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.
This site about religions would indicate that your 2% is off by a great deal. "Non-religious" accounts for 16% of the earth's population. Half of that grous is theistic in some way.
Here...let me explain it to you mensa...the "answer" is all very "scientific" really.
Humans have evolved, over time, both physically AND mentally.
Evolution works like so...The "natural selection" of what survives and what doesn't, is based on the living things that have the "traits" that make them the "most fit", and thus the best adapted to the environment/situation/conditions they are living in, compared to the "less fit" that possess "traits" that are less advantageous to them. Over time the "most fit"...the ones with the "best traits"...will present in much greater numbers. We can then determine, that if 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.
Based on the fact that almost 90% of humans present with the "mental trait" of Belief in a God, and only a little over 10% present with the "mental trait" of Nonbelief...the ONLY conclusion that can be made is that the trait of Nonbelief (Atheism) is what you would find in "less mentally fit" humans...and the trait of Belief in a God (Theism) is indicative of the "most mentally fit" humans.
Furthermore, it can be determined that the "less fit" Atheists could IMPROVE their "fitness" by acquiring the trait of Belief in a God.
So, based on the "Scientific Evidence" the Atheists would be enhanced if they were Believers...and the Believers would be diminished if they were Atheists. According to Evolution/Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest, that is.
Of course, if Evolutionary Theory isn't valid...it doesn't matter. But I hold evolution to be valid...so these MUST be THE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN OBJECTIVE FACTS OF THE MATTER.
As for the current "spread"...it is expected there will be a fluctuation to some degree...like with a species hit by a germ/virus, or environmental condition that reduces its numbers for a time...but then a resistance is built to it...and it comes back even stronger.
That's what you are seeing at the moment...and will see in the future: Atheism is like a "germ" to Theism, that has infected Theism for this time, but Theism will develop a "resistance" to it, and come back ever stronger against it.
Plus, there will always be the Atheists are simply those that are the "regressed"...the odd "throwbacks", so to speak...that are presenting as mankind did before the "mental evolution" that developed to produce "Belief".
They will fizzle out after a while...as evolution has proved they are "less fit" than Theists, since NO trait will ever present at a 90% saturation of a species, spread out over the entire earth in all kinds of different conditions, unless it is the "best trait".
As soon as everyone gets hip to this...they will be on the road to understanding why The Reality of The World as respects Theism VS Atheism is the way it is.
History is simply the will of God unfolding; know your history and it can be a beginning in knowing your God.
What he has mucked up, cannot be unmucked by anyone but him!
History is simply something that has happened in the past.
But correct me if I'm wrong; you believe that when you see a woman being raped you should do nothing because you believe it is God's will that the woman is being raped? That the woman is being raped because it is God's will and only God could stop it. Besidez, nothing could happen without God's consent anyway, right?
Just like some Christian sects believe that people who become ill should not see a physician because it is God's will that the person became ill in the 1st place?
That only God heals and not modern medicine?
Originally Posted by Mickiel History is simply something that has happened in the past.
But correct me if I'm wrong; you believe that when you see a woman being raped you should do nothing because you believe it is God's will that the woman is being raped? That the woman is being raped because it is God's will and only God could stop it. Besidez, nothing could happen without God's consent anyway, right?
Just like some Christian sects believe that people who become ill should not see a physician because it is God's will that the person became ill in the 1st place?
That only God heals and not modern medicine?
I personally have never seen a woman raped, I know I would do something about it according to the circumstances; either I would beat the crap out of the guy, or call the police if its too many guys. If I saw a woman raping a man, I don't think I would do anything about that. But I believe far more rapes are destined to occur, far more people are destined to get sick, and yes I think all of that is Gods will.
Neither have I but that doesn't mean it never happens.
Quote:
If I saw a woman raping a man, I don't think I would do anything about that.
You understand the definition of rape right?
That it happens against your will so it has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation.
Or do you simply assume that men being raped by women is an impossibility?
What if the man was the woman's own son?
I unfortunately have read about a case recently here in the Netherlands where a 12 year old girl had been impregnated by her own father. She suddenly gave birth to her child during a school trip. The girl had never realised that she had become pregnant.
Her father had started raping her at a very young age and she even believed that this was normal; that all fathers raped their daughters.
Since it has happened it obviously is part of history, but do you really believe that God's will has happened here?
Imagine if the father had the foresight that even 12yr old girls were able to give birth and had started to use condoms?
Quote:
I would do anything about that. But I believe far more rapes are destined to occur, far more people are destined to get sick, and yes I think all of that is Gods will.
If you truly believe that history is God's will unfolding then why try to stop crime?
If it has happened God clearly allowed it, simply because nothing could have happened without God's consent. Heck, why even jail criminals?
Or try to prevent any other kind of mistake that has happened throughout history?
Quote:
I think both God and medicine heals.
Then why do people become ill?
Or try to prevent people from becoming ill?
Originally Posted by Mickiel Neither have I but that doesn't mean it never happens.
You understand the definition of rape right?
That it happens against your will so it has nothing to do with gender or sexual orientation.
Or do you simply assume that men being raped by women is an impossibility?
What if the man was the woman's own son?
I unfortunately have read about a case recently here in the Netherlands where a 12 year old girl had been impregnated by her own father. She suddenly gave birth to her child during a school trip. The girl had never realised that she had become pregnant.
Her father had started raping her at a very young age and she even believed that this was normal; that all fathers raped their daughters.
Since it has happened it obviously is part of history, but do you really believe that God's will has happened here?
Imagine if the father had the foresight that even 12yr old girls were able to give birth and had started to use condoms?
If you truly believe that history is God's will unfolding then why try to stop crime?
If it has happened God clearly allowed it, simply because nothing could have happened without God's consent. Heck, why even jail criminals?
Or try to prevent any other kind of mistake that has happened throughout history?
Then why do people become ill?
Or try to prevent people from becoming ill?
No matter what evil senerio you can gripe about and come up with, its Gods will to allow it for now. Why try and stop crime, in the long run, it really does not matter. Why should God stop anything now, when its obviously against his will to intervene now. We are on our own. And I believe God is ultimately responsible for all that we do; and we are VERY fortunate of that; because if all the evil you named was humans responsibility- then were in serious trouble.
As long as we can pin it on God, our destiny is secure, because he willnot condemn humanity for things he is ultimately responsible for.
In the long run, it really does not matter, our destiny is already set; and its not based on what we do or do not do; its based on what Christ has already done. If we kill, we kill; if we rape, we rape; if we allow crime or prevent it; the die has long been cast, the deed has already been done.
We all will be with God in paradise; and thats why God does not worry about the things you gripe about.
No matter what evil senerio you can gripe about and come up with, its Gods will to allow it for now. Why try and stop crime, in the long run, it really does not matter. Why should God stop anything now, when its obviously against his will to intervene now. We are on our own. And I believe God is ultimately responsible for all that we do; and we are VERY fortunate of that; because if all the evil you named was humans responsibility- then were in serious trouble.
As long as we can pin it on God, our destiny is secure, because he willnot condemn humanity for things he is ultimately responsible for.
In the long run, it really does not matter, our destiny is already set; and its not based on what we do or do not do; its based on what Christ has already done. If we kill, we kill; if we rape, we rape; if we allow crime or prevent it; the die has long been cast, the deed has already been done.
We all will be with God in paradise; and thats why God does not worry about the things you gripe about.
What a totally warped and evil opinion you have....I am thankful that most people do not think as you do, for if they did we would be living in a dog eat dog chaotic world...All evil in the world, and all good is man's doing...God has nothing whatever to do with either.
You cannot prove that atheism is the TRUTH and theism is not.
Atheism is probably the truth as it holds to the notion that gods ess do not exist whereas theism can hold to the concept of a myriad of gods. As a theist you are in the same camp as those that still (or did) believe in the pantheon gods.
Atheism concludes all gods are man made constructs. We even have our own FSM god which is really to demonstrate how silly the notion of belief in god(s) are.
At least the atheist god, when it says "taste and see that the lord is good" we can
Here...let me explain it to you mensa...the "answer" is all very "scientific" really.
Humans have evolved, over time, both physically AND mentally.
Evolution works like so...The "natural selection" of what survives and what doesn't, is based on the living things that have the "traits" that make them the "most fit", and thus the best adapted to the environment/situation/conditions they are living in, compared to the "less fit" that possess "traits" that are less advantageous to them. Over time the "most fit"...the ones with the "best traits"...will present in much greater numbers. We can then determine, that if 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.
Based on the fact that almost 90% of humans present with the "mental trait" of Belief in a God, and only a little over 10% present with the "mental trait" of Nonbelief...the ONLY conclusion that can be made is that the trait of Nonbelief (Atheism) is what you would find in "less mentally fit" humans...and the trait of Belief in a God (Theism) is indicative of the "most mentally fit" humans.
Furthermore, it can be determined that the "less fit" Atheists could IMPROVE their "fitness" by acquiring the trait of Belief in a God.
So, based on the "Scientific Evidence" the Atheists would be enhanced if they were Believers...and the Believers would be diminished if they were Atheists. According to Evolution/Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest, that is.
Of course, if Evolutionary Theory isn't valid...it doesn't matter. But I hold evolution to be valid...so these MUST be THE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN OBJECTIVE FACTS OF THE MATTER.
As for the current "spread"...it is expected there will be a fluctuation to some degree...like with a species hit by a germ/virus, or environmental condition that reduces its numbers for a time...but then a resistance is built to it...and it comes back even stronger.
That's what you are seeing at the moment...and will see in the future: Atheism is like a "germ" to Theism, that has infected Theism for this time, but Theism will develop a "resistance" to it, and come back ever stronger against it.
Plus, there will always be the Atheists are simply those that are the "regressed"...the odd "throwbacks", so to speak...that are presenting as mankind did before the "mental evolution" that developed to produce "Belief".
They will fizzle out after a while...as evolution has proved they are "less fit" than Theists, since NO trait will ever present at a 90% saturation of a species, spread out over the entire earth in all kinds of different conditions, unless it is the "best trait".
As soon as everyone gets hip to this...they will be on the road to understanding why The Reality of The World as respects Theism VS Atheism is the way it is.
Hope this cleared things up for you...and others.
Very good Goldenrule. Very good indeed. Ingenious and well argued and quite in accordance with the known facts.
Quite wrong, however. Let me explain.
Humans evolved to have various instincts. Social cohesion, acquisition of mates, competition for resources, competition for position within the group, and maintaining that with privileged thugs who would help you to maintain order.
Thus kingship, dictatorship, presidency, company boss-ship is instinctive. It is...what was your term? '"traits" that make them the "most fit", and thus the best adapted to the environment/situation/conditions they are living in, compared to the "less fit" that possess "traits" that are less advantageous to them.'
Thus the idea of kingship, dictatorship and the rule of the many - headed is...let's find your term again, 'that trait is "the best" trait to have. If it wasn't the best trait...some other trait would present more prevalently.'
Thus, as we saw at various times in history, attempts were made by the common masses (e.g, the French, American and Chinese revolutions),to turn this instinctive and therefore right, natural and beneficial. rule by the strong and best fitted into something where the common people decided how they should run their lives.
It is true that there were a couple of attempts to infect this natural order of things with the virus of Democracy but...let's use your term again.. '.it is expected there will be a fluctuation to some degree...like with a species hit by a germ/virus, or environmental condition that reduces its numbers for a time...but then a resistance is built to it...and it comes back even stronger.'
You will see where this is going. There is of course an instinctive resistance to rule in any way other than by the alpha male, but this democratic influence is not a virus, as you say, it is a mutation. a part of evolution (using your analogy, at least) and in time, the old hankering for rule by the strong will be bred out, as kingship is almost a vestigial organ, dictatorships are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool and even presidents cannot do what they like.
I see religion in the same way. The belief in gods that made, did and ran everything has been taking a back seat everywhere other than in some countries who are making a resurgence of fanatical, intolerant, closed- mindedness, and if that is what you fondly hope the future is going to be, I feel very sorry for you.
I see atheism as a movement like democracy that has, under a tough social skin of adapting democracy into alpha male rule, been spreading, unseen and almost unknown, like replicating social DNA. Not a virus, Goldenrule. Your analogy was the wrong one.
I do see clearly that human understanding of connection between evolved instinct and social behaviour will help people to understand the tricks that evolution has played on them, making them think that kings and 'great leaders' was the natural way to live and therefore the best, just as we believed that religion was (if not true) good for morality and needful for social cohesion.
Once humanity realizes that these ideas were naturally selected delusions, and we understand the trick that has been played on us, (and I see the further understanding of this through scientific research on consciousness, evolution on the mind and thought and the connection between social and indeed political behaviour and evolved instincts) by evolution for some millions of years, we will know better than to fall for the same trick again.
Natural is not necessarily best. We can do better and we must. We can't go back to the trees, but we must go forward with a rational worldview and an understanding of what we are and the impulses that drive us. And we have to have rationality and science taught, not flag - waving and creationism.
If we can do that, superstition will be bred out of the body politic and the Holy Books will be passed onto the shelf where we find Ovid's Metamorphoses and the Egyptian Book of the dead.
I may be wrong. It may never happen. It is only my theory. But it is at least more in accordance with the facts relating to other social developments than your 'virus' analogy.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-25-2012 at 06:41 AM..
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.
Not quite right at all I am afraid.
The first error is that environments are not static, nor is evolution fast. If a trait evolves as a "best fit" for an environment but then it is not the "best fit" for the environment anymore... it may take quite some time to evolve back out again... if ever. So while one could argue... though I never seen anyone do it successfully much less yourself... that religion is a trait that is in the majority and therefore it must have been beneficial at SOME time.... that in NO WAY at all argues that it is still a beneficial trait NOW. In fact the slow, but steadily noticeable increase in atheist figures in places like the States would suggest such a slow evolution is in fact in progress.
The second error is that not all traits or characteristics or phenomena in a species has actually evolved to be that way. You say, for example, that 90% of humans present with god belief. So what? Firstly that does not mean god beleif is true. Secondly and most importantly however.... 98% and more of humans have also caught the common cold.
We have evolved in ways that have been advantageous at the time, but those evolved traits can be commandeered by bad things, like viruses and bacteria. We did not evolve to catch the common cold, we evolved to do other things and the common cold evolved to take advantage of those things.
Similarly just because 90% of humans present with god belief this does not grant you licence to declare god belief is advantageous and we evolved to have it. More likely is we evolved to do other things, and god belief utilizes those things in order to perpetuate itself.
It would clearly be ridiculous to say things like "The vast majority of our species catch the common cold, therefore they must be the most fit, and those without the common cold must be less fit and could increase their fitness by catching a cold". Yet as ridiculous as it is, this is pretty much precisely the "argument" you offer here.
[/b]In short[/b]: It is a vast misunderstanding of Evolutionary Science if you think it valid to claim that if a majority % of a species exhibits trait X that therefore trait X is advantageous and Evolution has selected for it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Atheist are the fastest growing pressence on religious boards. Many Atheist will claim that they are not a movement, but the internet begs to differ; there is an absolute Atheist movement occuring on many religious boards, and I doubt that this was a planned thing, but it is a real thing. Reality is a plan of itself!- Perhaps the greatest plan.
There are two reasons for this movement denied by many Atheist as being a movement- but it is active and now occuring; The Individual sites have allowed the Atheist to express themselves, rather than lock them out; secondly, the " Desire" of the particular Atheists to express themselves. As a comparrison- I see little difference in the Religious person who expresses their belief strongly, and The Atheists people who express their unbelief strongly. So the question why are some Atheist so obsessed with Religion, can conversely be asked of why some Religious people are so obsessed with Atheism?
The way either group goes at this is of intrest, and Why?
Many Religious people are obsessed with Atheism because they view unbelief as the impetus of " Doom for unbelievers", feeling that they are headed for some eternal suffering, they look to " Turn them." At the core of this, giving religious people the benefit of doubt, they are concerned with the Atheist, more than bitter unconcern. They really care! Obviously there are some religious people who no longer care, its every human for themselves.
Conversely, there are many Atheist who view belief in gods as man made myths, and see many negatives poured into society and individuals who have these beliefs. Some of them really care about this, and some don't- its every human for themselves. And some Atheist want to " Turn this around."
The back and forth of this perculiar dynamic is a thing to behold.
The Theist has enjoyed a particular dominance on religious boards for some time, but that is changing. Now they only dominate where the Atheist pressence is controlled or simply not allowed. Some boards simply have resorted to " Sectioning them off", into their own areas, and allowing them to mix in others.
The obsession with belief and unbelief is quite strong, just as strong as the obsession to express oneself in groups. Although its not a game, I am reminded of " Chess"; one side moves against the other in a stratigic plan of dominance. To rule the board and win the case.
But obession is not a game, it is a very real driving force, a movement undenied! Your moving your peice because of your desire to win. Denied obsession is power misdirected. Power flowing underneath the lack of confessed purpose. Hypocrites exist on both sides of the board.
People playing the game, but denying that they are playing. People who are serious, but accused of playing a game.
A most perplexing revolting development.
Atheism is Religion. It is also a movement. You have your high priest evangelists such as Richard Dawkins. It is no different.
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.
History is simply something that has happened in the past.
Besidez, nothing could happen without God's consent anyway, right?
Neither have I but that doesn't mean it never happens.
What if the man was the woman's own son?
If you truly believe that history is God's will unfolding then why try to stop crime?
Heck, why even jail criminals?
