According to "Cold Front," religion, at least Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, apparently still exists in the middle of the twenty-second century. That opens the door to many potentially interesting, and controversial, episodes. It also makes me wonder if religion "lasted" even longer, or if the "later" incarnations of Star Trek are even the purely humanistic utopias they appear (and Gene probably intended them) to be.
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
How important would religion place in life that far in the future is a different matter. None of the humans seen in the principle roles has given much of an indication to religion matters. Indeed, it seems that religion plays a big part in the lives of every species but the humans. So, who knows?
quote:
Originally posted by Veers:
I'm hoping they don't go way over the top and say Jesus was an alien. Hoo boy, the mail they'd get.
That was essentially the plot of "The God Thing," Gene Roddenberry's original story that ultimately evolved into Star Trek: The Motion Picture. See here for more details. Note that the webpage refers to the off-and-on novelization of the abandoned script, but it has all the known information about the plot.
quote:
"I handed them a script and they turned it down," Roddenberry stated. "It was too controversial. It talked about concepts like, 'Who is God?' [In it] the Enterprise meets God in space; God is a life form, and I wanted to suggest that there may have been, at one time in the human beginning, an alien entity that early man believed was God, and kept those legends. But I also wanted to suggest that it might have been as much the Devil as it was God. After all, what kind of god would throw humans out of Paradise for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. One of the Vulcans on board, in a very logical way, says, 'If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He's got so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a supreme being.' Not surprisingly, that didn't sent [sic] the Paramount executives off crying with glee. But I think good science fiction, historically, has been used that way--to question everything."
Ironically, I happened to just start on a "Human Religion in Star Trek" essay for my site right before I watched "Cold Front." It's coming along nicely, and naturally I'll post the link in this thread when I'm finished. Some of my research will help me in this post, anyway.
As for the survival of religion, there is no evidence of any aside from Hinduism in the twenty-fourth century (though I'm sure they all still exist in varying proportions). So far, I have yet to find any mention of Islam or Judaism, nor anything other than Christianity. "Bread and Circuses" suggests that Uhura is probably a Christian, while Kirk and McCoy are ambiguous. On the other hand, Pike only vaguely remembered hell as part of a childhood fable in "The Cage," so perhaps while there are religious people, it's a more private affair. "Who Mourns for Adonais?" has Kirk saying that humans abandoned polytheism for "the one," but doesn't specify which one that is... and surely he can't speak for every human, since "Data's Day" shows that Hindus are still around.
(Aside: anyone with taped episodes of Star trek that deal with religious topics [not only specific religions], I'd love some quotes or even reminders of things I've forgotten for my essay. I'm thinking of "Tapestry," for one, but I'm sure there's others I missed...)
In any case, Roddenberry describes how he wanted Star Trek to reflect a humanistic ideal in which we had outgrown our needs for gods in issues of Free Inquiry and The Humanist from 1991, shortly before his death.
quote:
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will--and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
quote:
"For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain."
Gee, that reminds me of a certain someone I won't mention.
The double standard pushes on valiantly...
Now, I realize, TSN, that was not your point, but I take issue with your real point. I believe in one "God," and that belief excludes believing in other "gods." Thus, I do not shed tears when science-fiction portrays presently "debunked" gods (that is, no one believes in them or worships them) to be less than divine. Would I protest if, in the Star Trek universe, Jesus was actually just an alien chilling in Judea in the first century? Maybe. Would I protest if such a depiction was presented in the ham-fisted, heavy-handed manner evidenced in Gene's "The God Thing" concept or his quote above? Yes. An atheistic humanist who thinks all religions are empty, all religious ignorant, and himself to be the sole bearer of truth is no better than a conservative Christian idealogue; both are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
There are "reasonable" religious people. As I said, I believe in God, and I practice Roman Catholicism. I respect anyone else's right to believe, or not believe, as they choose. After all, free will is a God-given "right." Do I think one will go to hell if they do not believe what I do? No. Hell, I question if a merciful God even "condemns" people to hell. All I ask is for the same respect in return.
Maybe I should have posted this in the Flameboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
An atheistic humanist who thinks all religions are empty, all religious ignorant, and himself to be the sole bearer of truth is no better than a conservative Christian idealogue; both are merely opposite sides of the same coin.
No atheist I've ever met (and I am one, I might add) believes they are the bearer of truth. In fact, their belief that nobody--including any prophet, messiah, oracle, priest, pope, pastor, rabbi, or preacher--is the bearer of truth is usually why they are atheists to begin with.
In any case, I agree that we must all show respect to one another, especially on so touchy a topic as religion. However, I think it is always important to distinguish between repecting a person's right to believe and respecting the content of that belief. Someone has the right to believe that there is a giant pink unicorn on his shoulder, but neither you nor I has any obligation to consider that belief to be anything other than stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
The last time I checked, no one worshiped Egyptian, Greek, and/or Norse "gods;"
Many people do. I know a guy back home who prays to Osiris. I also know a woman whose patron is Athena & another whose deity is Freyja.
Oh, & Ryan? Based on McCoy's Genesis speech alone, I'd make him out to be a Southern Baptist.
It's be like getting offended because Star Trek presents evolution as fact. I don't believe that it is, but I'm not going to make a stink about it. It's a story. Suspend disbelief for an hour.
Incidentally, a syntactical readig of the 1st Commandment "Thou shalt nave no other Gods before Me," suggests that the original YHWH acknowledged the existence of other deities, and permitted their worship, as long as He was placed in a preeminent position. This could be seen as a 'step up' from Pantheons run by Head Gods like Zeus and Jupiter.
quote:
We librarians know everything.
Why did Kenner's POTF2 Star Wars line include an R5-D4 with a launching missile ... ? They couldn't have just given us a cool astromech droid, they had to have it split in two and fire a rocket? I mean, what the hell ... ?
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
Incidentally, a syntactical readig of the 1st Commandment "Thou shalt nave no other Gods before Me," suggests that the original YHWH acknowledged the existence of other deities, and permitted their worship, as long as He was placed in a preeminent position. This could be seen as a 'step up' from Pantheons run by Head Gods like Zeus and Jupiter.
Believe it or not, they teach this in Catholic schools (as opposed to teaching "worship the one God or die," which some seem to think is taught).
Teaching religion, by the way, could be interpreted as 'forcefully imposing beliefs upon others'. I object very strongly to this. Imposing one's convictions upon others should not be allowed in a truly free, democratic society. The decision to practice religion is a personal one, and nobody elses' choice to make.
And if someone is going to a Catholic university, they're most likely more then willing to listen
You didn't go to CU in DC, did you?
"So pick a different (i.e. non-catholic, non-islamic, non-whatever) school", you'll say. Only one slight problem there: what if there is no such school or university within a 1000-mile radius? That limits the available options a bit, don't you think?
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
If that question was directed at me, no, I did not go to CU; wrong coast.
(Also, except perhaps for some Eskimo villages in Alaska, I know of no place in the United States where one is more than 1000 miles away from the second-closest university.)
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
quote:
if they have no other option, but feel very strongly about the issue, they can either sacrifice their education to uphold their values, or they can choose to go to the school
Not good enough, IMO. Everyone should have the right to an education conforming to (and regardless of) personal beliefs - whatever those may be - without being forced to sacrifice ANYTHING.
Once again, I know of no Catholic schools that "force" students to accept its beliefs. Indeed, if a teacher did that, one could probably have her/him removed. However, I see no harm in exposing students of all faiths (or lack of) to what the Church believes, especially when it has been charged to do so by what it believes to be the almighty. (Likewise, I think Catholics can learn from exposing themselves to information on other religions).
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the students are NOT attending Cath. School 'of their own free will.' Their parents picked the school.
From My Experience, Catholic schools can range from good to horrific, depending upon the quality of the staff. My gf's schooling was in the 'horiffic' range from a human rights perspective, but a 'decent' education-wise.
Anecdote: In grade school (2nd grade, I think), my gf's class was assigned to draw portraits of the stained-glass windows of the church. Julie drew the Virgin Mary. Her teacher/nun vehemently objected to the drawing, because Julie drew Mary in a red dress under her blue robe, and "Mary would NEVER wear red! She's not a 'scarlet woman!'" Julie insisted that that's how the window was made. Teach insisted the dress was blue all over. So teach dragged her back to the church, where lo and behold... the dress WAS red. (I've seen it.) Did teacher apologize, or even admit it? NO! She insisted that Julie say that the dress was blue all over. Julie wouldn't. They stayed there for THREE HOURS, in a battle of wills. Finally, the eight-year-old gave in... outwardly. But it's still red.
She remembers this incident every time we watch "Chains of Command," which is now one of her favorite episodes. "There are FOUR lights!"
Oh, and that school is STILL threatening kids with the old 'if you have a sin on your sould when you go to First Communion, you'll catch on fire when the priest puts the wafer in your mouth.
They're not ALL out of the dark Ages, RC.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
Once again, I know of no Catholic schools that "force" students to accept its beliefs.
You don't... I do. The situation varies per state, but there are such schools (not necessarily catholic).
quote:
However, I see no harm in exposing students of all faiths (or lack of) to what the Church believes, especially when it has been charged to do so by what it believes to be the almighty.
quote:
"When it has been charged to do so"
Don't you recognize the dangerous (unintentional or not) undertone in that statement? My mind goes back to 09-11-2001...
quote:
Likewise, I think Catholics can learn from exposing themselves to information on other religions.
Agreed. Unfortunately, most religious groups see their beliefs as superior to all others, thus they don't even want to expose themselves.
[fixed quote tags -TSN]
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
quote:
Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the students are NOT attending Cath. School 'of their own free will.' Their parents picked the school.
Yes, but at this point -- given the type of class we're discussing -- we're speaking about Catholic Universities as opposed to Elementary or High schools.
Anyway, I forget what point I was leading up to, so just take that anecdote at face value...
Two things rub me the wrong way. Mojo, you posted that my suggestion that exposing students (that is, merely teaching them, and letting them "decide for themselves") to Catholic beliefs, especially since God asks us (believers) to spread the "good news," has a dangerous undercurrent. Yet you agree exposing Catholics to other religions/beliefs is good. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems a bit hypocritical. What is good for the gander is good for the goose (or vice-versa; however it goes).
Second, TSN, while I agree that a more in-depth study of Judeo-Christian history should come earlier in education, too early of a presentation would just be lost on students. After all, the meaning of the number "0" changes numerous times throughout a child's education; a child is not capable of understanding all of the implications of "0" early on. Likewise, intense Judeo-Christian study is probably beyond most children. I guess one could teach them nothing, or one could get accross "the important points" (I personally find either option viable; the sentence is not meant as a conclusion). I wonder about your tone, though. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but it just seems to me like you dismiss the whole Catholic/Christian education system as a vast conspiracy to keep kids ignorant. I could be reading too much into your post.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
quote:
Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but it just seems to me like you dismiss the whole Catholic/Christian education system as a vast conspiracy to keep kids ignorant.
I'm not TSN, but I essentially agree with that idea. Religion as a whole has to keep people--not only children--ignorant of certain things lest they realize that it's illogical. I'm not saying there is an actual cnspiracy, with people meeting in dark rooms and planning ways to hide the truth. It's merely a tradition of ignorance, extending back millennia. Religions sprang up when we didn't have knowledge about the world and the universe and our origins, and that mystery is a vital component.
First religion explained the physical world... then some ape-man realized that he would die and he had a hard time dealing with that reality. Eventually, the idea of life after death and the idea of beings controlling the physical worlds merged, got shaken up here and there, and out comes modern theology. We realized the world was round... religion resisted, but ultimately admitted the error when the evidence was insurmountable. We realized that Earth is not the center of the universe... religion resisted, but ultimately admitted the error when the evidence was insurmountable. We realized that we are part of the animal kingdom... religion mostly still resists, even if many of its adeherents have moved on. We're realizing even now in labs that mind is the brain's software and not a mysterious "soul," and we're realizing that there may not be a need for a "first cause" to the universe... but these, religion has already rejected out of hand because they have far more detrimental implications than what shape Earth is. After all, if we're products of a causeless natural world, what room is there for God?
Religion prevents millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere, from protecting themselves from being ravaged by AIDS. Religion makes thousands of people afflicted with chronic illnesses spend their time and money on uneffective faith healing, when they could be spending it on treatment. Religion forces people to die horribly from painful afflictions rather than offer them the option of ending the pain. Religion prevents us from potentially curing dozens of horrible diseases with the knowledge that could be gained from cloning and stem cell research.
And religion offers hope. Nobody, atheist or otherwise, can deny that. But at what cost? Imagine, just imagine, the achievements that mankind could have experienced if all of the hours spent in prayer and the money spent in tithe could be put towards science, or medicine, or even buying food for the hungry. Imagine where we'd be if countless scientists and doctors throughout history had been heralded as heroes instead of hated for their heresy.
At what cost does religion provide hope? The cost is human progress. Give me a harsh reality over a pleasant fiction any day.
Whew, that was a little more exhaustive than I'd planned. 
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:Religion as a whole has to keep people--not only children--ignorant of certain things lest they realize that it's illogical.
As you clearly stated, you are not implying that (most) religions have a vast underground conspiracy to keep people ignorant. But what exactly are you implying? I hope you would grant that if you asked most religious clergy, clerics, educators, etc. if they are keeping people ignorant they would honestly answer no (even if they are, in your opinion; they do not consider it ignorance). If one grants that a higher power exists (as these religious do), what is ignorant and illogical to one might be inspired and sensible to another.
quote:
It's merely a tradition of ignorance, extending back millennia.
Unfortunately, that was true, but many of your current beefs are off base. The Catholic Church states that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with Church doctrine (provided, of course, you grant that the big guy upstairs started it all ). I do not know what other religions have to say about this. As for the "soul," I doubt you could find a legitimate contemporary Catholic cleric, or one of any denomination, for that matter, who would say it is a discoverable region. The mind is a complex and fascinating component of humanity, and (most) religions encourage its scientific study.
quote:
Religion prevents millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere, from protecting themselves from being ravaged by AIDS..
You are undoubtedly referring to the Catholic Church's stance against artificial birth control. Yes, the Church is against it. No, the Church is not in charge of condom distribution in Africa; I wonder where you got the idea it prevents people from protecting themselves. By the way, I believe most other religions allow artificial birth control, so your "religion . . . " claim is a bit broad and unfair.
Africans are being ravaged by many things, however, and the Church has devoted many resources to combatting hunger, human rights abuses, and lack of education, among other things. Meanwhile, the United States sits back and allows racial genocide to go unchecked, costing millions of lives.
quote:
Religion makes thousands of people afflicted with chronic illnesses spend their time and money on uneffective faith healing, when they could be spending it on treatment.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to. There are stories of parents withholding medical treatment from their children for "religious reasons," but I can assure you no Catholic (or Hindu, or Jew, etc.) approves of such a decision. Also, anyone who lives in a major city probably knows of at least one professional, scientific hospital run by a religious organization.
quote:
Religion forces people to die horribly from painful afflictions rather than offer them the option of ending the pain.
Just as no religion has control over the African condom supply, no religion can control how and when you die. John Ashcroft is trying to force people to die horribly; John Paul II, though he disapproves of suicide, cannot stop you.
quote:
Religion prevents us from potentially curing dozens of horrible diseases with the knowledge that could be gained from cloning and stem cell research.
Once again, religion has no direct control over this matter. I am sure Vatican Cardinals were having coronaries over the news that a human had been cloned. Do you not think they would have stopped it if they could?
The main problem with each of your claims, as I pointed out above, is that they hold religion responsible for things it has little control over. It also shows an ignorance of a very important aspect of my religion. In the papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae," released by Pope Paul VI, it is stated that the morality of decisions are ultimately determined by a well developed conscience, not dogma. Thus, if in good, well developed conscience one can use a condom during sex, commit Euthenasia, and destroy embryos to advance medical science, then one may do so and still "face God on 'Judgement Day' with a 'clear conscience."
quote:
And religion offers hope. Nobody, atheist or otherwise, can deny that. But at what cost? Imagine, just imagine, the achievements that mankind could have experienced if all of the hours spent in prayer and the money spent in tithe could be put towards science, or medicine, or even buying food for the hungry. Imagine where we'd be if countless scientists and doctors throughout history had been heralded as heroes instead of hated for their heresy.
Oh, come on. Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or relaxation. Are you "against" meditation? As for "the tithe" (Catholics stopped tithing a long time ago; I think Mormons still do), where do you think the money goes? The various religions of the world feed millions, and contribute invaluable information through the research at religious institutions, with the funds they receive.
P.S. Forgive me if I was patronizing at any point; as I said, that was not my intention.
[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Actually, I thought that was an excellent post and rebuttal.
However,
The points made about 'religion' are largely generalities, and largely true.
The points made about 'Catholicism' are largely true, as well.
But we're talking generalities versus specifics. It should also be pointed out that this 'enlightened' Catholic church is a relatively recent phenomenon, (coming, as it does, AFTER the Inquisitions, Witch hunts, Crusades, persecutions, etc., etc.) and not necessarily a permanent situation. Watch must be kept.
Similarly, although the power of Fundamentalism in the US is currently fairly weak, we should not lose sight of the fact that many of these people WOULD be just like the Taliban, if they could get away with it. Since they can't, they try to worm their way into our lives by doing things like pushing for Creationism to be taught in schools, trying to ban 'Harry Potter', and similar things. Religion also gives us self-appointed 'moral champions' like Robertson, Falwell, Torquemada, and BinLaden.
Be tolerant, but be vigilant, as well.
No-one is my watchword?
quote:
Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
I will try to respond to you, Ryan McReynolds, with my knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church, in which I am fairly well versed, and with my information on other religions. Please note that if this post comes across as inflammatory, that was not my intention. I would not spend an hour putting this together if I did not respect the respondent.
Thank you, and please, call me Ryan. Just for background, I was raised Catholic, started questinging around junior high, and officially "came out" as an atheist at the end of high school.
quote:
As you clearly stated, you are not implying that (most) religions have a vast underground conspiracy to keep people ignorant. But what exactly are you implying? I hope you would grant that if you asked most religious clergy, clerics, educators, etc. if they are keeping people ignorant they would honestly answer no (even if they are, in your opinion; they do not consider it ignorance). If one grants that a higher power exists (as these religious do), what is ignorant and illogical to one might be inspired and sensible to another.
Of course. And that is exactly what I meant to imply. Religion's negative influence is not the result of individuals, it is a result of the existence of religion itself. That's why I specified it as a tradition of ignorance rather than a more clear-cut conspiracy.
quote:
Unfortunately, that was true, but many of your current beefs are off base. The Catholic Church states that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with Church doctrine (provided, of course, you grant that the big guy upstairs started it all ). I do not know what other religions have to say about this. As for the "soul," I doubt you could find a legitimate contemporary Catholic cleric, or one of any denomination, for that matter, who would say it is a discoverable region. The mind is a complex and fascinating component of humanity, and (most) religions encourage its scientific study.
I was not speaking specifically about Catholicism. I know that the Church doesn't have a problem with evolution (and many other ideas), but many Protestant denominations do, and Islam does. It is the evangelical religious right (in the United States) that has taken the role that the Catholic Church held in centuries past. Religion as a whole continually plays a game of back-stepping to change its doctrines in light of new discoveries... if it didn't exist, there would be no need to bother.
With regard specifically to the mind and/or soul, the problem is simply one of faith. Personally, and I fully grant that this is a personal choice, I believe that no belief is justified without evidence. It doesn't have to be proven in any definitive way, but I always go with what has the most support at any given time. There is increasing evidence that the mind can be explained in physical terms. There is no evidence that a non-physical soul exists. If one day soul is redefined to mean simply "mind," then I would have no problem affirming its existence.
quote:
You are undoubtedly referring to the Catholic Church's stance against artificial birth control. Yes, the Church is against it. No, the Church is not in charge of condom distribution in Africa; I wonder where you got the idea it prevents people from protecting themselves. By the way, I believe most other religions allow artificial birth control, so your "religion . . . " claim is a bit broad and unfair.
Yes, it is broad, and intentionally so. My point is not that group-x does this and group-y does that. I merely chose random examples. My point is that religious thinking, of all kinds, can lead to problems. As soon as you think you have a source of authority other than the use of rational thought, you open the door to irrationality.
No, religion doesn't control the distribution of condoms, but it does play a role in influencing people into accepting or rejecting them. If somebody is convinced by somebody they consider an authority that birth control of any sort is immoral, then it doesn't matter how many condoms they are given.
quote:
Africans are being ravaged by many things, however, and the Church has devoted many resources to combatting hunger, human rights abuses, and lack of education, among other things. Meanwhile, the United States sits back and allows racial genocide to go unchecked, costing millions of lives.
No need to mention the United States foreign policy; most of my complaints about religion apply to present governments as well.
quote:
I am not quite sure what you are referring to. There are stories of parents withholding medical treatment from their children for "religious reasons," but I can assure you no Catholic (or Hindu, or Jew, etc.) approves of such a decision. Also, anyone who lives in a major city probably knows of at least one professional, scientific hospital run by a religious organization.
Yes, naturally. I was speaking of the large-scale (usually Charismatic) revival healings in which the pastor puts his hands on heads and says "be cured" and people fall over. I was speaking of the mass healings of the 700 Club, and the like.
I have no fault with religious organizations running hospitals... but the point is that these things could be run just as well without religion, while "faith healing" requires it. If religion disappeared today, we'd still have hospitals; the difference is that the people who were wasting their time with Benny Hinn could get real treatment instead.
quote:
Just as no religion has control over the African condom supply, no religion can control how and when you die. John Ashcroft is trying to force people to die horribly; John Paul II, though he disapproves of suicide, cannot stop you.
Right. But why do most people (and I am definitely using the qualifier "most" here) reject "death with dignity?" Because of the commandment that condemns killing. Suicide is one thing, but assisted suicide is another entirely. While I'm sure anyone would agree that there should be safeguards against someone getting depressed and acting rashly, it seems that a fundamental right to any person is the right to choose whether or not to exist. Religion attempts to deny that right, not through direct control, but through the control of moral standards.
quote:
Once again, religion has no direct control over this matter. I am sure Vatican Cardinals were having coronaries over the news that a human had been cloned. Do you not think they would have stopped it if they could?
Nowhere in my post did I suggest that religion directly does anything. However, religious ideas about souls are overwhelmingly influential in the opposition to stemp cell research, abortion, and cloning. Again, if religion disappeared today, there would be no debate over souls. People might object to these things for different reasons, but they would have to be testable, investigatable reasons rather than "God says no."
Or take a look at evolution. The pressure from the religious right is powerful enough that over half of all public-school biology teachers don't even mention it at all. Nevermind that evolution is the basis of modern biology, integral to nearly every single thing we know about life on our planet. Are you saying that religion isn't responsible for this omission simply because they don't ahve direct authority over the curriculum?
No, the Vatican Cardinals can't stop cloning from happening. But they can tell people that it is wrong. They can erode public support. Religious leaders of all affiliations are quite possibly the most powerful people on the planet, above any government. My girlfriend, a former fundamentalist, used to think that any clones wouldn't have souls. Can you imagine the abuse and mistreatment that would befall a cloned child if nobody thought it had a soul?
quote:
The main problem with each of your claims, as I pointed out above, is that they hold religion responsible for things it has little control over. It also shows an ignorance of a very important aspect of my religion. In the papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae," released by Pope Paul VI, it is stated that the morality of decisions are ultimately determined by a well developed conscience, not dogma. Thus, if in good, well developed conscience one can use a condom during sex, commit Euthenasia, and destroy embryos to advance medical science, then one may do so and still "face God on 'Judgement Day' with a 'clear conscience."
Catholicism, while the largest specific religious group, it not the only group. Despite the fact that many Baptists, for instance, believe that belief in Jesus is the only thing required for salvation, they are still by far the most vocal group against what they call "immorality."
It's an irony. I am often asked, as an atheist, "If there is no God, can't you do anything you want?" If there is a God that forgives any sin, then it is the religious who can do whatever they want! I also find myself asking them, "If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow, would you go around murdering and raping since there aren't any eternal consequences? No? Then why would I?"
quote:
Oh, come on. Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or relaxation. Are you "against" meditation?
No. If someone needs to relax, they can do whatever they want, even pray. But I honestly believe that the time spent praying, or attending church service, could be better spent on other things. What if everyone took an hour every Sunday to read a classic work of literature, or the writings of philosophers, or a science book?
quote:
As for "the tithe" (Catholics stopped tithing a long time ago; I think Mormons still do), where do you think the money goes? The various religions of the world feed millions, and contribute invaluable information through the research at religious institutions, with the funds they receive.
They also build churches, cathedrals, mosques, and temples. That's probably a drop in the bucket, but it is still a waste of money from an atheist's point of view. And again, as with the hospital remark above, what if religion disappeared? There would still be charity, people could still feed the hungry. All of that money could skip the middle man and do all of the same things. Religion isn't required for those things... it's only required for churches and people to fill them.
Also, let me specify that I was using poetic license with the "tithe" part. I was referring to all financial contributions to churches and religious groups.
quote:
P.S. Forgive me if I was patronizing at any point; as I said, that was not my intention.
I don't think so at all. I'm an atheist, I find myself discussing this stuff on a daily basis.
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
that is what religion is to a lot of people who are part of the more fundamentalist churchs. instead of being a personal thing that comforts and gives strength to those who need an outside source (i'm sorry if that offends anyone), it becomes the driving power of their lives, even if it means abandoning people who they once cared for. i have no doubt that the mormon church would be like the taliban if they had the chance. already, the mormon's don't allow their followers to imbide alchohol of caffeine, and they chastise those who live in their community without sharing the dogma. i already had strong beliefs about the corrupting affect that religions can have (note the word "can") but needless to say this cemented it in my mind. just thought you might like to know.
--jacob
.Something that was hinted at in your post, that I do not think was meant to be offensive, is that you perhaps think humanity's progress would march forward without the old ball-and-chain of religion holding it back. I think that is both true and false. Certainly, in the past, the notion was true. My own religion, back when it "ruled the world" (ah, the glory (or should I say gory?) days) was a notable offender. Today, however, I think any "inhibiting morals" of religions are eventually overridden by the "morals" of the religion most people follow: greed. I and the College of Cardinals can argue till we are blue in the face that cloning and destroying embryos is wrong, but as soon as the Republican party realizes there is big money to be had in stem-cell research it will change it's tune (and thus, stem-cell research will move forward). "We" may slow it down a bit, but, frankly (and in certain issues, sadly (to me)), religion will never halt "progress" where money is to be made (and, in this particular issue, lives could be saved). To put a spin on what religion is doing on the stem-cell research issue: if one grants that research will progress, despite religion's "best efforts," at least religion is keeping progress at a "reasonable pace," as, perhaps, it should be with such a delicate issue (I assume cloning is a "delicate issue" to all people; certain ethics must be upheld lest science really produces a Khan).
Now, to actually state something relating to the original topic, I find it interesting that in the Star Trek universe, humanity is now portrayed as progressing all the way to the stars, even with religion. In fact, the only ones holding humanity back were a people who did not believe in things "supernatural," and devoted themselves entirely to logic and reason .
(One final note: I hope I am evidence that not all religious are politically conservative idealogues, awash in their own superiority and damning people right and left.)
Let me start out with Ryan's most recent post...
Religion's negative influence is not the result of individuals, it is a result of the existence of religion itself.
*L*
You're funny.
Of COURSE it's the result of individuals. The religions' basic teachings can't possibly cause anything negative in the outside world. Therefore, the negative things that have happened in the name of religion must have been caused by other teachings. Thus the negative results are caused people, and NOT religion itself.
Try replacing the word "religion" in that quote with "humanity". It's a similar argument, and makes exactly as much sense.
Religion as a whole continually plays a game of back-stepping to change its doctrines in light of new discoveries...
Yeah, but the funny thing is that when that happens, it's consistantly beecause someone overstepped the bounds of their basic doctrine to begin with. Take the flat-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe bit. It's not ANYWHERE in scripture, stated or implied, but the Catholics assumed it and declared it dogma. That's THEIR mistake, not the mistake of the original teachings.
I believe that no belief is justified without evidence.
And you're talking to us... why? For all the evidence you have, we don't exist.
My point is that religious thinking, of all kinds, can lead to problems.
Of course it can. ANY kind of thought can lead to problems. Shall we then eliminate all thought?
As soon as you think you have a source of authority other than the use of rational thought, you open the door to irrationality.
One supposes that that would follow.
But it's not irrationality. It's perfectly logical. It simply proceeds from a different set of assumptions from yours.
No, religion doesn't control the distribution of condoms, but it does play a role in influencing people into accepting or rejecting them.
Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality. Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me). Sure, the CONCEPT has lead to bad things occasionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to eliminate the concept all together. First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem.
I have no fault with religious organizations running hospitals... but the point is that these things could be run just as well without religion
Except that they would not EXIST without religion.
If religion disappeared today, we'd still have hospitals; the difference is that the people who were wasting their time with Benny Hinn could get real treatment instead.
Except for the fact that people wouldn't contribute nearly as much to charities, and thus many hospitals would be shut down.
But why do most people (and I am definitely using the qualifier "most" here) reject "death with dignity?"
Because they haven't thought it through. Most people don't give the issue much more than a surface analysis.
However, religious ideas about souls are overwhelmingly influential in the opposition to stemp cell research, abortion, and cloning.
Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one. Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason.
The pressure from the religious right is powerful enough that over half of all public-school biology teachers don't even mention it at all.
Or maybe it's because there's no evidence.
Nevermind that evolution is the basis of modern biology, integral to nearly every single thing we know about life on our planet.
*L*
Hardly. Just why would a biologist need to know about evolution to study a new plant?
I am often asked, as an atheist, "If there is no God, can't you do anything you want?" If there is a God that forgives any sin, then it is the religious who can do whatever they want! I also find myself asking them, "If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow, would you go around murdering and raping since there aren't any eternal consequences? No? Then why would I?"
Reminds me of the book "Caliban". The no-law robot was often asked, if he had no first law, what kept him from running amok and killing people left and right. His answer was always, "The same thing that keeps you from doing it."
And as for whether we can do whatever we want, read Romans. Paul deals with that quite thoroughly.
What if everyone took an hour every Sunday to read a classic work of literature, or the writings of philosophers, or a science book?
I'd be a far more depressed and volitile person, due to the lack of interaction with other believers, for one.
what if religion disappeared? There would still be charity, people could still feed the hungry.
The question isn't whether they COULD, it's whether they WOULD. And most people wouldn't.
And now for Mr. Oedipus...
evolution can been shown in a laboratory.
No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive. Further, showing evolution with pre-existing life (something of a cheat) would take billenia, in the most conservative scenarios. I don't think we have any labs that old.
it might be a theory when applied to the real world, but in and of itself it is indisputable fact
And just how does THAT work, praytell?
i already had strong beliefs about the corrupting affect that religions can have (note the word "can")
Yes, CAN. Not all religions have these problems. The root of the problem is almost invariably when a believer doesn't have a coherant understanding of what they believe. They can then be misled. Unfortunately, that's how a lot of religious people are. And if they get power, God help us all. (Look! I made a funny!)
you perhaps think humanity's progress would march forward without the old ball-and-chain of religion holding it back. I think that is both true and false. Certainly, in the past, the notion was true. My own religion, back when it "ruled the world" (ah, the glory (or should I say gory?) days) was a notable offender.
Yes, to some degree, but WITHOUT the church there would never have been a Renaisance, nor would the Germanic tribes been civilized as quickly. It was a unifying, stablizing influence in all of Europe.
Sounds like she's about to breach.
O.K. I will be the first hypocrite.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
you perhaps think humanity's progress would march forward without the old ball-and-chain of religion holding it back. I think that is both true and false. Certainly, in the past, the notion was true. My own religion, back when it "ruled the world" (ah, the glory (or should I say gory?) days) was a notable offender.Yes, to some degree, but WITHOUT the church there would never have been a Renaisance, nor would the Germanic tribes been civilized as quickly. It was a unifying, stablizing influence in all of Europe.
First of all, that quote was from me, not Ryan. Second, in a way, the Catholic Church had little influence in Europe, and certainly not a "unifying, stablizing" one. I have no doubt that without the Church the depraved, greedy, power-hungry Middle Ages leaders of Europe would still have gone to war as often as they did. However, if the Church had been influential in the way it should have been, it would have tried to bring about peace, perhaps by playing the "don't kill your fellow Catholics (just Muslims)" card (which it did, but not often enough). As it was, the "influential" Popes were often as depraved, greedy, and power-hungry as the European leaders, and often welcomed war.
One cannot deny that the Catholic Church was a crucial, integral part of the transition from the ancient world to the modern world. However, the Church could have tried to make that transition a lot more peaceful than was.
[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
quote:
Now, to actually state something relating to the original topic, I find it interesting that in the Star Trek universe, humanity is now portrayed as progressing all the way to the stars, even with religion. In fact, the only ones holding humanity back were a people who did not believe in things "supernatural," and devoted themselves entirely to logic and reason
LOL! There is indeed a sweet, appreciable irony to this...
quote:
Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality.
No, parents play those roles.
quote:
Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me).
I'd say you are insane regardless (hey, you opened the door ).
quote:
Except that they would not EXIST without religion.
Sure they would. Different names, same institutions.
quote:
Except for the fact that people wouldn't contribute nearly as much to charities, and thus many hospitals would be shut down.
And your sources to support this claim are...? Can you say this for a fact, or for that matter, with the slightest degree of certainty? Nope.
quote:
Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one. Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason.
According to your definitions of what constitutes life / a human being. I surely do *not* need to remind you that any definition is subject to change?
quote:
Hardly. Just why would a biologist need to know about evolution to study a new plant?
So the biologist in question is able to 1). understand more about 'how and why' the plant ended up in its present form, and 2). explain its functions within a larger context.
quote:
I'd be a far more depressed and volitile person, due to the lack of interaction with other believers, for one.
What an interesting *personal* detail. However, while *you* would turn into dr. Psycho, others might just retain their sanity. It certainly doesn't mean *everyone* would undergo that transformation.
quote:
The question isn't whether they COULD, it's whether they WOULD. And most people wouldn't.
And again, this is based upon what, exactly?
quote:
No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive.
Wrong. Lab experiments have indicated the formation of protein strands under the right (simulated) conditions. And what do proteins consist of? That's right, amino acids!
quote:
Further, showing evolution with pre-existing life (something of a cheat) would take billenia, in the most conservative scenarios. I don't think we have any labs that old.
So the entire theory is instantly dismissed? Ah well. Undermines the authority of the church too much, I suppose.
quote:
Yes, to some degree, but WITHOUT the church there would never have been a Renaisance, nor would the Germanic tribes been civilized as quickly. It was a unifying, stablizing influence in all of Europe.
1). There would never have been a Renaissance without the Roman or Greek cultures. The church simply revisited them. Everything had been done before, and definitely better.
2). Unifying? Stabilizing? *Cough* crusades, witch-hunts, etc. *Cough*
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
. no, in the forms that are simplest to see in a labaratory, evolution is a fact. there have been studies of short lived simgle celled organism's over many generations of the organism's life, and changing the environment that they lived in caused evolutionary changes that are not so slow (at least that's what the studies reproduced in my high school AP Biology book said). my statement that evolution is a fact in and of itself but a theory when it is used to explain reality is obvisouly true. here, let me give you a simplified example. ice cream melts when it is above freezing. FACT. i propose that that the universe was formed by a big chunk of strawberry ice cream melting because it was suddenly above freezing. THEORY. just because i apply a FACT to a situation that is theoretical doesn't make the underlying fact any less a FACT. the most uneducated southern baptist will admit that the evolution of creatures happens. everyone knows about the moths that went from white to sooty grey when the industrial revolution happened in england. if you don't know of that, let me present it. pre-industrial revolution: trees white, moths white, white moths blend in and aren't eaten by birds. dark moths DO stick out, so there aren't very many of them. post industrial revolution: trees grey with soot: white moths stick out and are eaten by birds: dark moths survive since they blend in. population shifted to dark pigmentation since mostly dark moths wer breeding. that is a FACT. the moths evoloved due to a changing environment. whether you believe that all species came about from evolution or not doesn't determine whether the underlying FACT is still a FACT.
oh, by the way, a couple of things. i'm a European history major, and when you study Europe from the "dark ages" until about the 16th century you are actually studying the catholic church. sounds to me like they had a little bit of control. and, oh yeah! there wouldn't have been a rennaisance with out catholocism, true. but you are missing the fact that without the catholic church repressing knowledge and ideas left and right there wouldn't have been a NEED for a rennaisance. if only those damn monks hadn't squirelled away all of that greek and roman knowledge (don't even pretend that it was to "protect the knowledge". the muslims of the middle ages didn't destroy the knowledge of ancient greece and rome when THEY got their hands on it, so why would anyone else?), and if the popes had been nice who KNOWS where we would be right now. going warp 674 (TOS scale) i imagine.
--jacob
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
the moths evoloved due to a changing environment.
No, they didn't. It's simple natural selection: the grey moths existed while the trees where still white, and the white moths existed while they were grey. It's simply that one group was better able to survive under certain circumstances. It's no more evolution than the existence of human races.
carl sagan said that evolution is a fact, and he's dead so he knows more than you, Omega
Appeal to authority. Invalid argument.
ice cream melts when it is above freezing. FACT. i propose that that the universe was formed by a big chunk of strawberry ice cream melting because it was suddenly above freezing. THEORY
Ah, I get your distinction now. but you're still wrong. There's no evidence anywhere that any species has ever become another species.
MJ:
No, parents play those roles.
Because of their religion.
And your sources to support this claim are...? Can you say this for a fact, or for that matter, with the slightest degree of certainty? Nope.
Tell me something: how much of your anual salary goes to charity? Got a percentage? 'Cause I can guarentee that mine's higher. I give a relatively large portion of my money to charity, and I serve my community in every way possible, ALL because of my religion. Oh, and I'm also a far more pleasant person.
I surely do *not* need to remind you that any definition is subject to change?
Of course definitions are subject to change. But narrowing the definition of human life runs the risk of dehumanizing people. Hey, let's say the Asians aren't human, while we're at it! We've already made one group fair game for killing, why not another?
i now understand the problems many of the religious have. they don't understand that natural selection is why there is evolution. thank you for elucidating that fact for me. oh, by the way. there is more evidence that one species has become another than there is evidence than a magical invisible old man who cares about who i have sex with lives in the sky. i mean, gosh, most life is 90% identical genetically, but all life isn't 90% magical invisible old man who lives in the sky.
i'm not even going to bother explaining the proof for special evolution, considering that you think evolution and natural selection are two totally remote things. what evidance do you want? seeing the first chimp shooting out of a moneky? it doesn't happen that way (especially since chimps aren't descended from monkeys, they are different branches of the same tree). evolution isn't monkey-chimp-human. animals evolve to fit an environtmental niche. a gorilla is never going to talk because it doesn't need to. it is (or was, their environment has changed in the last century) perfectly adapted to living in jungle highlands. they don't need to drive trucks, so the gorillas with better feet for hitting a gas pedal aren't taking over. man didn't evolve from a monkey. man and monkey had a common ancestor. when some went into the trees, those with strong tales and opposable thumbs on their feet evolved into proto-monkeys, and the rest died or went off somewhere else, since they weren 't as good at climbing trees. those that went into plains and had straighter backs and longer feet could walk better and lived, while those who couldn't died, or went somewhere else. proto-monkey eventually became monkey, as environmental factors weeded them out even more. staight back became homo sapien or homo neandertalus depending on the environment they were in (and when homo sapien came to europe they out hunted the neandertals, or maybe absorbed the neandertals, and the neandertals went away). man, i could write a hundred pages on this. you people want to see a monkey turn to a man in order to prove evolution made both, but that will never happen as natural selection takes a while, and (more importanntly) modern species are well adapted to their environments after millions of years of evolving, and thus aren't going to change too much (there is still evolution. in urban settings, raccoons have grown more nimble, as the nimbler raccoons are better adapted for getting into trash cans and thus breed more than their less nimble compadres. maybe in a million years raccoons will evolve special limbs for taking apart half eaten tv dinners, as the raccoons with hookier claws are better able to peel back the foil, who knows). well, i guess i ended up giving some of the proof in a nutshell. to reiterate, natural selection=evolution.
[edit: by the way, dumbass, there's a reason why i put an emoticon next to my sagan comment . it was a joke. hey, but don't you appeal to an authority everytime you go to church? isn't that an invalid argument?]
--jacob
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
quote:
Hardly. Just why would a biologist need to know about evolution to study a new plant?
For the love'a nuthin, Omega. Read a science book or two. You work in a friggin' library now...
Context is everything.
quote:
It simply proceeds from a different set of assumptions from yours.
Science makes no assumptions. Science proceeds from axioms and data. From these, logical conclusions can be drawn. I won't bother describing the entire process as I'm sure you've heard it before (or haven't and don't intend to), but science does not assume. And we all know what assuming does...
quote:
Appeal to authority. Invalid argument.
*falls on floor laughing hysterically*
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Take the flat-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe bit. It's not ANYWHERE in scripture, stated or implied[...] (emphasis added)
Daniel 4:11 -- "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." You can't see anything from all points on a sphere. Furthermore, a sphere doesn't have "ends."
Isaiah 11:12 -- "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Only a flat Earth can have corners. This is also mentioned in Ezekiel 7:2 and Revelation 7:1.
Isaiah 24:1 -- "[...]the earth is turned upside down to scatter its inhabitants." Unless Earth is flat and has gravity extending in only one direction, turning it upside down wouldn't change things much.
Matthew 4:5-8 -- "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world[...]" Again, the devil taketh him to a place that can only exist on a flat Earth.
Sounds like the Bible is implying a flat Earth to me! And let's recall thhe geocentrism that the Church got pissed at Galileo for disputing...
Psalm 104:5 -- "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 have nearly identical wording.
And if we're just going for Biblical absurdity when it comes to science, let's not forget all of the four-legged insects and cud-chewing rabbits and bats that are birds instead of mammals in Leviticus.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality.
No, religion plays a role in dictating morality. And even then, it does a half-assed job. The ten commandments has four purely god-related commandments, and yet it says nothing about rape! The only thing the Bible really does say about rape is in Deuteronomy: you should kill the victim if she doesn't scream loud enough... and if she's a virgin, you should buy her from her father for fifty sheckles when you're done. Oh, and if she's married, both you and the victim should be killed.
But those are Old Testament rules, surely they don't apply now! "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:18-19. Oh, I guess they should.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me). Sure, the CONCEPT has lead to bad things occasionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to eliminate the concept all together. First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem.
There is: God.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one.
How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even have a will? The vast, vast number of abortions occur before brain activity has even begun in the brain. The argument against abortion has everything to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul. Without a soul, abortion is little different from any other surgical procedure.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason.
That reason is quite simple: without an intangible soul, an embryo isn't anything more than a collection of cells until its brain starts functioning. It's only wrong to kill an actual person; even then, God seems to condone it for a large variety of circumstances. Remember the bears he sent to tear apart a couple dozen children because they made fun of Elijah's baldness? Good thing God's a mystery and beyond human comprehension, or that would look really bad...
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Or maybe it's because there's no evidence [for evolution].
Oh boy.
There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time. No "later" species is ever encountered lower than an "earlier" species. There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species. In fact, nearly every fossil is transitionary due to the rareness of fossilization and the never-ending pace of evolution itself. I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx, but there are more relevant and clear progressions for other divergences, such as the rise of reptiles and mammals from amphibians. There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life. All mammals, for instance, share a certain portion of the DNA... the portion that is left over from earlier stages of life. There is the presence of non-functional genetic material in humans that has been observed to be functional in earlier primate and mammal species. A good example is the production of vitamin C. Other mammals can do it themselves, and we can't, but the remnants of the genes are still found in our DNA. Along a similar vein, there are vestigal structures, remnants from previous stages of evolution that have now become useless. For example, our stumpy vestigal tail and our appendix. Embryos, while not to the extent once thought, show a near-duplicate of the evolutionary path that an organism took to achieve its current form. Places like Australia show clear isolation divergences of one population from the rest of the planet, resulting in marsupials taking the roles that placental mammals take elsewhere. Furthermore, the fossil record shows this proccess. We have countless examples of species being imperfectly adapted to their roles, and using parts that originally served one function for a completely new function. The human spine, for instance, it terribly suited to standing erect, because it was adapted from the quadrapedal spine of our ancestors. Why do you think so many people have back problems? We can observe, and produce, genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior... and we have observed natural causes generating similar changes. Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution not to occur once it all adds up. We see fossil animals from periods in which Earth had a differnt environment adapted to that environment... and mysteriously not around today. Why? Because those that didn't adapt died. Perhaps teh most important evidence for evolution is the fact that we've seen it happen, in labs and in the wild. Countless plant species have been seen to evolve, mostly due to our own efforts at hybridization. Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves. Two new species of rat evolved during the middle ages. Furthermore, there have been hundreds of observed speciations of insects, not to mention rarer cases of birds, mammals, and other animals. See here and here.
The preceding list is elaborated on, in significant detail, here. For more "everyday biologist" discoveries that support evoltuion click here. I also recommend this site for more discussion.
quote:
Origianlly posted by Omega:
No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive.
Evolution has nothing to do with the initial development of life. You're talking about ambiogenesis, a completely seperate issue
Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it." Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later...
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
quote:
Appeal to authority. Invalid argument.
Or, more appropiately rephrased:
Appeal to god. Invalid argument.
quote:
Because of their religion.
Well, gee, you don't say? And yet!, there are *gasp* non-religious folks who have managed to:
-Make their children learn and appreciate the norms & values of society...
-Set moral standards for their offspring...
-Sexually educate their kids (giving them the freedom of deciding for themself wether they are 'ready')...
*...all by themselves*
Imagine that!
quote:
But narrowing the definition of human life runs the risk of dehumanizing people.
Oh yes, we absolutely risk dehumanizing *Asians* when we stop to view *a small group of non-specialized cells* as 'human life'. And I've got news for you: stem-cell research doesn't depend solely on 'the termination of fetii'.
quote:
how much of your anual salary goes to charity? Got a percentage? 'Cause I can guarentee that mine's higher. I give a relatively large portion of my money to charity, and I serve my community in every way possible, ALL because of my religion. Oh, and I'm also a far more pleasant person.
... with a far larger ego.
See, some people don't *need* to have religious morals imposed on them to donate money to charity, or serve their community in every way possible. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Ryan: There is: God.
We seem to be caught in a feedback loop. We've established that religion is NOT the problem in and of itself. Deal with it.
How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even have a will?
A) Who says they don't have a soul? Futher, what does soul have to do with will? You're arguing that there IS no soul, aren't you?
B) Someone doesn't have to actively desire to prevent something to count it as being against their will.
The argument against abortion has everything to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul.
No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings.
There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time.
Not evidence that any species has ever become a different sepcies. You can INTERPRET the record to mean that, but it's not outright evidence.
There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species.
Like...?
I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx
Yes, and it's a hoax. Only two of the six specimines have feather imprints, those feather imprints being in rubber cement. Only one of those two has a furcula, which was implanted in said cement after someone chiseled out an indentation for it. That furcula is BACKWARDS, which would make it impossible for the creature to fly.
There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life.
Which proves nothing.
Embryos, while not to the extent once thought, show a near-duplicate of the evolutionary path that an organism took to achieve its current form.
And why would that be? I've heard this before, and I'd really love to know what it has to do with evolution. WHY, praytell, would a horse embryo evolve to look like an amphibian for a point in its development?
Places like Australia show clear isolation divergences of one population from the rest of the planet, resulting in marsupials taking the roles that placental mammals take elsewhere.
Again, natural selection, not evolution.
The human spine, for instance, it terribly suited to standing erect
Works for me.
Why do you think so many people have back problems?
Define "so many". Further, there are many more possibilities. My dad has two fused vertebre, for one. A simple birth defect, that has nothing to do with genetics.
We can observe, and produce, genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior...
Yes, but if it can reproduce with other members of its species, it's not evolution because no new species has been created. Futher, if the specimin CAN'T reproduce with others, then it may well be a new species (ignoring the fact that a species has to be a group), but it'll be a short-lived one, by definition. Either way, not evolution.
Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution not to occur once it all adds up.
You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics.
We see fossil animals from periods in which Earth had a differnt environment adapted to that environment... and mysteriously not around today. Why? Because those that didn't adapt died.
Again, natural selection, not evolution. Adaptations to environment WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES does not constitute evolution.
Perhaps teh most important evidence for evolution is the fact that we've seen it happen, in labs and in the wild. Countless plant species have been seen to evolve, mostly due to our own efforts at hybridization.
And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species?
Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves.
...and dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are thus still the same species millenia later. Thank you for making my point for me.
BTW, that's a good reason why our entire classification system is screwed up. Dogs and wolves are the same species, but are classified as different species. Thus the system is wrong, and should use a term other than species.
Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it."
God created the universe. Therefore, God did EVERYTHING, to some degree. God and science are not incompatable. Heck, the laws of physics REQUIRE God.
Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later...
Or at least make one up.
Oh, I checked your links for examples of specitation. One had four. Two were untested, and thus unacceptable. One was tested and resulted in sterile offspring, which proves nothing. Most mules are sterile, but SOME are fertile and can breed with other mules, thus proving that horses and donkeys are the same species. The fourth had no details, simply stating that they couldn't produce offspring, but not saying whether scientific testing was performed to prove this.
The other link had too many to list here, and I'm only half-way through it as I type this, but none thus far have mentioned extensive experiments with reproductive compatability. You scientists seem to forget that that's the criterion for determining specitation. Work on that.
Biology-fact-of-the-day:
I'll just point out that there is no clear-cut biological definition of "species," there's about six or seven from which scientists pick and choose at will. Dogs, Wolves, Foxes and Coyotes (Canis familiaris, Canis lupis, Canis Vulpes and Canis somethingis) are all considered different species despite the fact that they fail the most commonly-cited definition of specieshood, that being the ability to create fertile offspring with one another.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
We seem to be caught in a feedback loop. We've established that religion is NOT the problem in and of itself. Deal with it.
I remember you asserting it, but I don't recall you "establishing" anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
A) Who says they don't have a soul? Futher, what does soul have to do with will? You're arguing that there IS no soul, aren't you?
There are two convergent arguments we'redealing with here. 1) do embryos have souls, and 2) why do people object to abortion.
I will deal with the second issue first. You claimed that opposition to abortion has nothing to do with prenatal souls... so naturally, my response was showing that the argument against abortion has everything to do with souls, because without souls there isn't a problem.
As to the question of the presence of a soul, the same criteria apply as establishing a soul in an adult. Pick an emotion, plop somebody into a scanner, and you'll see all sorts of brain activity corresponding to that emotion. There isn't a need to have a soul to explain any aspect of human behavior. If you suggest that there is such a thing, you need to provide evidence that it exists... because there is no reason to assume it does.
Sure, scientists are only scratching the surface with regard to how the brain works. Scientists, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers yet. But we're learning.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
B) Someone doesn't have to actively desire to prevent something to count it as being against their will.
Then what is the definition of one's will? As I understand the word, somebody's will is their wish or desire. My will is that I continue to live because I have a brain to do said willing. If a embryo is incapable of thought, then it by definition can have no desire or interests.
quote:
No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings.
By what standard? If they can't think, then the only thing that makes them human is their DNA. They are, genetically, human. But so are each of the skin cells falling off your body as we speak. So are every hair. So is semen, so is the uterine lining expelled in menstruation. So is cancer. So are toenail clippings. What is inherently wrong with killing human tissue on the basis of it having of human DNA? You do it every day.
The only difference with embryos is that they might become a bona fide human being one day. Then again, they might not. They might be subject to natural abortion, diplomatically called "miscarriage." They might strangle on their own umbilical cord. They might grow up to be serial killers. We just don't know. At the time of the abortion though, they aren't anything yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Not evidence that any species has ever become a different sepcies. You can INTERPRET the record to mean that, but it's not outright evidence.
Here's the problem: if I give you Species A (say, an ape) and Species B (homo sapiens), you ask for the missing link. So I give you Species AA (homo habilis). But then you ask for one in between A and AA. So I give you Species AAA (homo erectus). Then you want one between A and AAA. So I give you Species AAAA... and so on. At what point does the transitional form become good enough? Because it will eventually go down through a billion As all the way to the difference between one individual and the next. Maybe "Ro'tok" had bigger teeth than his son "Chigal," and that, finally, is the last link in the evolutionary chain.
That's what I meant by all fossils being transitional. It's gotten to the point where many paleontologists favor abandoning the whole genus-species arrangement in favor of a system similar to software. So you might have Tyrannosaurus 1.0, then Tyrannosaurus 2.0. When a new skeleton is discovered, it might be Tyrannosaurus 1.5, or 1.5.6, or wherever it fits. The progression is that clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Like...?
How are these? Several hundred transitional fossils for your perusal.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Yes, and it's a hoax. Only two of the six specimines have feather imprints,
Not surprising, since many legitimate fossil birds don't even preserve well enough to see feathers.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
those feather imprints being in rubber cement. Only one of those two has a furcula, which was implanted in said cement after someone chiseled out an indentation for it. That furcula is BACKWARDS, which would make it impossible for the creature to fly.
Rather than answer myself, I will refer you to a detailed analysis of the fossils here. Just to be clear, I post these links simply because the authors explain things far better than I could, and also provide extensive bibliographies of references in journals.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Which proves nothing.
You said there was no evidence for evolution; furthermore, I never claimed it was proven. Genetic similarity is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Theories are tested by checking the accuracy of the predictions they make. Therefore, genetic similarity is evidence for evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
And why would that be? I've heard this before, and I'd really love to know what it has to do with evolution.
You ignorance doesn't affect the veracity of the statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
WHY, praytell, would a horse embryo evolve to look like an amphibian for a point in its development?
Because evolution is the result of modification. A small mutation in an animal isn't going to change the entire development of the animal, but only the part that was mutated. So you end up with embryos developing in the same manner as before, with changes building up sequentially. So fish go through the fish stage and stop. Amphibians go through the fish stage and then the amphibian stage. Reptiles go through the fish, amphibian, and reptile stages. And mammals go through all these and then add hair and other mammalian characteristics.
The question is, if God created animals in their present form, then why does a horse look like a fish for a point in its development? If it was never a fish in the past, why waste a few cell divisions making gills only to destroy them? Evolution accounts for "mistakes" and "glitches" and "inefficiency." A perfect God with perfect creation does not.
Also, if the cross-species features aren't the result of evolution, why do we only see primitive characteristics in early stages of advanced creatures. You never see hair on a fish fetus, but you do see gills on a mammal fetus. Why? because the mammal is descended from the fish, but not the other way around.
quote:
Omega:
Again, natural selection, not evolution.
Given that natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs, I fail to see the distinction. If there were once a few types of marsupials in a few roles, and now there are many types of marsupials in many roles, then where didn't evolution occur? Animals changed over time to adapt to new environments. That's evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Define "so many". Further, there are many more possibilities. My dad has two fused vertebre, for one. A simple birth defect, that has nothing to do with genetics.
Unless, of course, it was a genetic mutation that caused the fused vertabrae in the first place.
Here's a better example of poor engineering: balls. Sperm has to be generated at a lower temperature than the body, so we've got our precious testicles dangling freely outside, where they can be damaged. Our only natural method of reproduction depends on the most easily damaged parts of our bodies. But with evolution as the explanation, it's not hard to imagine an unfortunate scenario in which a combination of selected mutations arrived at the "scrotal compromise." If God did it, he's either woefully incompetent or has a sick sense of humor.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics.
Let me see... you accept "natural selection," which I assume you use for so-called "micro-evolution." Populations can change, but they can't change into new species. Am I right?
Well, seriously, what do you think happens with those changes? If you've got a few million environmental changes spread out over a few million years, explain how it is that they are not cumulative. Does God come in at some point and say, "Okay, you've naturally selected yourself almost to the point of being a new species, but I can't let you continue?"
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species?
Of course I can't; I'm neither a botanist nor a geneticist.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
...and dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are thus still the same species millenia later. Thank you for making my point for me.
You know, while I discuss the term "species" both above and below this, it is also important to note that it often refers to any non-breeding population, regardless of genetic compatability. There are many cases where two official species can breed but don't; this only proves that the lines are blurry... and that is the unfair standard posed by creationism.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
BTW, that's a good reason why our entire classification system is screwed up. Dogs and wolves are the same species, but are classified as different species. Thus the system is wrong, and should use a term other than species.
I agree, and so do many scientists, as seen above. The problem is that creationist arguments require the inadequate word "species," so as to limit response. Because speciation often takes millions of years, creationist can ignore the "small steps" like the domestication of animals and adaption of moths simply because enough time has not passed for the changes to accumulate into true speciation.
Of course, if you are a young-Earth creationist, then the "fact" that there hasn't been enough time for anything to evolve would explain it... but if that's the case, there are far biger issues to discuss.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
God created the universe.
An unsupported assertion, and a classic example of a place where only scientists are honest and say "we don't know yet."
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
The other link had too many to list here, and I'm only half-way through it as I type this, but none thus far have mentioned extensive experiments with reproductive compatability. You scientists seem to forget that that's the criterion for determining specitation. Work on that.
Although I'm not a scientist, I take that as a compliment. To paraphrase, "You creationists seem to forget that we scientists created that definition." New species don't arise directly out of old ones, they are blended together. But we're covering old ground at this point.
I can't help but notice that you don't address what is by far the most obvious support for evolution: the fact that it's predictions about the fossil record are true. Every species in the record has a specific point below which it is never found. There are no mammals in the Precambrian Era. If every animal existed in its present form from the beginning, why is this? Why can you look down through the rocks and see everything in the first few layers, then flowers disappear, then birds disappear, then mammals disappear, then reptiles disappear, then amphibians disappear, then fish disappear, then everything else disappears, and finally there are no fossils at all?
If you accept that animals appeared at different times (I'm not sure if you're a young or old-Earth creationist), then the end result is God placing animals down exactly when evolution predicts they should appear. How can you distinguish between God's placment and evolution, since either one disagrees with the Biblical story. It's as if God is saying, "Yeah, evolution is a joke but I'm gonna do what I can to convince you otherwise."
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
cm^3
Y'know what's interesting? The more things are scientifically explained, the smaller role a god plays in any of it.
Thousands of years ago, lightning was spontaneous flashes of light that came out of the sky for no reason and killed stuff. What could cause that? Must be a god.
Oh, wait, we just figured out that it's electricity. So it isn't a godly light after all. But where did the electricity come from? That must be where the god comes in.
But what's this? It's actually caused by a negative charge on the Earth and a positive charge in the atmosphere, resulting in electrons flowing upward? So now where's the god? Must be the one who invented electrons, or something.
Or how about tides? Water goes up, water goes down. Water goes up, water goes down. Must be gods. Oh, it's the moon? Well, gods put the moon there. Oh, it broke off of the Earth during an asteroid impact? Well, gods threw the asteroid at us. Asteroids are perfectly normal in the solar system? Well, gods made the solar system. It was formed out of coalescing dust in a swirling accretion disc after the collapse of a nebula? Um... Gods did that.
People keep making up gods to explain stuff until we figure it out scientifically. Then they use gods for the scientific unknowns, until those are figured out, too. Doesn't it follow that, as the gods' roles get pushed further and further out, they'll eventually be gone?
it's like the people who steadfastly believe the earth is flat. you say "well, what about pictures from space that show the earth is clearly a speroid (lets forget simpler ways to prove the earth is a spheroid for a minute) and the flat earthers come up with wild conspiracy theories about how space travel is a hoax [since it disagrees with their dogma]. personally, i see little difference between creationists and flat earthers, or between creationists and alien abductee conspiracy theorists, for that matter. you'll never prove anything to a person who doesn't want to know the truth (and i'm not insinuating that what i believe is the truth,mind you), even if they outwardly seem logical. you know the fanatic when they create farfetched reasons for inconsistancy instead of exploring the reasons why the inconsistancies exist.
flame away, i'll just treat your arguments against my beliefs how you treat mine: i'll ignore them or dismiss them out of hand, since they don't fit with my fundamental and irrevocable beliefs 
--jacob
[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
quote:
you know the fanatic when they create farfetched reasons for inconsistancy instead of exploring the reasons why the inconsistancies exist.
Heh. That sums up a lot of Trek fans perfectly.
We decorate our home for Christmas and there's no religious belief behind it. We just celebrate Christmas as a non-religious holiday. I know of other people who do the same. Furthermore, when I was younger, we also celebrated Hannukeh (sp?) b/c my father's family was Jewish (read, his family, not neccesarily him).
re: TNG Hindu references
Perhaps they were simply celebrating as part of their heritage, reenacting Hindu festivals to remember their history and heritage.
"We decorate our home for Christmas and there's no religious belief behind it."
Isn't that a bit like hanging up swastika flags on Hitler's birthday, but not being a Nazi?
quote:
Isn't that a bit like hanging up swastika flags on Hitler's birthday, but not being a Nazi?
No. No it's not.
--jacob
(Seriously, I appreciate the point, but I think that the "Christ" in "Christmas" has about as much meaning to Joe Average as the "liberty" in "liberal" does to Jerry Falwell. )
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
There are about fifty billion holidays at that time of the year. Just celebrating a generic holiday season in December makes sense; it's just a universally traditional time to schedule holidays. But celebrating Christmas specifically is religious. If you try to celebrate Christmas as a purely secular holiday, you're just fooling yourself. It is called Christmas for a reason.
Thursday is named for the Norse thunder god Thor, but that doesn't mean I endorse worship of him when I say "I have a doctor's appointment on Thursday." Why invent a new name? We keep all of the trappings of modern Christmas.
1) Mesonychid (land version) - furry-four-legged animal
2) Mesonychid (slightly aquatic version) - furry four-legged with webbed feat and adaptations for swimming
3) Ambulocetus (transitional form) - sharper jaw, shorter, broader legs, semiaquatic
4) Rodhocetus (transitional form) - more beaked jaw, shorter hind legs, fluked tail, mostly aquatic.
5) Dorudon (transitional form) - whale-like body, only vestigial hind legs, front legs now flippers, entirely aquatic.
6) Whales.
Now, to get back to topic, kind of .
You want to celebrate a festive holiday time? Winter Solstice.
Saturnalia.
Yule.
Mithras.
Take your pick.
However, in the case of Christmas, its name means specifically that it is a celebration of the christ. If you celebrated Thursday, but claimed not to believe in Thor, then I would wonder what what wrong w/ you. So I don't have a problem w/ calling 25.Dec "Christmas" w/o believeing in the christ, but celebrating it is a different matter.
And respecting Christmas, I think lots of holidays in history have lost its main purpose, and shifted, were twisted and accomodated into something else. For example: I don't think that the French, in their 5th Republic nowadays, celebrate their independence day in the same spirit they did near after the take of Le Bastille. Or the US American independence day: when did you start to lit fireworks during it? And why don't you do the same during Christmas, which is something usually done here (and in Mexico, IIRC).
Things change overtime, including holidays. And "paganization" (including atheists celebrating religious days) is one of the possible outcomes.
quote:
Originally posted by EdipisReks:
Ryan, thanks for making my argument better than i can. it's been a long time since i have studied biology, etc. Omega just proves even more thoroughly that it doesn't matter what you tell a creationist, they will always harp on the same points (even when they are dismissed logically) and will always stick with what they believe. that is the fundamental difference between those who believe in dogma and those who believe in science: the followers of science admit that they are wrong when they are wrong about something. it is the fundamental part of believing in science. instead of admitting faults, creationists invent far fetched theories to explain away problems (such as "that fossil is obviously a hoax [since it disagrees with my dogma]").
I take issue with what you posted. I am a creationist, insomuch that I believe God "created" the universe. Now, I am not sure how he created it, though the "Big Bang" theory sounds reasonable enough. Likewise, I do not know how man reached his present form but, as I posted before, my own Church grants that the theory of evolution is not contrary to its theology. Please be careful when labeling entire groups of people. To dismiss all "creationists" as ignorant idiots is no better than literal creationists who condemn all scientists to hell.
As for the holiday discussion, I do not think Christmas decorations are necessarily indicative of honoring the religious aspects of the holiday. I believe I once read that many of our Christmas "traditions" were born in Victorian England. Perhaps the "traditions" were kept, but the religious aspect of the holiday was dispensed with. Why would they celebrate such a holiday? Well, as others have already pointed out, the winter solstice (?) has been a popular event to celebrate for thousands of years. Of course, given the fact that "Enterprise" establishes the survival of religion into the 22nd century (or does it?), perhaps Picard's faux family really was celebrating Christian Christmas.
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
--jacob
As I said, I am a creationist; I believe God "created" the universe. I also said I find the "Big-Bang" theory and the theory of evolution to be reasonable, and the best explanations thus far on our scientific origins. You seem to say the same thing. Thus, what mistake have I made? What wrong must I admit? If I am wrong, then you, too, are wrong, unless you no longer believe in the big bang or evolution.
See what happens when you lump everybody into one category?
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
This basic story is very common back then in Europe and in the Americas. On religious fraction thought they were right and killed or changed the other persons beliefs. Today we don;t have that happening but we do have certain 'groups' who come to our houses and try to convert themselves into the 'pure religion' that they so beleive in.
Relgion was made long ago in every corner of the world as a way to explain everything. 'God created Earth in six days", Bird shits and pisses, and behold land and water!!!", etc.. I have more but for the life of me I can;t remember. As one person said, one early man realized from the observations of his fellow man that he would die from this world. Panicking he used his imagination to make his worries go away thinking that a better life awaits him. From there it evolved from that adding here and there.
The Old Testament is full of these so called 'facts' saying man could live for hundreds of years but God stopped that and now they barely live over 30 (at that time). Noah's Ark is religous play on a current event that happened. Things like that happens alot. Black Plague was once thought that God made it. Or the reason wht the Twin Towers was attacked was because of the homosexuals and massive abortions that the US has.
Also at this time in the 20th and 21st centuries, Christmas has evolved as a day in which we come together and give and give and give. It is a day of caring as well as a day for religion. We have alot of people from other religions joining on Christmas and celbrating it. Perhaps to fit in but its a tradition now to give and give on December 25th.
Religion is a good way for something to believe in but when it comes down to it, every organization is just like it. Good or bad.
I doubt any of us right now can convince each other if we are right or not, its through yourself that is what you believe in, not others.
quote:
On religious fraction thought they were right and killed or changed the other persons beliefs. Today we don;t have that happening...
You don't pay much attention to world events, do you?
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
quote:
Originally posted by EdipisReks:
[QBperhaps, however, i will have to say from now on that MOST creationists refuse to follow any scientific principle, or admit to mistakes instead of ALL.[/QB]
.[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Obi Juan ]
"Do you celebrate:
"Celebrate Halloween?
"Easter?
"Have a Christmas tree for Christmas?"