are confused now.

There are plenty of atheists who pick and choose what they believe in. There are plenty of atheists who complete f**kwits …. a non-belief in God, does not automatically suggest having a greater intelligence or being necessarily better informed. There are plenty of atheists who reject or fail to understand the self-evident truths concerning the evolution of human societies, normally because the facts do not fit in neatly to their existing beliefs. This is particularly the case when it comes to economic relationships – the truth is sometimes just too inconvenient.

There are plenty of atheists who pick and choose what they believe in. There are plenty of atheists who complete f**kwits ….

er, yes…And,er, what does that have to do with discussing the existence of a god?

what does that have to do with discussing the existence of a god?

I was answering a question.

Pay attention please.

There are plenty of atheists who reject or fail to understand the self-evident truths concerning the evolution of human societies, normally because the facts do not fit in neatly to their existing beliefs. This is particularly the case when it comes to economics – the truth is sometimes just too inconvenient.

Ernie you are covering a huge amount of ground with your assertions, how about putting a little flesh on the bones?
You are gulty of assuming that Atheists are a "group". Getting atheists to agree has been likened to herding cats. Only religion demands a term for its non belief! This just shows the undeserved respect it demands within our society.
Wasnt it Napoleon who said something like "religion is for the little people" paraphrasing a bit but google would help!
Whether Atheists are more intelligent than non Atheists is not something I would claim however 91% of the "Royal society" are Atheist. Some may see a correlation.

Ernie you are covering a huge amount of ground with your assertions

That's because I was asked "What atheists who DONT believe in evolution" ………….I'm sure that you'll agree that covers quite 'a huge amount of ground'.

You are gulty of assuming that Atheists are a "group".

Not at all…… the person who asked me the question was. I simply referred to "some atheists"

Not quite sure i understand but OK.

How abound expanding on this bit

This is particularly the case when it comes to economics – the truth is sometimes just too inconvenient.

Cheers

How about expanding on this bit

Actually I had already edited it to say 'economic relationships' in an attempt to make my point clearer.

The order of a society is called politics – obviously. And 'Politics' is economics…….well economic relationships anyway. The history of societies is the history of economic relationships (and religion plays a very important part in that btw) I hope that makes sense – but I'm not a teacher nor a journalist …….still, I know what I meant 8)

that humans are unique, superior, and to whom the laws of evolution don't apply

I said 'natural selection', which doesn't apply when we interfere with it with medicine, allowing non-survival traits to persist, and of course in the near future genetic engineering will dismantle it further. That's not to say that in the long term it will become evident if the development of intelligence was a benefit to the race/mammalia or not – the jury is still out.

<cough> Eugenics </cough>

simonfbarnes – there appears to be a misunderstanding. By 'the laws of evolution' I meant the evolution of human societies. The laws of Darwin, apply not only to physical characteristics, but also to behaviour and social interactions……..in all species.

By 'the laws of evolution' I meant the evolution of human societies.

this is a branch of science unknown to me, and I suspect just made up by you this minute! Keep up the good work, you're cooking on gas now :o)

this is a branch of science unknown to me

That, my little ultra-leftist anarchist, hardly surprises me.

The laws of Darwin, apply not only to physical characteristics, but also to behaviour and social interactions……..in all species

Do they now? I think many scientists would and could argue against that statement although there is a discipline called Evolutionary Psychology. Don't forget that within Psychology there are many many different schools of thought.

The laws of Darwin, apply not only to physical characteristics, but also to behaviour and social interactions……..in all species.

Social Darwinism? Isn't that precisely the sort of thing that gets your back up in all those threads about poor people and gypsies?

Do they now?

Yes behaviour and social interactions play a vital part in a specie's evolution.

As they say……. If you want to torture a man, place him in solitary confinement. If you want torture an Orangutan, send him to a dinner party.

Two extremely closely related species …… the difference ? Evolution my dear Watson.

There is no evidence that humans could have left a small area of East Africa and successfully spread throughout the world without religion.

And the evidence for religion when 'humans' left East Africa is where?

The important question is what would jesus ride?

A steel single speed? Fully rigid?

Which of course leads to the logical course of action that we should kill everyone who disagrees.

Especially their children – it’s how God does it in the bible…

That, my little ultra-leftist anarchist, hardly surprises me

ouch! That's me in a nutshell*! I'm guessing ernie is referring to Evolutionary Anthropology which I have since discovered does exist, though I've not found out its laws…

* actually I don't know what 'ultra-leftist' means, but I'm hoping it makes up for my lack of stature.

And the evidence for religion when 'humans' left East Africa is where?

that's fascinating, as religion may not be susceptible to fossilisation – however my daughter tells me many dinosaur species have been extrapolated from a single limb etc so that may not be a severe restriction.

"If you want torture an Orangutan, send him to a dinner party."

It's the tuxedos, you know, they can't stand them yer average orangutan.