DNA Was Designed By A Mind

J.M. wrote-



Picasso said that art is "what nature is not". (artifice-artificial-artless).

Paley's watch is, for that, art. (artisan). And religion is art as is science and fashions and make-up and cooking and money.



But what is communism. Bernard Shaw's version is a long way from that of any known communist regimes. Jesus is often said to be the ultimate communist.



Maybe but that approach is not intellectual.



But it might be that the bug was only dangerous to weak immune systems and thus the cause of the weakness is what killed them. A much larger number survived exposure presumably with varying degrees of illness and were then immunised from further risk of that particular strain and possibly passing the immunity to their descendents. That is a very complex matter.



Again you have IMO a too simple approach. The present case of Georgia is a mish-mash of all sorts of issues. Putting it at religion's door is too easy and can distract from the real causes which then remain unaddressed.



Probably. There exists a large corpus of research and speculation on the origins and causes of religious beliefs.



There's an assumption there that nature will not respond to our "vaccines" which we know is not the case with pathogens. And I think the same will apply to religious belief even in the case of Orwellian solutions.



Of course. What other possibility is there that we could know.



Your assumption is incorrect. There are not enough evolutionary scientists to have any significant effect. Their conclusions are welcomed by others who have some reason to be irreligious as when they wish to behave and justify behaviour which religion tells them is wrong. Without the support of those the evolutionary scientists would be unheard. A suspicion exists that people like Dawkins are pandering to their wandering desires for reasons of self-promotion. I could wipe him out in debate. He doesn't even know The Case of Walter Pater.



Yes. He should stand for election and have his views put under real scrutiny. His supporters in Media would soon bolt if that were done.



That's another matter. A series of incidents with many causes. It is a dangerous parapet to stick your head up over. Shouldn't they just get on with their science. Once you enter the public domain you will get shot at. They should stand for election too.



Oh yeah. Which "wordly facts"? Have they bothered studying Freud? There are wordly facts concerning rumpy-pumpy you know. And also things such as calming influences and the aesthetics of ceremonies.

Money is in play James. Big money.

Religion can be a psychological tool used to help mediate the differences between physical reality and emotional desire. It can also be a tool to manipulate the behavior of others.

Science is a naturalistic methodology used to explore and categorize natural systems and conditions.

I think the key difference between these tools is that religion bases its evidentiary status on subjective emotions and perceptions, whereas science bases it's evidentiary status on objective external physical reality.

And "objective external physical reality" is a terrifying prospect and the only thing to do about it is to tickle up the "subjective emotions and perceptions".

ros uses "objective external physical reality" abstractly. As a sort of concept. A commodity so to speak.

ros wrote-



Next he wrote-



But he forgot to add " It can also be a tool to manipulate the behavior of others". Which it can.

One has to wonder why.

But if ros has me on "ignore" he has escaped the need to answer and is empowered to proceed with his argument that religious belief is a dead loss with stopping to deal with weaknesses in his argument.

Edit "with" to "without".

What ever happened to BadDog and RL. Such a pair.

RL is haunting other sites. He was a treat, Baddog was jut a flunkie.

They were a good tag team though. BD would post some creationist nonesense and RL would weave a skein of lies around it.