Did we disprove evolution yet?

[Hespera]

No it hasn't. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Evolution (which I believe in) and creation (which I also believe in) can coexist side by side.

Absolutely. Just depends on how far back you set the creation, and whether you include meddling along the way.

 

[ukgrace]

I’ve given you only one characteristic of religions. Religions are many-sided. For example, they also cause unnecessary harm by promoting ignorance and encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence.

However, in answer to your request, here is some evidence that religious beliefs are used as a shield against the harshness of reality. You can see much of this evidence in the posts by religious believers here in these forums.

Religious beliefs are used mainly to overcome insecurity (fear and anxiety). Religious believers confirm their insecurity with their incessant desire for, obsession with and talk about being saved. It is the insecure who constantly yearn to be saved.

Religious believers fear death. The harsh reality is that there is no sound reason not to think that death is a permanent end to our existence. Religious beliefs are used as a shield against that harsh reality to assuage the fear of death. It is probably no coincidence that the most successful religions are those that promise eternal life. The fear of death is confirmed by the numerous religious euphemisms for the word 'died' (for example, passed away, passed on, passed over, passed to the other side, gone to heaven, gone to meet his/her maker, with the celestial choir, with the angels, with the heavenly father, in God's care, residing with Jesus, etc.). Religious believers are desperate to avoid acknowledging death or accepting that it is the end of their existence.

Religious believers fear the unknown. The harsh reality is that here are probably some questions to which we will never know the answer. Religions shield religious believers from that harsh reality by providing an answer to every question, even if that answer is something as worthless as "God did it". Religions provide shallow answers to comfort shallow thinkers.

Religious believers fear uncertainty. The harsh reality is that life is filled with shades of grey and there is very little in life that is certain (except perhaps the certainty that one day we will die). Religions shield religious believers from that uncertainty by encouraging them to think in terms of absolutes, extremes and false dichotomies. Religious believers tend to see one extreme position or two opposing extreme positions as the only possible positions. For example, religious believers tend towards moral absolutism. Many religious believers are absolutely certain that their God exists contrary to the harsh reality that there is a complete lack of any sound evidence supporting that belief.

Religions provide prayer as a shield against the harsh reality that there are many things over which we have no control. Prayer is nothing more than ritual handwringing used to assuage fear and anxiety. Religions provide hope, which is usually just self-deception or confident expectation that the ludicrously implausible will occur (for example, life after death).

I’m guessing you can find many more examples of religious beliefs being used as a shield against the harshness of reality in the posts from religious believers here and in conversations you may have with religious believers.

100% true but the creationists won't even read it because where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise, and boy do they not want to know about reality, it takes a stupid person to deny reality and a child abuser to force it onto their children, why would anyone deliberately want to make their children stupid for no reason?
Religions have a lot to answer for, most of the stupidity in the world is caused by religions in one form or another.

 

[Doveaman]

No it hasn't. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Evolution (which I believe in) and creation (which I also believe in) can coexist side by side.

Except in the Bible.

 

[Doveaman]

Absolutely. Just depends on how far back you set the creation, and whether you include meddling along the way.

You call the Bible meddling? Shame on you.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

100% true but the creationists won't even read it because where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise, and boy do they not want to know about reality, it takes a stupid person to deny reality and a child abuser to force it onto their children, why would anyone deliberately want to make their children stupid for no reason?
Religions have a lot to answer for, most of the stupidity in the world is caused by religions in one form or another.

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this forum. And that's saying something.

 

[Hespera]

You call the Bible meddling? Shame on you.

Shame on your English teacher who left out the whole idea of comprehension.

You dont get to call shame for something i didnt do. i can do as I please, anyway. Its just a book. Pages. Ink. The bible just sits there like a rotten tree stump anyway. It is not capable of "meddling".

Now, you probably are not interested in what I actually meant, but here it is for anyone who might be.

The universe does fine running itself. no need to micromanage every molecule and tell it just how to vibrate, no need to direct a river in its channel or a planet in its orbit.

IF a "creator" made the universe and its guiding principles, fine. Who is to say (certainly not the theocreologists and their eccentric translations of an old book) After that, he sat back and let it run itself.

Evolution would work just as it has, with that kind of creator. No difference at all. Just the kind of creator we do / dont have. distant, unimaginable, and to all evidence, non existent.

What is obnoxious and ignorant is the people who try to find ways to disprove evolution not because they have a single solitary data point or even know what they are arguing against, but because they think they are tuned into the ultimate Truth of the universe.

 

[ukgrace]

100% true but the creationists won't even read it because where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise, and boy do they not want to know about reality, it takes a stupid person to deny reality and a child abuser to force it onto their children, why would anyone deliberately want to make their children stupid for no reason?
Religions have a lot to answer for, most of the stupidity in the world is caused by religions in one form or another.

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on this forum. And that's saying something.

Admittedly I may have used a slightly larger brush when I wrote that 'most of the stupidity in the world is caused by religions in one form or another' I should have written 'quite a lot' and not 'most', apart from that which parts do you find ignorant and why? do you not think that in most cases indoctrinate a child with creationism is bordering on child abuse?

 

[Hespera]

Admittedly I may have used a slightly larger brush when I wrote that 'most of the stupidity in the world is caused by religions in one form or another' I should have written 'quite a lot' and not 'most', apart from that which parts do you find ignorant and why? do you not think that in most cases indoctrinate a child with creationism is bordering on child abuse?

looked to me like someone was demonstrating what a way overblown comment was by making one in response.

 

[Naraoia]

I’ve given you only one characteristic of religions. Religions are many-sided. For example, they also cause unnecessary harm by promoting ignorance and encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence.

You appear to be generalising from your impressions gleaned from talking to fundamentalist Christians. Does that generalisation actually hold when you look at all religions? You sure there are none whose values include learning, tolerance and non-violence?

However, in answer to your request, here is some evidence that religious beliefs are used as a shield against the harshness of reality. You can see much of this evidence in the posts by religious believers here in these forums.

Such as Cabal and lucaspa?

Religious beliefs are used mainly to overcome insecurity (fear and anxiety). Religious believers confirm their insecurity with their incessant desire for, obsession with and talk about being saved. It is the insecure who constantly yearn to be saved.

Yes, and religious believers on this forum are a representative sample of all religious believers. Seriously?!

Religious believers fear death. The harsh reality is that there is no sound reason not to think that death is a permanent end to our existence. Religious beliefs are used as a shield against that harsh reality to assuage the fear of death. It is probably no coincidence that the most successful religions are those that promise eternal life. The fear of death is confirmed by the numerous religious euphemisms for the word 'died' (for example, passed away, passed on, passed over, passed to the other side, gone to heaven, gone to meet his/her maker, with the celestial choir, with the angels, with the heavenly father, in God's care, residing with Jesus, etc.). Religious believers are desperate to avoid acknowledging death or accepting that it is the end of their existence.

Hey, did you notice that all of your euphemisms come from one single language and one single religion? Did you also notice that this is the only actual evidence you have supplied to support your claim?

Religious believers fear the unknown.

Do you want me to start listing religious scientists, past and present?

The harsh reality is that here are probably some questions to which we will never know the answer. Religions shield religious believers from that harsh reality by providing an answer to every question, even if that answer is something as worthless as "God did it".

I think Zen Buddhists would look at you strangely if you told them that. So much for their ready-made answers...

<snip rest of rant>

Someone restrain me before I get into a twenty-page argument defending religion

No it hasn't. I believe that evolution is God's tool for creation. Evolution (which I believe in) and creation (which I also believe in) can coexist side by side.

That's not creationism sensu CF

 

[3sigma]

You appear to be generalising from your impressions gleaned from talking to fundamentalist Christians. Does that generalisation actually hold when you look at all religions? You sure there are none whose values include learning, tolerance and non-violence?

No, it doesn’t apply to all religions, but then I didn’t say all religions, I just said religions, which means more than one religion. When you look at the teachings of the two main religions—Christianity and Islam, which together account for the majority of religious believers in the world—you can see numerous examples of them encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence. Read these examples of intolerance, cruelty and violence in the Bible. The Qur’an is no better.

Such as Cabal and lucaspa?
…
Yes, and religious believers on this forum are a representative sample of all religious believers. Seriously?!

No, not all religious believers are intolerant, cruel and violent, but there are enough of them to cause a good deal of unnecessary harm around the world today. Look at the sectarian violence going on in the world today (and throughout history) for examples.

Hey, did you notice that all of your euphemisms come from one single language and one single religion? Did you also notice that this is the only actual evidence you have supplied to support your claim?

Have you noticed how the most successful religions are those that promise life after death? The three top religions in the world today—Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, which together make up two thirds of the world’s population—all make this promise. Do you think that is just a coincidence? I don’t think so. I think that promising people that they will never really die quells the fear of death.

Do you want me to start listing religious scientists, past and present?

Again, not all religious believers, but the few religious believers who are scientists are vastly outnumbered by the uneducated hordes for whom the comforting answer “God did it” is as far as they are willing to think.

 

[Naraoia]

No, it doesn&#8217;t apply to all religions, but then I didn&#8217;t say all religions, I just said religions, which means more than one religion.

Might be because English is not my first language, but to me it read an awful lot like a generalisation.

When you look at the teachings of the two main religions&#8212;Christianity and Islam, which together account for the majority of religious believers in the world&#8212;you can see numerous examples of them encouraging intolerance, cruelty and violence.

As well as numerous examples encouraging the opposite. Love thy neighbour, judge not, give alms to the poor (one of the Five Pillars of Islam!) and so on.

No, not all religious believers are intolerant, cruel and violent, but there are enough of them to cause a good deal of unnecessary harm around the world today.

Maybe. But you didn't qualify your original statement like that.

Look at the sectarian violence going on in the world today (and throughout history) for examples.

Is religion a cause, or merely a justification, for human violence? If there weren't religious tenets to explain why this violence is OK, would the amount of violence decrease, or would people simply come up with other ways to justify it?

Have you noticed how the most successful religions are those that promise life after death? The three top religions in the world today&#8212;Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, which together make up two thirds of the world&#8217;s population&#8212;all make this promise. Do you think that is just a coincidence? I don&#8217;t think so. I think that promising people that they will never really die quells the fear of death.

I think that you need a lot more than correlation over a sample size of 3 to prove a functional relationship. Especially when two of the three are not independent.

Furthermore, many more religions exist(ed) that have a much smaller following, or are practically extinct, despite promising an afterlife. There must be other factors at play.

All three religions you mention have a lot more to them than the promise of life after death. (The promise of punishment after death if you misbehave, among others.)

Again, not all religious believers, but the few religious believers who are scientists are vastly outnumbered by the uneducated hordes for whom the comforting answer &#8220;God did it&#8221; is as far as they are willing to think.

I wonder. Are the uneducated non-religious hordes any different?

 

[3sigma]

Might be because English is not my first language, but to me it read an awful lot like a generalisation.

It&#8217;s probably just a lack of familiarity with my writing style in particular. I rarely use absolute terms such as always, never, all or none (except when describing the amount of sound evidence supporting the belief that God is real). If I had meant all religions or all religious believers, I would have said all religions or all religious believers. When I say religions cause unnecessary harm, I don&#8217;t mean to imply that all religions cause unnecessary harm any more than when I say people go horse riding, I mean to imply that all people go horse riding.

As well as numerous examples encouraging the opposite. Love thy neighbour, judge not, give alms to the poor (one of the Five Pillars of Islam!) and so on.

It is a shame more religious believers don&#8217;t behave that way instead of killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend.

Is religion a cause, or merely a justification, for human violence? If there weren't religious tenets to explain why this violence is OK, would the amount of violence decrease, or would people simply come up with other ways to justify it?

I think it is likely that when you drum into children from an early age that what they believe is right, that they should shun unbelievers because they have dark and foolish hearts and that homosexuality is an abomination then you are encouraging intolerance that will lead to violence, particularly when you provide no sound reason for them to believe those things and tell them not to question those beliefs, but to take them on faith. It strikes me that it is more likely that religious intolerance will lead to violence because there is no basis on which they can reason with each other. It is simply taken on faith that each side is right and worships the one true God. Do you have any evidence to suggest that a decrease in sectarian violence would not lead to a decrease in violence overall; that other forms of violence would increase to make up the difference?

However, sectarian violence isn&#8217;t the only harm caused by religions. In the past, people were burned alive for the purely religious crime of heresy. Even today, people are killed for the purely religious crimes of blasphemy and apostasy.

All three religions you mention have a lot more to them than the promise of life after death. (The promise of punishment after death if you misbehave, among others.)

I&#8217;m not saying it is the only factor, but are you discounting it as a factor? Are you saying that you don&#8217;t think the promise of eternal life quells the fear of death and that it isn&#8217;t a contributing factor to their popularity?

I wonder. Are the uneducated non-religious hordes any different?

Well, I don&#8217;t think they believe that &#8220;God did it&#8221; is an answer to anything so, yes, I think they are different. I think the uneducated non-religious people are more likely to say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; and leave it at that. They aren&#8217;t going to try to force creationism to be taught in public school science classes.

 

[Naraoia]

It&#8217;s probably just a lack of familiarity with my writing style in particular. I rarely use absolute terms such as always, never, all or none (except when describing the amount of sound evidence supporting the belief that God is real). If I had meant all religions or all religious believers, I would have said all religions or all religious believers. When I say religions cause unnecessary harm, I don&#8217;t mean to imply that all religions cause unnecessary harm any more than when I say people go horse riding, I mean to imply that all people go horse riding.

I'll try to remember that.

It is a shame more religious believers don&#8217;t behave that way instead of killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend.

Again, don't they? For all I know you could be right, as I'm not really in touch with the religious world. But what percentage of religious believers are actually like you describe? Is it any different than among the non-religious? If it's not, you have no ground to claim that religion causes the hatred and violence.

I think it is likely that when you drum into children from an early age that what they believe is right, that they should shun unbelievers because they have dark and foolish hearts and that homosexuality is an abomination then you are encouraging intolerance that will lead to violence, particularly when you provide no sound reason for them to believe those things and tell them not to question those beliefs, but to take them on faith.

Ideas that have nothing to do with gods can be drummed into children in the same way. (Marxism and its daughter ideologies come to mind, although such things sometimes seem like religions minus the gods to me...)

It strikes me that it is more likely that religious intolerance will lead to violence because there is no basis on which they can reason with each other. It is simply taken on faith that each side is right and worships the one true God.

Is non-religious intolerance any more rational than religious intolerance, though? I doubt it. And in that case, it wouldn't be much more fruitful to reason with it.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that a decrease in sectarian violence would not lead to a decrease in violence overall; that other forms of violence would increase to make up the difference?

I don't have evidence either way, which is why I wondered if you do.

I&#8217;m not saying it is the only factor, but are you discounting it as a factor? Are you saying that you don&#8217;t think the promise of eternal life quells the fear of death and that it isn&#8217;t a contributing factor to their popularity?

No. But - forgive me if I misinterpreted your views - you seem to think that fear of death is a major (or even the main) reason people are religious. If that's your claim, so far you haven't presented convincing evidence for it.

Well, I don&#8217;t think they believe that &#8220;God did it&#8221; is an answer to anything so, yes, I think they are different. I think the uneducated non-religious people are more likely to say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; and leave it at that.

Maybe. Or maybe they'll accept any answer the media feed them. Or their I-don't-knows betray no more thinking than the religious goddidits. As in, "I don't know and I can't be a**ed to think about it". Do you know what's the case?

They aren&#8217;t going to try to force creationism to be taught in public school science classes.

You have a point there

Though once more I wonder. Are there no similarly uneducated anti-religious people/movements out there? (I'm reminded of good old consol and his endless rants) It's probably more likely for us to encounter the uneducated creationist hordes than the uneducated anti-religious hordes because the latter are, sort of, on our side. They are easier to ignore than the "enemy".

 

[Naraoia]

If you doubt that religion causes hatred and violence then read through some of the pages beginning here. Check the references on the bottom of the pages you visit.

I do not doubt that religion is a good justification for violence. Whether it's the root cause...

No, I have no evidence to suggest that if sectarian violence were reduced then violence of other forms would increase to make up the difference. So it follows that if sectarian violence were reduced then there would be a reduction in violence overall.

Wait. You made a positive claim (religion causes violence). Mine is the null hypothesis (that the presence or absence of religion makes no difference to levels of violence).

Fear of death is one of the factors contributing to religious belief.

I agree. That didn't seem to be your original stance, though.

You must have noticed the relationship between fear and anxiety and religious belief. Even religious believers understand it.

I think it was thaumaturgy that used to tell stories about his Christian years. In his case, religion was an important source of fear and anxiety. Which is more common?

The opening gambit of nearly every Jehovah’s Witness who comes to my door proselytising has been to play on people’s anxieties.

Luckily, I haven't met many of those and I told them to leave me alone as soon as I knew what they were. Can't remember how they started, though

There is nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know”, when one doesn’t know something. It doesn’t preclude one from investigating the matter further.

Intellectual laziness does. Is the average uneducated atheist any better in that respect than the average uneducated theist?

However, believing the answer “God did it” does preclude further investigation because the people who believe that answer have reached a conclusion.

So have the people who believe whatever the press says.

There is no non-religious Bible or Qur’an feeding the non-religious false answers and encouraging them to be absolutely certain in their beliefs. There are no scriptures encouraging the non-religious to spread those false beliefs to others. Consequently, you don’t see the non-religious trying to force creationism to be taught in public school science classes.

Thing is, people don't need religious scriptures to believe completely irrational things with completely irrational conviction and be vocal or even violent about it. (Point about political ideologies floated off in the aether...)

Look, sigma. I'm not necessarily arguing against your conclusions. For all I know, you could be right about everything. You even make arguments that are convincing on the surface. My problem is that you base sweeping (and, IMO, very insulting) conclusions on very little hard evidence, most or all of which comes from religious examples (no control group, if you will).

(It's a bit funny that I'm playing the lone devil's, or rather God's, advocate for religion in this debate. Any religious takers? )

 

[3sigma]

My problem is that you base sweeping (and, IMO, very insulting) conclusions on very little hard evidence, most or all of which comes from religious examples (no control group, if you will).

I’ve already given you the teachings of intolerance, cruelty and violence in the Bible and Qur’an; examples of past and present religiously motivated violence; the killing of people for the purely religious crimes of heresy, blasphemy and apostasy; and the attempts by creationists to force their false beliefs to be taught in public school science classes. I’m sure I could come up with some more examples of religions causing unnecessary harm. The rape of children and subsequent cover up by the Catholic Church comes to mind. If those are not enough evidence to convince you that religions cause unnecessary harm then just observe religious believers’ behaviour for another twenty or thirty years and I think your problem will resolve itself.

 

[Philothei]

Closed for review