Religion/god Given Rights..

[The Seeker 3,048]

 

Altruism?

 

here you go Wilf, I just done a bit of googling and came up with this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

Thanks just had a read and if I understand it correctly it speaks of one person sacrificing themselves so that the rest of the group flourish and become stronger. Wilfs question relates if I am correct to a stranger sacrificing his life which cant be for the good of the group as to them they are strangers. What is ironic is weve gone a full circle as I think the origins of this thread started about a young 14 year old lad sacrificing himself by tackling a suicide bomber.

[Born Hunter 17,809]

I always use this one but I think it's a good example, Born Hunter (or any other scientific type person).....is there a scientific explanation as to why a stranger will sacrifice their life for another stranger?.......push them out the way of a bus or something?

 

It's the most un-natural thing in the world for an animal to do IMHO

 

Fecking hell this is purely in the field of anthrapology and human psychology but I'll have a bash. How many people actually sacrifice their lives for complete strangers? I mean an adult sacrificing their life for a child is completely understandable, we are pre programmed to protect the young, that pre programming probably doesn't distinguish between fatal and non fatal outcomes just a response to a situation. I mean, does that hero even think he's going to die? Is it even a consideration or have we evolved due to the statistics of just reacting with no thought being better on average for human species survival than being overly cautious and sensible?

 

It's difficult to answer without having the problem layed out with very strict conditions. But I'd hazard a guess it's statistically better for us as a species for individuals to just react with no thought than not to. I can't think of many that would simply trade their lives willingly simply to save random others of equal value?

[Malt 379]

Pagan cultures were controlled by their lifestyle, the crops don't grow someone's gonna get it etc. The people who decided who next months sacrifice was, would have been very powerful indeed That's were modern paganism differs as a religion or a set of beliefs, it can be approached with the benefit of knowledge. Paganism would have been part of living in the natural world, and the change from hunter gatherer to agriculture gave the agricultural calendar as used by modern pagans/wiccans. Were as paganism was born out of a life and death physical need to eat and survive and to understand a very big world, modern paganism was born out of a desire for spiritual and maybe intellectual growth and normally a desire to live with nature rather than dominate her. The motivation for the two things are worlds apart and I don't see modern paganism as a watered down version of classical paganism, it is something quite different in its own right

 

Spot on. They held their beliefs because they could only describe what they seen. Like you say, they didn't have the intricate knowledge that we have today after thousands of years of human development and learning. All they had was what they could see, hear, smell, touch and taste. The beliefs they had were the result of the human mind's need to make sense of it all and it gave form to their thoughts and interpretations. They didn't believe what they believed simply to fulfil some sort of spiritual need, they believed it because that was the way they understood the world worked

 

 

 

I didn't say our ancestors were hippies,or wiccans,modern people have interpreted the religion mostly IMO in 1 of those 3 ways.

I believe they were true to nature,which can be cruel and is uncompromising.

They may well have used slaves,we also know the lineage was very important to them so we can assume they almost certainly had some sort of hierrachy/caste system,so what?

The point is the ideaology isn't/wasn't used as a method of control.

Where's your proof it was just like any modern religion?

I've read plenty of stuff and watched plenty of documentaries about ancient religions from the Celts to ancient Greeks, it seriously interests me living in a part of the world with plenty of sites to visit. Not proof as such but certainly gives a better picture than picking stuff out my head and coming out with it just because I think it sounds about right..

I tend to avoid the television when I'm looking for real info.

 

I read,the original (translated) sources and read what others have to say on the matter and come to my own conclusion.

I mainly read up on our northern ancestors because they were far less affected by Christianity than the southern countries.

 

But even then we can't often know for sure exactly what took place for a few reasons,so a lot of it has to be intuitive.

 

Which is why it is important that we are genetically similar to our ancestors and can comprehend how they thought.

 

 

I tend to watch the long documentaries fronted by boring university professors that you get on channels like BBC 4 rather then the ones on the mainstream channels presented by TV presenters and dumbed down for the masses. There was a cracking one on a few weeks back about the Greek gods and how they came into being, it was about 2 hours long IIRC.. There was plenty of archaeological evidence presented on it which charted the progress and spread of belief in pagan gods and how those beliefs were carried and integrated with local beliefs as it went from place to place.

[neems 2,406]

 

I always use this one but I think it's a good example, Born Hunter (or any other scientific type person).....is there a scientific explanation as to why a stranger will sacrifice their life for another stranger?.......push them out the way of a bus or something?

It's the most un-natural thing in the world for an animal to do IMHO

 

Fecking hell this is purely in the field of anthrapology and human psychology but I'll have a bash. How many people actually sacrifice their lives for complete strangers? I mean an adult sacrificing their life for a child is completely understandable, we are pre programmed to protect the young, that pre programming probably doesn't distinguish between fatal and non fatal outcomes just a response to a situation. I mean, does that hero even think he's going to die? Is it even a consideration or have we evolved due to the statistics of just reacting with no thought being better on average for human species survival than being overly cautious and sensible?

 

It's difficult to answer without having the problem layed out with very strict conditions. But I'd hazard a guess it's statistically better for us as a species for individuals to just react with no thought than not to. I can't think of many that would simply trade their lives willingly simply to save random others of equal value?

http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/01/30/science-in-scandinavian-mythology-gravity/

 

If you have time this article may interest you,I'd be interested to read what you thought.

[Malt 379]

 

 

Altruism?

here you go Wilf, I just done a bit of googling and came up with this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

Thanks just had a read and if I understand it correctly it speaks of one person sacrificing themselves so that the rest of the group flourish and become stronger. Wilfs question relates if I am correct to a stranger sacrificing his life which cant be for the good of the group as to them they are strangers. What is ironic is weve gone a full circle as I think the origins of this thread started about a young 14 year old lad sacrificing himself by tackling a suicide bomber.

 

 

It's that instinct though mate. For most of the time modern humans have been around we were living in small groups. 200,000 odd years they reckon, and that's not to say it was there before that. The instincts that evolved along with us and got us here ain't going to go away because we've been living in vastly larger numbers for a few thousand years after serving us well for so long..

[neems 2,406]

@ malt-I'm sure there is a lot of good info on documentaries.

 

But some ive seen conflict pretty largely with what I've read and pretty easily understood myself,the whole perception of Valhalla,ragnarok and Asgard for example.

[Born Hunter 17,809]

 

http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/01/30/science-in-scandinavian-mythology-gravity/

 

If you have time this article may interest you,I'd be interested to read what you thought.

 

 

The article is largely an individuals interpretation of the Norse mythology based on current scientific knowledge. I mean it's not wrong, Jupiter is a life saver for us, it's like our safety shield from comets. Other than that I couldn't comment on the mythology side of it. I generally find the 'old religions' fascinating from an academic point.

[Malt 379]

@ malt-I'm sure there is a lot of good info on documentaries.

 

But some ive seen conflict pretty largely with what I've read and pretty easily understood myself,the whole perception of Valhalla,ragnarok and Asgard for example.

What about Elysium/the Elysian fields? A pretty similar concept..

[Malt 379]

 

 

http://thuleanperspective.com/2013/01/30/science-in-scandinavian-mythology-gravity/

 

If you have time this article may interest you,I'd be interested to read what you thought.

 

 

The article is largely an individuals interpretation of the Norse mythology based on current scientific knowledge. I mean it's not wrong, Jupiter is a life saver for us, it's like our safety shield from comets. Other than that I couldn't comment on the mythology side of it. I generally find the 'old religions' fascinating from an academic point.

 

I love reading about it mate. Did you know Aphrodite was born after Cronos sliced his fathers nuts off with a sickle and his sperm hit the sea and fertilised it?

[gnasher16 30,455]

Not picking faults Bornhunter but didnt 2 of Stephen Hawkings own top physicists ruin his 70th birthday when giving a state of the universe address in which they basically admitted we are back to square 1 in terms of discovering the origins of the universe by saying with the fact nothing comes from nothing it forces us to ressurect a way to kickstart the universe without the hand of a transcending creator.............so is belief in science over a creator just a case of 1 step forward and 2 steps back and we,ll get there in the end type of thing......and if so how long do you give it before giving up and saying maybe im following science blindly being that science is something you can see/touch etc

[neems 2,406]

It's a huge coincidence if it is one though isn't it?

 

Malt-I don't know,I haven't looked into it,I just think the northern people kept their religion purer for longer so don't read specifically about other people.

 

Probably will move on to Greek mythology,when I've got a better grasp on what I'm looking into now.

 

I'm guessing it would take a lot of research to decode the mythology and find out.

[Malt 379]

It's a huge coincidence if it is one though isn't it?

 

Malt-I don't know,I haven't looked into it,I just think the northern people kept their religion purer for longer so don't read specifically about other people.

 

Probably will move on to Greek mythology,when I've got a better grasp on what I'm looking into now.

 

I'm guessing it would take a lot of research to decode the mythology and find out.

They pretty much have themes and figures that pop up and intertwine, consistent with ideas and beliefs moving from place to place and integrating with local ones. Not read a hell of a lot of the Germanic ones if I'm honest but it's something I will do.. I bet you'll find a lot in common with the Greek ones once you have a knowledge of both.

[Born Hunter 17,809]

Not picking faults Bornhunter but didnt 2 of Stephen Hawkings own top physicists ruin his 70th birthday when giving a state of the universe address in which they basically admitted we are back to square 1 in terms of discovering the origins of the universe by saying with the fact nothing comes from nothing it forces us to ressurect a way to kickstart the universe without the hand of a transcending creator.............so is belief in science over a creator just a case of 1 step forward and 2 steps back and we,ll get there in the end type of thing......and if so how long do you give it before giving up and saying maybe im following science blindly being that science is something you can see/touch etc

 

I don't know about the hawking thing so couldn't comment on that event. As for back to square one, I wouldn't agree with that, we have made progress by eliminating the previous steady state theory which said the universe had and always will be the same with no beginning and end. So we now understand that there was indeed a creation of this universe at least, in it's current state. Why should we believe that science and logical reasoning didn't exist before? As science has answered so much so far without a shred of evidence to support God! But then there wouldn't be, that chap is conveiniently unexplainable.

 

Not sure what you mean about 1 step forward 2 steps back, we are continually making progress. We haven't regressed in our knowledge. I believe that has only happened once with 1500 years of regression due to the Church durring the middle ages.

 

Again, I don't see how I'm following science blindly, science proves itself to me everyday with logic and reasoning. God, our creator, does not, in fact that chap is the ultimate blind faith because he can't be explained with logic and reasoning by definition.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Born Hunter

[WILF 47,587]

You boys are going way beyond my limited brain capacity, personally I don't want, need or look for proof of something more.........call me a nut if you like but I feel it so I know it's there.

 

What it's name is, I don't know, but it's there........

[Born Hunter 17,809]

One more thing, the everything from nothing bussiness again. If that's what they said they're full of shit! Fact is they don't know what happened before the big bang so how they can say there was nothing is beyond me.

 

We have to be careful with our definition of nothing, I suspect they meant no physical universe, at the beginning before atoms were created and the fundamental forces of nature were formed, but f**k knows what they were on about.