Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Species only go extinct because they can't evolve (adaptively change their physical/mental configuration) fast enough to modify (become sufficiently "fit") so as to not be effected by the conditions that are messing them up...or by something happening that causes them to be just wiped out, like an asteroid strike.
Creatures can/do evolve mentally as well as physically. Do some research...you'll see that's pretty settled. I'm sure whatever studies that needed to be done to come to that scientific conclusion/determination were done.
And, Yes..."acquiring belief", would mean to actually become a Believer.
It is correct that there is no such thing as "deciding" to believe...it isn't a choice.
By "acquiring" belief...I mean to actually become a Believer.
It Is What It Is...because, Things Are What They Are.
I think makes a lot of sense. Don't you?
I think believing is a choice, as is everything, albeit some more conscious decisions than others.
IMO, each is obsessed with coverting others to their way of thinking.
Nothing new - that's what we're all doing for various reasons...
-To feel understood/supported/empathized with
-To not feel so alone
-To belong to some group (Atheists, Theists are both labeled groups)
-To try to convince ourselves that we are right & have "found THE Truth!"
-To make a difference, or feel like we have
-To make this world better (or how we preceive "better" to be)
-To help others (or how we preceive "help" to be)
OK, Soup. I've got a buddy down the hall that says (only if asked) that he's an atheist. His Facebook profile lists religion as "Pastafarian." He said he wanted to get a chrome Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem to put on his can (like people do with the fish emblems).
Now, what should I say to him that will lead to his changing his belief to something religious? Not just say so, but to actually change what he believes. I don't think really basic, fundamental beliefs can be changed just because you decide it's a good idea.
Steven Colbert will support Mitt Romney before that happens.
Theism is an idea, not a species, so I am afraid your entire analogy is nonsense from this point on. At best you can talk about the evolution of Theism using memetics but even then you would be making my point for me.
The point you are avoiding is that just because 90% of a species presents with a certain trait this in no way means that this trait must be advantageous or useful. As pointed out the vast majority of our species catches the common cold. That does not mean we evolved the ability to catch the common cold because it was advantageous to us.
So the claim you made... that since the majority of our species has subscribed to (or acted like they subscribe to) religious belief which means it must be advantageous... is simply a baseless claim in evolutionary science.
Great post, Nozz. I particularly like your explanation of the evolution of an idea.
Theism is an idea, not a species, so I am afraid your entire analogy is nonsense from this point on. At best you can talk about the evolution of Theism using memetics but even then you would be making my point for me.
The point you are avoiding is that just because 90% of a species presents with a certain trait this in no way means that this trait must be advantageous or useful. As pointed out the vast majority of our species catches the common cold. That does not mean we evolved the ability to catch the common cold because it was advantageous to us.
So the claim you made... that since the majority of our species has subscribed to (or acted like they subscribe to) religious belief which means it must be advantageous... is simply a baseless claim in evolutionary science.
"Theism is like a species that has evolved to have an immune system."
Theeeeeeere ya go Nozz...ya forgot the whole last part of the sentence!
The part that explained it.
Why do I get the impression you did that on purpose?
Look..."the ability *to catch a cold*"...isn't a "trait". The "cold" we "catch" is a CONDITION our species is subject to.
But then, something tells me that you don't really think "being able to catch a cold" is an "ability".
But maybe you really are that confused, so I'll explain it further:
We didn't "acquire" the "trait" of being injured by blunt force trauma, or being burned by something very hot...the blunt force trauma that injures us, and the hot stuff that burns us, are conditions we are subject to.
The same with germs/viruses that make us sick.
The analogy with Theism isn't that we can be attacked by the germs/virus, but the "trait" that we have evolved to develop an immune system to fight against that attack.
The analogy in it's proper perspective:
Atheism = The germs/viruses that try to attack a species...an outside condition that could/does negatively effect it.
Theism = The "trait" the vast majority of the species has evolved to have to be able to "detect and self-shield" from the harm those germs/viruses would otherwise cause. This is a great advantage to that species.
To not be able to perceive or be cognizant of the Source of Our Reality is a great disadvantage to us.
We have evolved so we don't suffer from this disadvantage...and are thus greatly improved.
Unfortunately a small percentage of the species does not present with this common ability...their right-brain power isn't what it is in most people. Like the small percentage of people that are blind...while most can see.
And, in line with the topic of the OP---It's understandable why the few people that suffer from blindness would spend time thinking about sight, to a much greater degree than the vast majority of people that enjoy the advantages of sight would think about blindness.
You are still ignoring the point I am making by making an unrelated one of your own and then using the fact your point has nothing to do with mine as a tactic to pretend I am the one ignoring yours. Again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
at any given time a trait presents in a vast majority of a species...that trait is "the best" trait to have. If it wasn't the best trait...some other trait would present more prevalently.
Presenting a trait that has a majority presence in a species is not enough basis for suggesting that this trait is therefore advantageous. Let alone "The Best" one to have. Nothing in Evolutionary Science allows you to make that leap and I doubt we will see you present any actually peer reviewed citation claiming any such thing.
Simply saying... or in this case simplistically saying... that "90% of our species believe in god therefore this beleif must be advantageous" is just a non sequitur and baseless.
Even by comparing Theism to an organism, which we can do using ideas like memetics, you are still making my point for me. Such a meme, like any organism, would be interested in it's own survival and perpetuation. Like the common cold the simple fact that the majority of our species is susceptible to it in no way means that being susceptible to it is advantageous to our species.
You are still ignoring the point I am making by making an unrelated one of your own and then using the fact your point has nothing to do with mine as a tactic to pretend I am the one ignoring yours. Again:
Presenting a trait that has a majority presence in a species is not enough basis for suggesting that this trait is therefore advantageous. Let alone "The Best" one to have. Nothing in Evolutionary Science allows you to make that leap and I doubt we will see you present any actually peer reviewed citation claiming any such thing.
Simply saying... or in this case simplistically saying... that "90% of our species believe in god therefore this beleif must be advantageous" is just a non sequitur and baseless.
Even by comparing Theism to an organism, which we can do using ideas like memetics, you are still making my point for me. Such a meme, like any organism, would be interested in it's own survival and perpetuation. Like the common cold the simple fact that the majority of our species is susceptible to it in no way means that being susceptible to it is advantageous to our species.
You're making sense, but I doubt that it will be well received.
As i dont come to this section very often (atheist eh!)i must have missed your explanation of your own religious position which i assumed was Christian.. but in this post you clearly deny being a Christian (Post 8 in this topic), as i dont have the time to go over thousands of your posts maybe you could elaborate
thanks..
There is not much to elaborate, I am not religious, I belong to no group, and I walk alone in my belief.
You are still ignoring the point I am making by making an unrelated one of your own and then using the fact your point has nothing to do with mine as a tactic to pretend I am the one ignoring yours. Again:
Presenting a trait that has a majority presence in a species is not enough basis for suggesting that this trait is therefore advantageous. Let alone "The Best" one to have. Nothing in Evolutionary Science allows you to make that leap and I doubt we will see you present any actually peer reviewed citation claiming any such thing.
Simply saying... or in this case simplistically saying... that "90% of our species believe in god therefore this beleif must be advantageous" is just a non sequitur and baseless.
Even by comparing Theism to an organism, which we can do using ideas like memetics, you are still making my point for me. Such a meme, like any organism, would be interested in it's own survival and perpetuation. Like the common cold the simple fact that the majority of our species is susceptible to it in no way means that being susceptible to it is advantageous to our species.
Look Nozz...calling things that are NOT traits "traits", when they are actually outside conditions...and then arguing from that point, is bogus.
By your logic, one could say, "Since all species have the "trait" of being killed if a million tons of molten lava dropped on them from an erupting volcano...and that is not advantageous to them...that proves universal or extremely common traits aren't necessarily advantageous."
Everyone knows dying from being covered by molten lava isn't a "trait"...it's something that happens due to an outside condition.
Same as being effected by cold viruses or bacteria.
I thought I had explained it to ya...but you have a penchant for feigning the inability to discern answers unless they are absolutely direct.
So here:
One of the basics of evolutionary theory is Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest. Check it out...you'll see.
If any species presents near universally with any trait...and I mean 98% of the species, worldwide, in all sorts of different outside conditions...it can then be determined that that trait had/has some advantage to its "fitness to survive".
I challenge you, or anyone else, to show me that extant science on the subject says otherwise.
I may be wrong...but I doubt it.
Though, I will give merit to the point KC made (Ooooooooh man! Did I really just say that?!) that some traits may be traits that had an advantage for the species at one time, but no longer do...and are in the not yet completed long process of evolving out of the species.
BUT!!!...Those traits were "advantageous" to the species, it was "the best trait" to have, and made them "more fit" than those of the species that didn't possess that trait, at some point...or that species wouldn't have ever evolved to possess a trait that presented with such prevalence within that species. And it was "best" for them at that point.
I hope this explanation makes sense to you, and others...and is "well received".
calling things that are NOT traits "traits", when they are actually outside conditions...and then arguing from that point, is bogus.
So you just want to argue linguistics rather than evolution then?
I am using "traits" as a linguistic placeholder term for any "Characteristic, attribute, trait, aspect, common feature" or any such thing.
Therefore the only thing that is "bogus" is the claim you have made which is that if "something"... regardless of what word you use for it... presents itself in the majority of the species then that "something" is therefore automatically not only "advantageous" but "the best" feature to have.
This is quite simply a leap that you can not make using Evolutionary Science and as I predicted your post did not cite one scientific source to support your position whatsoever.
If you want to establish a feature, trait, or whatsumeeecallit as being advantageous or "the best" then you have a LOT more work to do than simply showing it has a majority presence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
One of the basics of evolutionary theory is Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
If any species presents near universally with any trait...and I mean 98% of the species, worldwide, in all sorts of different outside conditions...it can then be determined that that trait had/has some advantage to its "fitness to survive".
Incorrect. The best you can claim is that there is SOME reason the trait in question survived. Automatically assuming it confers some advantage to the organism in question you can not do. Some traits confer no advantage to anything or anyone other than to themselves for example. While other traits perpetuate themselves despite being a DISADVANTAGE because evolution simply did not manage to get rid of it. Take the blind spot in 100% of the humans visual field for example. It presents in 100% of humans yet you would be a true fool indeed if you claimed that therefore this meant being blind in one spot was "advantageous".
Further even if you did manage to establish that the trait in question was advantageous... which you have not.... you still do not have grounds to make "advantageous" synonymous with "the best" which is another fantastical leap you make without any basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
some traits may be traits that had an advantage for the species at one time, but no longer do...
Also correct but I am not sure why you are mentioning it to me given I mentioned it myself in post #129 in the opening paragraph. I sometimes wonder if you read posts at all before you reply.
There is not much to elaborate, I am not religious, I belong to no group, and I walk alone in my belief.
For some one who spends 99% of his posts on the Religious section of the forum i'm missing something if you arent Christian and you arent religious.
Just trying to understand where you are coming from as i've been responding to your posts assuming you are a Christian,now you tell me you arent Christian or religious or presumably atheist so whats the point to your obsession and why are we bothering to answer your topic questions if you arent even part of the equation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I particularly like your explanation of the evolution of an idea.
, as i dont have the time to go over thousands of your posts maybe you could elaborate 
