How long would it take....

You're amazing rosborne. I think that may be it.

That's a very strange thing for an "all-out" evolutionist to say. It really is.

It shows how fundamentally confused you are on the subject of evolution.

That you can't think that the common cold has some function for the benefit of the species simply because you have a runny nose and nobody wants to snog with you, actually proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that not only do you know eff all about evolution but you imagine it as designed by your goodself, who knows so much about everything, like how soon New Orleans would be rebuilt, rather than it being in your face as a real happening with the common cold in the same bag as getting erections, which is a bit of a nuisance you have to admit, one of effemm's fossilised bat kneecaps, fly **** and the Sugar-Plum fairy.

You need to get yourself out of the way Thomas to be a scientist.

I would argue that the CC virus must be good for the species because we have a symbiotic relationship with it. As we do, of course, with religion. And because you don't understand what religion provides us with is no reason to think that it doesn't provide us with something which it obviously must do to have been a significant factor in every culture known. The words Culture and Religion are near synonyms.

The common cold virus is a wicked, little rascal and no mistake. We should admire it. How it adapts. How it knows when to piss off and when to get its tiny feet under the table for a few days. The meek shall inherit the earth.

How the dinosaurs would have laughed at such a silly idea. And we have to nurse elephants now.

And here's our cutie virus sailing straight through as fit as a butcher's dog. And it's had the best efforts of science thrown at it like Lem-sip and hot toddies and wives dabbing the brows with cold fluffy towels which they like to do because not only has the See-See virus collapsed the libidos but they can also indulge their babying instinct and chalk up some credit. Three for the price of one.

Look at all these monsters in the museums, either calcified or fashioned in a plastic factory on an indusrial estate. And coloured pictures in books and mags run off by the million. Evolutionists have a monster fetish. The bigger and fiercer the better. Polysyllabic nomenclature. (Fills editorials faster you see). You need a psychologist to explain monster fetishism.

All been seen off. And you only need go in a subway car at rush hour in January to see how the CC virus is thriving and jumping around like Mexican beans on Satan's hotplate.

Perhaps we ought to study it more. With compassion.

Reassure yourself with that all you want Thomas. But it doesn't convince me. I suppose a lot of readers here will have nodded with self-satisfied approval at your foolish assertion and they can nod all they want too.

A2K is riddled with self importance and solipsism. The statement is itself self-important and seeks to dominate the moral high-ground.

And it's a load of bollocks.

Which is the precise point. That's why I said "At most" in my response earlier.

They can't blame each other because they all agree with the same set of facts.

I was astounded as well as amazed chai. ros does have an uncanny knack of putting his finger on the main points doesn't he?

I forgot to answer the question...I'd say day 3 of the new society.

....and on the third day, God looked about and saw there were no Starbucks, and so quickly frothed and steamed one up.

even though terry told me " with an irish grin on his face " that he would now be given more respect , i truly believe that he become a priest so that he could serve those that were looking for help to him even better .
since his wife was not a catholic ( " mixed " marriage ) he could relate better than some priest who had never been married to those people . while they called him father terry , many strong catholics told me that he really was a compassionate friend to them .
giving service to those in need was always uppermost in his mind and actions .

while he did well in his profession (accountant) , he had the most difficult time telling others that their work was not satisfactory - he'd just hem-and-ha - because he was afraid he might hurt someone's feeling .

(but he was a good drinking buddy , but never to excess , two beers would last him all evening - all in our younger years of course - i still enjoy looking back at things we did together many years ago ) .

so is this all part of "religion" or what ?
hbg

Your presentation of Father Terry is such hbg that only a cad would come out with any general criticisms. Only the anti-IDers on the evolution threads are qualified to place him under close scrutiny although they are probably too timid to do it once you have given him a name and personalised him.

But they have said many things about priests in general which one assumes they do apply to individuals.

Who let Chai near that hash pipe?

About one generation. You are positing enforced ignorance. Ignorance is the mother of religion, and superstitious fear is the handmaiden. It just takes one slick, intelligent man or woman, and a herd of fearful, ignorant savages to make for one great religion.

Are we speaking of Reagan?

Reagan was an empty suit. It was his handlers who made him a god.

I responded, then read the other responses. Other than TwoPax sanguine estimate of three days, it seems that one or two generations is the general sense of the respondents here. Whoever said one bad harvest pretty well nailed it.

What you're missing here is that we don't imagine evolution as having been designed by anyone, or anything.

You nailed the empty suit bit, but who hasn't?

I feel pretty much the same way. I think faith is an inside-out thing. It's a way
of responding to the "universe", for lack of a better word. Only when people
who share this response start wondering what to do about it do we get religion.

Dang, I'll have to try Yoga!

This is a Great thread, Chai; love it.

Am I the only person who's read, more than once, than "belief in God," (not religion per se) just may be genetically determined?

Thus if only Atheists survived, might it not be possible that religion would NEVER Develop?

Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

You might have missed the post. It is very easy to not imagine a design in play. It's a style choice. A belief. Just like imagining that a design is in play. Neither can be proved.

The only question then is which imagination serves us best. The surviving atheists would quickly adopt a religion for its uses. The usefulness of not doing would also be considered. A society of Sets would come under scrutiny. Which is probably the reason that the consensus on here thinks they would invent a religion.

but in my scenerio the survivors aren't ignorant savages. They are individuals like Wilso and....oh...never mind.

Seriously though, I'm talking about regular, people. One's from beforehand developed countries would have a certain, maybe even a large amount of education, others not so much, but they have the common thread of no belief in God.
The original survivors could, let's say in a european colony, read and write, and would set about writing how-to manuals out of necessity, of what they have learned about survival, for their children.

Now, they they can write, I suppose they would also set to writing novels. That would include stories of the believers of before. I don't think they would mention that as any sort of endorsement.


I think boris kitten makes an excellent point.

If there is a god gene, wouldn't it tend to be recessive in the new population?

uhuh.

what?