MonDie

Even if we couldn't think of counterarguments or better explanations, those examples of evidence wouldn't say much. Religious gods are usually complex. Even the idea of a god itself is complex because it has multiple characteristics, and it becomes more complicated when you add in more characteristics. Such complex ideas would hardly be supported even if someone could prove something like prayer healing or the logical necessity of an ultimate creation event, EDIT: and it's even debatable whether that could be considered supporting evidence at all. I would continue promoting the search for natural explanations/knowledge because that is the progressive route. To make matters worse, religious hypotheses aren't supported by the evidence when they're examined scientifically.

I'm still reading the thread, but the argument I was reading didn't seem to be going toward what I am about to say. Of course, if humans made this argument after they were enslaved, it would be clear that they were only arguing for their own benefit. However, we could argue that humans should change their view even before they're enslaved because of their ability to feel empathy. Humans have the intelligence to think about things that aren't happening, but might happen, which is displacement (linguistics). Mafio's hypothetical story is meant to invoke empathic feelings for enslaved animals through our ability to grasp displacement. If an argument would conclude that empathy for other genera is natural for humans or was adaptive for humans, it would be a good argument from the psychological or evolutionary perspective. Such an argument would probably rely on the functionality of the social nature of humans. If an argue would conclude that a popular belief about empathy can be logically extrapolated to this issue, that would also be a good argument. Such an argument would probably rely on the more common belief that pets should not be abused.

According to this video, hallucinations are "common," "normal" and "natural." I will add more information. Hallucination can be induced in hypnosis, and most people can be hypnotized. Hypnotic susceptibility depends on a person's willingness, and I think a religious follower would be very willing to go into a trance at a religious ceremony, at which point, they might hallucinate voices.

This is a combination of ethics and social science. Why do people discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs? Why does relative religious affiliation have an affect on social evaluation? Do you think it's ever okay to discriminate on this basis? If you would discriminate in some instances, then you obviously think it's okay to discriminate in some instances. The following is my summary of part of a Social Psychology textbook. It describes some evidence for Terror Management Theory and relates it to self-esteem. I at least have prejudice against religious people and in favor of agnostic atheists. Too uncritically, I assume that agnostic atheists are generally more realistic and reasonable (because they are in agreement with my own "realistic and reasonable" beliefs. That's potential confirmation bias!) However, I don't think my bias is strong because I'm not immune to the seducing charm of the people who have come to our door intending to convert me.

Scientists are encouraged to think critically, and religious followers are encouraged to have blind-faith. EDIT: I made a mistakenly inaccurate double negative! I will never forgive myself! EDIT: Never!

I have another small quibble about the post I quoted. The distinction between a fundamentalist and a scientist is not that only one believes IN scientific theories, but that only one believes scientific theories. Hence, I edited my post further. I think this isn't generally applicable, although you could argue otherwise.

He was equating them with David Berkowitz. However, if you want to argue that David Berkowitz was mentally ill in a way that religious people aren't, that would be on topic. I recall Iggy comparing religious people to insane people that have the potential to turn evil at the drop of a hat. My only modifications to that idea would be that it probably depends on the current power of one's faith in a religious leader, and it might depend on one's tendency toward thinking critically since a critical thinker is less likely to establish faith. People who have a belief in God that may turn out to be is probably wrong and who deny that they could be wrong about particular things (e.g. the existence of God), or people who have a belief believe in scientific theories that may turn out to be probably aren't wrong and who are always willing to let go of their beliefs if emerging evidence overwhelmingly contradicts them? fify

Even if humans have violent proclivities, they might develop the technology to engineer a less violent species. While your daydream is being saved from a meteorite collision, the real world is undergoing pollution and large scale species extinction. I think a key question is whether a human dominated biosphere can be altered more significantly than one that's not dominated by humans. Forgive my lack of knowledge, but don't the samples of the arctic ice support the idea that earth is changing faster than it ever has in the past? What is the evidence indicating that species extinction has occurred more rapidly during the reign of humanity? I barely know about this.

I never took a philosophy class on logic, but, on Wikipedia, I read that logic is a formal science. EDIT: However, doesn't logic only partially comprise empirical science, and isn't the sum greater than its parts? Logic makes hypotheses, but science makes hypotheses and demonstrates their validity through manipulation of cause-and-effect. This is not to say that philosophical claims are always less certain than scientific claims, but it does imply that that's generally the case.

The crowd goes into a silent reminiscence.

I thought the second song was a fitting response. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Conduct_of_the_Iraq_war #Treatment_of_detainees #Attempt_to_overthrow_the_government_of_Iran

Although it isn't intelligence related, I spent last night watching Oliver The Chimp parts 1-6 on youtube. Contrary to the monologue of the OP's documentary, I learned that Bonobos are chimps. Pan paniscus (Bonobo Chimp) Pan troglodytes (Common Chimp) Considering the title of the video, I don't know why they didn't show how chimps beat humans at short term memory. They only mentioned that both humans and chimps can do this task. Concerning ape culture, ape self-medicating behaviors can be culturally transmitted. Ape self-medicating behaviors include eating or chewing on things that are antimicrobial, absorbent, or affecting digestion rates. I couldn't find a good youtube on this. The video "Chimpanzee Culture and Medicine Usage" barely touched the "Medicine" subject.

Okay, I figured out how to embed them. How is it possible that you edited that post two minutes before posting it!?

Only if you've taken your caffeine already.

I don't know what the OP is talking about. Some of my joy comes from accomplishment, but the greatest bliss I've felt was in acknowledgment that existence probably lacks any designed purpose. As soon as I began reorienting my thoughts around pride-based goals, the bliss began to fade. I think the bliss was the freedom of knowing that there was nothing I absolutely had to do. EDIT: That said, I think using intentional ignorance to induce bliss, as Zapatos suggested, is usually counterproductive. If everybody disassociates from their responsibilities, no matter how large, nothing will get done. The ego isn't all bad.

"Intervention" might have been a strong word. I can't edit the title anymore. I'd like to know about studies or experiments concerned with maintenance of the brain into old age. I'll pass them on to the person when I have conversations with them. That won't seem like I'm forcing anything on them. I read about the SMILE I study where aerobic activity in the elderly both reduced depression and improved cognitive functioning, and I read about the rat study that showed running generated more Hippocampus cells and improved memory.

The Skinner experiment might be a good contribution to the thread that this thread was split from, although I don't have a problem with it being here, and it is relevant here. EDIT: Also, I don't know the meaning of "adventitious reinforcement" as it is used in the Wikipedia article.

I don't have any clue about how all the different factors come together, and you already seem to know more about the nature of brain folding than I do. All I know is that relative brain size is accurate enough to place humans and dolphins at the top, although I'm assuming that the idea of dolphins holding second place wasn't based on their relative brain size in the first place. Because relative brain size is accurate enough in its placement of humans and dolphins, I thought it would be accurate enough for the argument. EDIT: Also relevant to my argument: According to Wikipedia, neanderthals lived 0.6-0.03 mya, so they [ED: probably] would have possessed this unusually large brain. According to the article, they cannot identify the bones of relatives, although they can distinguish an elephant's skull from the skull of another animal. Also, I interpreted those behaviors as sentimental rather than religious.EDIT: Although sentimentality probably wouldn't drive them to examine remains because the remains are nothing like the living elephant was. Also, I misread iNow's first response as "Not Now that it's thread relevant."

Can you give some examples and describe what aspects of religion they're analogous to? EDIT: Typed before Moontanman's post. EDIT: Cannibalism, which was suspected to be religious, was/is present in chimps and a particular Hominin. I'll have to review the evidence since I wasn't as focused on school when I took Anthropology 101.

Did I say "early examples of religion?" Ehh, I meant examples of religion in our relatives. I'm having a brain malfunction day. I was thinking about comparing Relative Brain Size of neanderthals and chimps since the former might have had some form of religion, but the prospect looks perilous already. I might come back to this argument if I learn anything applicable.

But it seems that reasoning predates religion in our evolutionary history. There is no clear evidence of religion in apes, although some people speculate (e.g. "Chuck Blanchard"), and you might find some inter-specific (across species) examples of religion if you bend the definition. In contrast, we now know that apes can reason and have some surprising mental skills (e.g. chimp eidetic memory), and it's obvious that these mental skills, including reasoning, were advantageous. Thus, it seems obvious that, when reasoning and religion conflict, we should follow reason. In conclusion, religion shouldn't impede reasoning because, whatever adaptive functionality religion had or has, reasoning clearly has more adaptive functionality.

Perhaps the vague OP is the reason for the circling nature of this thread. It would have been nice if different arguments were labeled as they appeared, then all subsequent posts concerning labeled arguments contained the respective labels. I don't think acceptance of public science (I know it's odd terminology) is an acceptance of every single claim made by any scientist. Everybody knows that scientists have disagreements. Acceptance of public science is at least partially because the claims of scientists are often right, so we would do good to utilize them, whereas religious claims are often wrong, so we wouldn't do good to sell all our possessions in repentance every "doomsday."

Are you saying that individual responses to the environment are more effectively 'implemented' through conditioning rather than reasoning? Conditioning can help something respond to what might be about to happen, but logic can help something manipulate what is about to happen.