[Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about evolution:
- --- In email@example.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>Things are a lot better here in that regard than they are in the US
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00"
> > Getting statistics on such things is actually quite hard, not to
> > mention that a lot of people lie when asked how religious they
> > are (it's well known that people over report church attendance
> > and who knows how much else is over reported).
> Very true. Also applies to "Do you believe in God?": The natural
> inclination would be affirmative whether or not with that belief.
> Even without any particular belief in deity, Americans will reply
> in the affirmative as a matter of cultural course, thus 90% in
> polls. It does take a lot of guts in our broad society to affirm
and non-governmental surveys seem to indicate much higher non-religion
rates (possibly even majority) than the census which lists the biggest
Christian denominations instead of just the catch all of Christianity.
Not sure whether atheism though would be majority, loosely theistic
and deistic beliefs seem to comprise about half of those who claim to
> > The other children were IIRC for the most part secular withThe religious references didn't particularly stand out (though
> > religion not really coming up very often.
> Contrarily, the God idea is pervasive, even in the movies and all
> kinds of exposure.
annoyance at religious christmas carols did have a lot to do with me
not celebrating that holiday).
> > Which God?Oh plenty of them.
> ANY God.
> > There was religious education at school (though possible to getHow can you understand history without it? Even if you don't care
> > out of with parental objections) and of course history is taught
> > in pretty much every decent school and that includes ancient gods
> > that people once worshipped.
> Yes, always there is exposure to belief in a deity.
about history the fact that there are still people who believe in such
a thing would make an understanding worth having.
> > Either something exists or it does not, there is no middle groundDoes exist really need a definition?
> > here.
> Your mistake is not defining your meaning of the word "exist." So
> what do you mean by that? Also your mere use of the logic of
> non-contradiction serves no purpose in this discussion that I can
> > Maybe there is some supernatural spiritual realm or something butIn which case the existence or lack of existence would make no
> > if there is and it has an effect on the real world we should be
> > able to measure it.
> You mean measure it in the usual scientific methodology? Of course
> you do, but in more educated religious discourse spirit cannot be
> measured by physical means.
difference to the world and thus the concept isn't really worth
> Also you presume belief in God necessarily entails effects in theA god which doesn't affect the world isn't exactly going to matter.
> physical world, thus narrowly restricting a kind of deity.
> However, there is considerable evidence that belief in deity doesYes, but that doesn't require that a god actually exist.
> have strong effects on the minds of people, their attitude, etc.
> People are in the real world.
> > Something that doesn't interact with the physical world may asIf it exists and does anything other than staying away from Earth and
> > well not exist since it would be indistinguishable from
> > non-existence.
> Again, the problem with definition. In sophisticated religion
> (more like Eastern thinking), deity does not exist in the physical
> sense. I already pointed this out.
not interfering then it become at least in theory detectable.
> > Consciousness is probably an emergent property of a complicatedDoes anyone? It is our best guess and given the history of science
> > neural network.
> But you don't really know, do you?
seems the most likely to work out.
> It is a theory, that of emergence theory, which also applies toYes, we still have a lot of work to do before we understand it.
> other phenomena. I happen to agree that consciousness and mind are
> terms used for emergent qualities from brain functions. But the
> nature of consciousness still is up for grabs, even in the area of
> neuroscience (Domasio, Pat Churchland, etc.).
> > Souls, at least in the usual sense of the term seem to beThere's no evidence that souls exist nor is there is likely to be a
> > non-existent and appear to be superfluous for explaining how the
> > mind works.
> Again, your restriction to physical reality. How do you support
> your restriction?
need for the existence of any supernatural vital force and science has
pretty rejected vitalism.
> > Each religion has contradictory texts which means that given nWell the Abrahamic religions are just variants of Judaism but even
> > religions n - 1 or n must be wrong.
> And also many commonalities, which you choose to overlook. For
> example, there are very significant commonalities between Hinduism
> and Christianity. And of course of the Abrahamic religions.
those three contradict each other to the point at which only one of
them can be true and the others must all be false.
Then there are the numerous sub-divisions of each religion that are
The commonalities can be explained in most cases by the religions
being related to each other.
> > The existence of spiritual knowledge would require there to be aWell we've managed to explain pretty well how the universe works
> > supernatural which would go against pretty much all we've learnt.
> > It's a very slim possibility, not really worth worrying about.
> Not necessarily. But does presume a deity. However, not spiritual
> knowledge in basic Buddhism, with no deity. What to you is slim is
> predominant to others. Thus you seem to the criterion of "whatever
> is in the eye of the beholder," or "different strokes for different
pretty well without assuming any supernatural realm or deity or
whatever so there's no reason to assume we won't be able to continue that.
> > For the rest of it I think that we were pretty much agreeing withThat doesn't make any sense.
> > each other but not realising it.
> As I said, I am not a theist. But (the kicker): I do believe in
> > Compare violence rates among hunter-gatherers with modernThere are still some around that try to salvage the discredited idea
> > industrial civilisation (and remember the amount of ancient
> > skeletons showing evidence of violence lest you be strayed by
> > those who think Noble Savages exist).
> Pinker? Scholars generally concede violence was more prevelant in
> ancient times than modern. And of course I agree with Pinker.
of the Noble Savage.
- May I suggest you put down the joint, wait a while, and then write.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Kolata" <justink@...>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about
Dawkins says it best...
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)."
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of a a
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about
No, my friend, you are speaking out of ignorance. First of all, Communism
does not believe in a God, so what is, in general, the only other option for
the creation of man? Evolutionism. In addition Nietzsche was heavily
influenced by Darwin, and Nietzsche strongly influenced
Hitler(superman/nazism) who also influence Mussolini. Look up your
First, let's just take dictionary.com
// ", "6");
Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or
agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often
containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Well, we've already discussed the moral ramification of an Evolutionary
worldview( and all the murder it leads into) so let's see, beliefs
concerning the cause, macro-evolutionism ascribes, poorly i might add, to
the idea of a cosmic burp(big bang) so you got that going, next in the
evolutionary religion, one generally believes life is purposeless and many
state so; Existentialism, and you certainly believe in a superhuman agency
of somekind, though I'm not sure what other than choas in the creation of
everything so, yes, Evolutionism is a religion. This is too easy.
2nd, I'm not supporting communism so I have no response to that, however
if someone kills in the name of Christ it is against his message. If someone
kills in the name of "survival of the fittest" then it is for it's message.
Hitler used members of the Catholic Church in order to support his
pagan/evolutionary ideas but in practice or in theory he was not Christian.
Try again. Come on guys, give me some intelligent discussion.
Lastly, Talkorigins is a joke. I want your ideas not some lame website.
Anyhow, Evolution is an idol. People have created it as an idol in order
to avoid facing the reality that there is a God that will Judge us when we
die. Humans are too proud, generally, to admit that they are wrong so they
hang on to outdated illusions like Evolutionism. I see your talkorigins, and
I seen other sites and they all fail to see the forest for the trees.
Why reject Jesus?
--- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, a a <Praesto12@. ..> wrote:
> Guys, evolution, as the religion it is, has not won anything,
> expect for being a leading idealogy in the killing of millions of
> people. In all due respect, why would anyone *believe in the
> religion of Evolution? And by that term what are you guys referring
You are an idiot.
First of all evolution is not a religion.
Second, evolution has not been an ideology involved in the killing of
millions of people, Christianity and communism on the other hand...
Remember that Adolf Hitler was a Christian and Joesph Stalin a
communist who supported Lysenko.
Third, there are very good reasons to believe that evolution happened.
http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ faq-misconceptio ns.html#observe
http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ comdesc/
http://www.talkorig ins.org/faqs/ jury-rigged. html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links