Raider5678

"A large number of evil acts have been committed by atheist extremists. Lots of evil hints have been done by none religious people. "

yes, but it wasn't done because they were atheist was it? That's the difference.religion tells people to be evil. Atheism doesn't.

 

"Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible."

 

Where the heck did you pull that number out?

Or did someone just make it up because otherwise the whole Bible looks a bit silly.

 

"Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW. "

No strong evolutionary pressure to change and not nearly long enough.

This is an obvious answer BTW.

 

Your "actual question" didn't raise any issue with evolution: it showed that you don't understand it.

That was my point. Atheism doesn't encourage murder, but tell me where the bible encourages mass murder as memammal seems to think.

 

So somebody makes up a random number, applies it to the bible, and for that reason it isn't true. Hopefully, you don't see any logic in that memammal. I'm sure you do though.

 

And I know zip about evolution. Never studied it.. I have the jist of it and that's it, so it was a ligitament question. Thanks for the answer.

You don't have to be a religious bigot to help starving people...and yes, I have a problem with missionary work as 9/10 times it boils down to an attempt to convert vulnerable people into a preferred religion.

 

 

No, I was not stereotyping all religious people as being religious bigots. Read my post again. At the same time, to say that the Christian religion is not guilty of similar acts is a lie. Over the years many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity, even under the roof of the church...extremist Christian sects have been performing acts of mass murder...the USA and its allies under the leadership of GW Bush, a Christian bigot, have invaded Iraq under false pretences...just to name a few examples.

 

 

Oh gosh. You really need to read more. Biblical Adam & Eve walked this earth around 6,000 years ago. At that time humanity was spread over the entire world already, each group with its own (albeit primitive) languages, cultures and superstitions. The Neolithic revolution has taken place approx. 6,000 years prior to Biblical Adam & Eve, in fact the wheel might have already been used when Adam & Eve arrived on the scene. Genetically our species can be traced back to around 200,000 ago, a dating which is also supported by the oldest remains of homo sapiens. The Genesis creation story is a very far cry from evolutionary biology. So no, it simply does not add up.

 

 

Whether circumcision is healthy or not has nothing to do with the argument. One is not necessarily healthier than the other. In fact some primitive circumcision procedures are downright dangerous. Many young people die in developing countries as a result of traditional circumcision practices. The problem lies with the fact that it is an important religious tradition and as such expected to be performed on (unwilling) babies.

 

 

Most Christians seem to feel that why. I am often astounded by how they consider themselves to be better people than all the rest. But then I suppose most religions feel that way about themselves.

A large number of evil acts have been committed by atheist extremists. Lots of evil hints have been done by none religious people. What I'm saying is that our religion doesn't tell us to murder everyone, or torture them in the name of our god. In the name of atheism lots of evil has been done too.

 

6000 years... Where the heck did you pull that number out. Please note that in the bible, when listing names,father son ect, they often skip quite a few generations depending on the long line of ancestors, and the ones named were usually the "memorable" ones. This changed through out the bible.

 

People die for many reasons. Some government laws people die over for no reason in other countries. Just because people die from something doesn't make it evil.

 

Also, quick question. Why are the native Americans even humans? After being separated for lon periods of time aren't species suppose to become 2 different species? This is an actual question BTW.

That is part of the problem...the fact that religious bigots simply refuse to accept the science behind evolution and/or an old universe/earth. As a result affected families, communities and societies are ignorant of these facts and left without any option but to follow traditions. There are millions of Christians being born and bred on the false doctrine of original sin and not because they ever had an informed choice, but just because of the fact that they were brought up in a Christian environment. Ditto for Muslims, Judaists, etc. Consider the downsides of these culturally aligned- and in some cases very conservative religions...women being oppressed, "forced" circumcision, and on the more fundamentalist side of the spectrum there are young men blowing up people with suicide vests, or flying into skyscrapers. Should one just turn a blind eye, or even condone outdated traditional religious practices/beliefs with the kind of knowledge at our disposal..?

I, the religious bigot would like to make a statement. I have been gone for 3 weeks and spent two of those n Brazil helping the poor starving people there. A christian mission trip, so I'm sure your going to point out all the wrongs in that. Anyways, back on topic. Christians always have an option. If they didnt, then most of the would would be christian.

And since its OBVIOUSLY christians running around in suicide vests. And flying headfirst into sky scrapers. You wouldnt possibly be profiling anybody there could you? Muslim christian Hindu. Your a religist. Or something like that. Like racist, but for religion. Your profiling all of us religious bigots on what you believe we are like.

 

Also, why couldn't Adam and eve be the first humans? Your gunna throw in evolution, but if there was a God, and he did make them, does evolution say that's not possible? No where in the bible does it say anything about evolution. Doesn't say its not there. Doesn't say it is.

 

As for downsides, isn't circumscision healthy? And while I have to agree that some religions are bad, I don't feel christianity is one of them.

 

Also, moontanman, one of the religions that doesn't force everyone to join their religion, is Christianity. Of course somebody's gunna argue against that, but oh well, it true, and I'll proved it if you don't believe me. The Bible is against human anger. It talks about kindness and understanding and helping others. Then some people come in and try to turn it into a demon religion.

disarray: In my opinion your above post deserves full marks (even though I did not read the external links). As a side note, your reference to the likelihood of eternal- or immortal consciousness of all sentient creatures (not only humans) in a way validates my earlier speculative (or in my own words "daft") questions about alternatives to the idea of the "immortal soul".

 

 

And it STILL doesn't prove anything.

It just so happens that this one liner is chock-a-block with irony. Please do me a favour and look at all the sub disciplines listed under the main categories Biology and Medical Science on the main portal of this forum. All of those, at their very basic level, are driven by evolutionary mechanisms that include the hugely influential and far-reaching interaction between genes and the environment (natural selection, for example, is the result of the interactions between genetic variations in a population and the environment). Ditto for most, if not all of the humanistic social sciences, moral sciences and human sciences. Most people, even those who understand and embrace evolution, don't realise just how influential evolution has been and continues to be. It is nature in the making. As such it should always be the first point of reference whenever anything regarding those disciplines are being considered. Let me put it this way, your personality and whatever you think when you read this, whatever you decide next, do next, say or write next are likely determined by a unique interaction between your genetic make-up and your environment.

And this is where I would like to correct you. Medical science, is science that is used for medical purposes. Not for making sure evolution lines perfectly with what is fact. Since you will absolutely refuse everthing I say, I'll add links and let you read it.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/does_medical_sc096371.html

 

And really, when, is evolution required inside of a medical emergency? Besides bacterial resistance I fail to see much of a connection. Many sciences you mentioned, not all, but many, were used quite effectively without evolution even being known. Now I'm not downing evolution. Its real, its here, and it can teach us stuff. But the giant amount of importance you placed on its head is surreal.

Proof of moral sciences and many more, can be seen by looking at how old civilizations controlled their people. The romans, made their enemies seem like monsters to the people, which made the people a little bit happier to support the army. Inside the army motivational speeches were regularly made to keep the army motivated(moral science). And I dought they thought about evolution much.

I gtg

This could get to be a pretty confusing world if people are just going to make up their own definitions, simply to have the last word:

 

Typical definition: "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience)."

 

According to memammal there IS no definition. Then he gave his idea of why what people think it is is wrong. I gave my own definition because he seemed to have a flawed idea of it.

 

Also, you understand what sentience is right? Because according to you every living thing is sentient. Except maybe a jellyfish....

As it seems, he's obsessed with evolution in an almost un-natural way. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I still think we're the only species on our planet who are sentient. The link he gave had a 404 not found error, so I couldn't look into it. But from the links name, it seems like evolution says humans aren't sentient, because every other animal should have sentience too then. AM I the ONLY one who thinks that's odd? I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought that we have traits, including sentience that other animals don't. And other animals have traits that we don't, like the ability to hibernate. Quick question, is sentience a trait or, according to some(memaammals link), something that can't be real becuase all animals are the same. Exactly the same.

I was really not expecting to have a serious discussion on a science forum re divine intervention with people that have such strong anthropocentric views. This is turning out to be akin to a god of gaps kind of debate. Obviously every one is free to believe in what ever superstition he/she wants to, but to uphold such superstition while questioning the validity of my reference to our knowledge re the origin of our species in terms of what could possibly set us apart from fellow mammals and other animals when it comes to spirituality seems rather absurd. May I suggest this article as a good starting point to get up to speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

 

I am not sure that this is a scientifically accepted fact. Why do you think only humans are sentient? Here is an opinion on this:

Evolution doesn't predict that only humans would be "sentient", whatever that is. Sentience is poorly defined, but whatever it is, there's no reason to expect that precisely one species should have it. Just the opposite: evolution predicts that whatever features arise in one species could arise in another, especially if they're closely related. And even if they're not closely related, there's no reason to expect that the same mechanisms couldn't happen by another route. There are countless examples of convergent evolution out there. So it's not surprising that any property attributed to humans has at least an echo in some other species. "Sentience", in the sense of "having senses", is pretty common all over the animal kingdom. For that matter, even plants and bacteria have at least some notion of detecting the world and responding to it. The notion that humans are special because we talk about what we think is largely just self-centeredness on our part: yes, what we do is distinctive and remarkable, but treating it as if it were some kind of super-power that everybody else should want is no more sensible than bees looking down on us because we can't make honey. We're special primarily in our ability to look down on other species for not being as awesome as us.

(​https://www.quora.com/If-evolution-is-true-can-someone-argue-that-only-humans-are-sentient-and-if-so-then-how)

 

Your statement also touches on consciousness.

Several psychologists and ethologists have argued for the existence of animal consciousness by describing a range of behaviors that appear to show animals holding beliefs about things they cannot directly perceive Donald Griffin's 2001 book Animal Minds reviews a substantial portion of the evidence. (He suggests a gradual evolution of consciousness.)

Consciousness is likely an evolved adaptation since it meets George Williams' criteria of species universality, complexity, and functionality, and it is a trait that apparently increases fitness. Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether or not consciousness has survival value. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (i) exclusively with the first humans, (ii) exclusively with the first mammals, (iii) independently in mammals and birds, or (iv) with the first reptiles.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness)

 

Oh yeah. What's sentience? I dunno. I saw my dog logically reason the best way to catch the mouse was run head first into the wall.

 

I would personally describe sentience as the ability to use logical reasoning to overcome instinct.

Yes, a scientific theory. Please don't steer in that direction...

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).

If I'm right, you were talking about the big bang. How was it that someone tested it? Or observed it? I missed it.

 

Anyways, we have the ability to sin, (IMO) because we are sentient, and understand what's right and wrong.

Do you follow that so far? I know its complicated, but it becomes more complicated ahead.

 

We have souls, because god gave us them. Once again, IMO.

 

Still with me? Great. This next part will blow your mind.

 

I don't consider myself equal to animals. In my opinion, we're smarter then them. Now I'm not anti animal , I'm just saying perhaps, if we can build space craft, and they can't so much as write, that we might be a little bit higher on the food chain. Or what ever yard stick you would measure stuff like that on.

My tiny monkey evolved brain lost track of what the main question was. Oh yeah.

 

In my opinion, while there are a late number, but minor percentage of religious people protesting science, for generalization, they just want be in peace. Most of them aren't arguing in the stores about who's going to hell.

Gtg.

I don't think the Believers "try to invent" that conflict.

 

I believe it is a very real one. And many of our more strident and vocal atheists, like the late Chris Hitchens, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have exacerbated this conflict. They claim that religion has had it too easy for too long and the time is nigh for it to be eradicated as the harmful viral plague it is to Science and Progress.

 

I personally agree with that view, BTW.

 

Religion has no choice but to conflict with science if they continue to believe in some of their absurd dogma and fables like we find in the bible. Where unicorns exist; serpents speak and seduce; sky gods stop the sun in the sky so as to allow more time for slaughter; seas divide to allow people to walk through them; and plants were created before the Sun.

 

Wow.

 

Yeah the more I think about it the more I totally disagree with you. In fact. I think religion has lamely TRIED to help close the gap between itself and science. Like with ID. Which is nothing but old Creationism gussied-up with some psuedo science in an attempt to get it snuck past school administrators and be taught in schools.

 

Religion HAS to concede to science like this, and do more, really, if it wants to survive. As it is, as every decade passes religion is swept further and further into the dark corner of superstition where it so rightfully belongs. People are leaving the churches in droves. Evolution gets more evidence and proof every single year. It is all but a LAW! Soon it will be.

 

"Science flies us to the Moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers."

 

 

I will go along with us scientists not attacking religion and doing our damndest to keep it (and it's show pony, ID) out of the classrooms, so long as they stay where they belong. Which is in the arena of literature and Mythology and Superstition. And NOT in any real discussions about how the Earth or the Cosmos came into existence.

Genesis as a guide to the Creation of the Cosmos is about as useful as reading "Lord of the Rings" to learn about Geoscience.

 

What really irks me about the religious zealots and biblical literalists is their continued hypocritical refusal to hold their own holy book up to the same level of criticism and analysis they try to do with science. Never mind that we can explain 95% of how the Big Bang or Evolution work--they take the remaining as-yet-explained 5% and say, "Aha! You can't explain it because god did it!"

 

Jeez that ticks me off.

 

OK I better quit, I get too worked up on this topic! LOL

The fables you brought up, while they seem impossible without God, seem slightly more possible with God. Its taking it out of context. If I were to claim that two pieces of metal magically fly together, it would seem stupid. If you add magnetism to it, it seems more likely. BTW, isn't the big bang a theory?

 

And in my not so professional opinion, science isn't being halted by religion. Other then "scientists" devoting their life's work to proving there is no religion.

 

Also, where did you hear people were leaving the churches in droves? I kinda heard the opposite.

Maybe I'm a layman, but wouldn't a sphere cut into 12 wedges been easier?

Q. What do you get when you add the smallest cell in the human body with the largest cell in the human body?

A. A baby

Yes, im terrible at jokes XD