Is it time to return to religion?

[Tom R]

That the things that get killed off before passing on their genes are generally weaker in relation to their environmental pressures than the ones that do is fact. Do you dispute that?

 

If I was born with three legs (surely an improvement on two?) then would my kids be born with three legs, and their kids or grandkids with perhaps four?

 

No. Of course they wouldn't. Because adding a drop of vodka to a glass of coke doesn't make the vodka stronger, it makes it weaker.

 

 

Our particular species of human has been unchanged for as long as we've been here. We have never changed.

 

We may be taller now. We may be stronger now. But we haven't learnt to fly, and we haven't learn to live in the ocean (which, by the way, on a plany two thirds covered in water would surely be the way to go!)

[dennis tooth]

That is silly Tom. You only need one cell that can detect shadow for an eye, that is what the most basic eye is. If you consider that, it is easy for it to develop and evolve.

You don't understand the idea of it at all. Fish have never left the sea only descendants, there are flying fish, have you seen a bat's skeleton?

[Jose Jones]

Ask yourself this: What use is half an eye, or half an ear? Or a tenth of each, which is supposedly how the theory of evolution goes?

 

The eye and the ear are complex, so unbelievably complex that to this day if you lose your hearing then you're fucked. It can never be reversed.

 

The eye is also still not understood, in any animal, even in humans who can conceotualise and communicate what they see!

Whether or not some animals see in colour or black and white etc is purely conjecture.

And yet we are to believe that one day, some animal just went PING!!! I HAVE EYES!!

It's fucking bonkers!!

 

I fully agree with survival of the fittest. I call that "common sense".

Diet, environment, etc will always effect size and how dominant an animal is, but it's just ludicrous to believe, or even suggest that lizards suddenly grew wings. Or that fish suddenly grew legs. Or that Monkeys suddenly started talking and walking on their hind legs.

There is no evidence of this. Anywhere. Ever.

 

I need to say at this point that survival of the fittest is a totally seperate issue from "Evolution".

Evolution, by it's very nature surely never, ever stops. It's supposed to happen all the time, everywhere throughout history. It evolves.

And yet there is nothing happening around us?? Anywhere. Ever. Where is it??

 

If evolution were true then why hasn't every monkey become a human? Why hasn't every fish grown legs and left the sea?

 

The reason that it doesn't happen around us right now is because it has never happened and it never will.

 

If you were from another world all together, with no concept of our world, and you suddenly found a DVD player on the floor (or an eye) then you would surely conclude that it was utterly impossible that it was anything else but pieced together intelligently. How could you possibly come to any other conclusion??

 

And yet, the human being, the most complex and amazing thing; something we are only a tiny fraction on our way to understanding is put down to such total non-theories as "luck" or "evolution".

 

It's utterly stupid if you really think about it.

 

Well, I don’t think evolution by it’s nature is continually ongoing in a smooth travelator fashion, no. So if you accept that, then you don’t have to worry about things so much!

 

It goes in spurts depending on all sorts of environmental pressures – but the “spurts” can be over periods of hundreds of thousands of years. Which explains “how come all monkeys aren’t evolving into humans right now?”, and also “why can’t we see it going on around us?” questions. Some populations of apes 5 million years ago, or whatever, in Africa faced environmental pressure of dwindling forests and food and so were forced out on to the plain. That acted as the spur to the spurt if you will, and most of the minor changes since then can be attributed to various evolutionary theories, natural selection or whatever, walking on two legs, loss of hair, language, brains getting bigger, etc. The important thing is that it needed the exactly right environmental stimulus and right size of population and exactly right conditions for the “spurt” to happen. Which aren’t present at the moment for monkeys around today.

 

I think the eye, and especially wings and ear can be shown to have developed from less complicated organs. There are lizards that have stretches of skin for gliding between trees, which can quite easily conceptually be seen as the precursors of wings. Likewise being able to sense the presence of prey or food from the vibrations of movement (which is essentially what hearing is, just very refined) is a pretty simple matter of physics. Many insects and fish that live at the bottom of oceans have primitive “eyes” which are able to detect changes in light.

[Lupin]

If I was born with three legs (surely an improvement on two?) then would my kids be born with three legs, and their kids or grandkids with perhaps four?

 

No. Of course they wouldn't. Because adding a drop of vodka to a glass of coke doesn't make the vodka stronger, it makes it weaker.

 

 

Our particular species of human has been unchanged for as long as we've been here. We have never changed.

 

We may be taller now. We may be stronger now. But we haven't learnt to fly, and we haven't learn to live in the ocean (which, by the way, on a plany two thirds covered in water would surely be the way to go!)

 

If you were born with three legs, but your partner had the normal quota on the face of it your kids would stand a chance of 1:2 of having the same or partially same disorder, based on the relative genetic marker and strength of the individual parental chromosomes.

 

People with disorders - or even common complaints such as depression, a tendency to gamble, baldness, obesity, skin disorders and of course, fatal illness genetically traced through a family (breast cancer, Parkinsons, Hodgkiss, diabetes, etc frequently pass it on to their offspring.

 

Surely you must have noticed this?

 

We haven't learnt to fly because we don't need to - and have the tools to by-pass this, as we do almost any problem we see fit to address. You also have to realise that as a species, we in the upright homo-sapiens form have been around for possibly less than two million years - a single tick on the watch of the evolutionary scale, and yet we now journey into space etc. We became the dominant species not because we could fly unaided, or breathe underwater unaided, but because most of our evolutionary development went into language, an opposbale digit and an intelligence capable of creating, holding and developing abstracted ideas and concepts.

 

So we can fly - faster and into places no other creature can, we can 'breathe' underwater and even work there - deeper and for longer than more than 95% of all sea creatures can. You're missing the fact that evolution is internal as well as external. The development of the human brain is the key. We don't need our tonsils or (probably) our appendix anymore, just as asians no longer need their occidental solice eyelid - evolution may have rendered them useless, it hasn't quite got rid of them yet.

[Tom R]

Oh and Tom - Evolution is not 'bollocks' it's a measurable, evidential fact - no longer a theory for many years - since the dawn of genetic research. It is a far more developed theory than that espoused by Darwin however, who supplies the foundations, much as Newton does for Modern physics.

 

Not true mate.

 

All modern genetic research proves is that all DNA comes from the very same route source.

For example, if you take the gene that makes a gerbil's eye and insert it in to the larvae of a fly, then you wouldn't just get a freaky half gerbil-half fly eye on the resulting creature, you would just get a fly's eye! You can do this with almost any living creature on earth.

You can put human DNA in to just about any living thing on earth and it will accept as if it was it's own, no arguments.

 

A melon, or a banana, or an apple has more than half the exact same chemical functions that exist in human beings. But that does NOT mean we evolved from bananas!

We have ust 46 chromosomes. Some of earth's most basic plants, such as ferns, have many more times that. Are we evolved from fern too?

 

All this all means is that ALL life on earth shares the exact same blueprint and comes from the exact same source.

"Science" people and "religious" people all agree on that. So why the hostility????

[Lupin]

Our particular species of human has been unchanged for as long as we've been here. We have never changed.

 

We may be taller now. We may be stronger now.

 

So in other words, we have changed then? Don't forget losing body hair and having other redundant body parts and DNA strands that are no longer of use to us and so remain unused as others slowly reshape themselves. The development of our larynx, transverse mandible muscles, speech centres in the brain, the enhancement of the hippocampus, the loss of webbed fingers and toes (yep - according to not even the earliest samples - Persian man - a 'mid range' homosapien - webbed feet and hands were once common. The fact that people living in hot countries develop dark skin, more efficient sweat glands and darker hair to protect them, while opposingly in Northern climates before migration the opposite occured - pale skin, light hair, light coloured eyes and body hair more suited to generating or keeping heat and a more controlled 'shiver response' in the involuntary muscle contractions - all this is evolution - adaptation.

[Tom R]

If you were born with three legs, but your partner had the normal quota on the face of it your kids would stand a chance of 1:2 of having the same or partially same disorder, based on the relative genetic marker and strength of the individual parental chromosomes.

 

People with disorders - or even common complaints such as depression, a tendency to gamble, baldness, obesity, skin disorders and of course, fatal illness genetically traced through a family (breast cancer, Parkinsons, Hodgkiss, diabetes, etc frequently pass it on to their offspring.

 

Surely you must have noticed this?

 

We haven't learnt to fly because we don't need to - and have the tools to by-pass this, as we do almost any problem we see fit to address. You also have to realise that as a species, we in the upright homo-sapiens form have been around for possibly less than two million years - a single tick on the watch of the evolutionary scale, and yet we now journey into space etc. We became the dominant species not because we could fly unaided, or breathe underwater unaided, but because most of our evolutionary development went into language, an opposbale digit and an intelligence capable of creating, holding and developing abstracted ideas and concepts.

 

So we can fly - faster and into places no other creature can, we can 'breathe' underwater and even work there - deeper and for longer than more than 95% of all sea creatures can. You're missing the fact that evolution is internal as well as external. The development of the human brain is the key. We don't need our tonsils or (probably) our appendix anymore, just as asians no longer need their occidental solice eyelid - evolution may have rendered them useless, it hasn't quite got rid of them yet.

 

I don't even know where to start with all of this.

So, so much to say.

 

Needless to say I'm working on a piece that tackles everything anyone here can say and more.

 

Great work guys. I love the GF.

I'm off to bed.

[Lupin]

Not true mate.

 

All modern genetic research proves is that all DNA comes from the very same route source.

For example, if you take the gene that makes a gerbil's eye and insert it in to the larvae of a fly, then you wouldn't just get a freaky half gerbil-half fly eye on the resulting creature, you would just get a fly's eye! You can do this with almost any living creature on earth.

You can put human DNA in to just about any living thing on earth and it will accept as if it was it's own, no arguments.

 

A melon, or a banana, or an apple has more than half the exact same chemical functions that exist in human beings. But that does NOT mean we evolved from bananas!

We have ust 46 chromosomes. Some of earth's most basic plants, such as ferns, have many more times that. Are we evolved from fern too?

 

All this all means is that ALL life on earth shares the exact same blueprint and comes from the exact same source.

"Science" people and "religious" people all agree on that. So why the hostility????

 

I don't think you get it mate. It's ot the number of chromosomes that matter, but the order they are in and what they do - you're also missing the role of RNA. All living things will share certain functions - birth (of one form or another), growth, the need to feed, maturity and reproduction and death - so all living things will have some of the same markers.

 

The fern is one of the oldest plant on earth, and the reason it has over 200 chromosomes is exactly because of that - it has developed, survived changes in climate, terrain and nutritional demand among other things, and it's DNA has adapted accordingly - what it hasn't done has ditched those chromosomes it no longer needs - just as we haven't - only being around for more than 1000 times longer than we have, it has a few more.

 

All life on earth does not shre the exact same blue print or all life on earth would be exactly the same in all aspects. They all share some commonality of need and function, after that the differences and mutations kick in.

 

I don't have hostility to religious people as they can be and usually are harmless and ordinary bods - organised religion is another matter.

[dennis tooth]

We don't evolve from things, a fern has developed in it's own way, whether that means it has less or more cromosomes is irrellevant. The conditions mean life has to have a code to be called life that is more or less how we define it, by codes and cells. Having said all that even a brick evolves, you could argue that the rock came from the same source as everything or why would it be there at all if you could see it lie you can see other things, what you have is a theory, you can use science to answer it.

[Tom R]

So in other words, we have changed then? Don't forget losing body hair and having other redundant body parts and DNA strands that are no longer of use to us and so remain unused as others slowly reshape themselves. The development of our larynx, transverse mandible muscles, speech centres in the brain, the enhancement of the hippocampus, the loss of webbed fingers and toes (yep - according to not even the earliest samples - Persian man - a 'mid range' homosapien - webbed feet and hands were once common. The fact that people living in hot countries develop dark skin, more efficient sweat glands and darker hair to protect them, while opposingly in Northern climates before migration the opposite occured - pale skin, light hair, light coloured eyes and body hair more suited to generating or keeping heat and a more controlled 'shiver response' in the involuntary muscle contractions - all this is evolution - adaptation.

 

No. Not one bit. Getting bigger, or developing weird ear lobes or whatever doesNOT constitute "evolution!"

"evolution", with a straight face says that some animal with no eyes, or legs, or wings, or lungs, suddently grew eyes, lungs or wings.

 

THEY DIDN'T!!!!

 

Last word before I go to bed - look at the "living dinosaurs" today - Crocodiles, Turtles, Coelacanths.

 

There were once Crocodiles that could swallow your modern day croc. They can be traced back to some of the earliest fossils ever. Their fundamental being is exactly the same, sometimes in history they are massive, some times really small, but they are always CROCODILES.

 

Fossil evidence just has them appear, almost from nowhere. There is no evidence of some some fish that suddenly grew massive teeth and became a Croc.

Same as turtles, and they've remained unchanged ever since.

 

I know that sits uncomfortably, but THAT IS THE FACTS.

 

You can't just invent some toss theory to fill in the blanks. It's pathetic.

 

 

Good night!

[Tom R]

 

The fern is one of the oldest plant on earth, and the reason it has over 200 chromosomes is exactly because of that - it has developed, survived changes in climate, terrain and nutritional demand among other things, and it's DNA has adapted accordingly -r.

 

This really is my last point: THAT IS BOLLOCKS #

 

The only reason we know ferns are the oldest plants on earth is because we have fossilised evidence of them and can trace them back almost to the dawn of plant life on earth, literally hundreds of millions of years!.... and guess what - they have NEVER changed!! Never evolved. They're just the same today as they were hundreds, and hundreds and hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

You've just proved my point. Cheers.

[philyhamann]

Religion has set technology back hundreds of years, so in a word....no.

[Lupin]

No. Not one bit. Getting bigger, or developing weird ear lobes or whatever doesNOT constitute "evolution!"

"evolution", with a straight face says that some animal with no eyes, or legs, or wings, or lungs, suddently grew eyes, lungs or wings.

 

THEY DIDN'T!!!!

 

Last word before I go to bed - look at the "living dinosaurs" today - Crocodiles, Turtles, Coelacanths.

 

There were once Crocodiles that could swallow your modern day croc. They can be traced back to some of the earliest fossils ever. Their fundamental being is exactly the same, sometimes in history they are massive, some times really small, but they are always CROCODILES.

 

Fossil evidence just has them appear, almost from nowhere. There is no evidence of some some fish that suddenly grew massive teeth and became a Croc.

Same as turtles, and they've remained unchanged ever since.

 

I know that sits uncomfortably, but THAT IS THE FACTS.

 

You can't just invent some toss theory to fill in the blanks. It's pathetic.

 

 

Good night!

 

I'm not inventing anything and you're making up your own idea on what evolutiuon is! Have you read Darwin? Let alone Mendel, Lewontin or Mayr? Show me where he or anyone else says 'suddenly'? Evolution is change, diversion and adaption over time to environment, circumstances and location - not one animal turning into something else entirely at the click of the fingers. All life changes all the time - just so slowly it takes tens of thousands of years for the smallest of these to show through.

 

Here - try ploughing through this and the corresponding links and actually taking note of what's actually being said and presented rather than making up your own version.

 

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Oh - and good night sirrah - my second will call upon you on the morrow!

[Lupin]

This really is my last point: THAT IS BOLLOCKS #

 

The only reason we know ferns are the oldest plants on earth is because we have fossilised evidence of them and can trace them back almost to the dawn of plant life on earth, literally hundreds of millions of years!.... and guess what - they have NEVER changed!! Never evolved. They're just the same today as they were hundreds, and hundreds and hundreds of millions of years ago.

 

You've just proved my point. Cheers.

 

No Tom (sigh) they are not...they are largely the same but only externally. How they feed, what they can feed upon, the environments in which they have adapted to survive and the way they reproduce have all changed - we also have over 700 sub-species of ferns which have mutated from those that existed back then and developed their own modus operandi.

[philyhamann]

I just like to think of Evolution as a mutation, but that sounds like a horrible word. We're arguably weaker than our ancestors, but we slowly became smarter as we needed to use tools to "beat" the other species and mother nature and our body slowly adapts to this every generation. I always wonder if in a few thousand years we'll be naturally immune to stuff like cancer.

 

I just think its the only logical explanation.

[Lupin]

I just like to think of Evolution as a mutation, but that sounds like a horrible word. We're arguably weaker than our ancestors, but we slowly became smarter as we needed to use tools to "beat" the other species and mother nature and our body slowly adapts to this every generation. I always wonder if in a few thousand years we'll be naturally immune to stuff like cancer.

 

I just think its the only logical explanation.

 

Don't know about the cancer, but that may be a moot point given genetic research soon anyway.

 

You're right though - evolution is divergence and adaption via mutation. Physically, we are probably not as robust as our ancestors, yet we live longer, eat better, live better and our kids survive better because we got smarter - that was our prime evolutionary direction. We didn't develop wings and learn to fly and use that massive energy-weight-fuel conundrum because we didn't need to - instead, as we developed and reproduced in ever growing numbers we used our enhanced mental faculties to invent a way to do it - and to cross the oceans, explore them etc - things other animals don't do because only we have developed those levels of higher brain function that can entertain complex abstract ideas and solutions.

[philyhamann]

I can see humanity getting weaker now considering all the machinery we have, and with more people moving into stuff that doesn't require manual labour. Though thats a really really short term view.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

As the pisshead who opened this can of worms, and being in a more lucid stae of mind than when I kicked it off. I wasn't of the mind of going back to believing in the resurrection, or the wine into water, bollocks - but the actual underlying messages of the founders of the resligions - which has generally been to be good, share in the community, look after your neighbours, self betterment etc. for each of the judaic based religions the key points seem to have been distorted by years of abuse by those that held the power in these sects over time.

 

The basic tenets of the religions are based on the same original book ffs, and the underlying message from the prophets of each was too live a good life working with your neighbours, and not fuck his ox. The problem these days is that there are far too many people especially in the underclass and uperclass who couldn't give a flying fuck about their neighbour, living a good life, and will gladly fuck then eat their neighbours ox. The framework to bring these people in to society could have been through less fundamental religion - as it was I believe intended by the founders. Shit like the miracles, ghosts and resurrections was made up by people a couple of hundred years after the (non)fact.

 

Instead of what we now have which is class division getting even wider, the underclasses getting practically victorian in soma cases, and the vast majority of these bankers and CEO's etc couldn't give a fuck about anyone else.

 

Atheism & Dawkins, Dawkins did a program on teh selfish gene in the 80's to dispel the myth that the individual needed to be purely selfish, the problem is that a lot of the people who discount and kind of religion and espouse their freedom to do as they wish without fear of god are too thick to understand the point's Dawkins makes regarding atheism and the need for a collective of the good.

[Strontium]

Ask yourself this: What use is half an eye, or half an ear? Or a tenth of each, which is supposedly how the theory of evolution goes?

 

 

Half an eye is more useful than no eye, but less useful than a whole eye.

 

I don't see the difficulty understanding that concept myself...

[philyhamann]

As the pisshead who opened this can of worms, and being in a more lucid stae of mind than when I kicked it off. I wasn't of the mind of going back to believing in the resurrection, or the wine into water, bollocks - but the actual underlying messages of the founders of the resligions - which has generally been to be good, share in the community, look after your neighbours, self betterment etc. for each of the judaic based religions the key points seem to have been distorted by years of abuse by those that held the power in these sects over time.

 

The basic tenets of the religions are based on the same original book ffs, and the underlying message from the prophets of each was too live a good life working with your neighbours, and not fuck his ox. The problem these days is that there are far too many people especially in the underclass and uperclass who couldn't give a flying fuck about their neighbour, living a good life, and will gladly fuck then eat their neighbours ox. The framework to bring these people in to society could have been through less fundamental religion - as it was I believe intended by the founders. Shit like the miracles, ghosts and resurrections was made up by people a couple of hundred years after the (non)fact.

 

Instead of what we now have which is class division getting even wider, the underclasses getting practically victorian in soma cases, and the vast majority of these bankers and CEO's etc couldn't give a fuck about anyone else.

 

Atheism & Dawkins, Dawkins did a program on teh selfish gene in the 80's to dispel the myth that the individual needed to be purely selfish, the problem is that a lot of the people who discount and kind of religion and espouse their freedom to do as they wish without fear of god are too thick to understand the point's Dawkins makes regarding atheism and the need for a collective of the good.

 

Nothing has changed, humanity has always had the same flaws. The only difference is now there are billions instead of millions.

[Lupin]

Half an eye is more useful than no eye, but less useful than a whole eye.

 

I don't see the difficulty understanding that concept myself...

 

He doesn't seem to get evolution at all. half an eye?

 

A creature with no eyes evolves an eye - maybe not like ours, but hey-ho. It takes for full organic development 9according to Mayr) between 50-250 years for this process to reach some sort of realisation, driven by factors primarily outside of the body of the animal/mollusc/United fan.

 

It may start off as a small collection of nerve endings having their use diverge to detect a particular stimuli - maybe food, a mate, a predator - not an eye at all. This may prove mildly successful or not successful enough and evolution further develops the nerve endings-cum-sensors into being light sensitive to a degree - one of multiple cell organisms reasonably easiest tricks. This won't happen in isolation, as a part of the creatures central nervous system or brain will need to be developed or focused to translate this slowly accruing information. A photo-sensitive nodule of cells is a rudimentary eye. 60,000 years or more may have passed, the evolution thus far may be a success in the terms required and further evolution on those lines is not yet necessary. Then again, maybe recognition of shape rather than merely light or shadow is required, so the adaptation and mutation may go on. Not all creatures will require the same level of sophistication in their bodily functions (Alan Sex for example) or requirements, they may not have many competitors for their food stocks or many if any predators.

 

Most prehistoric whales (yes Tom - fossil records and finds) had teeth, yet today most have balleen sieves instead - why? Because their prime foodstock changed, because it's more energy and collection efficient given the way they live now - something which was not the case in the past. Only the smaller whales who still eat seal or penguin retain their teeth. Whales are a particularly good example of forced adaptation and evolution, as in the last 400 years alone they have developed new migrations (unfortunately the Japanese have satellite and GPS) and new systems in how they position their bodies (and where in a current) in using their sonar to call across almost entire oceans to each other, the reason being they have acquired a predator where before none existed - us.

 

It's not that difficult to see the evidence if you look even half interestedly.

[G Richards]

Religion has set technology back hundreds of years, so in a word....no.

 

Many of the most prominent scientists and thinkers throughout history have been people of deep faith.

 

As a matter of interest, I went to a lecture tonight given by a man from NASA. He is a scientist and is working on the cutting edge of some top projects. He also talked about how his own faith in God enriches everything he does.

[Lupin]

As the pisshead who opened this can of worms, and being in a more lucid stae of mind than when I kicked it off. I wasn't of the mind of going back to believing in the resurrection, or the wine into water, bollocks - but the actual underlying messages of the founders of the resligions - which has generally been to be good, share in the community, look after your neighbours, self betterment etc. for each of the judaic based religions the key points seem to have been distorted by years of abuse by those that held the power in these sects over time.

 

The basic tenets of the religions are based on the same original book ffs, and the underlying message from the prophets of each was too live a good life working with your neighbours, and not fuck his ox. The problem these days is that there are far too many people especially in the underclass and uperclass who couldn't give a flying fuck about their neighbour, living a good life, and will gladly fuck then eat their neighbours ox. The framework to bring these people in to society could have been through less fundamental religion - as it was I believe intended by the founders. Shit like the miracles, ghosts and resurrections was made up by people a couple of hundred years after the (non)fact.

 

Instead of what we now have which is class division getting even wider, the underclasses getting practically victorian in soma cases, and the vast majority of these bankers and CEO's etc couldn't give a fuck about anyone else.

 

Atheism & Dawkins, Dawkins did a program on teh selfish gene in the 80's to dispel the myth that the individual needed to be purely selfish, the problem is that a lot of the people who discount and kind of religion and espouse their freedom to do as they wish without fear of god are too thick to understand the point's Dawkins makes regarding atheism and the need for a collective of the good.

 

Not having a go at anyone as an individual on here who has a religious faith, but the evidence worldwide suggests those 'too thick to understand the point's Dawkins makes' tend not to be atheists. Religion is always strongest in countries where there is a low standard of living, poor education and public services and an institutional negation of freewill. Those who make a choice to be atheist have more often than not done so through reasoning - I'm sure there are those who i some way have not, but I don't personally know any who didn't arrive at some point in their lives at the realisation of their atheism without a reasonable grasp of what it meant personally and socially - after all, they are distancing themselves from a whole history of conditioning...from saying prayers and singing hymns at school or dragged to church by parents, funerals, Sunday School, Songs of Praise, RE and the notion behind it all of heaven and hell, and afterlife and purgatory. That's a fair bit to turn your back on amid gasps of horror and rebuttal by so many.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

Not having a go at anyone as an individual on here who has a religious faith, but the evidence worldwide suggests those 'too thick to understand the point's Dawkins makes' tend not to be atheists. Religion is always strongest in countries where there is a low standard of living, poor education and public services and an institutional negation of freewill. Those who make a choice to be atheist have more often than not done so through reasoning - I'm sure there are those who i some way have not, but I don't personally know any who didn't arrive at some point in their lives at the realisation of their atheism without a reasonable grasp of what it meant personally and socially - after all, they are distancing themselves from a whole history of conditioning...from saying prayers and singing hymns at school or dragged to church by parents, funerals, Sunday School, Songs of Praise, RE and the notion behind it all of heaven and hell, and afterlife and purgatory. That's a fair bit to turn your back on amid gasps of horror and rebuttal by so many.

 

By atheists too thick too understand, I'm not referring to the more enlightened streams of society, I'm talking about the little fuckers who go out and stab people, rob people (corporate and scallies) those who march on and do exactly what they fucking want without a care for anything as they don't believe in a heaven or hell or fuck all else - they live in the now don't seek redemption from god's or anyone else and thus have little respect for others. From the poor bastards who end up with their parents on wife swap/trisha/cunty kyle to teh out and out greedy cunts at the top end of the scale, who have no belief in an afterlife so take all that they can fromk this and fuck the lot of us.

 

These are the peole too thick to understand that - although you may not believe in God, that Bunnie's shat choclate egg's around mount sinai or anything else... fundamentally we need to work together in order to best evolve as a race/species. Unfortunately political ideology, and most of religion's policies at the top have been political, have been on the whole divisive, and in the realm of my god's better than your god type shit.

[Lupin]

By atheists too thick too understand, I'm not referring to the more enlightened streams of society, I'm talking about the little fuckers who go out and stab people, rob people (corporate and scallies) those who march on and do exactly what they fucking want without a care for anything as they don't believe in a heaven or hell or fuck all else - they live in the now don't seek redemption from god's or anyone else and thus have little respect for others. From the poor bastards who end up with their parents on wife swap/trisha/cunty kyle to teh out and out greedy cunts at the top end of the scale, who have no belief in an afterlife so take all that they can fromk this and fuck the lot of us.

 

These are the peole too thick to understand that - although you may not believe in God, that Bunnie's shat choclate egg's around mount sinai or anything else... fundamentally we need to work together in order to best evolve as a race/species. Unfortunately political ideology, and most of religion's policies at the top have been political, have been on the whole divisive, and in the realm of my god's better than your god type shit.

 

I see what you're getting at (I'm now officially knackered so I'll keep this short) but those maladjusted types you're speaking of don't formulate their thoughts in a pro-or anti God way - it just doesn't occur to them one way or another. If stopped they may claim to be Christian etc but will just as likley stab or rob you anyway. As Philly said, the human race has always had this layer of malcontents and now there are more of us there are more of them.

 

In the end, neither religion, atheism reason or any other doctrine or philosophy impacts on such people - just an unavailed, imprecise sense of self, want and perceived need...it's almost instinctive living.