Is atheism against evolution?

AtomicHorror

Well, if the question is whether atheism could be considered an evolutionary disadvantage in some contexts then it's not a daft thread. It's answered easily though; almost any trait may be an advantage or disadvantage depending on context (meaning the influence of the rest of the organism and its environment). As to whether it is a disadvantage now, it certainly seems to have its niche.

MrPudding

Pgibson wrote: »

What a DAFT thread.

.

Not really. It could be argued that it could have been addressed under the "Evolutionary advantage of X" thread, but it is still a valid question to ask.

MrP

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

So, ultimately, religions do appeal to peer-review, but unintentionally, and never to anything but the only kind of peer-review that matters to a religion -- its memetic fitness amongst the meme-carrying public.

This 'memes' idea is really curious. If it’s true, doesn't it also apply to all social ideas like, Humanism, Materialism, Naturalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, heck even Atheism ? Isn't this memes idea or intellectual infection nothing more than a self defeating atheistic argument against religion? Because if it is true for religion then it is also true for all cultural ideas? And if it is true for all of these ideas then they too are self propagating intellectual infections themselves in the same way that religion is? So how can we take the idea of memes as a cultural intellectual infection to be right when the idea of memes in culture itself is symptomatic of memes? In short this memes argument is getting quite tiresome and boring and even if true makes those who thought it up victims of it themselves, namely the messiah for atheism himself Richard Dawkins. Yaaawwwnnn….! When climbing trees rule number 1 is: Never saw off the branch you perch yourself snuggly upon.

oeb

It is a daft thread.

First of all it makes the asumption that evolution guarentees good qualitys in all conditions (and forever), and it also makes the assumption that what was(may have been) useful to help the human race survive to become the dominant life form on earth is still nessesary to sustain it.

Experements on evolution have been conducted by monitoring yeast cultures through many generations. What they found, is that at regular intervals a strain would develop that could out preform it's compedition. It would quickly dominate because it could breed much faster etc.

Interestingly, what they also found was: In some cases, when an older 'extinct' successful strain (which had dominated in an earlier generation, but been out preformed later) was re-introduced, in some cases it would easilly out preform the newer successful generation. Evolution allowd them to be successful at that time. Think of it like running. You don't need to be the fastest man in the world to win a race, you just need to be a little bit faster than the man in second place.

Evolution is only part of the success in humans anyway. Species have a number of ways of surviving, they can evolve over time, or they can adapt their enviroment to suit their needs. Part of the reason why humans are so successful is because they are so skilled at adapting their enviroments.

Dave!

Soul Winner wrote: »

This 'memes' idea is really curious. If it’s true, doesn't it also apply to all social ideas like, Humanism, Materialism, Naturalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, heck even Atheism ? Isn't this memes idea or intellectual infection nothing more than a self defeating atheistic argument against religion? Because if it is true for religion then it is also true for all cultural ideas? And if it is true for all of these ideas then they too are self propagating intellectual infections themselves in the same way that religion is? So how can we take the idea of memes as a cultural intellectual infection to be right when the idea of memes in culture itself is symptomatic of memes? In short this memes argument is getting quite tiresome and boring and even if true makes those who thought it up victims of it themselves, namely the messiah for atheism himself Richard Dawkins. Yaaawwwnnn….! When climbing trees rule number 1 is: Never saw off the branch you perch yourself snuggly upon.

I don't think it's relevent that we are all 'victims' of memetics. I haven't read anything on it really, but is it not just a way of explaining how information is transmitted and evolves in a similar way to genes? Why is it boring? lol.

We're all 'victims' of natural selection also, but that doesn't prevent us from using it to explain the natural world, does it?

A Primal Nut

Galvasean wrote: »

Ive always been of the opinion that we (humans) no longer have a specific natural selection criteria, making any sustained direction of evolution impossible.

I disagree.

Women are attracted to taller men. Men are getting taller.
Men are attracted to blondes - probably the percentage of blondes will increase.

Its quite obvious for example, are certain type of girl have become very desirable (whether due to natural sexual preferences or because we are bombarded with images of those women). Thus, this kind of girl will increase in this century. Similiarly, women are attracted to certain guys and this will have a similiar effect.

What makes humans different from many other animals, e.g. cattle, is that anyone can mate. With many animals, only the most powerful male gets a chance to mate, whereas humans normally settle in pairs, which is why scangers and the like survive. However many people at the lower end of the genetic scale are still going to get wiped out out of the gene pool.

I also watched a reliable documentary where apparently some people are evolving a gene which allows them to comfortably live above groups of 150 (or whatever that number is).

As for religion, im not sure you can say organised religion was essential for human survival over the last two millenniums. We survived long before Jesus came on the scene, so I don't think you can say that made an impact, other than for the small percentage at the top for whom organised religion allowed them to control the population and hence retain power and vastly increase their own chances.

What it did do, was to increase levels of monogamy, thus allowing people at the lower end of the genetic scale a greater chance of reproducing. Which allowed for a greater population expansion but, if you came from a selfish social darwinist perspective, might not be good for the race itself.

If Atheism increases, it may well reduce monogamy, and as well as that it will lead to increased levels of IVF which will lead to artificial selection which could have all kinds of effects on evolution.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

This 'memes' idea is really curious. If it’s true, doesn't it also apply to all social ideas like, Humanism, Materialism, Naturalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, heck even Atheism ?

Just because there is an "ism" at the end of atheism, does not mean it is a social idea. I thought we'd already established here what atheism is not.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

This 'memes' idea is really curious. If it’s true, doesn't it also apply to all social ideas like, Humanism, Materialism, Naturalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, heck even Atheism ?

Yes, though as Dades points out atheism taken at its purest meaning (non-belief in supernatural gods) is not really an idea. But certainly memetics applies to the ideas that are passed around in what one might call the "atheist movement"

Soul Winner wrote: »

Isn't this memes idea or intellectual infection nothing more than a self defeating atheistic argument against religion?

Depends on what you mean by "against religion". A memetic explanation for the spread of religion throughout human culture is certain a contrary argument to the idea that God (a god?) has some how magically placed some sort of religious instinct in all of us that explains why religion (often wildly different) are found throughout human cultures.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because if it is true for religion then it is also true for all cultural ideas?

Yes, that is the point. Memetics is a way of modeling how cultural ideas move between humans through human communication. Memetics is not exclusive to religion.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if it is true for all of these ideas then they too are self propagating intellectual infections themselves in the same way that religion is?

Yes. Under memetics communicative ideas are considered "intellectual infections" (infection taken as its literal meaning), starting with the language a baby learns as an infant.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So how can we take the idea of memes as a cultural intellectual infection to be right when the idea of memes in culture itself is symptomatic of memes?

Those two things are not mutually exclusive

Soul Winner wrote: »

In short this memes argument is getting quite tiresome and boring and even if true makes those who thought it up victims of it themselves, namely the messiah for atheism himself Richard Dawkins. Yaaawwwnnn….!

Yes, again that is the point.

I'm starting to suspect there is some misunderstanding on your part about what a meme is. You seem to think that memes are some how bad?

A meme is simply a communicative idea that can be passed among humans.

oeb

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Women are attracted to taller men. Men are getting taller.

It is not strictly evolution that is making modern people taller. Things like a change in height relates to the amount of (and quality) of food during development etc. If a child is born tomorrow, and you neglect to provide him with modern healthcare and food, and instead subject him to the same levels that were available in the middle ages, you can bet your last dollar that he wont be the same size as someone like me who spent the 1980s stuffing their face full of angel-dust infused beef
Height, strength and build are more signs of health (Which women are geneticially pre-disposed to favor) than anything else. It's just people are generally alot more healthy these days.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it’s true, doesn't it also apply to all social ideas like, Humanism, Materialism, Naturalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, heck even Atheism? Isn't this memes idea or intellectual infection nothing more than a self defeating atheistic argument against religion? Because if it is true for religion then it is also true for all cultural ideas?

You probably didn't see my earlier posts here, here and here where I say as much.

So, yes, the notion of memes simply describes what's going on. It's not an "atheistic argument" against religion, it's simply a description of how ideas move from person to person, and are winnowed in the process.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So how can we take the idea of memes as a cultural intellectual infection to be right when the idea of memes in culture itself is symptomatic of memes?

Dawkins at least, and certainly Blackmore, make the point that the idea of memes is a meme itself. There's nothing amazing about that, and it doesn't suggest that memes are imaginary any more than gravity is imaginary for somebody who talks about gravity.

I suspect that if you stopped thinking of memes as viral infectors which describes religion only, and instead thought about them as a general theory of cultural transmission which applies to all ideas, you may find that you have fewer problems with it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When climbing trees rule number 1 is: Never saw off the branch you perch yourself snuggly upon.

Cough

Soul Winner

Dave! wrote: »

I don't think it's relevent that we are all 'victims' of memetics.

I do. If its true in the first place and thus explains how religion spreads then the idea of memes itself is memetic and therefore a victim of itself.

Dave! wrote: »

I haven't read anything on it really, but is it not just a way of explaining how information is transmitted and evolves in a similar way to genes?

Not really. It has viral overtones which have attributes that are detrimental to the host they infect namely human society. Its just a self deafening argument.

Dave! wrote: »

Why is it boring? lol.

The idea is not boring at all, just how it is constantly and conveniently applied to religion and religion only.

Dave! wrote: »

We're all 'victims' of natural selection also, but that doesn't prevent us from using it to explain the natural world, does it?

'Victim' is too strong a word when used in conjunction with NS. If NS is true then 'Byproduct' is a better word. Memes on the other hand are active and the connotation when describing religion as a meme is a detrimental one not a beneficial one. If religion as an idea is just a meme then so are all such ideas that shape all cultures.

Dades wrote: »

Just because there is an "ism" at the end of atheism, does not mean it is a social idea. I thought we'd already established here what atheism is not.

Atheism is not a lot things, just like religion is not a lot of things too. Religion is still religion though and atheism is still atheism. Atheism is the idea that there is no God. That is an idea and a social idea. It is also the belief that there is no God not just the lack of belief that there is a God. It is active in its premise and atheists are very active in their adherence to it in one form or another. My point is that it is not just a neutral thing, it is active like atheism today is active. The word Atheist is the reverse of Theist, it is not its neutral. If Theism is in first gear then Atheism is in reverse gear but it is not neutral , reverse gear is an active gear. If Atheism was truly neutral then why would Atheists feel the need to debate Theism with Theists?

A Primal Nut

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's what I'm talking about. And anything that cannot be proven to the answer to anything should not be ruled out until it has been proven not to be the answer. Like how the universe came into being. Until very recently it was assumed by science that the universe was always there (eternal) with no beginning. But now we understand that it actually had a beginning in the finite past so until we know say that a divine being did not do it, then it should be left open as a possibility until it can be proven otherwise. And once it is proven otherwise by the scientific method that it was not created by a diving being or whatever then it should be left in as a possibility. But then you might say the same about the flying spaghetti monster. And I say that the matter that makes up the flying spaghetti monster did not come into existence until after the creation event or big bang so it couldn't have been him even if he does exist today somewhere out there. Among the attributes of -what we call God- are that He is outside of time and space and matter hence a good candidate for the creation of same. Not so with the flying spaghetti monster. He's made from spaghetti which is matter which came after the big bang.

Weren't human beings made in the same image as God? Therefore all the things that make up human beings must exist outside space and time in order for God to have been the one who created the universe. Which is as impossible as spaghetti.

While I agree philosophy is important to science, philosophy, too must be logical and make sense. While its possible that some being outside space and time created the universe, it is completely illogical for the one described in the bible to have been that being. Same image as one of the species which has lived for a minute fraction of the time the universe has existed? Created world in six days? No evidence for his existence except a 2000 year old book? There might be no way to absolutely convince you that he doesn't exist but there is certainly no good philosophical reason to say he does, any more than Allah, Buddah, or the flying spaghetti monster. You could come up with a hundred different possibilites as to why the universe exists, maybe a crowd of mindless little organisms living outside of space and time created it, maybe humans exist because aliens planted bacteria on earth billions of years ago. The most believable one for me is that, viruses live inside humans, maybe we live inside something else who has no awareness of our existence.

There are plenty of crazy theories; the idea that you devote your life to one random theory with no more evidence than the next; wasting however amount of time going to church, lourdes, praying or preaching, and worst of all living your life, judging people and having a set of morals based on that belief is just odd. I may be an atheist but I don't devote my life to those beliefs; I might find it interesting to talk about, thats it.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

....If Theism is in first gear then Atheism is in reverse gear but it is not neutral , reverse gear is an active gear. If Atheism was truly neutral then why would Atheists feel the need to debate Theism with Theists?

Come on SW how long have you been in here? The reason atheists debate theism imho is that we're giving as good as we get. We have to put up with theist bull all day this forum is a way, from my perspective, to vent or deal with the constant bombardment of religion. Atheism is neutral even Dawkins said he'd believe in god if there was any evidence.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm starting to suspect there is some misunderstanding on your part about what a meme is. You seem to think that memes are some how bad?

A meme is simply a communicative idea that can be passed among humans.

But they can also be detrimental to their host and that is why atheists refer to religion as one of these bad memes all the time due to religion's propagating success rate.

According to Wikipedia

"Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Thus one can expect that some memes will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. "Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."


If memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) and natural selection is but the process whereby the most beneficial traits for survival are kept and the ones not so beneficial are not, then doesn’t the memes idea fly in the face of natural selection? Because some memes that are detrimental for survival are kept? And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwinian evolution then maybe Dawkins is just full of crap on this area? We all know he hates religion and thinks that people who are religious are stupid, so as a scientist in his field he must just feel the need to explain the spread of religion in some way. Hence the self defeating memes idea.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Atheism is not a lot things, just like religion is not a lot of things too. Religion is still religion though and atheism is still atheism. Atheism is the idea that there is no God. That is an idea and a social idea. It is also the belief that there is no God not just the lack of belief that there is a God. It is active in its premise and atheists are very active in their adherence to it in one form or another.

Atheists don't actually sit about talking about atheism - they sit about talking about religion, and how they believe it to be false. Religion is the social idea that is rejected, after which - for reasons of labeling - results in the person becoming an "atheist".

What an atheist is active in after that depends on the individual and their own social ideas, which may or may not be shared by anyone.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

..Hence the self defeating memes idea.

Viruses kill there hosts all the time don't they. I'd echo what Wick said maybe you should read up on memes. I've actually just bought this . I'm genuinely interested in how memes work.

Galvasean

Atheist 1: "So, how about that atheism...?"
Atheist 2: "Yup..."
Atheist 1: "...."
Athiest 2: "Eh...."
Athiest 1: "See ya later."

Dave!

Soul Winner wrote: »

But they can also be detrimental to their host and that is why atheists refer to religion as one of these bad memes all the time due to religion's propagating success rate.

According to Wikipedia

"Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Thus one can expect that some memes will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. "Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."


If memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) and natural selection is but the process whereby the most beneficial traits for survival are kept and the ones not so beneficial are not, then doesn’t the memes idea fly in the face of natural selection? Because some memes that are detrimental for survival are kept? And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwinian evolution then maybe Dawkins is just full of crap on this area? We all know he hates religion and thinks that people who are religious are stupid, so as a scientist in his field he must just feel the need to explain the spread of religion in some way. Hence the self defeating memes idea.

Bloody hell, you STILL do not understand evolution.

In the case of biology it is what's beneficial to the GENE that is relevant, and it's gene propagation that is key.

In the case of memetics (as I understand it), it is what's beneficial to the MEME that is relevant, and memetic propagation is the key.

The individual is irrelevant.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But they can also be detrimental to their host and that is why atheists refer to religion as one of these bad memes all the time due to religion's propagating success rate.

Yes, but you are implying that they are all detrimental to their hosts, possibly due to the mistaken idea that all viruses are detrimental to hosts in biology.

A meme is simply a unit of an idea.

Some ideas can be very detrimental to their hosts, look at something like a suicide pact between depressed teenagers.

Others less so, the Care Bear song for example (though in hind sight I have wanted to kill a few people singing that).

How this maps back to Darwinian evolution is that a meme will be more successful (survive longer) based on how often it is propagated from one person to another in the form of human communication, and based on how the idea sticks in someones head long enough to be passed on again.

The point of the wikipedia article is that how the meme improves the life of the host is actually pretty irrelevant. It is a secondary factor. From the point of view of memetics what is important is how successful the meme is at replicating. If the meme itself stops the host from passing on the meme (say the host kills themselves before they pass on the meme) then this is a bad trait for the meme in terms of its fitness. If on the other hand the meme causes the host to pass on the meme to a lot of people very quickly before the host kills themselves then this meme has very strong fitness. The fact that the host ends up dead is irrelevant to that.

This can be seen in cases where really depressing news spreads like wild fire, despite the fact that it is depressing anyone who hears it.

Equally if the meme makes the person very very happy (say a secret formula for winning the Lotto) that is irrelevant to the fitness of the meme. If the meme is not passed on to lots of people then it has weak fitness. The fact that the host is a multi-millionaire is irrelevant to that. The meme may never get passed on and "die" with the host in which case it had the worse possible level of fitness.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If memes evolve by natural selection (similarly to Darwinian biological evolution) and natural selection is but the process whereby the most beneficial traits for survival are kept and the ones not so beneficial are not, then doesn’t the memes idea fly in the face of natural selection? Because some memes that are detrimental for survival are kept?

You are focusing in at the wrong entity

It is not whether the trait is detrimental or beneficial to our survival, it is whether the trait is detrimental or beneficial to the survival of the meme

The meme being detrimental to us, the human with the idea in his head, is irrelevant if the meme itself has traits that make it very prone to being passed on quickly and to a lot of people.

Zillah

Soul Winner, for future reference, whenever you think you've found a huge and obvious flaw in a whole field of research, probably better to assume you've just failed to understand something yet again rather than assuming the field is indeed patently ridiculous.

I cannot count the times someone has had to lecture you on why you've misunderstood and misrepresented something on this forum.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Viruses kill there hosts all the time don't they.

Not all virus. Some are relatively harmless depending on how strong the immune system of the host is.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'd echo what Wick said maybe you should read up on memes.

I did. Must be reading it wrong or something.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I've actually just bought this . I'm genuinely interested in how memes work.

Let us know what his take on Christianity is will ya? Everyone seems to have an opinion on it might as well have his as well.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, but you are implying that they are all detrimental to their hosts, possibly due to the mistaken idea that all viruses are detrimental to hosts in biology.

A meme is simply a unit of an idea.

A unit of an idea? So theoretically one can envisage them but scientifically they are unverifiable?

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not all virus. Some are relatively harmless depending on how strong the immune system of the host is.

No I think he meant "all the time" in the sense of "quite frequently" rather than a literal 100%.

A unit of an idea? So theoretically one can envisage them but scientifically they are unverifiable?

No one is claiming that a meme exists in the literal sense that a gene does, no more than anyone would claim that a "culture" exists of that a "society" exists. Memetics is a way of describing how ideas function. The predictions of that theory can be tested.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

I cannot count the times someone has had to lecture you on why you've misunderstood and misrepresented something on this forum.

I'm here to learn Zillah. The best way to do that is to show one's ignorance on a subject by spouting off about it publicily. This is how science itself learns isn't it? One minute you think the universe is eternal and then next you find out that its not. I'm not very PC in this regard. I don't mind showing off my ignorance in these areas. Or showing up someone else's either for that matter. I don't claim to be expert on them. But with the many replies that come back I learn a thing or two. Sorry that you keep reading into them something unintended on my part.

Dades

Good for you, SW. Though there are some aspects of your posts regarding evolution which have been explained before at length and are still skewed... :pac:

Still, no shortage of people to preach teach here!

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

Atheist 1: "So, how about that atheism...?"
Atheist 2: "Yup..."
Atheist 1: "...."
Athiest 2: "Eh...."
Athiest 1: "See ya later."

If Dades is right then it should be:

Theist 1: "So, how about that theism...?"
Theist 2: "Yup...I agree"
Atheist 1: "...."
Theist 1: "Like I was saying..."
Thiest 2: "I agree...see ya later."

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Though there are some aspects of your posts regarding evolution which have been explained before at length and are still skewed...

I know, but a lot of the time the replies tend to disagree with each other and if I ask any questions about it I get jeered off en-mass from the board for being ignorant about these things???

Zillah

Asking questions and admitting ignorance is great! What you do is act as if you know what you're talking about and try to warp things into either making atheists look bad or support the Christian view of the world.

For example, you just tried to argue that Memetics was nonesense, and therefore Dawkins was "full of crap" and implied he invented the whole thing because he hates religion.

That's significantly worse than saying "Hey guys, I have a question about memetics".

Soul Winner

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Weren't human beings made in the same image as God? Therefore all the things that make up human beings must exist outside space and time in order for God to have been the one who created the universe. Which is as impossible as spaghetti.

My reflection in the mirror does not exist as I exist and yet it is my exact image. My take on the whole image of God text is that He made us like Him in certain ways but not in every way. If the text is true then the fact that He started with clay makes it clear that whatever He is making is not the exact image-ness of the maker. I can make a sculpture that looks exactly like me but it is not like me in everyway. Maybe we are like God in many ways but not in everyway just yet. We have imaginations that can transcend space and time, we can picture things that have gone by in times past before we were born, we can revisited things that have happened to us in our lives through memory, we can speak, we can look at the world around us and be awed by it, we worship externals. We have a lot of traits that most animals don’t have. If natural selection is true then these traits are either invisible to it or just useless shadows cast by the traits that natural selections selects to keep. Anyway from the Christian perspective we are still unfinished vessels. To be made perfect on the other side of our present reality in eternity. To become just like Him in everyway. So you could call the creation of man in the image of God a work in progress

A Primal Nut wrote: »

While I agree philosophy is important to science, philosophy, too must be logical and make sense. While its possible that some being outside space and time created the universe, it is completely illogical for the one described in the bible to have been that being. Same image as one of the species which has lived for a minute fraction of the time the universe has existed? Created world in six days? No evidence for his existence except a 2000 year old book? There might be no way to absolutely convince you that he doesn't exist but there is certainly no good philosophical reason to say he does, any more than Allah, Buddah, or the flying spaghetti monster. You could come up with a hundred different possibilites as to why the universe exists, maybe a crowd of mindless little organisms living outside of space and time created it, maybe humans exist because aliens planted bacteria on earth billions of years ago. The most believable one for me is that, viruses live inside humans, maybe we live inside something else who has no awareness of our existence.

The point is that it needs an explanation. And if it began to exist then it has a beginning point in time. If it has a beginning point in time then something outside of time caused it, something very very powerful, or else it was caused by nothing. I don’t believe that it was or could be caused by nothing. Because if there is nothing, and no causal agent exists to create it from this nothingness state then nothing comes from nothing and there would still be nothing. Some like to dwell on the many improvable quantum theoretical ideas that pertain to the beginning event of the universe and think they are being very rational in doing so. I think I am just as rational to hold to my already childhood intuitive belief that God did it until it is proven otherwise. But even if it could be provne otherwise then my personal experience with what I believe is God needs an explanation also. I don’t need the big bang theory, ID or Creationism in order to know from personal experience that what I believe to be God exists. If these other things can be proven scientifically then they just strengthen my already established faith. But I don’t need them to have a faith in God, I have already had personal experience of Him that nobody can tell me is delusory. If it is delusory then that also needs to be somehow proven to me. This personal experience not only was very powerful experience for me but it was in response me doing what the New Testament says to do. I gave myself verbally to God many years ago and still do daily and I have been guided through thick and thin by His invisible hand and things that have happened to me on that journey cannot be scientifically verified. They are for me and me only. I do not offer these as proof to others but they are too strong for me to relinquish and replace with something that can be scientifically verified. Not everything can be verified scientifically, just like the concept of ‘verificationism’ itself cannot be verified by the scientific method.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

There are plenty of crazy theories; the idea that you devote your life to one random theory with no more evidence than the next; wasting however amount of time going to church, lourdes, praying or preaching, and worst of all living your life, judging people and having a set of morals based on that belief is just odd. I may be an atheist but I don't devote my life to those beliefs; I might find it interesting to talk about, thats it.

I like to think that I don’t live my life judging people thank you very much. But I understand why you think that way. Christianity is rife with ignorance on a wide range of topics including Christianity itself and unfortunately fools (yes me included) generally do rush in where angels fear to tread. But that does nothing to quell my belief, yes it is embarrassing to be associated with some nutty fringe Christians but I will remain faithful to what I believe is my calling regardless. If I am deluded then I am truly truly deluded. Doesn’t mean I can’t learn other neat stuff though

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

Asking questions and admitting ignorance is great! What you do is act as if you know what you're talking about and try to warp things into either making atheists look bad or support the Christian view of the world.

For example, you just tried to argue that Memetics was nonesense, and therefore Dawkins was "full of crap" and implied he invented the whole thing because he hates religion.

That's significantly worse than saying "Hey guys, I have a question about memetics".

Point conceded.

Dawkins does think that people who believe in Christianity are barking mad though and the memes idea does fall into explaining why very conveniently don't you think? I just take exception to that sorry.

Zillah

I can fully appreciate how you as a religious believer might take exception to having your beliefs explained as nothing more than mundane thoughts and ideas that spread between people. I'd point out two things however: 1, if its true it doesn't matter whether you like it or not and you should have the courage to admit that and 2, it doesn't neccessarily support the view that your beliefs are false.

If Jesus really was the son of God and the Bible is the inspired word of God, then who the hell cares how or why the idea spread, its still true. If someone discovers a gene that causes 95% of people with it to commit rape, we can use memetics to analyse how that idea spreads between people. If it turns out its just a rumour then we can still use memetics to analyse how it spreads.

The reason Dawkins uses it is because it can show how ideas that are false can still come to be believed by a great number of people, which is handy for someone who is trying to argue that religion makes false claims.

But it doesn't neccessarily condemn your beliefs so its not so much the enemy you seem to think it is. It just points out that the story of Jesus as the son of God could be wrong even though there are over a billion people who believe in him.