I think belief in God is what helps sustain us through hard times. It gives us something to look forward to. I was talking to a guy I know thats a part of the 5% Nation (Five-Percent Nation - Wikipedia) and he constantly said that i should stop believing in a “spook god” but what he doesnt understand is that its about faith and not logic.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And why have people implied that atheists don’t have a God Spot? That is, when none of us have a God Spot…
Why are people getting hung up on the name? It’s a part of the brain that presumably fires up during religious experiences as wellas other similar experiences. And, like someone said before, I really doubt an atheist would know a religious experience if it pantsed them and slapped them in the face.[/quote]
That’s my point. The “same electrical circuits are used.” However, there were posts that seemed to be based on the idea that there was such a spot. One not found in an atheist’s brain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And why have people implied that atheists don’t have a God Spot? That is, when none of us have a God Spot…
Why are people getting hung up on the name? It’s a part of the brain that presumably fires up during religious experiences as wellas other similar experiences. And, like someone said before, I really doubt an atheist would know a religious experience if it pantsed them and slapped them in the face.
That’s my point. The “same electrical circuits are used.” However, there were posts that seemed to be based on the idea that there was such a spot. One not found in an atheist’s brain.[/quote]
…posts saying that atheism is unnatural, for instance. What i do find interesting though is not that people can be atheist, but that people can change their minds, going from religious to a-religious or that they can change or adopt a religion/beliefsystem. That the brain has this propensity does not automatically mean all people have religious beliefs, it is taught behaviour…
…this right here is the biggest problem for me with religion, and perhaps the reason why for many people religion just doesn’t sit right, eventhough humans are physically geared to believe: logic takes the upperhand in these matters…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And why have people implied that atheists don’t have a God Spot? That is, when none of us have a God Spot…
Why are people getting hung up on the name? It’s a part of the brain that presumably fires up during religious experiences as wellas other similar experiences. And, like someone said before, I really doubt an atheist would know a religious experience if it pantsed them and slapped them in the face.
That’s my point. The “same electrical circuits are used.” However, there were posts that seemed to be based on the idea that there was such a spot. One not found in an atheist’s brain.[/quote]
Exactly.
The name is a bit unfortunate, I think.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Making reproduction a little more difficult (which isn’t even always the case with sexual vs asexual reproduction) isn’t enough. A trait has to be truly detrimental, so that reproduction or survival is highly unlikely before it would be extinguished.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing, correct me if I am wrong - the point is traits have arisen and succeeded that have made reproduction categorically more difficult.
[/quote]
I’m disputing the idea that any trait has ever arisen the makes reproduction extremely difficult.
I do appreciate the magnitude of the shift, but I don’t thing sexual reproduction is much more difficult than asexual reproduction. Also, the notion that evolutionary change requires a catalyst is incorrect. New traits arise without a catalyst, and if they do not significantly hinder the survival or reproduction of the organism, they continue to be passed down. Further, there is no NEED to achieve biodiversity, that just happens as a result of mutation, natural selection, and changes in the surrounding environment.
[quote]
Right, so the question is what environmental catalysts caused the asexual to sexual shift (as well as others). When traits disappear, we generally have a pretty picture why (natural selection, etc.). What is less clear is what motivates the traits to come into being in the first place.
Certain traits - including fundamental ones - have come into being in direct conflict with the idea that traits must yield to the “path of least resistance to species propagation”.[/quote]
Again, no catalyst is required. Once sexual reproduction happened, and was effective, it continued to happen. Also, the shift from asexual reproduction, to sexual reproduction is fairly well documented and understood.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Moreover, you misstate the process generally: traits have arisen that interfere with reproduction, so the linear aspect you suggest that “modern biologists” have told you is not quite accurate.
Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental.
Species divergence requires not only transition but also propagation of genetic abnormalities that reduce fertility.
Any time in evolution that chromosome numbers have changed, negative traits have had to propagate through a large portion of the original population.
Again I’m going to have to ask for examples. Please keep in mind I’m not discussing negative traits. I’m only talking about those traits that have direct and severe consequences when it comes to survival and reproduction. Things like fair skin (increased risk of cancer later in life), or hip dysplasia (in dogs) don’t make the cut, b/c that organism is already done reproducing before the negative will kill it. [/quote]
My example was the origin of every sexually reproduced species on the planet.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
One of the steps in species divergence requires negative trait propagation. Negative trait meaning a reduction in fertility.
However, the propagation of negative traits apparently happens a lot. Evolution is not a straight line towards more suited creatures. It zigzags a lot.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
However, the propagation of negative traits apparently happens a lot. Evolution is not a straight line towards more suited creatures. It zigzags a lot.[/quote]
It’s not a perfect system.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
However, the propagation of negative traits apparently happens a lot. Evolution is not a straight line towards more suited creatures. It zigzags a lot.
It’s not a perfect system.[/quote]
Yeah. Because we’re assuming a “negative” trait was the only one gained. What if other traits were gained that offset it’s effects.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
However, the propagation of negative traits apparently happens a lot. Evolution is not a straight line towards more suited creatures. It zigzags a lot.
It’s not a perfect system.
Yeah. Because we’re assuming a “negative” trait was the only one gained. What if other traits were gained that offset it’s effects. [/quote]
There was one I can think of, can’t remember exactly, but it had to do with Malaria resistance or something.
What I meant was let’s look at supposedly negative traits from a different angle. We see moths fly into flames ALL the time, yes? Well look at this trait from another perspective - the moths that DON’T fly into flames. They use a light source like the moon or even distant cities to navigate. Suddenly this once suicidal behavior makes sense. It’s a misfiring of what i otherwise a good system.
That is an example of how nature and evolution aren’t perfect systems.
[quote]acidhell wrote:
Pat, do you also believe in Santa Claus?
Can you prove to me that there is no Santa Claus?
To all believers out there, do you know what the Occam’s razor is?
Or even Karl Poppers?
Anyways, religious beliefs are retarded, and there is a negative correlation between higher education and religious beliefs.
And by the way, why is it that some people think atheism negates moral values, lol?[/quote]
You are way late to the game…All these has been asked answered and debunked many times over…We’ve had lots of God talks around here…Besides you have to be more specific in your addresses. I can be vague too, but it doesn’t solve anything. For instance, atheism is retarded because it eliminates possibilities with out sufficient evidence to do so.
Anyhow, I’ll try to catch up all this shit later on…gotta run for now.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…for me it’s simple: i respect the believer, not his beliefs…[/quote]
Same here, just in reverse. I do enjoy the discussions though so long as they are civil. I enjoy the challenges.
[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…for me it’s simple: i respect the believer, not his beliefs…
Same here, just in reverse. I do enjoy the discussions though so long as they are civil. I enjoy the challenges.[/quote]
…in reverse? You mean you don’t [have to] respect the believer, but you’ll respect his beliefs?
People who reported an intimate experience of God, engaged in religious behavior or feared God, tended to have larger-than-average brain regions devoted to empathy, symbolic communication and emotional regulation. The research wasnâ??t trying to measure some kind of small â??God-spot,â?? but looked instead at broader patterns within the brains of self-reported religious people.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
People who reported an intimate experience of God, engaged in religious behavior or feared God, tended to have larger-than-average brain regions devoted to empathy, symbolic communication and emotional regulation. The research wasn�¢??t trying to measure some kind of small �¢??God-spot,�¢?? but looked instead at broader patterns within the brains of self-reported religious people.
[/quote]
I would speculate that their brain make up makes them more susceptible to religious brainwashing at a young age and keeping the fairy tales well into adulthood.
Children are naive and believe pretty much anything parents tell them because that’s a survival mechanism. The problem is that viruses of the mind often get passed down from generation to generation.