Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Or are we a product of an outrageously long chain of biological evolution, of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Just as a man can throw a seed on the ground and it’ll germinate and EVOLVE into a tree over time, so too can a God throw a “seed” that evolves into a universe and everything within it.

It is therefore OK to marry evolution with creation!

The question is: What makes you think that the universe was seeded by something else? Do you have any evidence for this?

If your only answer is "because everything necessarily has to be created by somebody else" then that necessarily means that "God" would have to also be created by somebody else, in which case we go to the infinite loop issue.

If you accept that there can be at least one thing that doesn't necessarily need to be created by something else, then why that thing can not be the universe, since you have no evidence whatsoever that there is something beyond the universe?

Also you now say that it is OK to marry evolution with creation. Now, after science has proven evolution. The "holly" books which supposedly contain the word of "God" say nothing about evolution or any "seeds", but some other stupid fairy tales. It is similar to the "earth center of the universe" case. The "holly" books show that earth is the center of the universe, and religious leaders where trying to defend this view for as long as they could. When they were defeated they tried to "marry" the truth, with the nonsense that was written in their "holly" books.

Everything we know we learned it thought science. "God" never taught us anything new, because in fact there was never any God that came to earth and all the other usual bollocks. The "holly" books where written by people about 2000 years ago, and what is written in them reflects only the knowledge that people had 2000 years ago, and absolutely nothing more.

[baby-come-fly-with-me]

Your all living in SIN and Nikitas this ones for you...with faces like smacked arses..whoop whoop!

[bill cobbett]

Or are we a product of an outrageously long chain of biological evolution, of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Just as a man can throw a seed on the ground and it’ll germinate and EVOLVE into a tree over time, so too can a God throw a “seed” that evolves into a universe and everything within it.

It is therefore OK to marry evolution with creation!

One of the points about Evolution through Natural Selection, given a starting point or "seed" as GR calls it, is its Inevitable Progress towards evermore complex biological systems but it remains a Natural process.

So does it start at this "seed" stage with a Mysterious Hand of God? Or is there, given the right conditions, something inevitable, something completely natural that does not require outside divine interference even this "seed" stage and indeed before the "seed" stage?

Before the "seed" stage? Well, the experiments were done decades ago. Take the simple molecules that were around on the Earth billions of years ago, put them in a container, add some water and some electrical sparks (to simulate lightning) and within a few weeks more complcated chemical compounds like amino acids are produced. Given enough time and longer and longer chained compounds are produced.

The "seed" stage itself is a matter of inquiry but current best bet theories centre around an early form of the self-replicating chemical RNA.

In this way, a completely natural and inevitable pathway is mapped out from simple and common compounds to us and the rest of life.

[Paphitis]

Diversity is an old chest nut used by those for a variety of reasons, but I think those that preach social diversity have really taken it to the extreme and allowed things to get out of control. A watered down version of Sharia Law is being practiced in the UK, in the name of 'human diversity'. The world has gone mad...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 749183.ece

Also, human diversity means that adults are free to raise their children in accordance with their own faith, which does not seem so bad, but when you consider that infants are often labeled as either a Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant child, when they have not even had a chance to to to make up their own mind by analyzing and comparing all faiths, creationism and evolution, we all turn a blind eye saying "how wonderful it is that our society is so diverse and rich". However, if someone was to label their infant child as a Communist, Fascist, Marxist or Socialist, then we would be disgusted and yet the 2 are similar when you think about it.

And yes, I do believe that the world would be a better place if there were no religions, and I believe religiosity will diminish over time....

Now that's what I call evolution...

Anyway, thanks for the links and the lesson....

Oh and btw...which of the above 7 options best fits your view about the existence of the omnipotent almighty deity?

Talisker wrote:

Attempting to control or reduce human diversity led to the Holocaust in 1930s and 40s Europe - extreme example, but worth considering!

You can also control it through education. For example, Governments could remove all religious content from schools, and over time, future generations will 'evolve' and become less religious and more liberal.

Talisker wrote:

Yes, it is difficult to find the correct balance between tolerance and maintaining uniform structures within society, but I personally would prefer liberalism to suppression.

A world without religion would be more liberal. It just so happens that the biggest suppressors of human kind, thought and reason, are those who have or try to inflict upon society their dogma of thought control, guilt, and intolerance. Religions are probably the biggest violator of civil liberties and are mostly intolerant to other belief structures, women, and gays.

Talisker wrote:

As for Sharia law in the UK, this is being applied only in appropriate cases and in a very limited manner. I don't particularly agree with this change, as I believe all UK citizens should live within the same legal and judicial system, but the fact is that this is a highly multicultural society these days, and so long as the systems used (mainly in social and financial disputes as I understand it) are fair and humane, then I can put up with it (possibly and selfishly because it is unlikely to affect me!).

Australia is also a multicultural society but will never allow the implementation of Sharia Law, no matter how limited. Migrants who choose to adopt a new country, must also learn to adopt that nation's legal and cultural institutions IMHO.

So is Australia less tolerate than Britain, or does Australia have reasonable expectations of conformity for new arrivals within its very own cultural, ethical and legal structures?

The fact that Britain has legalized Sharia Law, in a limited manner, could also mean that in your eagerness to appear most "liberal", then you are opening the possibility that these restrictions could be removed down the track, as the Muslim community becomes larger and larger and more influential. Is this going to pave the way to stonings, amputations, and beheadings?

In fact your links provide excellent examples of typical right-wing press reporting with the usual racial and cultural prejudices to the fore. For example, the Daily Telegraph headline refers to '40% of Muslims wanting Sharia Law in the UK' but neglects to highlight the fact a greater proportion (41%) were not in favour. This is pretty typical of the majority of the UK press reporting on multicultural Britain.

I think the article was highlighting the fact that 40% is indeed a significant number, and so I did not see the prejudice.

Nevertheless, I keep forgetting that the Daily Telegraph is considered a neoconservative paper with somewhat strange, one sided and prejudiced views. In Australia, we also have a Daily Telegraph. This newspaper is more 'straight shooting' and less conservative if you will. Both papers are owned by Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

Media bias is a very interesting topic. As you may know, my wife was a journalist and worked for News Limited, the world's biggest news empire owned by Rupert Murdock. She, on occasion, wrote some high impact pieces which ended up on the front pages of other News Limited newspapers and magazines all over the world, one of which was also Britain's Daily Telegraph. Is my wife conservative? No she is not. She is just a simple GC girl. Is she biased? No I don't think so, except when it comes to Cyprus.

I should also point out, that the UK's Daily Telegraph is on my hit list due to an article they published about EOKA, not too long ago...

Anyway, all of the above is just a side note, and I have digressed from the topic.

Talisker wrote:

You mentioned the issue of children being brought up with a faith dictated by the wishes of the parents. I have no issue with that at all - most parents want their offspring to 'fit in' to their respective societies, and the major religions are not generally at odds with the general social structures or morals or laws of countries where they are practiced. Indeed they often attempt to influence societal change. Of course, you don't have to be a fundamentalist, or even intermittent practitioner, of any religion to teach your children 'Thou shalt not kill'. If you choose to focus on a few controversial paraphrases or take each line of the major religious texts literally, as you were highlighting earlier, then it is possible to consider religion to be a 'bad' thing with 'evil' messages. However, I consider the testaments to be ancient stories with different interpretations depending on the overall context or translation, and, in my opinion, much of it should be taken with a pinch of salt (I obviously don't believe in the story that is related in Genesis - after all, I am a scientist, not a creationist, but to my mind choosing to discount the creationist story does not equate to there being no God). We should though, remember that there are more people in the world believing in some sort of spirituality than those who do not. Why should that be? For religions to survive they must be able to support and sustain their congregations - there is a natural evolution there too, they must adapt to, or influence, the changing world or they will die. So, of course there are battles within and between religions regarding the way forward for their various flocks - as already highlighted we hear about the extreme Jihad-declaring Muslim clerics and not the (majority) peaceful, the anti-abortion or anti-contraception Christians and not those who are less radical in their views, etc.

I was more referring to the labeling of infants as Christian, or Muslim. This too is mentioned in Richard Dawkins' book, which I found quite intriguing in many ways, since the guy does have some very interesting and out there views, most of which I find difficult to disagree with.

Parents do indeed want their children to fit in to their own respective societies by passing on to them their own misconceptions, and belief structures. This in essence does breed some intolerance, because practitioners of a certain faith believe that their own dogma is correct, when in actual fact there are dozens more, and also the proven scientific facts preached by Charles Darwin's Natural Selection and Richard Dawkins' philosophy, amongst many others. This raises another very interesting question. If all religious practitioners believe their own dogma is the only correct belief structure, then which dogma is correct? There can only be 1 correct religious dogma if God does exist, so which one is it? Who is correct and who is wrong?

Religious practitioners are always trying to influence change and are always telling us what we should be doing and thinking. Many of these influences are very regressive when you consider the fundamentalists stance against stem cell research, abortion, same sex marriages and their insistence that God is something that should never be under any sought of scientific scrutiny, because we humans are unable to comprehend such grandeur(also GRs very dismall and pathetic argument ). But I think you would agree, that when someone asserts that the universe was magically created by an omnipotent God, and that God created earth 6,000 years ago, then these beliefs, amongst others, should be scrutinized by science, and either be proven as fact or be totally dismissed. Many religious fundamentalists still insist on creationism and dismiss all scientific facts as all religious texts are accepted for their literal meaning. This for me, could potentially lead to a crazed religious zealot, gaining the ascendancy in the US (George W Bush) and instigate an apocalyptic tragedy, because for some fundamentalists, the end of life on earth is something to look forward to.

Furthermore, humans don't require religion for their moral guidance. Thou shalt not kill is accepted as the norm by both the religious and non religious. In fact, the ten commandments are still widely accepted as very normal ethical principles. So an atheist is just as likely to adhere to good moral behavior as a religious zealot. I wold even say, that the Agnostic or Atheist, are probably more moral as they are probably better equipped to not discriminate against homosexuals or women. They have a raised consciousness.

Also, I have not stated that there is no God. I can't prove that God does not exist because so far we don't have the scientific data. However, I do strongly believe that it is only a matter of time when you consider the pace of scientific development in the 20th and 21st century. Imagine what science will uncover over the next few centuries. It is quite difficult to comprehend, and perhaps the scenes we see on the big screen from Star Trek and such like might become a reality in the not too distant future. I also believe that religiosity will go through a slow and gradual demise over the next few generations, particularly in the liberal west. The poorer east will surely follow, but they will lag behind. Faith, as we know it today, will evolve into something entirely different, and into something more acceptable to our modern times and be less insulting to our intelligence, or a belief in an omnipotent spirit will die even before scientific data finally proves its non existence.

Talisker wrote:

You asked to which of the seven options in Dawkins spectrum I subscribe. Well, not the first or the seventh - I'm not 100% sure of anything when it comes to religion and spirituality, and basically vacillate between the other five depending on what is happening in my life at the time. After all, and this is the most important influencing factor, I am a Libran , and can never make my mind up about anything. Religious tolerance is a good thing, but what about those Leos? Bunch of complete and utter tossers, eh? Undoubtedly should be wiped from the face of the Earth!

As stated above, I believe religion breeds intolerance in itself. Also, I don't consider myself intolerant to religion in itself, but I can't bring myself to tolerate their intolerance, discrimination, self righteousness, psychological manipulations and guilt trips. Some of the world's worst conflicts have indeed occurred due to Religious Fundamentalism.

Thanks for answering my question...

I will now re-phrase the question.

Which of the above remaining 5 options do you subscribe to, as a Libran, considering your present personal circumstances as they stand now?

I voted for de facto atheist, but I am very close to leaning towards strong atheism, as I don't exactly have the means to discount theism totally, and therefore have an extremely ever so tiny element of doubt until science finally comes up trumps.

BTW, I think you're intolerant to Leos.....

[Oracle]

I think Get Real! is actually fed up with life and the Universe and imagines instead there must be something else which remains romantically untouchable for which we have no explanation .... so that there is a reason to go on.

This is probably the drive behind most people grasping to a God

It has already been proven that psychologically depressed people benefit from "believing" in a God.

That God can come and go like that, in peoples MIND, is further proof he is an instinctive "FEELING" we have developed, for survival, over thousands of years and it may take that long, again, for 99% of the people to accept that.

These people who are more likely to FEEL better explaining things with an imaginary concept, like God, are also the ones most likely to fantasise they still have a limb after it has been removed and even though they can see it is missing .... they still FEEL it is there.

[Get Real!]

God, doesn’t have to have the image of man as some like to assume, he doesn’t even have to have any connection with the stories in the Bible for those that are troubled by the authenticity thereof, in fact he doesn’t even have to have anything to do with “earthly” religious dogmas for those who don’t like or trust religious scholars.

You don’t need any of the earthly religious “knowledge” to know that there’s a MASSIVE LIVING ENTITY we call the universe of which we are a microscopic part.

This thing we call “natural” or “nature” is a living force so whether God is the “universe” itself, or “mother nature”, or both, doesn’t matter! What matters is that there’s a mysterious MASSIVE LIVING ORGANISM we call the “universe” which is so huge, so complex, so powerful, so breathtaking, that it is worthy of being called God!

[Talisker]

Australia is also a multicultural society but will never allow the implementation of Sharia Law, no matter how limited. Migrants who choose to adopt a new country, must also learn to adopt that nation's legal and cultural institutions IMHO.

So is Australia less tolerate than Britain, or does Australia have reasonable expectations of conformity for new arrivals within its very own cultural, ethical and legal structures?

The fact that Britain has legalized Sharia Law, in a limited manner, could also mean that in your eagerness to appear most "liberal", then you are opening the possibility that these restrictions could be removed down the track, as the Muslim community becomes larger and larger and more influential. Is this going to pave the way to stonings, amputations, and beheadings?

Never say never! I'm sure post-WW2 UK citizens are amazed at the changes that have occurred in British society even within a single lifetime. Personally, I believe that tolerance within the UK population is both it's greatest strength and weakness. Immigrants to the UK should have been encouraged, nay forced, to integrate far more, and then we'd have less issues with imposition of laws for this vocal minority.

I keep forgetting that the Daily Telegraph is considered a neoconservative paper with somewhat strange, one sided and prejudiced views. In Australia, we also have a Daily Telegraph. This newspaper is more 'straight shooting' and less conservative if you will. Both papers are owned by Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

Media bias is a very interesting topic. As you may know, my wife was a journalist and worked for News Limited, the world's biggest news empire owned by Rupert Murdock. She, on occasion, wrote some high impact pieces which ended up on the front pages of other News Limited newspapers and magazines all over the world, one of which was also Britain's Daily Telegraph. Is my wife conservative? No she is not. She is just a simple GC girl. Is she biased? No I don't think so, except when it comes to Cyprus.

I should also point out, that the UK's Daily Telegraph is on my hit list due to an article they published about EOKA, not too long ago...

Anyway, all of the above is just a side note, and I have digressed from the topic.

Actually, you're wrong about ownership of the UK Daily Telegraph - it is not owned by Rupert Murdoch (in the UK he owns The Times, and the taboids The Sun, and The 'News' of the World). The DT is owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3412517.stm) who use their immense wealth to force change where it suits them. Just to give some info - they live on a small island adjacent to the Channel island of Sark (http://www.sark.info/), a unique place within the UK in forbidding car ownership and use, thereby attracting a certain type of resident and visitor, and definitely having a different 'feel' to the other Channel Islands (I've visited on a sailing holiday and loved it!). For their own interests the Barclay brothers forced through a democratisation of the feudal system that existed there for hundreds of years which has resulted in many individuals losing their livelihoods on Sark (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/7779135.stm).

Parents do indeed want their children to fit in to their own respective societies by passing on to them their own misconceptions, and belief structures. This in essence does breed some intolerance, because practitioners of a certain faith believe that their own dogma is correct, when in actual fact there are dozens more, and also the proven scientific facts preached by Charles Darwin's Natural Selection and Richard Dawkins' philosophy, amongst many others. This raises another very interesting question. If all religious practitioners believe their own dogma is the only correct belief structure, then which dogma is correct? There can only be 1 correct religious dogma if God does exist, so which one is it? Who is correct and who is wrong?

I don't subscribe to the view that any particular religion is 'right' and all others 'wrong', and indeed that they have 'different' Gods. If there is a God, and that is what we are discussing within this thread, then God can appear in different guises to different peoples and religions. So, to me this is a facile argument. God sits above religions, which after all are dictated in structure and content by humans - e.g. the Bible as I mentioned previously (and Piratis has also noted) is a collection of stories written by human beings - in fact, if I remember correctly from my youth when, at parental insistence, I attended church, the first four books of the new testament tell the same story but the different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, provide different descriptions and interpretations in telling that same story. I don't believe the Bible to be the direct word of God.

Religious practitioners are always trying to influence change and are always telling us what we should be doing and thinking. Many of these influences are very regressive when you consider the fundamentalists stance against stem cell research, abortion, same sex marriages and their insistence that God is something that should never be under any sought of scientific scrutiny, because we humans are unable to comprehend such grandeur(also GRs very dismall and pathetic argument ). But I think you would agree, that when someone asserts that the universe was magically created by an omnipotent God, and that God created earth 6,000 years ago, then these beliefs, amongst others, should be scrutinized by science, and either be proven as fact or be totally dismissed. Many religious fundamentalists still insist on creationism and dismiss all scientific facts as all religious texts are accepted for their literal meaning. This for me, could potentially lead to a crazed religious zealot, gaining the ascendancy in the US (George W Bush) and instigate an apocalyptic tragedy, because for some fundamentalists, the end of life on earth is something to look forward to.

Even if it is proved that every word within the Bible is bollocks, such as I believe science and Darwinism is doing to 'The Creation Story', this does not disprove the existence of God. Similarly, for all other religious texts - incremental discreditation does not mean there is no God. That requires definitive proof. We can't predict what science will unravel - the different dimensions within the Universe are slowly being discovered and understood, but there is still a long way to go before the existence of God is definitively proven (or not) by science. Even as a trained and practicing scientist I find it a worthwhile exercise to stand back and think about the number of major examples where science has got it competely wrong (still occurring today and costing thousands of lives). Recommend you read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goodacre - a truly excellent book. Also a good website at: http://www.badscience.net/

My issues with Dawkins are his tendency to focus on religious extremists to make his point - he ignores the fact that many societies are supported by an integral religion, and on the individual level many people draw huge comfort from their faith.

We've already discussed fundamentalists, or extremists as I prefer to call them, of any religion, and the dangers they pose to us all when they gain power. The moderate majority must ensure extremists are kept on the margins of society, and are not allowed to 'lead'. Hence my relief that GeorgeW is not in the White House any more.

Furthermore, humans don't require religion for their moral guidance. Thou shalt not kill is accepted as the norm by both the religious and non religious. In fact, the ten commandments are still widely accepted as very normal ethical principles. So an atheist is just as likely to adhere to good moral behavior as a religious zealot. I wold even say, that the Agnostic or Atheist, are probably more moral as they are probably better equipped to not discriminate against homosexuals or women. They have a raised consciousness.

Also, I have not stated that there is no God. I can't prove that God does not exist because so far we don't have the scientific data. However, I do strongly believe that it is only a matter of time when you consider the pace of scientific development in the 20th and 21st century. Imagine what science will uncover over the next few centuries. It is quite difficult to comprehend, and perhaps the scenes we see on the big screen from Star Trek and such like might become a reality in the not too distant future. I also believe that religiosity will go through a slow and gradual demise over the next few generations, particularly in the liberal west. The poorer east will surely follow, but they will lag behind. Faith, as we know it today, will evolve into something entirely different, and into something more acceptable to our modern times and be less insulting to our intelligence, or a belief in an omnipotent spirit will die even before scientific data finally proves its non existence.

Afraid I laughed at your idea that non-religious individuals have a raised consciousness compared with individuals who have religious beliefs. I think that is complete nonsense! For all we know the future may bring about spiritual enlightenment to mankind, with increased religious activity! Currently in terms of numbers Christianity is in the decline in 'The West', but numbers of humans worldwide practicing religion of one sort or another are probably pretty stable (I'm not including the new religion of consumerism in this general supposition!).

I will now re-phrase the question. Which of the above remaining 5 options do you subscribe to, as a Libran, considering your present personal circumstances as they stand now?

OK, having given this thought, at the moment I am completely within a 'sit on the fence' phase regarding the existence of God so have to go for 'God's existence and non-existence are exacly equiprobable'. But, like I stated earlier, I do vacillate on this.........and could go either way.

[Oracle]

... there’s a MASSIVE LIVING ENTITY we call the universe ...

How about a definition for "LIVING"?

[Get Real!]

... there’s a MASSIVE LIVING ENTITY we call the universe ...

How about a definition for "LIVING"?

Let's no delve into that shall we?

[Oracle]

... there’s a MASSIVE LIVING ENTITY we call the universe ...

How about a definition for "LIVING"?

Let's no delve into that shall we?

Fine. I can see you are coming round to accepting we are all just a bag of chemicals, auto-catalysed from the make-up of the Universe without the need for "external forces" directing our synthesis ....