‹ First  < 3 4 5
 
   
 

Richard Dawkins

 
Lapin Diabolique
 
Avatar
 
 
Lapin Diabolique
Total Posts:  2015
Joined  10-11-2006
 
 
 
29 April 2009 15:59
 
SkepticX - 29 April 2009 02:07 PM

There’s got to be some threshold of fuckedness before the meme becomes self-destructive,

Byron

Congrats,Byron, on birthing this fine and useful noun.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 April 2009 06:32
 

I don’t like it. I think fuckedness is trying to steal away the thunder of the universally accepted and profound persuasion of our favorite term here…. ‘fuckwittery’

I supppose we are all now pigeonholed into one of two groups. We are either the fuckwittery crowd or the fuckedness crowd.

We need solidarity people!

Byron is trying to divide and conquer!!! LOL

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2009 09:35
 
McCreason - 30 April 2009 10:32 AM

We need solidarity people!

Fuckify. Fuckification. Fuckificacity. Fuckifiedness. Fuckificacious, dude. Fuckificaciousness.

As in, “the fuckification process”. Getting fucked is good. Being fuckified is not. Being is not doing.

One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them…

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14558
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2009 10:42
 

From Oct 3, 2008 issue of Science:  “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality” by Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff. 

“We examine empirical evidence for religious prospciality, the hypothesis that religions facilitate costly behaviors that benefit other people.  Although sociological surveys reveal an association between self-reports of religiosity and prosociality, experiments measuring religiosity and actual prosocial behavior suggest that this association emerges primarily in contexts where reputational concerns are heightened.  Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers.  Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust.  Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans.”

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 April 2009 10:45
 

Fuckstainability?

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 April 2009 10:46
 

prospciality, ????

Is that a synonym for fuckwittery perhaps?

 
 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
30 April 2009 13:00
 
burt - 30 April 2009 02:42 PM

From Oct 3, 2008 issue of Science:  “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality” by Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff. 

“We examine empirical evidence for religious prosociality, the hypothesis that religions facilitate costly behaviors that benefit other people.  Although sociological surveys reveal an association between self-reports of religiosity and prosociality, experiments measuring religiosity and actual prosocial behavior suggest that this association emerges primarily in contexts where reputational concerns are heightened.  Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers.  Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust.  Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans.”

Burt, you remind me of a large study I once heard about, in which religiosity was introduced to rats in cages. The experimenters were able to document increased rat eye contact, cheese being freely exchanged, a marked decrease in aggression, and sexual favors much more frequent and fervent (with “in/out” rates far beyond visual measurement) when subjects were given opportunities to spread their religious views. The designers of the study noticed vicious infighting, however, when subjects were informed that they would not actually live forever in complete bliss with their feeders.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 April 2009 14:15
 

I would like to know how they experimentally induced religious thoughts.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2009 14:48
 

From Oct 3, 2008 issue of Science:  “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality” by Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff. 

“Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans.”

Over seven billion served. Big enough, yet? Morally-concerned deity says, “Supersize me”.

You’re very welcome. Your friend, the Fuckificationizer.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14558
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
30 April 2009 15:09
 
Salt Creek - 30 April 2009 06:48 PM

From Oct 3, 2008 issue of Science:  “The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality” by Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff. 

“Cross-cultural evidence suggests an association between the cultural presence of morally concerned deities and large group size in humans.”

Over seven billion served. Big enough, yet? Morally-concerned deity says, “Supersize me”.

You’re very welcome. Your friend, the Fuckificationizer.

Haven’t read the article (the quote was from a notes section in the journal Complexity) but a question I’d have regarding that particular correlation is whether or not they differentiated between social-cultural evolution, population growth, and the emergence of “morally concerned deities.”  This particular association seems a by product of the growth of human social development and raises questions like: “Did the leaders of ancient empires decide that the best way to keep their subjects in line was to introduce divine sanctions for behavior?”  That attitude was expressed by some of the ancient Greek sophists, and Constantine adopting Christianity has been attributed to his desire to have a universal religion to unite the wide-spread Roman empire (they’d already tried the old Egyptian idea of a God-King with little success).

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
02 May 2009 09:00
 
Bad Rabbit - 29 April 2009 11:47 AM
ex-homunculus - 23 April 2009 12:48 AM

All we have are collections of primarily fictional stories and highly subjective reporting. Humanity’s survival so far is a result of many things, and most of them can’t be studied with much thoroughness. Or do you have a line on some research I’m unaware of?

According to Andy Thomson “Religious ideas are the by-products of cognitive mechanisms designed for other purposes”. He makes an extremely convincing case for this in his presentation titled; “Why we believe in gods”. You can find the video in the Multimedia section of this forum. It is almost an hour and I found it to be fascinating. This is the field in which Sam is working. The argument is undergirded by recent, but solid science. The method you applied in this thread, of reasoning backwards (which we all do often enough) is by its very nature the inferior of the two.

Check out the video, if you haven’t already done so.

BR, I don’t disagree with even one detail within Andy Thomson’s lecture. I do take a stand, however, against his thinking style, which is that of a Pinker/modularist/Freudian enthusiast. He seems infatuated with Pinker’s simplistic style of explanation. For instance, isn’t it already obvious that our brains arrive on the scene ready for church-going tendencies? Let’s try to be even more obvious, shall we?

No one in their right mind would disagree with Thomson’s argument that a human being has the potential to become an idiot. After he finished his lecture, an audience member asked him about how it is that any other way of seeing things can possibly be (in so many words), and he treated her with sincerely wrought angst: You had an amazing mother, who I hereby honor and applaud, for how she raised you.

I admit to a strong anti-psychiatrist bias, Sander. In my opinion, they have no validity until they first at least partly divorce themselves from Freud. Even then, they tend to be drug pushers who deserve courtroom punishment far beyond what the neighborhood weed sales associate tends to receive.

[ Edited: 03 May 2009 13:36 by nv]
 
 
chris madden
 
Avatar
 
 
chris madden
Total Posts:  17
Joined  06-10-2008
 
 
 
14 October 2009 09:38
 
PantheistAnonymous - 15 January 2008 06:51 PM

Could anyone suggest any possible answers to Richard Dawkins’ question (mentioned in “The God Delusion”) as to why people have always believed that God demands worship from them.

Perhaps it’s not that God demands to be worshipped but that people demand to worship.
I expect that most people have worshipped a singer or a film star at some time. We simply project the tendency onwards and upwards to the realms of fantastical entities.

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
14 October 2009 10:43
 

Well, as I have said before here….I worship. I worship morphine, and I want it holding my hand as my cells die and I pass into nonexistence.

Yes, we all need to worship something.

 
 
FreeWillFlowChart
 
Avatar
 
 
FreeWillFlowChart
Total Posts:  7
Joined  14-06-2011
 
 
 
14 June 2011 09:30
 

There is an innate need for minds to worship; particular if you are weak-minded, afraid, divinely inspired, or in love. If you look back across time men have always worshiped something. As the previous poster mentions, we have simply projected that need to the clouds. Hell, I would worship the entity that created this crazy universe if one actually existed, but don’t forget that God is a device of totalitarian fear. Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Henry VIII were all worshiped too much in the same way God is, and if I’m being totally honest I have a hard time attributing the “Most Evil” trophy to anything but the ethereal candidate on that list.

 
‹ First  < 3 4 5