The function of religion ?

[grondilu]

Evolution is a theory and has never been replicated in a laboratory.

It has.  Bacteria cultures in laboratory need only a few weeks to evolve and develop resistance to antibiotics.

[Luno]

Christ, only Atheists and creationists debating in this tread now?

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U&feature=g-vrec

Nothing like a bit of Dicky Dawkins

[bb113]

One famous example is the moment when the planet Earth became no longer “sterilized”! The moment of which Life appeared in the form of the first Prokaryotic Cell 4 billion years ago. The moment most atheists wouldn’t feel comfortable talking about as much as they would on evolution afterwards.

In order for the first Prokaryotic Cell to appear on Earth, declaring the era of Biology, many theories were put on the table with the Primordial Soup Theory stands as the most accepted among the scientific elite. The theory, within four steps 1 > 2 > 3 > 4, had explained what Life needed in order to appear:

1- The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere, (lack of Oxygen).

2- This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds (“Monomers”).

3- Such simple organic building blocks polymerize and form longer chains of more complex structures (“Polymers”).

4- Interacting in consistent ways to form naked RNA, a Protocell, Genetic Memory needed for reproduction then ultimately LIFE!

What gives power to this theory is the fact that steps 1 & 2 were experimentally proven in lab. Conducted in 1952 published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago which became widely known as Miller–Urey experiment.

".....In conclusion, Life to begin on Earth, 4 billion years ago, biology processes needed to go through a SUPERNATURAL direction......."

http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/05/30/atheists-supernatural-doesnt-exist-said-who/

This source is out of date or ignorant. Current theory is that the driving force behind polymer formation was the concentration of monomers in lipid vesicles (bubbles of oil which spontaneously form underwater). Some of these monomers reacted to form polymers, at which point these polymers were less likely to escape the lipid sphere since they are less porous to larger molecules.

Trapped polymers that could retain their own building blocks (a subset of the available monomers that randomly diffuse into the vesicle) by hydrogen bonding would increase the possibility of increasing in length and forming further polymer chains. As the concentration of polymers/monomers in the vesicle rose due to these electrostatic forces, water was sucked in by osmosis, and the vesicle increased in volume. Eventually the volume became to great for the surface tension to hold... and two new vesicles split from the first, each containing half the polymers and monomers.

After this natural selection kicks in, and vesicles that retained the most new monomers deprived lesser vesicles of this raw material as they split more and more often. Over a very long time period and very many iterations the polymers inside the vesicles became more and more complex, diverse, and specialized. Eventually some vesicles (cells now) began producing glue-like materials and clumping together, floating around the ocean like that. Next the cells themselves began specializing within these clumps, etc.

So according to this theory, abiogenesis IS NOT EVEN A BIG DEAL. New "life" is probably being generated all the time, but it just can't compete due to the first-mover advantage of existing lifeforms. This makes it hard to detect in nature, and the timescales involved make laboratory experiments currently infeasible. I always thought it would be cool to somehow take advantage of time-dilation to make this happen.

[dank]

God is not a person, god is the universe, god is everything, our consciousness is god.

Evolution and creationism are both correct.  We certainly evolved to the point we're at, as we're constantly evolving every second.  We were also created, by the universe (god), by intelligent design (consciousness, god).

Atheism is just as much (if not, more) of a religion than any other.  You cannot disprove spirituality with science.

Ex-atheist.

[Luno]

Hear hear Dank, Atheism is a religion centred around the existence of the "non god" and as such they deserve as much respect as other religions. the moment they claim to be more scientific they step out of bounds, as they have the same difficulty of proof as other religions.

The famous Einstein quote: "The absence of proof is not a proof of absence." Was it Einstein? I can't remember.

[bb113]

Science has never, and will never prove anything. There are only levels of plausibility. Only logic can prove something. The concept of omnipotence requires accepting logical contradictions, so either our basic rules of logic are wrong or something else is going on that is beyond explaining words because human language is based on logic.

Either way, science has nothing to do with disproving god, it will only propose explanations for what we observe around us. The thing that will come closest to "disproving" the current batch of gods (or not) will be natural selection.

I'm not sure of the purpose of redefining god to be the universe, or how that differs from atheism.

[dancupid]

God is not a person, god is the universe, god is everything, our consciousness is god.

Evolution and creationism are both correct.  We certainly evolved to the point we're at, as we're constantly evolving every second.  We were also created, by the universe (god), by intelligent design (consciousness, god).

Atheism is just as much (if not, more) of a religion than any other.  You cannot disprove spirituality with science.

Ex-atheist.

It's easy to define God into existence (and then God exists by definition) - but once you have your definition what do you do with it?
What religion tries to solve is the the answer to the question "what now?" - belief is actually a minor part - it's possibly an after the fact justification for certain types of behavior.
I'm faced with my life; it's unclear what it's for; it's unclear how I should behave - religion provides a neat set of ideas and principles.
It allows you to mark the year and the years as they pass. It allows you to acknowledge birth, adulthood, marriage and death; the passing of the seasons. It allows irrational yet necessarily behavior. It allows one to justify ones existence.
Though I'm an atheist (because I haven't seen a satisfactory definition of God) - I'd still at my core rather be a pagan suckled in a creed outworn.

[RodeoX]

For me it's just about evidence. If there were a god, she knows where to find me and how to prove her existence to me. Instead she chooses to play an illogical game with my free choice.  She wants me to make free choices because she loves me. But if I use my choice and determine that she does not exist, she will send me to hell forever.
See how crazy it becomes when you apply logic to religion. It has to be magical or it all breaks down.

[dancupid]

For me it's just about evidence. If there were a god, she knows where to find me and how to prove her existence to me. Instead she chooses to play an illogical game with my free choice.  She wants me to make free choices because she loves me. But if I use my choice and determine that she does not exist, she will send me to hell forever.
See how crazy it becomes when you apply logic to religion. It has to be magical or it all breaks down.

So apply your logic to your own life and tell us why you do the things you do - what are they for? Why do you continue to exist?
Provide a rational explanation of why you do the things you do - go through the the things you did today and rationally justify them.
I've done it and everything I do is ultimately to ensure I survive (ie Darwinism) - but there is no rational reason why my survival or otherwise matters - in fact it doesn't matter.
I am pre-programed to pursue my own survival genetically - that genetic imperative is completely pointless outside of the context of my personal existence. It's a genetic illusion.
A belief in the value of your personal self is as illusory and irrational as belief in God.

[RodeoX]

For me it's just about evidence. If there were a god, she knows where to find me and how to prove her existence to me. Instead she chooses to play an illogical game with my free choice.  She wants me to make free choices because she loves me. But if I use my choice and determine that she does not exist, she will send me to hell forever.
See how crazy it becomes when you apply logic to religion. It has to be magical or it all breaks down.

So apply your logic to your own life and tell us why you do the things you do - what are they for? Why do you continue to exist?
Provide a rational explanation of why you do the things you do - go through the the things you did today and rationally justify them.
I've done it and everything I do is ultimately to ensure I survive (ie Darwinism) - but there is no rational reason why my survival or otherwise matters - in fact it doesn't matter.
I am pre-programed to pursue my own survival genetically - that genetic imperative is completely pointless outside of the context of my personal existence. It's a genetic illusion.
A belief in the value of your personal self is as illusory and irrational as belief in God.

Those are excellent questions for which I have no answer. Why do living things want to survive and diversify? What is heading toward? Of course, there may not be a "reason" as we think of it. I'm ok with not knowing. I don't feel the need to create a mythical character to explain the unexplained.

[dank]

Religion and god are separate, you must forget any preconceived notion you have regarding god, to find god.  Religion is based off spirituality, but as we see today, is often perverted to give power and control to the church.  Man created religion as a guideline of spiritual living and to attempt to explain the nature of god.  Religion did not create god.

Hell is largely distorted, as well.  Hell is a mind state, which manifests into reality if allowed.  To be in hell, you would need to act with your ego, which is essentially sinning.  Greed, power, war, any negative emotion is all a product of your ego.  If one has much on their conscious when they die, never admits what they bottled down, the sudden true realization of their actions would cause a hell-like state.  To be happy, you must act in love, with your conscious.  Acting for others before yourself, to love, this is the basis of religion.

dancupid, I agree, the illusory self, ego, is nothing but an illusion, as is life.  Consciousness, is not, however.  Consciousness, god, is everything, it's the universe, which we know exists because we are it.

When you start to think of god as the universe, one soul comprising everything, it makes much more sense than the man-made perspective of something we attribute human-like qualities to.

[foggyb]

I won't do any searching for you (you can find your own references), but here is how the eye happened:
1) some species developed cells on their skin that were sensitive to light. All they could feel was whether they were in a light or a dark area. There are examples of species living today that have patches of skin sensitive to light. Likely this allows them to hide, and tell if they have hidden themselves well enough.
2) The light sensitive patches progressed to be inside of a small dimple. Species with dimples containing those sensitive cells can survive better than those without, since they can not only feel the light, they can somewhat tell where it's coming from, based on which side of the dimple is lit up
3) The dimples progressively get deeper and deeper, thus giving more precision for feeling where the light comes from
4) Eventually the dimple would form into the best method for telling EXACTLY where the light is coming from, which is a hollow sphere with a pinhole towards the outside. This would mean the direction of the light would leave a precise spot on the inside of that sphere.
5) Next step would be some cells becoming sensitive enough to distinguish shades of that light. Cells being able to differentiate between bright light, dim light, and no light, is being able to "see" in black and white
6) Eventually the pinhole got covered by a membrane that would protect the primitive eye from getting junk inside
7) From there, you have your basic primitive eyeball, with the only improvements needed being the different types of light-sensitive cells that can detect different colors, and the membrane being able to focus the light a bit better to give better resolution images to those cells.
There you go. Your eyeball isn't magic.

COOL STORY BRO,

but I didn't ask you to imagine what took place as the eye developed. I asked for references. To science.

You don't list any because, as I said earlier, science relies on observation therefore you'll have a tough time finding data on that.

Also, your "explanation" completely ignored the processing of optical sensations in the brain, and how the two systems managed to find each other. But of course, you can just make something up and pass that off as science.

Furthermore I never said that any existing system is magic, I said evolution requires magic in order to work because it can't rely on any intelligent thought process that is required in order to produce working systems of ANY nature (biological or mechanical).

[foggyb]

Science has under no circumstances ever ruled out the possibility of a supernatural creator God. Science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural because science is a method for investigating ONLY the natural (ie physical matter).

Absolutely true. Which makes the supernatural irrelevant. If god, and the supernatural, has no means of being tested scientifically, because it can not affect the natural or the physical in any way, they why even take it into consideration? It would be no more rational for someone to believe in a supernatural god than it would be for the to believe in anything else that's supernatural (e.g. Chtulu, Thor, Santa Claus, etc)

Irrelevant to science? While science does work with logic arguments,  it cannot be used to test for truth (as a principal) Does that make truth (the principal) irrelevant? No. Therefore the rest of your argument is illogical. If the supernatural is the creator of all things (which God says he is) calling the supernatural irrelevant it is like the pot calling the potter irrelevant.

Evolution is a theory and has never been replicated in a laboratory.

You are VERY wrong there. Evolution is constantly created in laboratories.

I agree. Macro evolution exists only in creative minds.

If scientists created "80-90% of the chemicals and structures needed to form early life", that only furthers the hypothesis that it requires intelligent engineering to bring about.

Actually, just about 40 years scientists were only able to create about 20-30% of the chemical structures, so the only thing this furthers is that your god has only 10% of "hypothesis" to hold on to. In another 10 years he'll only have 5%, and in another 10 after that, he'll have no room left.

You missed the point. Or maybe you're trolling. The numbers aren't the point. Add to that, scientists never create anything entirely new. They re-use pre-existing elements. Using expensive laboratory equipment, and most importantly, their MINDS.

[QuantumKiwi]

If any of you have some money; travel and see the worlds wonders yourself in person....

Pyramids - Egypt. The first " gods " were identified here - See the how many thousand year old pictures on the walls inside the pyramids (You will need to pay to be VIP to see the controversial pictures created thousands of years ago ) - featuring unknown beings coming down and " seeding " the earth in multiple locations.

The current religion - god, bible - is a mix of all the good bits from the egyptian gods.

There is more evidence around the world, in plain proof in front of you - That the egyptians have been linked into all other " significant " places of other being(s) interest. e.g the bermuda triangle - There is a pyramid at the bottom, which contains energy - relating to what was found, 2 thousand years ago near giants ( yes giant humans there is skeletons all over the world ) that are linked to, both the egypt pyra and the bermuda pyra.


There is also strong evidence in science - relating the " seeding " process from an unknown being travelling around the planet - The oil mafia would never want the people of the world to find out there is other beings out there, and have generated us - It would create a society downfall.


The pure function of religion - Lead, Follow & Enslave.

[foggyb]

The current religion - god, bible - is a mix of all the good bits from the egyptian gods.

There is a pyramid at the bottom, which contains energy - relating to what was found, 2 thousand years ago near giants ( yes giant humans there is skeletons all over the world ) that are linked to, both the egypt pyra and the bermuda pyra.

The pure function of religion - Lead, Follow & Enslave.

Yes its interesting history, and yes they had make-believe gods, but that hardly proves that God doesn't exist. The pyramids are not that old (about 4000 years  according to this reference), and if as you say, the jews stole ideas from the Egyptians to make the Septuagint (first books of the bible) then show some evidence besides overlapping stories.

The bible's historical authenticity is very well researched in many fields of study by professionals. You won't do well trying to build a case against it.

[dank]

How do those things signify another being generated us?  The gods they referred to then may have been extra-terrestrial beings, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they created humans.

Unless you're referring to intelligent being as consciousness, god.  We did/do create our self from a single point of consciousness.  We evolved to be, but we were created by god.

[bb113]

COOL STORY BRO,

but I didn't ask you to imagine what took place as the eye developed. I asked for references. To science.

You don't list any because, as I said earlier, science relies on observation therefore you'll have a tough time finding data on that.

Also, your "explanation" completely ignored the processing of optical sensations in the brain, and how the two systems managed to find each other. But of course, you can just make something up and pass that off as science.

Furthermore I never said that any existing system is magic, I said evolution requires magic in order to work because it can't rely on any intelligent thought process that is required in order to produce working systems of ANY nature (biological or mechanical).

We can see your logic and reasoning skills shine through. If there is a complicated thing and it wasn't planned out beforehand, the only alternative is magic. And this is proven by your brain thinking about it.

Meanwhile science has apparently failed to give you a satisfactory explanation for exactly what happened hundreds of millions of years ago and it pisses you off.

[Rassah]

I have to ask, what is the purpose of using the explanation "God did it?" Why would you claim that and try to convince us of that?

The ONLY outcome of convincing everyone of the idea that god is responsible for the things you claim he is, is that we will all become content with that explanation, and thinking we now know the answers, will stop searching for them. That, in fact, was the cause of the Dark Ages: everyone *knew* that god was the cause of the things we didn't understand, no one bothered to try to investigate the answers themselves, and anyone who did try was killed as a heretic.

So, seriously, do you want people to stop questioning and just accept that god is the answer to these questions? To stock experimenting, and finding more and more tiny answers to explain the whole part?

[foggyb]

So, seriously, do you want people to stop questioning and just accept that god is the answer to these questions? To stock experimenting, and finding more and more tiny answers to explain the whole part?

That's a logic fail. If God exists, he gave you the observational abilities and made the physics of EVERYTHING convenient for scientific study.

You suggest I am against science. That's more fail. I never suggest that. I am urging you and others to COME UP with scientific evidences for what believe is scientific, and you can't do it. Then you call me an enemy of science. Lolol.