Religion is a Handicap
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
and action...
So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
beloved planet.
The monkeys learned how to use tools very early in time, but never
learned how to fully use their minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The resources of the jungle are limited and precious. But wars over
bananas are unlikely"
Andrew
showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> said:
> I was scanning the titles and saw that, "Religion is a tool"... Yes it
> is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
> can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
> and action...
Except, of course, that it was during a period when religion was
strongest in comparatively recent history (the mid 19th Century) that
society changed most abruptly. Do you have any actual data to support
your position?
whistler
> On 2010-01-02 00:17:55 +0000, TheTibetan Turd Flinger
>
> Except, of course, that it was during a period when religion was
> strongest in comparatively recent history (the mid 19th Century) that
> society changed most abruptly. Do you have any actual data to support
> your position?
>
"... during a period when religion was strongest in comparatively
recent history (the mid 19th Century)...."
Well, that's quite an assumptive thesis.
. Do you have any actual data to support YOUR position ??
>
> > The monkeys learned how to use tools very early in time, but never
> > learned how to fully use their minds.
Especially the know'it'all pompous monkees who post on the internet.
>
> > "....................... But wars over
> > bananas are unlikely"
>
SO you say.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> On 2010-01-02 00:17:55 +0000, TheTibetanMonkey
> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Was it lead by religion? Commerce and revolution seem to have been the
cause most of the time. But the Taliban do have a religious background.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Conflict in the jungle is over power and territory most of the time,
not bananas.
sagetea
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
> OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
> beloved planet.
>
There is a theory that God is stockpiling us in preparation for a war
against another GOD in another galaxy.
Andrew
> On Jan 1, 8:19�pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-02 00:17:55 +0000, TheTibetan Turd Flinger
>>
>> Except, of course, that it was during a period when religion was
>> strongest in comparatively recent history (the mid 19th Century) that
>> society changed most abruptly. Do you have any actual data to support
>> your position?
>>
>
>
>
> "... during a period when religion was strongest in comparatively
> recent history (the mid 19th Century)...."
> Well, that's quite an assumptive thesis.
> . Do you have any actual data to support YOUR position ??
In my country there's plenty of data to show rises in church attendance
and spread of churches through from the middle of the 19th Century
until its end. Indeed, the high-water mark for church attendance in
Scotland was 1955. The data's available if you go and look for it.
whistler
>
> > "... during a period when religion was strongest in comparatively
> > recent history (the mid 19th Century)...."
> > Well, that's quite an assumptive thesis.
> > . Do you have any actual data to support YOUR position ??
>
> In my country there's plenty of data to show rises in church attendance
> and spread of churches through from the middle of the 19th Century
> until its end. Indeed, the high-water mark for church attendance in
> Scotland was 1955. The data's available if you go and look for it.
> ..............
> >>> "....................... But wars over
> >>> bananas are unlikely"
>
> > SO you say.
Religion vs spirit / ever hear of Henry David Thoreau
So if there's asses in the seats, your religion thingee is do'in fine
and all is right w/ God & King.
Religions are the most excellent excuse for gamey perfideous powers
that be to con the "religious minded" in feeding their sons to cannons
of war.
Sanity
Yep, and the US is a religious state of government that was justified
by the exact same ‘divine right’ William the Conqueror claimed in
1066. The express claim divine right is right there in the
Declaration of Independence [“the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights”] in black and white for the entire “candid world” to see; if
they have eyes to see...
‘One nation, under guard, with libertine injustice for all (except the
de facto oligarchy).’
Speaking truth to power, Sanity Clause RE
Sanity
Whew! I'm glad that's just a theory...
If Mother Nature wants to put a volcano where you usually grow your
beans, move! [Happened in Mexico a few years back.]
Sanity
Earle Jones
<4236ed11-47ab-4db2...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
sagetea <eamon...@gmail.com> wrote:
*
It may be a conjecture, a proposition, a speculation, or perhaps a
wild-ass guess, but it certainly is *not* a theory.
earle
*
Sanity
> In article
> <4236ed11-47ab-4db2-a8e2-124ef3823...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> sagetea <eamon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 7:17 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
> > in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
> > > OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
> > > beloved planet.
>
> > There is a theory that God is stockpiling us in preparation for a war
> > against another GOD in another galaxy.
>
> *
> It may be a conjecture, a proposition, a speculation, or perhaps a
> wild-ass guess, but it certainly is *not* a theory.
>
> earle
> *
Encarta's definition of 'theory' includes speculation...
Mavisbeacon
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2010010201190950073-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2010-01-02 00:17:55 +0000, TheTibetanMonkey
> showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> <nolionn...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> I was scanning the titles and saw that, "Religion is a tool"... Yes it
>> is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
>> can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
>> and action...
>
> Except, of course, that it was during a period when religion was strongest
> in comparatively recent history (the mid 19th Century) that society
> changed most abruptly. Do you have any actual data to support your
> position?
You mean "Mass religion" as in church attendence?
This is difficult.
The UK however is a good example since the religious wield temporal power as
well e.g. Lords and Bishopricks and the difference between rectors and
vicars.
But what about Middle Age Pilgrims? Or Autos de Fe? Surely the Church was
"strong " then?
What about the Monastic period? surely ther was huge change then?
Or what about the industrial revolution or the discovery of new uses for
coal? Massive change as the energy base switched form wood?
Or the renaissance?
Mind you through all that the Church was central.
In fact when the culturally superiour Muslims sieged Vienna that probably
caused an abrupt change in the minds of Christian European leaders.
>
>>
>> So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
>> OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
>> beloved planet.
Which are constantly talked and taught about by all religions not just
Christians.
But catholic social teaching for example would have much to say on these
subjects. They are not reserved for agnostics or atheists.
>>
>> The monkeys learned how to use tools very early in time, but never
>> learned how to fully use their minds.
How one measures a "fully used mind" I am interested in knowing.
In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
teresita
> In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
No more than the commercial activity that took place in the World Trade
Center exists now in the absence of the physical buildings.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Mavisbeacon
"Sanity" <sanity...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ef7d65fa-fd7d-4f1e...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>Encarta's definition of 'theory' includes speculation...
In addition to????
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
Another theory is that he's getting us ready to shoot down asteroids
he will throw at us.
Earle Jones
teresita <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:16:38 +0000, Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
> > In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
*
In fact, the growing opinion of many scientists is exactly the opposite:
That the mind is *entirely* contained in the brain.
"Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
--Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
Kosik is a former Harvard Medical School professor and now the Chairman
of Developmental Biology at UC Santa Barbara. What he is saying is that
the Neuroscience community is coming to the conclusion that the human
'mind' is totally and completely contained in the human 'brain' -- that
piece of meat inside your head. The 'mind' represents all of your
knowledge, concepts, and beliefs. It's inputs are through the eyes, the
ears, the nose, etc.
There are no other inputs. No God speaks to you, no spirit to guide
you, just your ordinary senses feeding information to that hunk of meat
inside your head.
Now that is what I call a real threat to religion.
earle
*
Andre Lieven
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:30 am, sagetea <eamon.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 7:17 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
>
> > in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So it is that we know the end is coming soon when OVERPOPULATION,
> > > OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
> > > beloved planet.
>
> > There is a theory that God is stockpiling us in preparation for a war
> > against another GOD in another galaxy.
>
> Another theory is that he's getting us ready to shoot down asteroids
> he will throw at us.
Clearly, you are totally clueless as to what an actual theory IS:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.
A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings
about or affects this class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Let us know when you are ready to use the word theory *properly*,
and not just as a poor substitute for "wild assed BS guess".
HTH.
Andre
Sanity
> In article <hhokge02...@news4.newsguy.com>,
>
> teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:16:38 +0000, Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
> > > In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
>
> *
> In fact, the growing opinion of many scientists is exactly the opposite:
“Scientists,” many of us anyway, deal in facts acquired through
research and consider “opinions” valuable only when they further
research.
I believe in God, but don’t have a handle on the Creator like
televangelists and others claim. No, I don’t buy the creation story
in Genesis, but neither do I think opinions equal to facts...
> That the mind is *entirely* contained in the brain.
>
> "Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
> many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
> evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
> On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
> neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
> brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
>
> --Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
>
> Kosik is a former Harvard Medical School professor and now the Chairman
> of Developmental Biology at UC Santa Barbara. What he is saying is that
> the Neuroscience community is coming to the conclusion that the human
> 'mind' is totally and completely contained in the human 'brain' -- that
> piece of meat inside your head. The 'mind' represents all of your
> knowledge, concepts, and beliefs. It's inputs are through the eyes, the
> ears, the nose, etc.
>
> There are no other inputs. No God speaks to you, no spirit to guide
> you, just your ordinary senses feeding information to that hunk of meat
> inside your head.
>
> Now that is what I call a real threat to religion.
>
> earle
> *
I doubt The Church of the Covered Dish is going to quit having
lunchions and picnics just because Chairman Kosik has an opinion...
Sanity
Father Haskell
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
> can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
> and action...
Jesus christ himself was also a tool. But you already
knew that.
Mavisbeacon
On Jan 3, 4:59 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <hhokge02...@news4.newsguy.com>,
>
> teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:16:38 +0000, Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
> > > In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
>
> *
> In fact, the growing opinion of many scientists is exactly the opposite:
�Scientists,� many of us anyway, deal in facts acquired through
research and consider �opinions� valuable only when they further
research.
I believe in God, but don�t have a handle on the Creator like
televangelists and others claim. No, I don�t buy the creation story
in Genesis, but neither do I think opinions equal to facts...
> That the mind is *entirely* contained in the brain.
>
> "Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
> many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
> evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
> On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
> neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
> brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
>
> --Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
This is argument from authority but no doubt you will mention it was in
Nature a peer reviewed journal!
Yes it was but not as a peer reviewed paper! It was in the letters page.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/
But he is a neurologist and spent some years in it.
If you look at his publications however you might note a lot of molecular
biology but where is the philosophy of the mind?
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/mcdb/faculty/kosik/publications/publications.html
> Now that is what I call a real threat to religion.
>
> earle
Hmmm? And the world isnt at the centre of the universe? And god didn't
create us 6000 years ago?
They seem to have gotten over that so how wuld the explaination of a
bilogical dependent mind be a big deal?
such an explaination however does not exist. i would find it hard to believe
that we can create minds by manipulating neurons.
If that is the truth then neurologists are left with teh pore destination
and programming problems that religion had.
So the centuries of debate on that issue wouldn't be wasted would it?
Sanity
> "Sanity" <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3607c045-8671-4dc7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 3, 4:59 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <hhokge02...@news4.newsguy.com>,
>
> > teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:16:38 +0000, Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
> > > > In fact, do atheists believe minds exist apart from the physical body?
>
> > *
> > In fact, the growing opinion of many scientists is exactly the opposite:
>
> “Scientists,” many of us anyway, deal in facts acquired through
> research and consider “opinions” valuable only when they further
> research.
> I believe in God, but don’t have a handle on the Creator like
> televangelists and others claim. No, I don’t buy the creation story
> in Genesis, but neither do I think opinions equal to facts...
>
> > That the mind is *entirely* contained in the brain.
>
> > "Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem for
> > many deeply religious people, because one can easily accept
> > evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material being.
> > On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view in the
> > neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the
> > brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
>
> > --Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)
>
> This is argument from authority but no doubt you will mention it was in
> Nature a peer reviewed journal!
>
> But he is a neurologist and spent some years in it.
>
> If you look at his publications however you might note a lot of molecular
>
> > Now that is what I call a real threat to religion.
>
> > earle
>
> Hmmm? And the world isnt at the centre of the universe? And god didn't
> create us 6000 years ago?
> They seem to have gotten over that so how wuld the explaination of a
> bilogical dependent mind be a big deal?
> such an explaination however does not exist. i would find it hard to believe
> that we can create minds by manipulating neurons.
> If that is the truth then neurologists are left with teh pore destination
> and programming problems that religion had.
> So the centuries of debate on that issue wouldn't be wasted would it?
The view that the mind is wholly biologically in the brain is
solipsistic, hubristic, and anthropologically biased in that it
presupposes “mind” is something lower (?) specie don’t have. My dog
Mr. Brown was intelligent, but he was a ‘live in the present’ kind of
guy who lacked both the capacity to speak English and the desire to
address the whichness of the why questions of philosophy... The caged
bird sings for the joy of it. Just because an igneous rock doesn’t
animate at a speed I relate to or have DNA doesn’t mean it doesn’t
have a mind of its own; in some cases I content myself by admitting I
don’t know. :^)
Peace, Sanity
Earle Jones
<d14e8da0-625d-455d...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Sanity <sanity...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
***
I believe exactly the opposite is true. Your dog has a brain and within
it is his mind. He doesn't speak English or address philosophical
questions, but that has nothing to do with his learning, his ability to
make decisions and to do those other things that minds do.
Are you saying that "lower" species (I would prefer "different" species)
do not have a mind? Or are you reserving that term for Homo sapiens?
Re Kosik's quote: Do you believe that you mind has inputs that are
outside your body -- that are not derived from your senses? Some people
hear "voices" and have visual "hallucinations" from outside their body,
but they are generally understood to be abnormal.
earle
***
Earle Jones
<85b1afa0-dd3f-4549...@37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
What I really "knew" was this:
I am willing to accept that there was a smart man, who was a teacher,
who is historically known as "Jesus". That is not difficult to accept.
I don't accept that he was the son of some "God", since the concept of
"God" as held by religious people, is not well defined and means many
things to many different people. I especially do not believe that this
"God" is omniscient and omnipotent and created the world in six days.
There is no evidence on which to base such belief.
I have no reason to believe that Jesus' mother was a virgin, which
violates biological principles.
And finally, I don't believe that he died and then was raised from the
dead. If he was dead, he didn't rise. If he rose, he wasn't dead.
Again, the basic principles of biology would be violated.
And that is what I know and believe.
I was a Christian when I was eight years old. I am no longer.
earle
*
Sanity
Mr. Brown’s ‘live in the now’ mindset handicapped his ability to plan
for the future to a large degree; that and his lack of thumbs...
>
> Are you saying that "lower" species (I would prefer "different" species)
> do not have a mind? Or are you reserving that term for Homo sapiens?
Okay, "different" works for me just as well. My mind is flexable.
I am a theist. I believe in God. I do not believe in the invisible
man in the sky deity of legend, do not believe humans were created in
"His Image" to rule the Earth, and I lack the hubris to attempt to
restrict or confine God’s Spirit or Way by defining it within the
narrow strictures of the human convention of language. Cf.: T’ao Te
Ching Chapter #1. My faith is animistic and Taoist, and I have seen
miracles with my own eyes that controvert academic demagoguery.
Humble prayer works.
Again: Just because an igneous rock doesn¹t animate at a speed I
relate to or have DNA doesn¹t mean it doesn¹t have a mind of its own;
in some cases I content myself by admitting I don¹t know. :^)
>
> Re Kosik's quote: Do you believe that you mind has inputs that are
> outside your body -- that are not derived from your senses? Some people
> hear "voices" and have visual "hallucinations" from outside their body,
> but they are generally understood to be abnormal.
"Understood" by whom? Arguments from authority need to be validated
to rise above the academic hubris of official opinions dictating to
reason, way I seize it. No official-dumb for me thanks.
Welcome to the land of subjective reality Earl. Enjoy your trip
through life. Faiths in God or atheism are choices and entitlements
available to all under Liberty. Both your relationship with the
Creator and/or your denial of any such relationship are completely
outside of my jurisdiction. "- doesn't break my leg. –
Jefferson :^)
Peace, Sanity Clause RE [Rascal Emeritus]
>
> earle
> ***
minnesot...@yahoo.com
Maybe it's the Intergalactic Mining Company needing critters smart
enough to operate heavy equipment, but not wise enough to know not to.
(See the works of Zechariah Sitchin, Doris Lessing's "Shikasta" and,
believe it or not, L. Ron Hubbard's (Yes, that L. Ron Hubbard)
"Battlefield Earth".
Love, fox
minnesot...@yahoo.com
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> is. It's a tool for the powerful and a handicap for the weak. Then we
> can expect societies to remain paralyzed in time at a time for change
> and action...
>
> OVERCONSUMPTION and WARS OVER RESOURCES put new stresses on our
> beloved planet.
>
> learned how to fully use their minds.
>
>
> "The resources of the jungle are limited and precious. But wars over
> bananas are unlikely"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
If religion is a handicap, I wanna see Gandhi without it.