Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

[The Mauva Syndicate]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

How's this for a definition of the soul

"The soul is an imaginary thing created by astonishingly arrogant people to make them feel superior to actual animals - while simultaneously making them think they are not animals. See Illusion/delusion"

[Raydeus]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

On the other side you've got nothing but a few paragraphs in a book.

Heheh this is funny, there was this time when I was thinking about how cool it would've been if Asimov (or Rodenberry for that matter) had written his books 3000 years ago and people used them instead of the <insert religious book here>.

I bet "lame" in that quote is more of the real definition of the word. Bill Nye is plenty cool, but "lame" meaning "impaired" implies science simply cannot give you all of the answers (though the same could be said of the other way around -- religion doesn't answer all of your questions either).

Yep the soul is a very tricky concept, and if it does actually exist it would probably be between the lines of science and spiritual belief. But that's what makes it such a tricky concept to begin with.

How's this for a definition of the soul

"The soul is an imaginary thing created by astonishingly arrogant people to make them feel superior to actual animals - while simultaneously making them think they are not animals. See Illusion/delusion"

I don't know, I think if the soul existed it would probably exist in every living thing by default (although you have to consider I completely dismiss most of what religion says on the subject), but then you would be dealing with what is alive and what isn't.

If you look at it from the scientific way"life" is just a chain of chemical reactions that after reaching a certain level of complexity become something more than the sum of their parts. But then aren't planets, stars and other things that exist in the universe also suitable for that description?

Then there's our conciousness, is it really a tangible thing that converts or has a connection to our soul? Or are we simply "organic" supercomputers and what we call conciousness only exists in the electric pulses that flow between braincells the same way processing is performed on computers. Does a computer die when you power it down? Where does the conciousness go if you turn it off? It is there, that's for sure, but is it a temporary fenomena or is it an illusion or none of the above and how does that relate to our own case?

(This the part where my head starts spinning of course)

But the religious explanation of "yeah... uh... about your soul... Yep, god created it and everything else. Now, stop thinking blasphemy and put your money on the tray so I can confess you" really doesn't work for me.

So I'm screwed. m(_ _)m

[Karinya]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Hmm, looks like I showed up to this thread late and missed a lot of the fun. Oh well.

Btw Mauve, you could show me definitive proof that it was actually aliens that created humans and I'd still believe in God. Not all of the religious types tread on ignorance.

Alien creation has a lot of the same problems as creation by gods, anyway: who created the creators? If they/he can arise without intelligent guidance then why can't we? Especially when there's so much evidence that we *did* do just that and no hard evidence whatsoever (at present) that they/he even existed at all?

That's the two main problems with intelligent design: there's no evidence actually showing the presence of the designer(s), and if ID explains the origin of humans, then there must be some *other* explanation for where the designer(s) came from. If you don't believe the development of mind from mindlessness with all the fossil and DNA evidence we have on Earth, how are you going to believe aliens or gods just popped into existence *without* such evidence?


BTW, whoever was complaining about how mean atheists are - get back to me after the atheist crusades, the atheist Spanish Inquisition, the atheist witch trials and oh yeah, the atheist 9/11. Religion can do things to people's heads - very scary things. (So can certain political ideologies, I guess, but that kind of ideology is relatively new while religion is ancient, so it hasn't caught up yet.) Fortunately, most modern religions have backed off from slavery and monarchism. (And I haven't even gotten started on misogyny and gay-bashing - religion being the world's main source of both.) Name-calling doesn't really register on this scale, even if it's a really really harsh name.

Although, to be fair, maybe this kind of assholishness is limited to certain religions. I never heard of a Spinozaist or a Deist or a Taoist doing anything like that. Religions in which one human says to another "This is what God wants you to do" are the most dangerous.

[The Mauva Syndicate]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Lmnop - Belief in God requires no proof and nothing I could say should ever decrease your faith. Your relationship with God is YOURS, not mine or anyone else's. As such, I believe it is a sacred thing and a beautiful thing and I personally would never wish to seperate anyone from their faith. I was raised Jewish, then Christian (second and third marriages - my Mom was popular) and consider myself a Buddhist.

My big complaint is when some people use their faith to determine what I may learn or believe or teach - and THAT I will never accept. Truth is truth - Faith is faith - they are not the same.

Science is Real, repeatable and provable - and it will always be.

Religion is not of the real it is a matter of Faith, unprovable, intangible and without any evidence and it will always be so.

NEVER the twain should meet. IMHO. As a Buddhist I see no conflict in this - most Christians do. Notice I said most, not all. There are many Christians who can accept science, and there are those who will not because they confuse Faith and Truth. (see above).

[Malacite]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Religions in which one human says to another "This is what God wants you to do" are the most dangerous.

With the possible exception of Judaism? I'm not 100% sure on that because of all the conflicts with Israel but by in large Judaism is the only one of the big 3 that hasn't ever caused any kind of mass slaughter (though it has been the recipient for centuries )

The Torah is actually quite an interesting document if you've ever read it. But yeah Christianity in all of it's forms/spin offs and Islam are by far the most dangerous influences on humanity. On that note, pretty much all of those religions are based on even older ones like the Mithra and Egyptian religions.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Now you're blaming religion for what people do. That's like blaming guns for what people do. People are to blame for what people do, otherwise you just come off like that Jack Thompson crackpot.

Both Christianity and Islam actually encourage peaceful attitudes and there are many that practice it in such a way. There are people who take to violence, but why hold that against the people who practice thier religion peacefully and truely follow the tenants of their faith?

Athiests like to regurgitate the same crap about religion being the source of all problems, yet the always gloss over the Nazis. Science was the basis of the Holocaust and the Jews were persecuted and murdered because it was a convienient scapegoat for thier hatred toward the Jews.

But the Nazis started out with killing off the retarded, crippled and mentally ill for having imperfect genes, or so they propagandized. Tell people something enough and eventually they start to believe it. This eventually started to encompass other races.

Did they have a scientific basis for killing the Jews? Hell no. It was no more scientific than knocking off they mentally ill, crippled or retarded. They didn't have the science to prove how this stuff could be prevented and it would have come to pass in future generations anyway.

What the Nazis did, they did in the name of Science, but it had NOTHING to do with real Science.

Same goes for religion in most other cases. Bible talks about turning the other cheek, says that killing is a sin. So why blame Christianity for what some crackpot with a gun does? Its just and inane and stupid as blaming the gun.

Blame the person and the people dumb enough to follow in his mindset, don't blame the actual majority who generally don't follow that nonsense.

[Ziero]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

You don't pay attention to Feba very much, do you?

You're missing out. He says interesting things.

And he ignores plenty of "interesting" things himself.

Even if Sagan couldn't totally kick Einstein's wrinkly cheating ass any day of the week, Einstein would certainly agree that science kicks ass, if for no other reason than his involvement with the creation of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear bomb was one of Einstein's greatest regrets in life. Also, the two quotes I gave CAME from him.

No, it's not. Those things are not lame, and nor are they wondrous. If I look at a tree, I know that it grew out of a seed, that it gets its energy through photosynthesis. If I cared to, I could find a wealth of information on exactly how it lives and dies. There's nothing to wonder about there, as a practical matter. That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the beauty of the leaves changing in autumn, just because I understand why they do it.

If there's nothing to wonder about tell me exactly how it came to be that the exact correct string of molecular agents and chromosomes and chains formed together to create that tree. We understand how it works and what it's made of, but that doesn't make that tree any less of a wonderous creation

One day, I went to a baseball game. Last baseball game I've been to, if I remember right; I am not a big sports fan. I find more entertainment in the atmosphere of the place than the game itself. My seats were far enough back to be giveaways, but not so far back that we were under shelter. It decided to rain, fiercely. I got soaked, as did those I was with. As soon as the rain cleared, a rainbow popped up; very large but somewhat faded.

If I cared to think about it, I'd know that that's a result of rays of sunlight, traveling at unimaginable speed, struck some collection of rainwater in just the right way to split the light into different colors in the sky. Just because I see a rainbow and understand that the colors come from a prism effect, and not a pot of gold, doesn't mean that I do not enjoy the sight.

You no more need religion in order to appreciate life and all of its beauty than you need alcohol and drugs to enjoy a night out. There's nothing wrong with having it for yourself, but if you need it in order to find your life worthwhile, you need help.

Again, what designed the rainbow? Is it just some fluke accident brought about through molecular events or was there maybe some sort of guiding influence to create such a beautiful thing at that exact moment of time to cause you to remember it so well.

To be blunt, there is no difference between a religion and a cult. A religion is a religion, no matter how small-- and a cult is a cult, no matter how large. It's like trying to determine the difference between a lake and a pond-- for all the descriptions you can make, there will always be one on a side that people say should be on the other. Scientology is a poor example because so many people simply have such negative opinions of it; but more so because people can't relate it to their religion. There is no similarity in Xenu and Jesus; there is similarity in the Holy Trinity and Allah. A better example would be Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons.

Bullcrap. Complete and total bull. There is a MASSIVE difference between the philosophies of Jesus (the man, not the myth) and the creation of Christianity and the "philosophises" of L Ron Hubbard and the creastion of Scientology. One promoted love and peace amongst all mankind while the other promotes the theory that it's not your fault you're screwed up, it's something else's fault. And if you give him lots and lots of money, he'll take care of that "thing" for you. The core beliefs the major religions were founded on were done so based on positive emotions. Spreading love and caring about your fellow man. But the rules, the details, the things created over time, by other people, twisted those beliefs and often contradict the original message, causing all the problems you see today. Cults break you down, tell you you're wrong and bad and the only way to be good is to do exactly as they say. Religions (at their core) build you up, promote you to do good things for others and push you to realize that life is short but should be best lived when you do so for the good of others.

I'm not religious in any way, infact any time I have to spent time in church is time really not enjoyed. But I can see why others see the good in religion, and can see the good that actual comes from it. While every religion will always have it's fanatics who focus on the wrong aspects, the vast majority are good people made better because of their belief in something more.

Also, in relation to my attempt at derailing this thread into something that might be somewhat civil, and YM's comment above; is it just me, or do science teachers tend to be better at arousing the desire to learn in students? I've had fun teachers in other subjects, but never ones that made me want to study and learn things more than I had to to do well. I've had at least three good science teachers; one of which started off the school year by lighting his desk on fire, and later making a bomb (and having us all make mini-bombs).

My favorite teachers were my sophmore year math teacher and my junior year US history teacher. Most of my science teachers were rather boring and dull, but those two guys were both lively, upbeat entertaining and damn good at their jobs. Though none of them ever actually motivated me to do the actual work(not their faults, I'm just a lazy SoB), I did at least pay more attention in their classes then in others.

How's this for a definition of the soul

"The soul is an imaginary thing created by astonishingly arrogant people to make them feel superior to actual animals - while simultaneously making them think they are not animals. See Illusion/delusion"

My cat has a soul, when I look into her eyes I can tell she's pissed that I dared to wake up and disturb her slumber on the middle of my back. My dog has a soul, when I look into his eyes I can tell he just wants to play...though the hyperactive wagging tail is also a dead give away. The random squirrel I saw today as I left for work has a soul. I can tell by looking into it's eyes that it sure as hell didn't want me taking it's nut. I'm well aware that I as a human am nothing more then a simple animal. It's that instinctual feeling I get when I see a pretty girl and wanna hump the hell out of her or when I go too long without eating and head towards the fridge or see an open fire and don't stick my face in it. But I still think I have a soul...maybe.

Both Christianity and Islam actually encourage peaceful attitudes and there are many that practice it in such a way. There are people who take to violence, but why hold that against the people who practice thier religion peacefully and truely follow the tenants of their faith?

Most people ignore these facts, or are just plain ignorant of them, and only base their opinions on the loudest members of a group as opposed to the majority. Much like how people playing MMOs think everyone in said MMO are asses because of a very vocal few, when in reality the average person in the game is actually pretty nice. The loudest voices alway stick out the most and leave the larger impressions. And in most cases, those impressions are completely incorrect.

Blame the person and the people dumb enough to follow in his mindset, don't blame the actual majority who generally don't follow that nonsense.

Much like cults are created when one charismatic leader can convince those of weaker minds to follow their whim, people can use misguided views of religion to lead those who follow blindly down the wrong paths. It's why people should have that balance of science and religion, knowledge of what actually is and faith in something more, in their lives. Moderation is the key, too much of anything isn't good for you.

[Lmnop]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

I think, for me anyway, the answer to Karinya's "who created the creator?" problem is umm well a bit trippy: the concept of "create" had to be written. As someone who was an atheist for all of my formative years, one question made me believe in a higher power: Why does existence exist? And unfortunately, all of science's answers leave me with more questions. An ever-elongating chain of self-reference -- that is, physics references physics as an explanation but nothing explains why physics cares to work in the first place.

And I don't understand why rocks care to propagate the species. As a clump of assorted elements, something's still elements. Why would that clump of elements "enjoy" chemical reactions with other elements enough to "want" to do it more efficiently? Isn't that effectively what would result in the creation of the first single-cell organism?

[Jonastb]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

I would like to humbly point out the evolution of God. This does not cover all religions, and is just an overview.

In the past, MOST of the great societies were polytheistic; Greek, Roman, Aztec, Norse, Mayan, Egyptian...

These gods were the answer the questions that mystified people. Apollo/Ra was a sun god...

As people learned what each of the gods stood for and began to understand that certain things were not deities, they slowly disappeared.

There are 2 main questions left to answer, and yes, a lot of minor ones.

1. Where did we come from?
2. Where do we go? (this is referring to after we die)

This does not require a pantheon of gods for these questions.

I know this is a very brief and incomplete overview. But give it a little thought, please.

[Armando]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

My cat has a soul, when I look into her eyes I can tell she's pissed that I dared to wake up and disturb her slumber on the middle of my back. My dog has a soul, when I look into his eyes I can tell he just wants to play...though the hyperactive wagging tail is also a dead give away. The random squirrel I saw today as I left for work has a soul. I can tell by looking into it's eyes that it sure as hell didn't want me taking it's nut. I'm well aware that I as a human am nothing more then a simple animal. It's that instinctual feeling I get when I see a pretty girl and wanna hump the hell out of her or when I go too long without eating and head towards the fridge or see an open fire and don't stick my face in it. But I still think I have a soul...maybe.

That's what you believe and that's perfectly fine. However, it doesn't make much of a convincing argument. For what you say to be relevant, you would first have to prove that souls in general exist; that emotions and feelings don't stem purely from chemical reactions in the brain, and that there's some undetectable essence that persists even after our physical self dies. Not to mention you would have to tackle the issue of whether or not giving off the appearance of having feelings is a good enough basis to say that animals have souls; could the same thing not be said about an advanced android that reasons and responds just like a human being?

Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, and it's fine to express your beliefs. However, it's kind of silly to make a claim that can't be proven (although the same concept applies to Mauva's claim that souls don't exist; her definition was flawed anyways because not everyone that believes in the notion of souls believes only humans have them, like you pointed out.) It's no more reasonable than asserting X deity is real and Y is not.

[Ziero]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

I would like to humbly point out the evolution of God. This does not cover all religions, and is just an overview.

In the past, MOST of the great societies were polytheistic; Greek, Roman, Aztec, Norse, Mayan, Egyptian...

These gods were the answer the questions that mystified people. Apollo/Ra was a sun god...

As people learned what each of the gods stood for and began to understand that certain things were not deities, they slowly disappeared.

There are 2 main questions left to answer, and yes, a lot of minor ones.

1. Where did we come from?
2. Where do we go? (this is referring to after we die)

This does not require a pantheon of gods for these questions.

I know this is a very brief and incomplete overview. But give it a little thought, please.

Actually most of those beliefs died out when the civilizations believed in them died out. They weren't disproven by sciences of the time rather they were just lost to time itself as those who believed were wiped out.

That's what you believe and that's perfectly fine. However, it doesn't make much of a convincing argument. For what you say to be relevant, you would first have to prove that souls in general exist; that emotions and feelings don't stem purely from chemical reactions in the brain, and that there's some undetectable essence that persists even after our physical self dies. Not to mention you would have to tackle the issue of whether or not giving off the appearance of having feelings is a good enough basis to say that animals have souls; could the same thing not be said about an advanced android that reasons and responds just like a human being?

Don't misunderstand, I agree with you, and it's fine to express your beliefs. However, it's kind of silly to make a claim that can't be proven (although the same concept applies to Mauva's claim that souls don't exist; her definition was flawed anyways because not everyone that believes in the notion of souls believes only humans have them, like you pointed out.) It's no more reasonable than asserting X deity is real and Y is not.

And you're completely correct. My statement was more of an argument against Mauva's definition, which at it's base was borderline insulting. Again, I'm not all that religious, and I can't say or prove whether an actual "soul" exists or not (hence my "maybe" at the end). But I can prove that whatever emotions humans can have, animals can have as well.

And again, you're right about the android bit. It really won't be that long before the lines between "alive" and "a life" start to blur. If a machine is made that thinks and feels and shows self recognition and self preservation and compasion and emotion...is that machine just running it's programming or is it actually "alive". And if it's just it's programming, then how are we, who are also just running "programs" in out brains that different?

[Feba]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Science was the basis of the Holocaust

As you admitted, science was used as an EXCUSE. The "science" used by the nazis to justify eugenics was wrong in pretty much every way. Science works for atrocities when you twist and butcher it into something it is not; practically into a religion itself. Religion works for it without any of that. That some people practice religions peacefully does not make those religions peaceful. Just because you do not interpret your scripture as allowing atrocities does not mean they cannot be interpreted that way; and quite honestly it's just as insulting and wrong of you to say that people who aren't "peaceful" aren't following the right religion as it would be for you to say that people who don't follow a certain set of laws aren't following the right religion.

The nuclear bomb was one of Einstein's greatest regrets in life. Also, the two quotes I gave CAME from him.

I am not an idiot. That he regrets something does not mean he's incapable of seeing what it can do-- in fact, if he hadn't seen it, I doubt he'd have many regrets.

If there's nothing to wonder about tell me exactly how it came to be that the exact correct string of molecular agents and chromosomes and chains formed together to create that tree.

Tell me about exactly why a supernatural being would want to create that tree, create it there, and so on. Just because we don't yet keep track of every particle in the universe doesn't mean every little detail is wondrous. I might not know exactly how each different place I go to eat prepares their food, but it's not a mystery how it gets on my plate.

Again, what designed the rainbow?

Nothing designed it. Given the laws of the universe, it just happened that way. Not everything has importance, not everything has significance. This is probably one of the major reasons that religion persists; the idea of a personal god that cares about your life makes people feel much less unimportant. But once you get over the fact that your entire species is a tiny blip on the face of existence, and you're a tiny blip in the face of your species, it's nice. You have to create your life's meaning.

There is a MASSIVE difference between the philosophies of Jesus (the man, not the myth) and the creation of Christianity and the "philosophises" of L Ron Hubbard and the creastion of Scientology. One promoted love and peace amongst all mankind while the other promotes the theory that it's not your fault you're screwed up, it's something else's fault.

The only difference is that you like one, and hate the other. For every scientologist who thinks that his thetans are causing his problems, there are Christians who think they are inherently and irreversibly flawed because a woman ate some fruit thousands of years ago-- but that it's ok, because as long as they believe in Christ, they'll be rewarded in the next life.

For everyone who is 'torn down' by scientology, there are christians out telling people how awful they are because they love someone of the same sex, or because they had an abortion, and telling them the only way they can be good is to do as they say.

The core beliefs the major religions were founded on were done so based on positive emotions.

Bullshit. The major religions were largely founded to gain power and control. Now, whether you believe that sentence or not, you have no idea why these religions were founded, or what the important part of their original teachings were. EVERY religion has a history of war, ancient and modern. The 'core beliefs' are whatever the preacher wants to focus on.

was there maybe some sort of guiding influence to create such a beautiful thing at that exact moment of time to cause you to remember it so well.

Going back to this, this is absurd. Do you really think that there's a god that cares about my life so much that he decided to practically get me sick by raining with a fury and then clearing up later? I remember it because I was with friends, because it was an experience which rarely happens to me (both being out in the rain and at a ballgame). I appreciate it because I will probably never have a moment like that again; rainbow or no. Hiding from the rain under a blanket with friends was far more memorable than the rainbow. The friends were far more memorable than any phenomenon. Forgive me for having the audacity to enjoy my life for being my life, and not a string of predetermined events.

I think, for me anyway, the answer to Karinya's "who created the creator?" problem is umm well a bit trippy: the concept of "create" had to be written. As someone who was an atheist for all of my formative years, one question made me believe in a higher power: Why does existence exist? And unfortunately, all of science's answers leave me with more questions. An ever-elongating chain of self-reference -- that is, physics references physics as an explanation but nothing explains why physics cares to work in the first place.

And I don't understand why rocks care to propagate the species. As a clump of assorted elements, something's still elements. Why would that clump of elements "enjoy" chemical reactions with other elements enough to "want" to do it more efficiently? Isn't that effectively what would result in the creation of the first single-cell organism?

Well, one, the fact that science can't currently (or possibly even ever) answer that is no reason to turn to religion. At one point we didn't know about evolution-- that doesn't mean that a god had to have created us, it just means we didn't understand how we had reached that point. At one point we didn't understand gravity, but we didn't float off into space. At one point we didn't know there were things smaller than atoms, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

Part of living without religion is accepting that humanity doesn't know all things yet. Religion might be comforting, in that you feel like you have all the answers, but if you don't actually know any of it, what's the point? We are still an extremely young species. I mean, imagine how much more advanced we'll be in even 50 years, with the rate of computer processing advances. That there are many things we do not know is more than understandable.

Two, abiogenesis isn't like things mating together. If it works like experiments show that it might, it would just be a fairly random chemical reaction. It might not always work. It might take billions of 'attempts' in nature before we actually get a life form. The life form could fail. There's a lot we don't know-- and even if we find a process that can create sustainable life from non-organic materials, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the process that created us.

[Malacite]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Now you're blaming religion for what people do. That's like blaming guns for what people do.

And you're jumping to conclusions without even looking at history. A lot of atrocious acts have been caused by Religion. And it goes without saying that people make their own decisions; I just meant that for all the positive influences those two religions in particular have had far more negative impacts despite what they preach. Technically yes, you can't just blame the tenants of a religion as opposed to those who interpret them in a perverse way (radicals) or forcibly impose them upon others (The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition) but it doesn't change the fact that people have done terrible things in the name of their faiths.


Don't misunderstand me either, I'm not calling for the destruction of all religion the way Maher is >.>


I just agree with him on the notion that these groups shouldn't wield any kind of real power anymore (like the President of the USA for instance). Maybe it's just paranoia, but I find that faith has no place in politics and running a country. Largely because not everyone shares your faith and you should base your policies on sound judgment and the will/needs of the people not your own spiritual beliefs. To be fair though, it's not like there's never been good people of faith in charge. It's just that the bad ones have been.... yikes @_@;

[Lmnop]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Malacite, you're saying exactly what 'bbq was saying everyone does. Religion was an excuse.

There's also a history of Catholic Priests touching little boys, you know. Why not blame that on all of Christianity?

I wish I could respond to every single sentence of Feba's, but I have work to do. Let's see...

For everyone who is 'torn down' by scientology, there are christians out telling people how awful they are because they love someone of the same sex, or because they had an abortion, and telling them the only way they can be good is to do as they say.

Remember what I told you in another thread, recently? The voice of Christianity you hear is most assuredly not the way most of us work. For instance, I harbor no enmity towards atheists but there's a group of people I wouldn't mind seeing disappear: the street-corner Christians shouting about "Hell". The Christians who are out there telling everyone else how awful they are -- those are the ones who I refer to as not understanding their own religion.

I'd like to mention we have ethical laws in place for a reason, when it comes to science. Without them, science would probably have founded its own Holocaust anyway.

Feba makes mention of "Turning" to religion. I didn't turn to it as a solid answer to help me sleep at night. I don't find comfort in it. Honestly, life would be easier if the atheists would win and I could be sure that a peaceful, dreamless sleep is all that awaits when I die. But it was a conclusion. My conclusion.

At one point we didn't know about evolution-- that doesn't mean that a god had to have created us, it just means we didn't understand how we had reached that point. At one point we didn't understand gravity, but we didn't float off into space. At one point we didn't know there were things smaller than atoms, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this and how it ties into what I said. Gravity always existed, but that doesn't explain why it works. And when you figure out why it works, next you get to discern why it should work. What role it plays. And if it has no role, and that's just the way the universe is, why does the universe have a way to call its own? I could go on and on forever (indeed, I just deleted a paragraph rant of related 2-year-old-sounding questions).

Btw, if I haven't made it clear: I do believe in evolution. I have problems with the jump to the 1st single-cell though (and to some extent, from single-cell to uhh multi-cell).

[Karinya]

Re: Creative design and Evolution, what's the big deal?

Now you're blaming religion for what people do. That's like blaming guns for what people do. People are to blame for what people do, otherwise you just come off like that Jack Thompson crackpot.

I think it's more like "blaming" drugs for what people on drugs do. There's always going to be people around, but it'd be a lot nicer to live around ones that weren't always on drugs or dangerous religions. Sadly, while most drug users are only high some of the time, the effects of religion "use" are more or less constant. (But like drugs, some religions are worse than others. Taoism is the marijuana of religion - go knock yourself out, man.)

Both Christianity and Islam actually encourage peaceful attitudes

In some parts of their scriptures they do, in others they don't. (I think someone asked what massacres the Jews had committed: well, you could ask the Lebanese, but if you don't like that answer, look in the Old Testament. It records many massacres, some slave taking and I think even outright genocide that the Hebrews performed against other middle eastern tribes.)

and there are many that practice it in such a way. There are people who take to violence, but why hold that against the people who practice thier religion peacefully and truely follow the tenants of their faith?

Because at any time they could change their minds about which parts of their faith are "truer" and start another crusade, or crash airliners into a large building. Or just ban people from marrying who they want to marry based on which sex that person is - it's not as bad as being killed but that's no reason to put up with it.

Anyway, this thread started out being about evolution, which is a scientific fact proved by evidence - unless you think your religious beliefs are more important than evidence about the real world, which some religious people do. Their insistence on that idea causes a lot of problems for people around them.

Athiests like to regurgitate the same crap about religion being the source of all problems, yet the always gloss over the Nazis.

Probably because Hitler was an avowed Christian and his hatred of Jews (not to mention the ability to convince the rest of Germany to go along with it) stemmed from centuries-long Christian tradition of hatred of Jews dating back to some of the earliest known records of Christianity.

Hitler explicitly said that he was avenging Jesus.

Science was the basis of the Holocaust and the Jews were persecuted and murdered because it was a convienient scapegoat for thier hatred toward the Jews.

This is, to put it bluntly, a religious lie. Reality-based history shows that the Jews were hated by Christians for religious reasons, starting centuries before the Nazis (and also centuries before Darwin). Communists, gays and others were targeted just because they were convenient (or perceived as a political threat), but the reason lots of people were ready to hate gays has something to do with religion too, now doesn't it.

But the Nazis started out with killing off the retarded, crippled and mentally ill for having imperfect genes, or so they propagandized. Tell people something enough and eventually they start to believe it. This eventually started to encompass other races.

Actually, first they came for the Communists. There's even a poem about it. The incompatibility between Communism (the original form envisioned by Marx, not the Russian/Chinese alterations) and any form of fascism is pretty obvious.

Eventually, yes, they did get into a pseudoscientific reason for killing "defective" people (you left out gays, btw), which expanded into the Final Solution. But they were oppressing Jews even before the "purity of the race" stuff started - it was only later they had the idea of combining the two programs.

Did they have a scientific basis for killing the Jews? Hell no.

No, they had a religious basis for killing the Jews. The Jews were believed to be responsible for the death of Jesus (a view which is unfortunately not dead in modern Christianity; Paul Weyrich (cofounder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority), for example, said that "Christ was crucified by the Jews." I'm not a Jew, but if I were, I sure wouldn't like to be Paul Weyrich's neighbor, would you?)

It was no more scientific than knocking off they mentally ill, crippled or retarded. They didn't have the science to prove how this stuff could be prevented and it would have come to pass in future generations anyway.

What the Nazis did, they did in the name of Science, but it had NOTHING to do with real Science.

They did some of it in the name of science, but didn't really understand the science. I suppose you could say they didn't really understand the religion either, to use it as an excuse to hate, but unfortunately religion is vulnerable to that kind of misunderstanding being propagated because of its tradition of trusting things without demanding proof.

Same goes for religion in most other cases. Bible talks about turning the other cheek, says that killing is a sin. So why blame Christianity for what some crackpot with a gun does? Its just and inane and stupid as blaming the gun.

Blame the person and the people dumb enough to follow in his mindset, don't blame the actual majority who generally don't follow that nonsense.

People with religion are more narrow-minded and more violent (*on average*; there are exceptions), and the more strongly religious they are, the stronger both of those effects become. Personal responsibility is one thing but ignoring all causation related to human actions is just ridiculous. Should we stop trying to treat mental illness because "mental disorders don't kill people, people kill people"?

To return to the drugs analogy, there's a big difference between the guy who goes out and has a few beers with his buddies, and the drunk driver who runs over your little brother. Until suddenly the first guy *becomes* the second guy. Ignoring the role of alcohol in those events would be dumb (even though responsibly used alcohol is not so terrible).

Crackpots with guns are dangerous. Do you really not think it's reasonable to take the gun away, try to treat the crackpottiness, and give the gun back only when (if) you succeed? Some religious people pass the standard "danger to himself or others" test for insanity on the basis of their religious beliefs - by no means all, but is that really any reason to ignore the ones that do?