I think you have dug to the heart of our disagreement.

First, you repeatedly state that religion is biological. I think that is partly accurate, but it's not that simple. I think religion itself is memetic, but the need to believe in something is biological. Religion is a symptom of our evolutionary need to believe/explain what we don't understand.

As for not being able to force evolution, we've been doing that - consciously or unconsciously - for thousands of years. While sterilizing the religious and only allowing atheists to breed might be one solution, I think the proper course is education combined with laws separating religion from the government.

While education doesn't work 100% of the time (as your example points out), it is pretty clear that those with more education have less religion. Nations with better education systems have less religious adherence and individuals with higher educations tend to have less religion. And the key words in those sentences are "less religion"; it doesn't mean less belief, it just re-aims that belief from religion to rational thought/science/etc.

Education is to religion as the scalpel is to the appendix - it removes the evolved, no longer useful, but still dangerous, problem.

With regards to it not being right to tell someone not to take comfort in that which comforts them, I partly agree. If it isn't harming anyone else, then I don't care what someone believes and I'm not going to get in their face about it (if they try to convert me though, they have opened the door and are fair game). But the line is drawn when someone's beliefs harm or pose a threat to the well-being of others. In that case, anyone who opposes equal rights (whether for homosexuals, women, non-religious) are fair game.

The issue I struggle with personally is the indoctrination of children. Having experienced that personally, knowing how that limited me (and harmed me, in some ways) I have difficulty allowing the indoctrination of children to go uncontested. But that's a different problem for another discussion


>> ^bareboards2:

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.
Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.
I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?
Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.
However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)

>> ^Skeeve:
I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.

Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.

I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?

Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.

However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)


>> ^Skeeve:

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.

But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.

Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.

Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

>> ^Jinx:

I just kept thinking that when my gut sprung a leak (well, my appendix anyway) the infection I got uncomfortably close to killing me and I needed a little more than spray on disinfectant and a course of antibiotics.
That is a crazy amount of plastic. I assume some of it is undigested plant matter but still. Wow. Poor cow.


As far as I know herbivore stomach contents are a lot less dangerous than omnivores like us. There isn't the same risk to the cow from internal contamination as there would be for a human. Also, remember that when an infected appendix bursts what it's spewing into your body isn't the normal contents of the gut but rather highly infectious matter from the swollen infected appendix.

I'm not a Vet, nor medically trained (I just have a decent background knowledge of biology due to having grown up with an A level biology teacher for a mother) so I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong, but it would be a completely bizarre thing for a vet to do if it there were the same risks. It's obviously had a good dose of local anesthetic and to be fair, it didn't look like it was going to have the best of chances without the surgery!

I'm amazed how much plastic there was, it just didn't look big enough to have that much inside it.

I just kept thinking that when my gut sprung a leak (well, my appendix anyway) the infection I got uncomfortably close to killing me and I needed a little more than spray on disinfectant and a course of antibiotics.

That is a crazy amount of plastic. I assume some of it is undigested plant matter but still. Wow. Poor cow.

Actually, he stated that the Bush figure was also over the same length of time: "how many did George Bush, I wonder, propose in the same time period in his first term?"

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

What the heck does spending tax money have to do with this?

Obama is utterly disregarding the Constitution? I'd assume you loved Reagan. Show me one thing Obama did that violates the Constitution more than the Iran-Contra Affair under Reagan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).
Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.
Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.


I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

It's never explained if Bush's 643 is over 8 years versus 613 for Odumbo's 3.5 years. We all know who spent more tax money (and uselessly).

Bush was a liberal (bailouts/scamulus) except on foreign policy. He spent like an amateur liberal, rubber-stamping everything that slipped onto his desk. We'll never know what he'd have done had there been no muslim attacks.

Really, how long is the left going to keep defending this inflamed appendix of a fraudsident? The Kenyawaiian's gift to all of us is a complete disregard for the Constitution. We are sitting out the reign of this dangerous, clueless and corrupt regime, then hopefully it's back to business.



I want you to know posts like this are not calculated to offend. Rs aren't much better right now, but I am genuinely scared shirtless for this country with the current regime of lawless clowns at the helm.

I always go back to evolution.

Humans have, since the beginning, striven to "understand." We evolved over the thousands of years with this "defect."

I think it isn't a defect. I think it gave us an evolutionary advantage somehow. Otherwise, it would have gone the way of the appendix.

Doesn't make me like it, but it also means there is no point in trying to argue someone out of their beliefs. It is a waste of effort. They've got some gene, or brain structure, or something, that makes them susceptible to needing this kind of structure in their lives to make sense of it "all."

I like what the atheists are doing with their billboards and TV appearances -- concentrate on GENERAL education. Get the 'rational' word out there, as a life line to those poor folks born into households of faith and don't know that there is an alternative.

An It Gets Better project for non-believers, if you will.



In reply to this comment by Phreezdryd:
>> ^bareboards2:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Phreezdryd" title="member since October 17th, 2010" class="profilelink">Phreezdryd, I read your comment (and agree wholeheartedly!). You underestimated my ability to skip over certain loooooooooong back and forths.

I tried to read a lot of the above.

Mormonism starts with a known con artist. Scientology starts with an apparently well medicated science fiction author, and possibly on a bet. Christianity didn't exactly begin in the friendliest of climates, and we may never know who actually started it, besides what the text claims. The list goes on of course across the planet.

Not to mention all the "cults" that have ended badly, or still skirt the edges of society today. Even the people who just believe in their personal psychic or tarot cards, astrology, etc.

The mind boggles at this effort throughout history to answer things possibly unknowable. And that's evidence enough for me to think none of them have a clue.

He'd be accepting and loving them... in the ass!

Re: God makes no mistakes. Appendix, motherfucker! Kanye West. THE BLACK DEATH!!

You might want to read up on that.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^zombieater:
"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.

Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

>> ^zombieater:

"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.


Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Lots of misinformation


1) Check your numbers on Wikipedia. Hint: They're incorrect. Recessions are always expensive for the government. Bush Sr managed to double our debt in 4 years, but that was largely because a recession killed our revenues. The true irresponsibility is putting policies in place that hemorrhage money when the economy is strong. Bush Jr managed to rack up $400 billion a year in debt when the economy was growing. Right now 1/3 of our deficit is Bush largesse. 1/3 is lost revenues from a weak economy. 1/3 is Obama's attempts to fix the economy.

2) This is hard to gauge. If there were no tea party, and S&P demanded $4tr in cuts, I could imagine us getting the grand bargain that Obama and Boehner tried for. When the chips are down, serious republicans are willing to raise revenues if it's part of a large packet of cuts. The existence of the tea party makes such a compromise unlikely. But maybe it wouldn't have happened anyway.

3) The federal government is mandated to pay each retiree a certain amount in social security. It is mandated to pay for seniors medical treatment whatever it costs. It is mandated to pay for veteran's medical treatment. It is mandated to give assistance to the unemployed. Blaming spending growth on greedy bureaucrats is completely misplaced. The programs are in place, and as more people get old, go to war, or lose their jobs, these outlays will grow. For the next decade they will grow faster than our economy, that's just demography. If you want to cut some of these programs, go ahead and advocate for that. But don't pretend there will be no consequences for the individuals who use them.

I don't know if you're being deliberately stupid, or what..I never claimed everything recorded in the bible has been proven archaelogically as of yet..what I did say however is that it has never, and that is, not once, been proven historically inaccurate..ever..on the contrary, thousands of discoveries have confirmed its 100 historical reliability. Pretty good track record for a bunch of myths, huh? This contridicts your claim that it is historically unreliable, which just shows that you don't know anything about history. The bible has been *the* source for historical information up until more recently..a large part of what we know about ancient history came from the bible.

I'll endulge you in your challenge though..

evidence of solomons temple http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071023-jerusalem-artifacts.html

evidence of exodus: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

evidence of red sea parting is inconclusive..someone found chariot wheels but it hasnt been accurately verified and eygpt wont let anyone in there




>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":
1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.
If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.
>> ^kceaton1:
Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.

I'm inclined to agree.
P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?


Okay alternate reality boy, please provide references to any archeologically valid physical evidence of any of these biblical "events":

1) Jewish slavery in Egypt.
2) The parting of the Red Sea.
3) A decades long genocidal rampage in the desert.
4) The construction of Solomons Temple.

If you can even get yourself past the falsehoods in the Pentateuch then we can move on the all the nonsense in your gospels.

>> ^kceaton1:

Shiny, I think the problem is that you are using source A for data and everyone else uses sources B,C, and appendix D.


I'm inclined to agree.

P.S. Please use the quote feature when responding to comments, so that those you are responding to get an e-mail.