Entanglement? EPR paradox? I'm not sure I understand your question...

It's "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen), commonly called the "EPR Paradox". Einstein famously called quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance".

It's not Einstein's theory. It's an aspect of Quantum Theory called (as noted) entanglement, and Einstein couldn't accept it and ended up calling it 'spooky action'.

That is because you don't know how DNA works. It's tempting to compare it to a modern programming language, but it isn't really. More accurately, DNA is a simple alphabet, and the genes it makes up are written in several different languages. The vast majority of genes are protein codes, which are not programming as such, but more like pure data files. Basically, they're just long lists of amino acids. We share most of our proteins with the great apes, so it should be no surprise that most of our DNA is the same.

You're making the false assumption that because apes look very different from us, their DNA has to be very different from ours too. However, only a tiny part of our DNA is related to outer appearance.

The major genetic "event" which separated us from the rest of the great apes was the fusing of two chromosomes into one. This is why apes have 24 chromosome pairs while we have only 23. Sequencing the genes, it's easy to see which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused into which one of ours.

I'm still surprised that both Christians and Atheists feel that they need to preach their worldview to others. Can't we just agree to disagree and joke about IQ tests, just like in the beginning of this topic? :)

Exactly. That's why, as an Agnostic, I consider it my a-holy mission to convince Christians and Atheists alike that they are wrong, and that the existence or lack thereof of God is unknowable regardless of how much theologizing or experimenting you do.

You're preaching to a converted :)

This is called the middle ground fallacy. I suggest you hit your head on the wall 200 times. Since you presumably don't want to hit your head on the wall at all, obviously the best course of action is to hit it 100 times. Proceed.

No, it's the easiest way to lose Pascal's Wager. Quite a number of gods will hold it against you if you so much as glance at other gods.

Do you have sex with farm animals?

Mormonism. It was on South Park.

Impossible if you're not a Parsi. Just accept you're screwed.

Are you for realz? Because that's batshit insane. Normally, I don't harp on religious people when they keep to spirituality, but don't fucking soil math with insanity.
There's an uncountably infinite number of possible gods.
There's a countably infinite number of possible religions (yes, it means an uncountably infinite number of possible gods cannot be honored at all).
You stand to win otherworldly delights a religion you follow reserves for the faithful, provided it's true.
Your only tangible resource is your life on earth.
Since no part of divinity may be greater than the whole, no otherworldly delights will ever make the odds good. That's how math works.

Scary.

While it may be true that religion might have been a powerful tool in different societies to keep people at bay and obedient to powers that be (the ones who run the society, maybe the head of the church), I see it a bit like how kids are told that little gnomes are following everything they do throughout the year, and if the kids don't behave themselves, the gnomes will report to Santa Claus and no presents for you next Christmas.

I think the theory is then that when the little kids eventually find out that there is no Santa Claus to fear of, they become obnoxious little brats overnight that start robbing, raping, murdering and doing other kinds of pranks.

I would think though most kids would have learned by then that if they don't behave themselves, rest of the society (or family) will not take it lightly, ie. if you want others to be nice to you, you need to be nice to them. No need for religion or Santa Claus for that.

Also, as long as the kid has not sustained injuries to head as a kid, he/she should also feel e.g. empathy naturally, which should keep him from killing little kittens for fun. I'm personally unsure how much of e.g. empathy is "learned" and how much of it is in our DNA code, but that doesn't necessarily matter. I know the stories how certain injuries to head can make one unable to feel empathy, but I also feel it can be at least partly "learned", ie. if you have received affection as a kid, there's less chance of you becoming a sociopath or a psycho.

I am an American Atheist and I can suck my own cock.

So basically, it's faith out of fear, "in case". With efforts to rationalise it further. One could argue that this fear is easy to collectively impose on others (take kids upon which you have some authority, repeat them that if they don't light a candle every evening then the gnolls will come to roast them for all eternity, and the "okay but maybe it's true, I won't take the chance" might stick). All sorts of ordinary superstitions and compulsions work on that, even secular ones.

The problem is that it creates a high stake, about beliefs. How can you objectively consider options when you are threatened of infinite punishment and promised infinite reward for one of these options. That's a bit of a bias, an incentive to tip the readings in one option's favour.

It's not irrational, strategically, but I don't find it very honest, neither as an individual calculation (it's not an objective assesment of available data on science, it's a strategic negociation of side-taking), nor as a normative method ("if you don't believe me, then the werewolves will get you" is used in too many manipulative political discourses, especially the with-me-or-against-me types). Still, that's two different modes of discussions and reflexions that cannot be articulated well : on one side scientific arguments on nature (dna, evolution, etc), on the other side soul politics and diplomacy ("i'm threatened of hell if i make a mistake there").

Some atheists also foresee hell in case of doubt and treason, implying that religious beliefs are the cause of worldwide disasters and make people bad, which is a gross simplification. Most atheists and scientists, though, would not concieve such a threat : people are free to believe in a god, and to learn science, without committing a "sin in front of science" and being punished for it. At least that.

Although the reverse is quite true : most non-fundamentalist believers don't fear hell for staying uptodate with science. And don't feel threatened in their faith by the realities of dinosaurs and evolution. Actually, most believers imagine their god in accordance with their values. Just like basically any christian will declare that "the inquisition was a bunch of mislead people, in a time where the church was corrupted or mistaken", most of them still consider the church authorities as questionnable. And evaluate by themselves what their god actually means and demands.

The circular reasoning here (that atheists and believers alike should keep in mind) is that God Is Defined By Goodness. God is incapable of injustice, because it is not a character upon which moral judgement can be passed (as one could on a greek god), it is the meaning of goodness and justice itself, its essence. By very definition. The consequence being : if one thing is wrong and unfair and evil, then this God cannot do it. This is its only rule.

And this is how believers tend to evaluate morality. In front of a church that has showed, historically, its limitations, and in front of a book open for interpretations, there is theology, mostly the personal one. The evaluation of the morality of a situation, akin to the evaluation an atheist would make, but phrased as "would God consider it fair". In front of blatant injustice, the conclusion is "then God would not want that, because he is good". Usually, this is how the sequence goes. Atheists shouldn't underestimate the individual moral reasoning of believers - moral reasoning that lead to so many different stances, all backed up by biblical references (for and against capital punishment, for and against wealth redistribution, etc).

Now, when one "fears God", maybe the question is "would this be actually really fair from God". If not really, many atheists would go "yay, see, God is unfair, so, contradiction". But most believers would simply go "ok then, regardless of the mortal's and church authorities' interpretations of the book, I think that God would actually not want that". Problem solved as well. Things are brought back to individual moral dilemmas, and the diffucult evaluations or right and wrong that we all face, upon mostly similar criterions (which differences don't depend so much on religiosity itself).

This is one argument against the "fear of God" fallacy. If, by some godly logic, good people go to hell, then God is not God. I don't think this fear should influence scientific interpretations, because knowledge about dna and evolution is not what makes people being good or bad towards each other, which is, I presume, how you're supposed to evaluate if a person has been good in his life.

Or else, you consider atheists or scientists as evil enough to deserve eternal hell, and, well, you do have a problem there. So, are you wishing all atheists (me for instance) and scientists to rot in hell for all eternity ?

I only just hopped on here to see where things were going in this thread which I would normally not touch. The trash talk always trumps reason, logic and sincere discussion about belief. The anonymity of the Internet become a safe-haven for illogical arguments, hate speak and malicious name-calling.

In your discussion here, you honestly posited your argument using logic, fairly kind words, and your sincerest beliefs. Way to go!

I have disagreements with your argument, and if we were to meet in person, we'd have a pleasant conversation, I'm sure.

In these types of arguments, I find the straw man to be the most abundant fallacy out there. Christians love to misrepresent atheists' and scientists' (not one and the same, certainly) beliefs, as do atheists (and perhaps scientists) enjoy misrepresenting Christian beliefs.

Your minor straw man, which was really only addressed as a rhetorical question (the one quoted above) is certainly not the Christian hope. I know very few Christians who want people to go to Hell. That is why many Christians are very vocal about their faith -- hoping that someone will find salvation.

The Christian belief is that all people are evil. And when I've gotten to know people well (Christian or not), I generally learn that we're not just a little evil. We've done some whoppers in our lives. That's everyone -- Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and atheists.

The idea behind Christianity is that God will forgive those who want to love him and spend their super-life with him. This life is spent on earth (a brand new one or the same one that is simply destroyed and remade new). People will likely work, play computer games and enjoy afternoon tea with one another. For those who do not want to live with and love God, then they will also get what they want -- but the Bible tells that even the tiniest of good things come from God.

Many Christians hate preaching or teaching fire-and-brimstone stuff because it's not the main idea in the Bible. Hell is mentioned only a few times. Most of our images of Hell and the way Christians speak of Hell are usually referencing pagan images, not Biblical ones. We honestly don't know exactly how it'll be, but it sounds bad.

So, certainly, Christians do not want people to go to Hell. Christians (the real McCoy anyway [I swear that's not the real Texan fallacy]) do our best to love another and help each other out.

Naturally, these arguments have been repeated for thousands of years. I haven't seen a new argument in my life that hasn't been argued ad nauseam somewhere else, hundreds of years ago. (hence my not getting into these conversations very often) But I wanted to jump on and say that if you ever feel unloved from a Christian, that is certainly not their intent. Usually it takes just getting to know someone a little while to see their point of view. They may be using words in different ways, misrepresenting an argument (or just fumbling over it) or singularly focused on defending their faith. But with just a tiny amount of time and perhaps a little respect, and you'll likely see love (or you may just see a jerk -- there's some out there :-D).

I hope Christians and atheists can live with respect throughout our world. I know and am good friends with many atheists. I enjoy their company, their conversations and even their challenges. If someone says you're going to Hell, take a moment to evaluate and use your best judgment to figure out what they mean and if they're accurate. After that, recognize that they're probably doing their best to warn you out of love, and they're probably just not good at it.

Alright, that ends my peace-talk. Resume!

Negative. I do not wish eternal hell and damnation on anyone for anything - well, except maybe child molesters and premeditated murderers.

It's not my call anyways from my understanding and I'm just a sinner as well. If it was my decision to make, I would not let you or anyone else suffer hell and damnation, especially for disbelieving and having doubts. I'd find more justice in bringing you into heaven so you could see how wrong in life you were and allow you to tell God you were sorry for ever doubting him and/or losing your faith in him.

And I doubt God will punish for it and will judge you based on how you chose to live your life overall. I've always been a believer that "actions speak louder than words". It's easy to call oneself a Christian. It's another thing entirely to act like one. As someone said before, many so-called Christians have raped, murdered, pillaged, etc. To me these are not real Christians. They were deviants who infiltrated the church and used religion as a mask to get away with their deviancy.

Is being an atheists a deviancy? According to the Bible it is. But even I have not been a perfect follower of the Bible myself. We're all sinners and it's impossible to not give into temptation as a mortal human being. Christ understood this when he lived. I'm sure if you're an all-around good person, you will be granted a place in heaven, even if you chose not to believe. The Bible was written by other men (Christ's followers), not Christ himself. And it's very probable that "additions" were added to the Bible after Christ died to create fear in the hearts and minds of men to convert to Christianity or else. I'm sure whoever added these "additions" meant nothing wrong and were just looking to get as many people following the path of Christ as possible in an effort to save their souls. But since it was done with fear mongering, it has only driven a lot of people away instead. This is why I wish the Bible only contained the true words of Christ and no other "additions" from mortal men as even just one mortal man's words have shown to taint the entire book.

But I do believe most of what's in the Bible is truly the words of Christ. The "turn the other cheek" and the "live by the sword and die by the sword" can only be the words of a man of extreme peace and love. There's no fear mongering in those words. So I think people should read the Bible and follow those passages that only come across as love, peace, and harmony. They are good words to follow even if you're an atheist. "Turn the other cheek" when you're struck upon. Put down your sword as those who "live by the sword, die by the sword". Live positively and be peaceful. If people all around the world would simply do this, "what a wonderful world" it would be. <--- Good song now that I'm thinking about it btw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5TwT69i1lU

God bless you friend and I wish nothing but the best for you and everyone else!

So this brings up a point that I was wondering - is anyone who does not turn the other cheek and does live by the sword not a true Christian?

Does that mean that every self-proclaimed "Christian" who joins the military is a deviant? After all, even self-defense is quite the opposite of "turn the other cheek".

Also, every single. Christian politician in the U.S. must be going to Hell, because they're all rich as far as I'm concerned, and I doubt they can pass a camel through an eye of a needle.