I'm not a biology student, but there are cases of deformation known, and those people die or get aborted. I'm sure there have been tails and 6th toes.

The European population is 10 cm taller on average compared to 50-100 years ago.

There's also a reason why people from Africa are darker skinned than Finish people.

Evolution is not just about being stronger, more intelligent or whatever, it's just about being successful in surviving and creating offspring. Some animals have developed so "far" (so successfully) they didn't change a lot for millenia.

Could have Googled the answer... prefers to start an ESR shitstorm instead.

the discussions I saw concentrate more on religious stuff, like soul, etc., saw none describing the problem as I do, making a distinction between phaenotypical stuff and a new design

You seek enlightenment through discussions on the internet? I would suggest you take a walk to your local library instead- Might be more fruitful.

There is no distinction. A lot of small changes (what you call "phenotypical stuff") in right places = new design.

Good read if you can handle all the LE DOGE MEME REDDIT UPBOAT shit

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/com...ulting_my/

i think anybody familiar with evolution will agree with you. biological evolution doesn't work the way you are saying it doesn't work. gj

It's understandable that you're confused because evolution doesn't actually work like that.

Think of giraffes, at first they didn't actually have a very long neck but because they needed a long neck to reach leaves on the very high trees of Africa their neck started to get longer and stronger, each generation of giraffes getting a neck slightly longer and stronger than the previous one.

An intensive use of a specific element will develop that element for the next generations, the work done by one generation is transfered to the next one that will keep developing it until it reaches perfection.

The funny thing is that it also work for disuse, for instance based on Hitsu's post history you can easily conclude that his grand-grand-grandchildren will probably be born without a brain since it wasn't really used (hence needed) during the previous generations.

the giraffe needs new bones when its neck gets longer,
where was it ever discovered that a species developed a new bone?

it's right next to where god was discovered.

Well not sure if developed is the right word, but I've got a new bone right here

The giraffe has the same number of neck-vertebrae as any other mammal.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_o1kJApwqBs/Uej9N71...Bbones.jpg

That giraffe is pretty scary though.

Ye, christian fundamentalist giraffes are the worst.

too true, I learned that in school once, should have known better.
Its also something to believe more in, its still the same design, just the bones got bigger and bigger

Which indicates a common ancestor...

If you break the same bone over and over again, changing slightly the location of the break each time and giving it enough time to heal betwen each break, ultimately you will have created a brand new bone.

That just shows you that the possibilities are here, that's probably a function that would be unlocked if we were able to use 100% of our brain and not the 10% we only use as of now (I saw that in a movie).

Wedding Crashers, right?

I was thinking more about Limitless but I haven't actually seen either of those.

Was kind of a joke as well, although it is actually mentioned. Haven't seen limitless yet either :)

This is entirely wrong.
Evolution doesn't work like this, you are confusing it with Lamarck's theory maybe.

Just look at this link in Anhedonic's post, the first answer is a pretty good explanation of how nature works.

Giraffes are gadget now?

Is this post for real?

IF THERE'S NO GOD, HOW IS THERE A SUNSET?

IF THERE IS NO GOD, WHO KEEPS FRAZE FROM FALLING OFF THE BOTTOM OF THE EARTH

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz6hbbSJXco

What you're describing sounds more like "saltation" than like what's commonly accepted today.

if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?

lol. Monkeys don't have a collective pokemon level and when they reach it they all evolve in a storm of lights and stars.

because they managed to survive in their environment maybe?

We didn't evolve from a monkey idiot
we evolved from common ancestor

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/huma...y_tree.jpg

Pls google up "evolve from monkeys", this is one of those insanely stupid internet claim that exists just to bait people-

Then why were you baited?

evolution is just a theory

it isn't

it is

only in utah and few other retarded states of the US. In science, it isn't, under the majority of its aspects.

i think you will find it is a theory no matter where you are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
In which aspect it is a scientific theory, macroevolution?

It is a scientific theory, which is the highest possible level of scientific knowledge there can be in terms of explaining an aspect of the world.

What the creationists retards do is confuse the scientific use of the term "theory" with the common use of the word, since in the latter case it means "hypothesis". For example, in the sentence "my theory is that someone else drove Paul back to his house because he was too drunk to return home alone", the word "theory" means "hypothesis" and not the scientific understanding of the word.

I suppose obi was jokingly referring to how creationists confuse the two.

yes but a theory > law > thesis.....
Actually a theory is the strongest scientific term an 'idea' can become.

Just like "Einstein's Theory of relativity" > "Newton's Laws".

edit: So you can say that we're more sure about the details of evolution than we are on the normal notion people have of gravitation. (as most people only learn the newtonian laws)

Ignorant people have no clue as to what the word "theory" implies when it's been associated with something by the scientific community.

Hell, gravity is a theory.

Religious zealots are hilarious in that they're more than cool picking and choosing what science fits their delusional viewpoints, but when something contradicts their weird-as-fuck views, they plead ignorance like it's ok. Having an opinion is great, everyone can have one, but they can still be undeniably wrong.

Actually gravity is a phenomenon.... It's properties are described through the theory of gravity (and the properties are even better described through Einsteins special theory of relativity).

The phenomenon is gravity though... it's not like we can make a theory that theres no gravity -> accept that as truth -> there is no more gravity.

It's still a theory. That's the point. There are still aspects about it that are unknown, just like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, although holding up quite well, scientists are now finding anomalies in space that may defy it. However, the theory in itself is so rooted and proven with protocols that can be tested and retested that it can *almost* never be disputed. But that's the glory of science... provide evidence to the contrary and the scientific community will change based on new information.

Honestly, I'm not even sure what your reply means. I'm not disputing you. Are we arguing? Cause... creationism is retarded.

hes making the incredibly pedantic distinction between gravity (the fact that objects attract) and the theory of gravity (the scientific and mathematical framework used to make predictions).

After several of your posts I was beginning to question if you had a brain.
But this comment is spot on ;)
wp.

Im truly honoured

actually yeah we can. its just matter of how rational the new explanation would be.

u like leprechauns?

I kinda dislike that they hide their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow... that place is damn hard to reach.

Other than that leprechauns are pretty cool.

Theory of gravitation is a theory too.

yeah, its right there in the name

the universal constants are exactly what it is needed to create a universe which supports life, how could that happen by chance?

It can happen by chance on the basis that the universe is really really, seriously pretty damn big. So it seems reasonable that the conditions for life would exist somewhere, entirely by chance.

It's like if you rolled a six-sided dice for long enough, probability dictates that eventually you would roll 10,000,000 sixes in a row.


But that would be expected to take you about 3 × 10^ (-7781513) tries.

"universal constants"

Can you think of anything that we know can happen but cannot happen by chance? (assuming things can actually happen by chance at all)

sure: someone making cryptic posts on the internet

Because if they were not you would not be able to ask that question. We don't know the answer to that question but not knowing the answer doesn't mean you can fill the void with God.

How about we use our brain and stop using manichean answer and generalizations?. Both are right. The creator and the evolution are both compatible.

Unless you don't want them to be and are a fanatic of science or religion.

Btw on a sidenote even Darwin himself said evolution can not be applyed to humans. Dawrin said no to all that shity capitalist sociology of the struggle for life.

"Btw on a sidenote even Darwin himself said evolution can not be applyed to humans"

de fuck?

Yes not in the way it is applied to animals, ill find the name of the book in english in which he talks about human sociology. basicaly he said it cant be used with humans because humans actualy live in groups in which "stronger/healthier/smarter" humans helps weaker ones so natural evolution theory can not be used with humans. he was also describing how "struggle for life" CAN NOT be applied to humans for same reasons.

What do you mean by "natural evolution theory"?

You make a fair point. Natural selection is being overruled. I think this only became true fairly recently though (maybe past 500ish years), but I do wonder if evolution is now halted in humans.

Perhaps it's actually in our species' interests to be more selective in reproduction, as horrendously immoral as the concept is...

Natural selection is not overruled. Natural selection simply means that some organisms survive and reproduce and others don't.
Also, evolution isn't halted in humans. For example, our gene pool is expanding because with modern medicine people can live with some sets of genes that were not viable before. So there is change, and therefore evolution.

thats purely semantics, but i guess evolution leads to something better :D

I think you missed my (and hitsu's) point. As you say, natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who are stronger, healthier etc. It's the reason we're attracted to those characteristics.

Modern medicine (the NHS is a perfect example as it's free for anyone) essentially removes the disadvantage faced by handicapped people (breaking your arm doesn't change your DNA though obviously) and allows them to survive and possibly have children (though maybe less likely).

I don't want at all to make the point that this is a bad thing, but it has the effect of passing on undesirable genetic traits where they may otherwise have been removed from the gene pool. You must agree that this is contrary to evolution?

natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who are stronger, healthier etc.

Nope. Natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who survive. It just happens that in other species it helps to be stronger/heathier/etc to survive, while in humans it also helps to use medical technology.

Evolution is simply change, not necessarily improvement, and nature couldn't care less of what you think as desirable or not.

Nope. Natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who survive.

Why? Once you passed on your genes, your survival only matters if it helps your offspring to reproduce. Survival has no purpose otherwise. Unless of course it leads to another reproduction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZt1Gn0R22Q&t=1m54s

I just didn't feel the need to point out such obvious thing. I thought everyone understood that it's implied and didn't want to turn my statement into a stupid pedantic boring list of obvious things, somewhere between which the important stuff would be hidden. Like you stopped at the part where offspring can reproduce, but didn't clarified further that it should reproduce into beings that are themselves fertile, etc, because the pattern is obvious and overclarifying too obvious things will just clutter the meaning.

Sorry, but I just personally hate remarks like these, where people try to look like smart asses by imagining that they correct someone by saying uselessly obvious things (at least, that's how I interpret them).

It's just that you corrected something wrong (stronger/healthier) by something equally wrong (survival). Your statement is no different from his. I could have mimicked your reply instead, something like "It just happens that in other species survival helps to spread your genes".

Sorry, but I just personally hate remarks like these, where people try to look like smart asses by imagining that they correct someone by saying uselessly obvious things (at least, that's how I interpret them).

You didn't correct anything. What I said still is true: natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who survive, as opposed to being stronger or healthier. Of course organisms have to be able to actually reprouce to make use of this advantage, duh. How could we have guessed without you? Thanks for helping with this extremely complex deduction.

natural selection works by there being a reproductive advantage to those who are stronger, healthier etc.

Spell it out for me, what is incorrect about this statement? I was of the mind that the more likely an organism carrying a particular gene is to reproduce (by virtue of being more attractive to the opposite sex, more ingenious, by somehow surviving for longer, or otherwise), the more likely that gene is to be passed on.

Therefore advantageous genes (which make the organisms which carry them better in some way) are more likely to be passed on and thus adopted by the species as a whole. I believe this process is called Survival of The Fittest?

It's not entirely incorrect, but it's just taking most common historically recorded qualitites associated with thriving of a species and substituting them for real reasons species in general don't become extinct. If some (or most) species survive by being stronger or have some other "good" quality, it doesn't mean that being stronger is necessary to survive or that species become necessarily stronger during evolution.

For example, some predator might become so fit ans start destroying his prey so quickly that eventually he is left completely out of food and die. Or there might be some really "strong" and fit species, clearly outcompeting his rival species and driving them almost to extinction, but then at the right moment some nice asteroid just happen to wipe out those strong species and weaker species luckily survive the catastrophe, without having any special genes that made them advantageous in this random event. Or, for example, humans developed medicine and became less and less dependant on what DNA they have and more dependand on what technological tools they can use to improve their fitness. In the extreme case you can imagine a world where no matter what your natural DNA is, it can be all replaced with perfect genes, and natural selection will completely stop acting based on DNA, but will be based on some other things, like the knowledge and skills to build, use and improve medical facilities. Or in some other scenario, it might matter more how big a gun you have than what is your DNA.

Cheers for that, really good points.

In the case of that weaker species that is saved by a lucky asteroid (saved by the asteroid - new phrase? :D), surely its evolution will slow down at that point? If it has no predators, no lack of food or prevalent diseases then there are, for want of better words, fewer advantageous genes to be found and thus the species will evolve in no particular 'direction'?

Different things can happen. For example, for hundreds of millions of years mammals were pretty insignificant small group of animals of no importance at all, and then suddenly after mass extinction that killed dinosaurs and many other species, mammals rapidly diversified and became dominant in just about 15 million years.

It might be that period of evolution in no particular direction allows to accumulate many random variations in DNA, which otherwise would be quickly washed out by selective pressure. Eventually, species will become populated enough to compete for same resources, and this pool of diversified DNA may help them to quickly and efficiently adapt to different niches in the environment.

Since when all that "Darwin himself" says must be true? How can you even expect someone with knowlede and technology of 1800's be entirely true in everything that we know today?

difference is there are plenty of proofs for the evolutionism (mathematical equations and scientifically proven parts of darwinism are there since early 1900s).

Darwin said it cannot be applyed to humans just to cover his ass from the shitstorm mostly

Seems you didn't understood the idea of human sociology beeing totaly different than animal sociology. It's the topic of the difference btw humans and animals. Unless you agree with "struggle for life" applied to humans. Then you somewhat deserve the life you have today.

well that applies to the future of humanity. But it does to its past. And evolutionism still applies on humans nowadays pretty clearly.

On giraffes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

And your argument that one one ever grows anything new:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6st7b8vstw

good one

threadender. wanted to paste Dawkins earlier, but i had my chunk of religious talk this week. entertaining as it is i always come to realisation that im simply talking with myself, and zealot will believe what he wants to believe (faith surplus?). waste of time. then the next week starts. this explains my playtime in quakes i guess.

And?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lil+bub&...p;ie=UTF-8

troll or retard?

Trolling the retards*

so you are selfsufficient then.

Yea macroevolution doesn't happen and nobody can answer your questions because nobody knows how it could happen, most people just believe it does. Just like some people believe God created everything.

not really. the concept of god creates everything it's just a dumb way to take the problem and move it.. Then who created\what is god? Darwinism tells you on a smaller scale what happens do beings in an environment. Plenty of actual facts make you think that many microevolutions may bring to macroevolution. On the contrary creationism is supported by a fictionary book written and modified by trolls through history.

Except macroevolution has been proven at the bacterial level.

And if you're trying to say that we as humans and every other creature on this planet evolved from some puddle of soup billions of years ago then; LOL.

You're right. Some invisible dude in the sky did it.

Please find the post where I've said that a deity of some sort has created life as as we know it.

It happens the same way as microevolution happens. We don't have to guess about it, we know it for sure, since we can just compare DNA sequences from different species.

You seem to be reffering to irreducible complexity. Look up the book "Darwin's black box" (for example) which covers this subject from an intelligent design perspective. It's been heavily criticized, but it's nice to read about this subject from multiple perspectives imo.

Human spicies is far beyond evolution, because of technological progress.

As T1e said: evolution is survival of the fittest. If your skin is darker than your mates, you will have bigger chance of survival in a forrest, and because of that you will prolly have an offspring, with same attribute. Over the course of hundrets of years, all pale skins will die, leaving only your offsrping, with skin tone darker than yours.


However because in nowadays world we got hospitals and shit, and we dont really have to fight for live, we're out of the loop. Fuck you evolution!

Or maybe fuck you humans! comming from evolution? Without weakest dying our DNA is getting worse and worse, which will lead to sickness and decline of human race. The question is: can technology keep up, to protect us from ourself?

tl:dr: hitler was kinda right.

Sadly he didn't pay attention to your ancestors, so now we have to deal with your weak DNA.

Fuck that Hitler guy. :-C

im fit and smart. not being far from perfection i'd say.

what weak DNA?

Your weak DNA.

i have none, potat

Let's agree to disagree.

no fuck you, ur plussing this qwih retard, only because he doesnt agree with me. and it doesnt matter he has no valid argument. disagreeing with me is enough.


fuck you hater, i hope u die in a carfire before breeding.

yes, the world just dislikes you. And there's a solid motivation why.

i wont even pursuit this, try to finish earlier argument. and please, try to use argumentation and logic, not shenanigans

I plussed him because he's right and made a funny remark about you.

hes far from right, which basiclly means you're as dumb as him.

lol this is retarded. Parameters are just changing.

what parameters? did not understand a word from my post again?

do i really have contain myself in UMAD and trololol, just for you?

you are so stupid. What matters to our evolution changes\changed. As well as the fact that "weaker DNA" is more present because we are just more. In ohter words you are so stupid and once again you don't know why nor you are willing to know. You'll die in your blind retardation.

and why there are more of us? u rdy? this will be good and i guess totally unexpected for you.

BECAUSE THE WEAK ONES DONT FUCKING DIE.

back in middleages 30 out of 100 children died. nowadays its 5 out of 100.


UMAD DUMBASS?

u are so stupid. What matters to be "weak" nowadays has a minor to none correlation with what killed children in the middleages. lol.

And evenif the "weaks" don't die nowadays, they won't have success or will have a harder time reproducing\ensuring their children\grandchildren the stability necessary to have more kids.

Do i have to make a picture or can you compute language?

And just taking in consideration how many children died in the middleages for the population boom is beyond stupid. It's Hitsu.

its so obvious you come from the faulty batch. its just not possible to be as stupid as you are. and its not the first time you "show off" with your intelect.

What matters to be "weak" nowadays has a minor to none correlation with what killed children in the middleages. lol.

middleage: weak physicly child cannot survive harsh enviroment - dies.
current: weak physicly child has no problem surviving because of health care - lives.

is it so hard to understand? or you just cant add 2+2?

And evenif the "weaks" don't die nowadays, they won't have success or will have a harder time reproducing\ensuring their children\grandchildren the stability necessary to have more kids.

there are more of us. and we all exist only to reproduce. no its not harder. easier actually, considering having a stable income is enough for most desperate women who want to have child. social care will help with rising it. just look at yourself: somehow you made it the the adulthood.

And just taking in consideration how many children died in the middleages for the population boom is beyond stupid

thats one of many things. but you already proved you have problems with comprehension if i dont use UMAD only.

you can't even understand what's the term of comparison of that harder, how should i assume you can think? lol

using valid logic arguments is a sign of brain activity and thinking. i still try to find it in your posts.

either prove where my logic is flawed or go back under your rock, squid.

your logic assumes that the same qualities which prevented the death of a child 1000+ years ago are the same ones as the qualities a man needs today to have success in life and put his children in a position to have a life full of success and more children...

This is the 9th time i tell you, pseudo-human. I'm gonna exasperate the concept so mby you'll get something in your life, finally, you thick cunt.

A socio-psychopathic rapes and kidnaps women, aggressivly kills everything on his way and keeps his group together due to fear and violence.
10000 years ago: the perfect man for the survival of the specie in a very hostile environment.
today: you, a reject who'll never have success in life nor will ever be in a position to have a good and healthy family.

Evolution of the specie goes on and the parameters needed for it are changing on and on.

you sound angry. are you angry?

DEAR GOD, PLEASE TAKE MY SIGHT FROM ME I DONT WANT TO SEE THIS IGNORANCY ANYMORE

your logic assumes that the same qualities which prevented the death of a child 1000+ years ago are the same ones as the qualities a man needs today to have success in life and put his children in a position to have a life full of success and more children...

yes they are. strong body is always good. it will allow you to earn monies and find a partner. what else do you need? however i dont understand the second part: your awesome DNA is enoght to put them on the path to succes. if they waste it - their fault.

A socio-psychopathic rapes and kidnaps women, aggressivly kills everything on his way and keeps his group together due to fear and violence.

show me even one ancient civilization based on this behaviour. none? thanks, youre a moron, back under your rock, degenerate.

Aww, what the hell, two or three more. Doesnt' count.

What is your definition of 'strong body'? Being able to lift weights at the gym?
Now, I don't do that, but I would consider my body pretty strong. It has a strong immune system.

sorry, the number you're trying to connect is currently under a rock, because hes got ass reped. please try to apply cold water to the burn.

strong body has nothing with lifting, that idea is retarded, but im not supprised. it came from you after all.

endurance is all that matters, because when you're born your immune system is tabula rasa, and protects you from literally nothing. so basiclly you have to endure first few years, before your immune system kicks in.


but nowadays its irrelevant, and as a result degenerates like qwih do live.

i don't even

I understand what you mean but it doesn't really work like that, our genes will get worse as much as technology will be able to make up for but what can't be cured (= possible cause of human race decline) will still be "eliminated".

well while we obviously wont die because of our weak dna, as bad mutations usually dont have time to produce offspings, however the decline itself is bad.

TED is dropping in skill :(

Actually our body does "evolve" because our "cells reproduce".

There are lots of conditions due to 'faulty reproduction' of cells. (cancer being the main one)

Usually however there are "a lot of healthy cells" around 1 "corrupted" cell.
The reproduction (which cell reproduces how many times) is just a random process. Therefor on the majority of cells will likely stay the majority of cells. For each cell that dies you need 1 new cell. And whoever gets that "assignment" will make the new cell.

Usually the only time that a "reproduction error" can have large concequences is when it's a sperm- / egg-cell or if some stemcell would become corrupt (which I think can happen due to radiation.... in general stemcells don't reproduce themselves though but they play an active role in the replacement of some older cells).

These large concequences can be both positive or negative. Which is the fundation of evolution.

New spieces are found every day dude.

The curry industry will stop at nothing.

:d i even googled to be sure not to make the mistake but typod anyway.

hahaha :D

find species erryday dude #420 million years EVOLVE IT FAGGOT

Don't you think it's kinda dumb to expect anything you cannot understand to be wrong?

New features can arise by mutations in genes that control development and in DNA regions that control developmental gene expression. For example, here is a fly which has leg instead of antenna because a muation altered gene expression pattern in its embryo.

The question about how exactly and under what selection pressure features like metamorphosis appeared is very hard and you cannot expect a complete scientific answer to it because we just don't have enough knowledge. It's like trying to deduce how first mechanical calculation machine looked like by examining a modern iPhone - very hard, if not impossible. However, there are some plausible hypotheses which you can easily find in google.

But the most important thing is that with recent advances in genetic sequencing we can now 100% sure that evolution is true and it's exactly how new species appeared, because now we can simply sequence the genome of, for example, non-metamorphosic insect and genome of metamorphosic insect and compare them and we'll see that they differ by a number of changes all of which easily could gradually accumulate one by one. We can clearly see which letters changed, where a gene duplication occurred, where chromosomes split or merged, etc. All of those changes are not something dramatic that appeared out of nowhere, but just a large amount of small modifications to genome, just as evolution predicts. We don't know complete history of those small changes and we don't have data to deduce the reasons why exactly those modifications made the species to continue living, but at least we see that genomes of different species are not entirely rewritten, but are made of shitton of small changes from one related species to another.

"Don't you think it's kinda dumb to expect anything you cannot understand to be wrong?"

thats actually very insightful

kinda sounds like the base for most religions.

Its incredibly ironic that you of all people responded to that post

why is that ironic?

Do you think I find something to be "wrong" while "I don't understand it"?
If so what are you talking about?

they call him the Grand Architect

I'd really recommend Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker" as he explains how complexity is evolved from simply beginnings.

Or if you want a quicker answer have a look at this series:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73...KFWKjtMhTe

hitsu is the pinnacle of de-evolution, never read so much bullshit in one thread. lmao

if you want to talk shit about me mongrel, prove im wrong.

if you cant do it(and i assure - you cant) - back under the rock as qwih did

i didn't go anywhere, you simply mixed apples and oranges as you did every single time in your lifetime on this forum. Answering to you is meaningless.

haha funny, i was sure meaningless is not a synonim of "i cant prove my point at all, i better go back and hide under my rock"

Technology is a part of evolution, intelligence is a part of evolution, survival of the fittest is primitive.

Pretty much all your points are invalid,

srsly, theres this little button link "Reply" in right upper corner of every post. not being able to use it is actually a proof of you being degenerate.


and no, ur dumb.

simulation: we isolate few newborns in a easy to live enviroment. we're a invisible hand, taking care of them, but not interfering too much. we wait till they are adults, and then give them smartphones. do you think they will know how to use them?

fuck no, because technology knowledge is not passed down. and actually they should, as their parents did know how to use a fucking smartphone.

under the fucking rock, degenerate

And as I suspected, completely misses the point....sigh. you're bad.

i may be bad but you cant prove im wrong. does that makes you even worse? yes i think i does.

go back under the rock

there are a lot of people under the rock. One day you'll realize that it's not the rest of the humanity there but it's you as you don't get what's happening. As usual.

then prove im wrong. i dare you. i double dare you motherfucker.

otherwise just shut the fuck up, and stop polluting internet with your ignorance

we'll never prove you are wrong. If we do, you mix apples and oranges. If we tell you are wrong again. You take more apples and oranges and mix them. If someone tells you that you are mixing apples and oranges, you take more apples and oranges and mix them.
You are safe in your fortress, where the wall are retardation, the pavement is denial and the roof is a very sad handicap.

guess what: life is not only apples. there are other fruits.

Intelligence has diminished over the years, due to technology making things easy, we as humans have just let things pass by. We might seem more "intelligent" but we're not.

how can you prove that? How can you say so in an era where education reaches the most people ever?

Education might reach us easier due to things like the Internet, however that being the case where most people would just "Google" something if they don't know it, you rely on technology to do the hard work, what happened to the concept of going to the library and researching it on your own accord?

How can I prove that you say? Look at today and the standards of education across the globe for example, they've dumbed down the education system in most countries. The things being taught in highschool/college here in the UK most people learnt whilst in primary school. The same goes in America, they've dropped difficulty of SAT's etc. You're completely ignorant if you think technology has made up more intelligent, comparing to maybe 100 years ago yes there has obviously been advancements, but I've rarely managed to come across anyone in the UK able to string together a sentence or even have a conversations about various topics. We're tied to our mobile devices, the most "intelligent" content we consume on our phones are lol cats and 9gag memes. There are a few people on this forum that actually have some sort of intelligence but if you've spent time out in the open interacting with humans on a day to day basis you would be able to see that people are not as technologically and intellectually inept to operate on this planet.

yes, technological advancement shifted information input from quality to quanity, i've read studies about it.

Holy shit, someone who actually reads! :D

so basically you are considering only us vs the previous generation... Because if you take everything before the war it's really hard not to make very simple negative examples.
However I don't get how clearly you can state something like that just based on the dark side of todays accessibility... There's no way to prove that those exceed the bright ones.

Anyway education system isn't the only way to quantify intelligence, expecially taking into consideration something like social intelligence.

No, the education system is actually reducing our intelligence because of the way it's forcing us to only use one side of our brain, it's pushing us to forget about using the brain as whole, everything in the education system forces us to be more reliant on our left hemisphere, making it harder for use to access the right hemisphere, which in effect is the creative side of the brain, the portion of the brain that will help us as humans evolve intelligently.

That's why most children come up with some of the greatest ideas however later on in life their actual intelligence is suppressed due to the conditioning of the left-hemisphere. Now I can appreciate social intelligence because that is something that defines us humans instead of quantitative intelligence, I would however like to comment on the negative examples before the war, however I was not around. If you think though, any person born from 1999 onwards will more than likely represent us as humans as very dry and stupid individuals due to the amount of shit floating around in today's society. There is no social intelligence any more in my opinion because people are generally not as interactive as what most people were 15-20+ years ago.

there are plenty of examples, via video, interviews and so on, of how was the generation prior to our grandparents. You can tell about em pretty much the same thing you said about people in the UK.. And i'm being positive.
Anyway you are being waaaay onesided in your analysis.. Intuition is still a massive part of what humans do and it's present in every-day life let alone more serious systems.

funnily enough today on the london times (i believe) there is an article about chinese poor kids\boys\young men outclassing the children of the upper class in England :D

We are the technology. I think that the rate of human evolution is actually increasing in speed. The speed of evolution has become so important to ultimate human survival (given impending environmental issues, unstable geopolitical environs) that we have had to innovate, and evolve in a new a different way. We are temporarily outsourcing our evolution – we are now evolving outside our bodies because the breeding and natural selection process is too elongated. Our latest method for evolving has been to change ourselves using our brain. Our only way of doing this quickly enough is creating new body parts outside of our body. A form of intellectual addendum or appendages. Which once these body parts have evolved enough – they will re-enter our bodies. I think that we have already seen some evidence of this. At a primary level with medical science creating human ‘replacement parts’ which we then install into our bodies when the original part fails. Which is a much quicker method than breading out people whose hips, knees and hearts (?) fail early in life. The other element of this that I am witnessing is the size of the machines – their constant reduction in size, and their closeness to us as humans. The computer has an interesting history if we think of it in evolutionary terms. It began very large, as big as a room. It was exclusive and only available to large military, industrial and educational institutions. But it (the computer) then multiplied and divided, becoming smaller and smarter. Eventually arriving on desktops, and on peoples laps. Now it resides in our pockets. It’s constantly getting smaller and smarter. Closer to our bodies. Sometimes we even have an ear piece which injects it’s data directly into our human CPU’s. We too, send data into it. It also spends more time on our person. It no longer gets switched off, its heart beats 24 hours a day for us. The next steps I expect to continue this trend, for it to become smaller, closer to our body and eventually enter our bodies. Something people like Ray Kurzweil have been postulating for some time.

This had to happen. The complexity of data is too rich to digest and make sense of. Both our bodies and brains cannot cope. I think this is partly why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in mental illness. it’s just an internal code overload permeating in different types of human style 404 & syntax errors. It was the only way humans could evolve quickly enough in order to survive. Due to exponential change We had to evolve externally, initially. These tools, both mechanical and code related have become part of our evolutionary path. And just like all evolution it has happened without prior consent, knowledge or intention.

Good read

if computers are intelligent enough to do all the work and keep the system running? Why should the humans employ all these technical gadgets? Its good only for competition within the human race ... its not like it will render you happy ...
and mental illness is only partially the result of genes ...
I think its enough to let a kid grow up on the wrong social factors ...
you could also ask if in the current world only mentally sick people are successful ... the world we live in nowadays has not much to do with where we evolutionary come from, a lot of sitting on some chair, a lot of small talk with people you dont have any real relation to, nihilism in beliefs, no real sense to live for, you just live for some entertainment industry etc., probably only 100 years ago things were much different ...

You're also forgetting due to our lovely advances in technology, especially in the department of food and sustenance, due to our human "evolution" we're actually killing ourselves due to what we are consuming because of the demand for food all the good things are getting taken out to preserve it's lifespan. Cancers and mental illness are more prevalent than before. There is even a tribe that still exists that consume your basic foods like fruits and vegetables that have not been tampered with and in their tribe not once has cancer been seen.

Our mental stresses from day to day life is also what causes our illness, the end of the day we are what we think and the negative thoughts are what weaken us as well. I don't think our advances as a human race are that great to be totally honest with you.

Imagine an island, out in the middle of the pacific or something, and on that island is a species of bird. These birds all have beaks that are one of three sized, small, medium and large. Now, these birds also only eat only one source of food on the island, a kind of nut. This nut tends to be found in three different sizes, small, medium, and large.

Now, the birds with the small beaks can only eat small nuts, the birds with medium beaks can eat small and medium nuts, and the birds with large beaks can eat all 3 types of nut. Now, what happens over time? The birds with small beaks have a lesser chance than the other two types of getting enough food to survive, and therefore reproduce; while the birds with large beaks are doing great in terms of sustaining their numbers and reproducing.

Fast forward a long time and you'll find that the birds with the large beaks are still kicking, while the medium beaked birds have diminished in number, and the small beaked birds are probably gone completley.

Essentially, evolution isn't survival of the fittest in terms of who's physically stronger, in terms of whole species, it's survival of who can reproduce the most effectively and repeatedly. And it's usually decided by specific traits within that species that allows it to reproduce a lot, and thus pass that trait farther down the line.

The big beaked birds survived and thrived and lived to pass on their genes and that specific trait of having big beaks, because that trait helped them have an advantage that, in this case, got them more food. Other traits that do this might decrease the chance of being eaten by predators, allow you to fight for dominance more easily, whatever. If a trait helps a species reproduce more, in any way, then that trait will, over time, become present in a majority of all of that species.

However, the bird example I gave you is a good example of micro-evolution, or evolution within a single species. Macro-evolution would be where one species develops and changes enough over time, that it essentially becomes a new species. So, let's say the middle beaked birds, because the large beaks are eating all the nuts, find that they can try and eat the small worms and bugs in the ground. However, only some of them have the digestion qualities needed to properly eat these bugs. Over time, this will cause the medium beaked birds to differentiate from their big beaked brothers and sisters, as various traits will dictate how well they can get these bugs, feather color to hide from predators, beak strength, etc.

Over even more time, the medium beaked will have changed enough in terms of which genes were passed on and which died out due to lack of reproduction, that they've become a separate species from the big-beaked birds, and that's macroevolution.

nice text, still the big beaked and middle beaked birds live close together and and are genetically not far away from each other can still mix,
if they constantly mix how can a species with a specic trait that is really much different evolve? In Africa, there are many different species of apes and also humans, how could they have developed these specific traits if they are always exposed to the other species?

You might like this

http://youtu.be/Gjvuwne0RrE

problem however is that in your example you have to start off with all sizes for beaks and the 'least addapted' die off... That's not how it works.
A positive mutation spreads fast through an (connected) population.
Aka if 2 small beak birds give birth to a medium sized beak bird... and that is an evolutionairy advantage than within several generations almost all birds will have medium sized beaks.

Your smart so what's your take on gay people?

If being gay is genetic than what would be the purpose of this "mutation" that causes people to like the same sex? Adam and Steve can't pass on there genes unless Eve comes along.
What would be the purpose of a gay gene from an evolutionary standpoint?
It's not procreative.
Over time the gene should disappear since the holder is pre-dispositioned to like the same sex, and two of the same can't procreate The "mutation" should be dwindling....

Instead were surrounded by queers and their goddamn gay parades!

First of all I have no problem with people being gay as long as they don't try to make a move on me (never happened so I have no problem with gay people).

Secondly I don't know why you would say "goddamn gay parades" because god does not damn parties... If you don't like the party then don't show up. Personally I hate parties which go on after soccer matches got won.... With people trashing public goods to express their joy (wtf is up with that?).

Also I'm not entirely sure if being gay is actually genetical.... Because it's not often that a gay person actually produces offspring. So it's hard to see... There are some researches that show a link which hints on a genetic background but a lot of them are not actually conclusive and several which claim to be conclusive are done by heavily christian universities ;).

But let's assume that it is genetical then the "mutation" has less chance of reproducing and therefor won't ever be able to become a majority. Unless ofcourse they have some evolutionairy advantage.... Which atm is not extremely clear.
You could say that being gay makes you less influencable by all of these crap commercials which almost show soft-porn in order to sell shampoo / parfume etc. And our western society heavily favors rich people...
So in the current day and age it might be a small advantage to be gay.
But if they do have an evolutionairy advantage then the tools of science do favor them > straight people. As you can nowadays produce offspring by just taking the cells from a gay man and a lesbian woman to create a perfectly healthy kid (which as far as I know is not necessarily gay.... which would make a genetical link somewhat unlikely).

My theory on homosexuality is that it is a natural reaction of a sexually promiscuous species against over-population.

It is interesting to know that in roman times, it was uncommon for a man to have sex with only woman, sex between males was condoned and even favoured.

why aren't rabbits gay?

male cats fuck eachother pretty often

Yea i heard about those underground "sex parties" in the hood.

indeed, caesar was mostly gay

Being a faggot in rome:



" You guys hear about Octavian? .... Somethings wrong with that guy. He just won't suck a dick...Or anything"

"yeah. Told you that guy was a fuckin' queer!"

dafuq?'

The environment of a species is what dictates the success of their evolutionary process. Not their population or individual mutations.

the environment dictates which mutations get favored.

The evolution process itself is dependant on the rate of mutation and the rate of reproduction.
The theory of evolution claims that the mutations which are favored by nature will spread out over the population faster than other lesser favored mutations.
The same also holds for other organisms (if other organism are better suited in that environment they will spread faster than the lesser favored organisms).

And that's almost what you said but it's slightly different in cause and effect.

Incorrect, due to birds having a vast abundance of types of food available that'll never cease to happen, it's a good analogy though.

I'm originally from South Africa, the climate is harsh and hot, I am now however based in the UK and for the last 4 years it's been cold and miserable, I've become used to European conditions, I've lost my tan and when I returned to South Africa in December for a holiday the heat even though not as hot as what I used to have was really an extreme feeling, I was climatised.

This is an example of micro evolution, If was to live in a hot country again I'd build up a tolerance to the conditions, the same would apply to people who move to a desert, genetically over time when you reproduce your skin will become slightly harder or more resistant to sun/uv etc.

Your theory of macro evolution is incorrect however, have you ever witnessed an apple tree produce non-apples? Or dogs produce non-dogs? Not even if there were enough radiation and genetic merging will any kind of being on the planet be able to create something that is not related to it's own kind.

lol

i witnessed humans producing fools. does that count? :D

You don't understand evolution. Whales originate from wolf like creatures, they are mammals and have a well documented fossil record. That is what creationists don't understand. With sufficient amount of time the species from which they originally branched off can no longer reproduce and thus form a new species. That is macro evolution. No one ever suggests a speciation after one generation.

Your example of micro evolution is also wrong. Climatising has nothing to do with it, your genes don't change. If you have a specific trait that allows you to tolerate high heat and pass that on to the next generation that is micro evolution. If you don't have it and die before you reproduce that too contributes so that set of genes no longer being selected via natural selection.

How is getting used to climate not genetic? Your body adapts to the harsher conditions, your skin hardens slightly. The way your body retains water and also uses that water to keep yourself cool is definitely a biological trait that anyone's body can go through.

Your explanation of micro evolution contradicts itself then, any human or creature can change and adapt to anything because we all contain DNA and DNA constantly learns as it reproduces itself.

I would love to see solid evidence of macro evolution though. It's interesting to think about but there is no solid evidence as no one has ever witnessed it. And fossils in relation to carbon dating and the process behind it is inaccurate

Good lord this is basic stuff. Do you even know what DNA is? It does not learn. You climatising is simply gene expression, there is no evolution occurring during the process. Your genes don't change if you go from South Africa to the UK.

As for the latter I can only laugh. I could not have explained it any simpler yet you still do not comprehend it. My brother's little boy understands it. As for dating, there are a shitload of dating methods all correlating to a good approximation.

I don't think you know how DNA actually works, it is constantly replicating, every time a DNA strand replicates itself it's like it reprograms itself, some replications contain errors that actually get improved on.

DNA replicates once for every cell division. In humans, cells may divide frequently (like skin cells) or rarely (like brain cells), depending on the function of their tissue.

Your knowledge on how acclimatization due to a change in climate is pretty weak as well. It's either you've misunderstood what I've said or have just interpreted it incorrectly. There's no need to act all offensive though. It's all good in the hood. You're clearly here to try and assume intellectual superiority so if that floats your boat then go on ahead.

Also like you've said that whales have more than likely come from wolf like creatures, due to having to adapt to it's surrounding environments. Why haven't Hippopotamus's changed to whales? They've been on this planet for more than 55 million years. I think I need to contact Richard Dawkins about this.

Sorry, for coming on strong. The cells replicating and not copying the correct instructions are mutations. Evolution only occurs if new traits are passed on.

"I've lost my tan and when I returned to South Africa in December for a holiday the heat even though not as hot as what I used to have was really an extreme feeling, I was climatised.

This is an example of micro evolution."

That is not evolution, as you have not passed on any genes. And the mutations if any is probably not the kind you want(skin cancer) and it will not change the genetic code you will pass on. Thus no evolution has occurred.

As for hippos there is a good reason they stay the same, they don't have pressure to change. (Though I doubt the 55m years claim, probably 10m years and even then still changed quite a bit.) When you are an apex creature like the hippo there is very little pressure on you. This is why you get particularly old 'fossil' creatures that haven't changed for millions of years. The reason is simply because haven't been selected to change.

Which is also why your claim that if you lived and reproduced in a desert that your offspring will have darker skin over time. It's not true, unless it is naturally selected for, eg your offspring dies who's skin can't protect them before they themselves are able to reproduce and those who's skin is tough enough to allow them to survive and pass on their genes. But without those selective pressure its doubtful that the skin will darken over generations.

While other organisms such as bacteria can have a lot more pressure and have a high speed of reproduction you can see evolution occur and even have new bacteria consuming nylon.

Also: observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I'm pretty sure bodily mutations be it of the good kind, will still be seen as something that will increase your ability to survive. So if we were to develop hardened skin and the ability to retain water better for example it would be seen as a process that will be favourable to evolution will it not?

Based on morphology studies, scientists have long believed that hippo's closest relative is the pig. This assumption witnessed a resounding rejection twenty years ago when molecular analysis, later on backed up by DNA analysis, showed that hippo's closet relative is in fact the whale, I think some dude called Jean-Renaud Bois-something something made the discovery and it was between 50-60 so million years ago. So I'd assume the pressure on both creatures would be equal, especially if they've evolved from the same common ancestor no?

If by "fossil" creatures for example you mean alligator or crocodile, then yes there is no need for evolution yet, as they're a perfectly built beast for survival, however there have been cases where a few anacondas have actually hunted and killed them, so from that point of view, if an anaconda eventually evolves to become more adapted to hunt alligators/crocs then surely that would force the former to evolve as well?

I must apologise about the earlier writings of micro-evolution, it was a poor example and I'm pretty sure I've written it when I was asleep, the point I was trying to get across is that it could lead to a form of evolution, there would be plenty of selective pressure that would force us to evolve at a more rapid pace, for example if we lost the ozone layer and all of sudden we saw an increase in global temperature by say 50 degrees, we would have to adapt quickly, unlike humans in a raw state, due to technology, we've adapted the environment around us to suite us.

Let's assume the hardening of the skin and the ability to retain water are mutations. If those mutations occur after birth they would not be passed on the the next generation as acquired mutations are non hereditary.

Thus no evolution has occurred as those mutations are not passed on and will come to end with you. So mutation: Yes. Evolution: No.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsandd...nemutation

As for the hippo I don't particularly care about the age, but I am surprised you say hippos and whales have a common ancestor. Hippos and whales are unable to reproduce, thus macro evolution has occurred, while down the page you seem to deny macro evolution, if I understand you correctly.

Your example of a cat giving birth to a non cat is only proposed by creationists. No scientist will ever propose such a thing, but will instead point out common ancestors and the inability to reproduce as evidence for speciation or what you refer to as macro evolution.

By using the hippo and whale example a group of the common ancestors could have split because of geography, climate or other events. Now for years they reproduced while still being more or less what they originally where. Then with the two populations environmental pressure was placed on them and those with the fittest genes survived. Since the climate, environment are different for these groups they continue to blindly adapt over thousands of generations. Later becoming distinctly different species, unable to reproduce. Thus macro evolution has occurred and we can test it like you said above through DNA analysis and the study of the fossil record.

We're less genetically diverse than the first group of humans.
Each generation passes on it's genetics....
And the receiving generation inherits a slightly degraded version of their parents genes.

Evolution at it's finest!

It's cute how everyone throws evolution out there as a whole package, the question is what type of evolution are you asking about?

There are 6 types of evolution:

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”

Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen

Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds

Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter

Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another

Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

^ The only variation that is visible in today's life is Micro-evolution.

I guess you're talking about the evolution of evolution?

I was just asking which variation of evolution this guy was interested in.

The only one that was relevant to the original question. Evolution by natural selection.

But natural selection isn't part of evolution though. It's an adaptive process creatures go through. Mutations don't count as natural selection.

Are you serious? Natural selection is a driving force of evolution.

Surely not for humans. No more, at least.

A lot less now with modern medicine. But I am talking in the context of sTPHN's post.

View these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8&am...mp;index=6

Natural selection is clearly one of the mechanisms of evolution. Why are you trying to speak authoritatively on a topic you clearly have very little understanding of? Your earlier assertion that there is "no solid evidence" for macroevolution is also completely wrong, as a simple look at wikipedia would have showed you.

Until there is actual live proof of something creating a completely new species and/or changing then I'll accept it, until a dog can produce a non-dog then I'll be a believer.

It's cute that you're posting wikipedia links though to try and prove certain aspects of evolution, remember it's not a complete package, there are plenty of scientists and evolutionists who actually believe natural selection has no real place in the term of evolution. And your assumptions of understanding is great as well, clearly you're the foremost authority of providing wikipedia links.

Do you consider the common chimpanzee and homo sapiens to be the same species (even though both are great apes, and, more fundamentally, primates, the two are regarded as different species, so I just want to make sure you agree)? If no, do you genuinely not believe that we have common ancestors? Because if you agree that we do (as evidence indeed shows), it is by definition an example of a species (one such common ancestor) branching out into eventual new, different species (in this case, notably the common chimpanzee and homo sapiens). Similar examples of macroevolution are literally everywhere, and another one is mentioned on the page I linked you to and that you should try reading.

No, there aren't "plenty of scientists and evolutionists who actually believe natural selection has no real place in the term of evolution". That statement is, quite simply, utterly false, and I challenge you to support it with any evidence. In fact, the modern evolutionary synthesis mentions natural selection as a core mechanism of evolution.

Regarding me providing you with wikipedia links, I'm not sure why I should start by referencing scientific articles when you clearly do not understand some of the basic concepts of evolution - and wikipedia is a good place to start in that respect (as is any encyclopaedia you might have near you). The two pages I linked you to offer good explanations of what I mentioned, so I suggest you read them and consult the scientific papers provided as reference if you'd like to learn more on the topic.

seeing how "species" is defined by their ability to interbreed and give fertile offspring.... I would be inclined to say no.

People get stuck on definitions so easily hehe

Good luck applying that definition to organisms that just divide and never interbreed.

I didn't say it was the full definition.

But as soon as 2 organisms can interbreed and give off fertile offspring they are always 'under the same species'. Also if they cannot produce fertile offspring they are not the same species.
For instance a mule is infertile offspring of a horse and a donkey and therefore a horse and a donkey are not the same species.

I don't really know if theres debate about "species" of organisms that just divide.... I was under the impression that they are not labeled as a "species" but I'm not entirely sure on that. I figured that they are of a certain group of organism rather than a species. But I'm not really interrested in having more knowledge on this hehe :p

Species is imaginary construct that we made for ourselves to understand and classify living beings. There are maybe hundreds of different definitions of "species" used in different areas of biology and ecology.

"Species is imaginary construct that we made for ourselves to understand and classify living beings."
All things in language are "imaginary constructs" but we define them by referencing other constructs and attribute these to 'real' objects.

Theres a border in where "species" starts to fail as a "imaginairy construct" just like theres a border between what you would think falls under the meaning "chair". For instance where exactly is the difference between a "chair" and a "couch"?
If you have 2 small people they can both sit in 1 'large chair'.... should it then be considered to be a couch for small people while it's a chair for large people?

But that's besides the point.... We have constructed the word species to contain in it the definition that if they reproduce through breeding that they are only the same species if and only if they can produce fertile offspring.

Naghokez said "Do you consider the common chimpanzee and homo sapiens to be the same species (even though both are great apes, and, more fundamentally, primates, the two are regarded as different species, so I just want to make sure you agree)?"
Which is trying to redefine the word species.

If we're gonna have an argument in which you attribute different meanings to the same word.... well then you might as well not have the argument.

Not trying to argue, just adding some comments. For example:
If you castrate a human, will it become different species?

To gain maximum knowledge, you have to explore all the boundaries of a subject you're studying, including going full retard.
Are you the same species with a so ugly woman that you'd never even think of having sex with her?

Well I won't go full retard in order to explore boundaries of a subject.... but it's clear that you do.
Actually it's very clear that you do...

So I'll refer you to http://www.esreality.com/post/2563457/#pid2563000

So if you walk in the forest and see "cooller best player ever" inscribed on a tree, you'll need a video proof before you can believe that a cooller fan walked by that tree?

Yes, because he might have been rocket jumping.

That tree could've evolved with that text inscribed into it.

So you can right away believe of evolution of tree into cooller fanboy, but need "live proof" for formation of new species?

Just because the tree could've evolved with it doesn't make a believer, and there is no living proof of one species changing to another for adaptation.

there is no living proof of one species changing to another for adaptation

Did you even try looking through some scientific articles about speciation? Or you think that proof only exists if someone babysits you and feeds it to you on a spoon?

interesting theory there. A theory.

What proof do you have that there's no proof of species changing to another?

Richard Dawkins claims that macro evolution is programmed a bit at a time into the DNA and released when needed. As, when a leg needs to become, in a single generation, a wing. His proposition seems plausible, but it also predicts (per the scientific method), that a lot of genetic information lies dormant and awaits release in all life forms. That is, there is a lot of prescient programming in DNA which will be released as improved phenotypes once the environment requires it. Yet, no genetic researcher has thus far identified this in any life form. Not even a little of it. The theory requires this prescience to be very common, yet none has been detected.

Hmmm now I haven't followed much of Dawkins lately.
But that claim sounds a bit too extreme for Dawkins.

He is usually staying well within the "softer boundries" of genetics / biology. (aka only talking about what is already well known)

He won't need such an "extreme" example to be possible (at least not in his crusade against religious stupidity), and I'm fairly confident that he wouldn't claim something which is not yet proven. His possition is too much criticized for him to be able to have that luxury.

That being said it would be fun if he did claim something as a true biologist/scientist again... I kinda got tired of his media appearances on "the god delusion"

He is an oddball at most times, but he is entertaining, he's become overly media-centric especially since the god delusion, I will agree on that.

he's not that much of an oddball tbh.

He's missing a very fundamental argument in his god delusion but other than that he's a normal scientist and concerned citizen.

(The point he misses is that although religion, in general, discourages questioning nature/physics (= bad thing) it does not disable a religious person to question these things (aka not a necessary bad thing). At the core of Dawkins argument is that religious people close their minds from scientific findings, and this is what he himself finds most repulsive. However(!) this does not mean that religion itself is an 'evil' concept or even a flawed concept.
There are many arguments to be made which fall in between his view and those of the people he in generally opposes..... but Dawkins seems to not be interrested in those arguments and has slightly gone to an extreme 'anti-religion' stance based not on core logical arguments but on softer grounds.
Ofcourse the religious people that do live strictly to the bible and still claim that the earth is the center of the universe / is flat / whatever are being "deluded" by their religion. But theres nothing specifically in religion that forces this. The functioning of some religious organisations (trying to encourage lack of knowledge) is horrible though....
Also from a scientific pov we might as well be a 'brain in a vat' (theres no possible arguing against that) and thus the existence of a god falls within the range of possibilities for all scientists.
So while you might prove that a religion is bullshit, you can't prove that there is no god.)

You are way to kind with him. He is a disgrace for every atheist, the same guys he claims to be representing with his statements.

He is an oddball (i like that word) when he talks about religion, history and philosophy.

His understanding of history is naive to say the least.
His approach at the "New ten Commandements" is ridiculous
His hatred of Christianity goes that far that he denied that it has ever done anything good for society.

how cwould you describe such a person? i think dogmatic, stubborn and simple-minded fit quite well.

he is the ultimate atheist. generous and kind, cultural and well-spoken, educated and passionate. i love him and adore him. (conserning your 'disgrace' part).
any 'new ten commandements' postulated by dawkins based on reason and at its core trying to achieve wellbeing of humankind are way better than the iron-age dogma centered on worshiping some primitive, jealous deity. I could now link mocking vulcan ten commandmends, or laws formulated by hitchens or carlin and they are still better.
And now to the 'christianity did good' part. there are hours long youtube (if you dont want to read) material, where dawkins describes his views on that matter. you simplyfied it. to debunk it in short (and not even half as good as my guru): religion provides false morality (you do good because of the watcher above, not because you choose to). all of the 'art' and astounding religious building were made by best artists cause the church had money - simple as that. not religious afflation or BS like that. (in fact without religion inhibitions they would create a lot more inspiring art). its the $$. why church had so much $$, because it destroeyed competition (look: ten commandements), fiercely, and promised a lot, usurpating morality. maybe you are that amish type, that is equaliasing technological advance and science with Satan? if yes, then true. Christianity did all it could to fight progress. In dark ages it just turned science to early greco-latin civilization. early, cause as soon as christians took power, they always tried to halt any discoveries that are oposing 'word of god' (hypatia anyone?). Yeah, 1000 years of nothing new going on in europe. and after that? genoside of 2x america motivated strongly by greed and religion. (you need that religion to mobilize common folk: gott mit uns).
but its all 'history', and philosophy. lets be practical. religion provides comfort, based on lies and wishful thinking it deceives people, lowering standard of their one and only life for promises of 100 houris, oh wrong religion, i meant heaven) it also provides humans with false morality. blaming devil for their evil and wrongchoices, providing them with instant and easy forgiveness of their sins. lol. and easy answeres for everything (why bother with progress, if 'god created it all, lets go back to caves and be happy about our vast knowledge of "The Truth" as they [zealots] like to call it). religion is da bomb. you and your wide horizons, you

well first of course i delibaretely simplified it to provoke a discussion. I find it a very interesting topic.

"you do good because of the watcher above, not because you choose to"

yes that´s more or less right and i consider it having a very healthy effect on moral because it implies that humans have an ever lasting responsibility for their actions. Dostojewski already knew that "if there is no God, everything is permitted"

suppporting this argument is the last century which brought us the most intolerant and totalitarian regimes in history. Hitler and Stalin both basically were Atheists.

thing is there is no way to derive ethics from science. David Hume proved that already...

I agree that the church has done a lot of really bad stuff. the
crusades, witch-hunt. etc. however, the church does not equal religion does it? Thing is Dawkins made statements like religion is a virus of mind and so on. But if you understand the new Testament correctly it´s lecture clearly is real Christians do not use violence to achieve their goals...

A lot of the greatest scientist in history were religious men. (Lemaitre, Einstein, Kepler, Newton)...

"lets be practical. religion provides comfort, based on lies and wishful thinking"...

Please refrain from such pointless Freud argumentaion. it´s easy to turn it around: atheism is a delusion that provides you not to take responsiblity for your crimes and failures..

..to be continued.

EDIT: i love the irony that you called him your guru.

Atheism is simple the absence of a belief in a god, it has no moral connotation or philosophy.
Hitler was arguable a Catholic, Stalin definitely an atheist. Both had the backing and support of the Church.
You can be an atheist and Stalin or you can be an atheist and Bill Gates. It says nothing about your philosophy.

Even if those where believers, they come from a time when we knew very little about the world. Einstein was an atheist or if you are really generous a pantheist. But in modern times an overwhelming percentage of scientists and other well informed people like comedians are atheists.

Religion is ultimately an organised panic about death.

Hitler a catholic? c´mon i mean he talked several times about his comtempt for the weakness of the christian/jewish teachings. there really is nothing christian in his ideology and delusional self-interpretation. In fact Hitler was heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

I did not say Einstein was a Theist. He for sure is not an atheist. He is influenced by Spinoza that´s for sure but that doesn´t necessarily make him a pantheist. Either way i talked about him being religious which he clearly was.

"Even if those where believers..."

That´s an interesting point. Despite Dawkins denying that Atheists believe, atheism also is a form of believe. it´s not like the neutral state before somebody get´s "indoctrinated" by religion.

I am not talking about Atheism in general. what i´m talking about is the New Atheism and Richard Dawkins and their radical ideas and statements.

You said Einstein was religious. He was not. Anyway semantics.

Not to stray too off topic. But I object to your moral correlations. It's in fact the opposite, with God everything seems to be permitted. From denying contraceptives, burning witches and flogging homosexuals by the meek and mild Christians in Africa, to the fatwas and sharia in the Middle East to the absolute bizzare in Asia. To teaching nonsense in schools in the US. It seems with God on your side everything is not just possible, but even encouraged as to do God's will. And don't you even dare question that will!

Atheists don't believe a score will be settled in the afterlife. If you do wrong here, no prayers are going to save you, no piling the sins on Jesus is going to wash you clean. No divine intervention is going to save our world from destruction.

you don´t seem to undesrstand. I´m talking about Dawkins and his weird view that a) atheists do not believe. which leads him to b) atheism is superior and neutral.

Einstein said studying science leads him to a religious feeling of a very special kind. This is something Dawkins would never say..

There we go generalize more please. You can´t just throw every religion into the pit and then conclude "religion in general is dangerous" that´s not scientific. Sad thing is this is exactly what the New Atheists do.

on a side note: questioning god´s will is an important element of christian believe. not only that. conriniously questioning the teachings and reinterpreting them aswell.

as for your last point: Yea i know that what is the point? i´m not attacking atheism in general. believe what you want but don´t consider your believe superior.

Like I said I haven't followed him much recently.
But as far as I know he is a very respectable and decent scientist. Always keeping things on the subject and usually very accurate in doing so. For instance I haven't seen anything where he's twisting history to fit his views better. The historical things I heard from him all happened.

His "quest" against religion is kinda extreme though but that's not a bad thing.

so an atheist extremist is better than a religious extremist?

I didn't mean extreme as him being an extremist... just that he focusses on this debate too much.
He used to also be a good biologist and he had an own tv-show for a while etc.
Nowadays it seems like all his focus is on religion = extreme.

An "extremist" has views which are very far away from regular people. Aka many 'normal people' are religious but only extremists would rather kill themselves in the name of their god than to forgive some sins.
Dawkins views are not that spectacularly different from normal people... he just over extends his efforts on the debate.

hmm so you´re saying it´s not bad that he does focus on his "quest". So you don´t want him to focus on science rather?

am I talking chineese here? :>

He foccusses too much on his "quest". I would prefer it if besides criticizing religion he would be more active in other fields. His tv shows from back in the day were really on the edges of biology showing the latest ideas and philosophying a bit about future research. (were pretty funny shows)


Being "extreme" in something is usually negative. In case of Dawkins it's almost an obsession to debate religion (it seems to me).
However I think that the stance taken by Dawkins in this debate is mainly correct. (With the exception that I already pointed out.)

"His "quest" against religion is kinda extreme though but that's not a bad thing."

ah well i see you refer to quest not to extreme. Sorry but given your usually very adequate english skills i did not expect you to make such mistakes :).

I´m sure Dawkins is a very capable scientist, however his approach at religion is not scientific at all.

extreme is one of those words which can be used in many different ways... and in dutch the same word is often used to indicate a somewhat "absurd enthousiasm" (or "overly committed") which is also one of the meanings in english but ye....
I guess that it's more ambiguous in the english language :D
The link to "extremism" is maybe stronger in english :p


About his approach to religion... Well it's complicated.
The "power" of the church has been massively reduced since the rennaisance. And there has been a huge shift (in the western world) towards personal education and individualism.
So nowadays religion in the western world is also a (mainly) individual thing. Therefor many of the problems Dawkins struggles with have already been reduced (not eliminated but reduced).
The problem is (in general) that the religious books "teach" a way of life. Other "knowledge" which might lead you to other ways of thinking are therefor a threat. That is the core issue which gets addressed by Dawkins.
In the past and (currently) in different parts of the world there are different gradations in this "teaching". For instance fundamentalists (of a religion) are only reading their religious books as education. And as you know they can be dangerous as they can be heavily influenced by their religious leader. Some of them get their education from a spiritual leader because they can't read themselves... which well.... gives the spiritual leader political influence (to put it mildly :p).

What is complicated is this tradeoff of "religious teaching" vs what the western world calls "education".
Now within europe I think we've done a fairly good job of having this "morality" from religion and "knowledge" from education. But this view on religion is only quite recent (say it's been going on since the rennaisance and picked up speed along the way with technological improvements (recently the internet, before that the telegraph/telephone before that railways and before that printed books)).

One of the points that makes this painfully clear is the debate (several years ago) on the teachings of creationism/intelligent design on USA schools. And ofcourse the flying spaghetti monster! :D
To teach that stuff nowadays is similar to teaching people that the earth was flat while we could already sail around it. This is "knowingly misleading people" which is a bad thing.
So you can see that sometimes "religious teachings" go against "science"... and ofcourse it is difficult to say what exactly is known in science and what kind of religious mumbo jumbo is still valid as an counter argument etc.
But I think that to argue in favor of science in these situations is a very good thing. Knowledge should be freely accessible and verifiable by everyone.

i´m definately with you in this aspect creationism and what was suppposed to be taught in the mid-west is knowingly misinforming people. But as you already pointed out it´s not religion in general that encourages such standpoints.
It´s not a choice between religion or science. they do not exclude each other. And religion in general does not lead to denying new knowledge There are many religious physicists right?

the thing that Dawkins and (you?) delibaretely oversees is that atheism may also lead to denial of new knowledge if it indicates to the existence of a divine intelligence. This is what bugs me and a lot of people. Dawkins sells his atheism like it was the truth. He never doubts his own worldview and he spreads his very personal views (which lack conclusive evidence) not in a scientific way.

Anyway this discussion seems over for me i just wanted to present you some arguments from the other party.

In case you´re interested here is an critique from the "prospect" magazine. please note that "prospect" repeatedly (last time in 2013) crowned Richard Dawkins the intellectual of the year.

haven't read the prospect yet. But I wanted to reply before I do so :p

I personally don't exclude the possibility of a divine thing. At this moment I would find it unlikely to find evidence that supports that existence (just like it's unlikely to find evidence which supports the opposite).

But I am (very) skeptical on religion. And most of that skepticism comes from the instutution of a "church" or "mosque" or "sinagogue" (prolly misspelled those ;p). As they have created a 'power structure' and somewhat take roles as 'educators'. (this is very subtle and we can debate this a lot if you want but it seems a bit outside of the scope of your question).

There is a large difference between a divine entity which we (atm) know nothing about. And a divine entity which placed several books on earth leading to the pope/cardinals/priests and several ayatohlah's (also misspelled) having influence over people.
I don't know if these books hold any real truth's other than historically being fairly accurate. Theres nothing that supports that.


Also on the point of "But as you already pointed out it´s not religion in general that encourages such standpoints." there are many religions (specific ones) that favor one over the other. And they take the task upon them of 'education'.
Now in the western world this is only a slight issue... but if you saw how heavy the debate was on creationism in the USA then you can perhaps imagine a similar heavy debate on atheism being punishable by law in strong islamitic (less educated) countries.

(btw there are also several christian very poorly educated countries and there are many islamic countries which are well educated)

I should be a bit even more specific in the last paragraph.
Perhaps it's not so much "a specific religion" but "a specific interpretation of that religion by someone who has a kind of "power" or "educational role" in the religious community".
Aka if a priest would "teach"/"preach" creationism would it be a bad thing? (imo yes it would be a bad thing... but according to many religious people it's "correct" (aka that was what the debate was on))

Theres a thin line between all of those things though.... And it's easy to confuse stances on this....

hmm don´t know if this is exactly referring to the points you made but i want to tell you my own thoughts.

I don´t believe in jesus and that he was son of god. To me the whole thing has way too much of human symbolism. all those metaphors (jesus the gardener) and so on..
However i think the teachings of jesus are immensely valuable and definately had a very strong influence on western society morally. I highly doubt that atheism can provide a solid ground for moral without the christian teachings.

I don´t know a lot about islam at all so i can´t quite argue there. But i think that it´s not the islam that leads to suicide bombers, but certain social circumstances e.g. high rates of analphabetism a non-democratic government etc.and people who abuse these to increase their power.

These institutions are educators yes. but their main effort is to teach the moral aspects not the "scientific" ones (as those as creation of the world in 7days are only just metaphors to state that god is the beginning.) I learned that in catholic religion class in school few years back. There are always oddballs who think differently about that but it is the official view of the catholic chruch at least in germany.


"you can perhaps imagine a similar heavy debate on atheism being punishable by law in strong islamitic (less educated) countries"

The questions you have to ask approaching this topic is which religion, at what time episode under which social and political circumstances may cause a threat. that´s scientific methodology

I think you're viewing this issue a bit too one-sided from your own experiences of religion in the western world.
Like I said already that in the western world the issues which bother myself (and, for as far as I know, Dawkins) are already less of an issue than in other places in the world.

If your point is on morality then yes science does not really teach those things (although there is a lot of research on topics as to "why morality > no morality" but science doesn't preach, it never tells you what to do...).
But you don't need a god to teach morality. Wouldn't it be very immoral of religious people to only abide by the moral laws of the bible because God is watching?
I mean... it's not really "moral" to live life in order not to get punished. Or it's not "moral" to live life in order to get to heaven.
"morality" is something that you do regardless of "lack of persuasion". It's moral to stand up for an elderly women in the bus, you don't charge her 5$ for your seat. You expect to not be rewarded other than that other people also maintain a moral standard.
----

Let's take that "creation of the world in 7days are only just metaphors" part. This links in great with the debate on creationism. Because they DO say "the world was made in 7 days". (wikipedia quote: Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.)

And this debate was on education done by educational facilities (aka recognized schools) in the USA.
So this is the "influence of the church on education" in the western world.

-----
To actually get a "real view" on this you should really explore the area a lot.
A lot of religious people think that they already know where they should stand on this. But there are MANY different arguments you can make for either side.
I don't have any problem with people who chose to be religious, but they should be aware of all the arguments and have an opinion on them.

For instance... a LOT (and I mean shitloads) of people don't question if there is a god. They "know" there is a god.
But then where is the faith???? Because faith itself means that there is not enough evidence supporting it.
You chose to believe something regardless of the lack of evidence = faith.
This is a thing that most religious people can't understand. But if you are religious then you should really consider if your "faith in God" is large enough for you to believe in him and for some it's "large enough" to say that they "know" there is a god.
But most of them (nowadays in the western world) heavily question that, while not questioning their faith.

(it's hard to be precise hehe ;p)

The thing about moral is extremely complicated i´ll write about that later. Just one thing: you can not observe what IS and then conclude what SHOULD BE. but later more :)

If they say so it is the duty of the reasonable people and especially christian scientists and priests to denounce it, which has been done as far as i know. correct me if i´m wrong but the government did not change the laws that prevent religious teachings officially happening in class did they?


"You chose to believe something regardless of the lack of evidence = faith."

you completely swallowed Dawkins doctrine here. that is NOT a valid definition of "faith". the word itself does not contain any statements about the evidence that supports it! ( <- i wish my english was better).

I agree that some people may do so. some people are naive and some people don´t question anything. On the other hand does Dawkins ever question his atheism? Do you think he also just believes or do you think he knows?

Do you ever question your disbelief in unicorns, spiderman or santa clause?

Also as weird rightly put it(or maybe just implied, don't wanna put words in his mouth) you can't have religion and morality. Not if you truly believe, you're either doing the right thing for the sake of the right thing or because of punishment/reward from a divine being(self interest).

Well the things are not mutually exclusive.
You can be religious and do the right thing in sake of the right thing.
You can also be not religious and do the right thing in sake of the right thing.

You can also be religious and well educated doing research on the forefront of science.
You can also be non religious and well educated doing research on the forefront of science.

It's not that one completely excludes the other...

But "acting moral because of self interest" is imho "immoral" because when the self interest would disapear... then you don't have to "act (pretend) being nice anymore".
Yet a LOT of christians think that way. They think that leading a noble life means that you have to suffer (or some bs like that). Aka their being nice = a sacrifice towards God.

But it doesn't have to be ofcourse. There are enough religious people who are nice people (regardless of their religion).

(This debate is filled with very subtle linguistical differences..... You do understand the point I'm trying to make though, but the 'mutual exclusive' part is missing ;p)

That's why I said truly. Most religious people are not truly religious, you can see it when they say the bible shouldn't be taken literally, like our friend here. I mean here it is "the word of god" and he's telling us "don't take it literally". WTF?? Seems like an awfully important thing to dismiss taking literally.

what kinda argument is that? i asked to question belief not disbelief. And if you want to imply that believing in santa clause and god is the same thing then i don´t even know where to start. I´´ll explain the moral thing in another post.

while we´re at it i can understand your confusion. But let me tell you "word of god" does not necessarily mean that god dictated the words.
the view that is mostly accepted is that the authors were inspired by god. so if you take it literally you also have a lot of errors since language is dynamic and translation errors etc.

i asked to question belief not disbelief

No, you said "does Dawkins ever question his atheism?". Don't give me that bullshit about atheism being about faith or beliefs. What is there to question? Are there any evidence for the existence of a god/gods? No. Question answered. And no, santa and god are not the same, nobody has been tricked/brainwashed into morally reprehensible acts in the name of santa.

wtf you´re doing it again :D. Question was is there any evidence against the existence of a god?.Answer: Yes there is. of course as is for the contrary.

I guess what you want to say is "is there a proof for the (in)existence of a god? Then the answer is No in both cases.

"Don't give me that bullshit about atheism being about faith or beliefs. What is there to question? "

Weird has an interesting link to that. maybe he is kind enough to send it to you.

On the topic of the flying spaghetti monster... The vote was 6 - 4 to keep "evolution" in the education while not substituting it for "intelligent design". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings)
So the government almost forced teachers to teach intelligent design on schools.
It was a very specific "teaching" which was debated here. But ofcourse the church did not denounce "intelligent design" nor critizised teaching of it over evolution.

So theres a lot of things here which are very subtle but in general it shows that the church is pure evil!!! (ok not true but hey it's fun to write down :DD)

Similar case is now with gay rights around the globe. The only people who have something against gays say: "it is not biblical". And then the church sais: "The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages."

Which basically means: "They have no right to be gay but violence against them is bad." And do note that this was a improvement for gay people around the world.... They celebrated that John Paul the 2nd said this.

Before this time the church actually encouraged violence act towards homosexuals... or at least urged them to recover from their illness.


-------------
Wikipedia:
Faith is confidence or trust in a person (as in their ability), thing, deity, in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) even without empirical evidence. It can also be belief that is not based on proof, or as confidence based upon varying degrees of evidential warrant.


English dictionairy:
strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence.
I actually really like this one:
a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, especially when this is not based on reason.


But you have a point... which is that the christian community is trying REALLY hard to change the definition of this word to fit with their messed up view of reality as a result of arguing with people like Dawkins.
That they actually "have gotten to you" with completely overriding the meaning of a word is kinda sad.

On questioning atheism I send you a link.
As for Dawkins personal beliefs.... I do not find myself qualified to answer that, you should ask him.

You seem to have weird dictionaries because mine tend to give me more than one meaning ;)

on the wikipedia one: it´s just wrong. If i tell a good friend of mine "i have faith in you..) that trust of course is based upon empirical evidence.

Oxford ALD

1 [uncountable] faith (in somebody/something) trust in somebody's ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised
2 [uncountable, singular] strong religious belief
3 [countable] a particular religion



Oxford dictionaries

1Complete trust or confidence in someone or something

2Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

If someone says he has faith in god it may also be because of (in his view) empirical evidence.

you want to shift the focus from a sane debate on religion to a bitch fight about dictionaries?

All definitions of "faith" are somehow linked to "not being sure". If it wasn't then it wouldn't be called "faith" but it would be called "fact".

If you "have faith in someone" you would be suprised if the person fails to deliver. Or perhaps you'd even be betrayed. But those options are still unknown at the time that you decide to "have faith" in someone.

That this idea doesn't come to you is because of a pure evil brainwashing by the church! (ok it's not but it sounded funny :DDD)
But it is part of the church's doctrine... they promise you heaven and you have faith in God making judgements etc.... That all suffering is actually for the good of mankind etc.

I'm telling you that the church is one of the major systems behind making people suffer. Most atheists do not have any problem with allowing gays to get married (and all of the benefits that come from that like joined taxes, nicer insurance plans, other financial deals which couples have... in some countries only married people can addopt children (while if theres one group that needs to addopt it's gay ppl)).

This stuff is not fictional just because it's not done in Germany. In Uganda gay people are now outlawed and their names are published.... Basically if you wanna kill someone -> go to Uganda, find a gay person and you're free to do what you want.
(ok this is probably a bit exagurated but it should get the point across)

One thing after the other. Now to the morality thing

noun (plural moralities)
[mass noun]

1Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour

1.1 [count noun] A particular system of values and principles of conduct

1.2The extent to which an action is right or wrong:

Naturalism can not be a solid basis for morality (I think you agreed with me here. so the most complicated part won´t be needed.)


Anyway the christian message is that there is justice for everyone in the end. Another message is that we should thank god for our existance and that we are a model of himself.

Now just imagine for a moment there is a god. wouldn´t it be very ungrateful not to live after his rules when he is the almighty creator of the beautiful world we live in?

Another thing is that we do good not only because we fear punishment. But because god tells us the categories aka what is good and what is bad. We could not know this if we follow a materialistic worldview.

Also don´t you think a little monitoring is helpful? just look at what happens if there is a huge blackout so far innocent citizens start rubbing stores and set them on fire.
______________________________

I won´t argue the way homosexuals have been treated. I condemn it aswell. But I can somewhat undesrtand that the biblical marriage is not supposed to be for homosexuals.

for the intelligent design (id) ;)

I definately don´t think id should be taught instead of evolution anywhere. But i don´t consider it as bad as traditional creationism. I think a lot of people, politicians not excluded do not understand Dawrwin´s theory of evolution and have a very naive worldview. I think the solution that was found is relatively satisfying: id can be taught as an alternative but the theory of evolution must be taught.

t´s not the task of the church to embrace Darwin´s theory fully and defend it. they shall denounce taking the bible literally etc. but this is not their subject and i think scientists of any believe have to protest against it.

Naturalism can not be a solid basis for moral (I think you agreed with me here. so the most complicated part won´t be needed.)
No I said that religion has done a fairly ok job at "teaching" morality (at least in the western world) I did not exclude any other people from this. There are many "moral" behaviours known within nature. Like monkeys who share food and have a "power structure" where eventually things are devided pretty fairly among the members. Heck even ants have "moral roles" which although not described as being due to morality do have some overlap with what we should call moral. (they also have some very cruel behaviours though... which is why we do not call them moral beings.)

Now just imagine for a moment there is a god. wouldn´t it be very ungrateful not to live after his rules when he is the almighty creator of the beautiful world we live in?
If I was to assume that there is a God then yes I would try to "live after his rules". However this would also imply that if God would tell me to "kill all atheists" that I would attempt to do that. But as an atheist I am free to choose to live a life in any way I deem fit. That I choose to be "morally just" without any expectation of reward is (imo) worth much more than any God can expect from a human.

Now you think that this argument is shit because God didn't tell you to "kill all atheists". Except that.... the church claims that the pope is a spokesman of God (or 'a man of God') and several popes have ordered crusades on the topic of "kill all atheists" (or actually just kill everything that isn't christian). And religious people did this, not because of their own moral judgement, but because of the moral judgement from the spokesman of God.

Now my question... Do you think that a God should allow for that to happen? I mean if God is such a nice guy... and killing in general is a bad thing. Then why would he not interfere if an 'appointed spokesman' would use God's name to conqueror the world? (or at least attempt to erradicate all other religions)

Second question: Do you think that the church is qualified to teach you the "word of God"? Especially because they "interpret" the bible.

For me these 2 questions are reasons not to believe in any specific religion. (not the only reasons but they rate pretty high on the list of repulsive things which I do not want to be associated with)

The "interpretations" in the bible are also very silly. I can just as easily find 'moral lessons' in "The little mermaid" by Hans Christian Anderson as I can find in any story of the "bible" by unknown origin.

The little mermaid longs for love and for a soul, things which "only humans have". To do so she makes a bet with the devil (the witch). In the end she wins the bet because the prince loves her (and she loves him). Lesson: love conquerors all!

If you want to read between the lines and "interpret" the bible then how about: Mary cheated on Jozeph, Jozeph was a naive young man with a lot of respect for religion. Mary got pregnant from her continuous affairs with the milkman. Mary thought(!) "If I cheated on my husband.... maybe I can also lie to him... he's pretty naive".
Lesson of the story: you can get away with breaking at least 2 of the 10 commandments and grow out to be one of the most celibrated people of all of mankind.

-----

Third question: If a religious man, like the pope, would know about how gay people are treated in Uganda as a result of his own statements. Would it be a "noble" thing to completely ignore this? Or should he speak out against all discrimination of gay people?

"you want to shift the focus from a sane debate on religion to a bitch fight about dictionaries?"

No I just wanted to point out that there is more than one meaning. And the main meaning is Trust or conviction.of course wikipedia is complete shit and only idiots use it ;)))).

I want to calrify that i do not feel qualified nor interested to defend all the shit "religion" has done and still does. Initially i wanted to discuss with real Dawkins fanboys and enlighten them about the scientific value of the god delusion.

What scientific value of "the god delusion"?
It's not a scientific paper nor does it claim to be so.

It's a book that questions several foundations of religion and criticizes religious institutions.

Theres no "proof" in it that God doesn't exists.
Even Dawkins himself doesn't have much critism on religion other than that "it stops your thinking about things you don't understand".
And there are some very easy examples for that from the past.

There used to be Gods for everything we didn't understand. Fire, Thunder, Lightning, Wind, Water, Earth, Death, Guarding the dead, and many more. They all lived at places that you couldn't reach. In a vulcano, on a cloud, on the highest mountain, in a "neather world".

And nowadays we just understand the processes and we don't honer these Gods anymore :'(
But untill we learned (through science) what the process was the only explanation ever given was: It's because of the God of........ Which stops your thinking on the subject.... ("ok it's a devine thing.... I won't understand :((")

forget about the "scientific". Of course it is not.

"Even Dawkins himself doesn't have much critism on religion other than that "it stops your thinking about things you don't understand"."

No. His view is entirely biased. He says religion is a virus of mind. He also stated that he hopes religious people read his book and put it away as Atheists. So he wans to convince people that his worldview is the only reasonable and calls people who believe fools. He pretends to convince by logical reasonable argumentation, while large parts of his argumentation are characterized by wrong definitions, lack of definitions, poor research when it comes to the bible and history, invalid generalization and intolerance towards other opinions. In short a biased worldview.
______________________________

Your start is right people could not possibly understand these things. The picture Dawkins draws though is that religious people are unable to throw away old convictions, which is not true. as i stated in an earlier post

for the freedom thing.

Yes atheists may have more freedom can´t deny that. However, immediate consequences of that total freedom are the absence of justice and hope.

For your questions.

1) teachings are: God left us with the free will to do what we want and to be judged at the end. another teachiing is that real followers of jesus aka christians do not use violence to achieve their goals. the unfailable part of the pope indeed has been a problem after all the only "complete" human is supposed to be jesus.

2) don´t know what exactly you mean by this. Noone teaches the "word of god". the bible is a collection of books. Some are just historic reports some are historic and have a moral commentary and some are fictional lessons. What is taught is the sustance of the teachings, ever since being critically reinterpreted and questioned the substance remained the same and has had undeniable influence on nowadays´ morality


"The "interpretations" in the bible are also very silly. I can just as easily find 'moral lessons' in "The little mermaid" by Hans Christian Anderson as I can find in any story of the "bible" by unknown origin."

Except that the bible is not entirely fiction. In fact the New testament begins with describing the political situation. historical events that have happened in a very detailed manner. The amount and age of manuscripts that exceeds every other book of the acient world is overwhelming. The existence and death of jesus at the cross initiated by pontius pilatus are also historically evident. needless to say that "the little mermaid" does not contain the detailed message of a convincing and reasonable worldview.

Well I don't really want to "defend Dawkins" too much. As I said before that I do not entirely share his view on religious people. But on the "virus of the mind" I would urge you not to see "virus" as a neccessarily bad thing. (I'm pretty sure he put it in to "sell books" and it's a catchy phrase.... And I know that he means it in a negative way.... but I don't want to defend that negative way yet I do want to make you think about the quote)
the term "virus" is in part a remark on "how it is spread" and what "effect" it has.
Something can be "viral" and have a positive effect. (Which in your argument would be "morality and justice" are spread by religion).

Now on the "effect" that Dawkins describes (which in short is "religious people don't think things through").... I am partially agreed with him but I do not blame a "religion" but mainly the "religious teachings". When a priest preaches that the bible shows us that "intelligent design is fact" (which has happened). Then I do feel that his teachings would "be a bad influence".
----------------------------
Your start is right people could not possibly understand these things. The picture Dawkins draws though is that religious people are unable to throw away old convictions, which is not true. as i stated in an earlier post.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with the line "people could not possibly understand these things". I didn't claim such a thing?
I said that people stop questioning things when it is told to them "this is the work of God" (even when they look at something like 'fire') and that this reduces the "need to understand" not that people cannot understand.... I understand how fire works just fine?


Yes atheists may have more freedom can´t deny that. However, immediate consequences of that total freedom are the absence of justice and hope.
This is not true. There is a strong sense of morality / justice even within monkeys (Frans de Waal's TED talk). As far as I know monkeys don't read the Bible in their spare time....
And ofcourse there is "hope" but it is limited by our own lifespan. I hope that tomorrow I will know more / be better than today. And I hope that when I die the people that I cared for live in a better world than what it would've been without me.

---------------------------
1) Where in the bible does it say: God created man with free will?
Do you not "infer that" from (among other things) Eve's lack of loyaltee to God as she takes the apple?

2) You've never been to a sermon?
They all go: Let's start today by reading <book>Ezekiel <chapter>25:<verse>17 to <verse>....
Then the next step is: "What does this mean? Does it mean that <part of the verse> "the sheep" are in need of your guidance and they are dependant upon you? And that <part of verse>"The blessed is he who sheppards the weak" means that guarding weaker people than yourself is a nobel thing?

This is what your "priest" does.... He takes a verse and then attributes some value to it....
More often than not they then refer to some "current day thing" that's dominating the news. And say "what does the Bible have to say about this" and then quote some verse.... Attribute some meaning to it.... and tell his own view of the world shortly after.

They tell you that what they say is "the word of god" aka this is in the bible, this is what it could mean, go back home and think about the grace of God.
-------------------

On the interpretations part.... Yes the bible contains many references which are historically accurate.
So do "The Histories" by Herodetus, "The iliad" and "Oddysey" of Homer and even "The de Vinci Code" by Dan Brown.
There are many books which accurately tell of historical events.
Does that make them true??

I can get "moral lessons" from those books as well. especially Oddysey is filled with morality issues (perhaps it is slightly less filled with accurate history than the other books though... Although it is definitely not much less accurate than the Bible in this regard.)

you said that earlier we (humans) had a god for things we could not understand.why? because electricity for example has been discovered way later. But this is probably not the only reason we had gods for the elements and such. it´s also because humans were fascinated and scared by their existence at the same time.
So understanding the functioning of something does not mean understanding why something is there. For example We understand the gravitational laws. (please don´t bug me with exact terminology stuff. :p i´m not a phycicist.). However we can not explain what is their cause. or more generally: laws can not create events.

I´m talking about hope and justice in a different way. Imagine your family is killed by a suicide bomber. There´s no hope for you to a) see your family members ever again. they are lost forever and b) The one who is responsible for their death can not be punished anymore. so there´s no justice (for everyone)

yea the monkeys are really cute :) not sure what implications to derive from it. They may be more social animals and they apparently also show moral behaviours but they do not have human rights. (ok i know this is quite a stretch but the influence of the christian "substance" is the main point concerning morality imo)
Anyway the morality of humans still is on a way different level.

On another thought, the idea that apes and humans have same ancestor (don´t bug me with exact terminology ;)) therefore have a common genetic trait that is responsible for morality, does not necessarily contradict the idea of a god just like evolution does not. (i know this is sloppy, to say the least. i´ll eloborate another time)

1) yes that´s right there are a lot of other quotes that imply it aswell.
Freedom of will basically is a central dogma of christian belief.

2) uhm yea they help you to understand the parables and metaphors better. What is the problem these parables are full of true wisdom aren´t they?

"Does that make them true??"

It does not. it´s just as an answer to your ridiculous attempt with the mermaid.

The morality thing: i have to excuse myelf i was referring to Dawkin´s atheism not to atheism in general. And Dawkins claims that science -biology in particular - will replace religion for that matter. we agreed upon something like this "science can not determine moral values" I also got a bit confused with the different meaning of "science" in german and in english. so obviously atheism in a general sense can be a basis for moral.

of course these literature can be a basis of moral but the christian teachings are the most solid and comprehensive one. And as i told you already for me it is all about the functional aspects of these teachings.

Well I look forward to your elaboration....

But to answer a bit right now (I won't go into details either atm, I'll wait for your elaboration).

MY point is: You should question these things.

So... IF you know that monkeys are social and have 'morality' and IF you know christianity doesn't have a "clean record" of actions. and IF....... (etc)
If you know all those things and then choose to be part of a certain religion. Then I respect your choice and your efforts.
If you choose to be an atheist then I also respect that. (Perhaps even more than if you choose to be religious.... but I'm not entirely sure on that.... Would be hard to say... it's possibly some "in group bias thing" :D )

I can definitely read a few verses from illias to you and then say that it's all about "morality". I never read the ilias but I believe that it's written very similar to the Bible with verses and chapters etc. (I kinda know the main things like the battle of troy etc.)

So from a "book" point of view the illias is very similar to the Bible.

Dawkins point is (in general): Religious people do not question these things. And that makes them stupid.
(I disagree because imo it's not a prerequisite for religious people to not question these things and nor do I believe that atheists question these things. I do agree that not questioning these things is stupid though.... The answer you come up with yourself. That I will not argue with (unless it's really really really stupid :D))

This point of 'not questioning' is somewhat illustrated by "2) uhm yea they help you to understand the parables and metaphors better."
If I can read to you several verses of the illias.... And then "interpret" them for you ("help you understand the parables and metaphors better") just like a priest does with a Bible... Then is that because the illias is some universal truth?

Now I don't try to claim anything here (I'm trying to be as vague as possible about my own views) so I don't mean to say "The Bible is just like the illias" what I try to say is that "If I would 'act' like a priest, but use verses/stories from the illias. I can just as well teach you moral lessons in a very similar way as a priest does from the Bible.".

Now ofcourse the "theme" of the Bible is God/Jesus. While the "theme" of the illias is about Achilles.... So I know that there are enough differences. But the point is the one above....

alright let´s get back to this. Got a little bored by it. But i see that we´ were making progress so:

Ok there is a study from the biologist Marc Hauser he found that people of different beiieve react in the same way to moral dilemmas. Dawkins interprets this as evidence against the existence of god.But the christian teachings are that the human is a moral creature because he is made of gods model. This means that every human has a sense for moral no matter if he believes in the christian god or not, The study is supporting this.

Now since there is some biological connection between humans and apes it might be possible that the moral trait evolved by the rules of evolution. (I really don´t know much about biology and this sound a bit like intelligent design, meh. but i guess you can tell me whether this contradicts evolution or not.)


You should question these things.

Definately. I also think it´s not a religious monopoly to not question things concerning reality. I am sure a significant proportion of atheists would agree to sth like this: "i only believe in what i can see with my own eyes" and the conclusion "I don´t see god so he is not existent."

My point is, and that is why i bugged you with the faith definition that it is reasonable to believe in god and people who believe mostly base it on evidence. Despite that i am disagreeing with this, a lot of christian people make god responsible for all the good that happens in their life. While this may look naive on the first glance it really is not.

I don´think you can compare the bible and the Ilias although i don´t know much about it i don´t tihnk it´s fair to look at the bible without the movement that evolved after the death of Jesus. Also it´s not like there are all these parables without any commentary. in fact most of the times the explanation follows right after.

You can preach the Ilias for sure but the bible delivers a way more comprehensive and preferable worldview.

Now to the laws: my point is a law is a description of reality. While phycicists can determine why a plane flies you need the creative intelligence of an engineer to build one.

Do you think that the study of Marc Hauser (I'm not familliar with it) shows that "there must be a god because men is made in god's image"?
Or would you say that "apparently all people have some kind of moral" and that it is not (by definition) because of a god?

In mathematics/economics there is some nice work by John Nash and others who followed his thinking on Game Theory. This 'could' be used to understand why a species has an evolutionairy benefit to having certain moral principles. And theres currently quite a bit of research to show that "being moral is in your own long-term interrest" as well as "for the benefit of the global population".
Now we can speculate a lot about this and if the development of our brain (aka we can do long term thinking while other animals do so less) shows that morality is evolutionairy....
But those things are not yet scientifically shown to be true. However(!) neither do I see any need to say "well if I don't understand what the cause is... then it must be god".

--------

Your view on Atheists is very limited if you think that they conclude: "I don't see god so he's not existent". Most people never see individual atoms / electrons / etc.. But I have np with accepting most of the explanation and understanding how which experiment shows something to hold / falsifies something.
But god itself is placed outside of science (by religion) aka because he has "godly powers" which "we don't understand" theres no way to proof that it's false. Which in itself makes the claim that he does exist a rather poor one (aka there is no evidence possible to support god being there. Because any evidence in favor for him should be falsifiable according to science, which it is not because god is all powerful.).

-------

If anyone out there believes in god based on evidence then my first reaction would be that they are full of shit unless they can somehow prove scientifically that the evidence is solid (and falsifiable). Because to my knowledge there is no evidence at all.

-------

Why is it not fair to compare 2 books?
If someone would've taken the ilias and had started to preach it and attribute more meaning to it than it actually had... perhaps (like the bible) add in whole chapters from other books and different sources etc. I do not see any reason why all religious people wouldn't be praying to one of the gods mentioned in those books.
There are many gods in the ilias and many hero's who die because of a good cause. The way in which they die is different... and they aren't resurected (at least not to my knowledge) although I think some have been brought back from the "underworld".

That the bible has been used by religious people in power to influence people and deny them education and murder entire ethnic groups... Doesn't exactly favor the bible to the ilias imo.

If I can't seperate the books from the movements that followed from it then imo I'd rather pray to Zeus than to God.
Both books are accurate in describing historical events. Both books are centered around battles between good and evil which are represented by kings and gods.
Both books are written in verses and chapters, both books contain poetry etc etc.
But only one of them has lead to a movement that in general showed very immoral behaviour, while the other did not.
Now "lately" the church has reduced it's crimes against humanity. But as I've pointed out above they themselves are not quite the best moral judges.

-------

That the bible might be "more comprehensive and preferable as worldview" can be mainly attributed to the ilias is outdating the bible by several centuries and perhaps even millenia if you count all of the "alterations" to the bible.
If we look at your bible then it was completed in 1611. When looking at the ilias it was finished somewhere between 600BC and 850BC and it's only been translated since (probably also not flawless but at least it hasn't been massively altered).

Also I can preach anyway I like. Like I said before I could preach that Mary was a horny lying fhsdjgadjagkf (basically a normal woman) from the same story as Mary was a devine person who loved and cared for our saviour.
It's somewhat a "property of preaching" that you can just take any story and attribute your own meaning to that.

-------

If your point is that the "laws of physics" have been written by God... well then theres completely no arguing about that.
Although the question would be "which God".
Atm science is kinda like: And in the beginning God created Physics. and after that 3000 blank pages... If you wanna call that a religion then it's fine with me. But you probably don't wanna seperate "a God" from "your religion".

While science/history can perfectly show that "your religion" is evil as f&^*% it cannot make any claim about God.

I did not say that. What i wanted to show is that the study is not necessarily a contradiction to the idea of a god. So the latter.

I heard about the concept of evolutionary stable strategies. However, i think the morality of humans is way different from those of animals because in Nash´s model humans are supposed to be, other than animals rational individuals which maximize profit. Imo the morality of humans is way different than the one of any animals because humans have a conscience and instinctively know what is considered good and what is bad.

I did not mean significant like the majority of atheists more talking about a statistically siginificant amount. However, you can not deny that there are atheists that would agree to it. And this is the thing: atheism is not a synonym for being a rational educated individual or even a scientist. It qualifies you for nothing. It is nothing more than a belief system.
Evidence in favor of the existence of god is the big bang for example. by the way, many atheist scientist denied the idea of a starting point solely because it contradicted their atheistic belief.
_________________

I would like to focus our debate on these aspects above as personally i do not find the story of jesus and the resurrection plausible either. However, the positive effect it had on our society is undeniable. I can´t understand why you can´t agree to this. instead you are saying "(the jewish/christian teachings) has lead to a movement that in general showed very immoral behaviour" And this is just wrong and narrow minded.

One might appraoch science just like you approach religion. you know science does not have the cleanest record either. Eugenics and social darwinism have only 70 years ago been seen as valid and valuable scientific concepts justifying ethnic cleansing.

The thing is there are always people who abuse certain concepts be them of scientific economic or philosophical nature. It is again NOT a monopoly of the church to abuse and delibaretly misinterpret known concepts.
__________________________
Of course we can separate that since atheism implies that there is no divine intelligence and the universe evolved by chance. What you are describing is more an agnostic worldview. Since you don´t exclude the possibility of a divine intelligence (or maybe consider it meaningless) you are not an atheist by definition.

Again i think it is somewhat reasonable to believe in a personal god. This does not mean that it is entirely explainable by reason, as you said god is almighty etc. but atheism brings just as many problems with itself as religion does.

I've already said and explained that there are no studies which can contradict the "idea of a god". For instance you can always say that the study itself was influenced by god as he's almighty.
So you really don't have any need to explain that specific studies cannot be used to contradict the idea of a god.
The only thing that could be proven, on this topic, is that a specific book contains errors. But one can never prove that there is no god.

I am an atheist because I choose not to believe in any god. I don't reject the concept of a possible god because I also don't reject the "brain in a vat" hypothesis. But I will not "believe in a god" just because I don't understand everything.

I respect however people that "believe in god" because they choose to believe and understand what it means.
There is a huge difference between:
1) The chemical reaction of oxigen and wood gives off energy in the shape of heat what we call fire. However(!) I believe that this process is caused by Vulcan the god of fire who lives inside of the sun (or inside of vulcano's or wherever it's hot).
2) But if you don't understand chemistry and go: "Oeee hot, pretty.... God of fire!!".

in 1 I can respect your choice, in 2 I think that you're braindead.

Now in your text you say "Evidence in favor of the existence of god is the big bang for example.". While this is not evidence in favor for anything?
Atm we do not know what can "cause a big bang" because we don't have any data on it. We can measure things up to the big bang, but we don't know what happened before, because we can't measure it. I don't see how that is evidence in favor for god.
Or is god exactly on 1 place? That he snapped his fingers right at the place the big bang occured? The big bang also didn't take 6 days. There is no evidence in favor of anything there. There is lack of knowledge. Now just because "we don't know" doesn't mean that "it must've been done by god".

The above is the most deeply rooted problem of many religious people. "We don't understand and therefor it is evidence that god did it".
In my eyes that's the same as saying: "Oeee big bang, sweet.... God!!".

----------

How am I narrow minded when I say that (pretty much all religions) have historically lead to immoral behaviour?
I already described many immoral things in the above posts. And even some current-day immoral behaviour is included with gay rights and their view on condom use etc.
You said: "I won´t argue the way homosexuals have been treated. I condemn it aswell. But I can somewhat undesrtand that the biblical marriage is not supposed to be for homosexuals."

This is done by the church right now. In the past christian people killed around 3 entire continents (north and south america and australia). Most of this done in the name of kings or holy leaders. And most kings were acting according to the laws of the church.
These things did happen. And imo they are immoral.

One might appraoch science just like you approach religion. No one cannot! Because like you said science doesn't claim to have any "morality". Science just tries to show what will happen if you do something, or what event will lead to which other etc. The eugenics and social darwinism say that "if we do ..... then it will lead to ....." and you can even include "... this will greatly improve the properties 1 ..... x". But it doesn't say "you have to do this because it is moral".

Religion however can say "having sex with someone who has your own sexe is wrong! (Except when they are under-age then it's ok because we do that all the time)".
There is a huge difference between the 2.

When you ask a scientist how to maximize output while limiting the input... then ofcourse the first thing you do is get rid of everything that doesn't attribute to the output in any way. So it's easy to see that production would increase if you kill all disabled people the average production would increase. That it's immoral doesn't mean it's unscientific. But that it's scientific doesn't mean you have to do it.
While when it's religious then you go straight to hell when you don't do it.

--------------------

If you wanna put a 'known' label on me than it would be an agnostic atheist. I would personally prefer a scientific atheist who, like any good scientist, doesn't exclude unlikely options but bases decisions on known things.
I also do respect agnostic theists. And we'd get into 'unclear' territory with other types of theists although I only have a strong negative opinion of theists that stop questioning things and just say "it's because of god".

I don´t see any point in further discussion with you if you keep pretending that religion in general leads to immoral behavior and are not able to differentiate between christianity as a teaching and christianity as the people who pretended to act according to it. Needless to say that the amish hardly ever acted violent.
While i have dealt with your point you never dealt with mine. you keep repeating all the disgusting things "religion" has done but never commented on my claim that christian teachings had an immense positive influence on our society. The ideas of freedom and autonomical living, of human rights and democracy are heritage of the jewish/christian teachings. We don´t even have to go that far just think of the millions of people who have done good in the name of jesus. all the christian help-organisations. Can you really look at a missionary hospital in africa and conclude that the world would be better off without it?

Hey you're the guy who said I couldn't seperate the book from the following.
I don´think you can compare the bible and the Ilias although i don´t know much about it i don´t tihnk it´s fair to look at the bible without the movement that evolved after the death of Jesus.
That you're blaming me for it is just silly. Because I DID seperate the 2 and then you replied that I couldn't.

I can seperate church from bible and religion from church (and ofcourse also religion from bible). It's np for me...
imo "religion" is not a bad thing but a choice although you should understand that this is a choice! (which religious people in general don't understand)
That there has been many immoral behavior as a result of the church having power because of religion is fact.

---------------

That you think that somehow christian teachings had an immense positive influence on our society is fairly new to me.
You said that "morality" is something as a result of "christian teaching" at which point I said that monkeys and many other animals have "moral behavior".
Which you dismissed saying that somehow people are "more moral" which would hurt the feelings of any monkey :( (aka imo it was not a very strong argument)

Then I explained that many immoral things have been done by christians (which seems to contradict your believe that your religion somehow is more moral than atheists). But I am well within the range of checkable things any good book on history will talk about christian crusades against <random population>.
And you too know that many people in africa don't use condoms because the church is against preconception even though aids is very much an epidemic there. And you know that gays are "fair game" in certain countries because the church basically tells the world that they don't have rights.

Now I'm repulsed by that shit.... However you seem to think that they are "more moral than me"?

Then after that stuff you went on and said that "bad things were done by science" as well which is very easily counterable because science doesn't "call for action" it just tries to explain what will happen if......
If your point is that some atheists are assholes then sure I can agree with that. Just like some christians are assholes as well.

-------------
So if monkeys are moral.... then what exactly did christian teachings do that made our lives so much better?
Which arguement had you made that I have not argued against?

------------
The ideas of freedom and autonomical living, of human rights and democracy are heritage of the jewish/christian teachings.
Democracy origionated in Greece around 500BC. They were not christian.
Freedom and autonomical living is also definitely not the church as they (still) want everyone to support the community and come together every week. This is far from autonomical living. Ofcourse the people who "came up with these ideas" were more than likely christian as the ideas evolved around the end of the middle ages and gained more ground during the age of enlightenment. And during those times are least 95% of the western population was (unofficially) 'christian'.
Human rights contains "freedom of religion" meaning that no religion is better than any other (and some more stuff). However the bible sais: Commandment 1: You shall have no other gods before Me.
That's clearly a violation of human rights.... so I doubt that christianity was responsible for that.

-----------
Can you really look at a missionary hospital in africa and conclude that the world would be better off without it?
They need Bill and Melinda Gates to come over and provide proper healthcare for the African continent. They are much more effective than the missionary hospitals ever were. Also the missionary hospitals do not give proper health education to their patients.

There is "good" in all kinds of people! Not just christians.

There is also "hate" in many kinds of people! Not just atheists.

You're talking about basic human ways of thinking and saying "Ye christianity did that". While this is historical bullshit and IF you could think for yourself (aka not be blinded by your own personal religion and be able to see christianity objectively rather than personally) you would agree with these things.

-----------
The only thing that christianity was fairly succesfull at for a while was that they didn't have internal fights and therefor had an extended period of peace which allowed people to think about stuff like philosophy, natural sciences, printing books, improving transportation/infrastructure, spending time on hygenics, art, agricultural improvements etc.
And THAT had a large impact. NOT the religion.

You gotta seperate these things man.

"imo "religion" is not a bad thing but a choice although you should understand that this is a choice! (which religious people in general don't understand)"

what do you mean by that? of course religion is a choice like any worldview is. Why would i not understand that?

congratualtions if you consider your morality the same as the one of monkeys.

I never claimed that christianity aka the people who pretended to follow jesus was more moral than atheists. What i claimed is christianity aka substance of the teachings had a positive influence on morality and it is rather obvious that the idea that every human is unique and valuable characterizes our society. And the dignity of humans is the basis of the human rights.

"IF you could think for yourself (aka not be blinded by your own personal religion (..)"

you seem to project your contempt for people who believe in personal religion on me, while i have never said that i do believe in a personal religion. I am however defending this position because i am interested in a differentiated debate.

While i definately agree that people have done disgusting despicable things who were pretending to act in the name of jesus, i will not agree that the substance of his teachings is imorral and necessarily leads to immoral behaviour.

I'll get back to you on the rest of your post.

I'm curious though, why do you think that christianity is the base of things like human rights? And why would christianity say that all humans are unique?
I mean aren't all people created in gods image (= all the same).

Also I don't have any contempt for people who hold personal beliefs which are different than my own. I have contempt for people who blatantly copy phrases without thinking about them on their own.

On the "choice" of religion. I didn't say you don't understand I said that in general religious people don't understand.

I've talked to a lot of religious people. And most of them (not all(!) but most) have a response to my "why do you think god exists?" -> "It sais so in the bible and that is god's word". After which I then say "I wrote a leaflet saying that whatever I say is the truth, on it I also state that there is no god". Now because the leaflet tells you I'm always right.... and I say there is no god. Does that prove anything?

And they all go: "Huh? How is that an argument? Are you stupid? Your leaflet isn't anything like the bible! The bible is true". -> Why? -> "because the bible sais it is the word of god and that must be the truth".
So essentially there is no difference between the leaflet and the bible?
And seriously... like 60% of religious people won't know how to deal with this and they bring up fubar arguments which have no solid ground at all.

You can try this with people you "know are religious" if you're curious.
The reason that they do so is simple. They don't understand that to put your faith in a certain book is a choice.
For them.... it's fact. Bible = godly. It sais god is real -> tada he must be real. And this way of thinking is really bad.

-----------

I consider a lot of monkeys to be more moral and fair than the pope.

-----------

What is this substance that you speak of?
Is it what is actually written in the bible or is it what the priests tell people what is meant by what is written in the bible?

Because the teachings in the bible are very confusing to say the least. You can basically draw your own teachings from that.
Like "you shall not steal" UNLESS "you're poor and hungry".
or "you shall not commit adultry" BUT! "you are free to change the meaning of the word adultry to suit your needs".
"You shall not kill!" UNLESS "your brother is in your eyes more loved by god.... mehhh then it's ok".

There are no definitive "moral laws" in there.
Theres just arbitrary stuff which can be explained morally.

yea i just replied referring to myself because you´ve done it aswell when i talked about atheists in general. Anyway most of the christian people i know told me that they are expieriencing god in their life. They believe because they are convinced to be in dailogue with god during the ceremony or while praying. Also they seem to make god responsible for every unexpected positive event that you and me would call a lucky coincidence. Others rather older ones really start off saying everyone who is not christian will suffer in hell and stuff.

When I´m talking about substance i am basically talking about the core teachings of jesus. Because being a christian basically means to follow jesus. These core teachings are

1) Love god the creator of everything good and beautiful more than anything else and be grateful.
2) Love yourself and love your next (not sure if it´s expressed correctly in english)
3) Never pay back hatred with hatred. Love your enemies
and erase Anger and Revenge out of your hearts and replace it with
kindness and forgiveness.
4) If you follow these you will become more and more similar to god. which should be everyone´s goal.

These 4 Aspects do not need further interpretation they can be found solely by reading the New Testament. other aspects are to be generous but not to brag with it, not to use violence to defend his teachings (!)...

So Basically living like jesus taught us.

1) doesn't tell you anything about how to live your life it claims that everything that is good = god.

2) seems very similar to: Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.

3) seems very similar to: determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them.

4) also doesn't tell you anything about how to live your life except that you should live by the 2 and 3 rules.

Would you agree to these points?
To 'not use violence' is also point 3.
Generosity without bragging is kinda specific to search for ;)

Also
2) looks like: "You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection."

3) is very similar to "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." or "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule."


But anyway... if we can only find those 4 aspects in the New Testament. Then wtf are 2 and 3 doing in the quran aswell as in the saying of Buddha?
Btw 1 and 4 are also in the quran.... just slightly different in how they are written down. The other points on generosity and non-violence are also in there.

maybe because quran was written later? (you could´ve figured that out on your own.) Dunno why you want to rephrase every single one they are perfectly understandable the way i wrote em down.

Also i don´t understand what buddhism had to do with our society enlighten me please.

You:What i claimed is christianity aka substance of the teachings had a positive influence on morality and it is rather obvious that the idea that every human is unique and valuable characterizes our society.

I already explained why the underlined part is not true. And I asked "Oh what is that substance?":

When I´m talking about substance i am basically talking about the core teachings of jesus. Because being a christian basically means to follow jesus. These core teachings are.... = THE SAME AS OTHER RELIGIONS.
and they can be found solely by reading the New Testament. Or any other religious book.

Aka it is a non-relevant argument. Christianity and even god is completely not needed. Buddhism doesn't have a god yet has the same (or very similar) teaching.

You say that christianity has done so much good (blabla). I can make a similar case saying that people, regardless of faith! try to do good.
That christianity just happened to be the most succesfull at eradicating other religions and spreading propaganda like crazy doesn't mean that it is inherently good or right.

There is a HUGE leap from saying "christianity has done a lot of good" to "many people who happened to be christians have tried to do good" to whatever you're saying (which is somewhat unclear at times).

You keep attributing things to christianity which are not even christian (like the "individualism"). Or attribute "properties of our society" to christian teachings while all other religions teach the same.
If we had been buddhists yet had similar history. We'd be in the same place (perhaps even a much better place! (who knows?)) right now.

So where you attribute things to christianity I attribute things to human nature and philosophy etc.
You even attribute "human nature" to god. Because of man are created in Gods image + points 1 and 4.

That religious people don't attempt to think like this..... That is the point that people like Dawkins try to make (at least it's the point that I agree with most).
There is almost nothing that the "christian religion" has done for society that wouldn't have been done otherwise or through different religions etc.
The one thing it did do is "unite a lot of people" who then managed to keep themselves rather save for an extended period of time which allowed for overall improvement of life for those people. That they did this through genocide, oppression and stealing is just a side effect.

So what is so special about christianity???

maybe because Buddhism origionated earlier than christ? (you could´ve figured that out on your own.)

I don't rephrase them. I've simply let buddha and muhammed rephrase them for me.
That in all ways they are perfectly understandable should tell you that christianity is in no way 'special'.

You´re jumping to weird <- conclusions

Christian teachings were still kind of "special" because they "developed" the ideas of Judaism further in a way that people did not have to follow all of the laws that were written in the thora but to focus on their relationship to god and the people.

One could argue that christians were inspired by buddhists but there are more than enough differences aswell.

Anyway i said:

"The ideas of freedom and autonomical living, of human rights and democracy are heritage of the jewish/christian teachings"

In Judaism it is not a bad thing if other people have other religions

_______________
inform yourself about jürgen Habermas. in german wikipedi there is something about his thoughts on religion and christianity. Unfortunately i didn´t find anything in english wikipedia.

I try to explain to you what he said. In his opinion the worldwide process of modernising the society took place in the 15th century propelled by the reformation and luther and a bunch of people influenced by luther. He also names the Liberation theology and a lot of philosophors of the 19th and 20th century and some of them were thinking in a christian way for example Thomas von Aquin.

Then he sais that american english and french philosophers connected the christian teachings with the greek philosophy and the political-republical thinking of rome. And that´s how our todays western social system evolved.

The ideas of freedom and autonomical living, of human rights and democracy are heritage of the jewish/christian teachings

To which I have already answered that
Democracy origionated in Greece around 500BC. They were not christian.
Freedom and autonomical living is also definitely not the church as they (still) want everyone to support the community and come together every week. This is far from autonomical living. Ofcourse the people who "came up with these ideas" were more than likely christian as the ideas evolved around the end of the middle ages and gained more ground during the age of enlightenment. And during those times are least 95% of the western population was (unofficially) 'christian'.
Human rights contains "freedom of religion" meaning that no religion is better than any other (and some more stuff). However the bible sais: Commandment 1: You shall have no other gods before Me.
That's clearly a violation of human rights.... so I doubt that christianity was responsible for that.

------

I read up on Habermas back 2007....

Habermas is in generally concerned with the "lack of motivation" that science has. Science doesn't 'require any preferences' and doesn't 'tell you how to live / why to live'.
His thinking is always structured around society and it's problems and targetted mainly at the process of solving those problems.

That "science" doesn't take any stance on these problems is very strange for him. Aka science is neutral. It only detects things like "we cannot possibly continue like this" and "points out a problem". And it can say how effective each solution is. But science itself doesn't morally favor one solution over the other.
The 'moral favoring of a solution' shapes society a lot more than the possible options.

You could say that "science" is a catalyst for whatever people want.
What people want has been (traditionally) heavily influenced by religion and that's why society as it is today has a lot of things in it from religions (and if many christians have lived somewhere for a long time then it's bound to be dominated by christian thinking).
So yes society has been heavily influenced by christianity. And I didn't say anywhere that it wasn't.

But that doesn't mean that somehow christianity is right. It just tells you that christianity was (and is) awefully skilled at propaganda.

To really be short they brainwash people into following them and convince them to teach their kids to also follow them.
And they have been doing so very succesfully for many centuries.
What propaganda can do has been shown in WW2... the power of information and education is insane.

Also the above still holds... thoughts like Democracy and freedom and autonomical living didn't come from religion. They came regardless of the attempts of the church to stop those movements.

i already told you that Judaism does not forbid other belief. I explained the democracy thing in the post above.

The thing about humans created in gods image is the relation that follows it. it increasees the value of men and it leads to some kind of dignity that every human has.

autonomical in this context means that you are responsible for your own actions you are not directed by anyone but your own will. how does that contradict the christian teachings?

you say that these things are concequence of the christian faith.
While obviously democracy is a concequence of the greek philosophers. (the other things are concequences of other philosophies and not christianity).

That I don't exclude an option doesn't cause it to happen. (aka democracy)
If I would exclude an option then it might cause it not to happen. (aka individualism)

However neither are encouraged by religion. So how can it cause the movements?

Also how are atheists not responsible for their own actions then?
Religious nutjobs often say that "God told me to" (which happens).

i did not say -and i won´t cite myself again - that democracy was developed by christians i said the society we live in and our democracy and human rights are influenced by christian/jewish teachings. If you weren´t brainwashed by atheist ideologies you would understand that. (you see what kinda value such statements add to the discussion?)

You compare apples and oranges. i rightfully said islam was historically after christianity which is why the quran lists similar teachings.
You then say "but buddha was earlier" completely ignoring the fact that Judaism, christianity, and islam are all monotheistic abrahamitic religions overlapping each other while buddhism is not.

You also never undestood what humans are created in gods image means. You just said "I mean aren't all people created in gods image (= all the same)."
yeah with that kinda logic you can maybe impress your children when you tell them about the evil religion.

"Also how are atheists not responsible for their own actions then?
Religious nutjobs often say that "God told me to" (which happens). "

on the second: I won´t argue such nonsense. we might discuss your question (despite i never said anything like that) in front of the history of last century but that´s another thing.

You attribute the bad things christians have done to them being christians while you refuse to attribute good things they have done to them being christians and don´t seem to see any contradiction in that.

I wonder.... do you actually remember your own points?
And do you remember that a discussion means that I bring in stuff to explain to you how wrong you are?

You say that (in short) "christian values are good and have had an undeniable good influence on society" and I say and I can quote Buddhism doesn't have a god yet has the same (or very similar) teaching (meaning that christianity is in no way special in this regard) and you bring in, as an argument, "buddhism is not a monotheistic abrahamitic religion"??? How the &^*(%$ is that an argument and how on earth did I ignore it??

I've already argued all the other points as well.

I don't attribute bad things that christians did to them being christian! I want to attribute the bad stuff they did towards them being evil people.
But most people aren't evil..... they just sometimes follow the wrong person.... who historically happened to often be an elected pope.
I personally think that virtually all of the crusaders had "noble" ideas. Just like I think that most german soldiers in WW2 were noble people trying to do what they believed in.

But you say that "christianity" somehow has introduced morality and has a positive influence on the world etc.
And that is simply not true. Christians are in general just as evil as other people. And also just as nice as other people.

Maybe http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/so...marit.html would help fix your insane ideas?
When you want to attribute positive value to "christianity" then please come up with something that they actually did.
There are many negative things they did in the world which you all attribute to them being human. So what positive thing did christianity do that no other religion could've done. Or even what any atheist society could've done?

Also! I wonder very much... How can I be "brainwashed by atheists ideologies" when atheists don't have any ideologies?
Heck you even questioned if I was an atheist.

So please tell me anything that christianity has done for the world that wouldn't have happened if we were all buddhists.
And don't begin about extortion, child rape, uncontrolable aids epidemic, crusades, slavery and that kinda stuff.... Make it something happy.

"And do you remember that a discussion means that I bring in stuff to explain to you how wrong you are?"

That´s the sad irony of this discussion you never wanted to learn something about religion christianity and other opinions. You basically preached your own ideas and called me stupid or even brainwashed for having others. is that your understanding of tolerance?

your point doesn´t make sense. why is christianity bad only because buddhism has similar ideas? Thing is you said every religion has these ideas which is not true. also the teachings of jesus consist of more than these few points i listed. And it´s not my idea that christianity had a big influence on our society in fact you agreed on it aswell. while we agree upon this fact you tell me i am brainwashed because i don´t share your opinion about christianity. and i gave to you Jürgen Habermas as a source, so if you want to call him and his ideas brainwashed and insane then please say so.

stop these "if christianity wasn´t things would be the same for sure" nonsense. you siimply can´t make any statement about that.

"Also! I wonder very much... How can I be "brainwashed by atheists ideologies" when atheists don't have any ideologies?
Heck you even questioned if I was an atheist"

you also called me brainwashed from the church and didn´t mind that i don´t even believe in a personal god. on a side note. believing every religion is inherently evil is an ideology that was represented by the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc.. don´t want to judge all atheists (Jürgen Habermas is one aswell) so i´ll correct myself new-atheist-ideologies.
while at the beginning you marked such stuff as fun you showed your real intolerant face in the end.

EDIT: That study you linked has absolutely nothing to do with the point i argued. You must follow weird argumentation if you think that this in any way contradicts my claim that the substance of the jewish/christian teachings had a positive influence on our society.

Why do you assume that I need to "learn about christianity"?

I'm always curious for other opinions though. And I welcome them and respect them (as long as they don't involve my or anyone else's freedom).
My tolerance for these things is fairly high. I can respect people who would praise the devil and glorify his might. Just as long as they don't preach it and don't try to persuade me or anyone else of it.
I might say they are wrong in doing so... but if they don't hurt anyone I'd say let them.

My point makes a lot of sense. If you don't understand it read it again.

I don't say that christianity is bad because buddhism has similar ideas. You say that christianity is good because it has sole right on these principles.
My point is that christianity has nothing over any other religion. I don't claim that it's necesarrily evil. I say that it's not better!

That you read that "a lot of evil has been done in the name of christianity" as an attack on the religion is because you can't seem to seperate things.

I told you before (several times) I do not have a single problem with anyone who is religious unless he/she somehow threatens my choices in life. I do have large problems with power structures in religion.

I don't rape every girl I find desireable because it's written down as being a bad thing in the bible. I do it because I respect other people and I expect them to respect me.
Now if you wanna say that "I grew up like this" because I live in an area which has been (is) dominated by christians and that I took over values and stuff from them. That's fine and I agree to that for a certain extend. To say that this is neccesarily a positive influence is debatable and I disagree on that.
And that it somehow means that christianity > something else.... that train of thought is silly.

If Venice and Rome were buddhist or muslim we would've gotten a very similar society.

Where do you read that I think that the religion itself is evil? :S

Why do you assume that I need to "learn about christianity"?

You obviously do because if you knew anything about christian belief you wouldn´t make such dumb statements as this and use it in your argumentation:
"I mean aren't all people created in gods image (= all the same)"
or
"Freedom and autonomical living is also definitely not the church as they (still) want everyone to support the community and come together every week. This is far from autonomical living" Yeah right that´s EXACTLY the criteria for autonomical living. /attention sarcasm

I never said that buddhists are unable to show ethical behaviour. But in fact europe is not characterized by buddhist teachings but by christian/jewish ones. And the fact that buddhism has similar teachings does not necessarily implicate that every way of thinking would have lead to the same ethical and social principles. This is your opinion. And i disagree with it given the atheist philosophies of the 20th century.

That you don't understand my argumentation doesn't mean it's bad.

Most of christianity is about the equality of people..... and that all people should be thankful to god (don't sin etc.).

Because of the "thankful to god" people had to go to church on sunday and a power-structure automatically followed with priests / cardinals / popes.
They all explained to their followers how they should live their life in the grace of god. This type of power structure is almost the complete opposite of freedom and autonomical living.

Nowadays people like you are being taught that the priests / cardinals / popes are also "just human" and are "the same as yourself". And that is because we have learned how to 'neutrally' educate people. This is completely regardless of religion. In fact the church has tried it's hardest to not allow any other teachings than it's own.

That you attribute this to christianity proves to me that you should learn history.
These things are not written down in the bible and they are definitely not part of christianity. Since the middle ages the church has pretty much only been changing because of pressure from society. Not the other way around.

This is the difference between "the age of enlightenment" (people telling the church to fuck off with their immoral shit) and "the dark ages" (the church telling people that they will go to hell if they don't listen).

" Since the middle ages the church has pretty much only been changing because of pressure from society. Not the other way around."

You keep simplyfying this until it suits your worldview. Think about Martin Luther what he has done and more importantly WHY he has done it. He found the real values in the New testament and fought against that completely corrupt institution the church was. Think about Thomas v. Aquin in middleages he made a synthesis of antiqe philosophy of Aristoteles and christian belief. Things that were widely regarded to contradict eachother. These things had a great influence on the way of thinking in modern time. In fact we still have "theology" which has a scientific character and rightfully so.

So it was the society but it were also true followers of Jesus who informed the society about the discrepance between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the church. And this is the point Habermas makes: luther was the one who started the process of rebuilding the society and he did so because of the real teachings of jesus.

You really don't understand it do you...

You can "find" any value you want in christianity. It's not because the "true christian values were found by Martin Luther in the New Testament" that christianity has any value.

It's because of the general "good" of people that they finaly managed to stand up against the oppression of the church.

This is not because of any religion.
Also the "values" are not only in christianity but are generally accepted values by virtually every religion and every non-religion as well.

You are attributing value to christianity which isn't anywhere in christianity. In fact they tried to withhold these ways of thinking from the general public. For the same reason they locked up Galileo and ignored many other scientists.

All of these things you attribute to christianity happened in spite of christianity due to the general philosophy of respecting others.
That you think people need christianity to tell them that they should respect others is stupid and has no value. People should respect others despite of any religion.

If you look at the history of mankind than christianity has tried it's hardest to stop these movements in society and it has (eventually) failed. Stop attributing these movements to their religion.

and again this is your opinion. and i´m tired of arguing on this kindergarten level only because "it can not be what should not be" for you. of course i understood your point but why do you want to sell your own worldview as a fact? You build the perfect ideology that prevents you from having a sane debate on this. You don´t even need any source for it so it´s basically very dogmatic.

You should definately read up on the case of Galileo. Scientists who investigated the case came to the conclusion that the inquisition had science on their side and not Galileo. The only thing i can conclude from this is that you don´t like to devote yourself to historical facts but rather build your arguments upon myths and idelologies. ironical, right?

My sources are books on history. And you can check everything I said. It's factually correct.

That you choose not to believe this yet come up with fairytale like fantasy's that "the inquisition had science on their side". Is your problem.
That I don't reference people like Habermas is because my view is more subtle than the philosophers make it out to be.
I disagree with Habermas on some points, I disagree with Dawkins on some points I agree with Voltaire on some points I agree with Descartes on a lot of points I agree with plato's criticism on democracy, yet believe in the system.
If I should point to any "philosopher" I'd say Richard Feynman (who more notibly was a physicist but I feel most related to the world view he expressed). Watch his interviews and you'll understand me for a great deal.

But theres no single person that I fully agree with! I am myself!

I could refer to Dawkins with a lot of things and he refers to where the facts are from. I could also quote history books on these things and stop your philosophical arguments by just stating that you have the wrong facts.

But I'm not interrested in saying that you're clueless... because it's not about how correct you are it's about the views you have and why you hold on to them. If I want to argue the view with you it has no benefit to say that you're wrong.... I should argue why you are wrong.

If you want to have this discussion on facts I can just refer you to http://www.britannica.com/ and leave it at that.
If you don't want to accept that you're wrong yet want to prove to me that I am somehow wrong then give me some facts that prove to me that I'm wrong. Or try to understand my view and argue with it's fundaments.

Ok the case galileo is more complex than i thought. he did not quite prove his theory but it is true that the inquisition did sentence him because they were afraid of science. The thing i want to show you is that things are not always that easy. The representatives of the enlightement did also glorify him in a way that he has been in jail and that the church did condemn the copernican worldview. This has been done by representatives of the enlightement. and while this is a very reasonable thing to do since church was a pain in the ass at that time this myth of Galileo is still present nowadays and it is seen as proof that religion and science do exclude each other.

I don´t think that an encyclopedia deals with "the influence of christian teachings in the western society" in detail.

How could i disprove that "if christianity wasn´t we would still be in the same or very similar condition."

That´s a claim similar to the existence of god it can not be disproven. While mine probably also can not be proven comprehensively, you went out of line and called me basically stupid and/or brainwashed for not believing something that can not be disproven.

I didn't intent to call you stupid/brainwashed because of you "not believing something that cannot be disproven".

I said that it's stupid / brainwashed to believe that the church had a positive impact on the before mentioned things as a result of the argumentation.
You seem to attribute these (before mentioned) values to christianity because nowadays priests tell you that these are christian values. And that claim is stupid because the same values are in buddhism / islam and even atheists hold the same values.
Now the point that christian teaching might have something to do with spreading these values within the western society is more valid (and it's kinda what Habermas sais). But that christianity has somehow caused this is very unlikely to say the least.

I choose to believe what I argue in favor of. But I also respect everyone who chooses differently, but their choice must be based upon their own thought.

Let's take a specific case and make a simple distinction.
Someone says: "I believe in god because it's written in the Bible".
1) Then obviously IF he believes that everything in the Bible is fact. Then he is (in his eyes) right.
2) However IF he also believes: "Ye but the Bible is a metaphorical book, you need to know how to read it" (blabla). Then obviously not everything in the Bible is fact.

So I can respect the choice made in 1. Although I disagree and I could point out things that, in my eyes, prove him false. If he believes regardless of the facts that I hold true.... I must respect that person (at least as long as he doesn't endanger/threatens anyone).
Yet I cannot respect the choice in 2 because the person is unaware of why he made the choice. As it's not conclusive.

If anywhere in your logic you "jump to a certain conclusion" but you don't know why you do that... Or if the reasoning is circular (God made the Bible, God doesn't lie, the Bible therefor is true, it's written in the bible that God exists, therefor God must exist).
Then you are not aware of the choice that you made.... And that's why I won't accept it.

Now I don't claim to "know everything" and I know that even my own reasoning is not "entirely conclusive" for every single view that I have. I do know that they all (conclusive paths and non-conclusive paths to different views) all point into the direction that support my general atheistic views (at least for myself).
I also know where this reasoning becomes incomplete and that's at the point where the "brain in a vat" / "god is all powerful" / etc. comes in. And I do hold those options open. I just don't believe them. (aka I am not certain about these things yet I choose to believe ....!!!!)
And if someone chooses to think differently on these things, or weighs certain arguments more heavy than I do, I can only respect that.

So in short. People must realize that they choose to believe in something that they are unsure about.
If anyone tells me he believes in God because he absolutely knows it for sure. But he cannot provide any proof as to why he "knows" this. Then it's a form of stupidity.

edit: small addition here... When I say "you" I don't specifically mean the personal you aka Pepidda but the plural you. As in "people".

btw on the first paragraph.....
The "physical laws" attempt to describe (in very high detail) the properties of an event. And in doing so try to find an 'underlying cause and effect'. This can be done because the "cause" of an event is usually a combination of other events.

We're pretty good at determining this... and we can also "show" that the causes of a certain event definitely cause the event (as introducing some other variable in it -> different event or removing any variable -> different event).

So basically if you follow all the laws of physics/chemistry. You can "explain" the event "fire" through a large series of causes and effects which also have names etc.
Which means that we now know that say that fire depends on "energy" "oxygen" and "burnable material".

A match for instance has "phosphor" which "easily reacts with oxygen" (aka you need little energy to turn phosphor into energy, which yields more energy than you put in). The "energy you put in" is kinetic energy (you strike the match across a surface).
The surface is "raw" so that theres more friction -> costs more energy to move the match over the surface -> small area for a relatively large bit of energy. (match boxes are small)

Because phosphor burns easily (= reacts with oxygen easily) the match always burns quite bright for about 200ms~500ms while the phosphor gets burned... And the energy that's emitted inwards is then enough to start a similar reaction of oxygen with the wood of the match (this reaction needs more energy to start and is a much slower process but yields enough energy to "continue along the wood".


That's how science works....
This is how (very exagurated) religion works: Ohhh that's hot and it looks strange --> God of Fire.

so an atheist extremist is better than a religious extremist?

lol yes, easily

He is an oddball at most times, but he is entertaining, he's become overly media-centric especially since the god delusion, I will agree on that.

WTF? That's a bullshit theory and probably either he didn't propose such crap at all or you understood it completely wrong.
There are a lot of duplicate inactive genes in DNA that may sneakily mutate into an active gene of some new or improved function, but other than that, this theory has no credibility at all.
And you haven't answered: what proof do you have that there's no proof of species changing to another?

Please stop being so fucking condescending in your replies you want to turn every little idea or discussion into a total flame war, I'm just intrigued and interested in everyone's ideas and theories, your attempt at being superior online here has no need tbh, If I'm wrong and I'm not saying I'm not, it's all learning bro so just chill out, I've read pretty much every single piece of literature written by Dawkins over the last [x] amount of years. Why don't you do the same and actually form your own concept, that's what he's done. I agree with a lot of Dawkins ideas, and pretty much the same as what Weird replied previous to this.

Now the original Darwinian proposition of descent from a common source works only if all parallel organisms descend from a single source. If there was one original proto-life, and it gave rise to all on the planet, then certain common traits should be observed. This is good common sense. But, if the chemical soup presumed to exist that gave rise to life actually ever existed, and spontaneous life became plausible, then the countless opportunities offered by this circumstance would necessarily have given rise to more than one proto-life. There should be, therefore, more than one master plan for life forms. More than one type of DNA. If life results from random chemical interactions, there should be more than one type of life.

So for example; an entire population of a given genotype was infected by a virus that was somehow absorbed into the DNA without destructive outcome. If the entire population had not been infected, then some of those who descended from the general population would not carry the modification, while others would. if all current descendants have the genetic modification, then, at some point, only those who were infected survived. Those who escaped infection vanished. This is somewhat counterintuitive. It suggests that the observed evidence is somehow being misinterpreted.

The propositions made by evolutionary theory make sense ONLY if successful evolution traveled through just one thread of genetic development for each evolved form. If all Chimps and all Humans share the same genetic anomalies, then at some point in the past there was only one survivor, the one who absorbed the virus without perishing. And, this survivor found a mate, one whose genes accepted the modification and also had no resonating deficiencies (hemophelia). This pair gave rise to all of the apes today. And, according to the above description, this has happened repeatedly. As long as one thinks of a linear digression to a beginning of life, evolution makes sense. The instant one considers the innumerable branchings that must have occurred, the absurdity of the concept becomes obvious.

IF each person is the result of macro evolution and shares genetic anomalies with lesser creatures and this all occurred through a single genetic thread, that would be a truly remarkable coincidence. One that, logically, would demand consideration of a cause greater than mere chance and happenstance. That's just my original thought and understanding (Theory) I'm probably high and I do apologise if this makes no sense as I've not slept for about 20+ hours.

I explained this to you in the most simple terms, no one ever proposed that you spawn a new species after a single generation. EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. Yet you just don't bother. Just continue on the same note without taking in anything anyone has said to correct you.

Okay Darwin, I will just naturally assume you're 100% correct on everything related to "Evolution"

Again you just don't bother or even care. The fact that you still get the most basic principle of evolution wrong just shows this.
Try actually studying the evidence and think critically about it. Don't take my word for it. But be willing to change your position when you are wrong. Otherwise what is the point of us taking the time to respond to your questions.

I've not once disagreed with anything you've said though, so I honestly do not see the need in you constantly trying to tell me things are right or wrong, I've taken a lot of what you've said on board and even re-read a lot the things I wrote to acknowledge myself being incorrect or not able to articulate my thoughts in a body of cohesive text correctly.


I thought I'd go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent again and I shared an idea/thought which you've probably not even bothered reading.

Err okay, then care to explain how you even come to what you said in #221, when everything you said in it is false? If you care to read Dawkins or any other biologists you'd know that that is not how evolution works. Just a tiny amount of research...

Gradual change over time.

It's official, you're one of those retards that would actually say, "IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS, WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?"

Which means you're an idiot.

Funny thing is though I've not actually mentioned or stated anything like that.

I am certain that most of the meat that I grill up on QL servers are the lowest form of the evolutionary chain..



47 chromosome containing, morbidly obese, garbage picking whale fucks

Now you're getting into nature vs nurture, most obese people have their lifestyle to blame and not their genes.

It would be nice to be able to discuss those important, even fundamental questions, without feeling the need to classify peoples in "morons", "religious", "cavemens" etc..

Not believing in the evolutionary theory doesn't make a people religious.

Actually, it is a sign that shows more mental elasticity and more curiosity, since it is way simpler to accept the not-unattackable evolutionary theory as it is teached us and forget it.

Evolutionary theory is not flawless, it has a lot of dark areas and approximations; its biggest flaw is that a great part of the passages have not been replicated or directly observed, but merely speculated.

This could be reasumed, quoting a film, with "life, uuhhh.... finds a way."

Yet a great part of those ways are more or less mental stretches.

It doesn't make evolution unrealistic or inexistant, oh no. But it doesn't even make evolution a conclusive, reliable explanation for everything.

In any case, wheter one elects evolution or other theories as his personal best way of seeing things, one aspect cannot be denied:
human race is no longer evolving as the survival of the fittest.

There is a trend that the wealthier someone is, the less childs he/she'll have.
All of the most advanced countries in the world have a negative birthrate, meaning 1,9999... or less childs for couple.
This means that all of the peoples that have managed to have more success in life aren't propagating their genes.

The richest peoples, the most outstanding and physically gifted athletes, the most brilliant and creative peoples in the world, are substantially enstinguishing themself.
The birthrate tax of those categories of peoples are well below the nationals averages, and way below the minimum necessary not even to "reproduce more than the unfits", but just to maintain the same number between childs and their predecessors is something like 2,1 iirc, and and those peoples have a birthrate average that isn't even the half of that number.

Take form this fact what do you want. Evolution, according to evolution theory, isn't a run for the bettering of the species: it can as well work backwards, it doesn't matter, it's still evolution.
Evolution is just the fact of changing, the theory doesn't discriminate between positive and negative changes.

Tl; dr: believing or not believing in the evolutionary theory doesn't make you better or worse, smartest or stupidest, religious or not;
the one thing we know, is that the ones that are supposedly smarter, more athletics, more creative, etc., are the ones with the lowest birthrate. And this isn't leading to the kind of evolution some peoples still pretend is happening to us.

Evolutionary theory is not flawless, it has a lot of dark areas and approximations; its biggest flaw is that a great part of the passages have not been replicated or directly observed, but merely speculated.

"Dark areas" can be different.

Imagine that some bizarre event destroyed all physical and electronic libraries and historical archives about computer technology. The only thing that's left is some collection of computer ads from 50's to modern times, that some geek somehow saved. And you are historian, looking at modern computers and smartphones, and that collection of ads, trying to restore their history.

You will definitely find tons of "dark areas" and most of the details will not be reconstructible. You will read some ads about "new MMX instrucion set in Pentium processors", but you will never guess what exact instructions it had or how they were encoded, or how did circuits that compute them work. Actually, you won't be able to build even approximate schematics for any old computer, based on the info you have. But what you'll know for sure is that it wasn't all done by magic, but somehow engineers and scientists gradually improved technology, added bits here and there, etc, to eventually build the powerful computers that we now have. You will know for sure that it all is a result of technological progress made by people, it will be undisputable truth, no matter how much details are omitted.

In the same way, since about early 2000's, the process of evolution also cannot be considered anything else than undisputable truth. Why? Simply because we finally see directly in genomes that all species are made by a series of mutations. We don't know the details about when each mutation happen and what kind of advantage it gave, but know for sure that the difference between species is in accumulated genetic mutations and in nothing else. This fact is not a dark area or approximation.

Not "believing" in the theory of evolution may not be synonymous with being religious, but it is synonymous with being uninformed/misinformed/ignorant. Evolution is not supposed to be a "conclusive, reliable explanation for everything" (emphasis mine). It is supposed to be a conclusive, reliable explanation for biological diversity, which it absolutely is.

I don't think it is necessarily a synonymous of uninformed/misinformed, since the almost totality of the peoples that say to think that the evolutionary theory is complete and absolutely correct doesn't even know how it works more or less, and simply are too lazy to even arguing about eventual flaws or alternative possibilities.
This is a fact, the great majority of peoples cannot even be bothered to think to anything else (or to think in general), so in fact the almost totality are the misinformed/uninformed.
The "others" are peoples that leave a corner of the mind open for every possibility, wich, in fact, is the real essence of the mind that searchs the truth.

What other possibility? Scepticism, which is essential to the scientific approach, is not the same thing as relativism in front of conclusive evidence. Do you "leave a corner of [your] mind" open for the "possibility" of the Earth being flat?

See? This is an example of someone with a non elastic, versatile, open mind.
You associate a still unproven theory like the evolutionary one with the definitely dismissed theory that the earth is flat.

For example, the most fascinating aspect is the origin of the first cell, and thus of life.
From the first cell evolved everything else, but how the first cell originated?
The problem is unbelievably complex, and countless scientists have dedicated great part of their careers to its solving, but without a conclusive result.
The supercomputers didn't help, too.
An impressive number of hypothesis have been developed, some of them are really intriguing.
One of them argue that the first cell may have been originated from clay, that acted like a stamp for the organic molecules to group together and form the membrane.

But every single one of those hypothesis isn't reliable.
They are plausible, but in the end, mental stretches.
The mathematical odds for every single one of those hypothesis are so low to make respectable, lucid scientists affirm that there can be only one explaination for the development of that complexity in such a short time: the extraterrestrial contamination.
And this comes from the mouth of peoples that have worked hard their entire lifes, and risks their careers and credibility with that statement.

So, you see, a smart person always keeps his mind open to every possibility, and don't discharge any of them on the base that it may conflict with others own beliefs.

From the first cell evolved everything else, but how the first cell originated?

It's not a question of evolution.
Evolution only describes changes in populations based on how biological systems work. The question of how those systems appeared in the first place is separate and independent from evolution.

It is not surprising that we don't know the answer to the origin of life given how little information we have to work with. Actually, it would be rather suspicious if anyone with current state of knowledge proposed that he knows the answer with certainty or believed in only one possibility disregarding others.

But again, theory of evolution is proven fact, and even though life creation is interesting question too, it doesn't intersect with evolution at all.

The origin of the first cell is part of the evolution, since everything else evolved from it, and the cell too must have evolved from something else more primitive.

Anyway that wasn't the point; the point was that an open mind is required in every aspect to not leave out some option just on the base of preconcepts. And those scientists just did that, they accepted that according to their own theories the most logic explaination was something that the major part of scientists would have rejected, on the basis that "there isn't such a thing as alien life" or "i've never seen an alien, so they mustn't exist.".
Because those, and expecially the last one, are true phrases coming from peoples whose entire life is theorically dedicated to the search of the ultimate truth and essence of the various aspects of the world around us.

This is also relevant because the evolutionary theory is mainly accepted because its the most simple (in spite of his theorical and material holes) explaination to a very complex phenomenon; and we don't want to live in uncertainty, in the doubt; we want something, and it often more important to have something plausible than nothing for certain.

It is only question of terminology. You may call it "evolution" or not, but basically, there's something we know and something we don't know and it doesn't matter how we call it. And more precisely, we know that all biological cells on Earth work based on same principles and we know how different species appeared based on those principles, but we don't know and have only small clues about how this universal machinery inside cells first appeared.

Open mind is required when you're researching something unknown, but in the process of getting more and more knowledge, you limit possibilities further and further until you ultimately find something that is by all measures the truth, and thus the question gets resolved and there is nothing left to apply an open mind to. Good example already was pointed out few comments ago about shape of Earth - there's simply no place for open mind in deciding whether the earth is flat or not. We know it's approximate shape and we have tools to measure it to any accuracy we want, so open mind simply has no use in this case when the answer is already found.

Likewise, evolution (in the usual sense of the word, i.e. after emergence of cells) is accepted not because it's simplest explanation, but because it is directly observable in DNA sequences. Even with most open mind ever, there's already so much experimental data limiting you, that it's only possible to clarify some details, but not dramatically change theory to some completely new one.

just a small note, genetics was discovered by Mendel around 1865. Darwin's theory of evolution precedes this by a several years ~ decades (depending on what you would call the starting point where his theory is well enough formulated).

The theory of evolution is far less precise than the observations made through genetics research. Genetics do heavily support the theory of evolution but the 2 are different kinds of observations.
For instance the DNA observations only started around 1953. The theory of evolution was accepted well before that time and the discovery of DNA only supports it further. (generally speaking)

It seems that you and nex1 are arguing over this... so I thought I'd place a global post on the history of this topic :)