It's been brought to my attention (I must have been oblivious before this time) that many of the atheists on this forum consider religion to be a problem, that needs to be solved somehow. Well, that being the case, I was wondering how you would solve it? Suggestions would be nice. Thanks.

I'm not an atheist, but I've been listening to many of them and I have a few observations.

The only way to solve the problem of religion is to recognise that humanity is a myth.

There is no such thing as species, we are just genetic drift in the current of evolution.

As such there is no free will, morality is a myth (since evolution has no ethics, no rightness or wrongness) and we are deluding ourselves that our consciousness and selfhood makes us different from other animals.

In this spectrum, violence is the adaptive means by which man rids the environment of excess humans who compete for his resources, hence ensuring survival of the fittest (and more violent) genes.

Based on these observations both religion and humanism, which promote the human as a chosen or evolutionary pinnacle separate from other species are faith based adaptations with no real meaning.

One must let go of all concept of right or wrong, religion or humanity, and perceive oneself as nothing more than another accident of evolution, one which exerts its influence on the environment only to the extent that the environment permits, since drastic changes will result in hostile environments and eradication of the species with survival of perhaps the few who may have adaptations which enable them to persist (or not).

Just another drop in the ocean of evolution, subject to the vagaries of the environment and our ability to adapt to it, until finally we cannot.

People go bannana's with belief's, cult's etc. and make the possibility of a creator a joke...it's a shame really.

The problem with religion is that it would in some instances be the antithesis of what the creator would want, destroying his greatest creation, freedom etc.

If a person is able to keep thing's in perspective, Religion can be a positve influence. :)

I wouldn't. Oppressing religionists only seems to strengthen their resolve to continue in their delusion. The masses will need their comfort in the coming dark ages. I intend to bury the most enlightened texts of our time in a clay jar somewhere for preservation.

SamCDkey,
The concepts of humanity and species do relate to some aspects of reality, we just have to recognize the limits of these definitions. The opposite of religion is not evolution, although that does serve to explain how we came about from the very first simple life. Humanity can develop ethics to better serve society, we don't have to treat evolution like a religion. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most violent, but rather survival of the best survival strategy, which I think means ethical behavior. We must be good, not for fear of supernatural punishment, but for the value of goodness itself.

I'm not an atheist, but I've been listening to many of them and I have a few observations.

The only way to solve the problem of religion is to recognise that humanity is a myth.

There is no such thing as species, we are just genetic drift in the current of evolution.

As such there is no free will, morality is a myth (since evolution has no ethics, no rightness or wrongness) and we are deluding ourselves that our consciousness and selfhood makes us different from other animals.

In this spectrum, violence is the adaptive means by which man rids the environment of excess humans who compete for his resources, hence ensuring survival of the fittest (and more violent) genes.

Based on these observations both religion and humanism, which promote the human as a chosen or evolutionary pinnacle separate from other species are faith based adaptations with no real meaning.

One must let go of all concept of right or wrong, religion or humanity, and perceive oneself as nothing more than another accident of evolution, one which exerts its influence on the environment only to the extent that the environment permits, since drastic changes will result in hostile environments and eradication of the species with survival of perhaps the few who may have adaptations which enable them to persist (or not).

Just another drop in the ocean of evolution, subject to the vagaries of the environment and our ability to adapt to it, until finally we cannot.

I actually know someone who thinks like this, and they have one of the most interesting, charming outlooks on the little things in life that I have ever heard of.

It's been brought to my attention (I must have been oblivious before this time) that many of the atheists on this forum consider religion to be a problem, that needs to be solved somehow. Well, that being the case, I was wondering how you would solve it? Suggestions would be nice. Thanks.

The most crucial steps are to get it out of schools and politics. The problems come when religion is no longer a personal belief, but when it is forced on people against their will and to their own detriment.

'End Times' nutjobs who rejoice in conflict and the decline of the environment because it signals to return of Jesus. My heart goes out to all those who are suffering a progressive illness who have no quality of life and suffer tremendous pain and can not be allowed to die peacefully because of the religious right. Or those with similar illnesses in which work for possible cures are being blocked because an adult human being has less of a right than that of a clump of cells. Also, those who follow religious authority (or have it rammed down their throat) who catch aids because they are being dogmatically taught safe sex from a religious perspective. Also those caught up in the religious conflicts in the past and present... catholics vs protestants, christians vs muslims and.... everyone vs jews.

SamCDkey,
The concepts of humanity and species do relate to some aspects of reality, we just have to recognize the limits of these definitions. The opposite of religion is not evolution, although that does serve to explain how we came about from the very first simple life. Humanity can develop ethics to better serve society, we don't have to treat evolution like a religion. Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the most violent, but rather survival of the best survival strategy, which I think means ethical behavior. We must be good, not for fear of supernatural punishment, but for the value of goodness itself.

Good or bad itself is a spectrum, the definition of which is arbitrary and defined by the ONLY thing that human action is defined by i.e. human needs.

The need for resources to propagate or maintain the species and the competition within the species for the same, make all definitions of morality null and void.

Everything is justifiable in the name of war.

Morality is just a feeling, it has no real basis in society, not when the existence of a set of people is threatened.

What is the best survival strategy? The continued presence of war and crime throughout the history of man ( history itself having no intrinsic meaning, since evolution is not defined by history, but is random and a reaction to the immediate environment), denies any importance of goodness as a survival strategy, since it is the more powerful and the more pitiless who have survived wars, not the ones who were more tolerant or more "good".

So we are all animals, fighting for OUR space OUR resources.

Morality is a fairytale we use to convince ourselves of our superiority and separateness as conscious and conscientous beings, which in reality does not exist.

......how you would solve it?Ignore it.

Religion is rooted in the absence of knowledge. Science is increasingly filling that hole and leaving less for religion to grasp. I suspect we will eventually reach a cusp and religion will simply colapse. We need not do anything.

I actually know someone who thinks like this, and they have one of the most interesting, charming outlooks on the little things in life that I have ever heard of.

Thinking is a free indulgence. ;)

Good or bad itself is a spectrum, the definition of which is arbitrary and defined by the ONLY thing that human action is defined by i.e. human needs.

The need for resources to propagate or maintain the species and the competition within the species for the same, make all definitions of morality null and void.

Everything is justifiable in the name of war.

Morality is just a feeling, it has no real basis in society, not when the existence of a set of people is threatened.

What is the best survival strategy? The continued presence of war and crime throughout the history of man ( history itself having no intrinsic meaning, since evolution is not defined by history, but is random and a reaction to the immediate environment), denies any importance of goodness as a survival strategy, since it is the more powerful and the more pitiless who have survived wars, not the ones who were more tolerant or more "good".

So we are all animals, fighting for OUR space OUR resources.

Morality is a fairytale we use to convince ourselves of our superiority and separateness as conscious and conscientous beings, which in reality does not exist.
Evolution is indeed defined by history, or what went before. Evolution is not random, but feeds to some extent on chaos, nor is it purposeful. Species don't always compete with each other. Bees don't compete with flowers, and the antelope gains strength from the lion feeding on the weak. It is the good that avoid war in the first place, making meakness a strength. Pity and compassion also mitigate the dangers of war, since your enemy may think better of you, and chose peace (it worked for Ghandi). Morality is therefore a powerful tool in warfare. The Samurai era in Japan was rife with war, but was also a time of strict codes of behavior. Morality only has meaning in terms of society. War is a relatively recent invention, caused by man's unique success. There were periods of time on Earth, and places where warfare was unknown (or largely symbolic).

I agree we are not separate consciousnesses, all the more reason to act in a way that ensures the well-being of everyone, especially in an age where one person can end humanity with the push of a button. No supernatural being will come to our aid in the end, nor is an end pre-ordained. Existence is a blank sheet of paper, and we alone write the story of humanity.

Evolution is indeed defined by history, or what went before. Evolution is not random, but feeds to some extent on chaos, nor is it purposeful. Species don't always compete with each other. Bees don't compete with flowers, and the antelope gains strength from the lion feeding on the weak. It is the good that avoid war in the first place, making meakness a strength. Pity and compassion also mitigate the dangers of war, since your enemy may think better of you, and chose peace (it worked for Ghandi). Morality is therefore a powerful tool in warfare. The Samurai era in Japan was rife with war, but was also a time of strict codes of behavior. Morality only has meaning in terms of society. War is a relatively recent invention, caused by man's unique success. There were periods of time on Earth, and places where warfare was unknown (or largely symbolic).

I agree we are not separate consciousnesses, all the more reason to act in a way that ensures the well-being of everyone, especially in an age where one person can end humanity with the push of a button. No supernatural being will come to our aid in the end, nor is an end pre-ordained. Existence is a blank sheet of paper, and we alone write the story of humanity.


I don't believe evolution is defined by history.

Does the eradication of one civilisation by another indicate the weakness of the genes of the eradicated civilisation?

Species only do not compete with each other when their needs do not overlap the same resources. The disappearance of hundreds of species from the earth is clear evidence of competition between species. Why did so many large mammals become extinct following the spread of what one may define as "the human plague"? Human beings are the most destructive of all species, they compete with all species for resouces and indiscriminately destroy the environment to fulfil their immediate and personal needs with little or no regard for the state of the environment.

Morality exists in a society only to fulfil the needs of that society. It has no other inherent value. When the concept of goodness does not interfere with resource allocation and species propagation, it is acceptable and provides a validation of the superiority of humanity (since both religion and secular humanism embrace the concept that humans are "better" and "more advanced" than other species).

However, if morality interferes with survival, it is immediately discarded, proving that it is a myth propagated by both religion and secular humanism.

PS All the strict codes of conduct in war are external manifestations of this "morality". They do not stop people from killing each other at any point in the midst of war.

The only effective pest control against religion is genocide.

The only effective pest control against religion is genocide.
I second that motion.

Then it's settled. At midnight we all commit suicide. No one must be left alive; there is always the possibility that the accidental ingestion of LSD could inspire an intense and lasting delusion.

Ignore it.

Religion is rooted in the absence of knowledge. Science is increasingly filling that hole and leaving less for religion to grasp. I suspect we will eventually reach a cusp and religion will simply colapse. We need not do anything.

On the contrary the holes presented by advancements in science seem to be widening - the old aphorism "The more you know the more you don't know" being a suitable epitah for empiricism

I'm not an atheist, but I've been listening to many of them and I have a few observations.

The only way to solve the problem of religion is to recognise that humanity is a myth.

There is no such thing as species, we are just genetic drift in the current of evolution.

As such there is no free will, morality is a myth (since evolution has no ethics, no rightness or wrongness) and we are deluding ourselves that our consciousness and selfhood makes us different from other animals.

In this spectrum, violence is the adaptive means by which man rids the environment of excess humans who compete for his resources, hence ensuring survival of the fittest (and more violent) genes.

Based on these observations both religion and humanism, which promote the human as a chosen or evolutionary pinnacle separate from other species are faith based adaptations with no real meaning.

One must let go of all concept of right or wrong, religion or humanity, and perceive oneself as nothing more than another accident of evolution, one which exerts its influence on the environment only to the extent that the environment permits, since drastic changes will result in hostile environments and eradication of the species with survival of perhaps the few who may have adaptations which enable them to persist (or not).

Just another drop in the ocean of evolution, subject to the vagaries of the environment and our ability to adapt to it, until finally we cannot.


There is nothing wrong with good democratic civilization - it still have morals and considerations towards other people - even without the delusion of god/religion in the society .......

Evolution gave us brain and intelligence and even moral , so let us use it ...

Since civilization is marked by progress in arts and sciences - then I think science will evolve and give answers to questions , that originally were impossible to answer - and gave rise for explanations like something allmighty (god) created everything and the start of religions .....

No need to include delusion of religion/god into a good society .....

The solution to the problem of delusional religion is to inform people about its
problems, and then let them decide themselves, if they want to be delusional or to become free from the inhibitions of religion ....

There will allways be delusional people in the world, but as long as they are not allowed to impose their inhibitions of religion un the rest of us ..... then it is OK - after all religion can be entertaining and some people also need delusion to escape the reality of a hard life, or perhaps they just have the godgene .....

Definition of civilization : An advanced state of intellectual, cultural and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions .......

;)

Good or bad itself is a spectrum, the definition of which is arbitrary and defined by the ONLY thing that human action is defined by i.e. human needs.

The need for resources to propagate or maintain the species and the competition within the species for the same, make all definitions of morality null and void.

Everything is justifiable in the name of war.

Morality is just a feeling, it has no real basis in society, not when the existence of a set of people is threatened.

What is the best survival strategy? The continued presence of war and crime throughout the history of man ( history itself having no intrinsic meaning, since evolution is not defined by history, but is random and a reaction to the immediate environment), denies any importance of goodness as a survival strategy, since it is the more powerful and the more pitiless who have survived wars, not the ones who were more tolerant or more "good".

So we are all animals, fighting for OUR space OUR resources.

Morality is a fairytale we use to convince ourselves of our superiority and separateness as conscious and conscientous beings, which in reality does not exist.

The best survival strategy of intelligent mankind is to form civilizations -
taking care of each other in the society works two ways - and science allows us to solve our problems in a better way .......

Morality in a civilization is made by political laws and the need for beeing able to live together in harmony in the society .....

:cool:

The best survival strategy of intelligent mankind is to form civilizations -
taking care of each other in the society works two ways - and science allows us to solve our problems in a better way .......

Morality in a civilization is made by political laws and the need for beeing able to live together in harmony in the society .....

:cool:

You poor thing. Can't let go of the humanity delusion, huh?

"Intelligent mankind"? Just genetic drift.

It's ok. We all have our delusions. :p

There is nothing wrong with good democratic civilization - it still have morals and considerations towards other people - even without the delusion of god/religion in the society .......

Evolution gave us brain and intelligence and even moral , so let us use it ...

Since civilization is marked by progress in arts and sciences - then I think science will evolve and give answers to questions , that originally were impossible to answer - and gave rise for explanations like something allmighty (god) created everything and the start of religions .....

No need to include delusion of religion/god into a good society .....

The solution to the problem of delusional religion is to inform people about its
problems, and then let them decide themselves, if they want to be delusional or to become free from the inhibitions of religion ....

There will allways be delusional people in the world, but as long as they are not allowed to impose their inhibitions of religion un the rest of us ..... then it is OK - after all religion can be entertaining and some people also need delusion to escape the reality of a hard life, or perhaps they just have the godgene .....

Definition of civilization : An advanced state of intellectual, cultural and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions .......

;)


Again, evolution is not good or bad. It does not make better or worse.

Civilisation is a myth, it is merely adaptation to secure the persistence of genes.

You have deluded yourself into believing you are an advanced animal, really you are nothing more than the triumph of bacteria, a factory created by them so their genes would survive effectively.

Get over it.

- and science allows us to solve our problems in a better way .......
:cool:

Science and technology are one more tool in the hand of evolution.

Would the holocaust have been possible without the telegraph, the train. the gas ovens?

Would the World Wars have happened without military aircraft, without bombs and tanks?

Would the still ongoing wars be possible without technology?

How many people can modern man kill with his bare hands?

This is all nothing but an increase in species number creating a pressure on environmental resources. Evolution has found the answer. Man will combat the pressure of increased species numbers by culling the excess humans. Whether he uses religion or science, they are merely tools.

There is no free will, it is all grist to the mills of evolution.

It's ok. We all have our delusions. :p

I am glad, that you have realised, that you have a delusion .......

:p

Again, evolution is not good or bad. It does not make better or worse.


But evolution gave us a brain - also intelligence and we are able to make morals ...... incredible but true .......

:p

Civilisation is a myth, it is merely adaptation to secure the persistence of genes.




Actually , civilization do exist in real life - and yes, civilization do secure the persistence of genes ........

;)

You have deluded yourself into believing you are an advanced animal, really you are nothing more than the triumph of bacteria, a factory created by them so their genes would survive effectively.

Get over it.


Well , the intelligence of homo sapiens, combined with the fact that we have hands, with the capacity of opponens of the thumb - is actually rather advanced .........

And yes , I am nothing more than a triumph over primitive lifeforms in the endless evolution ......

;)

Science and technology are one more tool in the hand of evolution.


There is no free will, it is all grist to the mills of evolution.


Yes , you are right - wonderfull tools and a way to get deeper insight into everything , that surrounds us - and the human body .......

Luckily we have a FREE WILL to decide , what we want to use our tools for -
killing is only one example - we have also made your computer and internet with it , made medicine and complicated surgery - even build airplanes and launched rockets into space !!!!

;)

I am glad, that you have realised, that you have a delusion .......



We all persist in a delusion that we are special. We are nothing.

But evolution gave us a brain - also intelligence and we are able to make morals ...... incredible but true .......



Evolution "gives" nothing. All chance. Random mutations and selection pressure.

Well , the intelligence of homo sapiens, combined with the fact that we have hands, with the capacity of opponens of the thumb - is actually rather advanced .........


;)

Advanced? Do you claim then that evolution is directed and has aims ?

How irrational of you! Tis all but chance, naught more.

Actually , civilization do exist in real life - and yes, civilization do secure the persistence of genes ........

;)

Civilisation is a precept. Do animals know of civilisation?

It exists only in the mind of humans, an illusion created by history (artificial memories) and writing ( a crystallisation of the products of that most unreliable organ, the human mouth)

Yes , you are right - wonderfull tools and a way to get deeper insight into everything , that surrounds us - and the human body .......

Luckily we have a FREE WILL to decide , what we want to use our tools for -
killing is only one example - we have also made your computer and internet with it , made medicine and complicated surgery - even build airplanes and launched rockets into space !!!!

;)

More illusions; evolution gainsays the theory of free will.

Reason is subject to will which is subject to needs.

Needs are the driving force of reason and are dictated by environment.

What then, "free will"?

More illusions; evolution gainsays the theory of free will.

Reason is subject to will which is subject to needs.

Needs are the driving force of reason and are dictated by environment.

What then, "free will"?

The FREE WILL is not only subject to needs , but also to your emotions in your brain .....


Angry with someone .....shout at them ,hit them or kill them ...
Love somebody in your family or elsewhere - give them a hug, a kiss or a nice present ..........
Sad : isolate yourself or commit suicide ...
And so on .......

;)

We all persist in a delusion that we are special. We are nothing.

Evolution "gives" nothing. All chance. Random mutations and selection pressure.



Succesfull evolution gives you the edge in survival ........and can create surprising results - even you Sam !!!

The FREE WILL is not only subject to needs , but also to your emotions in your brain .....


Angry with someone .....shout at them ,hit them or kill them ...
Love somebody in your family or elsewhere - give them a hug, a kiss or a nice present ..........
Sad : isolate yourself or commit suicide ...
And so on .......

;)

All survival mechanisms, not so free

Advanced? Do you claim then that evolution is directed and has aims ?

How irrational of you! Tis all but chance, naught more.



One of the definitions of advanced is : farther along in physical or mental development - homo sapiens has come a long way in evolution, and we do have some advanced skills in our brain and hand .....

;)

Succesfull evolution gives you the edge in survival ........and can create surprising results - even you Sam !!!

Evolution just is, its neither a success nor a failure, there is no qualitative definition of evolution (except in the minds of those who persist in separarting humans from other associated life forms subject to the same evo pressures).

We humans discriminate between life forms ;)

More delusions of grandeur *sigh*

Civilisation is a precept. Do animals know of civilisation?

It exists only in the mind of humans, an illusion created by history (artificial memories) and writing ( a crystallisation of the products of that most unreliable organ, the human mouth)



Just because animals have not got the brains of homo sapiens - then the homo sapiens still got it - and yes , homo sapiens with our intelligence can create civilization .....

Evolution just is, its neither a success nor a failure, there is no qualitative definition of evolution (except in the minds of those who persist in separarting humans from other associated life forms subject to the same evo pressures).

We humans discriminate between life forms ;)

More delusions of grandeur *sigh*


There are definitely succesfull evolution and unsuccesfull evolution ....
The unsuccesfull evolution causes the lifeform to die out .....

:p

One of the definitions of advanced is : farther along in physical or mental development - homo sapiens has come a long way in evolution, and we do have some advanced skills in our brain and hand .....

;)

Definitions created by humans for humans.

Viewing the planet as an organism, humans are a plague, a destructive species, testing the limits of the environment.

Not so much advanced as out of control, spreading rapidly, consuming limited resources and destroying the sustainability of the environment that supports them.

In the last forty years the human population has doubled, creating enormous selection pressures. I forsee an environmental cataclysm in which the species will self-dectruct.

Will the world cease to exist? I think not.

No matter how hard they try humans cannot destroy life on earth, only themselves.

The myth that humans are required to define the world is an illusion propagated by religion and humanism alike.

Does not the world and its organisms exist beyond our beliefs?

What then is advanced, when our destiny is completely random and out of our control? What use skills?

A giant meteorite tomorrow would solve all the world's problems in one go.

There are definitely succesfull evolution and unsuccesfull evolution ....
The unsuccesfull evolution causes the lifeform to die out .....

:p

There is survival and adaptation.

Success is relative.

The dinosaurs were mighty once.

Just because animals have not got the brains of homo sapiens - then the homo sapiens still got it - and yes , homo sapiens with our intelligence can create civilization .....


What is civilisation and history?

All artificial memories, no basis in reality.

More illusions; evolution gainsays the theory of free will.

Reason is subject to will which is subject to needs.

Needs are the driving force of reason and are dictated by environment.

What then, "free will"?

No evolution only says how genes evolve - nothing about free will in the resulting lifeform of the evolution ......

And your logic is flawed because free will are not only subject to needs...
also the driving force of reason is not only needs ......

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

Definitions created by humans for humans.

Viewing the planet as an organism, humans are a plague, a destructive species, testing the limits of the environment.

Not so much advanced as out of control, spreading rapidly, consuming limited resources and destroying the sustainability of the environment that supports them.

In the last forty years the human population has doubled, creating enormous selection pressures. I forsee an environmental cataclysm in which the species will self-dectruct.

Will the world cease to exist? I think not.

No matter how hard they try humans cannot destroy life on earth, only themselves.

The myth that humans are required to define the world is an illusion propagated by religion and humanism alike.

Does not the world and its organisms exist beyond our beliefs?

What then is advanced, when our destiny is completely random and out of our control? What use skills?

A giant meteorite tomorrow would solve all the world's problems in one go.



You are actually right in most of that ....... :)

No evolution only says how genes evolve - nothing about free will in the resulting lifeform of the evolution ......


Hello? Anybody home?

There is survival and adaptation.

Success is relative.

The dinosaurs were mighty once.


Yep ....... :)

What is civilisation and history?

All artificial memories, no basis in reality.

Never the less , homo sapiens has created civilizations - we are still living in them !!
Well, written history is as true as the person , that writes it .... ;)

Hello? Anybody home?

Yes , I am right here - if you disagree , then please argue your case .... ;)

Yes , I am right here - if you disagree , then please argue your case .... ;)

If you cannot see the contradiction in your own statement, then you are beyond salvation.

Either we are subject to evolutionary pressures or we are not.

Decide. ;)

Sweet Sam , if you mean a religious salvation , then I am beyond salvation ...

We are subject to evolutionary pressures, but evolution only results in changes of genes and thereby survival of the fittest ......

Genes DOES NOT affect our actions and free will , and I can prove it :
Identical twins (who has the EXACT same genes) reacts differently in same situations , and are doing different things - get different jobs - and so on....

If your actions and your free will was only decided by genes , then that would not be the case !!!!!!!!!

;)

Sweet Sam , if you mean a religious salvation , then I am beyond salvation ...

We are subject to evolutionary pressures, but evolution only results in changes of genes and thereby survival of the fittest ......

Genes DOES NOT affect our actions and free will , and I can prove it :
Identical twins (who has the EXACT same genes) reacts differently in same situations , and are doing different things - get different jobs - and so on....

If your actions and your free will was only decided by genes , then that would not be the case !!!!!!!!!

;)

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

Hah,Hah - good try Sam !!
Please read about evolution - I just gave you the link before ....
Ever heard about Speciation ?? That can happen in one individual and create a new species .....

The definition of natural selection is the proces by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce ......

If one of the individuals are better suited - it will start new generations , that will have increased chances for survival .....

:p

Resistent bacterias start with one mutated surviver having the gene that makes it drug resistent - then it multiplies - and you have a drug resistant strain ........

Again you fall into the delusion of individual identity!

Evolution is not directed to the individual only the species!

Your argument is specious!!

you need to study evolution a little more. every evolutionary change has begun as a change in one individual within a species that enventually leads to a species-wide change, or an entire new species.

But we aren't bacteria. We reproduce sexually.

But we aren't bacteria. We reproduce sexually.

Good point Roman !!

However the new mutation of the gene only happens in one person - or egg or spermcell or fertilized egg or embryo !!!!!!!! ;)

After that it might be passed on .........
So it doesn´t matter that it takes two to tango .... :p

On the contrary the holes presented by advancements in science seem to be widening - the old aphorism "The more you know the more you don't know" being a suitable epitah for empiricism

you appear to misunderstand the nature of the aphorism. it is more aptly expressed by saying "the more you discover, the more you realize is yet left to discover". this does not indicate a failure on the part of the scientific method to act as an explainer, in fact, it seems to vindicate its role as explainer.
religious belief however, especially traditional religions, are increasingly at odds with observable reality on even a basic level. i do not believe that you can compare the eaxpansions and limitations of scientific methods to the inherent unreality of theology.

you need to study evolution a little more. every evolutionary change has begun as a change in one individual within a species that enventually leads to a species-wide change, or an entire new species.A single human, though, can NOT undergo a speciation event and create a new species. At most they would be considered sterile.

A speciation event is only such 'cos the new species can not sexually reproduce with another species.
If a single human underwent a speciation event from the rest of humanity - it would DIE OUT - as it could only produce offspring with someone of the same species!! And there wouldn't be any.

So a new species requires at least TWO people from the same species in order to survive and propagate.

Also, if you have a chain of mutations from A to B to C, and C can no longer reproduce with A and are thus different species - then surely B, who can reproduce with A AND C, must be a member of TWO species??? :eek:

Hah,Hah - good try Sam !!
Please read about evolution - I just gave you the link before ....
Ever heard about Speciation ?? That can happen in one individual and create a new species .....

The definition of natural selection is the proces by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce ......

If one of the individuals are better suited - it will start new generations , that will have increased chances for survival .....

:p

Resistent bacterias start with one mutated surviver having the gene that makes it drug resistent - then it multiplies - and you have a drug resistant strain ........

All precepts created by man. Evolution itself is not bound by species.

Will the destruction of man mean a failure of evolution?

Did the destruction of dinosaurs mean a failure of evolution?

Evolution is a process of selection pressure on all species, the advantages and disadvantages of the species themselves are based on random mutations which may be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another.

e.g. the Pima Indians who are adapted to survive in environments that provide low access to nutrition are now affected by severe obesity, since their genes are now disadvantageous.

So is this a favorable trait? Or not?

A single human, though, can NOT undergo a speciation event and create a new species. At most they would be considered sterile.

A speciation event is only such 'cos the new species can not sexually reproduce with another species.
If a single human underwent a speciation event from the rest of humanity - it would DIE OUT - as it could only produce offspring with someone of the same species!! And there wouldn't be any.

So a new species requires at least TWO people from the same species in order to survive and propagate.

Also, if you have a chain of mutations from A to B to C, and C can no longer reproduce with A and are thus different species - then surely B, who can reproduce with A AND C, must be a member of TWO species??? :eek:

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!! ;)

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents ( a recessive gene slowly spreads out into the genepoole and suddenly two persons , with the same recessive gene have offspring with the condition ) !!!!!!!!!

;)

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!! ;)

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents !!!!!!!!!

;)

Still random, still dependent on beneficial environment continuing and selection pressures and no changes in environment following spread of said gene.

A bloody miracle, in fact!

So to get back on topic :


how do atheists want to solve the problem of religion?

Still random, still dependent on beneficial environment continuing and selection pressures and no changes in environment following spread of said gene.

A bloody miracle, in fact!

The funny thing is, that it not only happens every day - IT HAPPENS MANY TIMES EVERY DAY !!!!!!!

So many children are borne that many genetic conditions are created every day - some succesfull - some less succesfull .....

Sam - I wonder if the "godgene" is dominant or recessive ;)

The funny thing is, that it not only happens every day - IT HAPPENS MANY TIMES EVERY DAY !!!!!!!

So many children are borne that many genetic conditions are created every day - some succesfull - some less succesfull .....

Sam - I wonder if the "godgene" is dominant or recessive ;)


Why only children? Still focused on humans?

Do you see dophins ruling the world someday?

Or rodents?

If not, why not?

And yes there are 100,000 insults to a cell every day, combated by repair mechanisms which either succeed or fail.

What direction do you see in this?

So to get back on topic :


how do atheists want to solve the problem of religion?


Lord Insane,

Would you like to answer this question?

All precepts created by man. Evolution itself is not bound by species.

Will the destruction of man mean a failure of evolution?

Did the destruction of dinosaurs mean a failure of evolution?

Evolution is a process of selection pressure on all species, the advantages and disadvantages of the species themselves are based on random mutations which may be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another.

e.g. the Pima Indians who are adapted to survive in environments that provide low access to nutrition are now affected by severe obesity, since their genes are now disadvantageous.

So is this a favorable trait? Or not?

Yes , all precepts created by man ....
No , evolution not bound by species ......
No , destruction of man will not be a failure of evolution - we are not above nature !!!
No , destruction of the dinosaurs were not a failure of evolution ....
there is no such thing as good or bad evolution ONLY succesfull or unsuccesfull evolution ;)
Yes , sometimes evolution is beneficial - if the environment changes , then suddenly your genes might have difficulties in succeding !!!!!

Pimas were great in old days - now after changing of environment - not quite so great ........

Please think of the sable tooth tiger - greatly adapted and a survivor untill things changed - now extinct ...... :(

Lord Insane,

Would you like to answer this question?

Sweetheart - I actually thought , that I had answered that question !!!!!

I will just look back into the posts of this thread !!!

Hi Sarkus !!!!

That depends on what kind of gene was involved !!!

If the gene was a dominant gene - then it only needs ONE gene to pass on the condition to the next generation !!!!!!!!!!! ;)

If the gene was recessive - then it needs the same gene from both parents - to pass on the new condition - that could still happen , but would take several generations for passing on the gene to both parents ( a recessive gene slowly spreads out into the genepoole and suddenly two persons , with the same recessive gene have offspring with the condition ) !!!!!!!!!

;)Not sure how this relates to what I said, though. :confused:

If a speciation event occurs between parent and child then the child is NO LONGER OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THEIR PARENT - BY DEFINITION - and can not sexually reproduce with the same species of the parent - BY DEFINITION.

If only one person has speciated away from humanity then they can no longer breed with humans - or else they would NOT be considered a different species and no speciation event would have occurred.

Religion itself is an aspect of evolution, it confers certain survival benefits such as solidarity with a family of like minded people larger than a family, village, city or country, promotion of charity (distribution of wealth), inhibition of sexual behavior that in the past led to disease, dietary customs that may have originated for health...and it backs it up with certain phantom fears. All of this can be accomplished without religion simply through understanding their worth to society.

I don't have that much of a problem with people having religious views, some of my best friends are deeply religious, almost excessively so. I support having a diversity of ideas in society, the more the better. My biggest problem with organized religion is that it promotes conformity. It subverts what I think is the product of evolution-a distinctly unique individual, a flower of novelty that never existed before. Evolution is somehow an engine for the preservation of novelty. In one sense, we are assemblies of cells, bacteria that learned a new way to preserve their genes, but they happened to stumble upon a synergy that created a creature much more than the sum of it's parts. Organized religion, and culture in general, is the opposite of this. It's intention is to inhibit the creation of unique individuals, to legislate the problems of society to such a degree that novelty is supressed, stability ensured. Humans are special, our cerebral cortex is the most densely ramified matter in the known universe, a universe that itself seems to grow from the simple toward the complex, simply by cooling. That's not to say that we aren't also animals. Evolution is not random, it is not chance, it has structure.

When I said that evolution is based on history, I don't mean just recorded human history. Evolution proceeds from what went before. It seems to build on complexity, occaisionally going through sudden leaps of radical change, which is what occurred with human beings, and their ability to preserve knowledge from generation to generation. We do destroy, but destruction is often the catalyst for growth and novelty, these are the birth pains.

I want to solve the problem of conformity to fixed cultures and religions by promoting freedom and diversity of thought, even if that includes theistic ideas. The more Gods, the better. I don't buy it personally, but I don't expect everyone to be like me. The dwindling of resources is making everyone desperate, and in their desperation, they cling to stable forms. The way forward is a leap into the unknown, into uncertainty.

Evolution gave us brain and intelligence and even moral , so let us use it ...

The solution to the problem of delusional religion is to inform people about its
problems, and then let them decide themselves, if they want to be delusional or to become free from the inhibitions of religion ....

There will allways be delusional people in the world, but as long as they are not allowed to impose their inhibitions of religion un the rest of us ..... then it is OK - after all religion can be entertaining and some people also need delusion to escape the reality of a hard life, or perhaps they just have the godgene .....



Sam - I found it !!!
Let us inform religious people about the problems of religion - AND THEN LET THEM DECIDE THEMSELVES .....

I do not want to make " spiritual abuse " of religious people - as one of the other threads mentioned ....

As long as religious people do not want to impose obsolete and delusional
inhibitions on the rest of us - then let religious people decide for themselves , what they want to do ..... perhaps they have a godgene or need a delusion
to escape your hard everyday reality ....... NO PROBLEM...

Secularism = freedom !!!!!!!!!

:p

Spidergoat:

By your definition, wouldn't secularism be anti-life?

It would promote assimilation of genetic traits and decrease diversity, making all humans equally susceptible to environmental pressures.

Aren't the racists and xenophobes more supportive of evolution?
By insisting on preserving their genetic uniqueness, do they not favor survival?

(loveaduck! what a contradiction!!)

edit: Lord Insane, what do you think of this post? ;)

Not sure how this relates to what I said, though. :confused:

If a speciation event occurs between parent and child then the child is NO LONGER OF THE SAME SPECIES AS THEIR PARENT - BY DEFINITION - and can not sexually reproduce with the same species of the parent - BY DEFINITION.

If only one person has speciated away from humanity then they can no longer breed with humans - or else they would NOT be considered a different species and no speciation event would have occurred.

Evolution sometimes goes slow Sarkus !!
A donkey and a horse can make a mule !!!!!!

I havent tried - and it is unethical - but I think I might consider betting half a months pay on , that it is actually possible to make an offspring of a Bonobo monkey and a human beeing .......

Almost 99 % identical DNA - with a little help that might just be possibel ...
Planet of the apes - HELLO !!!!!!!!!

;)

Evolution sometimes goes slow Sarkus !!
A donkey and a horse can make a mule !!!!!!

I havent tried - and it is probably unethical - but I think I might consider betting half a months pay on , that it is actually possible to make an offspring of a Bonobo monkey and a human beeing .......

Almost 99 % identical DNA - with a little help that might just be possibel ...
Planet of the apes - HELLO !!!!!!!!!

;)

Are these offspring fertile?

I was under the impression that mules are sterile?

http://www.kyhorsepark.com/imh/bw/mule.html

Mule: The hybrid animal produced when a male ass (Jack) is crossed with a female horse. The mule is a sterile hybrid, meaning it cannot reproduce.

Spidergoat:

By your definition, wouldn't secularism be anti-life?

It would promote assimilation of genetic traits and decrease diversity, making all humans equally susceptible to environmental pressures.

Aren't the racists and xenophobes more supportive of evolution?
By insisting on preserving their genetic uniqueness, do they not favor survival?

(loveaduck! what a contradiction!!)

edit: Lord Insane, what do you think of this post? ;)

I have to make some food and eat - see you later - it is 7.08 PM here in Denmark .... :)

Spidergoat:

By your definition, wouldn't secularism be anti-life?

It would promote assimilation of genetic traits and decrease diversity, making all humans equally susceptible to environmental pressures.
I don't see how.

Interbreeding creates more diversity, not less.

I don't see how.

Interbreeding creates more diversity, not less.

So separation by continents actually made humans less diverse in genetic traits?

Religion is a mind virus.

So separation by continents actually made humans less diverse in genetic traits?
Periods of separation can promote distinctive traits that can add to the diversity of other human groups later on.

Within the gene pool, diversity is a strength, even in a hypothetical situation where all races merge and look alike.

Periods of separation can promote distinctive traits that can add to the diversity of other human groups later on.

Within the gene pool, diversity is a strength, even in a hypothetical situation where all races merge and look alike.

So if periods of separation promote distinctive traits, do they increase the probability of favoring adaptation in one group over another?

And if diversity is a strength what happens after a long period of gene mixing in the whole pool?

This is interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with religion. I'm talking about diversity of ideas, and how religion or culture inhibits this.

Religion itself is an aspect of evolution, it confers certain survival benefits

Sorry Spidergoat , you got it a little bit wrong .............

Evolution = changing of genes - forget the rest !!!

;)

The divide between atheists and believers is spiritual. Christians are spititual - atheists aren't. Any atheist who says they otherwise are admitting to God, since God is in the spiritual realm.

Atheists will never be convinced until they can get past that hurdle.

Nonsense, ggazoo. Buddhists are atheists. I'm interested in the spiritual, as well. Theists don't have a monopoly on spirituality.

Lord Insane,
Strictly not, you are right. I was referring to the ability of humans to create culture, which evolved along with other traits, and also to the meme theory, which describes the evolution of things other than genes.

Are these offspring fertile?

I was under the impression that mules are sterile?

http://www.kyhorsepark.com/imh/bw/mule.html

Yep ,they are sterile :

Horse 64 chromosomes + donkey 62 chromosomes = mule 63 chromosomes
horse 64 chromosomes + zebra 44 chromosomes = zorse unknown number of chromosomes , but it does exist !!!!!!!!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1408717.stm

Human 46+XY chromosomes + bonobo 48 chromosomes = BUMAN ??????

Luckily , we know about the evolution of homo sapiens , so we know that evolution of the species we came from , was slow , but still we managed to evolve into new species untill our present homo sapiens !!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

By your definition, wouldn't secularism be anti-life?

It would promote assimilation of genetic traits and decrease diversity, making all humans equally susceptible to environmental pressures.

Aren't the racists and xenophobes more supportive of evolution?
By insisting on preserving their genetic uniqueness, do they not favor survival?
I like secular government, because within it, we have the freedom to believe what we wish, that includes racism and xenophobia.

I like secular government, because within it, we have the freedom to believe what we wish, that includes racism and xenophobia.

I like secular government too.

We have it in India even though atheism is less than 1%.

We have some racism and xenophobia as well, but mostly we're pretty tolerant with ideas.

Probably because there is no central organisation of any one religion.

I like secular government too.

We have it in India even though atheism is less than 1%.

We have some racism and xenophobia as well, but mostly we're pretty tolerant with ideas.

Probably because there is no central organisation of any one religion.
Would you have preferred to live in religious pakistan?

Would you have preferred to live in religious pakistan?

I have cousins there.

And its not religious, its despotic.

I'm religious.

I have cousins there.

And its not religious, its despotic.

I'm religious.
ok, so back to the question!
would you prefer to live in pakistan rather than india?

ok, so back to the question!
would you prefer to live in pakistan rather than india?

I prefer to live in India of course.

Its my country.

I prefer to live in India of course.

Its my country.
what's wrong with pakistan?

women not allowed to drive cars?

what's wrong with pakistan?

women not allowed to drive cars?

:eek: where do you live????? Cars???

You do remember that Pakistan has had a woman Prime Minister?

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/WOMEN/PAK-WOMEN/

And they have a cricket team too!

http://www.cricket.org/db/PICTURES/CMS/57200/57231.jpg

:eek: where do you live????? Cars???

You do remember that Pakistan has had a woman Prime Minister?

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/WOMEN/PAK-WOMEN/

And they have a cricket team too!

http://www.cricket.org/db/PICTURES/CMS/57200/57231.jpg
Is that you in the picture sam?

Is that you in the picture sam?


:D I'm no cricketer! Nor am I Pakistani!

There are Islamic militants (mainly Taliban hardliners) who make life difficult for women in Pakistan, but its not the same all over the country.

Check this out!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4297628.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4659332.stm

:D I'm no cricketer! Nor am I Pakistani!!

Thats their team colors!
Thats the colour of the indian cricket team!

pakistani's are green!

Thats the colour of the indian cricket team!

pakistani's are green!

Oops you're right!

Sorry fasting and low on caffeine! :p


Here is the Pakistan team!

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/53900/53950.jpg

PS can't see nuttin but India ;)

Oops you're right!

Sorry fasting and low on caffeine! :p


Here is the Pakistan team!

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/53900/53950.jpg
don't pakistani women have little rights compared to secular india?

don't pakistani women have little rights compared to secular india?

Yes and its all because of Zia-ul-Haq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia-ul-Haq's_Islamization

But I'm very glad that people are sitting up and taking notice.

About time raised to the nth degree.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/bbaede32-3722-4bb2-b884-91869daa6224.html

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22323&sec=36&con=26

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3379

http://www.cii.gov.pk/infoservice/interWS.asp

http://www.geo.tv/zs/capitaltalktranscript_english.asp

http://www.dawn.com/2006/07/27/local2.htm

The knowledge of evolution is one aspect of the problem with religion. Religious people are less likely to be aware of emerging science, or to simply discount it entirely due to their ideology, and therefore tend to make bad decisions about the course of society.

Good point Roman !!

However the new mutation of the gene only happens in one person - or egg or spermcell or fertilized egg or embryo !!!!!!!! ;)

After that it might be passed on .........
So it doesn´t matter that it takes two to tango .... :p
It does. Mutation isn't the only way to create new genetic material; sexual reproduction allows crossover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) (half a chromosome from each parent means entirely new genes can be formed at the connecting point). Experiments with genetic algorithms have in fact shown crossover to be more of a driving force for evolution than mutation.

That's thought to be the reason why all organisms but the simplest reproduce sexually. More complex organisms are prone to parasites and diseases; sexual reproduction allows defences against these to evolve quickly.

Anyway, that's one theory I read a while back ;)

The knowledge of evolution is one aspect of the problem with religion. Religious people are less likely to be aware of emerging science, or to simply discount it entirely due to their ideology, and therefore tend to make bad decisions about the course of society.
That there is a very crucial point! There are areas such as genetics and human biology where it has rasied ethical issues often clashing with the progression of ground breaking research!

Yes and its all because of Zia-ul-Haq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia-ul-Haq's_Islamization

But I'm very glad that people are sitting up and taking notice.

About time raised to the nth degree.


http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/bbaede32-3722-4bb2-b884-91869daa6224.html

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22323&sec=36&con=26

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3379

http://www.cii.gov.pk/infoservice/interWS.asp

http://www.geo.tv/zs/capitaltalktranscript_english.asp

http://www.dawn.com/2006/07/27/local2.htm
I think it's all because of sharia law.

OK, forget everything I said, I have seen the light. Jesus has returned and I have seen Him...

http://xs107.xs.to/xs107/06394/capture_68.jpg (http://xs.to)

...on this dog's butt.

The knowledge of evolution is one aspect of the problem with religion. Religious people are less likely to be aware of emerging science, or to simply discount it entirely due to their ideology, and therefore tend to make bad decisions about the course of society.

Thats rather a broad generalisation and probably truer for Christians in America rather than all religious people worldwide.

I think it's all because of sharia law.

You mean the interpretation of it.

Yes, I agree.

You mean the interpretation of it.

Yes, I agree.
so what's wrong with sharia law, sam?

too much for you to cope with ?..you said you are religious ..correct???

so what's wrong with sharia law, sam?

too much for you to cope with ?..you said you are religious ..correct???

What? Don't you know me by now? ;)

What is the problem with Sharia?

That they stopped ijtihad on it many years ago and have not moved forward.

ijtihad=consensus and review from Islamic scholars

Here is the take from an Islamic scholar.

http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss97.htm

BTW, this point is elaborately discussed in one of the links I posted earlier.

If you are not even glancing over them, don't make me waste my time.

What? Don't you know me by now? ;)

What is the problem with Sharia?

That they stopped ijtihad on it many years ago and have not moved forward.

ijtihad=consensus and review from Islamic scholars

Here is the take from an Islamic scholar.

http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss97.htm

BTW, this point is elaborately discussed in one of the links I posted earlier.

If you are not even glancing over them, don't make me waste my time.

there you go evading the question again!
Could you pleeeeeease answer the question? :D

there you go evading the question again!
Could you pleeeeeease answer the question? :D

Did you miss this? :confused:


What is the problem with Sharia?

That they stopped ijtihad on it many years ago and have not moved forward.

Did you miss this? :confused:
you are rather blunt in your explantions when it comes to a religious fact,..aren't you sammy!

you are rather blunt in your explantions when it comes to a religious fact,..aren't you sammy!

What do you think Sharia is?

What do you think Sharia is?
according to you it's an interpretation problem just like your religon as a whole!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1158996#post1158996

Lets move this discussion to a more relevant thread

so whats gonna become of sharia law in the future?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1159004#post1159004

My solution to religion is to realize the essence of it.

Not that it's fake, I think it starts well enough, with sincerity. In the beginning, religion starts as a spiritual awakening. What people do with that depends on their culture. Living according to the rules dictated by someone who really experienced this awakening is called religion. When we realize the essense of religion, we return to it's source. Pure spirituality has little to do with organized religion. That's the kind of atheist I am. It's no longer possible to believe in God, because any belief cannot approach the experience. We can't believe in God, only an idea of it. The famous religious figures, like Mohammed and Moses were just people, they were sincere in trying to communicate their experiences, but I think they fell short. They were flawed due to the culture, and the idea that their experience could be communicated.

I think this is what Jesus taught, the Buddha, Lao Tse, and many others, most recently U.G. Krishnamurti. If I were to follow the traditional path, I would concentrate on the words of these people, worship them, build churches and statues to honor them, create institutions, ect... But I think the full realization of their words is something different than religion.

The full realization of religion is atheism. It's more than atheism, it is the experience of seeing reality as it is, without cultural or religious preconceptions.

The full realization of religion is atheism.I lay claims on the seat nearest the impending fire!! :D

spidergoat

It's no longer possible to believe in God, because any belief cannot approach the experience. We can't believe in God, only an idea of it. The famous religious figures, like Mohammed and Moses were just people, they were sincere in trying to communicate their experiences, but I think they fell short. They were flawed due to the culture, and the idea that their experience could be communicated.

It begs the question "What processes did you apply to come to this conclusion?" - in other words the stalwart reformers of different branches of theism that you are jumping over seemed to be possessed of different undrestandings as towhether or not god can be understood, and they are credited with having actually understood and perceived something of the nature of the god .....


The full realization of religion is atheism. It's more than atheism, it is the experience of seeing reality as it is, without cultural or religious preconceptions.
Its not clear how atheism fulfills this purpose, since it tends to cultivate a mood of animosity to the very concept of a supreme inteligence behind the cosmic manifestation

Right, hanging on to such concepts as symbols are the antithesis of real spirituality. "supreme intelligence behind cosmic manifestation" means nothing. The truth that can be told is not the eternal truth (Lao Tze). Intelligence has meaning only within the context of human thought.

Right, hanging on to such concepts as symbols are the antithesis of real spirituality. "supreme intelligence behind cosmic manifestation" means nothing. The truth that can be told is not the eternal truth (Lao Tze). Intelligence has meaning only within the context of human thought.

First you have to establish that what you are holding as a symbol of spirituality is merely a symbol and not a convenient means to justify your atheistic philosophy.

Since Taoism deals exclusively with the material creation (as opposed to the transcendental nature of existence) its statements don't necessarily violate what is established by monotheism

Taoism makes no disitinction between the material and transcendental, and my intention is not to promote Taoism.

I don't hold any symbols of spirituality, that is my point. True wonder and awe about existence is incompatable with such symbolic worship.

I don't hold any symbols of spirituality, that is my point. True wonder and awe about existence is incompatable with such symbolic worship.
What you're talking about is great and all, but there is a reason why symbolism is the essence of religion. Symbols last longer than conscious knowledge of spiritual experiences, in a cultural context, of course.

He hasn't even established that religion ultimately operates out of symbols - in other words there are no premises for determing that the awe and reverence generally generated in theism is an artificial catergory based on something that is not intrinsically reverential

He hasn't even established that religion ultimately operates out of symbols - in other words there are no premises for determing that the awe and reverence generally generated in theism is an artificial catergory based on something that is not intrinsically reverential

'Awe and reverence' isn't generated by theism. Awe and reverence is generated by humans and this will lead them to become scientifically or religiously inclined. I doubt you have read Dawkins' new book, in fact I'm sure you would be happy to completely dismiss it right now. But he gave an example of himself and a chaplin in his school. The chaplin described the emotion he felt as a child in which he suddenly became lucidly aware of his surroundings and he interpreted this as a religious experience. Dawkins then said that this story the chaplin told, reminded him as a child when he had the same emotion. He then asks why this emotion lead them both in different directions, one to science and one to religion.

This was the opening of his book in the chapter 'a deeply religious non-believer'.

The major problem with religion is it takes faith=truth.
I can see why the feel that the illusion of a grant deity gives people false comfort when dealing with the unknown. When you take a exalted deity and make it the absolute truth, it goes against scientific method, rational thought, and empirical evidence. Religion use faith in a imaginary deity as evidence of reality.
Most religious people are predisposed to think faith in religion as truth since birth. We have a natural tendency, due to evolution and survival, to believe our parents without question the first years of our lives.
If you take religion vs science in finding truth, improving human society and advancement of technology; science wins every time. Religion has not advance us. Science has. Science uses empirical evidence. Religion uses faith. This is the core differences in the philosophies. Religion at its core is not self correcting. Science is. Science has extrapolated theories that even challenge the scientific method.
Every time religion has been brought up as the prime authoritative standard for government and society we see a depression in human rights & human culture.
“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusions, however satisfying and reassuring,” - Carl Sagan.

'Awe and reverence' isn't generated by theism. Awe and reverence is generated by humans and this will lead them to become scientifically or religiously inclined. I doubt you have read Dawkins' new book, in fact I'm sure you would be happy to completely dismiss it right now. But he gave an example of himself and a chaplin in his school. The chaplin described the emotion he felt as a child in which he suddenly became lucidly aware of his surroundings and he interpreted this as a religious experience. Dawkins then said that this story the chaplin told, reminded him as a child when he had the same emotion. He then asks why this emotion lead them both in different directions, one to science and one to religion.

This was the opening of his book in the chapter 'a deeply religious non-believer'.

Actually my point was that the awe and reverence alluded to in theism is not deemed false simply if one can dtermine awe and reverence to things that appear outside of theism - theism doesn't have the monopoly on awe and reverence - I would suggest however that it is the proper application of awe and reverence

CRasch

The major problem with religion is it takes faith=truth.
I can see why the feel that the illusion of a grant deity gives people false comfort when dealing with the unknown. When you take a exalted deity and make it the absolute truth, it goes against scientific method, rational thought, and empirical evidence. Religion use faith in a imaginary deity as evidence of reality.

Actually the same phenomena goes down in science when they say things happen by chance
BUt that aside, the fact that faith can be correctly and incorrectly applied (that is one can have faith in something that is real as well as false, in schools of both science and religion) says nothing about the nature of whether a particular faith in a praticular circumstance is false - its a very difficult argument to present that because person A did mathmatical problem B incorrectly they will do all mathmatical problems incorrectly, particularly if you don't establish the nature of their incorrect applications in light of actual evidence - in other words to get away with your original opening statement you would have to establish exactly what it is that religious practioners are perceiving when they apparently designate something as god - just because they may feel good about it doesn't indicate anything, since if god exists it follows logically that one would also feel satisfied in such knowledge anyway


Most religious people are predisposed to think faith in religion as truth since birth.
Actually most people who are born into such settings (I for one was not) reach a critical period when they enter adult hood which determines the level of theistic performance they operate on - this innvolves chllenging many established values etc - hardly what you are alluding too - at the very least the perfect formula for parents to generate a similar level of religious intention in the lives of their children is a bit ambiguous - i think you give such theistic minded parents more credit than what they are actually capable of

We have a natural tendency, due to evolution and survival, to believe our parents without question the first years of our lives.
You should understand that the moment you tag some philosophical tangent on evolution you are making steps of the same proportion of the faithful - at the very least there is no microbiological evidence for what you are advocating


If you take religion vs science in finding truth, improving human society and advancement of technology; science wins every time. Religion has not advance us. Science has.
lol - I guess you would have to qualify yourself by defining advancement


Science uses empirical evidence. Religion uses faith. This is the core differences in the philosophies.
How would it be possible to even do the most rudimentary of scientific proceedures unless you had faith that there was order in the universe?

Religion at its core is not self correcting. Science is.

Self correcting is a proceedure of instituition - you can find evidence of "Boy's clubbing"in peer reviewing - similarly in religious practice you can find applications of constant re-examination - all this is neither intrinsically dependant on "science"or "religion"- it depends on the sincereity of the practioner, something that position in an institutiion tends to corrupt, which is why institutiions need to be internally very self aware


Science has extrapolated theories that even challenge the scientific method.

Not sure what you are alluding to here


Every time religion has been brought up as the prime authoritative standard for government and society we see a depression in human rights & human culture.

Every time? Or do you mean sometimes? And even then it gets back to the topic of sincerity vs institutional prestige etc - in other words it is not apparent how science could leave civilisation out of the predictable pitfalls of existence since we tend to navigate courses in to such destinations by the vehicles of greed, lust, anger, etc

“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusions, however satisfying and reassuring,” - Carl Sagan.

So then it raises the question what premises does one use to determine what is illusion and what is real - other wise trying to instigate some "social "revolution for the betterment of society will just be like leaving one dark chamber to enter another

He hasn't even established that religion ultimately operates out of symbols -
Religion quite obviously operates through symbolism. Unless, of course, you read scriptures and take mythological stories in a literal sense. Few theists seem to do this.
in other words there are no premises for determing that the awe and reverence generally generated in theism is an artificial catergory based on something that is not intrinsically reverential
Why does symbolic meaning imply artificiality?

Actually the same phenomena goes down in science when they say things happen by chanceChance in science is really probility in science. The chance of this may happen or that may happen is really what science is about. We try to find the most likely out come.
BUt that aside, the fact that faith can be correctly and incorrectly applied (that is one can have faith in something that is real as well as false, in schools of both science and religion) says nothing about the nature of whether a particular faith in a praticular circumstance is false - its a very difficult argument to present that because person A did mathmatical problem B incorrectly they will do all mathmatical problems incorrectly, particularly if you don't establish the nature of their incorrect applications in light of actual evidence - in other words to get away with your original opening statement you would have to establish exactly what it is that religious practioners are perceiving when they apparently designate something as god - just because they may feel good about it doesn't indicate anything, since if god exists it follows logically that one would also feel satisfied in such knowledge anywayWhen dealing with blind faith (which is the root of most religions) you get information that is not self correcting. You don't search for what cause the phenomena, you accept that a deity did it. There is no search for truth when you believe that this deity is your end result when searching for truth.
Actually most people who are born into such settings (I for one was not) reach a critical period when they enter adult hood which determines the level of theistic performance they operate on - this innvolves chllenging many established values etc - hardly what you are alluding too - at the very least the perfect formula for parents to generate a similar level of religious intention in the lives of their children is a bit ambiguous - i think you give such theistic minded parents more credit than what they are actually capable of
Funny, statistically speaking, most children at adulthood take on the religion of their parents.
You should understand that the moment you tag some philosophical tangent on evolution you are making steps of the same proportion of the faithful - at the very least there is no microbiological evidence for what you are advocating
Funny, I thought that the statical studies between the bond of parents and children for many social animals have shown a correlation to following, teaching, and believing what their parents tell them.
You think all animals teach their young on how to survive. But we see it more evolved species. You think this has no effect on our predisposition.
lol - I guess you would have to qualify yourself by defining advancementLet's take humanity as a whole.
How would it be possible to even do the most rudimentary of scientific proceedures unless you had faith that there was order in the universe?If you took the scientific method at its core, we didn't know at the beginning. We don't deem to know the rules of the universe. We come up with theories that best fit the evidence that is presented and tested.
Self correcting is a proceedure of instituition - you can find evidence of "Boy's clubbing"in peer reviewing - similarly in religious practice you can find applications of constant re-examination - all this is neither intrinsically dependant on "science"or "religion"- it depends on the sincereity of the practioner, something that position in an institutiion tends to corrupt, which is why institutiions need to be internally very self awareThis is why in science we share our information openly. It is a self correcting element. We don't expect just one person to test the theories. We have one person who have a theory that shows promise, then it gets tested by our peers, even when the evidence has shown another result. Religion take faith to be truth. No testing, no review, no sharing of evidence but to blindly belive. If you don't have faith, you need to try harder. This is not the advancement to find truth?
Not sure what you are alluding to here
That science even challanges its core fundementals. Unlike religion.
Every time? Or do you mean sometimes? And even then it gets back to the topic of sincerity vs institutional prestige etc - in other words it is not apparent how science could leave civilisation out of the predictable pitfalls of existence since we tend to navigate courses in to such destinations by the vehicles of greed, lust, anger, etc When those pitfalls deal with blind faith it has shown in history to cause great atrocities in human society. Especially when religius writing advocate hate and discrimination.
So then it raises the question what premises does one use to determine what is illusion and what is real - other wise trying to instigate some "social "revolution for the betterment of society will just be like leaving one dark chamber to enter anotherHow about empirical evidence. Nothing about observed reality "fits together" unless its by means of science. If you depart from the empirical method, you must choose from an infinite number of metaphysical explanations with no basis to make the choice...except faith.

CRasch

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually the same phenomena goes down in science when they say things happen by chance ”

Chance in science is really probility in science. The chance of this may happen or that may happen is really what science is about. We try to find the most likely out come.

so

The major problem with science is it takes faith=truth.
I can see why the feel that the illusion of probability gives people false comfort when dealing with the unknown. When you take a probability and make it the absolute truth, it goes against scientific rational thought. Science uses faith as an imaginary deity as evidence of reality.


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
BUt that aside, the fact that faith can be correctly and incorrectly applied (that is one can have faith in something that is real as well as false, in schools of both science and religion) says nothing about the nature of whether a particular faith in a praticular circumstance is false - its a very difficult argument to present that because person A did mathmatical problem B incorrectly they will do all mathmatical problems incorrectly, particularly if you don't establish the nature of their incorrect applications in light of actual evidence - in other words to get away with your original opening statement you would have to establish exactly what it is that religious practioners are perceiving when they apparently designate something as god - just because they may feel good about it doesn't indicate anything, since if god exists it follows logically that one would also feel satisfied in such knowledge anyway ”

When dealing with blind faith (which is the root of most religions) you get information that is not self correcting.
Therefore you see that blind faith is not advocated as the perfectional platform of existence in religion

You don't search for what cause the phenomena, you accept that a deity did it. There is no search for truth when you believe that this deity is your end result when searching for truth.

The perfectional platform is illustrated as the destination after extensive searching

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually most people who are born into such settings (I for one was not) reach a critical period when they enter adult hood which determines the level of theistic performance they operate on - this innvolves chllenging many established values etc - hardly what you are alluding too - at the very least the perfect formula for parents to generate a similar level of religious intention in the lives of their children is a bit ambiguous - i think you give such theistic minded parents more credit than what they are actually capable of ”

Funny, statistically speaking, most children at adulthood take on the religion of their parents.

Now you have to establish in what ways the parent actually contributed to that, which requires more than just cursory examination s of statistics

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You should understand that the moment you tag some philosophical tangent on evolution you are making steps of the same proportion of the faithful - at the very least there is no microbiological evidence for what you are advocating ”

Funny, I thought that the statical studies between the bond of parents and children for many social animals have shown a correlation to following, teaching, and believing what their parents tell them.
This however says absolutely nothing about evolution, which is determined through reductionist theories of microbiology


You think all animals teach their young on how to survive. But we see it more evolved species. You think this has no effect on our predisposition.
How living entities learn things is a complete mystery to the reductionist model of the evolutionists - such things are dealt with in the philosophical aspect of behavioural science however -

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
lol - I guess you would have to qualify yourself by defining advancement ”

Let's take humanity as a whole.
a whole lot of what? In other words what is advancement? Gross capital output? Ipods? Suicide rates? Divorce?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How would it be possible to even do the most rudimentary of scientific proceedures unless you had faith that there was order in the universe? ”

If you took the scientific method at its core, we didn't know at the beginning. We don't deem to know the rules of the universe. We come up with theories that best fit the evidence that is presented and tested.

If you didn't have faith that the universe had order you couldn't even come to the conclusion that striking flint causes sparks because there would be no good reason to think that what happens in one instance will happen in another - in other words the very fact that we look for patterns of order in scientific observation indicates a platform of faith

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Self correcting is a proceedure of instituition - you can find evidence of "Boy's clubbing"in peer reviewing - similarly in religious practice you can find applications of constant re-examination - all this is neither intrinsically dependant on "science"or "religion"- it depends on the sincereity of the practioner, something that position in an institutiion tends to corrupt, which is why institutiions need to be internally very self aware ”

This is why in science we share our information openly.
On the contrary information is shared when there is the ability to make money, which falls back on issues of human nature etc (lust greed etc)

It is a self correcting element. We don't expect just one person to test the theories. We have one person who have a theory that shows promise, then it gets tested by our peers, even when the evidence has shown another result.
Problem is that peer testing can be influenced by lust greed etc


Religion take faith to be truth. No testing, no review, no sharing of evidence but to blindly belive. If you don't have faith, you need to try harder. This is not the advancement to find truth?
Its very difficult to advocate any type of knowledge without faith coming in to play some part along the way - and it is very difficult to advocate any knowledge as perfectional if it doesn't innvolve analysis - if you think religion doesn't innvolve analysis you don't have a proper understanding of religion

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Not sure what you are alluding to here ”

That science even challanges its core fundementals. Unlike religion.
You mean to say that science is always open to reform and religion isn't?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Every time? Or do you mean sometimes? And even then it gets back to the topic of sincerity vs institutional prestige etc - in other words it is not apparent how science could leave civilisation out of the predictable pitfalls of existence since we tend to navigate courses in to such destinations by the vehicles of greed, lust, anger, etc ”

When those pitfalls deal with blind faith it has shown in history to cause great atrocities in human society. Especially when religius writing advocate hate and discrimination.
Maybe thats why religious principels properly applied leads outside of such blind hate, which becomes even more dangerous when you have a few weapons of mass destruction wired up to your false ego

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So then it raises the question what premises does one use to determine what is illusion and what is real - other wise trying to instigate some "social "revolution for the betterment of society will just be like leaving one dark chamber to enter another ”

How about empirical evidence. Nothing about observed reality "fits together" unless its by means of science.


If you depart from the empirical method, you must choose from an infinite number of metaphysical explanations with no basis to make the choice...except faith.

Then what do you do with obviously existent metaphysical things - like for instance there is no empirical evidence for the existence of people's minds - in other words empricism (what we can directly perceive by our limited senses) certainly doesn't help us when it comes to an analysis of what we are seeing with

Religion quite obviously operates through symbolism. Unless, of course, you read scriptures and take mythological stories in a literal sense. Few theists seem to do this.

Why does symbolic meaning imply artificiality?

Symbol means that something that is said to be X is actually Y - gets kind of dangerous when you mix mental speculation with religious doctrine (ie when you hazard a guess what constitutes a symbol and what constitutes reality) since one tends to work out of one's preconceived notion of the universe (when scripture deals specifically with subjects that are beyond our senses) - in other words if you are working with a scripture that has obviously been doctored (which tends to be the case with christianity) then you have troubles along the lines you are suggesting - but all religious bodies of work do not have the same issues (like the bhagavad gita for eg)