The Harm of Belief in God

[Maj]

You missed the part where I lambasted the Hindu cast system for creating a self-perpetuating class of poor people. And the three cults I mentioned (Scientology, Jim Jones, and Aum Shinrikyo).

Yes, I did.

And of course my arguments against more general superstitions like homeopathic medicine.

It's too bad that homeopathy has become so weird. In my mind - and correct me if I'm wrong - the basic idea of giving incredibly small doses of a substance to a person in order to help them deal with some problem seems highly reminiscent of both vaccines and recent new treatment of peanut allergies.

So no, its not bigotry against Christianity. They've just made themselves a nice target over the ages.

I have to admit, in all my discussions with people on religion, it always opens with the big C. And then moves on to monotheism. And then usually to weird little cults that are less than 200 years old. And rarely includes other religions.

It seems to me that if the case is so easy to prove for Religion as a whole, it shouldn't matter which one you start with. But instead, I just see the same old rehashed points with nothing new. And the "discussion" usually comes down to both sides trying to deconvert an anti-believer - which isn't going to happen.

What about Mao's body count? Do we get to lay the bodies of millions at the feet of an atheist, or was religion somehow actually involved?

Or how about talking about something different like Democracy... Is Democracy harmful? It's led to multiple wars across the world, and economic embargoes on multiple countries. It's been a factor in bad relationships with other countries, and the prime tool in the belt of extreme racism and discrimination in at least one country constantly embroiled in conflict.

Also, your definition of supernatural does not include those (believed) phenomenon that manifest themselves in ways that concur with natural laws.

It's so hard for me to accept some coincidences as not supernatural. They really seem like it sometimes - to the point where my brain rejects that explanation.

As for Theistic evolution it actually does involve supernatural agency, because it asserts that evolution is being "guided" by some kind of intelligence (rather than the purely naturalistic, mechanical model science teaches).

Before I stick my foot in my mouth, is Theistic evolution a specific term?

[Formless]

It's too bad that homeopathy has become so weird. In my mind - and correct me if I'm wrong - the basic idea of giving incredibly small doses of a substance to a person in order to help them deal with some problem seems highly reminiscent of both vaccines and recent new treatment of peanut allergies.

Homeopathy is more specific than that. They literally think water can take on the chemical properties of substances that get diluted into it. The amount of water you are supposed to consume in a homeopathic remedy is not small at all, certainly not when looked at in comparison with actual medicines or even poisons (which can get pretty ludicrously disproportionate in terms of dosage to effect). But the basic idea is not only flawed, its totally nuts-- why doesn't water take on the chemical properties of whatever it was contained in? Like, say, the metal pipes that pump it in through the taps, or the plastic in the cup or bottles you drink it out of? How long does it keep these properties? Too long, and you have to wonder why it doesn't have all the chemical properties of basically everything, since all water around today has been filtered through the ecosystem and living animals who knows how many times over. Worse, on top of this they think that the more dilute the substance is in the water the more potent the resulting water-imitation remedy is. That's so far removed from how chemicals actually work its not even funny.

Other people have debunked it far better than I could hope to-- hell, James Randi routinely does a demonstration where he takes what is advertised to be a lethal dose of "sleep aids" and never suffered any ill effects. Or any effects at all.

What about Mao's body count? Do we get to lay the bodies of millions at the feet of an atheist, or was religion somehow actually involved?

1) to my knowledge, Mao's cultural revolution had everything to do with communism and very little to do with religion at all. Consider the very different role that religion plays in Chinese society that others have explained earlier: this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

2) even if you can, we atheists and skeptics are an extremely diverse lot. Literally the only thing that ties us all together is a lack in a belief in God and other supernatural forces. A negative, a lack of something. Hell, by that standard, you and I are in the same group for not believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Its far better to categorize people (let alone judge them, which is what lines like this almost always lead to) by what they do believe in.

Incidentally, this is why many atheists (like myself) don't usually advertise the fact or even identify as atheists-- its only important to people because they are so accustomed to people having religion, such that they expect that everyone has it. I identify as a political progressive, a member of the Green party of the US, as a utilitarian, as a scientist, and so on. I share absolutely nothing in common with Mao... except that I do not believe in God or the supernatural.

Or how about talking about something different like Democracy... Is Democracy harmful? It's led to multiple wars across the world, and economic embargoes on multiple countries. It's been a factor in bad relationships with other countries, and the prime tool in the belt of extreme racism and discrimination in at least one country constantly embroiled in conflict.

Compared to Dictatorship and Feudalism?

*laughs uncontrollably*

P.S. we (or most of us anyway) don't worship democracy either. Its flawed, and we know its flawed. Its even designed to improve itself for this very reason... just like science.

Before I stick my foot in my mouth, is Theistic evolution a specific term?

Its distinct from Pantheism, if that's what you are after.

[Vendetta]

It's too bad that homeopathy has become so weird. In my mind - and correct me if I'm wrong - the basic idea of giving incredibly small doses of a substance to a person in order to help them deal with some problem seems highly reminiscent of both vaccines and recent new treatment of peanut allergies.

Homeopathy hasn't just become weird, it started out weird.

Also, it's really not like vaccination at all. Vaccination gives a real dose of an inert biotic in order to teach the body's immune system to recognise that specific biotic in future. This is based on a real understanding of the way immunology and the immune system work.

Homeopathy, on the other hand, gives an unreal dose (ie. one which is not actually present) of something which produces similar symptoms to whatever symptoms the patient reports. This is based on no understanding of the way biology works.

There is absolutely no equivalence between homeopathy and vaccination, no matter what the advocates of the former may try to claim.

[Shroom Man 777]

Richard Dawkin's recent address to the Pope covers a bit about how people's assumptions of Mao and Stalin's "crimes of atheism" are wrong. Their heinous acts aren't in any way caused by their lack of belief in god, just like how their heinous acts aren't caused by their lack of belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The lack of belief in invisible superstitious creatures has nothing to do with the fucked up ideologies of Stalinism or Maoism, and the atrocities these people perpetrated.

[Sela]

Also, your definition of supernatural does not include those (believed) phenomenon that manifest themselves in ways that concur with natural laws.

It's so hard for me to accept some coincidences as not supernatural. They really seem like it sometimes - to the point where my brain rejects that explanation.

Unfortunately, this is only a symptom of your brain being the product of evolution which TRAINS it to focus in on the short term instead of the long term. . . at least per my understanding.

I refer you to Littlewood's Law for an excellent debunking of your train of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littlewood%27s_law

If you simply describe a miracle as a "Very Very improbable event" then you just need to wait long enough for the probabilitiies to work out. As such you can expect at least 2 very high-scale miracles in your life with several smaller 'miracles' every month.


And after taht, but natural that you remember the one 'miraculous string of coincidences' and seek an alternate explanation than just that they were coincidences. You and I both know that the odds against winning the lottery are astronomical - however (lottery-type depending) one person always wins. To that person, it's a miracle; but to us outside observers not suffering from confirmation bias in this case it's just statistics.

[Maj]

But the basic idea is not only flawed, its totally nuts-- why doesn't water take on the chemical properties of whatever it was contained in? Like, say, the metal pipes that pump it in through the taps, or the plastic in the cup or bottles you drink it out of?

Well, it does, actually. Or are you saying that homeopaths don't believe this?

Quite clearly we see the basic principle of homeopathy totally differently. To me, what you're saying is a detail based on the premise that really small amounts of stuff can cure/heal the problems incurred by that stuff - which is not an inherently false premise. It's just the the execution of that premise is totally crap.

1) to my knowledge, Mao's cultural revolution had everything to do with communism and very little to do with religion at all. Consider the very different role that religion plays in Chinese society that others have explained earlier: this shouldn't be much of a surprise.

So back when I asked about non-religious bad stuff, this would have been a good example to reply with?

2) even if you can, we atheists and skeptics are an extremely diverse lot. Literally the only thing that ties us all together is a lack in a belief in God and other supernatural forces.

Just a semantics question...

I was under the impression that atheists are people who believe in the lack of a god/supernatural force? It sure seems that way when there are outright declarations that there is no god/God/whatever.

On a less semantic note...

Religious people are an extremely diverse lot. I don't think that lumping them together is any more useful or accurate than lumping together non-religious people.

Hell, by that standard, you and I are in the same group for not believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

Hey, watch it, Mister. Stay the hell out of my Christmas - I totally believe in Santa. The Easter Bunny, though... That's ridiculous. Who ever heard of a bunny that lays eggs?

Compared to Dictatorship and Feudalism?

No.

The premise of this thread is that religion causes such great harm that it should [somehow mystically] be eliminated from the human experience. Personally, I think that idea is completely and utterly ludicrous in practicality and ability to be accomplished, but on top of that, I don't attribute the many harms laid at the feet of religion to Religion, itself. I attribute them to humanity.

As such, I'm trying to look at other egregious violations of human rights to demonstrate that bad stuff is going to happen and millions of people will still die because people will use any reason to justify bad behavior. If not religion, then cultural purification or ultimate security. Eliminating religion from the world will do nothing to change the fact that corruption of power results in massive injustice.

God doesn't kill people. Belief in God doesn't kill people. But belief that X group of people need to be "dealt" with does. Studies have demonstrated that people attribute their personal beliefs to that of their religious beliefs - if you hate gay people, you're way more inclined to say that God hates gay people. And if something comes along to change your mind or soften your beliefs, then God doesn't actually hate gay people.

That's not religion. That's people.

But then, whether either side is right or not is completely irrelevant next to the question of how you propose to eliminate Religion. We can't wage a war on terrorism or drugs with even a modicum of success. How on earth would a war - a crusade, if you will - against Religion even begin to succeed? For starters, it's not like religion exists in a vacuum. The religious experience is not spawned in a specific part of the brain that can be turned off without damaging other systems. Religion is also interconnected with history, culture, and education (among other things). The idea that we can just sever the tie is nonsensical.

Its distinct from Pantheism, if that's what you are after.

Not what I was after. My instinct was to reply with the idea that some people don't believe evolution is guided by a supernatural force - just that it was started by one. But I wasn't sure if there was a specific term "theistic evolution" that - by definition - meant that evolution was necessarily guided.

There is absolutely no equivalence between homeopathy and vaccination, no matter what the advocates of the former may try to claim.

Just so you know, V for Vendetta is seriously one of my favorite movies ever, so you are automatically cool.



But in response, I think you're being too specific. You're getting so caught up in the fact that homeopathy actually dilutes things to the point of nonexistence that you're not really looking at the principle.

The doctors really did give my son microscopic amounts of polio virus in order to prevent him from getting polio. The technical knowledge of immunology is largely irrelevant. Seriously... The Chinese were inoculating people against smallpox before microscopes were invented.

And doctors have discovered that mysteriously, people who normally suffer anaphylaxis upon exposure to peanuts become relatively normal if dosed with incredibly minute amounts of peanut over a period of time.

Their heinous acts aren't in any way caused by their lack of belief in god

So Dawkins gets to pull the "may be non-religious but not motivated by that ideology" card, but religious people don't?

If you simply describe a miracle as a "Very Very improbable event" then you just need to wait long enough for the probabilitiies to work out. As such you can expect at least 2 very high-scale miracles in your life with several smaller 'miracles' every month.

Oh, my going rate is more than that.

And after taht, but natural that you remember the one 'miraculous string of coincidences' and seek an alternate explanation than just that they were coincidences.

Well, when you have an idea of how I can share a dream with another person who was miles away, let me know, OK?

[Formless]

Well, it does, actually. Or are you saying that homeopaths don't believe this?

You keep thinking that homeopaths believe it contains the chemicals, I'm saying that they believe the water itself takes on the chemical properties of the things it contains. Despite not changing its appearance. Yes, it is that crazy, and it bears no resemblance to real life medicine or chemistry whatsoever. It is by any definition applicable a superstition.

Just a semantics question...

I was under the impression that atheists are people who believe in the lack of a god/supernatural force? It sure seems that way when there are outright declarations that there is no god/God/whatever.

If you really want to get deep into the semantics, there are two kinds of atheism: "Strong" atheism which makes the positive claim that god is non-existent and "weak" atheism which is just default skepticism. Of course, on a practical level as Mike once pointed out they really aren't different-- it is just semantics.

Consider: a "weak" atheist is also by default an agnostic. We accept that evidence might shore up later. Of course, a strong atheist might very well do the same. Some of us are also ignostic-- that is, I think that the term "god" is undefined, possibly meaningless, and therefore according to parsimony its completely unnecessary for understanding the world either empirically or philosophically. (this is one of the reasons I am not a pantheist, for instance-- it essentially boils down to a word substitution between "god" and "reality/the natural universe") We can keep coming up with many different ways of saying "I do not believe in x" and all it does is falsely highlight the importance of god in my life despite me not believing in him!

Of course, technically atheism is not incompatible with supernatural belief, because again all it means is that we do not believe in a deity. Bhuddists are (mostly) atheists-- they believe in reincarnation, nirvana, and karma, but they do not believe in (or worship in any case) any gods. Not only is it not on their list of beliefs, they don't care either way. This is despite being spawned by a religion with a plethora of gods in a very complex pantheon (Hinduism). Of course, most atheists in the west came to that state through an acceptance of a skeptical attitude to life, so they also do not believe in other supernatural powers either. Hence why the word is erroneously assumed by some people like yourself to be defined by a lack of belief in any supernatural power.

On a less semantic note...

Religious people are an extremely diverse lot. I don't think that lumping them together is any more useful or accurate than lumping together non-religious people.

Somehow I knew you were going to miss the point. The fact is, despite your diversity you do share certain beliefs in common, so you can be judged based on them where atheists and religious skeptics cannot. You all believe in supernatural powers: most of us (but not all!) do not. You all worship those powers; we do not. You want to compare apples to cannonballs, the only similarities between the two is that they both happen to be round. You want to compare atheists and other skeptics with religious people, the only similarities is that they both happen to be diverse.

In the end analysis, using Mao's behavior as some kind of indicator about what atheists believe or would do if given power is laughable; using the Pope's behavior as an indicator of what a religious person might believe (and by believe in this case I mean what they think they are entitled to do or morally obligated to do) or do with power is far less so.

No.

The premise of this thread is that religion causes such great harm that it should [somehow mystically] be eliminated from the human experience. Personally, I think that idea is completely and utterly ludicrous in practicality and ability to be accomplished, but on top of that, I don't attribute the many harms laid at the feet of religion to Religion, itself. I attribute them to humanity.

You miss the point again. Dictatorship and Feudalism were bad in part because of humanity: but democracy was designed to counter the evils of human nature. Science was too, specifically the evils of intuition. Morality is as well, in the most direct way possible.

Religion is not. You would leave human nature unchecked simply because you happen to have an attachment to those parts of human nature. Regardless of practicality (I don't expect this to happen overnight) that is completely idiotic. For that reason, I submit to you that it is nevertheless something to be rid of, because it is incapable of improving either itself or humanity, it frequently enables human beings to act out of their darker natures, and it retards human growth in not only the area of knowledge but morality as well.

As such, I'm trying to look at other egregious violations of human rights to demonstrate that bad stuff is going to happen and millions of people will still die because people will use any reason to justify bad behavior. If not religion, then cultural purification or ultimate security. Eliminating religion from the world will do nothing to change the fact that corruption of power results in massive injustice.

And people frequently drive drunk and kill themselves and others. Are we oppressing drunks by enforcing drunk driving laws? Or more generally, should we or should we not put safety mechanisms like airbags into cars? Hey, shit happens right? Its the driver's fault for getting behind the wheel, and the pedestrian's fault for walking on the sidewalk when there are cars flying past him at breakneck speeds built with bad brakes.

God doesn't kill people. Belief in God doesn't kill people. But belief that X group of people need to be "dealt" with does. Studies have demonstrated that people attribute their personal beliefs to that of their religious beliefs - if you hate gay people, you're way more inclined to say that God hates gay people. [Formless notes: Citation Needed] And if something comes along to change your mind or soften your beliefs, then God doesn't actually hate gay people.

Studies also show that religious people are far less moral on average, as measured by crime rates. Face it, the only conceivable reason you are arguing this point is either ignorance or irrational attachment.

The religious experience is not spawned in a specific part of the brain that can be turned off without damaging other systems. Religion is also interconnected with history, culture, and education (among other things). The idea that we can just sever the tie is nonsensical.

We don't have to eliminate it on the biological level. It is good enough to eliminate it on the social/cultural level. In the same way there are no more worshipers of Zeus or Thor (gods who were at least cool), and in the same way that slavery is no longer socially acceptable in the first world.

Not what I was after. My instinct was to reply with the idea that some people don't believe evolution is guided by a supernatural force - just that it was started by one. But I wasn't sure if there was a specific term "theistic evolution" that - by definition - meant that evolution was necessarily guided.

Yeah, no. First off, evolution is a process. It doesn't need to be "started". As long as there are lifeforms capable of reproducing with variation and the possibility of mutation the laws of nature will take over and the process will happen by itself. Like gravity and star formation. Theistic evolution is a specific term that indicates God intervenes at some level to implement his plans (whatever they happen to be).

[Junghalli]

I have to admit, in all my discussions with people on religion, it always opens with the big C.

If you hang around forums frequented by Westerners it probably has a lot to do with the fact it's what most people in America and Europe are most familiar with. Things like Hinduism are less likely to be attacked because a lot of athiests know a lot less about them than about Christianity.

[Spoonist]

I have to admit, in all my discussions with people on religion, it always opens with the big C.

If you hang around forums frequented by Westerners it probably has a lot to do with the fact it's what most people in America and Europe are most familiar with. Things like Hinduism are less likely to be attacked because a lot of athiests know a lot less about them than about Christianity.

As an added bonus the reverse is true as well. We are less attacked by the bigotry of hinduism or buddhism than we are by christianity or islam. This since they have less of a web presence on english forums. Thus since most of us have had to defend ourselves less from their ignorance of reality we are less inclined to be aggressive towards them.

But take the example of scientology which has fewer active followers than buddhism in the west but do have a large presence and activism, they are aggressively pursued on the web because of their practices.

So its also indicative of the bad stuff they shove down people as well, and there christianity is top shover of bad stuff as it affects us almost every day.

Quite clearly we see the basic principle of homeopathy totally differently. To me, what you're saying is a detail based on the premise that really small amounts of stuff can cure/heal the problems incurred by that stuff - which is not an inherently false premise. It's just the the execution of that premise is totally crap.

Then you have not read up on homeapathy enough. It shows that you have only been exposed to modern censored version of homeopathy and not read up on its origins and creator.

The delisuion of dilution is perifiral for homeapathy instead its base is the middle age notion of cure like with like (fight fire with fire).
So to cure disease X you should treat it with a remedy that gives like symptoms as if you had X. So to cure boils you'd have to get something that results in boils.
The second base of homeopathy is miasms the "peculiar morbid derangement of [the] vital force". So an attack of miasms on the life force of a patient causes local symptoms, such as skin or venereal diseases, but if these symptoms are suppressed by medication, the cause goes deeper and begins to manifest itself as diseases of the internal organs. So if you cure something mild with 'ordinary' medicine your miasm will attack something more vital.
I don't have to go into detail how dangerous an idea that is do I?

After those come the dilution stuff, you see the first patients he tried his ideas on got real sick when he didn't dilute them, so that's when he invented the notion that water has a magical memory that lets its retain the properties of other compounds. But only if done in a certain way. (Which explains why all other compounds are not remembered by the water).

[Serafina]

Ugh...Homeopathy, the most successful form of quackery.
Note that "modern" homeopathy is not "modern" at all, it uses the same principles as the original version of homeopathy. It literary has not changed since 1796!

Okay, the first principle of homeopathy: "Like cures like". They take that literary: If something (say, caffeine) causes a symptom (being more awake), then the SAME THING can cure that symptom (making it easier to sleep). Of course, they claim that it depends entirely on the dose, but it's still pretty damn stupid.

The second one: "The smaller the dose, the more effective the medicine". Not only does that fly into the face of logic and causality, it's also based on total bullshit. Note that homeopathic "remedies" do not actually contain even a single molecule - every single one of them is more diluted than the Avogadro constant! There literary is no active ingredient in them.
They claim that water has some sort of "memory" that supposedly only works if you shake it in special ways - except that that has never been proven to be actually happening - and it flies into the face of physics, too!

Homeopathy is just pure bullshit. It does of course have a placebo effect - but nothing beyond that. People can (and have) swallow dozens of homepoathic pills (or other remedies) without any side effect - impossible with any real medizine.

[ray245]

Richard Dawkin's recent address to the Pope covers a bit about how people's assumptions of Mao and Stalin's "crimes of atheism" are wrong. Their heinous acts aren't in any way caused by their lack of belief in god, just like how their heinous acts aren't caused by their lack of belief in unicorns or leprechauns. The lack of belief in invisible superstitious creatures has nothing to do with the fucked up ideologies of Stalinism or Maoism, and the atrocities these people perpetrated.

Not just that. Religious organisations has never proven to anyone that if those people adopt and follow some form of religion, it would actually prevent people like Stalin or Mao from committing such hideous acts.

[Maj]

I apologize for not being able to post more frequently. I've added these boards to my list of stuff I want to do when I'm online, but I spend so much time trying to read everything that I set it aside for last and often miss out.

Of course, technically atheism is not incompatible with supernatural belief, because again all it means is that we do not believe in a deity.

You all believe in supernatural powers: most of us (but not all!) do not.

I realize that you were trying to make a point, but these two statements are not resolvable in my mind. And really, when the zoom out function includes both atheists and religious people, I think that the point is very lost.

In the end analysis, using Mao's behavior as some kind of indicator about what atheists believe or would do if given power is laughable; using the Pope's behavior as an indicator of what a religious person might believe (and by believe in this case I mean what they think they are entitled to do or morally obligated to do) or do with power is far less so.

What makes a sample size of one more valid for one group than another?

Seriously... Mao shoved his atheist view-point on the citizens of an entire country. I have a difficult time understanding how that action doesn't stem from being an atheist.

You miss the point again. Dictatorship and Feudalism were bad in part because of humanity: but democracy was designed to counter the evils of human nature.

Regardless of what it was designed or intended to do, the real question should be: Does it? The country of Israel is technically a democracy. Looking at that, I'd say that it's demonstrably possibly for the evils of human nature to kick democracy's ass.

Science was too, specifically the evils of intuition.

Wait... What?

Religion is not [designed to counter the evils of human nature]. You would leave human nature unchecked simply because you happen to have an attachment to those parts of human nature.

So stuff like the Ten Commandments - not killing, coveting wives/stuff, bearing false witness, honoring your parents, stealing, or committing adultery - are NOT designed to counter evils of human nature?

Or is that not religion?

And people frequently drive drunk and kill themselves and others. Are we oppressing drunks by enforcing drunk driving laws? Or more generally, should we or should we not put safety mechanisms like airbags into cars? Hey, shit happens right? Its the driver's fault for getting behind the wheel, and the pedestrian's fault for walking on the sidewalk when there are cars flying past him at breakneck speeds built with bad brakes.

What does this have to do with anything? Does this country seriously have a religioius deth problem where religiousness can be measured and tested until people get to such a state where they go around accidentally (or deliberately, I suppose) killing people? How many people die each year as victims of "religion"?

God doesn't kill people. Belief in God doesn't kill people. But belief that X group of people need to be "dealt" with does. Studies have demonstrated that people attribute their personal beliefs to that of their religious beliefs - if you hate gay people, you're way more inclined to say that God hates gay people. [Formless notes: Citation Needed] And if something comes along to change your mind or soften your beliefs, then God doesn't actually hate gay people.

Yeah. I spent an hour trying to find it and failed. Fortunately for you, I kept looking - Ironically, It was linked to on Richard Dawkin's website. You can find it here.

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

...

Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions.

...

As better evidence of causality, Epley showed that he could change people's views on God's will by manipulating their own beliefs.

...

He asked 59 people to write and perform a speech about the death penalty, which either matched their own beliefs or argued against them. The task shifted people's attitudes towards the position in their speech, either strengthening or moderating their original views. And as in the other experiments, their shifting attitudes coincided with altered estimates of God's attitudes.

It is good enough to eliminate it on the social/cultural level.

Have you ever actually studied what being religious means from a scientific standpoint?

It doesn't need to be "started".

It is the nature of our brains to look for cause and effect. It's actually a vital skill for existing. So... the beginning of evolution would generally "start" with the beginning of life - where, how, why, when did it happen? And real scientists with real jobs actually study that subject because we wanna know. And then there's the whole issue of how the circumstances that promote life came into being - the study of how earth happened and the rest of the universe. I believe there was a popular theory on this most people refer as the Big Bang theory.

So whether or not evolution "needs" to be started isn't really relevant - people are looking for the beginning all the same. I was just wondering if there was a specific semantic term "theistic evolution." There's not.

Then you have not read up on homeapathy enough.

I won't argue that one. From the descriptions given here, it actually sounds like homeopathy's become a religion with Water being the primary deity.

[Serafina]

What makes a sample size of one more valid for one group than another?

Seriously... Mao shoved his atheist view-point on the citizens of an entire country. I have a difficult time understanding how that action doesn't stem from being an atheist.

Do you even know how religious China was before Mao?
Also, why you can legitimately argue that "shoving atheism down their throats" stems from his atheism, you can NOT argue that his other behaviors did - since he was primarily motivated by Communism (his atheism came from that, too). On the other hand, the Popes primary motivation (and that of many other religious nutjobs) IS religion, so you can argue legitimately that his behavior stems from his religious beliefs.

Anyway, your answer is easy to answer:
Christians are likely to emulate the Pope regarding their religious behavior, since he is a religious authority figure. (and most Christians ARE catholics).
Atheists are unlikely to emulate Mao regarding their "religious" behavior, since he never was a religious authority figure.

Regardless of what it was designed or intended to do, the real question should be: Does it? The country of Israel is technically a democracy. Looking at that, I'd say that it's demonstrably possibly for the evils of human nature to kick democracy's ass.

Just because Democracy is more resilient to some of the bad parts of human nature, it's not immune to them - nice black/white fallacy there. Also, would Israel be any better if it was a Theocracy/Monarchy/Dictatorship instead of a Democracy - or would it be worse?

So stuff like the Ten Commandments - not killing, coveting wives/stuff, bearing false witness, honoring your parents, stealing, or committing adultery - are NOT designed to counter evils of human nature?

Or is that not religion?

*Yawn* Yes, you got some nice rules that sound nice - and the same set of rules demands absolute obedience to a single authority, no questions asked - BEFORE any of the other rules. Besides - how much good were they, anyway? Do you think that people didn't know about such rules before your tribal myths?
The ONLY reason they "counter the evils of human nature" is because they rely on mindless obedience - which is itself one of those evils of human nature. Furthermore, since there is no deity that actually acts as that authority (since it doesn't exist), it's replaced by a priesthood - who have regularly bent those rules or outright ignored them.

I won't argue that one. From the descriptions given here, it actually sounds like homeopathy's become a religion with Water being the primary deity.

Yeez - when will people learn that religion doesn't require any deities? Look at Buddhism - it doesn't have any deities (there are Buddhists who do, but that's not part of Buddhism per se).
Religion is just "belief in something supernatural" - if you want to be specific, you can add that it needs to be dressed in a couple of rules, too.
That supernatural thing doesn't have to be any entity or god - it can just be a thing. Buddhism believes that there is a set of supernatural laws, comparable to the laws of physics - that's just how the universe works, without any intelligent agency behind it that could be called a god. Likewise, homeopaths just believe that that's (part of) how the universe works. It's arguably supernatural because what they belief in is not measurabled - but it doesn't involve any god.

Would you please widen your horizon beyond that of your religion? Some people have a horizon with a radius of zero - and they call it their "viewpoint". Apparently, you are one of them.