Whats so good about religion?

[suggs]

So good news for Mummies, then?

[Neoteny]

Second, the building blocks to form life have been formed from non-living matter within the laboratory.

If you're referring to the Miller experiment, then, while you are technically correct, you are using its result out of context. The chemicals present in the Miller experiment were radically different from those which scientists believe actually existed in Earth's atmosphere 3.7 billion years ago. If the same experiment were repeated given the actual conditions of the atmosphere, something similar to present-day embalming fluid would have been the product, not the amino acids.

Surely the techniques and materials have improved with the body of knowledge since 1953...

[Neoteny]

Well, as I have said before, creation does explain them. The creation model gives an explanation for how things are the way they are. Why there is order, where the order came from, why creatures and life in the universe are so similar, it is supported by the natural laws (loss of energy, things running down, etc), morality, ...

And, as I have said before, it doesn't explain anything. Explanations deal with how.

No you mean it does not give a naturalistic explaintion. Again it is based on your assumptions. What one must do is look at those assumptions and see if they are, in fact , correct or justified when look at with an open mind and compared to everything else.

Example. Evolutionist assume that life came from non life because it had to to make evolution true. Not because it has ever been seen or know to be possible. This is an evolutionary assumption that has no scientific basis or explanation yet you believe it, Why?

WM

Where else might life come from if not non-life? God? You want to talk about an assumption...

[OnlyAmbrose]

Second, the building blocks to form life have been formed from non-living matter within the laboratory.

If you're referring to the Miller experiment, then, while you are technically correct, you are using its result out of context. The chemicals present in the Miller experiment were radically different from those which scientists believe actually existed in Earth's atmosphere 3.7 billion years ago. If the same experiment were repeated given the actual conditions of the atmosphere, something similar to present-day embalming fluid would have been the product, not the amino acids.

Surely the techniques and materials have improved with the body of knowledge since 1953...

Can you show me an experiment in which the amino acids were created under the conditions that scientists believed existed on earth 3.7 billion years ago? To my knowledge, none such study exists.

Like I said I don't really care either way in evolution debates, but I just thought I'd set the record straight

[t-o-m]

(and no im not a paedo!)

No your worse, you're a dentist.

and you are?
anyway back on topic...
anyway, im not a paedo

[PLAYER57832]

Second, the building blocks to form life have been formed from non-living matter within the laboratory.

If you're referring to the Miller experiment, then, while you are technically correct, you are using its result out of context. The chemicals present in the Miller experiment were radically different from those which scientists believe actually existed in Earth's atmosphere 3.7 billion years ago. If the same experiment were repeated given the actual conditions of the atmosphere, something similar to present-day embalming fluid would have been the product, not the amino acids.

Surely the techniques and materials have improved with the body of knowledge since 1953...

Can you show me an experiment in which the amino acids were created under the conditions that scientists believed existed on earth 3.7 billion years ago? To my knowledge, none such study exists.

Like I said I don't really care either way in evolution debates, but I just thought I'd set the record straight

Pretty close, though I am not sure if exact (for one thing no one really knows exactly what occured back then) in a study just released last year. I heard about it on NPR.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Second, the building blocks to form life have been formed from non-living matter within the laboratory.

If you're referring to the Miller experiment, then, while you are technically correct, you are using its result out of context. The chemicals present in the Miller experiment were radically different from those which scientists believe actually existed in Earth's atmosphere 3.7 billion years ago. If the same experiment were repeated given the actual conditions of the atmosphere, something similar to present-day embalming fluid would have been the product, not the amino acids.

Surely the techniques and materials have improved with the body of knowledge since 1953...

Can you show me an experiment in which the amino acids were created under the conditions that scientists believed existed on earth 3.7 billion years ago? To my knowledge, none such study exists.

Like I said I don't really care either way in evolution debates, but I just thought I'd set the record straight

Pretty close, though I am not sure if exact (for one thing no one really knows exactly what occured back then) in a study just released last year. I heard about it on NPR.

Hook me up with a link s'il vous plait.

[Neoteny]

Second, the building blocks to form life have been formed from non-living matter within the laboratory.

If you're referring to the Miller experiment, then, while you are technically correct, you are using its result out of context. The chemicals present in the Miller experiment were radically different from those which scientists believe actually existed in Earth's atmosphere 3.7 billion years ago. If the same experiment were repeated given the actual conditions of the atmosphere, something similar to present-day embalming fluid would have been the product, not the amino acids.

Surely the techniques and materials have improved with the body of knowledge since 1953...

Can you show me an experiment in which the amino acids were created under the conditions that scientists believed existed on earth 3.7 billion years ago? To my knowledge, none such study exists.

Like I said I don't really care either way in evolution debates, but I just thought I'd set the record straight

As far as I know, the theory behind the Miller-Urey experiment has not been successfully usurped by any other abiogenic theory (the general primordial ooze type deal), and apparently current trends in investigation are not close to precluding the theory. There is opposition, as always, but I don't think I need to tell you that even if we do overturn the validity of the experimental inputs, we, of course, cannot throw our hands up and give up on it leaving it all to god. I have little doubt that our attempts will become sophisticated enough to create life in a manner similar to this.

Wikipedia provides a couple of links to more recent investigations (peer-reviewed, of course) into the possible phenomenon. They don't mention any '07 articles but I found this one interesting...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 19/10/1645

[LYR]

Hey neoteny, long time no see. I'm just going to address the original question : what's so good about religion?

The thing is, it gives people a moral code to live by , and it allows people to believe in something after death, so they aren't depressed all the time.

You might also say, "well, what about all the holy wars started by religious leaders?" I say the people who lead that are misguided assholes, or, in case of the crusades, there are other reasons which do not really pertain to this conversation.........

[Snorri1234]

Hey neoteny, long time no see. I'm just going to address the original question : what's so good about religion?

The thing is, it gives people a moral code to live by , and it allows people to believe in something after death, so they aren't depressed all the time.

For reals?
I'm supposed to be depressed now? Shiiiiiiiiit.

You might also say, "well, what about all the holy wars started by religious leaders?" I say the people who lead that are misguided assholes, or, in case of the crusades, there are other reasons which do not really pertain to this conversation.........

Misguided, probably. But that doesn't mean they didn't use religion to do what they did.

[LYR]

snorri, I never said that you should be depressed, all I'm saying is that it gives people something to look forward to, something to live for (I'm not saying there aren't things to live for without religion), so they don't say "hey, nothing happens when I'm dead, I might as well do whatever I want..........."

Being a religious person myself, I can tell you that religion has many beautiful aspects, and alot of meaning behind it.

[Snorri1234]

snorri, I never said that you should be depressed, all I'm saying is that it gives people something to look forward to, something to live for (I'm not saying there aren't things to live for without religion), so they don't say "hey, nothing happens when I'm dead, I might as well do whatever I want..........."

But I don't say that anyway. Why would anyone say that just because they don't believe in an afterlife?

I understand that it gives people meaning, I'm just asking whether that meaning is needed.

[Neoteny]

Hey neoteny, long time no see. I'm just going to address the original question : what's so good about religion?

The thing is, it gives people a moral code to live by , and it allows people to believe in something after death, so they aren't depressed all the time.

You might also say, "well, what about all the holy wars started by religious leaders?" I say the people who lead that are misguided assholes, or, in case of the crusades, there are other reasons which do not really pertain to this conversation.........

Indeed, it has been a while. I think it's far more intellectually stimulating to determine for oneself the important aspects of creating and maintaining a moral code than to have one dictated upon you. I don't disagree that some people might need religion to help their depression, but I think they are in the extreme minority, and assuming otherwise is indicative of a rather cynical outlook, not only on the world, but on religion itself. It's not unlike Obama's recent comments on clinging to religion and guns, both of which are odd coming from the religious camp. I'd hazard that the ratio of depressed atheists to depressed theists is pretty similar when the populations are compared as it's usually something chemical, rather than psychological.

Crusaders were misguided assholes, sure, but so are militant atheists like me. So we're even, and agreed that the misguided assholes need not apply when considering the whole of the populations.

[LYR]

Honestly, I find that religion is beautiful. However many faults it may have, I think it is a necessary thing in this world, I love it, and I don't know what I would do without it.

[got tonkaed]

Honestly, I find that religion is beautiful. However many faults it may have, I think it is a necessary thing in this world, I love it, and I don't know what I would do without it.

well in the opinion of one man...also probably one of my favorite quotes of his, even though i dont entirely agree with it, i just find the language moving.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

[jonesthecurl]

There are good things about religion.
There are bad things too(but read the name of the thread).
I don't have a religion. But I'm a nice guy, and probably devote more time and mental effort to deciding what is right or wrong than most people who get this decision wholesale from their religion.
I think that probably covers prettty mush what I want to say on this topic.

[Neoteny]

Honestly, I find that religion is beautiful. However many faults it may have, I think it is a necessary thing in this world, I love it, and I don't know what I would do without it.

I've gone to a midnight mass these past few Christmases and found the experience quite aesthetically pleasing, but that was really about it. But if you decide you don't know what to do, you could come hang out with us atheists and we'll show you how to party like there is no such thing as sin, all the while living a moral, socially acceptable life. It's quite liberating. Guinness extra stout for everyone!

[LYR]

neoteny, I have had my doubts about religion, many times, and I can perfectly see your point of view on religion, as an atheist. I cannot really vouch for christianity, but I can tell you that Judaism is quite a different thing (I'm Jewish).

[TaylorSandbek]

It seems to me that this post was to cover religion.. but your only bashing christianity. This is, in my opinion, rude and over the line.

[Neoteny]

neoteny, I have had my doubts about religion, many times, and I can perfectly see your point of view on religion, as an atheist. I cannot really vouch for christianity, but I can tell you that Judaism is quite a different thing (I'm Jewish).

I think I remember you mentioning that. From my experiences with the religion, I'm not sure it's really that different aside from the whole Christ thing...

[LYR]

From what I've learned about religion, I can tell you that there are MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR
differences between Christianity and Judaism. Why else do you think that Jews didn't accept Christianity.

[Neoteny]

... Christ?

[Frigidus]

... Christ?

He-hey! You got it!

[LYR]

This will give you a basic Idea, but it barely even scratches the surface.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comp ... ianity.htm

[LYR]

TaylorSandbeck, that's probably because Christianity has the most followers in the world. I am not criticizing Christianity, and if someone were to start criticizing Judaism, I would defend it, not complain about it.