It's evolution bay-bee

[gemfyre]

I don't get all these religious types who believe that God negates evolution.

I just watched yet another show on evolution and crikey, it just makes me believe in a God even more. All that utter brilliance and chance and simplicity and complexity and adaptation and everything all rolled into one. I mean, how could you look at all that and NOT believe in a God??

*smiles to herself*

Comments

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

i stopped believing in god once i learned that scientists have discovered that the part of the brain that can tell the difference between an outside (ie whats usually thought of as a religious thought or voice, but also means other things) and an inside stimulus gets supressed during activities such as "praying" or the buddist "becoming one with the universe" and other such religious fervour clap trap.
Why would the brain have this fault? Quite simple. Evolution.
Ones who didnt believe in god were killed as heretic for thousands of years. Humans who group together survive, and religious have sparked some of the nastiest and best survived groups out there.
And as for evolution being wonderfully complicated and brilliant...
The fault with humans is that they tend to believe that they are the REASON for all that chance and brilliance, rather than the end product. Oh wow, they say, look at all that complexity all leading up to me, must be some kind of design behind it.
Must be a REASON. Has to be an EXPLANATION. It just couldnt have all happened by chance and I just suddenly popped up accidentally and just happen to be admiring it right now. Oh no, that would make me feel horribly insignificant. My ego cant have that. Therefore, I must make up a STORY to explain it, cos Im a human and I so love doing stuff like that.
Of course, all these things happen inside your head, in the bits where the part that makes you think you are a "you" and not just a collection of random memes fooling themselves.
I look at a bee and its amazing dance to show other bees where the flower is, and i think "somewhere in the past, there was this queen bee who had really CRAZY bee workers who used to twitch their legs whenever they found good flowers, and the other workers worked out from the way it twitched which direction said flowers were" rather than thinking "how could that massive complicated dance have possibly just POPPED UP? I cant conceive of all the little tiny intricate steps (with all the fatal and nasty dead ends, isnt nature wonderful?) that led up to it through millions of years of life and death. God musta done it. Yeah, the story fits then, and I feel better about myself. Im not small and insignificant. Im important."
*smiles to himself*
And thats all I have to say about that.

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

Totally agree. Though I hate those idiots that view evolution as a linear process, or worse yet, those that treat it as a religion.
Bastards.

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

case in point.... *points at Morninglords rant*
So many pseudo-scientists refuse to believe in god, because the bible (written by men, then translated for several thousand years) is inaccurate. of course it's inaccurate. so? many dont believe in god because science is provable (well duh. thats what science IS) just because evolution is real, doesnt mean that god is dead, nietze(sp?) ignored. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. I believe more in a god because of the beauty of the brain, and the amazing steps that lead to it, than before i learnt science. As someone once said "A miracle is something that happens when needed. Is it any less a miracle if it can be explained?"

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

i wasnt arguing anything, just stating my opinion.
I firmly believe in not arguing the existence of god, because an arguement is something that happens when two people are willing to be led by the other persons point of view. A believer cant do that. EVER. Thats sacriligious. Its against god.
Its such a lovely little mind fuck, religion. Such a wonderful little memonic virus spreading throughout the brains of thousands of people, and it hides itself behind one of the strongest forces in the human brain, which is that of guilt.
I view people who believe in a god as victims of something they really cant do anything about. I like em, and are friends with them and still think theyre human.
But theyre victims, none the less.
Its why I find it so funny that people think IM the victim, cos Im not susceptible to this particular memonic virus.
Cos the important thing is that while im not a believe, im willing to be convinced if you can argue your case successfully. Just nobody ever managed to do that.
And i mean, hell, if im wrong, and I end up in front of god and he chucks me in the pit of hell or whatever, then what the hell, he wasnt worth it anyway. Im living a good life as a good person the way I see it. I dont think I should have to believe in a god just to live it the "right" way.

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

Hrm, I so totally disagree with believers not being alowed to argue stuff.
I'm a believer.
I question everything all the time.
I fuck with people's minds all the time.
Not usually a reason for it, i just like doing it.
S'pose i'm just like Loki from Dogma :)

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

allow me to amend that statement.
I didnt mean they couldnt argue stuff. I meant they arent SUPPOSED to argue wether or not god actually "EXISTS". They can only be on the side of exists. Theres no middle ground.
That makes them all, to a greater or lesser degree, fanatics. And impossible to argue with about the existence of their god.
On other points, they can argue all they like. The memonic virus doesnt mind that.

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

"which is that of guilt." not true. Guilt is a part of religious control, not religion. Hey, i believe in god from my choice, not cause im afraid of hell. if it exists, Im probably going there anyway, so whether i worship or not doesnt matter. but i accept that i cant prove or disprove he exists, so i choose to believe.
And seriously, stop assuming you're superior. just because you believe in the religion of science instead of god., you are any less of a victim of the deep neurological virii.

Hm

[peppermintrose.livejournal.com]

Don't usually stick my nose in, but this conversation caught me before I've had my daily calming dose of sugar. I don't think morninglord was ranting at all. In fact, he brings up some interesting points just when I thought I'd heard it all on both sides of the god issue. Yes, I'm an atheist and yes I think the Bible is a bunch of stories we just can't seem to make ourselves let go of yet. No one wants to think we're just a part of nature, everyone wants a chance at "heaven" (which if you really read the bible is near impossible to achieve anyway), and while they're spending time worshiping they're ignoring the fact that they need to make their own heaven on earth for themselves and for others. This is our one life, our one real chance to be happy and make a difference. Don't waste it. Don't live it for a supposed afterlife! *firm nod and wanders back to her own journal*

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

I prefer to think of myself as Agnostic rather than Atheist.
Although I'm not sure about that...

Re: Hm

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

I'm quite willing to say were part of nature.
isn't everything part of nature?
I think the point gemfyre is making is that with the way evolution works, it's so complex and intricate, it seems more likely that there is a higher power behind at least setting it all in motion than just pure chance.

TR

What do you mean I cant be a Christian and a Scientist?

Re: Hm

[confetti-1.livejournal.com]

"(which if you really read the bible is near impossible to achieve anyway), "

Nope. "And God gave Hi one and only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal Life."

That's it. Believe.

But that's beside the point.

Re: Hm

[sassamifrass.livejournal.com]

I'm not religious for a chance at "heaven". I don't actually really know whether I believe in a heaven. I believe that God is everything, and that we are all a part of God - God is the life force that we all posses - the abillity to respond to stimuli, to think and to reason and argue. Even dead matter or inorganic chemicals are a part of God to me, because it gives life, and provides it a place to inhabit.

Religion to me is a set of ideas on how one should live one's life in a way that makes you and others happy and treats all equally. AS the Dali Lama said; "Kindness is my religion."

The majority of my beliefs co-incide with the Christian stream of thought, but I believe the Bible is not a direct record of history. It is stories - stories are what people tell each other to explain things - why we should treat each other kindly, why we should care for our parents, and why we should not steal, or kill others. There's things in the Bible I disagree with. Doesn't bother me... because stories change throughout the ages to suit the society, and societies' rules change. Just like fairytales mutate. The Bible simply hasn't undergone that process. I don't believe God cares if a man has a relationship with another man, or if a woman doesn't sacrifice a goat after becoming unclean :P I don't think God built a little sectioned-off Garden and man the first woman from a rib. It's all just stories people tell each other to try and get their heads around the thing we call life. Philosophers are great at this. Philosophy is my best answer to any of the negative things said about atheism or a belief in God(s)/(esses). Jesus was a philosopher. As was Buhdda. And Socrates. People believe different things about these people, but I admire them all for what they achieved.

I believe that God's religion is kindness. And that's the religion I follow... I think he was being a bit mean calling religion a "virus" and "mind-fuck" and other equally derogatory things. A little tolerance would be nice ^^

Re: Hm

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

Read the post in your journal.

Nah I'm not gonna remove you!! geesh.

Wayne often needs putting in his place *smiles*

[leemur.livejournal.com]

So many pseudo-scientists refuse to believe in god, because the bible (written by men, then translated for several thousand years) is inaccurate. of course it's inaccurate. so?

The question is not one of accuracy. Granted, if the events in the bible did take place, the inaccuries would accumulate over several thousand years. For that matter, the bible was almost completly rewritten at the Counsel of Nicine in the 4th century AD.

But elements of the bible, like a six day creation time and a inteligent creater are not 'innacuacies'. They are elements that do not fit in with the current scientific viewpoint.

many dont believe in god because science is provable (well duh. thats what science IS)

Science is not about provability. No one has been able to 'prove' evolution (and most likely no one will, given the time span involved), and yet in the scientific community it is considered the best theory. Not the 'correct' theory, but the best one so far. And that is what science is about: finding the laws that govern the operation of the universe.

just because evolution is real, doesnt mean that god is dead, nietze(sp?) ignored

God is dead - Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead - God

Evolution doesn't by itself, invaladate the possible existence of a higher intelligence. See my next point.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive

But a scientific viewpoint and faith in an omnisicent, omnipresent god are. You can't mantain a scientific view of the universe and still beleive that god can interefere with that same universe.

The laws of chemistry and bioligy state that if someone is dead for three days, they can't come back. If you beleive that Jesus came back from the dead, then you can no longer believe in a scientific universe.

You can have God, or you can have a scientific universe. You can't have both.

As someone once said "A miracle is something that happens when needed. Is it any less a miracle if it can be explained?"

When a statue weeps blood, that is considered a miracle.

When people bleed from their palms, that is considered a miracle.

But these are not things that happen when needed.

If you are talking about things like gaining some money just when you need it, consider how many times you didn't get money when you needed it. What makes the tenth time, when you do get the money, a miracle?

No, I don't beleive in miracles. It's just human interpretation of a random event.

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive

But a scientific viewpoint and faith in an omnisicent, omnipresent god are. You can't mantain a scientific view of the universe and still beleive that god can interefere with that same universe.

eh, HUH???

*looks at herself*
So even I'm not a "real" scientist and never will be or something?

*agrees to disagree with this statement because she proves it wrong*

[confetti-1.livejournal.com]

No, not high on ourselves at all, are we morninglord? You're *humble*. Right. So *that's* what humble looks like.

Grr.

And incidentally gemfyre, I agree with you too. :)

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

Who said I was humble??? Im as arrogant as the day is long.
^___^

[firvulag.livejournal.com]

actually more like a week :)

[sassamifrass.livejournal.com]

I totally agree :D

[confetti-1.livejournal.com]

*disclaimer*

I was laughing as I was reading morninglord's posts, by the by. ;)

I'm actually rather proud of myself.

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

I don't often argue stuff to this degree.
I usually don't care.
I didn't really in this case, I was just bored.
So I set myself a challenge.
Write as many inflammatory and argumentative posts as I can and see what the responses are.
So far I'm very pleased with you all. Your responses have been wonderful, thought provoking and putting me in my place right where I deserved it, since I don't really know wtf I'm talking about.
But, I'd just like to mention, that much of what I've said tonight was very tongue in cheek. As all my close friends will know, I'm a very very tolerant person who doesn't much mind what anybody believes in, as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or themselves.
The term of Virus was actually something I picked up from a New Scientist magazine which talked about religion as being a virus. Loverly an inflammatory.
I don't REALLY think like that. Promise. :)

And yes, I'm very much a dumbass. But in my defence, I'm REALLY REALLY good at being one, and that kind of skill has to count for something, right?

Nearly 40 something posts!
I'm flabbergasted. We'll have to do this again sometime. :)

Re: I'm actually rather proud of myself. (But you shouldn't be)

[(Anonymous)]

*takes out sticker, writes something on it*
Hey, morninglord!
*wacks large sticker with the word TROLL written on it in large, unfriendly letters*

Congratulations. You have just admitted to being the lowest form of online life, both on usenet and the web. You are now labeled, now and forever more, as a TROLL.

Please enjoy your stay at the bottom of the food chain.

- Früchlè

Re: I'm actually rather proud of myself. (But you shouldn't be)

[(Anonymous)]

ps. a few things to cover again:
* nothing is provable, science or otherwise. That does not make science god-like, or remove plausability of god.
* the only thing you can discount from Judeo-Christian religion is human error. Error in recording, error in emotions (greed, fear and self-centeredness in the authors). Do NOT use human falicy as prove something exists or not. Only use it to measure the human condition.
* Judeo-Christianity is NOT the largest religion out there. Nor is it nessisarily the best.
* There is a MASSIVE difference between "church" (organized religion) and religion (the tenants that it teaches). If you are religious, that does NOT automatically make you a boy-raping irish catholic, anti-prodistant missionary preacher. Nor does being the above preacher make you religious. Can you honestly say that members of the church who break their vows are religious? (take crusades, inquisition, and the christian brothers for example).
* Many people have been "burned" by the church, and cannot tell where the lines seperate between church and it's teachings. Pity THOSE people, for they are like those who go to high school, memorise text books on mathimatics and history, but never understand WHY or HOW X can represent something else, only that it does. (memorization vs. extrapolation)
* Gemfyre made a good point. "There is beauty in the world" was what she was saying. That is true. No matter how much science or religion is tossed into the mix, appreciation is there. Is it wrong to appreciate something if it's creation was "random"? We appreciate non-random beauty (ie. classical art) and semi-random beauty (abstract art). Why not natural/random beauty? Does it's nature make it less than it is? What if God DID exist and create this beauty? Does that discount our appreciation? (well, we can't say it's good, because it HAS to be good, after all, God created it, and he's perfect, so it must be perfect.) I'm going to wander away from this one for a moment, and bring up:
* Greek mythology. Now THERE were some dieties! Whoring, torturing, rampaging. They were like big children (well, big children who demanded sacrifices, but anyway). My point here: religion is varied and deep, not all of it is as restrictive as Christian Scientists in it's application to the 'real' world. Like Sassifrass mentioned, there are religions which PUSH the idea of focusing on the inward (as opposed to the mind numbing TROLL spoke of earlier). They support the idea of thinking for yourself, and relying on inner strength, not external forces or rewards. Then you can discount the whole concept of the afterlife and heaven, and just go straight to reincarnation in Hindu.
* Oh, oh! And let's not forget the poor pagans! (sorry about the title, pagan of course being the term the Christian Church(s) used to lump a wide variety of earlier Europeans beliefs into). Life, rebirth, people working together, lots of good stuff. (Sure, some sacrifices, and weird rituals, but have you ever seen yourself get ready to drive? Why do you pat your right pocket to check for the keys you just got a minute ago? Or before you put it in drive, you check your seatbelt, without even noticing? Some things we do because of repition. Others by being taught. Without wide spread literacy, there was a massive "chinese whispers effect" in the pre-printing press world. Do not judge rituals and methods prematurely. There is often a reason behind things. And the reason for confusion in the passing down of these teachings? Human error again.

Re: I'm actually rather proud of myself. (But you shouldn't be)

[(Anonymous)]

* Now, I realize this list is getting long, but for those of you still with us, an unrelated point. "Relgion, Politics and Sex". Three areas that you WILL approach carefully if you wish to have any sort of success in dealing with people from a western society. Dangerous topics, because so many people feel so strongly about them. People like feeling comfortable. Understanding stuff makes us comfortable with our surroundings. We tend to hang around people we can relate to, objects that we can use and understand and travel as little as possible. (before we get to a "what? travel is bad? this Frü fellow is INSANE" type discussion, read the message behind my words: "we like to feel comfortable". I am not saying we don't like other things, merely that comfort is important, generally speaking, to everyone. Do not begrudge another's want for a soft cushion. (that was a metaphor for, well, everything). Yes, relgion CAN be the "opium of the masses". But is it so very wrong to want to feel safe and happy? The problem (I'm not going to say only, but it is a major problem) with this is that some people are selfish, fearfull people, who want to put others below them. It's a power thing. As a secondary thing, when people are comfortable they do not attempt to strive as hard for greater comfort. (we're here, this is good enough - mentality).
The Three Big Topics [tm] are dangerous waters to tread. People don't like being proved wrong, or being forced into a position of 'wrongness'.
This causes (big word now) Cognitive Dissodence. (spelling around me is somewhat optional). That weird, uncomfortable feeling you get when something is wrong? The confusion, fear, or laughter caused by something out of the ordinary? Our body's/mind's reaction to something that breaks it's belief in the way things are meant to be (there is a word which annoyingly eludes me at the moment).
Some people only feel 'comfortable', when hurting others, or breaking down belief systems. The Skeptic Society is an interesting case in this matter. In some ways, they are doing a good thing, uncovering frauds (those who would use their beliefs to disadvanage others, or unfairly advantage themselves). On the other hand, side effects from a society that doesn't believe in anything anymore are equally disasterous. (But.. but.. what if my accellerator is suddenly my brake today?? I can't trust anything anymore!)
* On the same vein of 'dangerous conversation topics' (at least, those that should be entered into cautiously), politeness goes a long way on the internet.
* "as long as it doesn't involve hurting others", except that you DID hurt others. You broke their belief that you were a decent and rational person, and changed their opinions of you. You changed the mood of the conversation into a dark and angry path. You made people feel hostile. (I'm not saying to the degrees of which the above were obtained, just that it happened, and you were responsible). Which brings me to taking responsibility. Do it. Everyone. Church, government, TROLLS. We each are partially (majorly) responsible for our actions (I will concede that radiation, head trauma, chemical imbalences and general insanity can cause uncontrolable actions). People, like this TROLL made a choice to anger others. This was a wrong choice. How wrong? Well, the post did make us think about the choices we had made, but for the VAST majority, merely strengthened our resolve, the exact opposite effect that such a rebutal should have had.
* Gemfyre posted an opinion. I think it's already been covered that you saying that your reply wasn't an argument is untrue. You can say it wasn't INTENDED to be an arguement, but then the post should have been prefixed with lines such as "I believe" and "some think", as opposed to "this is". This is recovering the "be polite" point. It's FINE to disagree. It's fine to say "While I agree with viewpoint presented X, people B say Y." The TROLL posted the reply as if the thoughts were his own, and left no room for us to belive otherwise. Those of you going to university, this may sound familiar as "reference your work, and don't plagerise". It is. It's rude to steal. It's also rude to be a TROLL.


So, until next time, be good to yourselves.. and each other.

Cause I missed Out :)

[ric-the-dratini.livejournal.com]

First I say that I believe in science but I had a friend who believed in god. We used to argue all the time until he said this "I believe god created the life on this planet through evolution". He made out that he designed this whole process to create us and everything else. And I like this view, though I still don't believe in god. As far as religion being a "virus" well my opinion on this matter is that we are lonely species. We look for things which may/may not be there like god, in the same way we look to the sky and see aliens. Egyptians were said to have created their own gods to control the slaves by promising a better existance after death if you worked hard during this life. Science can not have all the answers, infact to a point they make up their own answers with assumptions, but I can not believe in something I can see and that is just my view and opinion.