Okay zrocks, you're on, and I hope the milk hurt your nose on the way out. What have I said that you'd call looney or even eccentric?

I'm quite serious.

I've avoided entering this discussion but here's an attempt to bring it back on topic

On religious fundamentalism:
Is there any possibility that the three great world religions emanating from the middle east that alude to a single god are all 'fingers pointing to the same moon'?

The Taoists of ancient China (pre Old Testament & original sin, so forgive them) noted that there is a way - the Tao (call it God's way if you will) - which is immeasurable & indescribable. "The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao". The holy books of Western religion seem to share the same Intent, even though Interpretation differs & creates widely varying Implementations of social & personal policy. To err is human & we all know that even modern biographies contain errors, so could it be that the old & new testaments & the Koran are just human attempts - by bibliographers and editors - at addressing the same unaddressable concept?

I can't help but feel that fundamentalism comes more from the internal wiring (& crossed wires?) of the individual reader of these great works rather than the works themselves, all of which profer peace & tolerance. The source of fundamentalism is fear & fear is the greatest threat to the World as it makes seemingly balanced people act irrationally - irrespective of their creed. Is not therefore the fear-monger the real enemy?

On religion vs. Science
Without the rise of rationalism, we would have no science, no DA7 & no Internet to hold this discussion. Rationalism does not have all the answers - e.g. what existed before the Big Bang? but at least the religion of science allows questions - i.e. what happened before the Big Bang?. Conversely, fundamentalist religions have only all the answers, which seems bizarre, until one considers the socio-political environments within which they were written - as theocratic law, they had to be complete systems of governance.

Some religions (or philosophies) encourage logical debate, which seems a less neurotic approach than fire & brimstone evangelism. However, if one believes that rationalism is the dawning of the age of the Antichrist, then logic & psychology are collective psychosis (or possession) which must be avoided. Strange then that most of the great scientific minds have been highly spiritual, if not devoutly religious people. Indeed, did not Einstein withhold findings for fear that they would undermine others faith as they had challenged his own?

On evolution vs. creation
Entropy will get us all in the end but there seems to be a complexifying force in nature that the rationalists cannot explain. Entropy seems to overcome this counter-force at the point of death, so there would seem to be at least some kind of life force, if not a more general force.

What is its source? Certainly not entropy, so evolution is driven by something else. Is this drive for complexity - for creation - the creator at work? The Tao? Maybe the World created in the '7 days' included the creative life force to evolve the model? OK, it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible but neither is the Aardvark

On solutions
Spirituality is personal - religion is about compliance to group norms. The Christian church made all personal enlightenment or direct knowledge (Gnosis) a heresy - was this so that the failing Roman Empire had an alternative means of power?

Our modern world is one where each person's reason & intuition must combine to find personal answers - we each have to choose our personal path or Tao. Those who cannot face the thought of ego death will choose a belief system with an afterlife or reincarnation. Those who need an external representation of the life force or who can't face it alone, will create their own 'superior being' of some kind. Those who can shed attachment to their egos & realise that we are indeed nothing, will reach enlightenment & escape the torment of the wheel or Samsara & this mortal life...or will they?

I wish you all a peaceful Christmas & a successful 2006!

Best

Keith..

Keith - Very nice. Now if we can pin down some of the answers...

Nick - my point was that you would probably be labeled that. It makes it easy to sum you up and and then not necessarily take you at your word. The labels are devisive on both sides - not that I'm some kind of girlie-man that can't handle being called names. It's the name-caller that is inhibiting his own ability to understand and communicate - which is only hurting himself.

Glenn - what would be the one issue that really sticks it to you regarding the Religious Right? And, just for the hell of it, how about the left? I'm trying to educate myself here.

Dan, I know you WANT me to speak for the pro-death penalty bunch, but I just can't do it.

Keith: Pretty interesting sum-up of the thread so far, and I'd like to help out by pointing out one error with regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As I have pointed out before, this is an often misunderstood concept and is in no way in contradiction of evolution, natural selection, or the human experience.

Furthermore, the concept of self-organization is just coming into its stride. Beginning with Chaos Theory, and now with research in topics like Emergent Systems (including work by one of my favorites, Stephen Wolfram ), it is becoming clear that organization and complexity are not the rare events we believe them to be--in fact, they're nearly inevitable given time and variety.

These advances in our understanding of complex phenomena were simply not possible before the computer made simple the process of carrying out several million iterations of a mathematical formula, for example.

One point I'd like to make is that change and progress will continue to happen--my problem is specifically with social structures which restrict seeking answers, or which deny evidence thus far discovered in the name of preserving the correctness of their beliefs.

Well, if you ask me or Audiorigami, then the answer is no. It's not necessarily even driven! Evolution happens by accident! Hard to accept, but then the time scales are too huge for us to comprehend.

Creation is another story. We don't know what if anything caused the Big Bang. One thought that occurs to me is that nothingness can't exist without somethingness, so it had to happen.

No I don't, but I'd be thrilled if you to spoke against it.

Since we have so many links offered here for reference in regard to the subject matter of this thread, I thought these might be interesting as well for a little counterpoint.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-double-helix.htm

Yeah, speaking of evolution and the death penility, it's only revenge. You deserve to die because you killed someone I love. I want retrobution! It's easy from the outside looking in to say the death penility is wrong, but if your mom, dad, sister, brother, son, daughter, lover was brutaly murdered by someone and the hurt you felt, you wouldn't want that person to pay in the same way for his/her crime?

Anyhoo, that's a totally different thread. From what I have seen and read on this thread, creationism and the bible being exposed for what it is, has maybe opened a few eyes to the brainwashing effect christianity has had on our culture, that it's basicly a falsehood, a non truth that has miguided millions of potentialy beautiful lives into a twisted coctail of delusion. I's simply non sence. B

But sinse some have been raised in this culture and taught it all their lives, they beleve it. Even if a god decendedfrom the heavens and said to them, "I'm the real god, your teaching is false", they wouldn't or couldn't accept it.

Revenge is shallow. I, 13 states in the U.S., and all of Europe disagree with you.