Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about evolution:

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    ... Things are a lot better here in that regard than they are in the US and non-governmental surveys seem to indicate much higher non-religion rates (possibly
    Message 1 of 68 , Jul 1, 2008
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
      >
      > ----- 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
      > atheism.

      Things are a lot better here in that regard than they are in the US
      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
      be non-religious.

      > > The other children were IIRC for the most part secular with
      > > religion not really coming up very often.
      >
      > Contrarily, the God idea is pervasive, even in the movies and all
      > kinds of exposure.

      The religious references didn't particularly stand out (though
      annoyance at religious christmas carols did have a lot to do with me
      not celebrating that holiday).

      > > Which God?
      >
      > ANY God.

      Oh plenty of them.

      > > There was religious education at school (though possible to get
      > > 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.

      How can you understand history without it? Even if you don't care
      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 ground
      > > 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
      > see.

      Does exist really need a definition?

      > > Maybe there is some supernatural spiritual realm or something but
      > > 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.

      In which case the existence or lack of existence would make no
      difference to the world and thus the concept isn't really worth
      bothering with.

      > Also you presume belief in God necessarily entails effects in the
      > physical world, thus narrowly restricting a kind of deity.

      A god which doesn't affect the world isn't exactly going to matter.

      > However, there is considerable evidence that belief in deity does
      > have strong effects on the minds of people, their attitude, etc.
      > People are in the real world.

      Yes, but that doesn't require that a god actually exist.

      > > Something that doesn't interact with the physical world may as
      > > 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.

      If it exists and does anything other than staying away from Earth and
      not interfering then it become at least in theory detectable.

      > > Consciousness is probably an emergent property of a complicated
      > > neural network.
      >
      > But you don't really know, do you?

      Does anyone? It is our best guess and given the history of science
      seems the most likely to work out.

      > It is a theory, that of emergence theory, which also applies to
      > 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.).

      Yes, we still have a lot of work to do before we understand it.

      > > Souls, at least in the usual sense of the term seem to be
      > > 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?

      There's no evidence that souls exist nor is there is likely to be a
      need for the existence of any supernatural vital force and science has
      pretty rejected vitalism.

      > > Each religion has contradictory texts which means that given n
      > > 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.

      Well the Abrahamic religions are just variants of Judaism but even
      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
      also contradictory.

      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 a
      > > 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
      > folks."

      Well we've managed to explain pretty well how the universe works
      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 with
      > > each other but not realising it.
      >
      > As I said, I am not a theist. But (the kicker): I do believe in
      > God.

      That doesn't make any sense.

      > > Compare violence rates among hunter-gatherers with modern
      > > 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.

      There are still some around that try to salvage the discredited idea
      of the Noble Savage.
    • Richard Godwin
      May I suggest you put down the joint, wait a while, and then write. ... From: Justin Kolata To: Sent:
      Message 68 of 68 , Jul 7, 2008
        May I suggest you put down the joint, wait a while, and then write.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Justin Kolata" <justink@...>
        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:53 AM
        Subject: RE: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about
        evolution:


        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)."
        --Richard Dawkins


        -----Original Message-----
        From: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of a a
        Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 4:32 PM
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: New Group wanting members about
        evolution:


        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
        history.

        First, let's just take dictionary.com

        re·li·gion

        // ", "6");
        interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");
        interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");
        interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");
        interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");
        interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars",
        "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FR01%2FR0180400.mp3");
        interfaceflash.write();
        // ]]>


        Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
        Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
        –noun

        1.
        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
        > to?

        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.