The Whys of Evolution

As you found the evidence unconvincing you had to make a decision. The unconvincing evidence caused you to BELIEVE that the truth was to be found in Atheism.A better argument could be made for agnosticism being a lack of belief, but even then you would have to BELIEVE that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision.

What a funny thing to say, considering that my rights are being taken away one by one by religious people. I used to talk to god everyday... every other hour. I used to read the bible every night before sleep. I used to do all of that.By the way, I just found out a friend of mine got beaten up by some religious freaks because he was a "fag". So, don't lecture me on how religious people are more tolerant and all that crap. The reason I am promoting secularism is because it is the only way we can make a state completely free for everyone to worship whatever/however he wants. As soon as we bring religion into the classroom, or state policy, other religions will be in danger of loosing their rights.I assure you, if anyone ever wants to push through legislations that limit your rights to worship inside your house (remember that anti-sodomy law that states people can't even do certain things inside their own bedrooms?), I will be among the first to protest. If they manage to get it through, I will die fighting along your side.The reason I am so much against religion inside the classroom is because I am tolerant of all religions.Again, take a look at the wiki list I posted. Tell me which ones should be taught inside the classroom and which ones should be left out. Perhaps because I wasn't assuming that at all. Just because you are tolerant doesn't mean others are. In fact, the majority of the people I have talked to are against islamic and jewish teachings when it comes to their kids.In this case, "you" was meant for "you should think in terms of the general populace". What do you call a person that tried to pass a second amendment banning gay marriage, considering that there's already one in place? Me too, actually. Don't forget to teach them about how to justify slavery, sexism, racism, genocide, etc. by using the bible. Perhaps we should have another round of witch hunt?I'm being childish, aren't I? How much do you know about the theory of evolution?Let me tell you a story. I was debating with some people a while back. They were convinced that quantum mechanics was imaginary. They went on and on about what they believed (I just stood back and listened... they were all mumble jumble).You see, we live in a world where everyone has an opinion about everything, including things they don't know crap about.The reason evolution is taught in school is because it is a very well established fact, just like gravity. We see it happening everyday right before our eyes. I saw it happening right in my lab not long ago. Those are the kinds of stuff that are being taught.I would have no problem with religion being taught in school IFF people can replicate miracles.Edited to change "which" to "witch". Yes, I actually proof read my posts.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-24-2005 05:58 PM

Hi GAWThankyou for the measured tone of your response. I probably became more personal than I should have. I'm very sorry about your friend. Your term "religious freaks" sounds accurate to me. I have no personal knowledge of any religion that would preach anything but total condemnation of a heinous crime like that. There have always been those who will pervert a faith for whatever evil they want to commit, (ie: this case, 9/11, Oklahoma City etc.) but I wouldn't refer to them as religious people. Let's just call them evil. I have no doubt about God feeling the same way either, and if I didn't believe that to the depth of my soul I would turn away from my faith.The only thing that I would add to the discussion about teaching world religions in the classroom is that I would agree with posting your list of world religions, and point out where to go for information on all of them. In addition there should then be instruction as to the basic tenets of all major world religions. I also think it would be positive to bring in leaders representing the various religious views and have a round table debate and discussion. If I were you, I would call him someone I disagree with. Guilty as charged. How about the miracles of particles? They pass information instantaneously over great distances, they disappear, they appear, they move from one position to another without being in between. Sure sounds miraculous to me.Now go back to your previous quote about people having an opinion on everything. I read a few science books, (just finished Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"), and I'm an expert! I would just ask that you guys who actually know physics cut me a lot of slack here.

That's called quantum mechanics. No problem. Just about every major religion I know advocates intolerance of people that are different than them. In fact, just about every major religion I know used to advocate extreme violence and sometimes even genocide.In fact, I don't recall any religious group protesting when they wanted to put up that monument for Matthew Sheppard. I, however, recall a lot of people holding up signs that said "Matthew Sheppard is in hell..." and other hate messages at his funeral.Even though I am tolerant of all religions and that I believe people can believe whatever they want, I strongly believe that religion will almost always lead to hate and suffering.Ok, how do you make me less cranky? You can start by giving me a free vacation to Hawaii.Edited to add "to" in between "vacation" and "Hawaii".This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-24-2005 07:32 PM

---

King Nadkicker

OK. I don't want to nit-pic, but you really have to look closely at all possible literal interpretations of what you write: Q: Since when does education leave a void !?And you would classify atheism as some sort of morally unsatisfying residue that is all that remains after humanity abandons religion ?I find far more intellectual satisfaction in considering non-theistic explanations of nature than theistic ones.

But you haven't pointed out any tangible reasons why there is any real *value* to be gained by learning about all these religions. What if they are all the same clown in different costumes ? Wouldn't learning objectively about one religion be just as good as learning about the tedious, pedantic details of all of them ?I think GAW has presented some very good reasons why we should be wary of all religions. I don't see much evidence to the contrary.

Double post.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-24-2005 08:28 PM

I do understand that much. My point is this, if something disappears into nothing, or if something appears from nothing, or it moves itself from one location to another without being in between, that a miracle has occurred. Forget that it is at the quantum level. Sounds like a miracle to me, with my thinking that a miracle is an occurrence that contravenes natural law. I very much disagree with your basic premise. The religion I know by far the most about is Christianity. Christianity is about loving your neighbour, and your enemy for that matter. As I said, there will always be those who pervert the faith for a variety of motives. God is God and people will always be people. Tolerating other's points of view does not mean that you have to agree with them but true religion does mean that you respect them and love them.To get back to the original point, I would suggest that if the general population was better educated about religion they would be much better prepared to recognize a counterfeit when they saw one. (IMHO the Benny Hinns of this world would then have to get a real job. )

I agree 100%.And take note, GDR: that's non-theistic explanations, not atheistic explanations. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in god(s). "God did it" just isn't a satisfying explanation.Relating to the topic of the thread: the "why" is just not as interesting as the "how".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

A: When there is no religious instruction provided it leaves a void. As a matter of fact I think that Atheism has brought about many positive advances. It helped to free up science from a dogmatic church at the time of the French Revolution, and it helped to free the church from the control of leaders who were far more concerned with power than with the needs of the people. I would also suggest that moral and ethical values are universally inspired by a higher power. That would be pretty natural. If you come to a conclusion that the truth in some area of research is outside the physical world then there presumably is no scientific answer. This would be most unsatisfying from a scientific point of view, but very exciting from a theological point of view.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-24-2005 10:33 PM

I agree completely. That is science as we know it. Science is about explaining the physical world. It isn't about denying that the metaphysical world exists. Who knows, maybe someday science will be able to say that they have reached the point where the physical ends and the metaphysical begins. It seems to me when I read about string theory that we might even be approaching that point. (However, as I pointed out earlier, my knowledge comes from reading Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking etc and with zero scientific background.)Modified to expand on what I'd written earlier.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-24-2005 08:46 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 05-24-2005 08:47 PM

Are you suggesting that on the elemental level, the physical world grades into the mental?

Please don't take this too seriously because I am seriously out of my depth here, but with theories of everything being either vibrating strings, other dimensions, branes or even holograms it seems to me just maybe that is the case.This thread has wandered around a bit but this actually goes back to the beginning of the thread when we were talking about the WHYs as opposed to the HOWS.

I'm not. I commented on it because the same thought has crossed my mind as well.

Sorry, I would have to argue no. Just because these highly advanced mathematical constructs seem intangible on the surface and are beyond the comprehension of most of us, does not mean that the boundaries of science are being blurred. String theories are abstract models of possible realities but they are NOT metaphysical for one simple resaon: They are quantifiable and make quantifiable predictions that may or may not be consistent with observations. Thus they will ultimately stand/fall/evolve based on their correspondence to real world observations, whether these observations are derived from particle accelerators or astronomical measurements.