West,
Darwinian theory has offered some insight into an explanation of our existence, where taken dogmatically, it too becomes as religious doctrine. If we can treat religion as an organism organizing human behaviour we are not dealing with mental weakness, but rather "the healthy functioning of the biologically and culturally well-adapted human mind." (DARWIN'S CATHEDRAL: EVOLUTION, RELIGION, AND THE NATURE OF SOCIETY - David Sloan)

Sceptics who focus on and scorn religious "hocus-pocus" are missing the point. Religious belief is not detached from reality: It is about motivating behavior and should be studied as such. Rationality is not the key to this healthy functioning; adaptation is the key. Evolution is about trade-offs in which becoming better in some respects requires becoming worse in others. There is a trade-off with factual knowledge because in itself factual knowledge is not enough to motivate "adaptive behaviour." At times a symbolic belief system that departs from factual reality can motivate people much better than a limited perception of a seemingly harsh reality. As Boxgum has suggested, an education in the facts alone present mere superficiality.

One can view religion as giving us a backdrop; the mind could be a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," no more than a bathtub full of silicon chips could be a digital computer. Perceptual input must be processed, i.e. recognized, or it would just be noise "less even than a dream" or "nothing to us". Kant alternatively puts it, "What is first given to us is appearance. When combined with consciousness [Bewußtsein], it is called perception [Wahrnehmung]". Religion should not give us a literal truth but more, a true perception from which we can differentiate the noise.

A spiral represents our movement toward greater Wahrnehmung, which is entirely dependant on our Bewußtsein – it is perhaps the perfect symbol, a powerful vortex within nature herself.

Relda I disagree with you. Religion requires a disconnection with reality as it has to polarise the individual. To fetishise the stars or shadows, mirror images and unusual occurrences with intelligence requires intense self polarisation so that ones own ego is projected into everything. There is nothing psychologically healthy about believing in god and certainly the need for god is telling of a mind that is in crisis. Smoking helps smokers get through tough times but it is not beneficial. Spend time in a church and one is hard pressed to find anybody who is not in a down ward spiral turning mole hills into mountains. Indeed the more religious the smaller the mole hill becomes an increasingly bigger mountain.

Wether or not the belief in magic and supernatural teddies filled with personality is good for the believer is not the point. I only include it because like everything else Christians say the benefits of their cult or that Christianity is good or moral simply are not true. The point is those who believe in god and that others should believe too are harmful and destructive to other people. As is obvious by this thread the only way Christians can rule is by ethnically cleansing the rest of society. They just don’t want to understand that their beliefs are unacceptable and most of their beliefs are incredibly offensive to people they try to force their superstition on. Christianity can’t handle criticism or accept the fact it is almost an ideology of hypocrisy ringing true the saying that truth is the enemy of god.

In total truth Christian beliefs are mumbo jumbo, they are occult superstition and it requires proof of god previous to the claim for those beliefs not to be occult superstition. I find it curious to take issue with that initially the indigenous land rights claim for Coronation Hill were fogged off by (Christian) critics as unjustified as mumbo jumbo as they were not Christian. Why is the foreign tribal belief of Christianity more important and more real than a local belief.

West

Why aren't you out on a Saturday night having a good time? ( I've just arrived home..)

Your rants are tiresome, unbelievably ignorant of history and human understanding and absolutely self indulgent. You really are a sad case

Poor old Darwin-talk about shoot the messenger. As you point out Relda Christians have been attempting to vilify the poor man since they lost the debate. Darwin has been proved right and there is no serious debate arguing against evolution with the exception of fringe lunatics. I thank you too because bringing up Darwin is demonstrating ‘truth is the enemy of god’ for why else do Christians despise the man so intensely. Darwin was not alone and within decades an army of naturalists would have been saying the exact same things as Darwin if he had been struck by lightening.

To deny evolution is to deny genes. To deny the environmental impact on genes is to deny nature. To argue intelligent design or creationism is to deny the environment and the natural.

Evolution is no longer theory it is a principle which has led us to other principles. We have discovered genetics and the relationship between the environmental and biological. None of the three could be completely understood without the other. Darwin has been proved to be a very clever person and if you had read his work you will find he never said his theory was explicit. To be honest it doesn’t matter as he was/is right.

Evolutionary principle has assisted us in the fight against cancer. In its most famous case led scientists to trace Feline AIDS to link with Simian AIDS which has mutated to humans. Many cat species had been wiped out by Feline AIDS and the surviving species are mostly immune. This gives understanding of the immune gene.

Most modern medicine is influenced by genetic research and I defy you next time you are seriously ill to pray instead of seeking medicine which owes its existence in part to Darwin.

In short you are calling pharmacists and Doctors fundamentalists in the religion of medicine. So what? The reality in the end remains that evolution is real and Christianity is based on untruths to put it politely.

Religion takes credit for bringing about the positive aspects of human nature, while blaming human nature for the negative aspects of religion.
Secularism does not advocate the abolishment of Church. Secularism advocates that religion not be integrated into the public affairs of society. In all my searching I have yet to find a definition for the word amalgamation secular religion. I can not find the colour white black either.

"And yet a few years ago, egged on by an avowed Atheist, voluntary prayer was banned in our schools. Have we let some among us make Atheism a religion and impose that religion on those of us who believe in our Judeo-Christian traditions?
"There is a fundamental difference between separation of church and state and denying the spiritual heritage of this country. Inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. are Jefferson’s words, 'The God who gave us life gave us liberty —can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God.'"
"Our coins bear the words 'In God We Trust.' We take the oath of office asking his help in keeping that oath. And we proclaim that we are a Nation under God when we pledge allegiance to the flag. But we can’t mention his name in a public school or even sing religious hymns that are non - denominational. Christians can be celebrated in the school room with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked why it was called Christmas."
Ronald Reagan In a speech to The Young America's Foundation

I think we need balance in our social decision making. There is too much of the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I have my own issues with religion but, I also take issue with some aspects of "living for the now, tomorrow will take care of itself" propagated by some secularist.

Merry Christmas.
Jesus was a good man.

West,
If you are to disagree with me you should firstly at least understand what is being said. It is neither science nor the practise of modern medicine I’m critical of.

Whilst Darwin was still attending Cambridge, social power lay with a fat and established church, where a jail term existed for any hint of apostasy. The ‘isms’ of atheism, socialism, modernism and racism were about – with Fundamentalism just around the corner. Darwin was his own man and allowed himself none of these ‘isms’

One can only respect Darwin for having the courage to take on John Lightfoot, an Anglican clergyman and Hebrew scholar at Cambridge University, whose absurd tracing of Biblical genealogy calculated that the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9 p.m.

For Darwin, evolution explained human racial and cultural differences. In one of his notes, he jotted: `more humble and I believe true to see man’ – savage and civilized man – `created from animals.’ Creation by evolution was a belief born of theological humility.

In private, he revealed that he no longer believed `in the Bible as a divine revelation, and therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.’ Yet his `belief in what is called a personal God,’ he said, had been as strong as a prelate’s when he wrote the Origin of Species; and three years before his death, he confessed that he had `never been an atheist, in the sense of denying the existence of a god …generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always … agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.’

Anyway..Happy Christmas (if that means anything)!