Religion as a pathogen
July 24, 2009 at 8:49 pm #11604
After reading a certain few people’s ignorant posts questioning sound science, i wanted to post something a little different:
So, How many of you have observed pathogenic effects of religious thought?
could it be that this kind of thinking evolved to give confidence to the early man, and now that we have progressed to this point, we are observing some pathogenic effects of this thinking "gone astray"
could it be that religious thoughts, or certain thoughts in general can be created and passed along and "take over" the minds of people, much like a virus? this is certainly a possibility given the accounts of people "changed" into religious zealots?
could it be that religious thought was a useful tool that we evolved and now it is only causing harm through extremist violence, dividing people along idealistic lines, and bringing injustice and crime in the name of "god"?
have geneticists found the "god locus" that houses the genes that cause people to believe in god? i can’t wait, because then we can start screening our children from inheriting it, and how about people already born with it? have we located the "god section" of the brain? i hope so, because then we can cure people of religion through brain surgery, the future is bright!
July 24, 2009 at 9:20 pm #92145
Well, religion as a gene I doubt it. But you could explore the meme theory suggested by Dawkins that would be relevant here.
Although it can be discussed how much the meme theory can be trusted and/or extended. Interesting but I am not sure how true it can be.
July 25, 2009 at 6:38 am #92160
July 25, 2009 at 6:55 am #92162
July 25, 2009 at 7:00 am #92163
So, How many of you have observed pathogenic effects of scientific thought?
many here want see whats wrong with that but many regard it as pathologicalquote :
many here want see whats wrong with that but many regard it as pathological
we also have the sterilization of mentally ill girls
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_righ … ation.htmlquote :
biologists placing plant genes into animals or animal genes into plants
many here want see whats wrong with that but many regard it as pathological
and how about the testing of atom bombs biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction
July 26, 2009 at 8:54 pm #92191quote gamila:
Biologists know what species is,
colin leslie dean paradox is meaningless gibberish
July 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm #92194
How profound, never thought of it that way bio (lol).
I believe most everyone these days would say forced eugenics is morally wrong. Probably some people see no problem with a voluntary eugenics experiment. But I personally think this would be unfair (probably immoral) on the children, because it does not guarantee a loving mother father figure environment (this is not a knock against single parents).
As far as gene transfer–why would someone want to mix plant and animal genes? Just to see if you could? Seems cruel to the organism it might produce or potentially dangerous.
Bottom line true science is knowledge and research, so it’s neutral. It’s what you do with the knowledge that’s good or evil. Now in the system of modern science there may be a few scientists that may have unsavory or immoral agendas, or may be working for someone who does.
July 26, 2009 at 10:10 pm #92197quote :
I’m not going to judge anyone, but most of us who believe scripture–we try to judge "things" that go on in church as whether they are "scriptural" first. The only people you see falling down in scripture is 1)Daniel in the presence of an archangel–saying the strength was drained from him. But the angel touched him and strengthened him. 2) It happened with Jesus in Gethsemane when the soldiers came to arrest him, they (book of John)"went back and fell to the ground…" But this may have been because they expected a fight from his disciples–not really clear.
All other miracles in the scriptural accounts were usually 1)beneficial to man (unless a judgment), 2) served a distinct purpose and 3)what the scripture calls "glorified God…" which means gave evidence of his Spirit at work–defying natural explanation.quote :
If God is a god of order, which if the universe shows order, would show that whatever or whoever created it is orderly and sane. It would not make sense that he would have his followers act insane. If He created life, it would not follow that he would have his followers destroy life.
Therefore from a standpoint of logic alone there are three logical possibilites:
1)There is no God or no god who actively intervenes nor communicates with his creation, and these are man initiated actions, based on man made beliefs.
2)There is a God who intervenes and communicates with his creation, and these are man initiated actions, based on man made beliefs.
3)There is a God who intervenes and communicates with his creation, and these actions are a result of yielding to other spiritual entities which are opposed to the god of creation, who have intention to confuse and blind.
July 27, 2009 at 2:23 am #92198quote AFJ:
Who’s making assumptions now? Read the Old Testament lately?
July 27, 2009 at 4:43 am #92200
You are quite correct Mr. Astus. I was oversimplifying things in the logic mode.
I will be as brief as I can, if you would bear with me, I hope this will at least give some explanation whether it is believed or not, and I am not trying to be dogmatic.
Background Some theologians call the Old Testament another dispensation, which is a period of time where God progressively reveals himself to man through various means. In the dispensation of law (OT) God dealt with Israel exclusively. During this time, God reveals himself to Israel as Judge and Lawgiver, and His nature as being that of Holiness.
In contrast to Richard Dawkins’ portrayal of a bloodthirsty ogre god– The people in the land that the Jews conquered were being judged by God. These peoples did human (many of them children) sacrifice among other things–the God of the OT hates the shedding of "innocent blood…" the scripture calls it. The scripture says that their iniquity was to the full which means that God basically had had enough of their grotesque sin over a long period of time and their time was up. This was a one time way of dealing in judgement with one situation in another dispensation of time. Another example would be the flood, but God does not continue to bring global floods.
The New Testament is a dispensation in which God reveals himself to all men (not just Israel) through His Son as a God of grace, love and truth. He now deals with men in a different manner.
Under this dispensation (of grace), God does not "holy war" infidels, so the crusades were done in ignorance of scripture.
Bottom Line–The scripture OT and NT condemns murder, but it does not condemn self defense, capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder, and it does not condemn law enforcement or the military. There are more reasons for this than just making up laws–it has to do with the fallen state of man, social peace and order, and justice.
July 27, 2009 at 6:38 am #92204
If the hypothesis is that religion is genetic and as such a genetic disease: I don’t really see how individual beliefs matter; only historical fact. Regardless of your faith, other faiths have done harm in one form or another.
The question is: has more harm been done than good? Only then could it be looked at as a disease.
Of course we’ll also need to pinpoint the genes that control our disposition for religiousity 🙂
July 27, 2009 at 9:31 am #92208
There does seem to be certain people who are more prone to accept religion. You have those strange cults that commit suicide. Certain people are drawn to these. These people seem to already have some kind of mental handicap in the first place.
I’m just speculating based on what I’ve seen.
I used to be a Mormon. I was raised in this religion from birth. I stayed in that religious mindset or "world" until I was 22.
Some kind of paradigm shift happened to me that failed to occur with my peers. From that observation there seems to be some totally sane people who are prone to accepting religion more readily.
Any other suggestions would be great, I might be stereotyping, but I’ve been stuck in religion before.
July 27, 2009 at 10:02 am #92209
I agree with you on that AFJ. This has more to do with morals and ethics. It’s about the individual.
I believe Eugenics is wrong,a horrible practice.
As for the genes part. I see nothing wrong with that, we do share the same DNA with plants.
July 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm #92219
I suppose there might be something to a certain personality type being attracted to anything predominantly metaphysical. That could be to the occult also, or people who like to watch horror flicks alot–a certain fascination with the idea of a spirit world.
On religion though, because modern day science is ingrained in our minds, many in our generation are naturalistic in philosophy. This leaves no place for revelation, which is what true religion is based on.
The wind is a good illustration of revelation. An unbeliever is like someone standing inside a building. He may occasionally walk past the window and see the trees moving–he sees the effects of something invisible, but may attribute the movement of the trees to a list of possibilities, including the fact that trees move of their own volition.
A believer claims revelation and is like someone outside by the tree. He also sees the trees moving, but also feels and hears the wind. Even though he can not see it like the unbeliever, he attributes an outside force on the trees because he feels the same effects personally.
July 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm #92221quote :
imagine what is being done in american british russian and chinese secret military biological labs
to see science as a pathogen
we have all seen the images of monkeys being used to test military technology
what about those films of american soldier walking toward the Abomb mush room cloud for scientific research
i once saw an interview with an amercian biologist women who put radioactive iodine in milk to see what effects it would have on babies
she was adament it was all done for science
July 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm #92223
You’re gonna have to give me sources for the american soldiers walking towards an atomic explosion, and for the interview of an american biologist women giving babys radioactive iodine or I’m going to have to remain sceptical of those inflamatory claims.
Tests are done on primates all the time, not that I agree with that sort of thing.
July 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm #92224
I’m going to accept that analogy only because it is from your point of view and it makes sense to you.
I was once a believer. My illustration is somewhat opposite. The believer being stuck in a world of their own creation. And the nonbeliever seeing the world as it really is.
Once I had come to the conclusion that god probably does not exist, the world I had known dissolved and became much bigger. I was able to think for myself rather than being told what to believe. No more heaven and hell, angels or demons.
July 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm #92226quote :
they where on tv documentaries
perhaps some youtube fanatics can give you some clips
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we … ted_States
There were also instances during the nuclear testing program in which soldiers were exposed to overly high levels of radiation, which grew into a major .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radi … xperiments
Radioactive Iodine Experiments; 1.2 Uranium Experiments … a study to discover if radioactive iodine affected premature babies differently from full-term babies. … above that of the military Commander of Operation Castle. … Such tests had dispersed radioactive contamination worldwide, ..
July 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm #92229
They didn’t have amercian soldiers walking towards the tests. These soldiers were exposed to the fallout just like much of the general population close to these site. A very bad thing, I agree.
Radioactive experiments to human patients without their knowledge or consent is completely unethical.
Science is neutral. Scientists can be however they wish.
July 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm #92230quote :
science is a human activity and as such it is not neutral
with out scientists there would be no science
science is a human activity
a definition of science is
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scienc … ition.htmlquote :
what is investigated
how it is investigated
how it is used
how it is tested
is all based on a human descion and
science cannot be neutral- as it is done by humans
as such it is a political/ethical decision
July 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm #92242
science has cured disease and created the food that the farmers grew that your parents ate to create you, gamila. you would not exist otherwise. read about the green revolution
people who spread disinformation are the equivalent of people who burn books or publish incorrect history books
people who post as gamila are the internet equivalent of the crazy’s on the streetcorner passing out pamphlets that will save your immortal soul, or something 😆
July 28, 2009 at 12:05 am #92247
I guess my understanding of what people call "religion" is different. It is more relationship than religion. The inferences I get from agnostics about religion is like its a bunch of rules without any heart or Spirit. Even the Bible says "the law kills, but the spirit gives life…" I can then understand the disappointment or disillusionment with what then become only a bunch of dogmatic ceremonies, songs, and "hogwash."
It would be like being in a marriage where I never spent any time with my wife, or where there was no love I would want out.
Love is a motivation that incidentally can not be proven scientifically nor does it have a place to be defined in science, but it is nonetheless commonly experienced by many people. I guess perhaps in relation to science at least it is comparable to "religion" or "spirituality."
July 28, 2009 at 11:31 am #92257quote :quote :
the same could be said for science
There does seem to be certain people who are more prone to accept science
science has caused deaths
we have those narzi scientists and their variants in democracies – just read about how the americans tested some of their atom bombs
or how scientists put radioactive iodine in babies milk to see the effect on babies
just as a certain pathogen type is attracted to religion
certain human pathogen types are attracted to science
both religion and science have untold deaths on it bloody hands
ie in the name of religion
and we here these days
in the name of research
we have psychologist helping with toruyure
July 28, 2009 at 12:40 pm #92258
Concerning the religion/science debate.
1) First of all, both realms contain people who make moral decisions and some of them are harmful or done in ignorance of the consequences. I would say that the general intentions of science and at least a majority of religions is for the benefit of the human race.
2) The predominant area of conflict between religion and science systems (systems include the entire organization, people, and knowledge contained within each realm) is on the subject of origins i.e. evolution/biblical creation/intelligent design.
a) For instance, I have a geologist friend who worked many years for an oil company. His creationist interpretation of evidence did not hinder his ability to be a successful geologist. He could still work within the paradigm of the geologic timescale interpretation.
3) All other models that are in other fields of science (such as the collapsing nebulae theory in astro-physics) I should think could be worked though by those who do not personally accept it’s principles.
4) There is much more in science than the issue of origins. And the personal beliefs of a science person would not interfere with their work.
July 29, 2009 at 8:47 am #92280quote :
science has experimented on babies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radi … xperimentsquote :
science has experimented on
on human populations with out their knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we … ted_Statesquote :
science has killed heaps of people
ie narzi scientific experimentation
american military neuclear testing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we … ted_States
american radiation testing on humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_radi … xperiments
July 29, 2009 at 6:10 pm #92284quote gamila:quote gamila:
what point were you trying to make gamila?
trying to say people only do bad shit in the name of science? HA!
i don’t even need to formulate much argument to shoot your neuron-twitch of an argument down
what if i turn the tables eh? what about the spanish inquisition? what about all the other bad shit the church or religion has been responsible for eh? crusades? jihad?
since u love wiki
yeah Gamila, you don’t convince anyone but the ignorant.
you are not making any well stated argument.
and as long as you troll these forums i will be here pointing out your own ignorance
July 30, 2009 at 7:03 am #92295quote :
fact is science has a lot of blood on its hand all in the name of scientific research
July 31, 2009 at 9:44 am #92303quote gamila:
No shit, Sherlock.
July 31, 2009 at 3:13 pm #92307
fact is blood has been shed in the name of almost everything, like economy, love, hate, food and plenty other including philosophy, my philosopher troll. Does that make any of those activities inherently evil?
Well the jury is still out for religion and philosophy ;), but I think that the only reasonable conclusion, is that they are not, but that any excuse will cover the sadly way to frequent greedy and violent nature of some human.
And your sweeping generalization do not honour you gamila. Of course this answer could be applied to the "religion as a pathogen" thread as well.
August 1, 2009 at 5:51 am #92311quote :
i see you are acute enough to get my point
to much relgion bashing thought i would point out what can be said about religion can be said about science
and as you have acutely pointed outquote :
March 17, 2011 at 10:13 pm #103964Jonl1408Participant
Or Creation was right and God created the earth, and everything in it.
What I am wondering is why is natural selection spoken among evolutionists, as if it has a mind of its own. Why and How would natural selection know which changes were needed where? It seems a lot smarter, to say that it was all designed. After all there is actual historical and scientific evidence for Creation, in fact there are more holes in the Evolutionary model, than in the Creation model (http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/1117193).
March 17, 2011 at 10:42 pm #103969
Creation is scientific theory. It is not complete but it is useful.
Creation is a myth. There are no ho;es, but it provides no insight beyond what is already known. It does not explain why genes are how they are, the thumb of the panda or the sahpe of the beak of the flamingo. It is just one more "just so story"
March 18, 2011 at 4:46 am #103977adihutamaParticipant
it would be good really if religion is a pathogen, perhaps it could be a contageous one.
My opinion, religion is a personal matter. Its a personal matter between you and God (or anything you believe in as the power of universe). So for me, I dont care what religion are you, or why you dont go to church though youre Christian, or dont shalat though your Moslem. I dont care as long as you dont hurt other people including me.
Talking about hurting people, you cannot blame their religion or believe for doing so. You should blame the people. The people who does the terror, bombing, etc. Because people choose what they want to do. There is a free will of every person (remember the movie: "’Bruce Almighty’"?). So the extremist take the full responsibility of their action.
Same thing goes to science. Scientist can always choose which way one would direct his research to. You can use it for good things, or bad things. Again it is a free will. I guess by telling that some believes (whether religion, or any theory) can dictate your action, means youre not respecting yourself as a human, that have developed thoughts and cultures.
Canalon is right, blood spill for almost everything. In my country, blood may spill for just IDR10000 (about a USdollar) debt. The only thing you should blame is the people doing that. Some people look for guidance of what should be done, and what should not. Some people find it in religion, perhaps because religion teachings made peace and love easier to understand and applied.
So, instead of arguing which one is false: religion or science which can take a zillion years, why dont we discuss science (that is a factual things that you can see, touch for now) and leave the religion matters to each individu. Argument about which one is right/wrong between religion and science is just like the argument of which hamburger stall is better….everybody has their own personal taste and, thus, choice.
March 20, 2011 at 2:25 am #104017Jonl1408Participant
@ Canalon, Evolution, is also a theory based on tons of guesswork, but if you want to call Creation a myth try seeing if you can find any "myths" that people have believed in for 6000 years. Also if you would actually read my other posts, you would see that science has lots of evidence for Creation, and that Creation does explain most of those things.
March 21, 2011 at 8:43 am #104080quote Jonl1408:
People believed in a geocentric world for the whole history of the mankind, way longer than the 6000 years your religion has lasted – yet it was corrected by scientific observations despite being the absolute "truth". The christian church, or course, firecely opposed this kind of herecy, but in vain. The same is now happening with creationism – just equally church opposes it against overwhelming evidence. This time the problem just is that evolution is a bit more tricky thing to prove than the Earth revolving around the Sun but just like Galileo & co. in their time, modern scientists just have to keep fighting ignorance that is so deeply rooted within the mankind…
- The forum ‘Off Topic Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.