Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Arawn-ap-Hywel · Jun 13, 2007, 04:21 pm

Here I am pondering if religion (no matter the doctrine) prevents theists (those whose beliefs are entrenched in God(s)) from evolving?

Do their codes and laws prevent them, by the virtue of there being such codes and laws destroy the chance that they may gain and experience life?

Also are they (collectively) preventing human society from fulling its full potential?

Technosoul · Jun 13, 2007, 06:50 pm

The by-the-book and the Buy-the-book people are. Because there is a concept for spiritual evolution, from lower to higher conscousness. Too much knowledge prevents exploring those higher potentials innate to the individual because they cannot go beyond the established dogma.

Caught in a nowhere place, between Ape and Angel. Between serpent and Saint, between what is and what should be. That would beg for moving up rather then slipping back into animalism from the state of humaness. To evolve from the earthly status to the heavenly status.

However. physical evolution and social evolution (as well as technological advancements) is happening and we have little or no control over that momentum in progress as mere individuals.

Alive · Jun 14, 2007, 12:26 am

No. I'm wondering, have you ever met any of these theists? They are very similar to you and me. Look about the same, even think about the same. Have similar hobbies, do similar work, even read similar books and listen to similar music.

**Jack** · Jun 14, 2007, 12:35 am

Quote:

Also are they (collectively) preventing human society from fulling its full potential?

Since their belief system is basically 2000 years old, I'd have to say, "yes". Equally disturbing are Muslim countries where they insist on living everyday just as they did thousands of years ago. They seem to desire no social progress whatsoever.

Technosoul · Jun 14, 2007, 02:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Since their belief system is basically 2000 years old, I'd have to say, "yes". Equally disturbing are Muslim countries where they insist on living everyday just as they did thousands of years ago. They seem to desire no social progress whatsoever.

The odd events in Iran is a good illustration. They pass a governmental law that anyone at the production end of pronographic materials shall be punished by death. And I am sure there are better examples of how they stay in the past but at the same time they want to advance their technology to join the 'nuclear age'. We can see modern cities where people still dress the same as they did back the days of Jesus. Little in the middle of those two extremes.

Technosoul · Jun 14, 2007, 02:55 am

Quote:

Quote by: Alive

No. I'm wondering, have you ever met any of these theists? They are very similar to you and me. Look about the same, even think about the same. Have similar hobbies, do similar work, even read similar books and listen to similar music.

That is an important point, it is possible that an athiest and a theist could be involved in lots of activities within society and never suspect their differences if the "sensitive" topics did not come up. They would all just be people working and living side by side with other people.

DEEJ85 · Jun 14, 2007, 11:51 am

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

That is an important point, it is possible that an athiest and a theist could be involved in lots of activities within society and never suspect their differences if the "sensitive" topics did not come up. They would all just be people working and living side by side with other people.

I have seen this to be true many times.

Many of my friends who are Christians work at the same places everyone else does and tend to frequent the same social places as everyone else . Often a persons stance on belief systems is not known until it is randomly brought up in conversation weeks if not months later.

I also don't understand how a belief system that is 2000 years old holds back potential by virtue of its age.

I also would like to think that the current cultural practices of Christianity are not equally bad as the cultural practices being used in Islamic countries today.

**Jack** · Jun 14, 2007, 11:55 am

Scientology would qualify as an "evolved" religious group, but I fail to see anything that would cause me to consider it anything but an updated set of superstitions.

Ibn_Sina · Jun 14, 2007, 01:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Equally disturbing are Muslim countries where they insist on living everyday just as they did thousands of years ago. They seem to desire no social progress whatsoever.

Whether it seems "disturbing" to you or not, not having desire for social progress is their choice. They are free to live the way THEY want to. Trying to "spread democracy" (or whatever the West calls it) was a failure.

Milton Bradley · Jun 14, 2007, 03:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Ibn_Sina

Whether it seems "disturbing" to you or not, not having desire for social progress is their choice. They are free to live the way THEY want to. Trying to "spread democracy" (or whatever the West calls it) was a failure.

I'm pretty sure Isherwood was not advocating that same line of crap that your TV set is, but rather only commenting on the observable behaviour of his contemporaries.

Nowhere in that post did he suggest that they should not be allowed to practice that religion. Nowhere did he suggest that they should change.

He only opined on the topic where his opinion was solicited.

Jun 14, 2007, 03:43 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

Since their belief system is basically 2000 years old, I'd have to say, "yes". Equally disturbing are Muslim countries where they insist on living everyday just as they did thousands of years ago. They seem to desire no social progress whatsoever.

What's so good about social progress? Society is only good enough in the future? It would have been such a travesty to have lived in some other great time, other than the most grand one that we live in now?

Ibn_Sina · Jun 14, 2007, 03:53 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Milton Bradley

I'm pretty sure Isherwood was not advocating that same line of crap that your TV set is, but rather only commenting on the observable behaviour of his contemporaries.

Well, to be blunt, apart from few tribes around the world, I didn't observe any society in Muslim countries living in the same way they lived thousands of years ago. Social progress also depend on factors such as economy, government etc.

Captain Cardio · Jun 14, 2007, 03:57 pm

I think that evolution in terms of very critical thinking would be a good thing. We still have many unanswered questions about the universe, and to settle into easy answers for big questions, doesn't provoke any kind of mental muscle building we may need for greater understanding.

Jun 14, 2007, 04:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel

Also are they (collectively) preventing human society from fulling its full potential?

Of course not. Evolution occurs at the level of individual. If a theist developed an immunity say to HIV/AIDS that was inheritable and passed that trait along to his or her offspring, and that trait gave the offspring a reproductive advantage, evolution is occurring.

Evolution would also be occurring if a negative trait was passed on that lowered the reproductive success of the offspring.

The only way that theists could not contribute to evolution would be if none of them reproduced. Hmmm.

BTW, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with fulfilling "full potential."

Regards
S.

Milton Bradley · Jun 14, 2007, 04:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: sdbest

Of course not. Evolution occurs at the level of individual. If a theist developed an immunity say to HIV/AIDS that was inheritable and passed that trait along to his or her offspring, and that trait gave the offspring a reproductive advantage, evolution is occurring.

Evolution would also be occurring if a negative trait was passed on that lowered the reproductive success of the offspring.

The only way that theists could not contribute to evolution would be if none of them reproduced. Hmmm.

BTW, evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with fulfilling "full potential."

Regards
S.

Sorry, but don't you think he implied that religion was preventing some peoples "philosophy" from evolving??

Jun 14, 2007, 04:42 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Milton Bradley

Sorry, but don't you think he implied that religion was preventing some peoples "philosophy" from evolving??

My mistake. Apologies all 'round.

Regards
S.

Milton Bradley · Jun 14, 2007, 04:51 pm

Quote:

Quote by: sdbest

My mistake. Apologies all 'round.

Regards
S.

Heh, no need to apologize, I just thought you seemed to have missed the real contention being made here.

Arawn-ap-Hywel · Jun 15, 2007, 02:00 am

sdbest Your view is acceptable, thus no need to appologise :)

Milton Bradley The issue is open, and hopefully has many contentious points :)

CoffeeSaint · Jun 15, 2007, 09:02 am

This is basically about memetic evolution, isn't it? Rather than genetic evolution? Memetically, only some brands of theism prevent evolution. The Catholic Church gave themselves an out by proclaiming that the Pope spoke with the voice of God; thus he can change the rules (Through the finest of ironic terms, the Papal Bull, heehee) and the Church can adapt. Those who see the Bible/Koran/whatever as the immutable word of God cannot memetically adapt; in fact, that lack of change is part of the appeal for millions, IMO.

Arawn-ap-Hywel · Jun 15, 2007, 03:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: CoffeeSaint

This is basically about memetic evolution, isn't it? Rather than genetic evolution? Memetically, only some brands of theism prevent evolution. The Catholic Church gave themselves an out by proclaiming that the Pope spoke with the voice of God; thus he can change the rules (Through the finest of ironic terms, the Papal Bull, heehee) and the Church can adapt. Those who see the Bible/Koran/whatever as the immutable word of God cannot memetically adapt; in fact, that lack of change is part of the appeal for millions, IMO.

CoffeeSaint I can recognise where you see the meme as the most important part of my question.

However the genetic factor is also strong, the mixing due to particular groups brought about by religion as a "control"

There is also the consideration that many new possible evolving "creations" cannot occur because of strong religious disent from useful resarch occuring, an example being the stem cell restrictions imposed by US government due to strong theist lobbies

Jun 13, 2007, 04:21 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Arawn-ap-Hywel Hot Lava Posts: 1,124	Is it possible for theists to evolve Here I am pondering if religion (no matter the doctrine) prevents theists (those whose beliefs are entrenched in God(s)) from evolving? Do their codes and laws prevent them, by the virtue of there being such codes and laws destroy the chance that they may gain and experience life? Also are they (collectively) preventing human society from fulling its full potential?

Jun 14, 2007, 11:55 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,741	Scientology would qualify as an "evolved" religious group, but I fail to see anything that would cause me to consider it anything but an updated set of superstitions. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Jun 15, 2007, 09:02 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
CoffeeSaint Moral Turnip Location: Oregon, US Posts: 2,283	This is basically about memetic evolution, isn't it? Rather than genetic evolution? Memetically, only some brands of theism prevent evolution. The Catholic Church gave themselves an out by proclaiming that the Pope spoke with the voice of God; thus he can change the rules (Through the finest of ironic terms, the Papal Bull, heehee) and the Church can adapt. Those who see the Bible/Koran/whatever as the immutable word of God cannot memetically adapt; in fact, that lack of change is part of the appeal for millions, IMO. "Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?" "Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth. Knowledge is my candy."

Jun 13, 2007, 06:50 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	The by-the-book and the Buy-the-book people are. Because there is a concept for spiritual evolution, from lower to higher conscousness. Too much knowledge prevents exploring those higher potentials innate to the individual because they cannot go beyond the established dogma. Caught in a nowhere place, between Ape and Angel. Between serpent and Saint, between what is and what should be. That would beg for moving up rather then slipping back into animalism from the state of humaness. To evolve from the earthly status to the heavenly status. However. physical evolution and social evolution (as well as technological advancements) is happening and we have little or no control over that momentum in progress as mere individuals.

Jun 14, 2007, 12:26 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Alive Human Posts: 679	No. I'm wondering, have you ever met any of these theists? They are very similar to you and me. Look about the same, even think about the same. Have similar hobbies, do similar work, even read similar books and listen to similar music.

Jun 14, 2007, 03:57 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Captain Cardio Uncomfortable Mind Posts: 379	I think that evolution in terms of very critical thinking would be a good thing. We still have many unanswered questions about the universe, and to settle into easy answers for big questions, doesn't provoke any kind of mental muscle building we may need for greater understanding.

Jun 15, 2007, 02:00 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Arawn-ap-Hywel Hot Lava Posts: 1,124	sdbest Your view is acceptable, thus no need to appologise :) Milton Bradley The issue is open, and hopefully has many contentious points :)