I think i do believe in God

ScumLord

I still maintain that the "God did it" explanation holds weight. The inevitability of just about everything in this universe could be a coincidence but also points to the likelihood of something planing all this out knowing that if the setup was perfect at the beginning something like us would eventually exist and God would have someone to talk to. Channel 4 did a documentary series a year or two ago on that looked into what science really knew and didn't know about life in general. Some of the top scientists in the fore front of science still maintained that it's just as likely a God created the universe as not.

I don't know what or who God is but it's likely fact that God is not what's described in the Bible (King of kings). I see God as the foundation that makes this universe work, he could be the equation that makes cells divide, nature grow the way it does like flowers having (is it multiples of 5) petals, allows for mutations without chaos, apparently everything in the universe shares this equation. (it's been a while since I saw this on TV and I tend to forget the details and synopses things like this)

In that way my belief in God is kind of strange because there's two versions the creator (which could be an event rather than a being) and the foundation which isn't sentient in my mind.

Saying I believe in God also allows me to get a foot in with the standard believers. They think I'm just lost and if they show me a bit of guidance I'll be saved and redirected back to the christian God when really their walking into a trap to have their whole belief system seriously challenged.

I do believe religion is important I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation popped up around the same time as the major religions started up. I think the rules of religion are specifically for living in large social groups. In that sense I would consider myself slightly religious too.

stevejazzx

ScumLord wrote:

I still maintain that the "God did it" explanation holds weight. The inevitability of just about everything in this universe could be a coincidence but also points to the likelihood of something planing all this out knowing that if the setup was perfect at the beginning something like us would eventually exist and God would have someone to talk to. Channel 4 did a documentary series a year or two ago on that looked into what science really knew and didn't know about life in general. Some of the top scientists in the fore front of science still maintained that it's just as likely a God created the universe as not.

Who/what put God there, where did he live/exist before he made heaven, what existed before God, what about the thousands of gods from around the world, do they all exist or just yer man from the old testament who had a penchant for violence

scumlord wrote:

I don't know what or who God is but it's likely fact that God is not what's described in the Bible (King of kings). I see God as the foundation that makes this universe work, he could be the equation that makes cells divide, nature grow the way it does like flowers having (is it multiples of 5) petals, allows for mutations without chaos, apparently everything in the universe shares this equation. (it's been a while since I saw this on TV and I tend to forget the details and synopses things like this)

Look, most of th stuff in that paragraph, cell division etc is scientifically explainable, the beauty of nature or its perfection is a human idea, beauty is a human idea, if we all lived for thousand s of years on an isolated planet and were horrbily deformed creatures (by what we percieve derfomrity as being nowadays) eventually we would find beauty in ourselves too, it's a concept, the fact that nature grows unchaotically is basic evolution....after billions of years cells find the balance that works.....

scumlord wrote:

I do believe religion is important I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation popped up around the same time as the major religions started up. I think the rules of religion are specifically for living in large social groups. In that sense I would consider myself slightly religious too.

Again civilisation started not because of religon but because of evolution.
Religon has impeeded civilisation and evolution horribly.

pH

stevejazzx wrote:

Who/what put God there, where did he live/exist before he made heaven, what existed before God, what about the thousands of gods from around the world, do they all exist or just yer man from the old testament who had a penchant for violence

Have to agree that I've never understood how using God to explain anything helps or provides an answer that is in any way satisfactory. It just leaves God then as the thing that needs to be explained. If you're prepared to accept God as unexplained then why not accept the universe and all its contents as unexplained?

Proposing something a lot more complex that the universe (ie a God capable of creating the universe) seems a very silly way to explain the universe.

Dades

ScumLord wrote:

I don't know what or who God is but it's likely fact that God is not what's described in the Bible (King of kings).

I think this is the key here.

God for you in this context is something, anything, that started what we know with some element of planning. I guess this makes you agnostic, though I don't think you could call yourself "religious". You might have an appreciation (or more accurately, a notion) of how society has evolved holding hands with religion - but unless you believe in one of those religions you're on the outside. For example some of my morality overlaps with maintream religious ideals - but I'd never describe myself as religious. Maybe you are spiritual rather than religious?

I don't know enough about maths to look deep and see signs of intelligent design, but the universe don't seem very "planned" to me. On the contrary it seems enormously, dark, unpredictable and above all random.

pH wrote:

Proposing something a lot more complex that the universe (ie a God capable of creating the universe) seems a very silly way to explain the universe.

I don't think OP is suggesting a GOD in the traditional sense. More looking at possible aspects of ID - without all the creationist baggage usually brought to bear.

pH

The Atheist wrote:

I don't think OP is suggesting a GOD in the traditional sense. More looking at possible aspects of ID - without all the creationist baggage usually brought to bear.

Fair enough, but then surely changing the definition of God until you have something that you believe in and then declaring that you now believe in God, makes just as little sense to me!

If I define God as a carrot, and am happy to accept carrots exist, is it meaningful in anyway to then state that I now believe in God? If you're happy to change the definition of words then surely anything is then true, language and discourse then have no meaning.

1+1=3*

* - for large values of 1

Saruman

I posted something before... maybe in philosophy or somewhere about how some people believe that God.. no lets not use that word as its a man made idea... lets say there is an intelligence/design out there. Some might say that the universe itself is in fact one giant organism/living intelligent entity and that we are part of said entity like bacteria in our own bodies.

There are other universes out there according to some theories.. so what was here before what we think of as God if we believe that? Well other universes.... etc.. oh my brain hurts.. anyway you can pick any possible or impossible definition and stick the God tag to it and then believe in it. Man has been doing that long before any religion currently practiced today.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

I think i do believe in God

Step 1 - Define God.

Without that your post is meaningless. I know you made some attempt at explaining it but that was quite vague. So try and concisely define this God that you suspect you believe in.

ScumLord

Who/what put God there, where did he live/exist before he made heaven, what existed before God,

Heaven doesn't come into it that's Christianity I kind of see God as the answer to two questions, How did the universe get here and how does it work. I think most religions see him the same way except they make him a person or a king which would have been the most powerful thing they knew of at the time.

the fact that nature grows unchaotically is basic evolution....after billions of years cells find the balance that works.....

Yes but why does it work? It was inevitable from the moment of the big bang that planets and galaxies would form and that some planets would be able to support life that's a given there's something about the set up. I'm not saying that everything would have turned out exactly like it is now but it would be pretty close. Human evolution was a fluke but at the same time animals have been getting smarter and smarter throughout their evolution.

Off topic a bit - but I don't suppose anyone saw that documentary "what makes us human" about the smart gene?

On the contrary it seems enormously, dark, unpredictable and above all random.

I don't think the universe is overly complex it just depends what level you look at. As a whole it's huge diverse and complex. But it's built on a few simple processes and building blocks which all following basic rules. It's that underling simplicity that I love. That's what I think God is, a simple rule that everything lives by to create greater things like us.

but then surely changing the definition of God until you have something that you believe in and then declaring that you now believe in God, makes just as little sense to me!

I'm not so much try to change the definition of God I'm trying to define God based on what I know of the universe based on religious teaching (The bibles where an attempt by the greatest thinking device we know of to explain the universe, so I won't ignore them) and hard science.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote:

Heaven doesn't come into it that's Christianity

lol.

You think christianity has a monopoly on heaven and it's a trademark?

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Fair enough, but then surely changing the definition of God until you have something that you believe in and then declaring that you now believe in God, makes just as little sense to me!

If I define God as a carrot, and am happy to accept carrots exist, is it meaningful in anyway to then state that I now believe in God? If you're happy to change the definition of words then surely anything is then true, language and discourse then have no meaning.

1+1=3*

* - for large values of 1

As long as you worship the carrot, that would count. It might be a silly god, and it might not do anything very much, but neither of those are part of the general job description for gods.

Entirely separately, 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1 actually makes sense from a programming perspective - if you were showing integer versions of what were actually float values, then "1+1=3" might actually be a representation of "1.45+1.45=2.9". There's probably some kind of moral in that...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ScumLord

bluewolf wrote:

lol.

You think christianity has a monopoly on heaven and it's a trademark?

Of course haven't you notice the tm? That's why the Muslims call it paradice it got settled out of court during the crusades.

samb

ScumLord wrote:

I'm not so much try to change the definition of God I'm trying to define God based on what I know of the universe based on religious teaching (The bibles where an attempt by the greatest thinking device we know of to explain the universe, so I won't ignore them) and hard science.

Why use religous teaching to define God? Why not go to mental asylum and base you defintion on the ramblings that eminate from those great thinking devices. What criteria do you use to decide which thinking devices deserve attention?

samb

stevejazzx wrote:

the fact that nature grows unchaotically is basic evolution....after billions of years cells find the balance that works..... .

The Gene is the basic unit of natural selection


.[/QUOTE]
Again civilisation started not because of religon but because of evolution.
Religon has impeeded civilisation and evolution horribly.[/QUOTE]

Religion is a characteristic of human civilisation and both are a product of evolution. I don't understand how religion has impeeded evolution, surely our big brains and communal nature have allowed us to escape the undesirable cruelty of natural selection. For evolution to proceed the millions or billions of individuals with less fit genes must die- is this what you want?

I would not credit religion for freeing us from natural selection.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

Yes but why does it work? It was inevitable from the moment of the big bang that planets and galaxies would form and that some planets would be able to support life that's a given there's something about the set up. I'm not saying that everything would have turned out exactly like it is now but it would be pretty close. Human evolution was a fluke but at the same time animals have been getting smarter and smarter throughout their evolution.

No. Step one of any theory is "do not assume the existence of magical beings". Step two is to observe the scenario. We have plenty of perfectly feasible theories on why the universe got where it is between now and the big bang. There is no invisible force guiding it, it just happened.

I don't think the universe is overly complex it just depends what level you look at. As a whole it's huge diverse and complex. But it's built on a few simple processes and building blocks which all following basic rules. It's that underling simplicity that I love.

A few simple rules? Have you any experience with relativity and/or quantum theory? Well it turns out that the nature of the universe is more complex, subjective and chaotic than we could possible imagine.

Even if you only look at simple Newtonian physics level, the universe is dark, impersonal and huge beyond human comprehension in anything but numerical form.

That's what I think God is, a simple rule that everything lives by to create greater things like us.

Why call it God? Why not call it evolution? Evolution dictates that systems that survive will survive, while system that can't survive don't survive. Solar systems exist because they do, its that simple. Theres a billion and one other things all that matter could hypothetically have done but it didn't, or it did and it fell apart because things don't work that way.

Animals have been getting smarter because smarter animals survive better, and so their genes take over the gene pool.

Theres no neccessity for a supernatural element. And if it just physics/evolution renamed to suit your whim then why not call it the "x factor" or anything other than the ridiculous supernatural title used as a catch all for unanswered questions?

I'm not so much try to change the definition of God I'm trying to define God based on what I know of the universe based on religious teaching (The bibles where an attempt by the greatest thinking device we know of to explain the universe, so I won't ignore them) and hard science.

From what I can tell you're just renaming arbitrary aspects of the universe as "God". Why isn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle called God? Why not strong and weak nuclear forces? Electromagnetism? And if its all God then you're just a confused semi-Buddhist.

samb wrote:

The Gene is the basic unit of natural selection

Actually death is the basic unit of natural selection, the gene is something of a vehicle.

stevejazzx

samb wrote:

Religion is a characteristic of human civilisation and both are a product of evolution. I don't understand how religion has impeeded evolution, surely our big brains and communal nature have allowed us to escape the undesirable cruelty of natural selection. For evolution to proceed the millions or billions of individuals with less fit genes must die- is this what you want?

My point was that because of the grasp religon has had over some the greatest minds this world has ever known, Gailleo, Einstein, Newton etc. that it has surely imppeeded these individuals in their work, take away religon you free them to solve this random chaotic universe.
Religous instiutions don't acknowledge science fully becuase it undermines the bible etc. This is impeeding evolution, as it breeds igonorance into the young, religon corrupts the young.
Reliogn is a control, I think nearly everyone would go along with that, therefore it is actively impeeding our development, it is poisionous mindest whose essential aim is restrict the individual morally and phsically.
If you think religon has inspired anyone in history I would simply reply to you saying that 'If religon didn't exist, would not that same person find inspiration somewhere else for he would still have the same great creative mind/brain? Of course he would.
Einstein s theory of everything never got anywhere because he wanted the theory to be beautiful, not chaotic, he was looking for harmony not randomness, he believed in god and rejected atheism. If you took religon out of the question Einstein would of been free to entertain the ugly chaos of the world without guilt.

Black Swan

ScumLord wrote:

Some of the top scientists in the fore front of science still maintained that it's just as likely a God created the universe as not.

Not supported. Citations to specific works by named scientists that researched this issue would be more compelling. If they didn't conduct rigorous research regarding this question, then their conclusions are problematic.

I don't know what or who God is but it's likely fact that God is not what's described in the Bible (King of kings).

Does this mean that you would not support what has been referred to as an anthropomorphic image of God? Seeing God in human terms with human-like characteristics; i.e., humans being made in His own image so to speak?

Saying I believe in God also allows me to get a foot in with the standard believers. They think I'm just lost and if they show me a bit of guidance I'll be saved and redirected back to the christian God when really their walking into a trap to have their whole belief system seriously challenged.

Being accepted by our peers is not an argument for the existence of a God.

I do believe religion is important I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation popped up around the same time as the major religions started up. I think the rules of religion are specifically for living in large social groups. In that sense I would consider myself slightly religious too.

Reference to the emergence of social organisation and civilisation is not an argument for the existence of a God.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

My point was that because of the grasp religon has had over some the greatest minds this world has ever known, Gailleo, Einstein, Newton etc. that it has surely imppeeded these individuals in their work, take away religon you free them to solve this random chaotic universe.
Religous instiutions don't acknowledge science fully becuase it undermines the bible etc. This is impeeding evolution, as it breeds igonorance into the young, religon corrupts the young.

Catholic church supports evolution

Reliogn is a control, I think nearly everyone would go along with that,

I wouldn't. You're being far too generalising with it, for a start, and many of the highest ideals of various religions are not there to control. They're there as a moral guide and for the betterment of people. Generally speaking. I don't suppose Satanism falls under that.
In any case, if religion is used as a tool of control by some people, it's still being used that way and taken from what it should be. It's easy to dismiss it all because of some idiots who view everything as a means to power, but some of the religions have nice messages.

therefore it is actively impeeding our development, it is poisionous mindest whose essential aim is restrict the individual morally and phsically.

On the contrary, I think many would intend to liberate.

If you think religon has inspired anyone in history I would simply reply to you saying that 'If religon didn't exist, would not that same person find inspiration somewhere else for he would still have the same great creative mind/brain? Of course he would.

If religion didn't exist, would not the same people trying to use it for power find something else instead? Of course they would. And we'd be back in the same boat.

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

Catholic church supports evolution

yeah..right

bluewolf wrote:

I wouldn't. You're being far too generalising with it, for a start, and many of the highest ideals of various religions are not there to control. They're there as a moral guide and for the betterment of people. Generally speaking. I don't suppose Satanism falls under that.
In any case, if religion is used as a tool of control by some people, it's still being used that way and taken from what it should be. It's easy to dismiss it all because of some idiots who view everything as a means to power, but some of the religions have nice messages.

You don't believe that religon is a control or it happens just by 'some idiots' as you call them.
Brush up on your history and come back to me.
BTW I do agree that religons do have nice messages. Shame they also cause war & massive cultural division

bluewolf wrote:

On the contrary, I think many would intend to liberate.

How? By enforcing people to live by rules invented by primitive men thousands of yeras ago?

bluewolf wrote:

If religion didn't exist, would not the same people trying to use it for power find something else instead? Of course they would. And we'd be back in the same boat.

What are you saying here?
I was talking about some of the greatest minds who lived, e.g Einstein, Newton, Gailleo, are you suggesting in the abscence of religon they would've just turned to 'power'? What are suggesting here.

BTW wasn't gailleo tortured by the church

• Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
• He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Theres your liberating antiquated religon for you. An institution is tatters because it's central beliefs are based on fairytales.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

My point was that because of the grasp religon has had over some the greatest minds this world has ever known, Gailleo, Einstein, Newton etc. that it has surely imppeeded these individuals in their work, take away religon you free them to solve this random chaotic universe.
Religous instiutions don't acknowledge science fully becuase it undermines the bible etc. This is impeeding evolution, as it breeds igonorance into the young, religon corrupts the young.
Reliogn is a control, I think nearly everyone would go along with that, therefore it is actively impeeding our development, it is poisionous mindest whose essential aim is restrict the individual morally and phsically.
If you think religon has inspired anyone in history I would simply reply to you saying that 'If religon didn't exist, would not that same person find inspiration somewhere else for he would still have the same great creative mind/brain? Of course he would.
Einstein s theory of everything never got anywhere because he wanted the theory to be beautiful, not chaotic, he was looking for harmony not randomness, he believed in god and rejected atheism. If you took religon out of the question Einstein would of been free to entertain the ugly chaos of the world without guilt.

1 - You cannot hold back evolution, by defintion. You're thinking far too small. Galileo's ideas were not a step forward on our genetic journey; his brain was, his genes were.

2 - Religion is a very powerful trait in evolutionary terms. It serves as a potent social glue. Which tribe do you think would last better; the one where they all worshipped the same Gods, obeyed the same priests and were all terrified by the same impending apocalypse, or the tribe where they had nothing other than their own rationality (or more likely lack thereof) to hold them together?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

1 - You cannot hold back evolution, by defintion. You're thinking far too small. Galileo's ideas were not a step forward on our genetic journey; his brain was, his genes were.

Primarily I was talking about the evolution of mans curiousity about the world first i.e his ability to decipher the origins of the universe and how this would indirectly affect general evolution, religon interfered with it by proposing an explanation for the universe and forcing that idea upon millions for centuries, if that doesn't interfere with evolution then I don't know what does, if people ( don't just mean one or two outstanding scientists but rather the whole community) had of been truly questioning, investigating the origins of the universe for the last 2 thousands years don't you think we would of progreesed further by this time?

zillah wrote:

2 - Religion is a very powerful trait in evolutionary terms. It serves as a potent social glue. Which tribe do you think would last better; the one where they all worshipped the same Gods, obeyed the same priests and were all terrified by the same impending apocalypse, or the tribe where they had nothing other than their own rationality (or more likely lack thereof) to hold them together?

You thinking way too small, why do you propose in this paragraph that society has only 2 options, your religous god fearers or your non theist anarchists? That's it? That s all that society can become? How do you know this?
Re: religon is a social glue, is that so?
Religon has single handidly caused the greatest social divisions since the history of time. It has attributed to for sectarianism, racism, misogony and all the other cultural woes the world now enjoys, social glue! I think not.

samb

stevejazzx wrote:

My point was that because of the grasp religon has had over some the greatest minds this world has ever known, Gailleo, Einstein, Newton etc. that it has surely imppeeded these individuals in their work, take away religon you free them to solve this random chaotic universe.
Religous instiutions don't acknowledge science fully becuase it undermines the bible etc. This is impeeding evolution, as it breeds igonorance into the young, religon corrupts the young.
.

I agree, but I would ask that you be a bit more clear because you have just caused much confusion. You can certainly argue that religion has impeeded cultural development but when you say that religion has impeeded evolution it is not clear that you do not mean actual human biological evolution.

Perhaps by causing so many wars, religion has provided the required amount of death for an increased rate of human evolution (biological; as I would usually understand the term). What traits would be selected for I don't know.

Zillah

- You cannot hold back evolution, by defintion. You're thinking far too small. Galileo's ideas were not a step forward on our genetic journey; his brain was, his genes were

Why can't you hold back evolution BY DEFINITION? -what if we all had the same number of children...could certainly be tested on animals.

Has Galileo got loads of decendants around today carrying his brainy genes, I think Gengis Khan had more of a gentic influence--explains why the violent alpha male type is more common than the free thinker.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

Primarily I was talking about the evolution of mans curiousity about the world first i.e his ability to decipher the origins of the universe and how this would indirectly affect general evolution, religon interfered with it by proposing an explanation for the universe and forcing that idea upon millions for centuries, if that doesn't interfere with evolution then I don't know what does, if people ( don't just mean one or two outstanding scientists but rather the whole community) had of been truly questioning, investigating the origins of the universe for the last 2 thousands years don't you think we would of progreesed further by this time?

Thats all very nice but evolution has nothing to do with humanity's scientific discovery. I agree that religion has massively retarded the possibilities for scientific advancement, but that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution has to do with our intelligence and our capacity to work abstract theoretical models, but that was around as-long-as/longer than religion. Biologically our brains are pretty much identical to those of humanity tens of thousands of years ago.

You thinking way too small, why do you propose in this paragraph that society has only 2 options, your religous god fearers or your non theist anarchists? That's it? That s all that society can become? How do you know this?
Re: religon is a social glue, is that so?

I'm not thinking too small, you're making assumptions. I was working on the premise that all else was equal. Tribe A is religious, Tribe B isn't. Therefore Tribe A is more likely to survive (as a rule, not comprehensively) than tribe B. Then you say "But Tribe B has a clever leadership loyalty structure! Yeah well so does Tribe A, and Tribe A is still gonna overun the continent after Tribe B falls apart or turns on itself or has all its women converted to another tribe.

Religon has single handidly caused the greatest social divisions since the history of time. It has attributed to for sectarianism, racism, misogony and all the other cultural woes the world now enjoys, social glue! I think not.

[guffaw] Single handedly?! [/guffaw] Religion is but a single element in a massive system that causes all those things.

And I'm really sorry to tell you this but racism, sectarianism and misogony is good for a tribe. Kill the outsiders, form factions of allies and subjugate the weaker members. That stuff makes for a strong tribe.

Its only now with our ultra-stable democratic societies that we can afford such luxuries as human rights and equality.

samb wrote:

Why can't you hold back evolution BY DEFINITION? -what if we all had the same number of children...could certainly be tested on animals.

You can't hold back evolution because evolution has no goal. Evolution is a result. If there is a result, there is evolution. (EDIT: And the children thing is meaningless. So we all have five children. Well, all of that guy's kids died cos they had a genetic disorder. She lost half of hers because they were stupid etc. Mine all survive and inherit the Earth for obvious reasons. Ten generations from now I'm on a 5-1 ratio with you, still having the same amount of children per couple.)

Has Galileo got loads of decendants around today carrying his brainy genes, I think Gengis Khan had more of a gentic influence--explains why the violent alpha male type is more common than the free thinker.

Evolution takes millions of years. It takes not one Gallileo, but tens of thousands. Evolution only functions on a statistical scale.

As an aside, I recall an interesting fact I encountered a long time ago. Some absurd percentage of central Asian men are direct descendents of Khan after all the wives he had and raping he did...

EDIT: Awww. They estimate it at a mere 17 million. How disappointing.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

And I'm really sorry to tell you this but racism, sectarianism and misogony is good for a tribe. Kill the outsiders, form factions of allies and subjugate the weaker members. That stuff makes for a strong tribe.

Its only now with our ultra-stable democratic societies that we can afford such luxuries as human rights and equality.

I'd have to disagree - our democracies are 'ultra-stable' because no significant group is excluded from the decision making process (such as it is) - they got that way either through a process of bringing the troublemakers on board until everyone was in, or copying those who had gone that route. Almost every other system of government excludes some power bloc or other, and is unstable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

[guffaw] Single handedly?! [/guffaw] Religion is but a single element in a massive system that causes all those things.

yes this was a guffaw...meant to say religon was one of the largest contributors...something like that....single hanhdidly!doh!

zillah wrote:

And I'm really sorry to tell you this but racism, sectarianism and misogony is good for a tribe. Kill the outsiders, form factions of allies and subjugate the weaker members. That stuff makes for a strong tribe.

I don't agree, just because you can quantify the effects on society of such things like racism and sectarinism and that you can conclude that they provide some balance in a functioning society doesn't mean there are no other ways of oganising society and doesn't mean that an organised needs such traits.

zillah wrote:

Its only now with our ultra-stable democratic societies that we can afford such luxuries as human rights and equality.

Agreed, but these are things which were fought for and i relaise that a lot of these ideas(human rights) are politically driven, they still have their place in modern and thats a good thing.

zillah wrote:

You can't hold back evolution because evolution has no goal. Evolution is a result. If there is a result, there is evolution. (EDIT: And the children thing is meaningless. So we all have five children. Well, all of that guy's kids died cos they had a genetic disorder. She lost half of hers because they were stupid etc. Mine all survive and inherit the Earth for obvious reasons. Ten generations from now I'm on a 5-1 ratio with you, still having the same amount of children per couple.)

I'm discussing evolution with a specific focus on intelligence. I am arguing the dumbing down of and controlling of societies throughout generations, I take your point however that the evolutionary process as a whole is generally unstoppable but it can be interfered with or altered, no?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd have to disagree - our democracies are 'ultra-stable' because no significant group is excluded from the decision making process (such as it is) - they got that way either through a process of bringing the troublemakers on board until everyone was in, or copying those who had gone that route. Almost every other system of government excludes some power bloc or other, and is unstable.

An excellent point, although it is somewhat debateable. The stability of western society has arisen from many factors, one of which is the non-exclusion policy, but you could also argue that much of it comes from a growing appreciation for human life in general, a wider world view, communications advances (massive, massive influence) and increase in education leading to better quality of life and medicine.

All these things provide a stable basis to allow for the capacity for rigorous application of human rights et al. If we take the US as an example. They began as a secular nation founded primarily by Theists. However, they still had great failings in terms of equality and human rights. Slavery, women's rights, racism and bigotry were (and arguably are) still institutionalised and existent in that nation, and by no means can their nation's stability and power be attributed soley to that.

Note: I'm actually starting to fall asleep at the moment so forgive me if thats a bit rambling. Steve, I'll get back to you later.

Medina

ScumLord wrote:

I still maintain that the "God did it" explanation holds weight. The inevitability of just about everything in this universe could be a coincidence but also points to the likelihood of something planing all this out knowing that if the setup was perfect at the beginning something like us would eventually exist and God would have someone to talk to. Channel 4 did a documentary series a year or two ago on that looked into what science really knew and didn't know about life in general. Some of the top scientists in the fore front of science still maintained that it's just as likely a God created the universe as not.

I don't know what or who God is but it's likely fact that God is not what's described in the Bible (King of kings). I see God as the foundation that makes this universe work, he could be the equation that makes cells divide, nature grow the way it does like flowers having (is it multiples of 5) petals, allows for mutations without chaos, apparently everything in the universe shares this equation. (it's been a while since I saw this on TV and I tend to forget the details and synopses things like this)

In that way my belief in God is kind of strange because there's two versions the creator (which could be an event rather than a being) and the foundation which isn't sentient in my mind.

Saying I believe in God also allows me to get a foot in with the standard believers. They think I'm just lost and if they show me a bit of guidance I'll be saved and redirected back to the christian God when really their walking into a trap to have their whole belief system seriously challenged.

I do believe religion is important I don't think it's a coincidence that civilisation popped up around the same time as the major religions started up. I think the rules of religion are specifically for living in large social groups. In that sense I would consider myself slightly religious too.

I congratulate you on your belief that the order of created life in the world is too perfect to have simply 'evolved' that way.

Don't let go of your belief in Him just because you can't answer 100% questions like 'Who existed before Him?'. God created Time itself and is outside of it.

Some Christians who may want to guide you into Christianity usually only have good intentions in their hearts.

The main thing is, if you don't believe it, then continue on your quest to find the Truth. God knows your good intention to find it, and whats truly in your heart.

It makes me smile a lot to read a post like yours

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

• Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".
• He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Theres your liberating antiquated religon for you. An institution is tatters because it's central beliefs are based on fairytales.

Do you know why?
Because he made fun of the pope. The pope who had given him permission to write the damn book, and Galilleo acted like a complete muppet about it. Look up Galilleo and "Simplicius".

Evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church


Now would you like to tell us how exactly religion and not politics was the cause of any war?

You don't believe that religon is a control or it happens just by 'some idiots' as you call them.
Brush up on your history and come back to me.

Says the person who needs to re-read about Gallileo.
I'm telling you that religion was a means to an end for many who wanted power and that the real problem was human nature and politics.

What are you saying here?
I was talking about some of the greatest minds who lived, e.g Einstein, Newton, Gailleo, are you suggesting in the abscence of religon they would've just turned to 'power'? What are suggesting here.

¬.¬
Let's try this again.
I said:

If religion didn't exist, would not the same people trying to use it for power find something else instead?

Is there a mention of your "greatest minds in history" there? No.
Half your argument seems to be about religion being used for power and as a means for controlling people. You also seem to think that the world's problems would be solved if religion was non existent.
What I'm telling you is that anyone who wants power will get it somehow and that if they can't use religion for it, they'd have found something else. Hence my conclusion "And then we'd be back in the same boat."

Re: liberation of religions:

How? By enforcing people to live by rules invented by primitive men thousands of yeras ago?

:rolleyes: And that neat little description covers all religions, does it?

pH

Medina wrote:

I congratulate you on your belief that the order of created life in the world is too perfect to have simply 'evolved' that way.

But if you think about it it makes little sense. You can't accept that all this 'perfection' evolved or happened by accident, so you invent a God (who by definition is *more* perfect that the universe he created) and then say ahh well yes 'He (God) did just happen'.

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

Do you know why?
Because he made fun of the pope. The pope who had given him permission to write the damn book, and Galilleo acted like a complete muppet about it. Look up Galilleo and "Simplicius".

oh gallileo acted like a muppet did he?, missed that bit

bluewolf wrote:

Evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

I don't see how this link supports your argument

bluewolf wrote:

Now would you like to tell us how exactly religion and not politics was the cause of any war?

Yes simple, it is a device that can can convince people kill one another without question. It's a device of cultural division. It is based on flawed accounts of history thereby creating massive problems for the present day, look at Israel and Palenstine, just politics is it? Take away religon and what do you tell a suicide bomber? How could politics achieve just fanaticism that it would cause people to randomly murder women and childern, it can't, only religon can achieve by telling people that one particular sky god wants thems to carry out these atrocities. Yes the sky God wants you to kill those childern, women whatever because they're evil westererns, easterners...whatever. Absurb, in the age of sending spaceships around the universe don't you think, that we are still worshipping sky gods?

bluewolf wrote:

Says the person who needs to re-read about Gallileo.
I'm telling you that religion was a means to an end for many who wanted power and that the real problem was human nature and politics.

Right I've googled 'galileo and muppet' and all I got was this
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=galileo+muppet&meta=
Maybe you can steer me in the right direction?
Perhaps

bluewolf wrote:

¬.¬
Let's try this again.
I said:
Is there a mention of your "greatest minds in history" there? No.
Half your argument seems to be about religion being used for power and as a means for controlling people. You also seem to think that the world's problems would be solved if religion was non existent.
What I'm telling you is that anyone who wants power will get it somehow and that if they can't use religion for it, they'd have found something else. Hence my conclusion "And then we'd be back in the same boat."

So are you saying that people are using religon for power at the moment?
BTW, I don't think if religon were gone that he worlds problems would be solved, never said never would. However it might set the world on course for future generations anyway for a more accepted happy even freer society.

bluewolf wrote:

Re: liberation of religions:

:rolleyes: And that neat little description covers all religions, does it?

Well if the religons in question are making people live by rules invented/created by man thousands years ago then yes, that description fits.

Zillah

Medina wrote:

It makes me smile a lot to read a post like yours

Really? When I read a post like that I sigh, shake my head and die a little inside.

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

I don't see how this link supports your argument

If you tried reading it you'd see that the church is not opposed to evolution and bows to science in this regard. In other words, my argument that the catholic church is not suppressing evolution is supported :rolleyes:

Right I've googled 'galileo and muppet' and all I got was this
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=galileo+muppet&meta=
Maybe you can steer me in the right direction?
Perhaps
...

I told you already to look up galileo and simplicius. If you're not going to read my posts and act juvenile in addition, I'm not discussing this with you anymore.

So are you saying that people are using religon for power at the moment?

You were, last I checked.

Good day.

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

If you tried reading it you'd see that the church is not opposed to evolution and bows to science in this regard. In other words, my argument that the catholic church is not suppressing evolution is supported :rolleyes:

The catholic church is not supressing....?
Ok, Look I don't have time for this..

bluewolf wrote:

I told you already to look up galileo and simplicius. If you're not going to read my posts and act juvenile in addition, I'm not discussing this with you anymore.

Oh i'm Juvenile, so you call Galileo a muppet and I'm junvenile that makes you an infant relatviely speaking.

bluewolf wrote:

You were last I checked

bluewolf wrote:

What I'm telling you is that anyone who wants power will get it somehow and that if they can't use religion for it, they'd have found something else. Hence my conclusion "And then we'd be back in the same boat."

And you are too, read your own words....

bluewolf wrote:

Good day.

Yes, indeed.

deevee

I was linked to this topic from another board, and I felt like speaking up. So away we go.

I don't see how this link supports your argument

"The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years."

I suppose they had hidden it pretty sneakily in the very first sentence which I guess would explain why you didn't see it.

Yes simple, it is a device that can can convince people kill one another without question.

Clearly, things like fear, patriotism and nationalism never serve this purpose.

It's a device of cultural division. It is based on flawed accounts of history thereby creating massive problems for the present day, look at Israel and Palenstine, just politics is it? Take away religon and what do you tell a suicide bomber? How could politics achieve just fanaticism that it would cause people to randomly murder women and childern, it can't, only religon can achieve by telling people that one particular sky god wants thems to carry out these atrocities. Yes the sky God wants you to kill those childern, women whatever because they're evil westererns, easterners...whatever. Absurb, in the age of sending spaceships around the universe don't you think, that we are still worshipping sky gods?

If religion has such an iron grip on the people, why aren't more people suicide bombers? Answer: Because religion doesn't have half as much to do with it as you'd like to think.

"How could politics achieve fanaticism"? Please. Let's have some foreign powers casually kill some of your friends and family and see if you feel no animosity or desperation until big bad religion enters the picture.

So are you saying that people are using religon for power at the moment?
BTW, I don't think if religon were gone that he worlds problems would be solved, never said never would. However it might set the world on course for future generations anyway for a more accepted happy even freer society.

Yes, just like the free, nigh-utopian, religion-less Stalinist Russia, correct? Because if that's not a bastion of freedom and happy happy love, I don't know what is.

Well if the religons in question are making people live by rules invented/created by man thousands years ago then yes, that description fits.

Aren't you living by rules invented by man? What makes yours superior?

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

BTW, I don't think if religon were gone that he worlds problems would be solved, never said never would. However it might set the world on course for future generations anyway for a more accepted happy even freer society.

That may be true for certain societies. "Removing" religion from conflicts such as Israel and Palenstine might have a small effect in that suicide bombers may not be so quick to sign up, but the conflict is primarily tribal and about land and mistrust between different cultures. They'll still find ways to kill the enemy that doesn't involve killing themselves. Speculating what society would be like had religion never existed is just impossible it's so ingrained. Of course religion helped define different cultures to begin, but tribalism existed long before people were killing each other for sky gods.

And I can't accept the point that Einstein was hindered in his work by 'religion'. If he had thoughts of a creator they were his own. A mind like that would not be swayed by church teachings - rather by his own observances on a level far above what any religion envisages. Maybe.

Elf Lord Chiewn

The hand of God brought me here. Sort of. Not really. I've addressed a few glaring points.

stevejazzx wrote:

The catholic church is not supressing....?
Ok, Look I don't have time for this..

Since you apparently need information in bite-sized form, here's a small article.

freemarketnews.com wrote:

VATICAN: EVOLUTION SYNC WITH BIBLE

Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

It may not make the "creationist" crowd very happy, but their attacks on evolution might have to stop. According to an article from the Australian news.com website, the Vatican has issued a statement about the Darwinian theory of evolution and its relationship to Biblical scripture.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is quoted as saying the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution are "perfectly compatible" if the Bible is read correctly. It was a direct attack on the creationist campaigners in America.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," Poupard allegedly said at a Vatican press conference, declaring that the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator." His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail. - ST

Did that explain what bluewolf was attempting to get across? I hope so.

stevejazzx wrote:

Oh i'm Juvenile, so you call Galileo a muppet and I'm junvenile that makes you an infant relatviely speaking.

Googling Galileo and muppet is a juvenile act. Galileo irritated Simplicius by making a (probably unintentional) strawman of him, which is what bluewolf was attempting to get across in the first place. It's the response of a powerful man to a less powerful man who's just cost him power on the ticket he granted in the first place by discreditation.

I've included the relevant part of a celebrated Wikipedia article above the portion you used from the same article (implying that you ought to have read it) while neglecting to cite.

Wikipedia wrote:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to explain himself.

stevejazzx

deevee wrote:

I was linked to this topic from another board, and I felt like speaking up. So away we go.

great...bandwagon anyone?

devee wrote:

"The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years."

because they simply had to give in and accept a middle ground

devee wrote:

I suppose they had hidden it pretty sneakily in the very first sentence which I guess would explain why you didn't see it.

I prefer to base my belief on what the catholic churchs position is in relation to evolution by the catholics churhes actions not it's pr. I base it on many articles not just one.

devee wrote:

Clearly, things like fear, patriotism and nationalism never serve this purpose.

I don't know many times i have to say it but I agree that these things can cause these problems without religon but

quote wrote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist
They'd find some other excuse to kill each other?
Money, land, skin colour, basic cultural differences - take your pick.
Fear is a great motivator too.

Money skin color and cultural differences are all areas from which the human race to seem s more tolerent, although you are right to signal them, these areas are cetainly not unqestioned and seem to be improving through time, for e.g take skin color, in America one hundred years ago black people had no place in society at all and now their place is firmly established although I do accept there is a lot political motivation for such they are certainly a lot better off these days.
Religon is the one area that remains unquestioned by the majoirty of societies around the world.
Armed with religon motivators can convince childern to kill. As long as religon exists we are going to have this extremist reaction to evolution. People terrified to embrace modern ideas will intensify their religous beliefs just to reinforce it's status.
They cannot do this other areas like money, skin color because it would not be quantifiable by any means.
They can justify murder through selective intepretation of thier holy books without much (or any) condemantion from their fellow members.
There is litreally no other way to justify murder these days. Religon is essentially the last loophole for extremists whose minds have been ravaged from the perpetual hynotism and hype that has enveloped them from a small age.
Wheter the motivation is poltical or genuine human evolution, people are gradually moving away from closemindedness, take the recent acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society as an example.
Religon is one of the few areas where the human race is moving backwards in it's thinking becoming less inquisitive, more extreme and more hopelessly dependant on flawed leaders.
Get rid of religon and you rid the world of a massive chain that has straddled ours necks and spines for countless generations. You give people no option but to look for intelligible answers to the world.
__________________

devee wrote:

If religion has such an iron grip on the people, why aren't more people suicide bombers? Answer: Because religion doesn't have half as much to do with it as you'd like to think.

I don't get you, why aren't more people suicide bombers?
Isn't the fact that we have as many as have already shows just how strong a grip religon has around these people?

devee wrote:

"How could politics achieve fanaticism"? Please. Let's have some foreign powers casually kill some of your friends and family and see if you feel no animosity or desperation until big bad religion enters the picture.

What on earth has that got to with anything, that is a sentence without contex, a generalised rabble. Tell me this are you and I more more likly to killed by religous fundamentalists or by Politicians, now unless you work for the C.I.A I think we have our answer.

devee wrote:

Yes, just like the free, nigh-utopian, religion-less Stalinist Russia, correct? Because if that's not a bastion of freedom and happy happy love, I don't know what is.

So because a dictator ruled without religon we should rule with religon?
Or is your point that it was the abscence of religon which created this era in russian histroy?

devee wrote:

Aren't you living by rules invented by man? What makes yours superior?

Mine are superior because they are open to question, scrutiny and above all else, change. Also as a little bonus the people who create don't claim that that a sky god gave it to them, which is nice.

stevejazzx

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

The hand of God brought me here. Sort of. Not really. I've addressed a few glaring points.

another one poster
bandwagon anyone...hold on deja vous.

elf lord something wrote:

Since you apparently need information in bite-sized form, here's a small article.

.....a little patronizing for a first post isn't it

elfie wrote:

Did that explain what bluewolf was attempting to get across? I hope so.
Googling Galileo and muppet is a juvenile act. Galileo irritated Simplicius by making a (probably unintentional) strawman of him, which is what bluewolf was attempting to get across in the first place. It's the response of a powerful man to a less powerful man who's just cost him power on the ticket he granted in the first place by discreditation.

Look simple fact bluewolf called galileo a muppet. Yes he said it not me, Galileo acted like a muppet. Now tell me where something like that has it's place in a serious debate.
Only after that riduclous comment did I get childish in retort as ironic sentinment, but alas it was wasted.


edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

That may be true for certain societies. "Removing" religion from conflicts such as Israel and Palenstine might have a small effect in that suicide bombers may not be so quick to sign up, but the conflict is primarily tribal and about land and mistrust between different cultures. They'll still find ways to kill the enemy that doesn't involve killing themselves. Speculating what society would be like had religion never existed is just impossible it's so ingrained. Of course religion helped define different cultures to begin, but tribalism existed long before people were killing each other for sky gods.

And I can't accept the point that Einstein was hindered in his work by 'religion'. If he had thoughts of a creator they were his own. A mind like that would not be swayed by church teachings - rather by his own observances on a level far above what any religion envisages. Maybe.

Give me break atheist, can't you see I'm being attacked?:D
Religon is the devisive structure which has enabled this war to live.
I'll perhaps start a new thread Monday to dicuss it. (In politics of course)
For now gotta go play football with my son.

Sangre

ScumLord wrote:

I still maintain that the "God did it" explanation holds weight. The inevitability of just about everything in this universe could be a coincidence but also points to the likelihood of something planing all this out knowing that if the setup was perfect at the beginning something like us would eventually exist and God would have someone to talk to.

It only seems inevitable because you perceive it that way. If you replayed the universe a million times over I wouldn't be too confident of us arriving again in any similar way.

Its the human ego that makes us believe when we are the pinnacle of evolution, when we are anything but.

Elf Lord Chiewn

stevejazzx wrote:

.....a little patronizing for a first post isn't it

Not for someone who reads prior posts and is possessed of debate experience. Take it as you will.

wonderstevie wrote:

Look simple fact bluewolf called galileo a muppet. Yes he said it not me, Galileo acted like a muppet. Now tell me where something like that has it's place in a serious debate.

It has its place in any debate in which the term "muppet" may be defined. A muppet in this case would be someone ignorant and incompetent. You could have simply asked for a definition before jumping the gun, as it were.

I'm presuming you never saw Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?

stevie-poo wrote:

Only after that riduclous comment did I get childish in retort as ironic sentinment, but alas it was wasted.

Childish behavior in discussions such as these are typically wasted behavior.

Eh! Steve wrote:

edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

Cute. If you'd like to address issues instead of ignoring arguments, making appeals to ridicule, and the like, I'll be happy to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion and move on to the rest of the board. Until then, I'll continue to respond to anything I feel like responding to as often as I consider necessary. You know, the way informal debates work?

Considering you appear to have conceded most of the points I responded to, this shouldn't take much more discourse.

Just imagine what we could accomplish in a week.

stevejazzx

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

Not for someone who reads prior posts and is possessed of debate experience. Take it as you will.

......but sadly, poor english.

blue-elf wrote:

It has its place in any debate in which the term "muppet" may be defined. A muppet in this case would be someone ignorant and incompetent. You could have simply asked for a definition before jumping the gun, as it were.

Oh I should've of asked for a definition...the term in itself is childish no matter what the definition, of course I realised it's intended meaning first time. Who uses the term muppet in a serious conversation, Guy Rithchie?

blue-elf wrote:

I'm presuming you never saw Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?

......uncanny

elflordchwin wrote:

Childish behavior in discussions such as these are typically wasted behavior.

agreed:p

person with 2 posts wrote:

Cute. If you'd like to address issues instead of ignoring arguments, making appeals to ridicule, and the like, I'll be happy to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion and move on to the rest of the board. Until then, I'll continue to respond to anything I feel like responding to as often as I consider necessary. You know, the way informal debates work?

here you go want something to read, a friend of mine writes

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm

q wrote:

Considering you appear to have conceded most of the points I responded to, this shouldn't take much more discourse.

???

q wrote:

Just imagine what we could accomplish in a week.

.....a higher post count?

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

He's in America. If you genuinely believe this is a troll account of mine, ask a mod to check IP.
I'm too tired to take part in this til I have a nap later.

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

He's in America. If you genuinely believe this is a troll account of mine, ask a mod to check IP.
I'm too tired to take part in this til I have a nap later.

I never he said was, just refering to his and yours similarity.

Anyways

Quote of the week:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death![/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp.[/FONT]

from

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa110498.htm

and

So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect? Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs.:eek: ....religon impeeding evolution?

from

http://www.slate.com/id/2124297/

Elf Lord Chiewn

stevejazzx wrote:

......but sadly, poor english.

Sorry, archaic != poor. "Possessed of" is an unusual but valid construct in Modern English.

The Man With The Large E-Peen wrote:

Oh I should've of asked for a definition...the term in itself is childish no matter what the definition, of course I realised it's intended meaning first time. Who uses the term muppet in a serious conversation, Guy Rithchie?

The term is not childish in and of itself. If you understood it to begin with, it served its purpose.

I wonder if Guy Ritchie has ever used "muppet" in a discussion about the Kabbalah. I feel a comedy sketch coming on.:D

The Anti-Muppet Brigade wrote:

here you go want something to read, a friend of mine writes

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm

Interesting read. Thanks.

Captain Obvious wrote:

.....a higher post count?

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

Scofflaw

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

Sorry, archaic != poor. "Possessed of" is an unusual but valid construct in Modern English.

Archaic? Well, that does make me feel old! Unfortunately, it's quite common for people to find good use of English patronising.

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

The term is not childish in and of itself. If you understood it to begin with, it served its purpose.

I wonder if Guy Ritchie has ever used "muppet" in a discussion about the Kabbalah. I feel a comedy sketch coming on.:D

Involving the Spanish Inquisition, I hope?

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

Are you sure you know where you are? This is a discussion board, on the Internet. High post counts is as good as it gets!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

elf wrote:

Originally Posted by Elf Lord
I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

I present this in argument of comment about Galileo...


Quote of the week:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death![/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp[/FONT]

this in relation to religon being one of the largest poblem s of society more problematic than politics etc

Money skin color and cultural differences are all areas from which the human race to seem s more tolerent, although you are right to signal them, these areas are cetainly not unqestioned and seem to be improving through time, for e.g take skin color, in America one hundred years ago black people had no place in society at all and now their place is firmly established although I do accept there is a lot political motivation for such they are certainly a lot better off these days.
Religon is the one area that remains unquestioned by the majoirty of societies around the world.
Armed with religon motivators can convince childern to kill. As long as religon exists we are going to have this extremist reaction to evolution. People terrified to embrace modern ideas will intensify their religous beliefs just to reinforce it's status.
They cannot do this other areas like money, skin color because it would not be quantifiable by any means.
They can justify murder through selective intepretation of thier holy books without much (or any) condemantion from their fellow members.
There is litreally no other way to justify murder these days. Religon is essentially the last loophole for extremists whose minds have been ravaged from the perpetual hynotism and hype that has enveloped them from a small age.
Wheter the motivation is poltical or genuine human evolution, people are gradually moving away from closemindedness, take the recent acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society as an example.
Religon is one of the few areas where the human race is moving backwards in it's thinking becoming less inquisitive, more extreme and more hopelessly dependant on flawed leaders.
Get rid of religon and you rid the world of a massive chain that has straddled ours necks and spines for countless generations. You give people no option but to look for intelligible answers to the world

this in relation to religon and evolution

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm


no direct reply to any of these thus far

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Primarily I was talking about the evolution of mans curiousity about the world first i.e his ability to decipher the origins of the universe and how this would indirectly affect general evolution, religon interfered with it by proposing an explanation for the universe and forcing that idea upon millions for centuries, if that doesn't interfere with evolution then I don't know what does, if people ( don't just mean one or two outstanding scientists but rather the whole community) had of been truly questioning, investigating the origins of the universe for the last 2 thousands years don't you think we would of progreesed further by this time?

I think you're using the word evolution in a confusing and incorrect way. Evolution has no goal, it is just the ability to survive by adaption to the enviroment. It is interfered with the whole time. It is adaption to interference. Without this there is no evolution.

Religion is a highly sophisticated and obviously successful evolutionary strategy for a highly intelligent social organisms like humans. It extends the limits of kin selection to the group level, something not generally found in other animals. Members of a religion may not share genes but they share memes which may be even more potent.

An arguement for atheism is that our mental capacity and self awareness are evolving (geneically but mostly memetically) to a point where we can question the very fabric of our survival strategies. We can see the advantages of religous belief but believe that we have developed enough socially to survive without it. Of couse this won't happen overnight (it might not happen at all). It doesn't mean evolution is hindered, just the human concept of truth.

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Involving the Spanish Inquisition, I hope?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

I think you're using the word evolution in a confusing and incorrect way. Evolution has no goal, it is just the ability to survive by adaption to the enviroment. It is interfered with the whole time. It is adaption to interference. Without this there is no evolution.

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

extract from

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm
It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.


Again the author far more qualified to discuss the subject than you or I, I will argue therefore I am not using the term evolution in a confusing way.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Give me break atheist, can't you see I'm being attacked?:D

Detractors do seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Hang in there!

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

And I thought you were here to make friends.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

I've read some of these too, mostly Dawkins. I think you need to read them again, how does one impede evolution which has no goal? Isn't that just extinction? Thriving or just barely surviving is still evolution.
You are confusing progress with evolution. There is no reason for evolution to favour increased complexity, the most successful organisms are still primitive bacteria. I know I'm being pedantic here but i feel that evolution requires greater understanding especially considering the lenght of the epic creationism thread.