I was addressing research and history, not future domination of any particular religious group. I think I've made it clear in the past: I have nothing against Baha'i or Unitarians, but both are minor and may simply have not had time to be corrupted. Islam started well enlightened also before diving to the depths of their current depravity.
On Feb 13, 8:19 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > >The evolutionary advantage is something else entirely. Evolution > >states that the more likely to breed a creature is, the more likely > >it's genetic information will be passed down. Since the majority of > >religions have spent thousands of years killing non-believers... that > >would tend to make breeding difficult for those that are not inclined > >to believe in superstition. > > Your statement is, of course, consonant with the research: It is the > *group* that benefits from the intra-group cooperation that religion > strengthens. What you are describing are the evils arising from > conflict and competition between such groups with those *outside* of > the group. > > But what if the *group* was all of mankind and conflict and contention > were prohibited by the religion? I know the idea seems pretty far- > fetched, but it *is* the second fastest growing religion in the world, > and its followers are found in nearly every country on Earth. And as > for superstition (although I know your views on "God"): > “The third teaching or principle of Bahá’u’lláh is that religion and > science are in complete agreement. Every religion which is not in > accordance with established science is superstition. Religion must be > reasonable. If it does not square with reason, it is superstition and > without foundation. ...The sciences and arts, all inventions, crafts, > trades and their products have come forth from the intellect of man. - 'Abdu'l-Bahá > > On Feb 13, 10:06 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > there is > > > scientific study going on to develop theories of why religions > > > (particularly religious rituals and moral systems) have been created > > > and persisted. The studies are, of course, based in the theory of > > > evolution and natural selection. It is not likely that such > > > institutions as religions would be so pervasive and persistent in > > > human cultures if they did not provide an evolutionary advantage to > > > the groups that hold them. > > > The origin is simple: Fear of the unknown world, in a world that is > > capricious and violent. Ascribing anthropomorphic tendencies to nature > > and elemental concepts provided an illusory method of control, praying > > to fire not to burn the primitive person makes the primitive mind feel > > as if it's taken a step toward being burned less. It should be noted > > that the primary "religions" of the world, until a few hundred years > > ago, were loose forms of religion like ancestor and spirit worship. > > Other than that, nature study and worship has dominated the majority > > of all faith in history. > > > The evolutionary advantage is something else entirely. Evolution > > states that the more likely to breed a creature is, the more likely > > it's genetic information will be passed down. Since the majority of > > religions have spent thousands of years killing non-believers... that > > would tend to make breeding difficult for those that are not inclined > > to believe in superstition. > > > Even here in America, a believer of a different religion is more > > respected than non-believers. In many states and counties, one cannot > > hold office without professing belief in a deity or swearing on a holy > > book. Thankfully, the religious are no longer legally allowed to > > murder free-thinkers, atheists, and agnostics. > > > And yes, I read the whole article. > > > On Feb 13, 5:55 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Fiddler, > > > Have you read the complete article? It is very interesting to note > > > that, while there likely will never be scientific proof of the > > > existence of God or the truth of the afterlife, etc., > > > > Kind of makes you go "Hmmmm", eh? > > > > On Feb 10, 11:40 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > If it takes a new, inclusive, religion to overcome the divisive > > > > > influence of the old religions, then I am willing to commit to it. > > > > > I hope you understand how this is completely illogical to hope for. > > > > The most enlightened beginning for a religion is the example set by > > > > islam. It began by holding up philosophical thought and scientific > > > > exploration as a beautiful -and ultimately human- endeavour. Very > > > > shortly after becoming mainstream, the religious hierarchy couldn't > > > > stand that people didn't need them and began decreeing that all > > > > science and philosophy needed to be rooted in god first. You can thank > > > > al-Ghazali for that. He was one of the most intelligent and > > > > enlightened of them to begin with but soon decomposed(not a misuse of > > > > word, intentional) into the raging theistic tyrant that he originally > > > > was against. This resulted in Baghdads degeneration into the slums > > > > that it has remained for so very long. Religion rots human minds, > > > > human creativity, and humanity. > > > > The quest for spirituality or meaning need not end in religion. I wish > > > > I could describe the taste of physics, somewhat like mental chocolate > > > > topping on ambrosia. The sound of a successful chemical chain is like > > > > a lyre, playing for titans before the rise of gods. Calculus could > > > > humble the greatest painting ever devised in sheer beauty. Too often > > > > people refuse this awesome, remarkable, spectacular universe in favour > > > > of ideology that proclaims it to be mundane. Nothing is farther from > > > > the truth. When christian quote-miners claim that Einstein, Newton, > > > > Jefferson, and Sagan were all god lovers, they have mistaken the awe > > > > inspiring grandeur of reality for a sad little diminishing concept > > > > like a god. > > > > > To address the title: Religion was invented when some apes wept after > > > > recognising the majesty of what they had the capability to achieve and > > > > learn, and sheep-like apes wept because they could not achieve or > > > > learn it. The sheep-apes needed to find a way to feel important. Alas, > > > > there were far more sheep than apes. > > > > > On Feb 10, 8:17 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Mostly I was replying to the line "I'm not looking for religion, but > > > > > radical, practical changes in > > > > > society, the way we live and could live" from the OP. Perhaps you > > > > > know better than I, Fiddler, but form the article and from other > > > > > sources I have gotten the impression that religion has had a powerful > > > > > roll in shaping society (whether or not it influences individual moral > > > > > choices). I am very much into changing society so that we might be > > > > > free(er) of the various inequalities and injustices which you so often > > > > > and so eloquently describe. > > > > > While the Baha'i Faith does not answer all objections that people have > > > > > to religion, it does, at least, name speaking ill of others > > > > > ("backbiting") the greatest sin of all, which tends to prevent all of > > > > > the finger pointing and such that helps make other religions so > > > > > intolerable to most people. (I know, this is another shameless plug > > > > > for my "beliefs"...) <( :-}= > > > > > > On Feb 10, 10:16 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that all people have equal value in terms of their > > > > > > > intrinsic > > > > > > > worth, which also implies that all should have the same rights > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > the law and in society. > > > > > > > This is impossible in societies that allow religion to determine > > > > > > when > > > > > > some people have more worth than others. The abrahamic cults all > > > > > > depend on being the "right" path. When some people are going to be > > > > > > "saved" and some are following sharia, they must -of necessity- tell > > > > > > others that they aren't as "saved" or that they aren't following > > > > > > sharia correctly. When homosexuals have the same rights as > > > > > > christians > > > > > > and muslims or atheists can legally hold office in every American > > > > > > state, I'll be impressed and perhaps view these divisive and > > > > > > exclusive > > > > > > little clubs in a slightly better light. > > > > > > > > One of the goals of an improved society should be to provide > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > and stimulus for each individual to develop his or her > > > > > > > capacities, and > > > > > > > to find a way to use those capacities to earn a living. I do not > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > how this could be done without some sort of educational system > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > teaches people how to develop character, resolve conflict, and > > > > > > > collaborate, along with arts, sciences, literature, history, > > > > > > > crafts, > > > > > > > and so on. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, most societies are under the burden of supporting > > > > > > bronze and iron age superstitions that determine science to be evil, > > > > > > conflict to be necessary, history to be personal only, crafts to > > > > > > only > > > > > > be legitimate when in support of theology, and character to be > > > > > > something that must be subverted to some fictional construct; all > > > > > > the > > > > > > while the act of ignoring knowledge is held up as some sort of > > > > > > twisted > > > > > > ideal. > > > > > > > >(http://fullcirclelearning.org/default.aspx) > > > > > > > Please note the dearth of religious organisations that support this. > > > > > > The Baha'i are present, as nearly always, in support of human rights > > > > > > and education. While I'm not a great fan of superstition, or belief > > > > > > in > > > > > > the anthropomorphic representation of it, the Baha'i are often > > > > > > located > > > > > > at the front of humanitarian rights and deserve respect for this. > > > > > > > I'm not sure why you posted this in this particular thread, however. > > > > > > It could stand on it's own and doesn't seem to address the thread > > > > > > title. > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 6:12 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On the other hand, different people have> different skill sets, > > > > > > different approaches to life, different cultural > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
