Question for the religious

[Retro Rob]

Based on what? I don't understand the question. Are you just babbling out some word salad? I think you are.

You don't understand the question because its above your level of comprehension.

In order for a religion to be dangerous, it needs more than just belief in an "almighty"...it needs "orders", as you say.

Having a static belief in God isn't dangerous. Acting on fundamental beliefs (all infidels/apostates MUST die) is what makes a religion dangerous.

I believe in God, however, I'd never harm another human being. Does that make me dangerous?

Get my point, or do I need to spoon-feed you some more?

What it shows is that religion is man-made and is edited by man as they see fit.

I don't care if religion is man-made -- that isn't even the point. But you're understanding what I mean...progress is being made.

The absent of it? You mean absence? Are you sure that you have a firm grip on the language that we're using here? I'll forgive a large part of your ignorance if English is a second language for you.

Yes, "absence". Thanks for the correction. :thumbsup:

What insinuation were you implying then? Nobody's claiming that atheists don't mass murder. We're claiming that religious people mass murder based on orders from their religion. You replied with something about how Stalin was an atheist. This means one of the two following things:

Orders are the fundamental element, again, I think you're understanding my point.

1) Stalin murdered people IN THE NAME OF atheism and that you want readers to draw the conclusion that his being atheist somehow motivated him to murder people.

or

2) Stalin murdered a bunch of people and also Stalin was an atheist and these two points are not related so the statement that the mass-murdering Stalin is an atheist has absolutely no bearing on the conversation and you're just typing to hear yourself type.


Which is it, Rob?

Bottom line. Atheism had nothing to do with Stalin's actions. His atheism was coupled with a hatred of religion.

In the same vein, I know theists who have never harmed a soul, but there are theists who have and will. So, theism isn't the issue -- its the "orders" that are.

What fundamental element was added to his atheism? What was it about his atheism that was missing that, once added, turned him into a mass murderer?

It doesn't seem like you're giving too much thought to whatever it is that you shotgun into these threads.

I have no idea what element was added to his atheism, but it sure wasn't plain-old atheism.

 

[ThinClient]

So when the Quran calls for the deaths of infidels, you're saying that only the extremists are willing to act on their holy book's assertion?

 

[antisober]

Why in the world would you believe such a thing when there's no evidence to support the claim? Your claim that god exists but isn't anything like we believe it is requires evidence. What a joke.

Hence the word "theory". And you know what makes the world so awesome? That you can believe whatever you want to. If there was a right answer we wouldn't be sitting here debating this. Try adding useful input instead of trying to shit on people.

 

[ThinClient]

You don't understand the question because its above your level of comprehension.

No, I didn't understand it because you're making incoherent statements.

In order for a religion to be dangerous, it needs more than just belief in an "almighty"...it needs "orders", as you say.

Your holy book is full of orders being given to beat slaves and women, to murder entire civilizations, etc.

Having a static belief in God isn't dangerous. Acting on fundamental beliefs (all infidels/apostates MUST die) is what makes a religion dangerous.

Wrong. Having a static belief in something that has no evidence to exist is dangerous because it destroys logical thought processes. It promotes being irrational and illogical.

I believe in God, however, I'd never harm another human being. Does that make me dangerous?

Yes, because the religion you subscribe to preaches world domination through indoctrination. It uses fear as a means of control (hell, satan, evil, etc). It preaches lies to children. These are morally and ethically corrupt actions.

Get my point, or do I need to spoon-feed you some more?

Go ahead and post more and I'll continue to decimate the irrational excuses you claim as arguments, sure.

I don't care if religion is man-made -- that isn't even the point. But you're understanding what I mean...progress is being made.

Well, if religion is man made and your holy book claims that it isn't, one of them is wrong. That means you're believing in a lie and that you need to continue lying to yourself to believe it and to continue lying to others to fulfill the Bible's charge that you spread the good lies --err, I mean, good news, effectually demanding that you lie to your fellow human being which is ethically reprehensible.

Yes, "absence". Thanks for the correction. :thumbsup:

Orders are the fundamental element, again, I think you're understanding my point.

Since it's man that created religion, it's man that's commanding his brother to kill his other brother. What's worse is that the responsibility for backlash is put onto "god" as a scape goat because "I was only doing what god told me to do!" which is another ethical problem.

Bottom line. Atheism had nothing to do with Stalin's actions. His atheism was coupled with a hatred of religion.

Atheism doesn't command people to kill each other like your hateful, bigoted, judgmental, morally and ethically corrupt religion does, I'll agree.

In the same vein, I know theists who have never harmed a soul, but there are theists who have and will. So, theism isn't the issue -- its the "orders" that are.

Those orders come from religion, right out of the holy text, not atheism.

I have no idea what element was added to his atheism, but it sure wasn't plain-old atheism.

Well you made the claim, so it's your responsibility to back it up. Personally, I think you're just talking out of your ass but that's only a hypothesis, not a theory. 😉

 

[ThinClient]

Hence the word "theory", idiot. And you know what makes the world so awesome? That you can believe whatever you want to. If there was a right answer we wouldn't be sitting here debating this. Try adding useful input instead of trying to shit on people.

Actually, there is a right answer. History has taught us that mankind often believes one way when the understanding of the subject is still in infancy stages, but blossoms into a completely different conclusion when understanding matures based on additional evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

It could be with some people; not every atheist or agnostic is w/o prejudice or intellectually consistent. Of course, your statement is equally true when applied to some theists.

Right, I don't mean to say they all are. However, saying "theism is dangerous" is really just as idiotic as saying "whites are racists." That creates a prejudice that doesn't include elements that differentiates racists whites from regular whites, or dangerous theists from regular theists.

I think suicide bombing is equally blamed on the perpetrator being an extremist. I certainly don't blame it on the perp. being theist; I could care less about his beliefs. I just want him (and his brethren of any faith or none) to find a less violent way to communicate their message. Extreme violence and fervency in beliefs and actions are not motivators for conversion, at least not to me.

Agreed.

As far as atheism getting a pass I disagree. Possibly it's perceived as getting a pass simply due to a general lack of Russian/Stalin history. Stalin's atheism is a factor in his bloodied past but it's likely not the first thing people think about when they hear/read his name (if they think anything at all.)

I automatically associate Stalin with Atheism because I learned of his atheism before his bloody past. You're right, though, since atheism isn't a system of belief. I think it gets a pass because atheists, the more vocal ones, are always quick of disassociate his atheism from his actions as if it had NOTHING to do with his actions.

I'll admit that when 9-11 first happened my initial knee-jerk reaction was to blame Islam and not the individuals themselves or their extremist views and tactics. Learning more about Islam and it's thankfully small percentage of extreme worshippers helped me see the error in my thinking.

I did too. But who didn't? I think it was a natural reaction. Atheist authors sure didn't squander the opportunity to pounce on the anti-religious fervor and make a few bucks -- many books denouncing religion were written between then and like 2006. All were best sellers, and for obvious reasons.

Yes, it was a small percentage.

I think most of us are guilty of "fact omission" from time to time, at least I know I have been.

Yes, but deliberate fact omission to create bias cannot be excused. That was done on purpose, to paint religion as a whole as violent. Any rational mind can see the bigotry and lunacy his that statement.

That's why I posted what I did about Robert Bales to show how religion isn't needed for a person to go on a kill-spree.

 

[spittledip]

Is there anything in the world that could convince you to change your beliefs? Or can you think of anything that would?

Probably not. I can't imagine any logically satisfying answers to questions of existence, life, morality, diversity, beauty, etc outside of God; everything I have read or heard so far is very "reaching". That doesn't mean that there couldn't be another answer, it just seems implausible. There is also the experiential side that would be very difficult to dismiss as well.

So, if presented with plausible answers to the mysteries of life and the experiential side of walking with God, I would take dismissing "religion" into consideration.

 

[ThinClient]

Probably not. I can't imagine any logically satisfying answers to questions of existence, life, morality, diversity, beauty, etc outside of God; everything I have read or heard so far is very "reaching". That doesn't mean that there couldn't be another answer, it just seems implausible. There is also the experiential side that would be very difficult to dismiss as well.

So, if presented with plausible answers to the mysteries of life and the experiential side of walking with God, I would take dismissing "religion" into consideration.

The supernatural is not a logically satisfying answer. Why do you choose one irrational, illogical answer while rejecting "I don't know" or a scientific conclusion that defies your supernatural beliefs?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The supernatural is not a logically satisfying answer. Why do you choose one irrational, illogical answer while rejecting "I don't know" or a scientific conclusion that defies your supernatural beliefs?

Nothing is supernatural. Everything is part of physics, this is simply axiomatic. Even if demons and angles battle over the souls of man, they will do so within the bounds of physics, even if it is a physics we are unaware of.

For example; dark energy/matter does not dissipate like luminous matter because it is non-luminous: it is a place of eternal darkness and heat.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Probably not. I can't imagine any logically satisfying answers to questions of existence, life, morality, diversity, beauty, etc outside of God; everything I have read or heard so far is very "reaching". That doesn't mean that there couldn't be another answer, it just seems implausible. There is also the experiential side that would be very difficult to dismiss as well.

So, if presented with plausible answers to the mysteries of life and the experiential side of walking with God, I would take dismissing "religion" into consideration.

The supernatural is not a logically satisfying answer. Why do you choose one irrational, illogical answer while rejecting "I don't know" or a scientific conclusion that defies your supernatural beliefs?

In areas outside what science can address, such as the philosophical "questions of existence, life, morality, diversity, beauty", belief in the supernatural can be both logical and satisfying. This doesn't mean that the chosen belief can be shown to be (or is) correct, but the chosen belief can't be proven (in the scientific sense of the word) to be incorrect either.

Nothing is supernatural. Everything is part of physics, this is simply axiomatic. Even if demons and angles battle over the souls of man, they will do so within the bounds of physics, even if it is a physics we are unaware of.

For example; dark energy/matter does not dissipate like luminous matter because it is non-luminous: it is a place of eternal darkness and heat.

No reason for you to limit your demons and angels to being part of the universe, any more than your god needs to be. You're setting yourself for unnecessary conflict by suggesting that it's possible to demonstrate/explain their existence in terms of what we can observe/discover. At least to me, the term supernatural means that these gods/demons/angels are beyond natural and therefore beyond scientific explanation.

Just trying to help... 😉

 

[Screech]

I have to say, while I disagree with the vast majority of what he says, I am impressed by Rob M's willingness to repeatedly enter these debates in a civil manner despite the fact that a number of people are arguing against him on any number of points.

 

[disappoint]

Does this religious person have to beat you and Weinberg over the head with FACTS!?

You sound very angry, and violent. Are you alright? Why didn't you post "Does this religious person have to beat you and Weinberg's arguments with FACTS!?" Instead you posted that you'd like to beat people over the head, alluding to some deep seeded anger and a hint at violence. In case you think so, I think you have every right to believe in anything you want. I harbor no ill will toward you or any other religious person. I just wish they could see things the way I do. As I'm sure they wish that upon me as well. Unknown to them is just how much I can see things from their perspective. Mostly because I have been there. As I have been religious in the past, I certainly don't wish ill on my past self, or others like my past self. So there is an argument against beating people over the head with my side of the argument as it stands today you see.


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

Italics and bold mine. An apparently good man, went off on a massacre not religiously motivated.

What is that supposed to prove? It doesn't say in that article that he was an atheist. But even if it had, that is just 1 isolated case and is statistically insignificant.

Well, how dare I bring facts into the DC and disrupt your "when in doubt, blame religion" intelligence? D:

I never said those words. Are you familiar with the term strawman argument?

EDIT: The deeper problem with a quote like Weinberg's is that it encourages intellectual laziness -- don't bother investigating the deeper sociological/psychological issues with evil in this world, hell, we have an out...religion! Blame it! See how easy that was?!? Can't explain that "gap" in our knowledge, just pick something. Religion did it!! 🙄

Neither he nor I implied nor said not to investigate further. In fact I would say the opposite. Another strawman. It sounds like you are arguing with yourself than with anything I said. Easy to beat your own arguments isn't it?

It seems many intellectual atheists take this lazy view of the world.

As far as the question is concerned, no, nothing would change my beliefs

That sounds very closed minded.

because history has shown a godless government isn't any less violent, oppressive, dictatorial as the bloody history of religion. Secondly, my questions in life have been answered, and I am more than happy and content with what I am learning.

No one stated a godless govt. would be any better or any worse. What exactly is a godless govt. anyway? Govt. is made up of people, some of them are theists and some are atheists. So what?

I do agree with the founding fathers of the United States though, when they wisely decided there should be a separation between church and state. Why do you suppose they felt that was necessary? Perhaps because they learn from the mistakes of the past and didn't want to repeat them. If only everyone could be so learned and wise. Well I suppose the internet is one step in that direction. Sharing of ideas peacefully and all that. Without clubbing people over the head, or challenges to duels.

It doesn't sound like you are content at all. It sounds like cognitive dissonance. You say your questions in life have been answered when in fact that cannot possibly be so. So you convince yourself that your questions have been answered, in order to feel better.

Do you know the story of the Fox and the Grapes? Aesop's fable demonstrating cognitive dissonance. The fox comes across some nice ripe juicy looking grapes, and he is hungry and really wants to eat them badly. But he cannot reach them. This causes discomfort in the mind of the fox, so he says to himself "Well those grapes were probably sour anyway." He does not know if they are sour or not, but he chooses to believe so in order to reduce the discomfort of not being able to have them. He has, in essence, altered reality in his mind to feel better.

Your strawman arguments, arguing with yourself over things I never said and don't believe and your telling yourself that your questions in life have been answered and you are happy display cognitive dissonance clearly.

Would it surprise you if I told you I am not an atheist after all that? Just because I don't believe in any organized religion does not make me an atheist. I have my own set of beliefs that I am prepared to alter at any time, because I do not feel discomfort if others prove me wrong. I in fact feel joy that I have learned something new. This is the very difference between most scientists and religious aficionados and extremists that I think is important to point out.

You can be this way as well, if you choose.

Choose wisely mein freunden. Choose wisely.

Thank you for your time and patience reading my post, and any incorrectness you'd like to point out. We are all learning here after all. Even me. 🙂

 

[disappoint]

Right, I don't mean to say they all are. However, saying "theism is dangerous" is really just as idiotic as saying "whites are racists." That creates a prejudice that doesn't include elements that differentiates racists whites from regular whites, or dangerous theists from regular theists.

While I understand what you are trying to say, I disagree. In my point of view, and I may be wrong, but in my point of view there is no distinction between dangerous theists and regular theists. All theists are potentially dangerous.

The amount of melanin in one's skin does not and cannot by any means we have discovered predispose anyone to be violent, dangerous nor pacifist. There is no reason that I know of to believe that melanin content in one's epidermis would have any bearing on their behavior. If you know of any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

However, being theist can predispose one to becoming violent. It doesn't always and no one is saying it does. What I am saying is it can, and now I will show you how.

A person who is capable of believing in ideas with no evidence can be convinced of almost anything. This is where the danger comes in.

Suppose I tell everyone that you murdered someone. Some will not accept this without evidence. Others however may be convinced easily. If they choose to convict you and sentence you to death for having murdered someone with no evidence, you could be put to death for no good reason.

This is how religion is used to convince people to take violent action as I'm sure you're aware of in the past, even the recent past on 9/11. So humanity hasn't outgrown this problem yet. Even we in the United States that think so highly of our nation, it's government and it's people, have fallen for this trap. Our nation went to war against Iraq based on our government telling us there were WMDs in Iraq, with no evidence. We later found out it wasn't so.

Religions constantly require their patrons to set aside the need for evidence, reason and critical thinking to believe what they preach. I submit this is potentially dangerous. I await your rebuttal.

 

[AViking]

I have to say, while I disagree with the vast majority of what he says, I am impressed by Rob M's willingness to repeatedly enter these debates in a civil manner despite the fact that a number of people are arguing against him on any number of points.

I don't want to enter the debate though because of him. He clearly has spent a lot of time preaching religion. He defies logic and I don't get the impression that anything productive can come from debating anything with him. He believes that he has attained a higher "level of comprehension" so discussing this with him is a waste of everyone's time.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

-Mark Twain

 

[Retro Rob]

No one stated a godless govt. would be any better or any worse. What exactly is a godless govt. anyway? Govt. is made up of people, some of them are theists and some are atheists. So what?

I did take it to another extreme. My bad. Next time, would you mind going without the bold?

I do agree with the founding fathers of the United States though, when they wisely decided there should be a separation between church and state. Why do you suppose they felt that was necessary? Perhaps because they learn from the mistakes of the past and didn't want to repeat them. If only everyone could be so learned and wise. Well I suppose the internet is one step in that direction. Sharing of ideas peacefully and all that. Without clubbing people over the head, or challenges to duels.

I believe you're losing me here. I agree religion needs to be out of any and ALL Governments, period, because of the problems that can and has caused. I've always, ALWAYS supported that.

It doesn't sound like you are content at all. It sounds like cognitive dissonance. You say your questions in life have been answered when in fact that cannot possibly be so. So you convince yourself that your questions have been answered, in order to feel better.

You don't understand, I am. Science can only go so far -- it cannot and will not answer certain "why" questions I have. So I look outside of science to answer some of life's pressing questions.

Actually, being honest means admitting that fact, and being a materialist means being close-minded to possibilities outside of the material world.

Some scientific thinkers absolutely go to the extreme that science can answer any and every question, address any problem. There is no room for the Divine.

They sometime speak out of both sides of their mouths say on one hand, "we're humble enough to say 'we don't know'", while on the other hand, saying God isn't a factor.

I mean, how can you admit to not having the all the answers, while at the same time saying "X" cannot be an answer? it's not like science has spent any time trying to see if God is real. They don't deal with him.

Do you know the story of the Fox and the Grapes? Aesop's fable demonstrating cognitive dissonance. The fox comes across some nice ripe juicy looking grapes, and he is hungry and really wants to eat them badly. But he cannot reach them. This causes discomfort in the mind of the fox, so he says to himself "Well those grapes were probably sour anyway." He does not know if they are sour or not, but he chooses to believe so in order to reduce the discomfort of not being able to have them. He has, in essence, altered reality in his mind to feel better.

Taken straight from Wikipedia. I understand what it means.

Your strawman arguments, arguing with yourself over things I never said and don't believe and your telling yourself that your questions in life have been answered and you are happy display cognitive dissonance clearly.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Would it surprise you if I told you I am not an atheist after all that? Just because I don't believe in any organized religion does not make me an atheist. I have my own set of beliefs that I am prepared to alter at any time, because I do not feel discomfort if others prove me wrong. I in fact feel joy that I have learned something new. This is the very difference between most scientists and religious aficionados and extremists that I think is important to point out.

You can be this way as well, if you choose.

Choose wisely mein freunden. Choose wisely.

Thank you for your time and patience reading my post, and any incorrectness you'd like to point out. We are all learning here after all. Even me. 🙂

If you're not an atheist, then OK. If you don't like organized religion, OK. Usually in my experience, its either one or the other...God or no God.

 

[disappoint]

I don't want to enter the debate though because of him. He clearly has spent a lot of time preaching religion. He defies logic and I don't get the impression that anything productive can come from debating anything with him. He believes that he has attained a higher "level of comprehension" so discussing this with him is a waste of everyone's time.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

-Mark Twain

LOL. Who was it that said "Don't roll around with pigs, you will both get muddy and the pigs will like it"?

I'm paraphrasing but you've probably heard that before

But he is not a pig. He is a human being and deserves our respect even if he does not extend the same to us. As do the pigs, and even mud itself deserve our respect. Make sense?😉

 

[AViking]

I don't disrespect him. This wasn't really an attempt to slander him in any way. I simply don't think there is any productive value in debating religion with him.

If we're going to have a rational debate about religion then we need to have a clear set of accepted boundaries. For example if you believe that there are Angels and Demons then that is your right but it is 100% faith based. There is nothing to support that anymore than fairies or unicorns. So discussing it is a complete waste of time. "I have faith in Angels and Demons". End of discussion. I don't know what more can be done with that without going full retard. You can ask them to explain why they do but it will undoubtedly be a complete and total waste of everyone's time. However if you want to discuss the history of religion, the differences in religions, interpretations, moral dilemmas, etc then you can probably have a discussion about it with a wide variety of points of views and religious or non religious beliefs.

The main problem with discussions about religion is that they are not rational. People are raised to believe in something and they do not let go. I simply don't have the time in my day to debate with someone's faith when the goal posts are constantly moving and half of what they say is not based on reality. Religion is ancient. It was for slavery. It is against homosexuals. Etc. Peple refer to one thing in scripture but ignore something else like stoning people for adultery. It doesn't belong in our time. If you want to have faith in God or a higher power then by all means do so but organized religion makes no sense in today's world.

We're far better off discussing morality from a rational point of view. Is Homosexuality right? If you can discuss that without referring to the bible as the sole basis of your argument then we can have an adult conversation. Same thing with being an atheist, the afterlife, etc.

 

[disappoint]

Taken straight from Wikipedia. I understand what it means.

I didn't take anything from Wikipedia. Everything I posted was in my own words except where noted. When I use quotes from others I try to always give them credit. I do consult it and other sites from time to time.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Apology accepted. Thank you for doing so. It must not have been easy. I've had to do it myself at times.

If you're not an atheist, then OK. If you don't like organized religion, OK. Usually in my experience, its either one or the other...God or no God.

I find some parts of some organized religions to make some correct statements from time to time. I don't really dislike religion unless they cause or require you to suspend disbelief, or require you to believe without evidence, reason or critical thinking. Or ask you to harm others to further their goals.

Just because they, or a certain book written by others says so, is insufficient for me to believe them.

They are only harmful, if you are willing to do harm on their behalf. Then it would be you that is harmful. Not the ideas expressed in the religion unless that idea is asking you to do harm.

Another reason I think organized religion can be harmful is their penchant for closed mindedness out of respect for tradition. As if tradition is a good reason to follow orders because they have done so in the past and it worked out well for them, due to their continued existence. This slows progress and knowledge increase down which might be harmful to the continued existence of the universe. If that last statement has you bewildered, that is fine. I expect it. 🙂

Science not only tolerates criticism well but requires it.

Usually in my experience, its either one or the other...God or no God.

Your experience has not included much interaction with me yet. I am, different. I used to be disappointed before discovering this sub forum due to intolerance of my views in other sub forums. Now I am less disappointed. 😉

 

[Retro Rob]

I didn't take anything from Wikipedia. Everything I posted was in my own words except where noted. When I use quotes from others I try to always give them credit. I do consult it and other sites from time to time.

Okay. When I looked up the definition some time ago, that example of the Fox and grapes was used verbatim.

Apology accepted. Thank you for doing so. It must not have been easy. I've had to do it myself at times.

Well, I knew I was wrong.

I find some parts of some organized religions to make some correct statements from time to time. I don't really dislike religion unless they cause or require you to suspend disbelief, or require you to believe without evidence, reason or critical thinking. Or ask you to harm others to further their goals.

As far as I am concerned, there is no room for blind faith, nor credulity.

Just because they, or a certain book written by others says so, is insufficient for me to believe them.

Right. That's why I dared to read the Bible myself. What I am about to say will draw maybe tons of criticism, but shucks, the book helped change me. In fact, I personally credit it for the changes I've made over the past 10 years.

I've never felt guilty, but relief, because I expanded my knowledge to include things ridiculed by many learned people. Conversely, just because "scholars" say the bible isn't the Word of God doesn't make it true, either.

In my opinion, it appeals to human nature and gets to the root of why people sometimes do what they do, and give some insight on why.


I would be asked "well, could you have changed without it?". Obviously, the answer is "no" because I didn't.

They are only harmful, if you are willing to do harm on their behalf. Then it would be you that is harmful. Not the ideas expressed in the religion unless that idea is asking you to do harm.

Every religion has to be examined on its own merit, just as each person does because no two people are the same...no two religions are the same, either.

Another reason I think organized religion can be harmful is their penchant for closed mindedness out of respect for tradition. As if tradition is a good reason to follow orders because they have done so in the past and it worked out well for them, due to their continued existence. This slows progress and knowledge increase down which might be harmful to the continued existence of the universe. If that last statement has you bewildered, that is fine. I expect it. 🙂

Exactly! But tradition isn't so bad if it isn't harmful. Traditionally, people celebrate Christmas (even atheists) because its tradition.

I can probably show a bunch of people why Dec 25th isn't Christ' birthday, yet, their close-minded tradition won't allow them to see that they're lying to themselves.

Science not only tolerates criticism well but requires it.

True.

Your experience has not included much interaction with me yet. I am, different. I used to be disappointed before discovering this sub forum due to intolerance of my views in other sub forums. Now I am less disappointed. 😉

Fair point.

 

[brandonb]

I'm sorry, but your post is filled with enough to recognize that you do not understand evolution. There is no goal. There isn't a "how did our <body part> know to develop this? It's really this simple: random mutations & survival of the fittest. The vast majority of mutations do not confer any benefit on the organism possessing those mutations. Some mutations are to the detriment of the organism - the organism is less likely to survive & eventually, that genetic trait dies out. Sometimes, that mutation doesn't confer either an advantage or disadvantage, which may result in that mutation being passed on and being in the gene pool. I guess I should note that there is a goal: to reproduce.

I understand evolution just fine and I understand the casino analogy you put forth.

When I took biology in school and we talked about evolution. I remember them talking about how Darwin had no idea how the eye would have mutated to give us sight and that was unexplained. How did all those random mutations occur to give us a ball with sight receptors for various waveforms and the optic nerve to the brain. Not to mention the lens, the iris, to form a complete working part... All mutations with random chance? Seems almost too perfect for random mutations.

The point. We have a lot of well oiled machines so to speak. Almost made too well for random mutations. If you want to believe that it was all random chance, great. I don't.

 

[dank69]

I understand evolution just fine and I understand the casino analogy you put forth.

When I took biology in school and we talked about evolution. I remember them talking about how Darwin had no idea how the eye would have mutated to give us sight and that was unexplained. How did all those random mutations occur to give us a ball with sight receptors for various waveforms and the optic nerve to the brain. Not to mention the lens, the iris, to form a complete working part... All mutations with random chance? Seems almost too perfect for random mutations.

The point. We have a lot of well oiled machines so to speak. Almost made too well for random mutations. If you want to believe that it was all random chance, great. I don't.

Look at all the different forms of eyes throughout all the different species on the planet with eyes. The human eye didn't just suddenly appear as it is, it probably mutated millions of times as different species mutated.

 

[Blackjack200]

When I took biology in school and we talked about evolution. I remember them talking about how Darwin had no idea how the eye would have mutated to give us sight and that was unexplained. How did all those random mutations occur to give us a ball with sight receptors for various waveforms and the optic nerve to the brain. Not to mention the lens, the iris, to form a complete working part... All mutations with random chance? Seems almost too perfect for random mutations.

The point. We have a lot of well oiled machines so to speak. Almost made too well for random mutations. If you want to believe that it was all random chance, great. I don't.

Evolutionary theory has come quite a long way since Darwin, you understand that, right?

Also, do you understand that the utility of evolutionary theory goes well beyond its most visible use as a stick used by atheists to pummel ID propoents?

It's one of the most important, if not the most important tool used by biologists and other life scientists to advance their fields and make our lives better.

When epidemiologists study disease, they use evolutionary theory to understand the cause and spread of disease. And when drug-resistent bacteria emerge, evolutionary theory is used to combat them. Because that's what's happening, the bugs are evolving to resist our antibiotics.

 

[AViking]

Here's another perfect example. Why would anyone debate with a guy who doesn't even understand evolution but insists that he does? Does anyone get the impression that he is willing to learn?

"When I took biology in school..."

When I was in school I learned that Pluto was a planet, there were no home computers, and the Soviet Union was going to nuke me. Therefore I am going to use what I learned back then to discuss astronomy, geography, politics, computer science, etc today.

WTF!

It's time to dump your 1980 Charlie Brown Encyclopedia and get with the times.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

I understand evolution just fine and I understand the casino analogy you put forth.

When I took biology in school and we talked about evolution. I remember them talking about how Darwin had no idea how the eye would have mutated to give us sight and that was unexplained. How did all those random mutations occur to give us a ball with sight receptors for various waveforms and the optic nerve to the brain. Not to mention the lens, the iris, to form a complete working part... All mutations with random chance? Seems almost too perfect for random mutations.

The point. We have a lot of well oiled machines so to speak. Almost made too well for random mutations. If you want to believe that it was all random chance, great. I don't.

It doesn't seem that you do. You keep using "random", but evolution is not random. Mutations provide genetic variation, "options" if you will. Actually choosing an option is not random, the main mechanism for this described by Darwin was natural selection. This is how nature "designs" organisms. There are more "selective" or "design" mechanisms that are known about now.

 

[Retro Rob]

It doesn't seem that you do. You keep using "random", but evolution is not random. Mutations provide genetic variation, "options" if you will. Actually choosing an option is not random, the main mechanism for this described by Darwin was natural selection. This is how nature "designs" organisms. There are more "selective" or "design" mechanisms that are known about now.

Aren't mutations destructive nearly 100% of the time?