<p>^ I’m starting to really hate this “religion” thing you keep talking about. The thing is, it doesn’t resemble what I believe, or what my Bible says.</p>
<p>Why do you trust everything your bible says? That’s dangerous to just accept everything you read in it. Today, anyone with sense will recognize for what it is – just a creative, imaginative tale.</p>
<p>^ I trust it because I have examined it and tested it and seen its effects in my own and other people’s lives. I do not simply accept it blindly because some priest told me to do so. If you consider it “just a creative, imaginative tale” you lack an understanding of what it really is.</p>
<p>Tested it against what? You can’t test it against nature. You’ve already admitted that gods and supernatural stuff doesn’t have any basis in explaining the real world</p>
<p>Tested it against life. Tried to follow its teachings and observed the effects that result. Looked at the world around me and observed that it fits with what the bible teaches. Looked at the history of the bible, and learned how it was passed down to us. Looked at the alternatives and been unsatisfied with the results. Looked at the people who reject it, and realized I don’t want to be them.</p>
<p>And I have not stated that “gods and supernatural stuff” have no basis in explaining the real world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who considers the Bible a “creative, imaginative tale”, Adenine. I guess I haven’t met that many people “with sense” in life.</p>
<p>The Bible is a history of the world, and one could assume that the part that comes before Abraham was based off of an imperfect memory and was either made up or simply a metaphor, not that this has any bearing whatsoever in this argument. Religious beliefs are not based on scientific research by believers, but, so far as I have seen and experienced, on intuition and instinct. The probability of validity of the Bible does not affect how much people believe in it because they have taken a leap of faith, per Kierkegaard, into believing. </p>
<p>This entire thread is pointless not only for this reason, but because there is absolutely no basis for assuming that the two are separate. Averro</p>
<p>science wins</p>
<p>Q.E.D.</p>
<p>there were so many comments on this thread that were so well said, but also other ones that do not make any sense whatsoever.</p>
<p>Mosby, you only look for things to make it correct. Scientifically, it fails horrendously. </p>
<p>Among your viewpoints, 6000 year old earth, evolution doesn’t exist, dinosaurs existing within the past few thousand years along with humans (and somehow they died out but man and other things didn’t), your “god” exists while the thousands of other gods supported with the same fervor don’t, etc etc. That’s brainwashing plain and simple.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t one explain the ridiculousness in blind unsupported belief?</p>
<p>Similar to foolfromhell’s arguments, morals do indeed have a Darwinian foundation and achieve progress independent of religious belief. Altruistic tendencies, including empathy, are favorable traits that naturally descend through generations due to the selectional gains associated with such qualities. For instance, we often simply benefit by laboring in tandem or as part of a society than we are alone. Moreover, in our evolutionary past, and in many cases today, we were likely to encounter the same individuals continuously, which facilitates reciprocated behavior in favor of mutual welfare. Namely, it is our genetic inheritance that explains why those without the intrinsic obligation to follow some human-created, superficial moral system still operate in accordance with a social consensus. </p>
<p>Also, if morality is derived exclusively from religion (which it certainly does not, as has been persuasively established earlier), what accounts for the moral conduct observed in species incapable of religious or metaphysical thought? That point alone undermines the entire claim that morality is fundamentally based on instituted moral systems. And again, I scarcely believe that any individual would ideologically support the notion that one would commit objectionable acts in the complete absence of scripture or some set of principles dictated by religious creed (e.g. the Noble Eightfold Path, Ma’at, the ten commandments, and so on).</p>
<p>Moreover, many cultures throughout the world have made terrific moral strides within the past two centuries (to provide an approximate timeframe) regarding the liberalization of moral values. For instance, that certainly remains valid when objectively assessing the abolishment of slavery and less restrictive opinions regarding the treatment of ethnic minorities, homosexuals, nonconformists, and others that have been historically relegated to the social periphery. Quite obviously, this has not changed due to some sudden religious revival or the creation of new holy books but rather due to a secular act of collective social evolution. In fact, every bit of progress in providing latitude toward historically subjugated individuals, eliminating depraved social institutions, and improving humanitarian ideology and criminal law has been a matter of continuous disapproval by the organized churches of the world. Contrary to its desired purpose, religious zeal remains as the foremost opponent to moral betterment in our world.</p>
<p>Also, I am sure that we are all familiar with the conventional example of the train dilemma when conceptualizing abstractions in morality, in which an individual must prevent a locomotive from killing multiple individuals by inevitably sacrificing one. To prevent a runaway locomotive from killing a group of bystanders, most people would ultimately judge it morally preferable to divert the train through the use of a lever even if it meant killing an individual on the deflected path rather than pushing that person directly into the runaway course. The response of pushing that individual to his death is a much more emotive conflict that simply pulling the lever, despite fundamentally equivalent results as an act of manslaughter. Thus, there is not some transcendent, universal standard by which individuals derive morality to make decisions but rather one that is psychological (and hence scientific) and inherent in origin.</p>
<p>The empiricist view of morality recognizes the need for a constant self-analysis and reassessment of moral codes. The strength of irrational commitment can surely decline as new understanding, proficiency, and experience becomes available to induce a novel, collective change in a particular period’s moral zeitgeist. </p>
<p>Here is more on the innateness of morality, or a morality that depends on the architecture and development of the brain:</p>
<p>[ScienceDirect</a> - NeuroImage : A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4XJP3YK-2&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=02896fa1ef01ddba12338f6ce3480b4c]ScienceDirect”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4XJP3YK-2&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=02896fa1ef01ddba12338f6ce3480b4c)</p>
<p>[Neuron</a> - Damage to Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Impairs Judgment of Harmful Intent](<a href=“http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627310001728]Neuron”>http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627310001728)</p>
<p>“Also, if morality is derived exclusively from religion (which it certainly does not, as has been persuasively established earlier), what accounts for the moral conduct observed in species incapable of religious or metaphysical thought?”</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what species is capable of moral conduct but incapable of religious or metaphysical thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I apologize. Apparently, it became lost in the clutter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Yes, indeed. My arguments have consistently argued in favor of such, as religious ideology, by its very foundation upon celestial being(s), fundamentally has no basis in reality.</p></li>
<li><p>Well, it is not socially prudent to denounce an individual’s set of beliefs, regardless of their perceived inanity, unless it is an open topic for public discussion. If one is not willing to candidly discuss such views on an equitable basis, then it is not so much reciprocated tolerance as it is a mere stance – and perhaps even a wish – for it to remain as a private concern.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have provided substantive reason in a relatively sizable proportion throughout this correspondence, including a portion of my previous post in which I re-quoted above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that instance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are not examining actual evidence of any kind if you are led to that conclusion since there is no existing justification to support your claim of a 6,000-year-old Earth. </p>
<p>Creation myths are simply ingrained in culture when a verifiable explanation dwells beyond epistemic limitations. Other distorted accounts of nature’s conception can be found below, all with the same lack of validity as the tale narrated within Genesis:</p>
<p>[Creation</a> myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth]Creation”>Creation myth - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but under no circumstances are you going to resolutely convince individuals that dinosaurs were magically created and fell extinct within the past 6,000 years. So you believe that they concurrently existed with man? The temporal requirements of dinosaur fossil formation extends beyond 6,000 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read the paper, as evolutionary bridges are a topic of considerable interest to me. It is indeed the most authoritative paper regarding the evolutionary basis of feather development. If you wish to actually read it, you may find it below (you may need to be patient with the loading time):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/200911/P020091104362654347399.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/200911/P020091104362654347399.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not the way in which science is genuinely conducted. It is quite apparent that stating such renders an uneducated, unsophisticated, and uninformed opinion regarding the way in which scientists actually coordinate research endeavors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the greatest degree of understatement, you are extremely misinformed. The evidence is in mind-blowing abundance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The below source explains the phenomenon with a marvelous clarity and on a much more rigorous basis than I am currently willing to:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/papers/ecal_hsge.pdf[/url]”>http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu/papers/ecal_hsge.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I exclusively quoted the part that was relevant and did not fundamentally change the message that you stated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, your beliefs have no rational or logical foundation, no basis in reality, no means of validly explaining our universe, are not testable against nature, appeal to emotion rather than reason, and are not subject to peer review.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did you obtain or dream up this “molecules in the brain” nonsense?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they do. Continuously holding true to a faith in a 6,000-year-old Earth is an exercise of irrational conservatism based on pseudo-intellectual foundations. Your view regarding the blemished nature of radiometric dating methods holds absolutely no authority with respect to observable fact. There is a profusion of substantive evidence regarding their verification, using independent and dissimilar radiometric procedures and through consistent findings with many non-radiometric means.</p>
<p>[CD010:</a> Radiometric Dating](<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html]CD010:”>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)</p>
<p>More regarding psychological matters:</p>
<p>It certainly is not puzzling to precisely rationalize why the Bible (or any separate holy book) has held such profound control over humanity. Religious doctrine probes into the very most delicate depths of human psychology and encases many of our greatest cognitive tendencies including agency detection, fear of the unknown (failure, mortality, the unfathomable, among others), social ritual and cohesiveness, and the need for a fraternal source of boundless comfort. </p>
<p>So although most individuals are inherently mistrustful regarding intellectual assertions, given the thematic elements explored within religious frameworks, it is clearly not difficult to account for why so many individuals tacitly embrace the precepts assimilated since early childhood. I mean it quite firmly that it is because of emotion, social influence, and intellectual uncertainty – rather than analytical or educated argument – as to why human nature finds religion and the supernatural to be such attractive conceptions. Many are quite unmindful of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Several many, actually. Below is an excerpt from a corresponding periodical feature regarding Marc Bekoff’s work in animal cognitive behavior:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Animals</a> can tell right from wrong - Telegraph](<a href=“Environment - The Telegraph”>Environment - The Telegraph)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be brainwashing if I simply believed that because I had been told that, or had read it in the bible. I believe that the world is likely closer to 6000 than 6 billion years old, because I feel that the world as we know it better explained in that way. I believe that the bible supports this view, but I may be wrong.</p>
<p>You act as though the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting is ridiculous. Why should it be, unless you have already assumed that they evolved over millions of years? If dinosaurs and humans DID coexist, then the many dragon legends make much more sense. There is no difficulty with dinosaurs dying off while humans survive: the world today provides countless examples of species that die off while humans survive just fine.</p>
<p>You seem to think that the existence of other religions whose members are just as devout invalidates a monotheistic viewpoint. Why should it? Truth isn’t a matter of a vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your reasoning, when translated out of 2400 SAT vocabulary, runs such:</p>
<p>1: Religious people propose an explanation for the universe.</p>
<p>2: This explanation is “It’s magic”.</p>
<p>3: This is not an explanation.</p>
<p>This is perfectly valid reasoning. The problem is that it can be equally applied to any belief set. In order to create any useful system with which to make predictions about the universe, it is necessary at some point to accept some properties of the universe as simply “magic”.</p>
<p>In regard to Origins, you say “the universe has certain base properties of energy from which all other properties are derived. These properties simply exist with no cause.”</p>
<p>I say “the universe has certain base properties of energy from which all other properties are derived. These properties were initiated by something outside of observable reality, which is defined here as ‘god’.”</p>
<p>Neither of our views are verifiable, and neither of our views are falsifiable. You find your view more probable, and I find mine more probable. The difference is that while I am willing to consider your view and compare it with the observed world, you reject my view from the start as logically impossible. Which it is. And which yours is also.</p>
<p>I think you and me agree much more than it would appear. I think that you misunderstand my beliefs, and by inference suspect that I may misunderstand yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have I asked you to believe my view because of that quote? Have I even suggested that that quote should cause you to look more favorably upon it? If so, allow me to correct that mistake, as naturally you, who do not accept the bible as truth, cannot be expected to admit it as evidence.</p>
<p>Human-dinosaur coexistence never happened. It’s pretty much a fact that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. That is validated through far more than one method or instance.</p>