It’s actually ignorance that kills, and it can be found in all sectors, religious and secular alike.

All the benefits of religion can’t be had unless we know what they all are.

@skado
So, you are a closet christian trying to convert in the atheist realm, eh?

You spout anal drivel "All the benefits of religion can't be had unless we know what they all are."

Every Abrahamic religion is based on delusional psychoses, and we should rid the world of all mental diseases like religion.

@AtheistInNC Bit stronger than I would have put it, but I can go with that.

@skado

Comparing secular ignorance to religious ignorance is false equivalency.

False equivalency is for assholes.

Light is now bending around you.

Who's using the family brain cell today?

@skado If as you say. "Ignorance kills," then how the Fuck are you still alive I want to know?

@Toonman And of course the purpose of religion is as a marketing and support network for ignorance, given that ignorance/misinformation sells as a product in the hands of the dishonest, and that its supporters/sellers need a marketing method, they are keeping religion alive as their best ploy.

@Fernapple

Religion is Marketing 101-- Create a product or service for which there exists no need.

Create the need for the product or service by telling people use of the product or service will make their lives better, make them more attractive, or will fulfill them in some way.

Now here's where religion becomes pure marketing:

There is no product or service, just the salesmanship.

@Toonman That is right, the product which does not exist is the marketers perfect product. In fact in most theist religions, you don't even get to take delivery of the imaginary product until after you are dead. Not really a surprise they don't get any bad reviews or returns. LOL

@AtheistInNC You are right, but Skado is not a merely closet Christian, the direction in which he is trying to lead is a great deal darker even than that.

Was that comment meant for me or for @skado?

@Triphid Skado

@Toonman Imo, it has already reach that point and now he has attained Trans-warp drive....LOL.

@Triphid And failed Kobayashi Maru.

I'm sorry life has treated you so poorly.

@OldMetalHead @skado I appreciate the honesty of your admission. Something I think often gets overlooked is religion's urge, particularly Christianity and Islam, to destruction in their doctrines of The Rapture and Jihad, and lust for the "end times". While not technically nihilistic, the effect is essentially the same. And let's not pretend that there was ever a time that religion was perfectly adaptive, or forget all of the bloodshed, cruelty, and hindrance of progress it has caused. One could well wonder at the fact that humanity has survived it, and it may yet fail to do so.

@Rossy92
I think you're talking about religious fundamentalism rather than religion. Fundamentalism is exactly what authentic religion, Christianity in particular, was intended to combat. I am in no way supportive of religious fundamentalism or literalism.

Starting with you?

@BufftonBeotch That'd work for me.

@skado Ay, there's the rub. I appreciate your rejection of a literalist view. And perhaps what you say of the original intent of Christianity is true. But what a folly it was to ally itself to the supernatural, and to ancient scripture (Old Testament) because the leader (Jesus) of it's movement purportedly had faith in it. The word religion now carries a deep tarnish which will be hard to remove. Good luck with that!

Btw I found the malaria analogy a bit complicated (probably a bit of laziness on my part). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds similar what I feel would be a simpler example, which is that of the gene which causes obesity and a tendency toward Diabetes, but that was essential for survival in times of famine?

@Rossy92
The idea of the supernatural is not original. The word wasn't even invented until somewhere around the eleventh century or so, if I recall. It's a modern interpretation or rather misinterpretation. The tarnish is indeed deep, but not to the core.

@skado My reference to the supernatural was shorthand for a lot of the concepts which should only flourish in a pre-scientific age. There's a small part of me which wants to embrace the concept of a "true" religion and a "true" spirituality, and another part which is very mistrustful of them. And then when you consider those in the spiritual but not religious camp combined with those whom I encountered in your recent post of Gottlieb that are vehemently opposed to the concept of spirituality, it does indeed seem a deep tarnish in that there is opposition all sides. The Romantic in me, however, causes the occasional contemplation of this quote:

@Rossy92
I think there’s a viable path to such an authentic religion but not, to my knowledge, in any organized form. So a person has to develop it for himself. Sagan is a great place to start. He was pivotal for me.

I am now thoroughly familiar with your personal definition of religion, thanks.

@skado And I am familiar with yours, but there are others who may not be, and I take an interest in the welfare of others, including the protection of them against misinformation.

And I am comforted to know, from experience on this site, that their are others who can and do understand and appreiciate my definition, even if they think that I could be wrong, and I admit it is not perfect.

I am however comforted, that I do not have a personal definition which makes such a stretch of the languages usages, that it actually becomes an abuse to the language, though it is in the nature of poor shambolic language that it takes a lot to abuse it. Even though it seems to be quite normal behaviour among appologists, whose use of deceit and cognitive dissonance has presumably grown so deep and familiar that honesty is no longer identifiable, and all the personal instincts based on honesty have been erroded away by the corrosive effect that religion has on the human personality.

@Fernapple
Go for it, friend. You and I don’t need to argue.

I have a great respect for dedicated scientists and worked for a period of ten years for one of the world's leading genetic research centres that specializes in the treatment of luekaemia.

I have read some posts on here that make me think that they have little or nothing to do with science. Indeed, if someone told me that you were elected Pope, I might inclined to give more credibility to such a story.

@ASTRALMAX Research into treatments for cancers such as leukaemia and the like are done SCIENTIFICALLY and under STRICT Scientific Rules and Regulations as are ALL Scientific Researches.
The total OPPOSITE applies to Religions where there is NO Regulation/s or Protocols applied to the 'so-called' researching what-so-ever.
As you can see from the piece added below, it was sent to me by another rabid Evangelist and who vehemently believes it to be a FACT.
In fact, he states that the ENTIRE Evangelical Congregation of which he is a member are now petitioning SpaceX for the usage of one of THEIR rockets and a Landing Craft so they can send an Expedition to the Moon and salvage the Ark remnants for posterity.

@David1955 Have been ever since about his third or fourth ever postings.
It is more like, imo, a type of Bi-polar disorder mixed with a driving need for recognition whether such good or bad but it does not matter so long as he gains some of it.

@David1955 I treat an number of 'patients' with A.D.D. and A.D.H.D. and their behaviours are vastly different to what I perceive from @skado.
To 'borrow' as term from being heard by me elsewhere I'd posit that he has a tendency towards being an "Attention Whore."

@David1955 On second thoughts, it could well be " Alabama Dip-shit Disorder" which is endemic to Alabama and some of the Southern State of the U.S.....LOL.

Perhaps it is not meant to be taken literally in much the same sense that the Selfish Gene is not to be taken literally? However, I agree with you. Intent would seem to presuppose some purpose. Hmm! smacks of anthropomorphism.

I haven’t claimed evolution has intent. But it does have solutions to problems.

@skado I quote. "Religion is evolution’s protection against ‘extinction-due-to-evolutionary-mismatch’"
maybe you can argue that into not meaning evolution has intent, and make the case that as usual you were not trying to take advantage of those ill infomed, to get away with spinning. But I would not bother, if you pile the sewage too high it will slip and smell, then everyone will know.

@skado Evolution DID not bring about religion because IF it did then ALL life forms would be religious and praying etc, to the same God.
The TRUTH of the entire matter is, @skado, that Evolution brought the Rise of Human Kind, and Human Kind brought about the Plague and Curse that is Religion when Human Kind INVENTED the very first ever concept of Supernatural, but non-existent Supreme Being/s and that then became the first roots of the belief in such, which then turned in to the biggest Scam ever invented, RELIGIONS.

@Fernapple
Humans can’t communicate without the use of figures of speech. Wisdom is knowing how to interpret them without insisting that they must always be taken literally.

I fully understand that evolution is not teleological, and have never believed or claimed otherwise.

@skado Back pedalling again when caught, boy you do spin.

@Triphid Yes, in the end the short crude, but still true answer is that. If there really was a genetic basis for religion, then there would not be such things as atheists and agnostics at all.

@skado Hmm, PLEASE expound IF you will as where upon I resorted to the usage of a said such "figure of speech."

@skado, @Fernapple And Oh what a wonderful and truly peaceful world it would be.

@Triphid "They create a desert and they call it peace." Peace is for the graveyard. Besides which I beleive that Skado is basically well intended and therefore redeamable.

@Fernapple May one ask as to "a well intended and redeemable what?"

@Fernapple
Life’s complicated. Try not to be snotty, OK?

@Triphid Redeemable , not unredeemable. Though I am pushing the boat out, more than a little.

@Fernapple Now THAT if I remember correctly is an old adage penned regarding the Roman Empire that, imo, applies equally to the U.S. and many European Countries as per the past histories.

@skado, @Fernapple I stand corrected and have remedied my error. Thank you for correcting me, much appreciated.

“According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause. Matthew White’s The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the primary cause of 11 of the world’s 100 deadliest atrocities. In several conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism—depending upon the observer’s sympathies. However, studies on these cases often conclude that ethnic animosities drive much of the conflicts.”

[en.wikipedia.org]

.

@skado True, the war in Iraq had very little to do with religion although religious elements were present. Taking unmetered oil from Iraq for eight years and George Bush's appearance on TV shortly after the 2003 invasion of that country made it clear to the world.

@skado And you trust in Wikipaedia, a listing of definitions, etc, etc, that can be changed/altered by absolutely ANYONE with access to the Web and a key-pad?
As the mythical Yoda would say " Strong in this one the Stupidity is."

@skado "Religion is not a matter of God, church, holy cause, etc. These are but accessories. The source of religious preoccupation is in the self, or rather the rejection of the self. Dedication in the obverse side of self-rejection. Man alone is a religious animal because, as Montaigne points out, it is a malady confined to man, and not seen in any other creature, to hate and despise ourselves." - Eric Hoffer

@nogod4me Voltaire said that he envied the animals because there was nobody to squabble over their wills and possesions when they died. They never heard the clock strike and were unaware of the hour of their death.

@nogod4me
Eric Hoffer was an individual with opinions, just like you or me. I’d rather go by the science.

@skado Then you should drop your crusade to save religion.

Hey you forgot the Great Biblical Flood, the Invasion of the Hebrews into the Middle East, the Russian Expulsions and Murders of the Jews under the last Tsar as well.
Oh and the Destruction of the Cathars by the Catholic Church as well.

@nogod4me
A crusade to save religion would be as non-sensical and pointless as a crusade to save nictitating membranes. What we are and how we behave was created by the forces of evolution, and will be what they will be. I doubt we will be able to save our species, let alone any of its peculiar behaviors. Meanwhile, I am endlessly fascinated by the group of people who claim their objection to an evolved trait is based in a superior education! Humans!

@Matias You will find that in almost every WAR involving Human Beings somewhere within it there is the mentioning that " Our God is on OUR Side, " or as with Nazi Germany's Troops " Gott mitt Uns" was embossed into their belt buckles."
Please allow me to 'enlighten' you regarding a bit of MODERN History,
The Spanish Conquests of Central and South America were for TWO major reasons,

1. being the TREASURES such as Gold, Silver, etc, etc, to replenish the depleted Coffers of the Spanish Royal Family, etc,
2. and FUNDED by the Holy Catholic Church btw, to Convert or Eradicate the Heathens dwelling in those lands.
   The Great Crusades,
   Instigated by the Catholic Church by an Papal Edict,
   Goal to FREE the 'Holy Land' from the scourge of Humanity, the Saracen Hordes, eradicate the Saracens completely and re-establish the very lucrative incomes gained by the Church from the pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem, etc,
   To instigate a system of 'Indulgences' "whereby any person who goes upon the Crusades shall have ALL their sins forgiven and washed away and should the perish in the name of God and Jesus they shall be granted entry into Heaven with question."
   See Friend, a little knowledge of History SANS bible is a great asset.

@Matias Check what I wrote please, it WAS Gott mitt Uns as per the German Language I was taught and have been able to converse in since i was 16 years of age.
Sprechen sie Deutsche mien freund?

It protects us from evolutionary mismatch.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Religion influences us to behave in ways that are counter to some of our evolved traits that would otherwise be problematic in large, complex societies.

@skado WTF have you smoking and drinking this time @ skado?

@skado So how does YOUR statement, etc, EXPLAIN the rampant in-breeding in Religions such as Islam, Hinduism and, though not 100% religion based by nature, the various Royal and Noble Families around the world, families who's ONLY claim to their so-called ELEVATED Social position is that " God anointed them to be so."
Please, please answer my query I am awaiting your reasoning.

@skado - I have to admit that evolutionary mismatch is a new term for me, although the concept is implied in the theory and in the study of the fossil record. Two observations, however, one is that humans have adapted to nearly every environment on earth without a great deal of change to our physiology and anatomy. We have developed the ability to a certain degree to change our micro-environments through shelters, clothing, medicines, etc. to compensate where other species have had to alter their physiology to accomplish the same end. For this reason, the evolutionary mismatch would appear not to apply to humans in quite the same way as it would to other species. The other observation is that you haven't been terribly specific about the traits religion serves to counter. The one which seems to be most apparent is countering tribalism which factionalizes people and encourages an us vs. them view. If this is one of these traits, I would say religion can and has created tribalism and has the potential to foster the us/other feelings in people and has fostered divisions amoung people.

My thought on the subject is that there is no position or action that can be promoted by religion that may be viewed as helpful in our would that does not take a personal decision which must be periodically reminded and renewed within an individual. The decision may be attributed to religious teaching or not, but the decision and the internalizing of the decision is something personal made by the individual. Unless we can demonstrate that religion serves this purpose better than another means of teaching these values, then I would question whether religion deserves the credit it is given for these cultural value. It seems to me that religions (at least Judeo/Christian/Islamic religions) have as many traditions and stories which support and promote divisions and discords between competing belief systems within societies as they have to alieviate and diminish them.

@RussRAB
All good thoughts, thanks.

I would say that this ability to alter our micro-environments through various technologies instead of having to wait for physiological adaptations, which may not arrive in time, all comes under the umbrella of cultural adaptation, of which religion is a prominent, if not indeed the dominant feature.

So rather than saying mismatch may not apply to humans in the same way, I would probably say humans have developed better cultural adaptations for dealing with the equal application of mismatch that all species face when their environment changes faster than they can physiologically adapt.

As far as 'which traits need to be countered' is concerned, we have only to notice which behaviors are being cautioned against in world religious scripture - the "thou shalt nots" - in order to see which instincts were found to be increasingly troublesome as we progressed from hunter/gatherer to agrarian societies, and so on.

The sequence of events that makes the most sense to me regarding tribalism is that it was deeply encoded genetically to begin with, which indicates that it was adaptive in the ancestral environment, but as foragers became farmers it became increasingly maladaptive. The agricultural revolution came on so suddenly, in evolutionary time, that accommodations had to be made culturally instead of biologically. The Christian Bible, for example, is full of exhortations to be kind to the stranger and to treat one's neighbor as oneself. In Karen Armstromng's exhaustive survey of world religions she finds the call for compassion to be the most common feature.

The fact that this cultural patch has not been a complete and permanent solution to the problem attests to the persistence of biology rather than to an inappropriateness of the solution. When you try to train any animal species to behave counter to its natural instincts, of course it will forever look for ways to circumvent or subvert that training in its weaker moments and by its less compliant individuals.

If a wetlands area has been made habitable by a levee or dam, and then the levee is breached, causing a flood... it would not be fair to say the levee caused the area to be uninhabitable. Biology is, for the most part, an untamable river. It is no wonder our feeble cultural modifications not only fail regularly but are often perverted into their opposites in order to appease our 4.3 billion year-old instincts. That's why reform is a constant necessity.

Today's extant world religions were originally developed when the societies that produced them were much more isolated one from another than they are today. They were not designed for a global community. They worked so well in their original context that they were sacralized, and the sacred is not to be tampered with. So they have an innate resistance to change, which is both necessary and unfortunate. Now, once again, what had evolved to be adaptive is growing maladaptive due to an even greater rate of environmental upheaval.

But the answer to a breached levee is not to do away with levees, but to remake them to suit the new conditions. The river is not going away, but only getting stronger.

It’s true that the prohibitions against instinctual impulses must be periodically renewed by or for the individual, which may be the single constructive function that religious organizations still serve which no other institution has taken up. And whatever we might choose to call that regular renewal/revival/resurrection in the future, it has historically, and up to the present time, been called religion.

Yes the commitment must ultimately be made by the individual, and experience has shown that the majority of individuals need cultural support in that endeavor.

Though I’m not attached to any particular word to describe this process, in my thinking, it is best understood from an evolutionary, functional perspective rather than from a listing of its current, outward manifestations. So it seems fitting that, rather than identifying it by its means, we name it according to its social function. And in that light, I can't think of a more apropos (or more readily recognizable) term than the one derived from the Latin religare - (to reconnect).

Religions want believers, followers who are obedient.

I’d rather go by the science.

@skado Quote, " I'd rather go by Science," and yet you post the original posting above AND defend it as well.
May one enquire as to how long you have been off your anti-psychotic medications THIS time?

@skado Why did you bring up religion helping us to survive, if you trust science?

@xenoview
Because that’s what science is saying.

@skado any peer reviewed for your claims?

@xenoview
I’m sure there is, but I don’t catalog that stuff. You can find it as easily as I can. But as an aside, the overall trend in scientific thinking is not only found by reading a single peer reviewed study. It requires broad reading, which one can only do for oneself. A good place to start might be to read up on CSR. [thepsychologist.bps.org.uk]

What is not filled with violence?

@skado COMPASSION

"In the alchemy of man's soul almost all noble attributes--courage, honor, love, hope, faith, duty, loyalty, etc.--can be transmuted into ruthlessness.

Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil proceeding within us. Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: where there is compassion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless.

Nature has no compassion. It is, in the words of William Blake, "a creation that groans, living on the death; where fish and bird and beast and tree and metal and stone live by devouring." Nature accepts no excuses and the only punishment it knows is death." - Eric Hoffer

@nogod4me
Compassion - the central feature of all world religious scripture.

Bertrand Russell said: "In the centre of every town and village in England you will find a statue of a man or horseback commemorated for his special skill in homicde. Millions are available for means of mass destruction and only a pittance for medical research."

@skado A facade to cover their rape and abuse. And to help them rape and abuse.

Plenty of animals exhibit compassion to each other and even to other species.

@racocn8 When an animal kills for food it is not the human concept of good and evil, Eric Hoffer is talking about compassion thwarting evil in us.

@skado THE ONLY TRUE compassion/s religions have is NOT for the Followers but for the MONIES they can 'relieve' the Followers of.

The science is going the other way these days. The evidence is mounting up.

@TheMiddleWay The question is not whether or not it's "natural" but whether or not it's part of the process of evolution.

@TheMiddleWay Can u point me in some data?

@TheMiddleWay Sorry, that was supposed to go to skado.

@skado Can u point me to some data?

@redbai I would say that religion fits this category . . .

[nature.com]

@redbai
Here’s a good place to start: [en.wikipedia.org]

For actual studies you can read some of the reference materials listed at the bottom of the article, or under “Further Reading”.

Religion has never been anything but reformed. It evolves just like we do.

@skado 7, ( SEVEN) little letters forming 2 ( TWO) words here and they are meant JUST for you @skado PROVE IT.

No, what?

@skado No, I would not rather. But I am also not very optimistic in this regard, as I see very little effort toward that end.