Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[Only-virgins]

My meaning of life is to wake up the next day and have more fun then I have had the day before.

[misombra]

ov is so hot right now.

[Mish]

Actually the misconception here is the idea that there is an answer to that question in the first place.

It's not about whether there is an answer to the question. It's about whether people need to have an answer to that question to lead better lives. I brought to you a psychological fact that a person who believes in a negative or no meaning in life is more prone to depression than a person who has a positive meaning in life. It doesn't mean every single person who believes there's no meaning in life will become depressed, only that the likelihood they do is greater

There is no single reason to live, you are meant to just survive and pass on your genes.

And what if certainty in meaning of life gave you a better chance for better well being (You can call it a better survival chance if you like), wouldn't you want to advocate it?

We evolved from chimps, what reasons to live do chimps have?

I don't know, have you ever spoken to one? Have you ever done a test to or comapred x number of chimps who have a positive meaning of life to x number of chimps who have no meaning in life to see who leads a better quality of life or has a better well being?

Beliefs and hope have been the reason or at least a supporting factor for a person's ability to fight a disease and become healthy again or to overcome obstacles and challenges relating to their health.

You have got to be kidding me, that pretty much says the same thing.

No it's not. Read it again OV. "Belief and hope as reason OR at least supporting factor for a person's ability to fight disease". Whose immune system do you think has better likelihood to fight off a disease better or faster a person with a healthy well being or someone who's depressed?

First of, on your last comment. Speak for yourself because rationality has never failed me.

I never said that it did.

On this what you posted above, you make it sound like there is nothing else but religion to make someone happy and atheists just drown in depression and sorrow from lack of belief. You kidding me?

OV, I never said that. Please re-read what I posted.

I am part of many communities. I have a wonderful family, I am part of a biology community here that does things outside of work, I have a rewarding job, I train martial arts and belong to a community there etc..I always manage to keep myself busy.

And I believe you have a great life too. Perhaps you have found all these great things outside of Religion, but some people need Religion to find these things. They need their evolutionary benefit.

You mentioned things that are good things for a human mind, Religion is a lie and the wrong way to reach them. There is also a negative to belonging to an extreme community like religion...it secludes out lots of other people.

Well then, why not create a community that provides all these good things for a human mind and convert all these Religious people to your side instead? It could be that these people are part of these communities simply because they can't find anything else that gives them these benefits that Religion gives to them. Though, you'll have to bear in mind. You'd still have to give some Religious answers to these people. They will be looking for a positive meaning in life which is factually (currently) not available.

It is what it is. I rather be miserable in truth than pathetically happy in a lie.

And this is exactly what I meant when I said Religion can provide an evolutionary benefit in a person's life. I'm sure you will agree that those who lead happy lives are from evolutionary perspective better equiped to reproduce than the ones living miserable ones

I think that makes me happy though, knowing that I know the truth... it is so rewarding knowing that I am smarter than theists. Anyways, like I said. You make yourself a meaning. Some of it is real and honest such as family. To my parents raising us was all the meaning for life they needed.

If it makes you happy then it's a good thing OV. That's very important. I never told you to abandon your beliefs or your thoughts. You should do what works best for you

[Only-virgins]

ov is so hot right now.

Are you saying there are times when I am not hot ?

[IndiReloaded]

And this is exactly what I meant when I said Religion can provide an evolutionary benefit in a person's life.

And I am telling you right now Mish to stop trying to mix religion and science. There is NO evidence whatsoever that religion has anything to do with evolution. Show me a religious ape, or any animal for that matter other than humans. And explain the mechanism for its arising. How can you evolve something from a theory that is only 6000 years old? I already explained all this in a previous post. You are trying to make religion sound scientific, just like those sneaky intelligent design/creationist ppl. If religion is scientific then you need to hold it up to standards of logic & the scientific method, where we know it fails miserably for lack of credible proof & testable hypotheses. That's why its classified as faith. Is religion science or faith Mish, b/c evolution is a scientific theory. You can't have it both ways.

[IndiReloaded]

but some people need Religion to find these things. They need their evolutionary benefit.

They need it about as much as cavemen needed to continue to burn wood to make fire when they discovered that incomplete combustion to form charcoal was much more efficient.

This 'need' is just natural human fear of change & progress Mish. I bet ppl tsked over the use of charcoal the same as you are about abandoning religion for reason.

And your sentence about 'evolutionary benefit' is just nonsense.

[IndiReloaded]

It could be that these people are part of these communities simply because they can't find anything else that gives them these benefits that Religion gives to them.

I agree with this except there's a paradox there. Many ppl are brainwashed from an early age to REJECT anything that disagrees with their religion, so they aren't given the chance to find anything else that might give them similar 'comfort', or that might actually remove that very need at its core.

I don't have a problem w/the idea that my life is basically the equivalent of a thin laser beam of light briefly illuminating an infinitesmally tiny moment along the continuum of time. LIfe got along fine before I was here & it will get along fine after I'm gone. Its the epitome of ego to need to think we have any more meaning to exist than to reproduce our genome.

But there are ppl who would get freaky at that idea, despite the fact its most consistent with all the available data (noone I know has been reborn, lol).

This is why I propose the flip in education order I said earlier. I think there are a lot of ppl who would reject the idea of religion if they weren't indoctrinated at such a young age.

Tell me Mish, were your parents religious?

[Mish]

And I am telling you right now Mish to stop trying to mix religion and science. There is NO evidence whatsoever that religion has anything to do with evolution. Show me a religious ape, or any animal for that matter other than humans. And explain the mechanism for its arising. How can you evolve something from a theory that is only 6000 years old? I already explained all this in a previous post. You are trying to make religion sound scientific, just like those sneaky intelligent design/creationist ppl. If religion is scientific then you need to hold it up to standards of logic & the scientific method, where we know it fails miserably for lack of credible proof & testable hypotheses. That's why its classified as faith. Is religion science or faith Mish, b/c evolution is a scientific theory. You can't have it both ways.

Indi, I think you completely missed the point. I am describing Religion as a mechanism of human evolution and with benefits towards human reproduction. I brought examples that show that Religion provides positive benefits to Religious people.

I am absolutely NOT claiming that Religion is Science or that Science is Religion for that matter. I'm not justifying any Religious myths. I am justifying the fact that Religion as a mechanism provides evolutionary benefits to its followers. I.e. Religion provides its followers with better chances of survival and reproduction in congregation than if they would have had independently. It also gives them a positive meaning in life which no doubt plays a significant role in maintenance of their well being. The question I'm asking, why should these people abandon Religion if they are gaining so much from it and they are unable to gain what they are gaining from anywhere else? Give me a logical answer to this question.

[Mish]

They need it about as much as cavemen needed to continue to burn wood to make fire when they discovered that incomplete combustion to form charcoal was much more efficient.

This 'need' is just natural human fear of change & progress Mish. I bet ppl tsked over the use of charcoal the same as you are about abandoning religion for reason.

Indi I think you are over simplifying this need. You can't compare the need to hit something with a piece of wood and replacing a piece of wood with a piece of Iron to deep seated psychological needs of people.

Okay, as per my earlier example to OV. Armed with knowledge that a person with a positive meaning in life has more likelihood to have a better well being than a person who lives with no meaning in life, would you advocate the positive perspective or non perspective? What if you knew that advocating non perspective would result in negative consequences in that person's life?

You are right, this is an ethical question

[Mish]

I agree with this except there's a paradox there. Many ppl are brainwashed from an early age to REJECT anything that disagrees with their religion, so they aren't given the chance to find anything else that might give them similar 'comfort', or that might actually remove that very need at its core.

Well I don't agree with fundumentalistic brainwashing as well. I said that from the very beginning. I don't agree with people rejecting obvious facts. I believe there is a balance between Science and Religion and if that balance is maintained both can co-exist in harmony with one another. To be honest, I don't even understand why there needs to be a conflict between the two. I personally understand the purpose between the two mechanisms. I understand why both are needed. I wish more people saw it this way, maybe then both Atheists and Religious people could just get along as friends without secretly wanting to destroy each other.

I don't have a problem w/the idea that my life is basically the equivalent of a thin laser beam of light briefly illuminating an infinitesmally tiny moment along the continuum of time. LIfe got along fine before I was here & it will get along fine after I'm gone. Its the epitome of ego to need to think we have any more meaning to exist than to reproduce our genome.

Maybe this point of view works for you. But it doesn't work for some other people. Some people are not content with the idea of existing for the sake of reproduction. What's the point of living if this is all there is to it? They need a better answer. They need to have positive purpose in their life. They need to be certain that even if they couldn't reproduce they still matter. That they're not some genetical zombies. To many people, our purpose in life is extremely important.

But there are ppl who would get freaky at that idea, despite the fact its most consistent with all the available data (noone I know has been reborn, lol).

Yeh? In that case you should've met mum of my ex. She'd tell you the stories of all of her past lives in a chronological order and sequence of events.

I kinda wish you were there to accompany me, you'd proly have a better time at shutting her up.

Yeh, the idea of life with no purpose is not for everyone.

This is why I propose the flip in education order I said earlier. I think there are a lot of ppl who would reject the idea of religion if they weren't indoctrinated at such a young age.

I think Religious parents would disagree on ethical grounds with this. They would first say they have a right to indoctrinate their children. Second they would want their children to strive towards positivity in life and not preoccupy themselves too deeply with thought that they might be walking sacks of meat with sole purpose of reproduction.

Tell me Mish, were your parents religious?

Actually no

However, I have first hand experience of what it's like living in an extreme, totalitarian atheist state. Where authorities try to monitor your beliefs and decide what's right for you to believe in for you.

[IndiReloaded]

Second they would want their children to strive towards positivity in life and not preoccupy themselves too deeply with thought that they might be walking sacks of meat with sole purpose of reproduction.

This doesn't follow.

You are saying that the *default* for ppl who DON'T indoctrinate their children w/religion is negativity & a deep preoccupation that life is only for reproduction & we are only hunks of meat?

I think there are a lot of non-religious ppl who would disagree w/that sweeping generalization.

[IndiReloaded]

They would first say they have a right to indoctrinate their children.

Yes. And a lot of religious ppl also think its their right to deny health care like blood transfusions & to beat their children ('spare the rod, spoil the child'). There are those who think its okay to force young girls to take a husband at 14. All under the 'protection' of religious belief.

The sooner we eliminate the special privileges associated w/religion & subject them to the SAME rules and laws that other societal groups have to satisfy, the better off everyone will be. Esp 'children of religion', as Dawkins puts it. This isn't the same as taking away their belief, don't mistake me, I'm just saying that belief shouldn't confer any special privileges and it should be presented as a CHOICE for our youth. Not the default thru early programming.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay, as per my earlier example to OV. Armed with knowledge that a person with a positive meaning in life has more likelihood to have a better well being than a person who lives with no meaning in life, would you advocate the positive perspective or non perspective? What if you knew that advocating non perspective would result in negative consequences in that person's life?

To answer this directly: yes, I would advocate a positive life perspective over a negative one.

But it absolutely does NOT follow that this requires religion. As evidenced by the existence of many very positive, non-religious individuals.

Now, as to your anticipated extension argument about a 'replacement' for those needing religion. Again, I question just how many of those who 'need' religion actually would in the absence of early programming. And, allowing for the possibility that there really exists a 'need' for a belief system as a psychological survival mechanism, there is nothing preventing those taught to think about the world logically early to choose religion as a belief system later. And that's fine.

Or, they may choose an entirely different belief system. You are mistaken that there aren't other or better models for this than religion. It just that, presently, the mechanisms that modern religions use to ensure their 'next generation believers' are so pervasive and 'anti-alternative' that its difficult for someone to find out about these other possibilities unless & until they decide to reject religion entirely. If, you'd like an example, check out A. Huxley's 'The Island'. (Yes, this is the same author as BNW; Island is just a lesser known work of his.)

[IndiReloaded]

To be honest, I don't even understand why there needs to be a conflict between the two. I personally understand the purpose between the two mechanisms. I understand why both are needed. I wish more people saw it this way, maybe then both Atheists and Religious people could just get along as friends without secretly wanting to destroy each other.

Because, Mish, there actually ARE groups of invididuals, some very well connected & powerful, that actually DO actively disagree with well-estabished scientific fact. They are actually threatened by things like the theory of evolution. They actually produce textbooks and create entire institutes trying to convince the public that these well-understood scientific theories are wrong. And they do it w/o any proof or studies, they just claim its so. B/c the bible says so.

And the way they go about it is especially insidious. These groups attack scientific theories and, when they find a hole in the theory, they attempt to fill that hole w/belief. They say "see, there's a hole in the fossil record, so evolution MUST be wrong & that means God exists." Terrible logic, b/c of course, any rational person understands that, even IF the entire theory was wrong (and a missing part doesn't mean that, only a *conflicting* part would invalidate a theory), EVEN IF the scientific theory was wrong IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THAT GOD EXISTS. The invalidation of one theory doesn't make another possibility more likely w/o proof. Read Dawkins chapter on 'The Gap Argument' if you want this explained more eloquantly.

But there are ppl who, b/c of their lack of training in understanding logic, who unfortunately actually believe this type of argument is actually valid. And they become convinced that its okay to allow things like ID to be an acceptable part of a school science curriculum.

It is absolutely CRUCIAL to those who would use these techniques that ppl are not trained to think critically. B/c once they are, these ppl will no longer be susceptible to this type of mental manipulation & they will actually have to start *proving* their assertions. Which leads them down the path we have discussed earlier, ad nauseum.

Think about it Mish.

[DoesntMatter]

A lot of people should be really happy I don't have enough faith to be an atheist