A personal question

I hope you dont find this question that sily but I am intersted in your view.There was nothing in my religion that argued against evolution and deep inside i`ve always believed that man was an ancestor to the ape.
But I guess I didnt find that fact to be that romantic for me to embrace .
And of course, we humans have been blessed with abilities such as, high intelligence, being able to use our hands to create things, and I guess we are the only specie that feels conserned with his spiritual life, and many other abilities such as bipedality.
However, all these traits seem to vanquish compared to the similarity between our genes, 2-5 %(why is that so, are there other factors that I dont know of?).
And morally, is it really in the nature of our dignity as humans to feel related with animals, no matter how good the evidence are( achhh, sweet ages of ignorance ).
Joke aside, I believe in evolution but perhaps its better not to fuss over it Sincerely Delshad

Thanks for the reply Mark.
Appreciate it .And thanks for the correction Nos, of course descendants not ancestor

In the Quran, there is a ayat stating" ... what!, you speak of what you do not know..".
Hence Im afraid of making any hasty conclusions of Allah`s intentions or His ways of creation.
But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence.
Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning.
Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure.
Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test.The reason I started the topic was mainly to bring the debate to another level, Evolution Vs creation shouldnt only be a scientific issue, it should include the social aspects of the views as well.
For example, is it really in our nature as humans to feel related to animals, it has only been a litle more than a century since Darwin made the theory but humans have been around alot longer and it wouldn`t be so strange if our psycological and spiritual characters and our social structure as well dont coincide with that theory, what do you think?Sincerely Delshad

Anyone else besides Nos482 that care to discuss (not that I dont value his replies but he doesnt feel to happy about bringing the scientific issue at a more social and philosophical level).Sincerely Delshad

Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge.Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.
Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.
Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact.Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.
If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction.Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.
Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans.
And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.

Dear Nos482.
Ill try to simplify this ."Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge."Nos482:Where did you hear this?What I meant was that, the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" isnt very suitable outside the classroom.Because, although survival of the fittest isnt necessary by means of violence, the underlying message to the society is that feelings such as love and compassion exists only because of our interest to stay alive, they arent real.
Of course by writing "western world" I was crossing the line and I apologize, perhaps I should have stated educated world in general."Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed."Nos482:???During the latest two or three decades litterary hundreds of scientifical researches all point to that aggression isnt borned with and that violence behaviour is affected by social, situation and environmental-dependent factors.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us."Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.
Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact."Nos482:The survival instinct is hazardous to our health?The tendency to tie close bonds with others, to act for the benefit of others together with our own, can be deeply rooted in the human nature from a distant pass when those who joined and formed a group increased their chances for survival.
This need to tie social bonds remains even today.
In researches of what the factors are for heart-problems, like the one who has been made by Dr Larry Scherwitz,they have found that the persons who were most self-centered( those who during the interviues most often reffered themselves by saying "I", "me" and mine "mine")
had greater risks of suffering from heart-problems ,
and they had a much lesser life expectency than the others.
And the other way around( people who where the least self-centered and behaved altruistic had a much better health and higer life expectancy)."Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child."Nos482:Negative mind? It is neither positive nor negative. They don't let such things cloud their judgement.But you have to realise that when scientists go into fields such as the example stated above, where we are talking about social behaviours it can be quite blind and not see the obvious."If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction."Nos482:What? An infant is not born with a fully formed mind. It is still operating on instinct.Never stated it were, read above again please."Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure."Babble.What is babble?"Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans."Science is a method and not a belief.Who said it was a belief, but you can interpret the same fact through different perspective when it comes to social issues as above."And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts."Nos482seudo-science makes the same assertions as well. There is a difference between good facts and the ones which those who believe in pseudo-science use. The best lie uses just enough truth to make it look real.I would be glad if you can name ONE thing from all the above said that isnt true.Sincerely Delshad

"In researches of what the factors are for heart-problems, like the one who has been made by Dr Larry Scherwitz,they have found that the persons who were most self-centered( those who during the interviues most often reffered themselves by saying "I", "me" and mine "mine")
had greater risks of suffering from heart-problems ,
and they had a much lesser life expectency than the others.
And the other way around( people who where the least self-centered and behaved altruistic had a much better health and higher life expectancy)."Nos482:What was the size of the sample group and did they take into account other factor such as diet and environment?It was a large group and yes, diets and social life in general were
taken in consideration."During the latest two or three decades litterary hundreds of scientifical researches all point to that aggression isnt borned with and that violence behaviour is affected by social, situation and environmental-dependent factors.
Maybe the clearest statement about the new research was concluded in the Sevilla announcement about violence 1986 and was formulated and signed by twenty of the most succesfull scientists from all around the world.
In this overview, they of course stated that violence behaviours
occure, but consquently stated that it is scientifically incorrect
to state that we have a borned with tendency to wage wars or commit acts of violence.
This behaviour isnt genetically programmed in the human nature.
In short, there is nothing in our neuro-physiology that drives us."Nos482:As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.If you had read the above you would find that "killing for pleasure" or anything like that hasn`t got anything to do with instincts or genetic structure, its derived from social influences and isn`t static but dependable upon the outside world.
Thats part of why religion exists in the world, for moral guidance."I would be glad if you can name ONE thing from all the above said that isnt true."Nos482:The point isn't if it is true or not, but of it is based on good facts and not deceptive ones.Ahh please, cut it!
What deceptive facts!?.
If it is deceptive to uphold a loving, caring, social structure with morals in coordinance to our human structure, then you need to clearify yourself.IOnce again, from all I`ve said, in what meaning can you recognize any false information or deception.
Ill discuss it with you if that is the case.Sincerely Delshad

"I Once again, from all I`ve said, in what meaning can you recognize any false information or deception.
Ill discuss it with you if that is the case."Nos482:Trying to say that we're not animals. Other animals have social structures as well. They care and love for their offspring without the need to make up things such as religions in order to function. You are making sound as if to be an animal means to be without any control at all. We could learn much from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is the attitude of thinking that we're separate and above the rest of nature which is the cause of many of our problems.Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question.
It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it.
Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside.
So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own."If you had read the above you would find that "killing for pleasure" or anything like that hasn`t got anything to do with instincts or genetic structure, its derived from social influences and isn`t static but dependable upon the outside world.
Thats part of why religion exists in the world, for moral guidance.Nos482:Religion has more to do with power and control than with morality. Atheists, and the like, tend to be far more moral than
theists."Thats funny, Im a practising Muslim and I should know a little more than you about what religion is about.
And you state that atheists and the like are far more moral than theists.
Do you realize that 2-3 billion people in the world are religious, what you just said now is that YOU know more than them and their way of raising their young ones as way they have been doing for milleniums is wrong.
Where is your RESPECT and MORALS now then?The defence rests. Sincerely Delshad

I appreciate our recent discussion Nos482, hope others will join in soon as well."Originally posted by Delshad:
Let me further explain, animals are driven by instincts so of course they do not need any religion to maintain their social structure, they eat, sleep ,fight, make love etc without question.
It becomes a little more complicated in our case, because it seems that our intelligence has outgrown our instincts thus it is our intelligence that mostly control how we see the world and respond to it.!Nos482:I find that it isn't as "complicated" as we would like to think it is. That we are still rule by many of our instincts to more of a degree than we like to admit.Yes, and it is there our intelligence comes in to the picture, sure we have instincts but we also have the capablity to restrain our emotions for long term benefits.
For example:Someone steals your briefcase, and of course the first instinct is, get it back and fast ,or else!
However, soon different options start to emerge in our mind(if you have morals that is) ,and those overtake the command of our primary instinct and thus we behave in a intelligence way, not an instinctive."Therefore moral values isnt going to pop up on its own in our case, we need values coming from outside.
So it isn`t just look at the animal kingdom and learn, their way of maintaing a social order isnt like our own."Nos482:Atheists and agnostics are far more honest about where we get our morality from than theists are. We don't need the fear of theism to "do the right thing". We do it because it benefits the whole and thus benefits the individual as well.I think you have missed the point, you dont learn to behave with moral dignity on your own.
They are taught and learned, directly or indirectly from our surrounding.
It is irrelevant if you learn them in the Quran, the Bible or the Torah or in the classroom, or at home, it is the same.
And I think you have to abandon the idea that theists do the "right" thing because of fear, not intentions.
What is written is to make things easier for us in this life and they are very simple and most people use them because they benefit their lives, just as you use them or anyone else for that matter.Thats funny, Im a practising Muslim and I should know a little more than you about what religion is about.Nos482:All religion is basically the same. The lyrics maybe different, but the melody is the same.Lets continue reading and find out shall we Nos482:I've researched what it means to live under the Fiqh and Shari'ah systems. They are brutal and all encompassing to the point where those who are "orthodox" don't have to think or make any decisions from the time they are born to the day they die. Not even how they go to the toilet.You are exaggerating to the point of comedy.
Dont you know that you aren`t forced to be religious.
You are religious by your own choise and it is once again your choise to implement whatever you find usefull.
Shariah on the other hand is a must but its the same with every national law that exists(Us Law etc etc).
I dont find the relevance in your statement."Do you realize that 2-3 billion people in the world are religious, what you just said now is that YOU know more than them and their way of raising their young ones as way they have been doing for milleniums is wrong."Nos482:I didn't say any such thing. Being religious is no guarantee of being moral. What one society sees as being moral another wouldn't. I.E. Female circumcision, honor killings, etc.Of course, I agree, being religious is no guarantee of being moral, just like being unreligious is no guarantee for being moral.
But I should advice you to continue your "research", female circumsisions and honor killing has NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever, it was practised before Islam and is practised after as well, and I really hope that not every Atheist shares your views views of ignorance about religious matters."The defence rests ."Nos482:You case is based on supposition.The same ol comment time and time again, neglecting facts and prefering ignorance.Sincerely Delshad

Nos482Your replies concerning the relevance of moral codes in society and about the nature of the human being has run out of steam.
Everything I have stated concerning this issue has been either over-skipped by you or given an slippery reply (as if you were trying to skip the issue at hand).
But however I do feel that we have come to equal terms about them in some aspects and Im happy for that.Concerning the religious matters however, your way of just writing that( Ohh, I really wished it were so but it isnt )is irrelevant.
Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.
Just as it wasnt science`s responsiblity when Hitler decided to execute all those Jews because he thought he had been given the right to do so according to his scientists, or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.
Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?Sincerely Delshad

Yes ,of course, I would be glad to discuss the subject with you Quetzal.
This thread is starting to lean towards politics and that was not my intention with it.
But I hope you wont be dissapointed with our coming discussion because I cant question anything you have written in your essay.
It is all scientific facts, but perhaps I could add some facts and bring the issue to a more social and human level.
Who should make the topic?
And if it should be me then my suggestion for the title would be
(The neccesity of religion in our modern society).
What do you think?Sincerely Delshad

Thanks Mammuthus, you have always helped me in gathering information and I thank you very much.Sorry to be one of those guilty of going off topic into politicsPs: No problem Mammuthus, perhaps you guys will come up with an interesting issue, and in that case Im glad to read about it ,(no matter where it is)

Hi Quetzal You are probably more suitable in opening a topic because perhaps it would seem too repetive If I opened two topics in a row referring to the same subject, but I would be glad if you could name the topic (Is religion necessary in our modern society?)Btw, good luck on your speach and Ill be waiting patiently until you are back. Sincerely Delshad

or when the Nuclear Bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of preserving democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This was politics mis/using science. Do not blame science for how others misuse it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or when Stalin killed all those people in the name of communism.
Do you see where I am getting at?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I see that you are blaming science for the actions of power-hungry despotic people.This is inappropriate.Well, that was exactly my point, just as inappropriate to blame religion for the horrible things peple do in the name of religion

Sure, a lot terrible is happening in the world in the name of religion, but religion is not responsible for that, it is each of those inviduals responsibility because it is their own decision that made them to use religion as a cover for, oppression, terrorism, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Schrafinator :So, are you saying that when a religion actively teaches all of it's adherents that hatred of another group, or intolerance of all other faiths, is justified, that this religion is not at fault?I cannot speak for every religion because Im not aware of all of their scripts and so it would be wrong if I replied that statement, perhaps someone else would defend Judaism or Christianity.But what I can say about Islam is that the Quran doesnt "teach" anything similar to hatred or intolerance to other faiths, it is PEOPLE who teaches those ridicilous belives and if you dont agree with that then please ask, I would be glad to correct your misconceptions about religion.