The Reason for Religion

[Jor-el]

20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Hello, Jor-el

Because he made the case succinctly for a non-religious origin of the golden rule, and of some more specific familiar moral precepts as well.

That could well be.

I understand that you disagree with Hitchens' position, but rebuttal does have something to add to the discussion.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that social evolution and biological evolution have at least this much in common: lots of trial and error.

Anyway, best wishes to Professor Dunbar in testing his hypothesis. Thanks for the link.

Rebuttal is always necessary for a discussion to proceed...

Religious people talk about things that cannot be seen, stories that cannot be verified, and beings and forces beyond the ordinary. Perhaps their gods are truly at work, or perhaps in human nature there is an impulse to proclaim religious knowledge. If so, it would have to have arisen by natural selection. It is hard to imagine how natural selection could have produced such an impulse. There is a debate among evolutionary scientists about whether or not there is any adaptive advantage to religion at all (Bulbulia 2004a; Atran and Norenzayan 2004). Some believe that it has no adaptive value itself and that it is just a hodge podge of of behaviors that have evolved because they are adaptive in other non-religious contexts. The agent-based simulation described in this article shows that a central unifying feature of religion, a belief in an unverifiable world, could have evolved along side of verifiable knowledge. The simulation makes use of an agent-based communication model with two types of information: verifiable information (real information) about a real world and unverifiable information (unreal information) about about an imaginary world. It examines the conditions necessary for the communication of unreal information to have evolved along side the communication of real information. It offers support for the theory that religion is an adaptive complex and it disputes the theory that religion is a byproduct of unrelated adaptive processes.

Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation? by James Dow (2008)

Modern biocultural theories about the evolution of religion can be divided into three categories (Dow 2006):

(1) Cognitive theories that postulate that religion is the manifestation of mental modules¹ that have evolved for other purposes (Atran and Norenzayan 2004; Boyer 2001, 2003).

(2) Ecological regulation theories that postulate that religion is a master symbolic control system regulating the interaction of human groups with their environments, and, therefore, it has evolved as an adaptive mechanism with this function (Rappaport 1999).

(3) Commitment theories that postulate that religion is a system of costly signals that reduce deception and create trust and cooperation within groups (Irons 2001; Sosis 2004).

When one thinks about it... these guys just keeping adding credence to this idea of mine... just my two cents.

PS - Number two seems right up the OP's alley...

Edited March 29, 2017 by Jor-el

[+Liquid Gardens]

46 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 All forms of human spirituality are energy (as are other sources of human purpose such as imagination,  drive, creativity  etc)  when we are studying human systems. (This is not a metaphor, simply a different form of energy  than thought of in physics) 

What is the unit of measure of spirituality and imagination?  Joules?  I'm not familiar with any 'different form of energy than thought of in physics', and if such a thing actually exists, it doesn't seem terribly logical that you would then think that something that is not 'thought of in physics' is still bound by laws that apply to physics.

[Jor-el]

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is the unit of measure of spirituality and imagination?  Joules?  I'm not familiar with any 'different form of energy than thought of in physics', and if such a thing actually exists, it doesn't seem terribly logical that you would then think that something that is not 'thought of in physics' is still bound by laws that apply to physics.

Here's your equation....

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01063441

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is the unit of measure of spirituality and imagination?  Joules?  I'm not familiar with any 'different form of energy than thought of in physics', and if such a thing actually exists, it doesn't seem terribly logical that you would then think that something that is not 'thought of in physics' is still bound by laws that apply to physics.

Sure calories or joules might work.  it can also  be measured by the change in  state of an environment after it has been applied  Eg stonehenge, the pyramids, a lot of great architecture, many community buildings,  and a lot of art and literature only exist because of the energy input of imagination, creativity design and planning. which went into them. A great many of these only exist  specifically  because of  the religious beliefs and energy of those who produced them.  I suspect you know this, but it is possible you are one of those humans who sees everything in  terms generally considered as hard science.  Those with any background in the social sciences have a different understanding. 

I will say, however that  the re is nothing mystical or non physical about this These laws of social dynamics  apply materially and physically in the same way they do in physics because the same basic laws apply.  EVERYTHING which  physically exists  is bound by the laws of physics

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

EVERYTHING which  physically exists  is bound by the laws of physics

Except God, because reasons.

[MWoo7]

Oh no, I'd forgot about this one, I'm outta here!  just can't keep up.  Or no maybe it was this one ..(hopefully paste works):::::: 

Is God become the Universe?

MWoo7 replied to taniwha's topic in Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs

Edited March 30, 2017 by MWoo7

[MWoo7]

8 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

The religions don't really differ that much, I guess the other question is why did the religion start anyway.  For those of us who like old things, and respect our parents and great great great etc grandparents to honor our forefathers to understand what they knew, and why things happened the way things did.

Well, it was either some kind of divine reckoning our ancestors were told, something from above.  If it's the other way, and evil, there's many reasons as to why they would have done it.

But, I think it's mostly a desire to understand what has happened when reason keeps failing and can only go so far.

Anyway, I'll continue to believe my ancestors weren't fools and neanderthal idiots, but that they had an honest intelligence and people from our past weren't simply stupid but were onto something.  Anyway, everyone's going to die, so I guess you have to make a choice, as some would say pick up your sign and march on.

Yeah grab a side and feel good, can't really be on the fence.  Seen things eaten alive , right iin front of me at camp,I was next, no angels appeared , my legs and quick thinking because I grabbed a blast horn flying out of there saved me.  Kind of changes views on lovey dovey stuff taught to me as a kid.

Edited March 30, 2017 by MWoo7

[Mr Walker]

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Except God, because reasons.

No.  God ( if it exists as a  physical entity) is also bound by physical laws. ie the laws of physics.

 Only non physical entities can exist without being bound, by a network of physical laws and limitations, to their surrounding environment

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Hi Stubbly_Dooright,

Sorry for the delay in the response, but I had a number of professional commitments over the last few days and haven't been able to answer conveniently the posts directed at me, as such I'm doing so now that I'm free again. I did however pop back on the board to see how things were going.

Oh, I see, there's a real life you're committed to too?!?!? I get it,  I mean, NO EXCUSES!!!

Just kidding. Don't we all. At least you're come in with plenty of amno, I mean, varying degrees of links and such.  

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

The exchange of ideas is exactly what I wanted, that's the reason for creating the thread, and I didn't disregard anything off the bat as you stated, but let us clarify.... there are naturally multiple opinions on this issue, but very few actually decided to discuss the topic. A number of individuals didn't even know what I meant by using the term entropy, others, stated I was preaching and others jumped right in and asked what my agenda was.... as if a straight forward discussion wasn't enough.

I would suggest you look at them again, and seriously realize that a good majority bring up some really good points. So, they differ from your opinion of the topic. That's going to happen. Plus, new and different ideas keep us fresh. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

So let us reflect.... how many people genuinely debated the idea as it was presented even if they were against it?

How many actually debated the issue without questioning the premise exhaustively because apparently in my "ignorance I was using a scientific term outside of its appropriate context?

I think it's even more complicated that this. Every one has different brain wired, and if some can't see it, they honestly cannot see it. I don't know about others, I wouldn't place ignorance to a major point here. I can tell, if I put it a certain way, .................. you are passionate about it.  

But, I do feel that some, whose point of views that differ from yours, do have some good compelling points. Allow them to show it, so they can feel better to see your's. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

The reflection I make is what any logical person would make, that the debate didn't interest certain individuals as much as shooting it down as fast as possible. They seem to have forgotten that the quickest way to kill a thread is to simply not answer it if it wasn't in their interest zone.

So that is why I am also answering you, because you at least show a modicum of interest in trying to understand what I am trying to communicate. Maybe it will also help others to understand as a consequence. That being said, there have been a number of posters who at least made the effort to get down to it and participate in the discussion, and it is from these, even if their views or contrary to mine, that I take great pleasure in debating. It is from these that I can learn, refine and even change my position if the argument merits it.

Well, I'm honored. I do see you bring in a lot of counter points, I'll give you that. And I like the sizzle to the synapses, so bring it on, and I hope I can sizzle your's.     (That's a good thing, by the way. ) 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

es we can tell with one hundred percent certainty that the Golden rule originates within religious contexts. It is a well known fact that there are 3 basic areas that served as the building blocks to intelligence and social development in humanity. Religion, music and laughter were key elements in mankind's social evolution.. Here is an article regarding this issue...

In humans’ mysterious journey to become intelligent, socializing creatures like no other in the animal world, one innovation played an essential role: religion.

That’s the theory that a preeminent evolutionary scientist is setting out to prove.

“You need something quite literally to stop everybody from killing everybody else out of just crossness,” said Robin Dunbar. “Somehow it’s clear that religions, all these doctrinal religions, create the sense that we’re all one family.”

Religion, music, and laughter. 

So, there are two more things other than religion that's part of it. Well, I mean that honestly, that's very interesting. I feel, that though, I see you really putting a lot of thought provoking behaviors into the mix, I still feel that it's based largely on the natural element that comes from each and every one of us. Meaning again, it's natural. Now, I was raised secular, and I do not have any experience in the the mainstream religions, but if you know me, I'm a spiritualist and deeply New Age New Agey. (yeah, weird) So, when we're dealing with belief, I do have that. Now, adding music and laughter, I pretty much have a deep profound interest and experiences in that.  I love music, and humor, well, can't live without that. But, that is something I see as a natural thing too. We can't force ourselves to laugh. (well, it would sound fake, would it not?) And we all have a different levels of sense of humors. I think the same goes for music too. We all have a favorite genres. So, if that is part of the ingredients of religion being based in forming the 'Golden Rule', than it would have to boiled down to a certain type of music and a particular sense of humor. 

Actually, I am wondering how it really does work, adding music and laughter as part of it. There is a big part of me, that just cannot see it. 

 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Dunbar is just one of a recent wave of scientists who are interested in how religion came to be and how people have benefited from it. “For most of Western intellectual history since the Enlightenment, religion has been thought of as ignorant and strange and an aberration and something that gets in the way of reason,” said Christian Smith, a sociologist at the University of Notre Dame who studies religion. “In the last 10 or 20 years on many fronts, there’s been a change in thinking about religion, where a lot of neuroscientists have been saying religion is totally natural. It totally makes sense that we’re religious. Religion has served a lot of important functions in developing societies.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/27/a-scientists-new-theory-religion-was-key-to-humans-social-evolution/?utm_term=.5404a7d781f3

I do like his turn of phrase "You need something quite literally to stop everybody from killing everybody else out of just crossness"....

Ok, here's something here that doesn't mesh here. Checking out the link, there's discussing about having the findings that religion keeps animals from being savage, but to me, it doesn't really show that. ( Although, fascinating thought bringing up how animals keep themselves in check with other. ) Actually, there has been various viral videos of animals helping each other out. Momma dogs adopting orphan chicks, or momma cats taking in lost puppies and loving them just like the kittens in the litter. ( yeah, it's them videos I post and share on my facebook page. There's a poster or two here that knows that.  ) 

But, it's telling me, it's more natural than religion. How does a religion keep animals from hurting each other and keeping them in check?

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

This article was the clincher that helped me come to some conclusions upon which I based this thread. There were many others, some of which I have already shared, like the Novel by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg called "Nightfall" (which without surprise was largely ignored).

On principle (and I was quite clear on this) I have left the bible and verses out of the discussion, although some people have posted them. This discussion is not about the individual faiths but rather on religion as a whole, as an institution or concept, but mostly as a human derived tool created by humanity as a way to direct its own social evolution in a specific direction.

One cannot separate the golden rule from its religious origin or deny that it exists. It is a concept that is not all that old itself (about 6000 years old) and humanity has conclusive historical evidence that it has not always existed as a social concept agreed upon by nearly all. We still remember the societies in which the concept did not exist at all. The oldest rule, the one that preceded the golden rule, is still well known... a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. The rule of the strong over the weak, the divine right to conquer, pillage and rape, to enslave.

When introducing and discussing on a message board, you are getting posters from all over and with different beliefs, religions, and non-religion paths. So, not everyone believes what you believe. And, the thing is, when something is not proven objectively, it's not something evidential to be taken as truth. If there is conclusive historical evidence that it hasn't always existence, where is that? I have always have caught that it has been around earlier than that. I did a post about this a couple of posts back. (I am curious to your point of view on that.) But, here's the link again to show it's not always from religion: 

Right here.

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Hmmm, you mention that you don't agree with what I stated regarding empathy and you quote its definition?

Empathy is an innate but also learned response, it is also easily unlearned.... It is innate in that most people are born with the capacity, but the development of that capacity is also largely built upon by learnt responses and as such, people can also unlearn them or never develop the capacity at all, which after all is what I was getting at. Society only had the luxury of developing such responses when it was safe for them to do so. In essence it a modern luxury most of history did not have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977

There is a very interesting saying that most people dismiss rather easily.... until it happens to them. "Civilization: a thin veneer over barbarianism".

I cannot see empathy as a learned response. Are you saying, we learn how to feel? Well, that doesn't make sense to me. We feel because something happened. And that probably would tie in to your point about the New York blackout you linked to. That's more of a causation, really. Frankly, when situations happen, it gets tougher to handle. Granted, one must take a breather, or feel grateful it isn't worse. Frankly, got that in a dose back in the fall of 2011 when my area was hit from a winter storm in 2011 . We lost power for eleven days, and things were getting tough. Your tolerant rate level goes down. It take more than 'the golden rule' to help out. It takes knowing the pain and helping out. That had happened in various levels, and that's because others have been there. So, it's really experience that helps. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

magine is a beautiful song, no doubt, but it is also idealistic in the extreme, that is why it is called "Imagine". It paints a picture that is impossible if one really considers the various implications associated with it. It is like imagining living heaven for many believers in a way.

The rest of your comment passed me by, I think. The last sign was HUMAN and all the others were distinctions of group while the last one was all inclusive. I get that. Each sign had personal relevance to the one holding it, and I know that two members are gay (so what?). Avi is Jewish... again, why is this important? The fact that as a group they make great music is what's important.

It's because each of them, are a couple of characteristics that are bigoted against. A lot of the times, it's religion that feeds into that. The 'Imagine' gives added meaning to imagining something other than what one conforms to believing from what they are use to, (and probably being stagnant to) and seeing a whole new prospect in actually understanding others, not hating them because you're told to do so by a belief or religion. That is why their characteristics and the song itself is very important. It's making you think, that everyone one of us are being hurt because of old ideals and new ones say, we are all in this together. Being a woman, is a big deal, when there is still obstacles in having us being equal. Being Jewish in areas where there has been crimes against them. Being black can still get you bigoted at. And of course, being gay, we have heard and seen the crimes against them. The thing is, WE SHOULDN'T BEING DOING THAT WE ARE ALL HUMAN!!! And we are all from different religions and no religions. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Why would you equate someone talking about the subject of religion as having to hold some kind of belief?

Many of you do it all the time and you don't believe at all. Why shouldn't I be able to discuss religion in a dispassionate way without it involving belief, merely as a topic of discussion?

When I stated that:

It does not come from religious belief, I was clearly stating my stance regarding the discussion at hand, in other words, this specific thread. I made that clear a number of times.... multiple times.... I was being very clear on this but was being consistently confronted that this discussion had a hidden agenda remember? You yourself stated this quite clearly as well by the way, and if one actually thinks about it a little one can easily see this for the fact it is. This discussion is contrary to established Christian teachings. Yet, you also clearly stated: Well, I have gone over this thread and I feel the uneasiness of seeing how you see entropy as a path to a point of view and that it comes from religious belief.

For me, religion is something that holds belief for others. To me, it goes hand in hand. I don't know, if you think religion has an objective truth to it, because if it did, then it wouldn't be a religion anymore. It would be truth and called something else. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

When I stated "Because religion alone fights entropy" and "Religion is the basis of the Golden Rule, all religions apply it and teach it." I was being clinical in my analysis of my point of view, my personal beliefs do not enter the discussion I started on this thread.

Again I have to ask... What is so incredibly difficult in understanding that I can have a discussion on this board in which my beliefs do not enter?

Religion is the cup that holds belief. As I said just now. I can see, you're trying to put a technical and evidential point of view to it, but I don't think you can. Religion is something that caters to belief. Not, science, but belief. If you boil it down to defitions: 

Quote

re·li·gion

rəˈlijən/

noun

 

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   • a particular system of faith and worship.

     plural noun: religions

     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

     "consumerism is the new religion"

You see, that subjective beliefs is what holds it up. Not science, belief. You may seem to think you can look at it in a technical and non-belief way, and I guess someone can do that. But, I don't think you can get everyone to see it that way, because it cannot be objectively done. To have that be done, you really have to have evidence that everyone sees. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Again I have to ask... What is so incredibly difficult in understanding that I can have a discussion on this board in which my beliefs do not enter?

Are you sure, it's not your beliefs? It appears to be very subjective. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

When I stated "Because religion alone fights entropy" and "Religion is the basis of the Golden Rule, all religions apply it and teach it." I was being clinical in my analysis of my point of view, my personal beliefs do not enter the discussion I started on this thread.

Again I have to ask... What is so incredibly difficult in understanding that I can have a discussion on this board in which my beliefs do not enter?

So let me reiterate. My position is that Religion is a social tool created by humanity. It serves the specific purpose of directing human social evolution in a specific direction and as the various objectives are met, new religions come into existence depending on humanities specific needs to overcome the challenges that face the species at that time. The direction though is one and the same, to combat and eventually overcome entropy. Yes I am talking of social entropy, but I predict that as time moves on through the aeons, humanity will one day be in a position to do something about entropy itself.

You're being clinical, but about a subject that falls opposite to science. Clinical and science is something that proves itself by evidence that can be seen by everyone in an objective manner. How can you go about showing you're being clinical about it, when you can't prove it as objective? 

You know, one part of me thinks that is innovative, trying to be clinical about it, but I have a feeling that is going to be a very big struggle for you in achieving what you want to achieve. Getting everyone to see what you do. That is like taking someone into a rumored haunted house and expecting them to see a ghost right from the start. 

5 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Again I offer a tantalizing series of books to read that deal mostly with the subject of entropy and the fight against it among other subjects.

The Xeelee Sequence by Stephen Baxter

Uh, these are fiction books, do you realize that? Here

Not that I'm not hot in the idea of getting a good dose of my own thought provoking ideas from historical and other such fiction books. But in the end, it's still fiction. If you're trying to use this as a source of what you are trying to prove, it won't do you any good, because it's still fiction work. Plus, pushing others to read something that they have to purchase to show what you are trying to prove, is not a good idea to do. I don't think anyone will do it, go through the trouble and spending the money. 

And again, this is fiction you are talking about. I'm a bookseller, and I'm aware of this. Plus, I think I have a couple of Stephen Baxter books in my home. Somewhere.......I think. 

4 hours ago, Jor-el said:

I believe I did this with my last posts to you. Everything but the last bit which I'll answer here.

Religion is the sole repository of the Golden Rule... not Christianity as I saw Sherri throw in a few posts back, but all religions all over the world that instinctively apply it within their own faiths and members. It is not that people who do not follow religions do not also apply it, but the reason they do so is because the religions they rejected have already brought the principal to the societies they live in. They take it as a natural assumption that it is the correct thing to do even as they divorce the concept from its religious origins. It is what many of you on this forum are arguing right now, forgetting where the principal came from and also how it has already and completely infiltrated the very foundations of the society you live in.

• Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah.
• Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
• Buddhism: 
  • "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
     
  • Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
     
  • "All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death:
    Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill.
    All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear;
    Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill."
     
  • "One should seek for others the happiness one desires for oneself."
     
• Christianity: 
  • "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
  • "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
  • "...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
• Confucianism: He appears to have been the first person to record the Golden Rule in its negative form. This is sometimes referred to as the "Silver Rule."
  • "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
  • Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Doctrine of the Mean
  • “What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men." Analects 15:23
  • What a man dislikes in those who are over him, let him not display toward those who are under him; what he dislikes in those who are under him, let him not display toward those who are over him! This is called the standard, by which, as a measuring square, to regulate one’s conduct. ₆
• He also expressed the Golden Rule in its positive form:
  • "Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
  • "There are four things in the moral life of man, not one of which I have been able to carry out in my life. To serve my father as I would expect my son to serve me: that I have not been able to do. To serve my sovereign as I would expect a minister under me to serve me: that I have not been able to do. To act towards my elder brother, as I would expect my younger brother to act towards me: that I have not been able to do. To be the first to behave toward friends as I would expect them to behave towards me: that I have not been able to do. ₆
• Ancient Egyptian:
  • "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. ₂
     
• Hinduism: 
  • "This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517
     
• The religion of the Incas:
  • "Do not to another what you would not yourself experience." Manco Capoc, founder of the empire of Peru. ₆
     
• Islam:
  • "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." ₃
     
  • Hadiths are writings by Muhammad. There do not appear to be any verses in the Qur'an that explicitly state the Golden Rule.
     
• Jainism:
  • "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
     
  • "In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
     
  • A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
• Judaism: 
  • "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) Leviticus 19:18
     
  • "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
     
  • "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 ₄
     
• Native American Spirituality:
  • "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
     
  • "All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
     
  • "Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
     
• Roman Pagan Religion: Religio Romana is a modern-day Neo-pagan religion based on the religion of ancient Rome:
   
  • "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
     
• Satanism: Unlike the names of other religions, the term "Satanism" has many meanings. Some refer to groups that are non-existent. The Satanic Temple has elements of the Golden Rule divided among three of its Seven Tenets:
  • #1. "Strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."
     
  • #4. "The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own."
     
  • #7. "Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word." ₅

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

As for evidence I think the list and the histories of those religions as well as the societies they came from can speak for itself.

Let us see what the humanists themselves have to say...

Humanists try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion.

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/the-golden-rule.html

Now let's see who they quote as moral authority figures...

• Do not to your neighbour what you would take ill from him. (Pittacus, 650 BCE)
• Do not unto another that you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest.  (Confucius, 500 BCE)
• Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.(Thales, 464 BCE)
• What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them. (Sextus the Pythagorean, 406 BCE)
• We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us.  (Aristotle, 384 BCE)
• Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another’s welfare as your own. (Aristippus of Cyrene, 365 BCE)
• Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you. (Isocrates, 338 BCE)
• This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. (From the Mahabharata (5:1517), 300 BCE)
• What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Rabbi Hillel 50 BCE)
• Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (From the Bible,  Leviticus 19:18 1440 BCE)
• Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 CE)

 

Enough said....

 

Are you sure about that?  

It seems to me, that what you posted ( though good work on this, I can see you did work hard for this and getting all of the various religions and such in there ) but it looks like it's all boiled down to a philosophy than religion. Plus, I think you get the idea how it's looks to me, mostly so, since I looked at this a certain way from a particular post I did. It's post# 440 if you're wondering.      

 

[MWoo7]

20 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

That is like taking someone into a rumored haunted house and expecting them to see a ghost right from the start.

 Just a tiny-mini, itty-bitty, two bits, I've done that well was exposed to those situations, doesn't work and of course it was always  I didn't have the right frame of mind or psychic or some such.  Oh I seriously can't keep up with all of these threads but I'll try and read for sure nighterzzzzzzzzzzzBORROWED FROM Clair e . couldn't find a better one !

Edited March 30, 2017 by MWoo7

[Stubbly_Dooright]

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yeah, I've always thought a certain poster in the forums bears a passing resemblance to Dale Bozzio.

Who? Was he in L.A. Story?

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

11 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

22 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

That is like taking someone into a rumored haunted house and expecting them to see a ghost right from the start.

 Just a tiny-mini, itty-bitty, two bits, I've done that well was exposed to those situations, doesn't work and of course it was always  I didn't have the right frame of mind or psychic or some such.  Oh I seriously can't keep up with all of these threads but I'll try and read for sure nighterzzzzzzzzzzzBORROWED FROM Clair e . couldn't find a better one !

It doesn't matter. I like that gif!!!!!  

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Who? Was he in L.A. Story?

 

She was/ is a rock singer,but best known, perhaps, to us older blokes, as a play boy bunny, boston playboy club bunny of the year in 75, and  for turning down hugh hefner's job offer as a play boy bunny "hostess" .  Not sure who she reminds  hammer of.  

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Who? Was he in L.A. Story?

 

He is a she, Dale Bozzio, the lead vocalist of Missing Persons.                                            

[eight bits]

Jor-el

From your source

Quote

If so, it would have to have arisen by natural selection.

The problem would be what "it" is. The capacity for non-demonstrative reasoning (for example, an organ meat quasi-computer), and the capacity to implement its products (for example, things like thumbs and fingers), would "have to have" arisen by natural selection, but specific performances (for example, inventing and using shoe-lace tips) need not to have done.

So, is religion a thing like brains and thumbs, or is it a thing like shoe-lace tips? (The latter being the product of brains and thumbs, but whose existence remains contingent even given that brains and thumbs exist)

There is the additional complication that "religion" as a category has a broad target cross-section compared with shoe-lace tips. Religion resembles "music" in that regard. Given what our bodies are like, it is nearly impossible to imagine (for me, anyway) our species not engaging in overt acts of music, both solo and ensemble. It is easy, however, to imagine our species not having invented the oboe.

On another point in the same blurb you quoted,

Quote

a belief in an unverifiable world,

That's ironic. That's Karl Popper's take on science in brief, that the real world is inherently unverifiable. What would be religious is the polar opposite, that the world is fully verifiable (both in principle and in fielded application - somebody actually does it)*.

That's one of the attributes of big-G God, omniscience, borrowed and beefed-up from the little-g gods, whose ancient Greek devotees called the trait something like "discernment." At least in the Greek system, the little-g gods could do that because of a still-older religious notion, supernatural-personally supervised "destiny," - the idea that whatever you'd ever seek to know was in principle currently determined and also in some way recorded, so "knowable," perhaps by consulting a "custodian" figure.

-----

* My own view is somewhere in between, that the world is "confirmable," which property is both weaker than verifiable (but unlike Popper fantasy-science, we are not restricted to inference by modus tollens) and also irremediably somewhat error-prone. There would be no reason to maintain two distinct inferential capacities, one for religious subjects and one for more tangible subjects, nor any reason to think that the one inferential apparatus, having promoted survival by facilitating survival-stuff wouldn't also be available for survival-neutral activities (like humming Tiny Dancer) or choosing among nearly-equally good gene-propagation opportunities (a boy humming Tiny Dancer on a bus while seated next to Kate Hudson).

 

You are home.

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by eight bits

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

She was/ is a rock singer,but best known, perhaps, to us older blokes, as a play boy bunny, boston playboy club bunny of the year in 75, and  for turning down hugh hefner's job offer as a play boy bunny "hostess" .  Not sure who she reminds  hammer of.  

 

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

He is a she, Dale Bozzio, the lead vocalist of Missing Persons.        

Well, to give credit to not just Hammer, but to MW for answering my questions. (I actually googled the person, but the thing is it didn't click with me who she was quickly and what group she was from.) Then when Hammer said 'Missing Persons', I did remember their songs and videos  like 'words' and 'Destination Unknown'. And that the height of their fame around the time of 'L.A. Story'.

But where was she in 'L.A. Story'? Granted, there were quite a few acting and music cameos in the film. Including this gem:

         

Where was she among the many flings, driving to your neighbor's house next door, and traveling heat packing grandmas?!?!

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

The problem would be what "it" is. The capacity for non-demonstrative reasoning (for example, an organ meat quasi-computer), and the capacity to implement its products (for example, things like thumbs and fingers), would "have to have" arisen by natural selection, but specific performances (for example, inventing and using shoe-lace tips) need not to have done.

So, is religion a thing like brains and thumbs, or is it a thing like shoe-lace tips? (The latter being the product of brains and thumbs, but whose existence remains contingent even given that brains and thumbs exist)

That is what I thought. If at least, this is something I have always perceived of this. That is why I cannot equate religion, if being considered a thing (because of it being discussed as 'something'), but it is defined of having subjective behaviors that is belief. 

I also wanted to mention in my post to Jor-El, but in the process of typing it I forgot, was the fact that his argument of religion being something that makes people feel welcomed which reduces positive behavior, is sound, but not the only thing that has welcoming groups of people. One could equal fan clubs, other types of clubs, charities(not necessary for only religion to back), neighborhood watch, well a slew of many organizations not part of religion. Isn't an 'intervention' something that does that in a level of this? 

Having a level of something, doesn't tie it in 100% when it is one of many things that could fit in to show something in an unproved topic. 

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

There is the additional complication that "religion" as a category has a broad target cross-section compared with shoe-lace tips. Religion resembles "music" in that regard. Given what our bodies are like, it is nearly impossible to imagine (for me, anyway) our species not engaging in overt acts of music, both solo and ensemble. It is easy, however, to imagine our species not having invented the oboe.

I thought it was interesting that music and laughter brought into to further the argument of showing religion birthed 'the golden rule'. Though, that despite these two could have an affect to the good well being of the populace, as I pointed out in my post, you cannot equate it simply, for they come in many doses and are affected by many types of people who see, view, hear, in different ways. (that is why I see this way too complicated to label it simply.)

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

On another point in the same blurb you quoted,

Quote

a belief in an unverifiable world,

That's ironic. That's Karl Popper's take on science in brief, that the real world is inherently unverifiable. What would be religious is the polar opposite, that the world is fully verifiable (both in principle and in fielded application - somebody actually does it)*.

That's one of the attributes of big-G God, omniscience, borrowed and beefed-up from the little-g gods, whose ancient Greek devotees called the trait something like "discernment." At least in the Greek system, the little-g gods could do that because of a still-older religious notion, supernatural-personally supervised "destiny," - the idea that whatever you'd ever seek to know was in principle currently determined and also in some way recorded, so "knowable," perhaps by consulting a "custodian" figure.

Plus, and this from what I have learned through out the years, it seems that varying religions seemed to have taken some things, claimed them as their own, and put their own spin on it. I feel this the case with Christmas, marriage, and other situations. I come to this conclusion of having find out how Christmas has elements that started in Pagen and non-religious rituals and marriage being around long before religions. I feel like questioning 'why are there Easter egg hunts' on a day that represents Christ's re-immergence? (Easter  )

I think it does get it pretty complicated to label something as just one beginning. 

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

* My own view is somewhere in between, that the world is "confirmable," which property is both weaker than verifiable (but unlike Popper fantasy-science, we are not restricted to inference by modus tollens) and also irremediably somewhat error-prone. There would be no reason to maintain two distinct inferential capacities, one for religious subjects and one for more tangible subjects, nor any reason to think that the one inferential apparatus, having promoted survival by facilitating survival-stuff wouldn't also be available for survival-neutral activities (like humming Tiny Dancer) or choosing among nearly-equally good gene-propagation opportunities (a boy humming Tiny Dancer on a bus while seated next to Kate Hudson).

 

You are home.

How about the 'Scrub's' episode and Colin Hay's 'Waiting for my Life to begin'?

( Since this episode, everytime I hear the line Colin sings, I still picture the janitor singing it a certain way.  )

or, 

 

Oh heck, any episode of 'Glee'!!!!!

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

Well, to give credit to not just Hammer, but to MW for answering my questions. (I actually googled the person, but the thing is it didn't click with me who she was quickly and what group she was from.) Then when Hammer said 'Missing Persons', I did remember their songs and videos  like 'words' and 'Destination Unknown'. And that the height of their fame around the time of 'L.A. Story'.

But where was she in 'L.A. Story'? Granted, there were quite a few acting and music cameos in the film. Including this gem:

         

Where was she among the many flings, driving to your neighbor's house next door, and traveling heat packing grandmas?!?!

 

Never saw it, or maybe once on Night Flight.

[eight bits]

Stubbs

Coincidentally, I've been collecting clips of music or dance creating spontaneous cohesion in a group.

Quote

Oh heck, any episode of 'Glee'!!!!!

Yes, and think back to Fame (set in NYC's High School for the Performing Arts, so the story opportunities are numerous, since the characters are all 'susceptibles.'). Here's an example (well, almost all susceptibles):

 

Funny thing, this nervous system we've got.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Never saw it, or maybe once on Night Flight.

Ok, I'm confused.  

That's ok, I guess.  

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Yes, and think back to Fame (set in NYC's High School for the Performing Arts, so the story opportunities are numerous, since the characters are all 'susceptibles.'). Here's an example (well, almost all susceptibles):

 

Funny thing, this nervous system we've got.

Tell me about it!!    And thanks for that video!!!! (for some reason, I was thinking about the movie 'Fame', and it's spawned off tv series that ran for some years. In fact, I would equate 'Fame' as the go to, with 'Glee' and 'Pitch Perfect' movies there too, at a tad lower level. (Let's not include the 'High School musical' tv series and movie, along with *gasp*  'Cop Rock'. )  

Come to think of it, putting music into the formula, (along with humor and laughter), now we're putting in something that is provable to a point, but you can't go back and claim that it's all religion. If one is going to do that anyways, than one is getting metaphorical, not clinical, in my opinion.  

And then if we do stray from the just being religion encouraging great hearts and good vibrations, well let's include flash mobs?!?!

 

 

Aw, Heck, let's even throw in there one in the show 'Glee'  

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Then, as I was just walking my dog, I am reminded by this video that was on the 'Pitch Perfect' DVD extras.  I love this, because of the invite of everyone to take part to make one song sound so awesome!!!!

 

[+Hammerclaw]

18 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ok, I'm confused.  

About what?                        https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=night+flight+tv+title+sequence&&view=detail&mid=5229DFDAEA14C6C46D7A5229DFDAEA14C6C46D7A&FORM=VRDGAR                          

Edited March 30, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

About what?                        https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=night+flight+tv+title+sequence&&view=detail&mid=5229DFDAEA14C6C46D7A5229DFDAEA14C6C46D7A&FORM=VRDGAR                          

What poster reminds you of Dale Bozzio and why? 

Edited March 30, 2017 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What poster reminds you of Dale Bozzio and why? 

Blonde hair, red lipstick and pretty eyes--who do you think?