The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I'll be short and sweet about this one...

Where do you think this world would be, if no religion whatsoever existed? Is it then, that we would all finally, and truly be equal?

I don't think we would be equal people still find something to discriminate.

Example political opinions,race,sexual orientation,social statuses etc...

Even if we eliminate the stuff I mentioned(meaning it won't be seen as different) people will always find something to discriminate about cause human nature is selfish, vain and greedy.

It would be total chaos. I explain. I do beleive that there is one true religion, even if I am not in it, and I'll admit that actualy religion causes some chaos, but we need guilines and we need a faith a purpose, and a god to serve. Its in you, we all serve someone or something, no matter how we say we don't deep down we do, it can even be ourselves. So I truely belive that we need one religion, that respect poeple and life humain, animal or vegetal, one that consider all equal and makes us feel worthy and cared as love to by the "god" we worship.

Yes, but how many of those above subjects you mentioned are influenced greatly by religion.

I'll give an example using politics, and the gay marriage issue.

If there isn't a religion there to say, that being homosexual is 'wrong', then how much pain and trouble would have been saved these past years because of it?

The political system may still be corrupted, but not as much, considering most of it is based of the beliefs of our founding fathers. Not that iI'm saying that this is what they intended on, but people take things differently, and all have their own points of view. It's what makes this world so wonderful, yet so terrible at the same time.

"but we need guilines and we need a faith a purpose"

But who says we need to believe in a higher being, to base our own morals on? Are we not capable of distinguishing right from wrong on our own?

There indeed can be sustained morality without religion. I suppose I have too much faith in humanity saying that though, sad that scare tactics are what keep people from harming others and causing trouble. Religion causes just as much damage if not more than if there was a lack of it. Either way someone ends up hurt.

If that's the case, then which would be the lesser of two evils, so to speak?

Honestly, looking at the world around. No we cannot distinguish waht is right and wrong cause for one person and another the meaning of right and wrong is often oposite. That is why we need a higher being who can truely see deep down in us and see our mobil, and make sure that all are respected and that the guidlines makes is possible to know when and where to draw the line, to prevent chaos.

I wish there was a lesser of two evils, But it is just one of those things, a double edged sword if you will. I believe that it sedates the weak minded(most organized religion) makes them do exactly what they are told, so cheers to it. We need all the help we can get in that department. We are lucky that people that could be otherwise dangerous are so easily bent.

Vlad you're right I forgot about that but if not in religions people will still find another reason to discreminate.

Jakyna I disagree with you when you say we need a to be guided.

I chose to be Agnostic and have my moralism but it's not affected by any religion.

I feel better Agnostic and not guided,cause I was always indipendant,rathert han when I was forced to belive in a religion and when chose to follow a particular religion.

But then if religions didn't existed most of the wars wouldn't happen and these don't even realise they are fighting for a same god.

But then who are we to decide who's wrong and right,like Vlad asked?

But then since certain people need to be guided they decided that there is a religion,but why someone can't simple accept life as it is instead of ifghting for something that they don't have proof of?

I believe that it sedates the weak minded(most organized religion) makes them do exactly what they are told, so cheers to it.

Exactly Anti.

Or else they say something and do otherwise.

"Honestly, looking at the world around. No we cannot distinguish waht is right and wrong cause for one person and another the meaning of right and wrong is often oposite."

Exactly. No one can distinguish what is right from what is wrong, because each religious belief has it's own set of rules. If there was no religion, would we all finally come together as one, and achieve true peace, instead of killing each other needlessly?

"I believe that it sedates the weak minded(most organized religion) makes them do exactly what they are told, so cheers to it."

But if they were really that weak-minded, they wouldn't be all too dangerous, now would they?

The human race is so utterly pathetic for its dependance on something divine, they feel out of control, they become impaired, they search endlessly for meaning in the absolutly meaningless. And it scares the shit out of them to stray to the thought that perhaps it is indeed meaningless, all that they hold so close, simply exists without a divine reason. It kills them, the denial sets in. Acceptance may be the key.

Oh yes they may be. If someone else go their hands on them first. You can turn someone weak minded into a very powerful wepon, look at how they fight for their lost causes with such vigor.

"but if not in religions people will still find another reason to discreminate."

And that, my friends, is the true essence of racism. Thank you very much.

I must say, I'm quite impressed with this thread already. :)

got*

deathnitegrl, you actualy say we don't need ot be guide, but you guide yourself so in a way you follow your rules and own guidlines, meaning somehow your "religion" is there cause its your way and guidlines witch are the basics for religion. As for war, if all were in one religion, the right one, and this religion forbids war and cruel or brutality. Then there would be no more war, no more violence, let say to push it further that the "god" in case could act and get rid of the ones who seek war and violence, this would be perfect. So we would not have the burden of taking care of it since we can,t read souls and heart but this bing could.

If there was no religion, would we all finally come together as one, and achieve true peace, instead of killing each other needlessly?

Most probabbly it would just decrease a reason to make a war.

Yeah acceptance is the key but human nature is too much selfish for acceptance.

"look at how they fight for their lost causes with such vigor."

Because everyone is all caught up in thinking they're right, instead of learning to compromise (sp?) with everyone. True ignorance, if you ask me. *nods*

"meaning somehow your "religion" is there cause its your way and guidlines witch are the basics for religion."

But you must keep in mind, that a belief structure isn't necesarily a religion, just ones own set of morals.

It isnt about being right or wrong, its about people being delusional, and getting far too caught up in it. And being ignorant is above all to follow blindly, to not listen to what others have to say and grow and expand from what is right in front of you. It is good to listen to what they have to say, but granted some things will always be disputed.

"but granted some things will always be disputed."

As well it should be. After all, life would be boring if we all agreed on everything. There would be no such thing as free will, or independant though. We would be no greater than ants.

Having guilines does not mean being blind, behind eache rule, guidline principle there has to be a purpose, they have to mean something not just be there, saying "do this or else" It has to be a reason and it has to be at least logical, otherwise there would not have been religion at all in the first place, and there was always one and more, no matter what history proves us that religion is and was and will always be there.

Or perhaps religion originated from a persons lust for power, and want to control? What would happen if everyone found out this was the case, assuming it is true?

And if you think about it's not the religions that are negative but people's attitudes.

It's cause of fantatics that there are wars and discrimination.

Those are the ones to blame.

Being faithful and loyal to your belives is nice but then making a war and being judgemental and ducrimanate cause you say: my religion says so is disgusting.

"And if you think about it's not the religions that are negative but people's attitudes."

But from what I understand, no one said religion was negative in the first place.

Or perhaps religion originated from a persons lust for power, and want to control? What would happen if everyone found out this was the case, assuming it is true?

Most prolly another war.

I sum up my oppinion in this

"Subjugate thyself not to god nor man, for subjugation knows no honor. Why should the father wish his children to kneel down before him in fear? tis better to die free than to live as a sheep"

belief in yourself is the only thing that you can be sure is real it seems. I simply wish people to truly follow their own path I suppose, but im also someone who cant settle in one belief, so it changes.

There I go, getting all excited. I didn't even finish my post. XP

Then again, I'm not saying it's positive either.

"but im also someone who cant settle in one belief, so it changes."

You and me both. :P

I feel it's the only way we can truly can to know ourselves, by constantly challenging our own beliefs.

the only way we can truly come to know ourself*

When I mentioned negative,I meant the negative aspects of religions like discriminating wars etc...

It's the fantatics that say that is wrong cause my religion says so.

"When I mentioned negative,I meant the negative aspects of religions like discriminating wars etc..."

I see you're point now, but still that wouldn't be a negative aspect of the religion itself, but of the people who make it so, which is what I guess you were saying this entire time. XP

Hehe yes :)

So did everyone else just die all of a sudden? lol

I dont know about the rest. But i think religion is one avoidable evil we have in our society. Most of us know and acknowledge the fact that whether we belong to it or not; there is only one religion. One God. There may be a thousand other grounds based on which discrimination may happen. But none with effects out lasting all others. Discrimination will be there in this world as long as there is human race. But the discriminations and troubles that are caused by religion - is all avoidable.

"Most of us know and acknowledge the fact that whether we belong to it or not;"

How is this proven fact though? Not just scientifically either. For all we know, we could just be here for no reason in particular, other than to exist. No true God(dess), nothing.

"Most of us know and acknowledge the fact that whether we belong to it or not; there is only one religion. One God."*

I messed that quote all up. -_-;

It is in the vary nature of Hummans to seek out a higher power. Without this search, we are left with a void that nothing can fill. In this state most are left depressed and posably suicidal. Without religeon, there is no after l9ife or reincarnation. Just the life you have hear and the time you have hear; how ever long that may be.

But if for someone is ok to have no religion why it is seen as something bad?

I feel better without it cause I feel free.

John Lennon sang about a world without religion and other things in the song "Imagine". I have no idea of his view of things would actually extist if religion did not exist.

We could say that many wars have been sparked over religion and that war may be a thing of the past. Only people would find sometime else to fight about. Land, race, politics- the list goes on and on.

Every culture has had its own version of religion. Whether it was the Great Spirit of the American Indians or the Allah worshipped by Muslims the world over, God has made an appearance in every culture. Some religions have had many gods.

I cannot imagine myself a world without religion. I think we would find something else to replace it, that would be comparable.

But what else would comparable to religion? It is a tough one to match after all. :P

opinions of course... and in mine- a world without religion or any kind of spiritual beliefs is one without true substance. I wouldn't want to live in it. We all believe in something- even if it's nothing.

To those who believe in 'nothing'- When you hope and wish for something- why are you doing it? who are you talking to? If not some deity- yourself maybe? Still a belief.

'If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.'

By the way- religion causes no damage... people do.

People are not dellusional or following blindly just because they have a spiritual belief. That is where religion bashing is happening in this thread and is going to kill it- quick.

"To those who believe in 'nothing'- When you hope and wish for something- why are you doing it? who are you talking to? If not some deity- yourself maybe? Still a belief."

But what about people like me, for instance? I personally don't hope/wish for things. If I want something bad enough, I'll go out and make it happen.

"By the way- religion causes no damage... people do."

I completely agree with you there, which is why I made this thread in the first place.

If there is no religion for people to fight amongst themselves about, sure, they'll find other things to fight over, but how much more or less important would it be?

to each their own. If you choose to have no hopes and wishes in your life- I am not sure I have ever met anyone like that, nor even heard of them. You've never even thought 'Wouldn't it be nice...?' for anything???

Again- as I stated above- this is where these threads get tricky... as interesting as they seem- they can be RIA'd quicker than you can say 'doh!' because of people bashing others... i.e.... the 'dellusional' comment above.

Gah, edited post I see. I'll get around to that soon enough, but anyway...

"You've never even thought 'Wouldn't it be nice...?' for anything???"

I most certainly have, but like I said earlier, if I want said object, whatever it may be, instead of sitting around hoping and dreaming of it, I'll be plotting and scheming on how to obtain it.

I don't see religion as being what keeps us from equality. Religion is what rules politic and politics seem to rule the world.

"People are not dellusional or following blindly just because they have a spiritual belief. That is where religion bashing is happening in this thread and is going to kill it- quick."

While this is true, it is only to a degree. It really saddens me when others follow a religion, just because everyone else is doing, and that, is what truly kills us.

"Religion is what rules politic and politics seem to rule the world."

Then wouldn't it be religion instead, that rules the world, since from what you've said, is pulling the strings on politics? So if you take all religion out of the equation, what happens to politics?

In my opinion- no matter if you have an organized spiritual sect, or you believe in your own personal convictions, or choose let everything 'be'- it is a choice and a belief. People that hold themselves ultimately responsible for everything, that's still something to believe in. Even if it's just you.

As a person who has decided to not just sit around for some deity to bring you what you want- you make it happen on your own. Sounds very much like a Left-handed path to me :)

I don't follow a religion because anyone wants me too. All of my close friends live in different states- I don't hang out with anyone here. No one in my family is religious. I have no one to impress or follow. I just feel a connection to my beliefs. This is coming from someone who studies ALL religions. and I look at everyone as individuals- and never claim to be better or follow the 'BEST' way. It's simply just- my way.

"Sounds very much like a Left-handed path to me :)"

I try. :P I find it much easier, and quicker, if I, instead of being lazy and asking someone to give me want I want, go after it myself, like I said before. Not that I'm disacknowledging any possible existence of god(s) and/or goddess(es), I just feel that one shouldn't be entirely dependant on something or someone else.

I believe very much like Left-handers even though I wouldn't be classified as one. I don't find anything wrong in inner-strength and going after what you want without taking any time out to pray about it.

ironically enough- I am off to church, lol... I will look forward to see what happens in this thread- assuming that it is still alive.

;-)

I can only hope. XD

Enjoy yourself. ^_^

I think there would be a lot more violence because take religion out of those extremely religious people and who knows whats left....I do agree that things would not be more equal because people descriminate every day without even knowing a person's religion. All a person has to do to get descriminated against these days is step outside of their house.

I think the world would not be able to go on without Religion. People need something to explain why we are here and what will happen when we die.

I believe religion was neccessary for civilization to develop as it has, and we wouldn't be here in the sense we are right now without it. I think it is part of human nature, and will always exist in some form.

I don't think we would be considered equal to each other. I think that race, political stature, gender, gender preference, etc, would still get in the way. But without religion I think we would be more evolved.

We spend so much time deciphering the shroud of Turin and other religious artifacts that we have yet to prove if there is a cure of cancer, aids, disease in general. We have no time for deep space exploration. We have no time for the advancement we need to make Orsen Wells happen.

Without religion there wouldn't be wars waging under our noses. Most of us may not even be here today.

Taking away religion rewrites the history of the world.
Taking away religion would advance medical and biological science through the roof.
There are limitless possiblities for what could happen without religion and it could go both ways.

The next stage of evolution requires lack of diety.

But who says we need to believe in a higher being, to base our own morals on? Are we not capable of distinguishing right from wrong on our own?


Going back to this. We aren't usually capable of distinguishing right from wrong...we are taught it.

A baby would kill someone had it the power because it is innocent and knows nothing of wrong and right. We as adults and parents teach our children that killing is wrong, and loving is good.

Even so taught that discrimination is wrong, many people grow up to be racist. For instance I was never racist growing up. But now I'm racist against ignorance which includes a whole variety of race including my own. I was taught to see the world in all its color, not black and white. For me, I see no colors.

"The next stage of evolution requires lack of deity"

This really caught my interest, as I actually think that's it's the best possibility here.

So say this is the case, and we now have people who have evolved, and people who haven't. Evolution goes hand in hand with natural selection, so if this is true, then mankind as we know it at this point in time is doomed, because of it.

Probably from blowing each other the hell up, because some, more than others, decide that setting religion/politics/everything else aside, and making friends with each other is harder than saying, "We're right and you aren't." :P

I tend to agree with Images` every one has hopes, desires, dreamsETC... A religion does not make a person it is that some use it as a guide line and for strenght to have faith and hope in some form~~ and most if not all your wars are people who are geedy and have these huge egos and hide behind their "so called" religions just to have a cause to me they are the ones who gives any kind of religion or Belief for that matter aBad rep ... without any kind of faith or hope or dreams of WHAT-IF 's then people would be a very boring race our differences is what makes this world so alive and interesting~ and hell we would not even be discussing this thread if that was the way it was~~ Hell politics and Religion is like two major topic in this world on all levels and planes ~~ we are people and we want to belief and we want to dream andhave the choice to do so ~~ not to be all the same that would be just BORING~~ each person is an individual and at least once in their life they will believe or have hope or a dream for one reason or another ~~ and to me that is still having Faith or religion even if in your own mind~~how do you exist with out having Thought of any of this?~

I think religion makes a lot of us us. we all have different believes even if maybe they were not classified as a religion but just our beliefs. like other have set we would not e equal cuz of the politics, race. So we would still be more at a loss with out a religion but still not equal with everything else that is out there. i guess we wont really know till out death comes. we may not even know then.

But if you don't look at just the world of "today" without religion and instead look at how history would have developed with people that were scared, abused, saw constant death, famine, disease, and couldnt' explain any of it, or have a sense of higher purpose without religion.- you'd see a history that was far to hopeless and dark to have developed anywhere near what we are today, if at all.

It almost seems as if many of the responses are people basing their opinion on whether on not they "like" reglion,and then visualing the world in either a better or worse light because of the things they either hate or like about it being prominent, or gone. I don't think that is accurate for this type of question.

As far as war, the only wars religion would have stopped are the ones in which the "leader" couldn't get enough followers through another means. Typically a war is about power or some other agenda, and religion is just an easy path to get followers rilled up and supportive, but there are other means, and people in power that want wars will use whatever they have to.

"As far as war, the only wars religion would have stopped are the ones in which the "leader" couldn't get enough followers through another means."

So the Crusades were all because of this as well?

There is no way either of us can answer that for certain, but I say - there was another agenda.

Another agenda between several religions, all wanting the same land because they believed it was their birthright?

Been a long time since I've been in a world history class - so I did a quick google and found this immediately.

"The year was 1095 CE, William the Conqueror had united England under one crown 30 years earlier. The French had been dividing properties amongst their sons for generations, causing bloodshed between brothers over small pieces of real estate. In reaction, Pope Urban II expanded "The Truce of God", which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants on any day of the week. Italy was a collection of city-states, constantly being overrun by invading hordes, the latest of which were the Normans, who had just started to become "civilized".

There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE. "

Even without this - it can be an easy thing. Leader wants holy land back. Why? Not because of a religious fervor, but because if he reclaims it, it will make him a "great leader" in the eyes of his people. If it wasn't "holy land" there could easily be another reason for his agenda, which isn't religious. This entire paragraph is hypothetical and simply to show an example of what I mean.

And yes, I still claim there were other agendas, and that the holy land part was just the catalyst and fuel needed to get the people to follow. Without religion in history it may not have been a crusade, but the turks and byzantine would probably have still warred.

I figured as much, but still, while hypothetical, all groups involved going after the same land for the same exact reason (besides claiming the Holy Land as theirs)?

Still, they may not all have had the same reason, but if it was the case, the truly divine and righteous would have taken control over it.

Again, I must point out, I am thoroughly impressed with the input given on the topic. Thank you all. :)

Well, no - I don't think all groups involved would have went after that land for that reason in a world of no religion. For one I think history would have been vastly different and those empires nonexistent :P But assuming it was the same at that point - I think they would have warred for a different reason, and possibly at a slightly different time, but still warred.

Okay, so to make explaining this easier, I will refer to our current time period with religion, World A, and the world without it, World B

Ah, but if World B was our case instead of what we have now, there would be no reason to fight over what would be considered the Holy Land in World A, other than for world conquest, and you have to be pretty damn ballsy to go for that. :P

I think what I'm trying to say (hard to put this in words). There are thousands of reasons for an individual to want to go to war. After someone has commited to that idea, he has to gain the support of his people. Religion makes that "easier", but it's still very possible otherwise. I think where we are differing is you are looking the reasons an entire country would go to war, and in that case I agree, but I'm saying the poeple in charge have thousands of other agendas, and reasons that are never known to the population, and once they decide they want to war for whatever reason - they only have to spin it to the public to get support.

I mentioned the example above as one reason - the leader would want "fame" others would be power, glory, insanity, revenge, pride, alliance duties, racism, pushing political beliefs (which would be much more pronounced in a world of no religion). The list could go on and on and extend way beyond just what I could think up. The fine details would always vary, but there doesn't need to be a major reason for a war to start.

yes i think we would. More people have died in the name of religion than any other thing in the world. And sadly enough the deadliest one is cristianity

And you're correct - there would be no reason to fight over holy land in world b, but there would still be reasons to fight the turks. In this case, fear being prime. The Turks were encroaching on outlying lands, and the leader would be fearful the'd continue to move on in. On top of that would be the fear that he would be perceived as a bad leader if he let any of his land go, and his allies in Europe could have any number of reasons to support him. Even something silly like people being so bored that they make drama out of nothing and a war was needed to distract, or there was a scandal, and a war was needed to distract. It's a nearly inexhaustive list.

Even with out religion we could have still been the way we are now. ppl can get ppl to follow them on different aspects such as politics, color, age and so forth. so even with out religion we may not know if we would be better off or worse. it is something we may never truly know about.

Sorry it took so long to get around to this, as I just received some rather terrible news, however I will not go into it.

"Even something silly like people being so bored that they make drama out of nothing and a war was needed to distract, or there was a scandal, and a war was needed to distract. It's a nearly inexhaustive list."

Not only does that apply to war, but to anything else in life. All one needs to act, is a reason to act upon, wether it's a true reason, or just an excuse.

In this world there is no Equal, they find something else to fight about
Plus then there would be no hope or belief in the world and they'd all be depressive individuals with no Future

*slightly exaggerated*

FUCK NO, religion was implimented to controll a race and set perameters, i think one of the few things keeping society in line is the feeling of accountability to a higher power, the world would become anarchy (a state of nature) and human nature seems to never find equality, because people want to feel superior, and a sence of belonging, which would cause the establishment of conformity on some new superficial level and .... alright the long and short, equality will never be found, not without some sort of brainwashing or idk good thot provoking question tho

I don't neccesarily agree with that.

While it may be true in some cases, there are in fact, other religions that branched out from one of the main types, solely for the purpose of free and thought provoking thinking, one of which, I believe anway, would have to be protestantism.

Granted if we were reduced to the term of anarchy that you imply, there will still be people out there who will try and take advantage of others for their own personal benefit, but again, being placed in this state of anarchy, it would be easy to overthrow them. The masses of asses almost always prevail. All it takes is one uprising.

lol... interesting, very interesting responses in my absence. Not all religions want war- not all religions stand in the way of medicine. If mine did- I would have nothing of it.

Again- it's not religion- it is PEOPLE. People have decided they think they are better than others based on their differences in belief-systems. My church doesn't... my church has implemented an inter-faith education intiative. 'The more you know...' I don't believe my way is the only way- I believe it is the way for ME. I don't want to dictate the way anyone else believes, I want everyone to find their personal perfection.

All these posts about the horrors of religion- you definitely don't speak for mine- and you definitely don't know the way all people believe. Plenty of people view the world and it's people through the eyes of equality. Everyone is worthy in my opnion- unless you're an asshole, lol.

To blanket religion as a bad thing- how are you any better than the extremists who think you are going to Hell without church? You're not. People need to learn how to differentiate between people and their actions and religion. They may say it is in the name of their religion. If I were a Jew and started boycotting yogurt in the name of Moses- would it be in the name of Judaism just because I said so? Hell no, I'd bet yet another idiot gargling on the bong water.

It's just like the extremists in the Middle East giving a horrible name to the Muslims- not ALL of them feel that way. You have to know that.

"It's just like the extremists in the Middle East giving a horrible name to the Muslims- not ALL of them feel that way."

My point exactly. Just because a group of people that take their religion one way, doesn't mean that it's the views of everyone else who share the same faith, yet different beliefs. This is why I had to disagree with the post made earlier about how all religions were made purely for personal gain.

what is evolution?
heres your answer hope i helped..
ost non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.


"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's


These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

Well while I appreciate the post you have made, you still haven't stated your opinion (or just not clearly enough) about the topic at hand.

This is getting lengthy and can't last forever, so before that happens I just want to state this has been a great thread :D

in my option the world would just self destruct a lot sooner with out religon fore then people would have less ways to express there ideas and there beliefs

Well, I can always post another one. Cnt'd threads are always a plus. :)

Well all I know is that you cannot put any religion down just because some people use it wrongly for their own purpose of gain in the world cause it is true that alot of people put down the Moslem beliefs due to some one that has an ego trip to get ~~~~ whatever it is they are tring to get~ I lived in Turkey for over 5yrs and I can say that the ones I met were the nicest people and givng ones I ever met~~ you just cannot condemn Religion due to the Bad actions of a handful of A** it is not the religions it is the people no matter how you look at it....And there are wars out there that were nothing about religion~~ such as William Wallace~ he did not fight for religion `just for the freedom of his people and there land HIS CAUSE had NOTHING TO DO with RELIGION~ but pure and simple FREEDOM To keep their land ~so we cannot blame all wars either on religion~ it is People when ever you are done~~ I mean I could write many war of old that were without religion, Yet it doesn't matter it is still PEOPLE WHO MAKE WARS~~ for whatever the reason~~

No one was condemning religions in the first place.

A world without religion would be full of chaos.

I apologise for coming across alittle strong on that last post~~I was just meaniing that a world without religion is not the answer cause people as humans have to have faith,hopes dreams etc.. it just is in our make-up you could say~~ what kind of world if there were none of these? even without religion we would still WANT to have some kind of hop/belief otherwise we would be ~~well all the same and like droids~ just my opinon is all~ again was not trying to be mean in my last post~ :)

i think that without religion in the world, we'd all be in chaos. i don't think people would realize right from wrong and almost everything would be morally corrupted

People would find some other way to hate. I don't believe in organized religion, but I don't necessarily think we'd be that much better off without it.

A world without religion is an interesting thing. For countless centuries mankind could not have waged wars in the name of their dieties. But would the world be a better place without it well who can really tell unless of course they have lived it. There will always be a shepherd/shepherdess of some kind and alas he/she will always have sheep to follow him/her.

I think that the world might be a better place without religion in way, because for the most part, religion is the cause of war
which creates death, famine, diseases
in some countries, thats just my opinion
then again i could be wrong, and it could just be utter chaos

I think some people need to read the whole thread before they post... otherwise they say the same damn thing over and over again.

here here, i think people rambel too much

This thread has been automatically closed for length.