Beliefs in things like Gods develop in a very messy, haphazard way. There's no single motivation to it. Even a particular individual will have multiple reasons for believing in something like a God. And certainly different individuals will have different reasons, different motivations.

Separation is a dreamed state by the dreamed individual. There is no separation, only what is. And there is no individual, it it illusory. What keeps what is hidden is the attempt by the so called individual to “make things better” or achieve something. Thus, the need for Gods, Gurus, and various con men.

— Terrapin Station

Beliefs in things like Gods develop in a very messy, haphazard way.

I disagree as I see religions as con games and they are usually well thought out.

There's no single motivation to it.

Sure there is. The marks cash getting into the con mans pocket.

Even a particular individual will have multiple reasons for believing in something like a God.

True, but not usually the right reasons. Most are just following traditions and peer groups.

And certainly different individuals will have different reasons, different motivations.

Indeed, but mostly selfish and self-serving reasons.

Regards
DL

Separation is a dreamed state by the dreamed individual. There is no separation, only what is. And there is no individual, it it illusory. What keeps what is hidden is the attempt by the so called individual to “make things better” or achieve something. Thus, the need for Gods, Gurus, and various con men. — Mtherapist67

I agree that we are all in this together, alone. We all depend on each other and our selfish gene wants to rule the world as we are all driven by evolution to be the fittest of our species.

Regards
DL

I disagree as I see religions as con games and they are usually well thought out. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You can see it that way, but it's ridiculous to. It's basically positing religion as a conspiracy theory.

You can see it that way, but it's ridiculous to. It's basically positing religion as a conspiracy theory. — Terrapin Station

No. It is just showing how all that is said of supernatural invisible gods is B.S. and lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-bEoSnNJKE

If you have gone into supernatural and dysfunctional thinking and think that a supernatural realm exists, you are a disgrace to the human race.

Regards
DL

No. It is just showing how all that is said of supernatural invisible gods is B.S. and lies. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm an atheist. I agree that none of the claims are true. But there's not at all a single reason or motivation for the claims being made.

I'm an atheist. I agree that none of the claims are true. But there's not at all a single reason or motivation for the claims being made. — Terrapin Station

I agree, but there is one major factor for the adherent, security, and one major factor for the con man/preacher. The gullible rubes cash.

Regards
DL

Would insecurity be the main cause of our creating and adoring evil gods? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I would guess custom and parenting would be.

Humans are the most insecure animals on the planet. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How did you measure that one?
I would guess that many prey animals are, on average more nervous. We're a mix of predator and prey, at least in our bodies and genes. Watch a wild rabbit or a mouse, constantly checking for threats. But this would be my guess. Not sure what you base yours on.

The root of our selfish gene creates insecurity, which feeds our tribal nature; — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Our selfish gene?

We are social mammals, our tribal nature comes out of that.

feeding our desire to join religions and other tribes. This we should see as a loving gesture. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Great, so not an insecurity based one.

How did you measure that one? — Coben

I just listened to experts who point out that we have to be cared for for the longest time of all animals when born by our mothers.

That helplessness causes our insecurity and dependence on the tribe. That same insecurity is what has us default to cooperation instead of competition. Cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Regards
DL

Great, so not an insecurity based one. — Coben

The insecurity moves us to cooperation which we see as the loving way. It is good while competition would be evil.

Regards
DL

If you seem to missing a lot of "ifs". And "if" you were to put them in, then you would have created a great "straw man" argument.

Good luck with that.

:smile:

I just listened to experts who point out that we have to be cared for for the longest time of all animals when born by our mothers. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's not because we are insecure, it is because we are born with less hardwired. A baby deer can walk instantly, we have to learn. We traded having inelastic brains (cmpared to ours) that made for babies that could do a lot of things (llike run from predators) to having brains that can learn more stuff and more different stuff. It has nothing to do with the babies feelings of security and that baby deer will be on guard from moment one.

That helplessness causes our insecurity and dependence on the tribe. That same insecurity is what has us default to cooperation instead of competition. Cooperation is a better survival strategy than competition. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And in many group social mammals that are just prey, th ey are very dependent on the tribe/group. And they are very cooperative, more so than us.

If you seem to missing a lot of "ifs". — Arne

That is because I am sure of my logic and reason.

Regards
DL

It has nothing to do with the babies feelings of security and that baby deer will be on guard from moment one. — Coben

It has everything to do with the fact you point out.
A deer can escape on it's own quite quickly, while humans cannot for the longest time and that is why we are so insecure and why we are hard wired to cooperate when possible.

Regards
DL

And they are very cooperative, more so than us. — Coben

You have not looked.

We are so cooperative that we might go extinct because of it. Have you noted the damage to Earth because we cooperate too much to destroy it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL

then what is the point of discussion? If your response is going to be that you are "certain", then I suppose the rest of us might just as well say thank you for enlightening us and move on to other discussions.

Thank you for enlightening me.

I am going to move on to other discussions.

:smile:

Thank you for enlightening me. — Arne

You are agreeing with the premise are you?

Regards
DL

It has everything to do with the fact you point out.
A deer can escape on it's own quite quickly, while humans cannot for the longest time and that is why we are so insecure and why we are hard wired to cooperate when possible. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Sigh. No. You're making stuff up. 1) there is no way to measure insecurity. 2) Babies are held and do not realize there are predators, while at the same the baby deer is already scarnning for threats and partially responsible. Human babies and young children and not responsible are not scanning for predators, few in the west ever have to run from a predator.

The root of our selfish gene creates insecurity — Gnostic Christian Bishop

1) there is no particular gene for insecurity. 2) other animals have even more reason to be insecure and in fact this is why they are born ready to run, rather than being able to do nothing while others keep an eye out for their safety.

But you'll just deny this. Oh, well.

I'll leave you to others.

Humans are the most insecure animals on the planet. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

and the sad thing is, you will deny that this statement is silly and not backed up by science, even though your argument is fine without it. People get so defensive about their polemic, everything must be true. And that is a sign of a denied insecurity.

2) other animals have even more reason to be insecure and in fact this is why they are born ready to run, — Coben

Incorrect.

They can run while all we humans can do is be eaten.

That is why we are the most insecure animal on the planet and why we default to cooperation, which is the superior survival mechanism.

You are thinking ass backwards so I approve of you moving on.

Regards
DL

People get so defensive about their polemic, everything must be true. And that is a sign of a denied insecurity. — Coben

Yes. That is why I have given reasons why we are the most insecure while all you do is deny it, while at the same time saying that other animals are more insecure.

You judged yourself and found yourself wanting.

Regards
DL

I can neither reasonably agree nor disagree with your premise since your only response to enquiries regarding your feebly supported sub-premises was to assure us of your certainty.

Under such circumstances, I thought it best to move along to discussions rooted in reason rather than proclamations of self-certainty.

So once again, thank you for your enlightening me.

Man is not inherently selfish or insecure. Such suggestions are nothing but an excuse for people who choose to behave in a certain way, often as a result of ill-conceived notions about what is good for them.

So once again, thank you for your enlightening me. — Arne

Always my pleasure that.
Regards
DL

Man is not inherently selfish or insecure. — Tzeentch

Our main evolutionary driver is our selfish gene. If you do not agree, then tell us what you think is driving us all to try to be the fittest of our species if not that selfish desire.

Regards
DL

You’re talking rubbish. We’re overly optimistic, rather short-sighted and not very capable of picturing abstract probabilities - such as exponential growth and simple logical problems (for the later we are better at this if the problem is framed in an actual lived event).

I assume you’re taking the title from Dawkins book completely out of context? He has actually stated himself - explicitly - that he never meant humans are ‘selfish’.

Our main evolutionary driver is our selfish gene. If you do not agree, then tell us what you think is driving us all to try to be the fittest of our species if not that selfish desire. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There are a number of fairly common misundertandings of evolutionary theory in this. As I like Sushi pointed out you are confusing Dawkins metaphor about DNA and assuming this means we are selfish. But since we are social mammals, you simply cannot summarize us this way or say that selfishness drives us. In fact, if we assume that Dawkins was utterly correct, it means that people will act unselfishly in the extreme if they identify with others - because they will treat others they identify with as having similar genes. And since humans are able to identify over racial and even species boundaries this can lead to all sorts of compassion and selflessness. And that's if Dawkins is accepted as correct for using this metaphor. It is however controversial.

Then you use the phrase 'fittest of our species' and say that we are all driving towards being this. Well, 1) you would need to demonstrate that we are all driven towards this goal. I see a lot of couch potatoes and social media addicts out there who seem to counter this notion of 'all'. 2) fittest is an outdated metaphor and a non-Darwinian one, and more important a non-darwinian one. It is very hard to compare fitness, say between an amoeba and a fox or between a very individualistic A type person and a very family centered supportive type person. Species adapt or fit their environments and since these have all sorts of different kinds of niches using the word fittest is obviously confused. The same is true regarding the vast variety of niches intraspecies with humans.

Note how you glide from selfish gene to self desire, which is a category error. The gene may find, as it obviously did with social mammals, that sometimes what is best for the gene in terms of propagation is less selfishness. And hence social mammals care about their kids in ways reptiles do not. Compared to a wide range of species social mammals also are less selfish in relation to peers, check out komodo dragons, for example.

So you think that because Dawkins used the phrase self gene,this means we are selfish, which is confused on so many levels, it would take a rather long essay to go into.

My experience with you is that you are never wrong and cannot back down and yet also are, according to yourself, enlightened. That all seems very fragile to me.

You’re talking rubbish. We’re overly optimistic, rather short-sighted and not very capable of picturing abstract probabilities - such as exponential growth and simple logical problems (for the later we are better at this if the problem is framed in an actual lived event).

I assume you’re taking the title from Dawkins book completely out of context? He has actually stated himself - explicitly - that he never meant humans are ‘selfish’. — I like sushi

If we are not led by our selfish gene, what motivates us t9o be the fittest of our species?

You want a real life example. have a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIb22-5Lwg

We are so selfish in fact, as demonstrated by our altruism levels, if you understand what that link above is telling you, that scientists are having a hard time explaining it.

We are too selfish and cooperate too much, and that is why the world's morality is improving so quickly in spite of our vile homophobic and misogynous religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

Regards
DL