Reply to .........................

[Pirschjaeger]

Hi Foxyboy,

I wanted to reply to your post regarding Dawkins and heresy but didn't want to hijack the thread.

"Oh, and Dawkins is a heretic, be sure"

I agree but before posting I decided to make very clear for myself, the definition of 'heretic'.

The definitions 'heretic' from various dictionaries range from anti-church to anti-established principles. This wasn't so definitive for me since Dawkins obviously has principles and most are established such as those of science.

So I decided to look at the origins of the word:

[Origin: 1300–50; ME heretik < MF heretique < LL haereticus < Gk hairetikós able to choose (LGk: heretical), equiv. to hairet(ós) that may be taken (verbal adj. of haireÇ�n to choose) + -ikos -ic]

So originally, before the church decided to warp the meaning for their own agenda, 'heretic' referred to someone who is able to choose. "freethinker' is also listed as one of the synonyms.

So, in summary, I agree with you and I am sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[foxyboy1964]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Maybe you've taken my post a bit too seriously, it was just a joke mate. Enjoy the book, I'm sure it'll be a very intelligently written and entertaining piece of work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I thought I'd better post that before the google commandos arrive and turn this thread into some sort of Enlightenment Jihad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

No, I didn't take it too seriously. I just thought that any reply would result in the hijacking of the thread by god himself. To add, I feel it a little rude to not reply. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, this was my best solution. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

This thread needs more babes.(tm)

[foxyboy1964]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
No, I didn't take it too seriously. I just thought that any reply would result in the hijacking of the thread by god himself. To add, I feel it a little rude to not reply. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, this was my best solution. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Surely you mean God Himself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[foxyboy1964]

Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
This thread needs more babes.(tm)

And the Lord said "let there be babes, and they shall be buxom and fair of face." But the Ubi Admin staff were sore grieved by this, and lo, Megile was cast out into the wilderness, and he took his cheerleader linkages with him. Bugger.

[Pirschjaeger]

I found 17 rules for capitalization. None of them said I have to capitalize the spaghetti monster, fairies, the tooth fairy, or god. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

Sigworthy soundbyte there, Foxy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You know 'sinister' originally meant 'left-handed'? Ties in with great literary villains having an impediment (like a limp) or just being plain different. Just to show I know stuff.

[Pirschjaeger]

The word on the street is Megile is now in cheerleader heaven.

No rest for his soul. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[foxyboy1964]

Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Just to show I know stuff.

We know you know stuff. In fact, eight out of ten cats agree that you and Leit are the only two guys here who know anything! The rest of us just sit about on our elbows trying not to make spelling mistakes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

Aw, shucks, Foxy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Ah yes, poor Megile... he's got it all to come to come. That moment we all dread. That welcome home to frosty looks, and the lecture...

"I was tidying up today and went through your stuff at the back of the wardrobe...how could you?...the porn mags I can put up with but I don't think I can live with the shame of living with a...a....fff..fff...flight sim addict..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[foxyboy1964]

There's a fair bit of truth in that LF. I've had some funny looks when they see my HOTAS (no pun). And they can't deflection shoot for chit.

[DuxCorvan]

Auto de Fe coming your way.
http://www.ciadaescola.com.br/zoom/imgs/343/image002.jpg

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I found 17 rules for capitalization. None of them said I have to capitalize the spaghetti monster, fairies, the tooth fairy, or god. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You would capitalize Apollo, Aphrodite, or any other pagan god or goddess. The judeao-christian-islamic god is called "God" in english. That is his name. Just because he was named by his inventors rather than his parents does not change this fact. If the spaghetti monster was called "Carbonara" you would capitalize that.

So it is just good manners, really. After all, would you want someone to say "Pirschjaeger" does not exist, so we should call him "pirschjaeger"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

Can you prove I exist? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Proper names should be capitalized. If you feel 'Pirschjaeger' is a proper name, then it should be capitalized. But if you didn't capitalize it, I probably wouldn't even take note. It's pretty low on my 'What is Important' list. 'god' is not a proper name.

But if it makes you feel better, I will add 'a' to 'god' making the term 'a god' which, in all probability, is more than it is.

Capitalizing something that doesn't exist is lending, at least in the smallest, some sort of credibility.

[DuxCorvan]

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/garyosborn/Tetragrammaton.jpg

[foxyboy1964]

http://karynmarkwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/alpha-omega1.jpg

[foxyboy1964]

http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/images/yin-yang.jpg

[foxyboy1964]

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Cheech-And-Chong-Photograph-C12148348.jpeg

[x6BL_Brando]

http://www.ooze.com/finger/assets/images/coverorig.jpg

[foxyboy1964]

The Lady Of The Lake?

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Can you prove I exist? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Proper names should be capitalized. If you feel 'Pirschjaeger' is a proper name, then it should be capitalized. But if you didn't capitalize it, I probably wouldn't even take note. It's pretty low on my 'What is Important' list. 'god' is not a proper name.

But if it makes you feel better, I will add 'a' to 'god' making the term 'a god' which, in all probability, is more than it is.

Capitalizing something that doesn't exist is lending, at least in the smallest, some sort of credibility.

My point is that it does not matter whether you exist or not. "God" is a proper name even if "god" is not, depending on the context, for instance when someone is talking about him (her?, it?) or to him, eg in prayer, as opposed to talking about any gods in general.

There are so many good arguments for atheism that there is really no reason to resort to bad ones, it just distracts from your point.

[x6BL_Brando]

The Lady Of The Lake?

The digit from the deep? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

B

[x6BL_Brando]

There are so many good arguments for atheism that there is really no reason to resort to bad ones, it just distracts from your point.

Don't you mean Atheism?

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

B

[Pirschjaeger]

That's the point. Somehow religion gets extra respect. I suppose when a god, or a fantasy scapegoat, has killed enough people, it earns capitalization.

Not in these parts.

[Aaron_GT]

This thread needs more babes.(tm)

Shots of Whirlwinds are an acceptable alternative. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[foxyboy1964]

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Shots of Whirlwinds are an acceptable alternative. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just don't post any pictures of exploding turbans.

Hey Pirsch, do me a favour, will you remove my name from the title of this thread? It's beginning to look like some sort of Dawkinian fatwa http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

done

[foxyboy1964]

Danke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

bitte http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This thread needs more babes.(tm)

Shots of Whirlwinds are an acceptable alternative. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Covered all angles in this thread with this one, methinks...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/tor3Whirly.jpg

On topic, on time and under budget. Someone put me in charge of the London Olympics before it's too late. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by unreasonable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Can you prove I exist? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Proper names should be capitalized. If you feel 'Pirschjaeger' is a proper name, then it should be capitalized. But if you didn't capitalize it, I probably wouldn't even take note. It's pretty low on my 'What is Important' list. 'god' is not a proper name.

But if it makes you feel better, I will add 'a' to 'god' making the term 'a god' which, in all probability, is more than it is.

Capitalizing something that doesn't exist is lending, at least in the smallest, some sort of credibility.

My point is that it does not matter whether you exist or not. "God" is a proper name even if "god" is not, depending on the context, for instance when someone is talking about him (her?, it?) or to him, eg in prayer, as opposed to talking about any gods in general.

There are so many good arguments for atheism that there is really no reason to resort to bad ones, it just distracts from your point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are quite mistaken. The god you speak of indeed has a name, it cracks me up that 90% of cristians don't even know the name of their own god! His name is either Jehovah Elohim or Yahweh depending on who you ask and when. Those names being proper names should be capitalized just as Inanna or Herne should be, but never the word god. Capitalizing of the word "God" is purely a christian method to separate the term god as in "a god" from God as in "The one and only God" which is rather offensive IMO.

[Pirschjaeger]

Dawkins made a good point when he said everyone is an Atheist(a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings).

How is that?

Simple. I won't bother directly quoting him but he points out that there is a long list of gods. By not believing in all of them you are an Atheist but I will add, in the least an Agnostic or Pagen.

If a Hindu doesn't believe in Jesus does that make him/her any more and Atheist, Agnostic,or Pagan than a Christian who doesn't believe in a Hindu god?

or

If a Hindu believes in a Hindu god does that make him/her any less and believer than a Christian who believes in a Jesus?

Interestingly, all gods share the same degree of legitimacy.

[joeap]

Fritz I disagree in part to what you just said. I think quite a few Hindus do believe in Jesus in addition to their gods.

"Legitimacy" is only an opnion, belief or non-belief is equally legitimate in my opinion.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by joeap:
Fritz I disagree in part to what you just said. I think quite a few Hindus do believe in Jesus in addition to their gods.

"Legitimacy" is only an opnion, belief or non-belief is equally legitimate in my opinion.

Hi Joe,

are you confusing Hindus with Buddhists?

Also, I agree, legitimacy without evidence is nothing more than opinion. Since there has never been a shred of evidence to support the existence of a god or gods, then the legitimacy of all gods is equal.

Now I would expect someone to say "There's no evidence that denies the existence of gods or a god." This is true to an extent but then again the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the believers.

[Pirschjaeger]

What Urufu said;

Etymology and usage

Main article: God (word)

The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus. The English word itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic * Ç¥uÄ‘an. Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * ǵhu-tó-m was based on the root * ǵhau(É™)-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".[5]

The capitalized form God was first used in Wulfila's Gothic translation of the New Testament, to represent the Greek Theos. In the English language, the capitalization continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and "gods" in polytheism.[6][7] In spite of significant differences between religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Bahá'í Faith, and Judaism, the term "God" remains an English translation common to all. The name may signify any related or similar monotheistic deities, such as the early monotheism of Akhenaten and Zoroastrianism.

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unreasonable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Can you prove I exist? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Proper names should be capitalized. If you feel 'Pirschjaeger' is a proper name, then it should be capitalized. But if you didn't capitalize it, I probably wouldn't even take note. It's pretty low on my 'What is Important' list. 'god' is not a proper name.

But if it makes you feel better, I will add 'a' to 'god' making the term 'a god' which, in all probability, is more than it is.

Capitalizing something that doesn't exist is lending, at least in the smallest, some sort of credibility.

My point is that it does not matter whether you exist or not. "God" is a proper name even if "god" is not, depending on the context, for instance when someone is talking about him (her?, it?) or to him, eg in prayer, as opposed to talking about any gods in general.

There are so many good arguments for atheism that there is really no reason to resort to bad ones, it just distracts from your point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are quite mistaken. The god you speak of indeed has a name, it cracks me up that 90% of cristians don't even know the name of their own god! His name is either Jehovah Elohim or Yahweh depending on who you ask and when. Those names being proper names should be capitalized just as Inanna or Herne should be, but never the word god. Capitalizing of the word "God" is purely a christian method to separate the term god as in "a god" from God as in "The one and only God" which is rather offensive IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I am often mistaken but most certainly not in this case.

(BTW, your post could be taken to suggest that you think I am a Christian, even if you do not explicitly say this. This is incorrect, but even if it were true should have no bearing on the issue.)

Pirschjaeger's post, which he seems to think supports your view, actually supports mine. "God" can be used as he says, among other ways, as a direct translation - his word - for Jehovah etc. Ie one proper name is translated by another, it is not replaced with a generic term. BTW a quick trip to Wikipedia reveals that "Elohim" was also used in Hebrew in a plural form, ie not as a proper name.

Names in general usually start as a descriptive term - But once the term is understood in context to refer to a specific entity, real or imaginary, the term becomes a proper name. "Urufu" is Japanese for "Wolf" I think - apologies if this is incorrect - capitalizing the word "Wolf" is purely a English language method to separate the term wolf as in "a wolf" from Wolf as in "The person called Wolf" which is rather inoffensive IMO.

The fact that various monotheistic religions had different practices and beliefs is irrelevant. Various CoE bishops have different religious practices and beliefs but this does not mean they believe that they are talking to, or about, different gods. Even if they did, that would no more make it invalid for each of them to use "God" as a proper name than it would if they used "Wolf" to address two different people of that name.

Finally, language is defined by what we do. "God" is a proper name because it is used and understood as such by many people whether you like it or not.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by unreasonable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by unreasonable:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Can you prove I exist? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Proper names should be capitalized. If you feel 'Pirschjaeger' is a proper name, then it should be capitalized. But if you didn't capitalize it, I probably wouldn't even take note. It's pretty low on my 'What is Important' list. 'god' is not a proper name.

But if it makes you feel better, I will add 'a' to 'god' making the term 'a god' which, in all probability, is more than it is.

Capitalizing something that doesn't exist is lending, at least in the smallest, some sort of credibility.

My point is that it does not matter whether you exist or not. "God" is a proper name even if "god" is not, depending on the context, for instance when someone is talking about him (her?, it?) or to him, eg in prayer, as opposed to talking about any gods in general.

There are so many good arguments for atheism that there is really no reason to resort to bad ones, it just distracts from your point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you are quite mistaken. The god you speak of indeed has a name, it cracks me up that 90% of cristians don't even know the name of their own god! His name is either Jehovah Elohim or Yahweh depending on who you ask and when. Those names being proper names should be capitalized just as Inanna or Herne should be, but never the word god. Capitalizing of the word "God" is purely a christian method to separate the term god as in "a god" from God as in "The one and only God" which is rather offensive IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I am often mistaken but most certainly not in this case.

(BTW, your post could be taken to suggest that you think I am a Christian, even if you do not explicitly say this. This is incorrect, but even if it were true should have no bearing on the issue.)

Pirschjaeger's post, which he seems to think supports your view, actually supports mine. "God" can be used as he says, among other ways, as a direct translation - his word - for Jehovah etc. Ie one proper name is translated by another, it is not replaced with a generic term. BTW a quick trip to Wikipedia reveals that "Elohim" was also used in Hebrew in a plural form, ie not as a proper name.

Names in general usually start as a descriptive term - But once the term is understood in context to refer to a specific entity, real or imaginary, the term becomes a proper name. "Urufu" is Japanese for "Wolf" I think - apologies if this is incorrect - capitalizing the word "Wolf" is purely a English language method to separate the term wolf as in "a wolf" from Wolf as in "The person called Wolf" which is rather inoffensive IMO.

The fact that various monotheistic religions had different practices and beliefs is irrelevant. Various CoE bishops have different religious practices and beliefs but this does not mean they believe that they are talking to, or about, different gods. Even if they did, that would no more make it invalid for each of them to use "God" as a proper name than it would if they used "Wolf" to address two different people of that name.

Finally, language is defined by what we do. "God" is a proper name because it is used and understood as such by many people whether you like it or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thank you for a very well written post. You are correct that it means wolf (although not the most commonly used word for wolf). I see from this post that you of the far rarer breed who uses the term as you described in your post, I mistook you for the far more common type who use the word God as a proper name out of ignorance rather than in the manner you describe. I hope you accept my sincere apology for the mistake. I did not mean to imply you were christian either, or at least no more christian than the average person, believer or not, who have been raised in this modern society so dominated by christian idea's that most people don't even see it all around them.

Again, thank you for a very intellegent and well thought out post.

~S

[Pirschjaeger]

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is correct whether capitalized or not.

That's what I thought which is why I, with all due respect of course, don't/won't capitalize it.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
So if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is correct whether capitalized or not.

That's what I thought which is why I, with all due respect of course, don't/won't capitalize it.

Agreed, I will not capitalize it either but I sometimes find I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to christianity, you know, seeing as how they used to burn my people at the stake and all, lol.

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
So if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is correct whether capitalized or not.

That's what I thought which is why I, with all due respect of course, don't/won't capitalize it.

I am saying that it depends on the context: proper name context should be capitalized, other uses not. Actually many writers do not capitalize the word "god" even when it is clearly being used as a proper name, and their meaning is understood, so it is hardly a capital crime. Also, language rules being normative rather than prescriptive, they can change incrementally over time.

Actually my main concern over this issue is that it is a red herring - just think, with all the time you have spent worrying over this you could have saved one soul from religion! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
So if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is correct whether capitalized or not.

That's what I thought which is why I, with all due respect of course, don't/won't capitalize it.

Agreed, I will not capitalize it either but I sometimes find I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to christianity, you know, seeing as how they used to burn my people at the stake and all, lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your feelings - I was at a very christian boarding school as a child, of the type of christian called Nonconformists, who like to beat you if you do not conform. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif Since I decided that atheism made more sense at the age of about nine and was too stupid to just shut up about it, I ended up with a chip as well, though fortunately no stake. Now I have just about got over it - spending a lot of time with buddhists helps. (Why is there no calmly meditating smiley?)

[Pirschjaeger]

just think, with all the time you have spent worrying over this you could have saved one soul from religion!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Actually the souls must find/save themselves. That's the difference between Atheists and wannabe-saviors; we don't try to control souls. Atheists by default have get-out-of-hell-free cards.

Until recently I had been very tolerant of of the devout but I've become sick and tired of people trying to shove their fantasy sky-fairy down my soul.

Push has come to shove.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Agreed Pirch, one of the many reasons I like the pagan religions, the only thing we have close to a "sin" is to force your will on another, and this includes evangelism. If you ever have a pagan try to convert you then they are wanna be and a fake.

[Pirschjaeger]

One thing I've noticed in common between Atheists and Pagans is that they normally don't preach or push their beliefs. Typically they are both very tolerant with a 'live and let live' attitude. Why not? Who cares about what another person believes and why should we care? It is between their god/gods and themselves and no one else's business.

Preaching your god to someone is actually reverse psychology. The bible-thumper confirms his belief (for the next 24 hours) if he can convert someone. His preaching is really all about his own lack of real faith. To add, he gets brownie points just in case there is a heaven.

As someone once said "There is sanity in numbers".

If you created your own god and preached you'd be labeled a lunatic. But if after sometime you manage to convince enough people, you are then a prophet.

I like Pagans. I can sort of relate to their beliefs, to an extent. Most Pagans worship nature or virtues symbolized by gods but at the same time they know the actual god does not exist. Paganism is more of a discipline or a set of rules to live by that include respect for all living things. There's a degree of honesty and sincerity you won't find in the Abraham religions. The universe and nature are more magical and awe inspiring that any fantasy god I've heard of.

Imagine, it would be ironic for Atheists and Pagans to join ranks to protect personal human rights such as freedom and education. It's been done before. (The founding fathers).

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Well said, and I can tell you have spent time talking with pagans, most don't catch on the the part about the gods. The gods are hard to describe to those who are either pure stubborn ignorant atheists (not you guys, I'm sure you know the type I mean) or to judeo/christians. First and foremost the gods are a kind of codification of the forces of nature for the benefit of the mind. You personify an aspect of an esoteric concept and the human mind is better able to hold the shape of that concept. At the same time though we know (I don't say believe because there is no belief involved as it's readily apparent to the careful observer) that thought has a direct relationship with "reality", and that if enough people pour enough thought into a specific form then it begins to have a force of it's own so in a sense the gods are real and not real, lol.

As you can see, we don't evangelize but we'll sure talk about it if asked, lol! Which is a nice change from having to keep it secret for fear of being put to death. In fact, I still have to be careful in my non-internet life due to discrimination from christians who claim to be more enlightened than they are.

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
..... You personify an aspect of an esoteric concept and the human mind is better able to hold the shape of that concept. At the same time though we know (I don't say believe because there is no belief involved as it's readily apparent to the careful observer) that thought has a direct relationship with "reality", and that if enough people pour enough thought into a specific form then it begins to have a force of it's own so in a sense the gods are real and not real, lol.



Well expressed. That is just what the more sophisticated buddhist priests say as well. I remember years ago reading a good story (titled Jurgen?) by James Branch Cabell in which God was complaining about his diminishing powers as fewer people were believing in him, in contrast to his meteoric early career progression from being a run of the mill asiatic storm god.

As I see it, humans find thinking in terms of agents with beliefs, desires and intentions natural and do it with great sophistication as a means of explaining many of the things that matter to them, especially interactions with other humans and animals. By contrast, other forms of explanation such as causation, probability or mathematics are less natural, in that order. So the harder the problem in terms of the latter factors, the more likley they are to resort to the former.

Each of these forms of explanation can be satisfying and/or useful in various contexts. My gripe with theists in general is that the agency mode of explains too much if used in the wrong context...they can always resort to the argument that so and so happens because a diety wants it to be so, which can never be disproved. If you explain everything, you explain nothing, at least to my way of thinking.

Oddly enough, the same problem can occur with darwinism now that it has become part of popular culture. It tends to be assumed that every physical attribute of an organism that undergoes evolution must be optimally adapted to the environment. This does not follow logically from the empirical observation that evolution does in fact happen in some cases, it is merely a hypothesis that can be disproved - indeed already has been in certain rare cases. But whenever a topic comes up on the subject of, say, the different ways in which males and females navigate, you hear the response "Its evolution, i'nit!" as though that in itself explained anything.

[Pirschjaeger]

So the harder the problem in terms of the latter factors, the more likley they are to resort to the former.

The brain typically takes the path of least resistance; hence religion.


But whenever a topic comes up on the subject of, say, the different ways in which males and females navigate, you hear the response "Its evolution, i'nit!" as though that in itself explained anything.

What do pigeons, monarch butterflies, and male humans have in common?

Traces of lodestone in the brain. In humans lodestone has been found in the posterior wall of the ethmoid sinus, just in front of the pituitary gland.

The way we live today is very different from the past when men had to go out, kill something, and return home with the bounty. We lived this way for a very long time. Long enough in fact for evolution to answer man's need for a GPS. This is why some of us can feel north.

But the lodestone alone does not mean we can find our way around a city or in the forest without a compass. Having the lodestone, along with other parts of the brain, facilitates the ability to develop the skill.


It tends to be assumed that every physical attribute of an organism that undergoes evolution must be optimally adapted to the environment.

I think that would be a really bad assumption, at least in my book. What about all the attributes that haven't finished evolving? It appears the lodestone found in the male brain is part of an attribute that is far from complete. We couldn't say or to what extent it would evolve until it is complete.

I think evolution is often misunderstood.

[Aaron_GT]

What do pigeons, monarch butterflies, and male humans have in common?

Plus none of them ever ask the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Pirschjaeger]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Admit it, you are Aaron's wife. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[unreasonable]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It tends to be assumed that every physical attribute of an organism that undergoes evolution must be optimally adapted to the environment.

I think that would be a really bad assumption, at least in my book. What about all the attributes that haven't finished evolving? It appears the lodestone found in the male brain is part of an attribute that is far from complete. We couldn't say or to what extent it would evolve until it is complete.

I think evolution is often misunderstood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is a bad assumption and absolutely evolution is often misunderstood. Unfortunately, the idea that evolution can ever be considered "complete" is a good example. This is a teleological fallacy.

Evolution is just the result of selection between inherited body/behaviour characteristics due to their differential impact on reproductive success. There is no externally specified end state towards which evolution progresses.

For an evolutionary trait to be "complete" it would have to be static, ie there could be no random change in the genotype or the physical environment. Even if there was no change in either of these evolution would rarely (I hypothesise never) come to a halt because the ecological environment always has feedback loops which cause the system to fail to reach a stable equilibrium. No doubt you are familiar with the old snowy owl vs lemming example (or was it artic hare?)

This constant unstable rebalancing between systems occurs within each body as well.