[Guest]

After reading though some of the other discussions and debates, ie. Religious debate, War Club sign up, and Athiest discussion, I feel that the concept of theism is misrepressented on this site.

I would like a thread were people can ask questions and talk about theism, and calmly explain why they believe the way they do.

Its a gross misinterpetation that religous people are ignorant and that they dont believe in science and reasoning.

Anyone can post, but in this thread but I would like to keep to the assumption that there is a god, regardless of who you think he/she/it is. The purpose of this is not to argue over the existence of something that can neither be proven nor disproven. Otherwise it will just turn into the religous debate part 2, and I dont think anyone wants that.

And we will define religion as a belief system, not neccissarily organized.

[Guest]

Well, yes. I would call that faith. Example:

"I had a miraculous experience and now I believe in God" - That would be an absolute conviction based on inconclusive evidence (but it may still be evidence, in some people's eyes at least). I'd still call that faith, so I expanded UR's definition to include it.

Heh; a bunch of atheists discussing Faith

I get what you are saying, but I wouldn't call that Faith as such; look at the definition given by the Bible itself:

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (New Int Ver)

Basically that says: Faith is believing

1. What you desperately wish to be true - Wishful thinking, Appeal to Consequences Logical Fallacy - oh well done Magic book ) and

2. Choosing to believe unequivocally (be certain) of something you don't actual know (have any reason to believe) exists at all ("can not see") - Pure wilful abandonment of Reason.

The bible itself declares Faith as believing something for no good reason! And declares it a good thing!

I will explain further from your subsequent comments, but Faith is distinct from bad reasoning, it is wilfully abandoning it - It is the difference between ignorance (quite excusable but in need of correction, and at least potentially fixable as long as they actual value reason) and wilful ignorance (no excuse for that, and how can you fix it? How can you possibly reason with someone who wilfully abandons reason whenever it suits them - like if it might lead then to a conclusion they don't like?!)

This example is a bit more ambiguous:

"I think there probably is a God. I don't know why, I just do" - That is a partial conviction based on no evidence.

Whether that actually is an example of faith would be a matter of opinion, but I've made my definition quite inclusive so it would encompass this as well. Personally I would consider any conviction in excess of evidence to be irrational, and faith is as good a name for that as any.

Yeah, a bit of a grey area that one. It is belief in spite of the lack of reason, and involves actually acknowledging that lack and choosing to believe anyway, so I would say that counts as Faith, but with a nice hint of doubt, at least suggesting a possible openness to being reasoned with, just perhaps.

I don't see the distinction. At no point does your Faith-head say to themselves "here is my evidence, it is insufficient, so now I will abandon reason to form my conclusions".

Oh but they do! I have seen it with my very own eyes, I am sad to say. Many a theist has declared that reason alone can not prove that god exists (or that he doesn't) so what you need (aha!) is Faith! And far too many have told me (and others) the trick to finding God - and it is so very often that very thing; as if the aim is not to discover if God exists OR NOT, but to find God, to try to find not; the answer whatever it may be, but that particular chosen answer: Confirmation bias we rational people call it - is to first believe in God, really believe just take it on Faith (seriously; for no reason whatsoever except the following promise ) and then, and only then will God bless you with a revelation, will provide the evidence of his existence. Kind of pointless and back to front isn't it? What need does anyone have for the evidence AFTER you have abandoned reason and chosen to be convinced already?! And what possible rationale could there be for abandoning reason like that in the first place? PLUS how hard could it possibly be to be convinced once you have made that leap of Faith? It would be damn easy to convince YOURSELF that you have had that revelation, that's how easy! Subconsciously so as to justify to yourself the abandoning of reason you committed for a start. Its all very sad I must say.

But note the leap of Faith demanded; clearly a suggestion that you should abandon your critical thinking, your rational assessment, suspend it at least. All in the promise of the reward (Appeal to Consequences again.)

Faith is always just poor reasoning.

No, Faith is more; it is wilfully abandoning it, putting reason itself aside deliberately, actively devaluing it. Poor reasoning gets you TOO Faith to be sure, but the road is not the same thing as the destination.

The believer thinks they have justification to believe, but has not been clear about what that justification is.

Some do indeed do that; they believe based on lousy reasoning or have somehow been indoctrinated into their belief, as from childhood as a prime example (just as I was) I wouldn't call that Faith as such; although I did not get to my belief through reasoning, I didn't wilfully ignore it either. Perhaps that is why when I reached the age of Reason (around puberty, a little later for me, it can take a trigger to get one to think about it first) only then did I try to apply my reason to the question, and only then did I realise that I believed for no good reason - so I stopped (that's making a long story short.)

Faith is different; it involves a deliberate act of will. Sure we were taught to have Faith, and that it is a Virtue (and lied to about us having Faith about other things like sitting on chairs without checking ) So when our reasoning faculties came "fully online" we would be primed to resist its whisperings - that what, and more importantly how and why, we believed was irrational.

The error in reasoning frequently has to do with the fact that faith is considered a good thing so therefore a certain belief would be a desirable outcome. But it is lack of clarity which leads to this error.

Oh most certainly, as I just wrote above, poor reasoning (generally indoctrinated in) leads to one seeing Faith as a good thing. BUT that poor reasoning is not the thing (Faith) itself. It is absolutely as you say the indoctrinated belief that Faith - believing without evidence or rationale - is a good thing, a virtue. And that belief (in the god etc. of the religion you happen to find yourself immersed in) is a good thing, a desirable thing to have (this leads to confirmation bias; the desire to reach a given conclusion and get there by any means: look and pay attention to only 'evidence' that supports, never denies the desired conclusion, and if that fails to go on Faith) - that is of most serious concern. But that claim isn't itself Faith either, but it is what allows and encourages Faith to spread throughout the meme-pool.

Maybe we are splitting hairs about the intent issue, but in my opinion faith is faith whether or not it is recognised as such. I am sure that those who believe in faith also believe that they are reasonable and rational. The problem is that they have been miseducated by religion, effectively taught to think badly, and to defend those thought processes fervently. In that sense the devaluation of reason is something that underpins faith, rather than being a conscious choice made by those who exercise faith.

Actually you will find that many who truly believe in Faith do realise that Faith is not about reason as such, it does not utilise it, they have one of those rather standard garbled "mystical" ideas of it being a "higher" form of knowledge or way to discover the truth: One such argument is that Reason can only reveal the truth of the Natural, Faith is needed instead of Reason which must be left behind, to find truth of the Supernatural. Yes it makes no sense but there you have it. Its like they are convinced that Faith trumps Reason at that level. They may well consider themselves rational (most certainly they are very often convinced that they are 100% unquestionably right - the hubris gets pretty thick I can tell you) but not that Faith involves reason, but rather that the use of Faith itself is a rational recourse, the only recourse to understand the supernatural.

To them of course Supernatural is not simply that which is unknown (as it is to most of us) but a very real thing; another level to reality, another realm, or something like that.

In a sense there are two aspects to faith here: faith in practice, or Faith as a principle (Faith, the principle, essentially says that faith, the practice, is good). As a principle it is a big fallacy waiting to be wheeled out as bogus justification for a belief. It is frequently used by the religious, and you might say their conscious use of it is a conscious choice to be irrational. But only if they recognise it as irrational. Actually I think a lot of the time they do it just to wind you up

I would only call "Faith the practice" Faith. The principle does not involves going on Faith, merely the claim that Faith is something good or rational to have. that is not what the definition in the bible speaks of. It is absolutely something that should be dealt with, and it is what you have to deal with - can't do much about the Faith directly, can't argue against the beliefs based on abandoned reason, you have to confront their reasons (being poor ones indeed) for resorting to Faith in the first place.

Perhaps that is the source of the confusion; you wish to include this faulty reasoning that supports Faith because it is the actual problem that needs to be addressed. It is a mistake to do so; the one is not the other, and it is important to define the other, as I have, to reveal its flaws and faults to the harsh light of day. And the reasons for them invoking it etc. must be addressed, no reason to include those reasons in the definition to do that though. And as we seem to see here with your definitions; our theist friend seems to prefer your definitions more than mine, even though you then both go on to point out the very problems my definition displays from the start, for the very reason that your definitions don't so readily display the problem so obviously - it is somewhat masked by your wider definition including the reasons for invoking Faith. In other words your definition implies there is some reason involved in Faith, when in fact there is not. Do you get my drift? Its like they say: "Oh yes, your definition looks a bit nicer at least it says Faith is somewhat reasonable" when all they really do is show that one leaps to the Faith position through poor reasoning!

Again, we may be splitting hairs over semantics, but to me common sense is where intuition meets rationality (yes they do overlap). Intuition may lead us astray, but not always. We don't have to abandon it completely, only recognise where it fails.

Yeah that was just a side note on Common sense, a separate issue, but an interesting one.

But on that. Intuition can get the right results at times, this is due largely to our intuitions having evolved; the ones with poor intuitions (like oh lets pat the nice big stripey kitty!) tend to die off, leaving the ones that work (walking of that cliff probably a bad idea) to propagate. But without reason it pretty much dumb luck. But due to its history we can rely on intuition to a certain degree - mainly it is of greatest benefit when there simply is insufficient time to reason things out. Don't abandon it,oh my no, but rather use reason (wherever possible) on top of it; get the intuitive hunch then assess it rationally; times are changing fast these days, so the intuitive responses can all too readily lead on astray.

A typical example if of something even more basic: the Fright, Flight Fight response - It is an automatic response in us; when we receive a fright or cause for apprehension of any type (in our ancestral past that pretty much amounted to a physical danger) we react with an increase in adrenalin, a loosening of the bowels and similar, so as to best equip us to react to the danger by running away (flight) or combat (fight). Nowadays of course this same ancestral automatic response is triggered by things like the rapidly approaching Math test That is why one tends to need a "nervous" pee before hand, and get "butterflies in your stomach" (that's adrenaline baby!) Much like intuition, and it demonstrates how it being inherited through evolution leads to it being rather behind the times.

[Guest]

i believe octopuppy and ad parker to be good people - is that wrong. it is important to believe in yourself, without belief in self no belief in anything. that makes life empty and of no purpose.

is my purpose and your purpose to exist after birth physical death certain but not certain no spirit life after - now is a guarantee, after now we do not know, if you know you are high spirit. you are free to deny the concept/possibility. i believe that i am here to do good. it makes me happy to do good. it does not matter to me that i don't understand why. this is what an enjoyable life can be. i have no deity belief. i make no claim i am right. i claim i am happy to be healthy. i do not believe in chance. i beleve we find chance and make better life if we want.

Hi Bodhi

Your alias is a lot like a wackadoo (Crazy man) I have dealt with a lot on another forum (before he got banned) so it gave me a bit of a shock But I see that you are a completely different person, whew!

Your post was a little hard to follow for me, so excuse me if I misconstrue anything. You are saying that basically the god is real/is not real thing doesn't really matter so long as you live a good life (be happy, try to make others happy) Is that about right?

Well I couldn't agree more. BUT there is a serious problem with poor thinking, believing things based on bad reasoning. and worse, as being discussed right now - willfully abandoning reason: such things can lead to great evil being done - and great evil done, tragically, by good people

So this problem needs to be addressed, for the good of us all. Look how it spreads; the creationist agenda has been spreading and causing untold stifling of progress in the U.S. for example.

What you say sounds good, and in most cases is good. But we must remember and realise that we do not all live in individual bubbles, our actions (and our inaction) affect others. We must be aware of this and act accordingly. There is a saying:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Words of wisdom indeed.

Another is:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.

(That's the quote, so sue me) but as we are avoiding attacking religion here, let me adjust it by stating that by "religion" we can take it to mean "Faith" or belief based on bad reasoning - which may or may not include religion, and most certainly includes things other than religion.

EDIT: accidentally submitted, then fixed poor grammar

Edited September 15, 2008 by ADParker

[Guest]

I'm afraid to ask but what do you mean by this?

"So this problem needs to be addressed, for the good of us all. Look how it spreads; the creationist agenda has been spreading and causing untold stifling of progress in the U.S. for example." -ADParker

[Guest]

i believe octopuppy and ad parker to be good people - is that wrong. it is important to believe in yourself, without belief in self no belief in anything. that makes life empty and of no purpose.

is my purpose and your purpose to exist after birth physical death certain but not certain no spirit life after - now is a guarantee, after now we do not know, if you know you are high spirit. you are free to deny the concept/possibility. i believe that i am here to do good. it makes me happy to do good. it does not matter to me that i dont understand why. this is what an enjoyable life can be. i have no deity belief. i make no claim i am right. i claim i am happy to be healthy. i do not believe in chance. i beleve we find chance and make better life if we want.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. I agree with wat you are saying with the exception of one fact. And it is something I argue a lot in general. What it seems to me that you are saying is that we all have a purpose, yours is to do good. And that we should all follow that purpose. But what about people, like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Bonaparte? They felt that that was what they needed to do. Were they in the right or wrong? They were following what they felt what the 'right thing' and believed in what they were doing does that still make them good people, or are then then exceptions to the rule?

Well I couldn't agree more. BUT there is a serious problem with poor thinking, believing things based on bad reasoning. and worse, as being discussed right now - willfully abandoning reason: such things can lead to great evil being done - and great evil done, tragically, by good people

So this problem needs to be addressed, for the good of us all. Look how it spreads; the creationist agenda has been spreading and causing untold stifling of progress in the U.S. for example.

What you say sounds good, and in most cases is good. But we must remember and realise that we do not all live in individual bubbles, our actions (and our inaction) affect others. We must be aware of this and act accordingly. There is a saying:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

Words of wisdom indeed.

Oh so very true. I think wars could have easily been avoided if those good men did more. Granted there were some Nazi soldiers who served to protect their families even if they did not agree with that. My Great grandfather and grandfather were living in the Ukraine when Hitler's regime cam through. They put them both into a misplaced persons camp. My G-Grandfather spoke several different languages fluently, German being one of them. HE was able to get himself, my grandfather along with about 8 other people out in an ambulance with help for a Nazi soldier.

Another is:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.

(That's the quote, so sue me) but as we are avoiding attacking religion here, let me adjust it by stating that by "religion" we can take it to mean "Faith" or belief based on bad reasoning - which may or may not include religion, and most certainly includes things other than religion.

Excellent adjustment granted I wouldn't have thought you were attacking it. But several things (which I've already mentioned, and wont repeat) have been done based on faith or the belief of something or someone, which have caused death and destruction.

On another note, has anyone heard that 'God' was recently killed?

[Guest]

I'm afraid to ask but what do you mean by this?

"So this problem needs to be addressed, for the good of us all. Look how it spreads; the creationist agenda has been spreading and causing untold stifling of progress in the U.S. for example." -ADParker

Well you like to open the really big cans of worms don't you?

It's simple really; the creationist movement (with clowns like Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind, Ken Ham, William Lane Craig, Brad Harrub - seen those last two in action, in person - oh the humanity) and the Intelligent Design Movement (Championed by the Discovery Institute) in their attacks on evolution, and much remotely related science as well, and using pseudo-science to push their agenda; seriously undermine the public's capacity to appreciate and value science and undermines their comprehension of it and their very reasoning abilities. Looking at the creationist audience lapping up the kind of ridiculously irrational Logical Fallacy Laden drivel as if it was scientific and rational gold, is just sickening. No wonder we get those depressing polls (depressing even to me, and I'm not even American) that show that 49% or Americans believe that the world was probably created by God sometime in the last 10,000 years, and meanwhile over 50% of American students can't find the Untied States on an unmarked map, and if I recall correctly, something like 50% think Russia is located in South America!

My point in that post was simply to point out that just ignoring things like that and enjoying life is.. well the Edmund Burke quote covered that I think:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Same thing follows for allowing irrationality at attacks of the very foundations of reason to flourish.

Basically Bodhi's idea is great and most desirable, but only feasible if everyone were to go along with it.

This image someone felt the need to make gives a fair impression of the potential problem there:

[unreality]

I'm betting that the 50% that think Russia is in SA correspond with the 50% that think the Earth is 6,000 years old ;D Haha, wow, those are depressing stats! And I'm American! I need to move to another country lol

[Guest]

I'm betting that the 50% that think Russia is in SA correspond with the 50% that think the Earth is 6,000 years old ;D Haha, wow, those are depressing stats! And I'm American! I need to move to another country lol

Sadly no; the first poll was of adult Americans (voting age I think.) The kids were probably the offspring of those adults though eh?

[Guest]

I've never heard of anyone who thinks Russia is in South America. and I know a lot of Americans. Mostly everyone I know.

[Guest]

anyways, I still didnt see an answer to my post.

New Topic: Human reproductively.

Everyone should know by now that an embryo is fertilized with 50% father genetic material and 50% mother. Since the mother has XX chromosomes and the Father has XY, every embryo has a 50/50 chance of being male or female right? Wrong.

The sperms with the Y chromosome travel faster because there is less genetic material in this chromosome. (laugh all you want females, its true) This said, more than 50% of embryos are fertilized by a Y sperm. This should make the male population of the world greater right? Wrong again. The female body rejects male embryos more than it does female, kind of like how the body rejects organ transplants. The genetic material of the XY embryo is different enough for the body for some females to abort (miscarriage) the pregnancy. Enough males are miscarried to allow the population to remain +/- 50/50 male to female. Is this evidence for design?

I know what you will say too. This is an act of evolution. A population that favors males would be less successful than a population that is 50/50, right? Wrong.

In order for a genetic trait to pass down through survival of the fittest, it must be passed by both male and female genes. How do the females that abort some male pregnancies get favored? Why would males that were produced by these females have an advantage?

If most of the evolution of the human species happened prehistorically, wouldn’t each individual have multiple mating partners like most animals do, or did they have monogamous morals like we do today?

In a tribal setting, wouldn’t a population with more strong, war wagging males have an advantage?

[Guest]

anyways, I still didnt see an answer to my post.

Which post? I for one have responded to both of your previous posts, and in detail.

New Topic: Human reproductively.

You like to jump around a lot don't you. Figure that all the previous ones have been adequately covered? And odd topic for a "theism discussion" but okay.

Everyone should know by now that an embryo is fertilized with 50% father genetic material and 50% mother. Since the mother has XX chromosomes and the Father has XY, every embryo has a 50/50 chance of being male or female right? Wrong.

The sperms with the Y chromosome travel faster because there is less genetic material in this chromosome. (laugh all you want females, its true) This said, more than 50% of embryos are fertilized by a Y sperm.

As it happens, the evolutionary evidence shows that the Y chromosome has been shrinking.

This should make the male population of the world greater right? Wrong again. The female body rejects male embryos more than it does female, kind of like how the body rejects organ transplants. The genetic material of the XY embryo is different enough for the body for some females to abort (miscarriage) the pregnancy. Enough males are miscarried to allow the population to remain +/- 50/50 male to female. Is this evidence for design?

Actually population figures (since reliable recording began) places the world population as always slightly Female heavy, not by a great degree, but noticeably.

Evidence for Design (oh not the ID game again ) No it hardly qualifies as that. You need a darn site more than the above for it to even be considered as such.

I know what you will say too. This is an act of evolution. A population that favors males would be less successful than a population that is 50/50, right? Wrong.

As a matter of fact the male/female ratio is a very complex thing, there are many factors that go into what ratio fits best. This is the same as all the various ESS (evolutionary stable systems [or strategies]) depending on all the variables and the natures thereof, including the habitat etc. the "best" stable ratio could be any number of things, and will shift as the conditions do (including the current ratio, what the ratio is now affects what the closest stable one will be). It is really a very complex issue.

In order for a genetic trait to pass down through survival of the fittest, it must be passed by both male and female genes. How do the females that abort some male pregnancies get favored? Why would males that were produced by these females have an advantage?

"Survival of the Fittest" is an antiquated term (coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864, in order to draw parallels between Darwin's theory and economics, not as a description of evolution in particular. Darwin didn't even like it at first) It is pretty much only creationists and those influenced by them that use the term still (just like micro/macro evolution as it happens. ) Why has it gone into disuse? Because modern evolutionary biology has moved on, and it no longer really describes it very well at all. At best we could use "survival of the Fittest" as long as we keep clearly in mind that it is Survival of the fittest... what?...gene.

And no, completely false, for something to be passed it need not get passed down through both males and female lines. Our mitochondria only get passed through the female line for example - you got all of your mitochondria from your mother, and she from hers and so on - that is why we hear of "mitochondrial eve" but never mitochondrial Adam

This is a (large) evolutionary biology question though, not a theism one - that is the thread topic isn't it?

Damn it, you know what? As tempted as I am, it is interesting, I am not going to play this typical creationist game. I am not going to aid you in turning a discussion on theism into one on evolution - as if discrediting evolution somehow promotes theism; it does not. If evolution turned out to be complete bunk (not that it ever will) theism would be on no stronger ground than it now is - Not one of it's "apparent" flaws would be any the better for it. It might well then be easier to convince the gullible through various logically fallacious arguments; such as the pathetically weak arguments from design, but that is hardly the same thing. David Hume for instance didn't buy it, and found the flaws in theism, and he died a third of a century before Charles Darwin was born! He just didn't have that beautiful piece of science to replace much of it with. Not that one needs to replace a idea with a new one, showing it to be a poor one is quite sufficient.

If most of the evolution of the human species happened prehistorically, wouldn’t each individual have multiple mating partners like most animals do, or did they have monogamous morals like we do today?

Huh?! There are good reasons for monogamy and polygamy, it all depends on the circumstances, which are extremely varied. That is why some species are largely monogamous, others male or female heavy, and others remain asexual. And you would be surprised to find that your assumption that most animals have "multiple mating partners" is a very narrow and naive view indeed - the variation in nature is quite extraordinary, including many animals who put our vain attempt at monogamy to shame. And in most of nature it is a mistake (anthropomorphism?) to equate monogamy, or any sexual system, with morality - or to do so positively or negatively for that matter. As it happens; there is nothing implicitly ethical about monogamy, or unethical about polygamy - that is really a matter of the details. To make such assumptions is to look for the ethics at far too shallow a level - one must look deeper.

Reminds me of one favourite of mine: Snails - they are pretty much individuals who meet, mate and move on, with any number of partners during their lifetimes (as there is no relationship issues, where is their anywhere for the "moral" question to arise?). The interesting thing though is their personal sexuality: most species are hermaphrodites (fully functional). One species I know of meets a partner and they (through a rather elaborate and beautiful entwining) both impregnate each other! Another species meets and they go through a rather elaborate ritual in which it is decided who will be the "boy" and which the "girl". With their next encounter the roles might be different.

You see; the whole sex ratio thing is very complex and variable, and it is only the tip of the sexual iceberg.

In a tribal setting, wouldn’t a population with more strong, war wagging males have an advantage?

Not necessarily - many variables again. Wouldn't a female light tribe tend to result in less children (male or female) being born, thus resulting in a tribe that has more males than females, but less people (male or female) than a rival one; leading to them being seriously disadvantaged?

Answer: Maybe, maybe not, there is far more to it than that.

So what does this have to do with theism exactly?

[akaslickster]

I still believe there is a higher power or a God, I think. I won't rule it out, due to the other posts which I've read.

[Guest]

I still believe there is a higher power or a God, I think. I won't rule it out, due to the other posts which I've read.

That's nice

I believe I will have another cookie

Heh, sorry. Just trying to point out that simply declaring what you believe hardly furthers the discussion, does it? You are free to do so of course, knock yourself out But one has to wonder why you bothered to tell us. At least why you bothered, without any attempt to explain why. In other words why you chose to simply state rather than discuss.

(Sorry if that seems a bit antagonistic, it wasn't intended that way. )

[Guest]

"Evidence for Design (oh not the ID game again )"

-why not? this is the Theism discussion. ID is a critical topic to theism. I'm not giving hardcore scientific data, just ideas to look at that could make an argument for ID, and therefore, Theism.

"Actually population figures (since reliable recording began) places the world population as always slightly Female heavy, not by a great degree, but noticeably"

-notice the +/- right before the 50/50 in my post. anyways, wouldnt this also go agree with my post?

"And no, completely false, for something to be passed it need not get passed down through both males and female lines. Our mitochondria only get passed through the female line for example - you got all of your mitochondria from your mother, and she from hers and so on - that is why we hear of "mitochondrial eve" but never mitochondrial Adam"

-True mitochondrial DNA is passed down soley through the mothers genetic material. What about the rest of it, we're not made of just mitochondrial DNA? It takes two sets of genes to make a zygote. that was all I was talking about.

The idea of mitochondrial Eve is very interesting to a theist. I've never heard a good argument for this not being rational scientific data that could support the Biblical account.

"Not necessarily - many variables again. Wouldn't a female light tribe tend to result in less children (male or female) being born, thus resulting in a tribe that has more males than females, but less people (male or female) than a rival one; leading to them being seriously disadvantaged?"

-I think this is a good rebutle.(sp?) Now we're discussing.

[Guest]

I still believe there is a higher power or a God, I think. I won't rule it out, due to the other posts which I've read.

Sweet aka, I like it if you joined our discussion more often.

[Guest]

I would like to say that what I believe is stated so well in "what the bl33p so we know?"

And why would an atheist go to church? Yes, there are other forms of community involvement but they dont have the same mixture of people that the church I attend does.

I do like the tradition aspect of it. If it want for this church I wouldnt go. I tried a unitarian universalist church but that wasnt structured enough for me. Probably due to my upbringing. And I like the sermons that are based on biblical scriptures because I took way too many art history classes so I get a new look at old theology. The bible facinates me.

It is the most manipulated book in the world! maybe the Koran too.

I go to this place because there are people studying sufism, zoroastrianism, judism. Its just such a wild odd group of professors, jews, christians, buddists, artists, doctors, lawyers, janitors, artists.....jeez we sound soooooo west coast!

No one believes the same. Great discussions!!! I suppose what we have in common is the desire to learn, our intellectual asses cant help it!

[Guest]

The bible facinates me.

It is the most manipulated book in the world! maybe the Koran too.

I 100% agree.

[Guest]

I 100% agree.

And I was raised in UCC home so I enjoy xmas, easter, and all that. My parents were intellectuals so we didnt get into the divinity of religion. We really were more spiritual seekers.

But I am glad they werent so holy rollerish because when I came out as a lesbian things could have been so much worse.

Yet I still cringe when someone says "I will pray for you"

[Guest]

Well you like to open the really big cans of worms don't you?

It's simple really; the creationist movement (with clowns like Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind, Ken Ham, William Lane Craig, Brad Harrub - seen those last two in action, in person - oh the humanity) and the Intelligent Design Movement (Championed by the Discovery Institute) in their attacks on evolution, and much remotely related science as well, and using pseudo-science to push their agenda; seriously undermine the public's capacity to appreciate and value science and undermines their comprehension of it and their very reasoning abilities. Looking at the creationist audience lapping up the kind of ridiculously irrational Logical Fallacy Laden drivel as if it was scientific and rational gold, is just sickening. No wonder we get those depressing polls (depressing even to me, and I'm not even American) that show that 49% or Americans believe that the world was probably created by God sometime in the last 10,000 years, and meanwhile over 50% of American students can't find the Untied States on an unmarked map, and if I recall correctly, something like 50% think Russia is located in South America!

My point in that post was simply to point out that just ignoring things like that and enjoying life is.. well the Edmund Burke quote covered that I think:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Same thing follows for allowing irrationality at attacks of the very foundations of reason to flourish.

Basically Bodhi's idea is great and most desirable, but only feasible if everyone were to go along with it.

This image someone felt the need to make gives a fair impression of the potential problem there:

If McCain wins/steals the US presidency, can my partner and I move to NZ????? Pretty please?

[Guest]

On another note, has anyone heard that 'God' was recently killed?

[Guest]

"Evidence for Design (oh not the ID game again )"

-why not? this is the Theism discussion. ID is a critical topic to theism. I'm not giving hardcore scientific data, just ideas to look at that could make an argument for ID, and therefore, Theism.

I was only expressing my feelings on the matter (It gets tiresome sometimes you know, going over the same stuff again and again), not telling you to drop it or anything - more of an "Oh boy, here we go again" kind of thing

"Actually population figures (since reliable recording began) places the world population as always slightly Female heavy, not by a great degree, but noticeably"

-notice the +/- right before the 50/50 in my post. anyways, wouldn't this also go agree with my post?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just making an extra little point. For the benefit of whoever is listening - you, or anyone else.

It does raise the question though doesn't it? (It should) Why is that our species (at least in recorded history) seems to have settled at not a perfect 50/50 but a little to the 'left' of that (as it were)? What is it that makes us lean towards having slightly more women than men?

Your whole thing was implying that the near perfect balance of 50/50 implies it was designed to be that way. But it so happens that the balance is not exactly at the 50/50 mark anyway. Think of it being a fulcrum (for a seesaw) a little off centre, I don't know the stats of hand, but lets say for arguments sake that the male/female ration is 49/51. Does THAT imply design? If it does to you then it seems that no matter what the actual ratio just happened to be, then it would suggest design to you. Does that make any sense at all?!

"And no, completely false, for something to be passed it need not get passed down through both males and female lines. Our mitochondria only get passed through the female line for example - you got all of your mitochondria from your mother, and she from hers and so on - that is why we hear of "mitochondrial eve" but never mitochondrial Adam"

-True mitochondrial DNA is passed down soley through the mothers genetic material. What about the rest of it, we're not made of just mitochondrial DNA? It takes two sets of genes to make a zygote. that was all I was talking about.

Actually you said "a genetic trait...must be passed by both male and female genes" not the entire genetic code. A trait could be encoded entirely in the mitochondria. Or for that matter entirely in the Y Chromosome - the most obvious being the trait for being a male - is that trait passed down by the female genes? No, because women do not carry the Y chromosome

The idea of mitochondrial Eve is very interesting to a theist. I've never heard a good argument for this not being rational scientific data that could support the Biblical account.

Its only believed to be "interesting" because it happens to be labeled "Eve" Would the exact same individual be as interesting to you theists if the scientists who came up with it had called her "Mitochondrial Mom"? (It does fit, but loses some of it's charm.) I rather doubt it; in large part because "you" would either ignore it entirely, not leap to the conculsion: "Oh it's EVE, must be our Eve!" without looking into it first, and if you did look into it you would not make the same assumption. Because it is only the name that is the same, and a hint of commonality as she too is a common ancestor, but not at all in the same way.

The point of which is that this person is the ancestor of every human alive today (We all share her mitochondria, and are therefore her descendants. But the similarity ends there.

You want a few reasons why it doesn't support the biblical account? Okay, briefly:

1. "She" (will explain the use of scare quotes in a sec.) is not considered the first human female, just the "matrilineal most recent common ancestor" (MT-MRCA). The mother of all living humans, not all humans that have ever lived. Currently thought to have lived about 140,000 years ago (our mitochondrial eve that is - see 2. below.)

2. (scare quote explanation) "She" is not one set individual, not for all time. There is one particular MT-MRCA at this instant in time. But as people die and new ones are born, the MT-MRCA will change - as she will be the MT-MRCA of a different set of individuals. You see; Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans. But who the "currently living humans" are is not static, its dynamic, it changes as time goes on. As such; so too does the identity of Mitochondrial Eve.

3. Your naive idea that Mitochondrial Eve might be The Eve of the Bible riuns into another hurdle - What about Adam?! Well logically (well as logical as you can get on that faulty premise) if Mitochondrial Eve is Eve them Adam must be... Y-chromosomal Adam! Yes/No?

Y-MRCA (that's Adam) is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor of all living men. The father of us all, we all inherited his Y-Chromosome, well those of us who have one

So there we have it; gotta love that eh, all you bible believing theists?! Oh except that our Y-MRCA, the one that is our Y-MRCA, did not live when our Mitochondrial Eve did (~140,000 years ago) but far more recently; ~60,000-90,000 years ago.

At the very least Adam and Eve (the real ones) are separated by at least 30,000 years, a thousand generations or more! And just to rub salt in the biblical literalist wound (not with malice I assure you, it is just there in the evidence) It is Eve who came first, not Adam, and by quite some time. And just so we are clear - Yes, most definitely generations, not merely years - so don't get the idea that they (well Eve at least) lived long enough for the two to meet.

"Not necessarily - many variables again. Wouldn't a female light tribe tend to result in less children (male or female) being born, thus resulting in a tribe that has more males than females, but less people (male or female) than a rival one; leading to them being seriously disadvantaged?"

-I think this is a good rebutle.(sp?) Now we're discussing.

Well we would be if you had actually replied to the rebuttal (spelled like that - well that is what my spell-check program tells me.)

And you cut off my answer to it:

"Answer: Maybe, maybe not, there is far more to it than that." which was the crux of my argument.

The answer is simply this: groups (species, gene-pools communities, and whatever) tend over time to settle into Evolutionary stable strategies. This includes sex ratios. What that ratio will be depends on a whole lot of variables from all over the place. So even given all the stats, its really hard to say what that ESS will be. The thing is that the group will tend to naturally settle into the closest ESS (which may or may not be the best ESS) no need to invoke design. Not even any need for the organisms (this covers all lifeforms not just our species) to be conscious of it at all, or even conscious period!

[Guest]

Hi Bodhi

Your alias is a lot like a wackadoo (Crazy man) I have dealt with a lot on another forum (before he got banned) so it gave me a bit of a shock But I see that you are a completely different person, whew!

not sure your point - i am, i am me. i am nami (wave)

Your post was a little hard to follow for me, so excuse me if I misconstrue anything. You are saying that basically the god is real/is not real thing doesn't really matter so long as you live a good life (be happy, try to make others happy) Is that about right?

sorry. i study more english soon. i study years writing. not speaking much

own spirit (thought) must be find some calm each day - not good to hard life too much. reat, relax is good for me and maybe others. they can try. they might like

Well I couldn't agree more. BUT there is a serious problem with poor thinking, believing things based on bad reasoning. and worse, as being discussed right now - willfully abandoning reason: such things can lead to great evil being done - and great evil done, tragically, by good people

i not say abandon reason

So this problem needs to be addressed,

what problem

for the good of us all. Look how it spreads; the creationist agenda has been spreading and causing untold stifling of progress in the U.S. for example.

i have no creation thought - too complicated - i not say those things

What you say sounds good, and in most cases is good

i think all cases of true good, bad guidance (terrorist) bad result (terrorist think good, but is not pure, not true good

But we must remember and realise that we do not all live in individual bubbles,

i not in bubble. i like to do good. i make some mistake. but i pay with more good - is my way. i enjoy this

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg.

not sure your point?

i say do good and spread good, that is not bad - i translate expression .. religion has a door, it is closed, be in or out.

all 'belief system' require no reason past accepting member to group. many religion have doors. many groups have doors.

best is no group.

but as we are avoiding attacking religion here, let me adjust it by stating that by "religion" we can take it to mean "Faith" or belief based on bad reasoning - which may or may not include religion, and most certainly includes things other than religion.

i agree

i think i make clear i not agree with seperation to make groups - people must find away to have comfort. can relax can feel safe - i think that reason group start. the group make rules. the rules are not real to life if making a spirit world belief or if life in group is not freedom

i try not to make complicated answer. thank you ad parker for answer to me

[Guest]

Hi Bodhi

Yes, problem with our language differences I think. No point. Just saying that I saw your name before reading your post and thought "Oh no not him!"

But then saw that you are not him

sorry. i study more english soon. i study years writing. not speaking much

No need to apologise. I was just apologising that I might make a mistake because of not understanding you the right way.

own spirit (thought) must be find some calm each day - not good to hard life too much. reat, relax is good for me and maybe others. they can try. they might like

Yes I agree. I agree very much!

But the only problem is that many people don't do that. We can't just ignore them.

i not say abandon reason

Good.

what problem

The problem of other people who do abandon reason or use bad reasoning that leads to bad things. It is not your problem, but it is other peoples problem that we have to face and try to fix.

i have no creation thought - too complicated - i not say those things

No you didn't. Creationism is a bad thing that needs to be fixed. So that we can all do the things you say without silly people making a mess of things.

i think all cases of true good, bad guidance (terrorist) bad result (terrorist think good, but is not pure, not true good

I agree.

i not in bubble. i like to do good. i make some mistake. but i pay with more good - is my way. i enjoy this

Good! That is a very good way to live. I wish everyone did. The world would be a much better place then.

not sure your point?

i say do good and spread good, that is not bad - i translate expression .. religion has a door, it is closed, be in or out.

all 'belief system' require no reason past accepting member to group. many religion have doors. many groups have doors.

best is no group.

Again we agree. The point was that we have to face evil and bad things (You do, but I am saying this to everyone, not only you) if we don't then evil wins.

The second quote says that silly things like religions based on bad reasoning or abandoning reason, can make good people do bad things - because they make the mistake of thinking they are doing good when they are not. Again, this is NOT what you do, I know that.

i agree

i think i make clear i not agree with seperation to make groups - people must find away to have comfort. can relax can feel safe - i think that reason group start. the group make rules. the rules are not real to life if making a spirit world belief or if life in group is not freedom

And I agree with that

i try not to make complicated answer. thank you ad parker for answer to me

My pleasure.

[Guest]

If McCain wins/steals the US presidency, can my partner and I move to NZ????? Pretty please?

- is not on that picture/map - designer maybe bias to NZ, so Austrailian or many places asian good life too

[Guest]

On another note, has anyone heard that 'God' was recently killed?

How can he have been killed if he never existed?

It was actually a joke in regards to this article :

God...Destroyed?

[Guest]

It was actually a joke in regards to this article :

God...Destroyed?

Unreality already posted that somewhere, I can't remember exactly where.