I took my kids to the Natural Science Museum last month and we had a blast, learned a lot. Reading plaques around exhibits such as petrified wood, reconstructed dinosaur fossils, fiber optic data transmission, I came across this huge cluster of crystal. I stared at the crystal for some time, examining all its facets, and all the while couldn't shake the feeling that I was looking at the product of someone's labor. It was like looking at a painting and imagining the painter.

I was raised in an uber-religious family. I was home schooled (Christian curriculum, chock full of biblical references and "Bible" subject), punctuated by periods of off-and-on Christian private school (when my parents could afford it) until high school. I went to church every Sunday, Wednesday night, and attended random evening bible studies with my parents' bible study group. For a long time we were part of Mennonite or Mennonite-esque groups (some of them evolving into strange cult-like situations). I have read the Bible several times over and have probably known and forgotten more about Christianity than some ministers ever learn. None of this was voluntary on my part. I don't remember when I stopped believing; I think maybe because I never believed from the beginning. All I remember is feeling like a kid who is too old for Santa Claus but continues to pretend for the sake of his parents' happiness.

One good thing that came out of it, is that I was exposed to the existence of theories contrary to evolution and "the big bang." I did not believe the contrary theory (creationism) or the mainstream theory but just knowing that there is room for multiple explanations led me to be skeptical of everything. I do not believe that we are the product of a bunch of random happenings. The idea that a series of billions of instances of being in the right place at the right time led to intelligent life is just as unlikely to me as the idea that the "The God I Am" created it all.

I think all religions were primarily created to satisfy man's question of existence, and secondarily as a tool to control the masses. That includes Atheism. I consider modern Atheism to be a religion too; just look at the way Atheists act - like religious zealots. Prominent atheists (ex: Bill Nye the "science" guy) will go on TV and shame anyone who disagrees with them in the most virulent way possible.

I love science, and the scientific method. I think that sometimes we just need to admit when we really have no clue about something. I think that our own existence is something that we currently can't explain with any rational theory and that we need to keep our minds open to any possibility. Intelligent design is one theory that I ponder, although I have no idea who the "creator" might be, I haven't been given a plausible explanation by any religion, and I have studied several. I went through a phase after leaving home, looking for answers, and found nothing but snake oil. Eventually gave up. I have let it rest in the back of my mind for years. This small moment experienced in the Museum has partially rekindled my curiosity so I consult a group of intelligent people. What do you guys think/feel/believe?

 

Religious topic. Locked pending review.

Moderator edit: This thread is now unlocked but will be closely monitored for any contentious issues. If we can maintain a civilized discussion on the topic the thread will remain open.

 

I have often pondered about these two questions:

1) At what point does an organism have feelings? We may agree that a rock has no feelings whereas a dog or bird has.
Does a plant or tree have feelings? Does an earthworm have feelings? An amoeba, protozoa?
We can accept that a plant cell is a living organism. Where is that dividing line between consciousness and unconsciousness?

2) The mystery of cell division. Why does a cell divide? How does it know when to divide?

I asked a respected biology professor these two questions and received a very unsatisfactory answer:

"It would serve no purpose to know the answer."

 

Hooray for the democratic process! The thread has been rescued (for now) - Thank you Mod Team!
Now please let's not get it shut down with verbal fist fighting.

I would like to discuss this topic fully. I am interested to hear anyone's beliefs, knowledge, or lack thereof. In a respectful manner.

 

I also dislike the word Atheist to some degree, I like the response Neil deGrasse-Tyson said in response to the question of whether he was a Atheist, "First, I don't describe myself by something I am not, for example, If someone asked me what my interest were, I would not start by saying for example 'I am NOT a golfer' "
If I were to place a label on my beliefs I would say I am an Evolutionist, I have seen enough events in my life which have deterred me and turned me away from the religious upbringing I received as a child.
One of the things I am sorry to see is the brain washing of the young, that there is one area that that you cannot and should not question.
As one of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins says in one of his books, there is no such thing as a Jewish/Muslim/Christian child etc, they are children raised by Jewish/Muslim/Christian parents.
I have no problem with anyone using a religious edict in order to instill moral and ethical beliefs, but only if they are told as parables and stories, not the literal truth.
Remember what happened to Galileo!
Amen.
Max.

 

I was raised in the Episcopal Church, by a Roman Catholic Mother and a hypcritical Father. Recognizing the absurdity of this combination led me to conclude that church and religion were offering me nothing that I needed. I regard this as a highly personal choice which has absolutely no applicability to society at large. As a result I am highly tolerant of the views of other people insofar as those views are rooted in logic and reason. I respect people with views that depend on faith, but find myself unwilling to subscribe to those views. Their lack of willingness to accept that situation leads me to avoid discussing the mater with such people.

 

This topic has ways fascinated me. While scientific method is sound, many do not apply it properly, but simply seek puzzle pieces to fit/support the theory. The biggest problem I think is that our senses are so limited in this vast universe...

Religion serves its purpose - control of the masses. It serves it well. Its presence and strength today also shows that we are no different from how we were several millenia ago. We just have iphones and electricity...

 

I consider modern Atheism to be a religion too

My favourite antidote to this statement is: "Atheism is just another religion in the same way that off is just another TV channel"

Don't know where the quote comes from.

 

I would like to clarify on Evolution before anyone questions that.
I believe in Evolution. It is observable. what I have trouble believing is the extent to which it is claimed to explain our existence.
That a single cell organism evolved into a fish, into a lizard, into something else, into a monkey, into a human.
THAT is what I struggle with.

 

My favourite antidote to this statement is: "Atheism is just another religion in the same way that off is just another TV channel"

Don't know where the quote comes from.

I hear what you're saying.
But I can't hear the OFF channel.
I sure can hear the Atheist channel though. Very vocal, for reasons that escape me.

For example, every Christmas (or winter holiday observance of your choosing) there is some stink on the news about Atheist backlash against public nativity scenes.
Why does the OFF channel have any fight against it?
I can understand why people of other religions might find it offensive, because it contradicts their beliefs. But if you have no beliefs then what gives?
I have no beliefs and nativity scenes do not affect me in the least; neither do religious displays of other religions.

 

I tend to believe in Panspermia. More and and more astrobiologist are coming to that theory too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
https://www.google.com/search?q=panspermia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

I would like to clarify on Evolution before anyone questions that.
I believe in Evolution. It is observable. what I have trouble believing is the extent to which it is claimed to explain our existence.
That a single cell organism evolved into a fish, into a lizard, into something else, into a monkey, into a human.
THAT is what I struggle with.

I on the other hand have no problem with that concept whatsoever, I recall some recent letters to the editor here on the question, and one deeply religious soul appeared deeply offended at the idea that we may have climbed out of some primordial slime as he put it!
Max.

 

Interesting statistic!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
Max.

 

I on the other hand have no problem with that concept whatsoever

I would be less skeptical if there more fossil evidence of the transitionary species. For example the chart in every science classroom showing the progression from chimp to man, and the talk of "the missing link." To my understanding there is more than one missing link; in fact there is no fossil record for most of the primates on that chart. The ones for which there is an actual record, it is shaky at best. One or two examples dug from a pit of other bones. I'm no archeologist so my calling their work into question holds little water, but as a layman it is hard for me to be confident that they know what they are talking about.

Edit:
If archeology is anything like meteorology, then they could be wrong as often as they are right. Just like the weather forecast.

 

I hear what you're saying.
But I can't hear the OFF channel.
I sure can hear the Atheist channel though. Very vocal, for reasons that escape me.

For example, every Christmas (or winter holiday observance of your choosing) there is some stink on the news about Atheist backlash against public nativity scenes.
Why does the OFF channel have any fight against it?
I can understand why people of other religions might find it offensive, because it contradicts their beliefs. But if you have no beliefs then what gives?
I have no beliefs and nativity scenes do not affect me in the least; neither do religious displays of other religions.

I think a big part of their problem is that they are opposed to having the taxpayer being forced to pay taxes to fund religious displays. I can understand that. A reasonable (in my mind) accommodation is to allow privately funded displays to be placed on public property in such a way that all faiths have reasonable access. Of course, while this is acceptable to the majority of atheists, it is loudly and vocally rejected by a fairly small minority. For many of them, it isn't a matter of insisting that their beliefs not be encroached on, it is a matter of insisting their others must be coerced to share their beliefs. While that is a trait that we often associate with religion -- and thus use it as a means of claiming that atheism is a religion -- I believe it is not intrinsic at all to religion, but is rather a very human trait completely independent of religion.

 

I would be less skeptical if there more fossil evidence of the transitionary species. For example the chart in every science classroom showing the progression from chimp to man, and the talk of "the missing link." To my understanding there is more than one missing link; in fact there is no fossil record for most of the primates on that chart. The ones for which there is an actual record, it is shaky at best. One or two examples dug from a pit of other bones. I'm no archeologist so my calling their work into question holds little water, but as a layman it is hard for me to be confident that they know what they are talking about.

Edit:
If archeology is anything like meteorology, then they could be wrong as often as they are right. Just like the weather forecast.

I think a big part of that is that the fossil record is simply such an extreme undersampling of the evolutionary trail.

A vanishingly small number of organism ever become fossils and they tend to be heavily clumped -- fossil beds represent a relatively dense packing of some of the organisms in existence at a certain time and place. But the overwhelming majority of organisms leave no direct traces whatsoever.

It might be akin to being given a thousand articles of clothing spanning ten thousand years or so of human history worldwide, with clumps of dozens of articles all taken from a small region over a handful of years, and then being tasked with describing and explaining all of the fashion trends throughout history and being taken to task because you don't have articles backing up your explanation for how one type of garment is related to another type of garment separated by several thousand miles and years.

Another part is that the explanations that make it to the general population are almost always given in concrete terms with little hint of uncertainty. But when you actually talk to these folks, they are actually always pointing out how little information they are working with and how much speculation is involved and how much the details of the best explanations are always shifting and changing.

 

I would like to clarify on Evolution before anyone questions that.
I believe in Evolution. It is observable. what I have trouble believing is the extent to which it is claimed to explain our existence.
That a single cell organism evolved into a fish, into a lizard, into something else, into a monkey, into a human.
THAT is what I struggle with.

I think that struggle is probably based in the inability of the human mind to grasp the vast scale of time and parallel processing that is involved.

 

while this is acceptable to the majority of atheists, it is loudly and vocally rejected by a fairly small minority. For many of them, it isn't a matter of insisting that their beliefs not be encroached on, it is a matter of insisting their others must be coerced to share their beliefs. While that is a trait that we often associate with religion -- and thus use it as a means of claiming that atheism is a religion -- I believe it is not intrinsic at all to religion, but is rather a very human trait completely independent of religion.

You're probably right about that, it's probably just a small minority. But the issue seems to be bigger than it probably is because of how much publicity the outspoken people receive.

Still though, there seems to be a lot of support by the quiet majority. If you don't mind a quick departure from the nativity scene example, let's go back to Bill Nye from my first post. If you Google "Bill Nye destroys" you will find all kinds of videos where Bill Nye systematically disassembles all kinds of people's beliefs, like creationism, global warming, vaccinations, Etc. He is well within his rights to do that and I even agree with a lot of his videos. He is one of the outspoken minority, but I see his videos posted on my Facebook all the time by people who don't voice their own opinions they just use him to do it. Him and a handful of other prominent people in the scientific Community are doing it. It's my impression that most of the quiet majority support them.

And that leaves me with another question, why is there no Bill Nye destroys Islam video or Bill Nye destroys Hinduism or Bill Nye destroys Greek mythology? Why does The Atheist outlash always seem to be aimed at Christianity? I don't have a dog in this fight but I would just like to know. I'm guessing Probably because Christianity is the religion most often forced upon people here in America. And it might have something to do with the amount of time that has elapsed since Christians beheaded people for non-belief (safe target).

 

I think that struggle is probably based in the inability of the human mind to grasp the vast scale of time and parallel processing that is involved.

Yeah for sure. It hurts my head to think about it. My parents heads are probably pain-free, confident in their understanding that the world is only a few thousand years old. I envy them.

Edit:
Have you ever seen that video where they represent the national debt with stacks of hundred dollar bills? Similar concept.

 

For example the chart in every science classroom showing the progression from chimp to man, and the talk of "the missing link." .

Although here you are talking here about Very recent history!
Max.