[helene_t]

Fluffy said:

to Helene: If I understand right, bears would mutate to every color on every region, then the bears who had wrong fur would end up disappearing after some generations cos of probabilities.

Right. The specific case of white fur is something that occurs easily in most species because any mutation that destroys the pigment gene (I'm simplifying grossly here) would turn pigment off and thus turn the bear white. To turn the bear green, the pigment gene (or some other gene) would have to turn into a gene for green pigment, which is much less likely. It is possible that a green bear would have high fitness in a green forest but that it hasn't evolved because the mutation just never happened in the first place. (Actually, some slots have greenish fur, but that's because they host algae).

So to understand evolution of fur color in details, one has to not only understand the basic principle of natural selection (what colors would be beneficial to the survival of the animal), but also chemistry (what pigments can be produced from the raw materials and machinery the animal pocesses) and genetics (what genes would the animal need to produce a specific pigment, and what other genes could mutate into such genes). Why can birds, fish and reptiles have bright colors while mammals usually (except for the faces and genitals of mandrill monkeys) don't? Part of the story is that mammals lost their color vision during the Cretaceous age when the dinosaurs dominated day life, so that mammals were constrained to night life. But it's possible that a biophysicist can add something to this. Maybe it's impractical to grow colored fur, while practical to grow colors feathers, for some chemical or genetic reason. I'm sure you can find a lot of scientific papers on that issue, but I never studied it.

Quote

But minor changes can take a lot of generations before natural selection takes effect!. Lions with 3 eyes, deers with 2x Tongue, tail-less dogs, they aren't out there, indeed I cannot imagine why one of those would survive over the other.

You can see what happens when human-bred weired dogs and cats are released into natural environments. In the course of generations they revert into something resembling their wild ancestors. You don't see poodles, Persian cats etc. among ferret populations. There are a number of reasons for this. Part of the story is that females are rather conservative so that an unusual-looking male would have poor chances of mating. Also, a tail-less dog would have difficulty communicating with other dogs because the tail is used for displaying emotions.

[Fluffy]

mike777, on Aug 23 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 23 2007, 03:48 AM, said:

reaching the 4000th post, water cooler is nice hehe, specially when I can talk about soemthing that isn't politics (sorry mike, I am truly ignorant on politics, and there I really do it on purpose, with a purpose: being happier).

well religion =politics....by any definition.

Oh well, I should say nowadays politics, or american politics better (not that I know spanish any better)

And the thread moved to many non political topics anyway (except if you are one of those who think everything is politics).

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on Aug 23 2007, 01:32 AM, said:

If he exists and is as advertised, he sends people to Hell.

Many people.

Including people like me.

Now being an atheist, I'm not worried, myself, but I don't like the scare tactics and intimidation of what is supposedly a benign religion.

Mike, if you weren't a Christian, you wouldn't either.

I don't like it either, but at least it makes sense from a Darwinian point of view:

There used to be random believes, formed by people's random dreams and random "mutations" as beliefs were carried on from generation to generation as in the Chinese Whispers game.

Those believes were often rejected or modified as the next generation got evidence that was contradictory to the belief.

But some mutant "memes" (belief elements) were very robust. The belief that faith is a virtue, for example. That is a meme that makes it companion memes almost immune to being eliminated due to contradicting evidence. Maybe it can be compared to the DNA repair genes. Also note the belief that "ancient wisdom" is something special. It doesn't make much sense from a rational point of view: new wisdom is supported by more accumulated wisdom, by better measurement technology, and is less likely to suffer from transition errors. Yet it is understandable that once the belief in "ancient wisdom" is established as part of a meme complex, it makes said complex evolutionarily robust.

The memes for the belief in the 72 virgins is analogous the (hypothetical) genes for racism and bigotry: kill competitors who look differently and are therefore unlikely to carry your own version of your racism genes.

The memes for proselytism is analogous to the genes for sexual urges, jealousy and child care. Such genes are found in all higher animals, and not surprisingly the proselytism memes are extremely widespread in human culture. Even an atheist like me has them: I'm a proselytic Precision player, a proselytic Linux user, a proselytic advocate of Darwinism etc.

This is all to suggest that religion could have evolved by Darwinian principles. It is not a proof. It is possible that some elements of popular religions were designed on purpose. For example, the idea that you can relieve your sin by paying money to the Catholic church could have been a designed element of the catholic belief. Some influential person might once have found it to be in his interest if people would believe it ....

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Quote

his existence has to be accepted on faith, and it is this faith that saves

So, Jimmy, what happens to those who don't accept on faith this existence and are therefore not saved?

opinions vary, as mike says... i'll give you mine... i believe the words 'heaven' and 'hell' can be defined as: eternity in the presence of God (life; heaven) and eternity outside God's presence (death; hell)... just as we can't conceive what God has planned for us in heaven, we can't conceive what it means to be apart from him for eternity in hell

[Gerben42]

As Helene said, religions are successful in a Darwinian sense, which is why they work. In a way the popularity of religion supports Darwin's theory. There have been many sects but those who were most successful in copying their memes survived and continue to evolve.

Quote

This is all to suggest that religion could have evolved by Darwinian principles. It is not a proof. It is possible that some elements of popular religions were designed on purpose. For example, the idea that you can relieve your sin by paying money to the Catholic church could have been a designed element of the catholic belief. Some influential person might once have found it to be in his interest if people would believe it ....

The ideas that humans bring into the doctrine ARE the mutations. Since this income helped pay for churches which in turn made the religion visible, it turned out to strengthen the meme.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Aug 23 2007, 06:25 AM, said:

i believe the words 'heaven' and 'hell' can be defined as: eternity in the presence of God (life; heaven) and eternity outside God's presence (death; hell)... just as we can't conceive what God has planned for us in heaven, we can't conceive what it means to be apart from him for eternity in hell

So, if those are the stakes, what is the game here (if that is the reason why we are here)?

[Fluffy]

Probably saying nothing new but still:

If there is a chance that god exist, and another chance that heaven exists, and those chances are finite, given that the benefit from being in heaven is eternal, the gain is infinite as well.

So any sacrifice in your life to reach heaven has an infinite gain expectancy.

The problem there is that the classic 'confidence tricks/iddle/swingle' (taken from dicitionary) take the idea of small risk for a very big win so it sounds suspicious.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Aug 23 2007, 03:14 PM, said:

Probably saying nothing new but still:

If there is a chance that god exist, and another chance that heaven exists, and those chances are finite, given that the benefit from being in heaven is eternal, the gain is infinite as well.

So any sacrifice in your life to reach heaven has an infinite gain expectancy.

The problem there is that the classic 'confidence tricks/iddle/swingle' (taken from dicitionary) take the idea of small risk for a very big win so it sounds suspicious.

There is a small problem with this formulation. Recall the following:

Quote

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

From the outside looking in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all look pretty much the same. This is none too surprising: They all sprung from the same root. One common characteristic of a lot of Muslim and Christian sects is that if you get it wrong, you're in deep *****. You're decision to praise Yahweh doesn't just mean that you have chosen to worship "God". it also means that you have rejected Allah and Christ. (And from the sounds of things, neither of them would be too happy about this decision)

Given the multitude of different sects out there and the ridiculous proliferation of different ceremonies, rule rule sets, and requirements, the odds that you're going to be lucky enough to guess right isn't that great.

As I've noted earlier, if there is a God, I hope that it is a reasonable sort and more concerned with the way the one tries to live their life rather than rote adherence to some specific rule set.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Aug 23 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

Probably saying nothing new but still:

If there is a chance that god exist, and another chance that heaven exists, and those chances are finite, given that the benefit from being in heaven is eternal, the gain is infinite as well.

So any sacrifice in your life to reach heaven has an infinite gain expectancy.

The problem there is that the classic 'confidence tricks/iddle/swingle' (taken from dicitionary) take the idea of small risk for a very big win so it sounds suspicious.

Exactly this argument was put forward by some famous French philosopher (I think it was Blaise Pascal).

If there were only two alternatives, namely:
1) There is no life after death
2) There is an eternal life after death and what happens then is exactly as described in scripture X

it would make sense. But what if God turns out to be the complete opposite of what the scriptures say? What if those who commit suicide attacks, in the expectation of 72 virgins, will burn in hell because God turns out to hate suicide attacks? Some religions say you're not allowed to eat pigmeat while others say you're not allowed to eat beef. Can you be sure that the real God condones eating chicken? Or tomatoes?

[Fluffy]

helene_t, on Aug 23 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

it would make sense. But what if God turns out to be the complete opposite of what the scriptures say? What if those who commit suicide attacks, in the expectation of 72 virgins, will burn in hell because God turns out to hate suicide attacks? Some religions say you're not allowed to eat pigmeat while others say you're not allowed to eat beef. Can you be sure that the real God condones eating chicken? Or tomatoes?

You cannot be sure, but again, if you judge yourself any higher than 50% of being right, you get infinite benefit again.

To Richard:

Your quote sounds written by politicians, I don't believe interpretations of politicians at all. No matter where yo found that, on more than 1000 years from last revelation any number of politicians have had tiem to change the truth into their truth.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Aug 23 2007, 03:37 PM, said:

To Richard:

Your quote sounds written by politicians, I don't believe interpretations of politicians at all. No matter where yo found that, on more than 1000 years from last revelation any number of politicians have had tiem to change the truth into their truth.

The quote is from the King James Version of the Bible (You know... that document that some folks claim is the divine word of God, preserved throughout the ages)

Personally, I agree with your skepticism. I don't believe that the Bible is the divine word of God. I certainly most certainly don't believe that everything contained in there is literally true. Then again, I'm not the one arguing that we should predicate our behaviour on an assumption that its all true.

BTW: Quick show of hands: How many Biblical Literalists do we have on these forums?

I've seen quotes from DrTodd that strongly suggest that he falls in this camp. I suspect that Bebop Kid and some of the other prominent Bible thumpers do as well.

[Fluffy]

Politian saying the 'best' truth? lol, sorry but it actually makes me laugh.

I aksed BeBop if eh really believed the sacred interpretations of the bible from the church, given that they have been changed before. I mena, if they were wrong before, on what basis can they asure they are right now?.

And translating the bible is already interpreting it, I don't know its native language, nor are willing to learn it, but its nice to think it could actually make sense.

[Codo]

I read the bible quite often some 30 years ago.

And of course you cannot take this holy book word for word. Espacially in the old testament you can find describtions that people lifed for 900+ years. There had been stories about taking your neighbours as slaves. There are stories about killing a complete village just because their had been one marriage crusher.

I take this part more like a kind of historie. These are old tales which had been written down. So maybe methusalem was not a person but a tribe. Maybe the sinfleet happened somehow but it was a big local issue, not really worlwide.
And the describtion of the making of the universe is anyway quite close to the best theories we have today: At first there had been the light, then the continents, flowers, animals and at least mankind. Prof. Hawkins will subsricbe this.

For the new testament:
And the theologist I know are very sure that the bible was not written at the time the stories happened. The new testament was brought together some two or threehundered years after jesus lived. So it is absolute possible that there are historical faults. The people in the concil had there own ideas why they took these parts of the ancient papers into the bible and not others.


I think there are a lot of things which makes this book very special but it is surely not to be taken 1:1.
You should not even work with quotations from this holy book as you really can "prove" nearly anything with a quotation from the bible (or from the choran ). It is the spirit which develops in this book. There is a tribe which starts from zero, comes into slavery later and gained freedom through god and his prophets. It was a fighting god who helped to kill a lot of people. The tribe developed and later they made horrible mistakes and were punished by there own god (sin fllet, Gomorrha f.e.). Later god changed his way. He send his son to teach us a new way: No more fighting, no more horrible punishments, but a way of grace and mildness.

I confess that for me the new testament is really hard to read and harder to understand. But for me it says a real simple thing: Treat others as you would be treated. And if someone did harm you, better forgive him.

I won´t claim that this is the correct summary and I surely does not always follow this summary, but I believe that this is what god wants us to do.

And for your quotation of the ten requirements:
This is a very central part of the bible. But these rules are very universal:
Most religions tells you that there is just one god, that you should not kill others, you should not steal, lie, you should honour god, your parents and your holy days.

Very common set of rules, even for atheists, buddist, hindi and (most) moslems.

There are historical diferences, so to eat pig or beef, but this is not essential.

[Al_U_Card]

Man was originally an animal. What he did and how he did it resulted in sufficient improvement to allow the installment of conscious awareness. (Thus it is reasonable to expect that continuing this development (omnivorous diet, curious nature, agressive approach to problem solving etc.) is reasonable.)

Consciously-aware man in developing in many different ways that can have significant impacts on both his animal and ethereal nature. This evolutionary process is somewhat trial and error which helps to explain the diversity and dichotomies that are evident in the human nature.

As evolution and consciousness raising are open ended but improvement and refinement (achieving perfection or a state of grace or heaven or call it what you will) are close-ended, man finds himself in a existential juxtaposition of self. Only his real nature and its eventual manifestation will reveal the end result.

[rona_]

God's Warriors

I just watched part two on CNN, a two hour programme about Muslim Warriors, and tomorrow there will be a third part about Christian Warriors. Frightening and fascinating stuff, and I am sure tomorrow's programme promises to be the same. Can't find Muslim warriors on youtube yet but I suspect it won't be long before it's posted.

Christiane Amanpour has a British mother, Iranian father, is married to James Rubin and is the chief international correspondent for CNN.

[mike777]

As a side issue to atheists:
1) Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?An example of inaction may be your personal moral code requires you to help the poor or less well off but you do not take enough action to meet your moral code.
You gave your word of honor but then later broke your word or promise.
Or your moral code requires you to act with integrity, and one time you did not.
Pick you own example if none of the above applies to you.
2) Who acts as the accuser?
3) Who acts as the judge?
4) Who acts as the jury?
5) Who hands down whatever sentence?
6) Who executes the sentence?
7) Who forgives you and on what basis and who decides the basis?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 24 2007, 12:28 AM, said:

 

>Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?

I know that this isn't a very satisfactory answer, but ultimately, morality is subjective. Individuals need to decide what they believe to be appropriate behavior and try to act in accordance with these principles. For whats its worth, I don't think that the subjective nature of morality has anything to do with whether one is an atheist or a "believer". There are plenty of folks who offer an external code of conduct that they claim people should live by. Churches are one obvious example, however, civil society also demands adherence to a code of behavior.

Case in point: The Catholic Church teaches "Thou Shall Not Kill"

This phrase has been interpreted to support any number of policy decisions, ranging from income redistribution from the rich to the poor to murdering abortion providers.

Ultimately, individuals have to decide which portions of a code they chose to accept. I'm not sure what guides this process. I know that different people start with radically different assumptions about what is desirable or moral and what is not.

Quote

2) Who acts as the accuser?
3) Who acts as the judge?
4) Who acts as the jury
5) Who hands down whatever sentence?
6) Who executes the sentence?

It depends. Are we discussing a violation of the norms of society or are we talking about a violation of a personal moral code of conduct?

If we're talking about a violation of a personal code of conduct, then the individual stands as plaintiff/defendant/judge/jury and executioner.

Quote

7) Who forgives you and on what basis and who decides the basis?

Here once again, the individual needs to decide for themselves. I committed deeds long ago that I am still ashamed of. When I've been able to, I've tried to make right. More importantly, I try to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

In theory, the "victim" of whatever lapse one has committed may be in a position to offer forgiveness. However, ultimately, the individual needs to decide whether or not they want to dwell over a given lapse or move on with life.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 23 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

Man was originally an animal.  ~~

make your case

mike said:

1) Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?An example of inaction may be your personal moral code requires you to help the poor or less well off but you do not take enough action to meet your moral code.
You gave your word of honor but then later broke your word or promise.
Or your moral code requires you to act with integrity, and one time you did not.
Pick you own example if none of the above applies to you.

hrothgar said:

I know that this isn't a very satisfactory answer, but ultimately, morality is subjective. ~~

same old circle... if subjective, then what is "moral" depends on what? culture? environment? we've had this discussion before (torturing small children for fun) and nobody has yet told me how such an act can be considered moral in any subjective sense

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Aug 23 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 23 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

Man was originally an animal.  ~~

make your case

Well, perhaps several million years of hominid evolution (and the corresponding fossil record) show that we started out low and slow but have been picking up speed ever since. At some point ( at least most of us) became self-aware and dropped the trappings of instinct to make use of our memory and thought processes for other purposes.

[mike777]

luke warm, on Aug 23 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Aug 23 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

Man was originally an animal.  ~~

make your case

mike said:

1) Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?An example of inaction may be your personal moral code requires you to help the poor or less well off but you do not take enough action to meet your moral code.
You gave your word of honor but then later broke your word or promise.
Or your moral code requires you to act with integrity, and one time you did not.
Pick you own example if none of the above applies to you.

hrothgar said:

I know that this isn't a very satisfactory answer, but ultimately, morality is subjective. ~~

same old circle... if subjective, then what is "moral" depends on what? culture? environment? we've had this discussion before (torturing small children for fun) and nobody has yet told me how such an act can be considered moral in any subjective sense

Jimmy regardless of the answer to question one, for me personally having to be my own judge, jury and executioner of punishment for not living up to my moral or ethical code of conduct or integrity or having to forgive my self does sound like a living Hell.

Speaking only for myself, that sounds like an incredibly difficult, I would say impossible, way to make one's journey through life, and I feel sadness.