I'm a biochemist. You're in my ballpark now, welcome.
I could write a thesis on this, but I'm going to ask you a simple question instead. If your DNA is designed, why then do you retain all the genetic information of your whole ancestry, right back to fish?
DNA is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of evolution. You should be extremely careful about using it to support creationism.
lol, So god couldn't have made a self evolving species? if anything your statement furthers religious argument. It says god flooded the earth to rid of a species that was living at the time, nope that couldn't be possible?, OH WAIT Cro-Magnon were wiped out mysteriously and the current humans took over after that.
EDIT: not cro magnon, I have to find it, will edit this post when I do.
If you're talking about chance, the Multiverse hypothesis would take care of all chance, making the chance of something happening mean nothing. Also, assuming there aren't other universes, I'd have to agree with you. The chances of life forming are quite slim. That said, there's been plenty of time for it to happen, making the chance of it happening actually be quite reasonably, and also the fact that there are countless other planets just like Earth (albeit, we don't know if they have life, I'm just talking about being in very similar conditions to Earth) which further increases the likelihood of life beginning.
lol, So god couldn't have made a self evolving species? if anything your statement furthers religious argument. It says god flooded the earth to rid of a species that was living at the time, nope that couldn't be possible?, OH WAIT Cro-Magnon were wiped out mysteriously and the current humans took over after that.
You do realize `Evolution` is only a very small part/aspect of the development of the species of earth, right?. You still cant fathom the processes that occurred at the big bang and during the evolution of the universe which was entirely perfect to create the precise conditions for life on earth. Research, and be in awe.
Yes I do, I'm a zoologist and evolucionist. Like Eiviyn said, you looks backwards and everything seems so perfect, but only because species evolved in these conditions. Venus or Jupiter would'nt look perfect to us and if we ever find life there those lifefroms wont find Earth so perfect to them. You need to remove the human lenses and check reality from a neutral point of view.
As for `Evolution`. I do not entirely discard the theory(Though some of it is a lot of bull). Of course there is evidence to it and such. Still no direct link between the ape-man(one minute caveman then next minute building pyramids and mapping out the solar system) , but yea.
The bible says God created the animals and man on the earth. It doesn`t go into the scientific processes behind it(that would fill books, and nobody at that time would understand or care). So did animals and man magically appear in a puff of smoke?, probably not. Did we evolve systematically?, perhaps.
I'd love to read what exactly you think is "bull", specially because that could tell how much of it you really don't understand. And about the "ape-man" link that dicussion was over a century ago, please renew your knowledge about the subject. I'm not religious but I do agree with you the Bible said God created animals and mem and it doesn't need to go into details about that (something many religious people can't even consider).
Its interesting, if you read the genesis account of creation.
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
...
So did we evolve from the water and other things that evolution states?. Heck possibly. The difference is still that I attribute it to intelligent design and will.
So because the way "creation" was written superficially agrees with a sense of evolutionary order it tells us intelligent design is right? No, you should come with better arguments than that. You know I'm not here to argue about the existence of God or anything like that, but if you try to use scientific knowledge to justify your beliefs you should at least know it very well, otherwise they will turn against you. Intelligent design says creatures are what they are because something (God) created them for a purpose and they are perfect for that purpose, but the statement that creatures are perfect is wrong (Blizzard's idea of perfect god-like creatures doesn't count here). Creatures are only good to live the way they live and not always good enough, they are way far from perfection and will always be, because natural selection can only select them to the point they are better than median competitors.
The chance of God being real is far from 50 50... I'm not sure if you've heard, but there are other religions than Christianity, and I can come up with nearly an infinite number of imaginary gods which would make the chance of yours being real even lower.
@Eiviyn: GoThis is the anthropic principle.
I knew this would come up.
Ive had discussions like this before with other atheists and their `faith/believe`, and I know its a truly futile discussion. You will use science to prove/explain/justify science, which is really funny. I say God created the moon and universe and whatever, everything. You`ll tell me the `HOW` `and the PROCESS` that created it. I can understand that, but you miss the point.
An analogy to this whole thing, I bake a chocolate cake. Put the ingrediants, leave it in the oven for X time, and whatever, its done.
Atheists "EternalWraith didn`t bake the fking chocolate cake. Its baking powder, chocolate sauce, temperature at X degrees, etc. That how the fking cake was created.". No sh1t, but I was the will, force, and direction behind it.
So you see?, its pointless.
You will always deny the existence of God, always. Unless god personally came down to your house right now and said `Hi, Im God, Believe now?`. Perhaps even then you wont believe.
You`re probably a very intelligent person irl, biochemist. So like many scientists or similar in the field, you probably look down and scoff with pity on us `unintelligent peon` christians. Yet you lack basic common sense and logic.. How ironic. Exactly as the bible says however:/. So im not surprised.
DNA is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of evolution. You should be extremely careful about using it to support creationism.
Im not afraid of bringing science to the bible because it always reconciles perfectly. Assuming the science is 100% accurate.
No respectable scientist on Earth thinks that.
Of course they do. You included. Luck and chance and randomness. That is your God. Destiny, Intelligent design, purpose. The God of the bible.
But as I said. Atheists will stick to their faith(sorry, but thats the classification), and Christians to theirs.
@EternalWraith: Go I agree that arguing about the processes or not is pointless. No side can prove anything through those arguments, so you too shouldn't use arguments like that, still you tried to use evolution and life as one argument in your favor. See?
What God did was write the code for everything(he wanted) , and then he hit the COMPILE button, and it executed without error.
Do you know what impossible miraculous chances/odds it is for you and us to be here today?. Have you the slightest idea?. How the moon was formed, how water was created on the planet, the formation of protein and DNA?. Ive studied and researched all of that(among other things). Everything just points toward intelligent design, its almost impossible to think otherwise.
Can you really say chance/randomness/luck is the reason for everything?. And what is chance/randomness/luck then?. You have more faith than me then in your belief if you think that.
That's really one sided point of view. We don't know how long things are. "intelligent design" perfectly possibly can be effect of matter/non-matter moving towards more harmonized structure. So we can't really say that something is "designed"; it's organized.
Organization is caused due electromagnetic field which is caused by current which is caused by charge which is caused by electrons which are made of all those smallest things, which people still try to find and as i say they won't because it's just matter or perspective. There's no Universe's pixel. The smaller world does not need to have trees and other people; shape or form. Energy, movement is enough.
We know we are made of cells. Cells are also made from something. This something is also made of something and so on until infinity.
You say it's designed by someone/something. We made PCs that are effect of one matter (us) affecting other matter (the fact they don't live it's just our property. We should say 'they' are different than 'us').
The entire organization is everywhere, it's just the scale which makes it seems that's not there. So to consider anything at our scale to be designed, in my opinion is incorrect. It's more like thrown out.
Furthermore, we can't say where our roots are. The organization could take some time. You say chances are miraculous impossible for us to be here. We could be anything else and you would say same thing.
Just think outside of the box. Our form, our senses, our abilities are just one of endless amount of possibilities. It's just senses that create this illusion of 'being' in proper way. What we call "life" it's just an occurrence. It's not a gift. It's not good or bad vs other matter. Stuff in space spin yet we don't say it lives.
Imo only proper definition of "God" is a 'source'. Not any intelligent being. More of a cause. Root.
I don't recall stating I was an atheist nor that I deny the possibility of a god.
Science operates on probabilities and observations. The probability of there being a god is not 0 nor 1. It would be profoundly unscientific of me to state that there are no gods, just as I view anyone who knows that a god exist as unscientific.
As for science being used to prove science, that's simply not true. Any hypothesis must draw on observable facts before a conclusion is drawn.
The cake analogy is just plain unfair. Firstly, cakes don't breed other cakes with slightly different qualities per each generation. Secondly, in this context, your "baker" is your mother. We are discussing a designer here, not the "baker". I don't really see how your example is relevant.
As for the section on apathy, good science is communicative science. I'm a million miles from Dawkins, but I can do my part. I listen to religious debates, and they all have one thing in common; a fundamental misunderstanding of the science they are abusing. While I don't think I could achieve much on a forum, nor convert a single person even if I had a wider audience, I can at least try to explain the misunderstandings.
Of course they do. You included. Luck and chance and randomness. That is your God.
Destiny, Intelligent design, purpose. The God of the bible.
I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by telling me what I do and don't believe. "Your god" also says the Earth is held up by pillars (Samuel 2:8) but I wouldn't accuse anyone of believing such nonsense.
Gene mutation is random. Bad mutations are expunged.
I cite atrocities such as preservation of polio and denial of contraception
I reference religion's prolific role in promoting homophobia, slavery and subjugation of women
I quote religious leaders empowering poverty
I highlight wars over who's way of praying to Yahweh is the best
And these are just what is going on today in the name of "god"
All I get in return is apologies, "You can't think of it that way", "You don't understand it" and "You're just wrong".
That is because you seem to keep missing my point, and the fact that that is what you think I'm replying kind of confirms it. You seem to be saying that religion causes all of this bloodshed. That those boys from that one article would not have killed their sister if religion had never existed. I'm simply telling you that that is wrong. I'll happily agree that religion has been (ab)used as an excuse for atrocities, but so has pretty much everything else that exists in this world. People have attempted to kill because of unrealistic affections for Jody Foster. Does this mean we should oppose Jody fucking Foster for inspiring murder?
It's time we, as a species, grew out of this violent, bigoted and arrogant nonsense.
This is something I completely agree with. But we don't do it through 'banning' religion. If I could flick my fingers right now and remove any kind of religion from the minds of everyone in the world, nothing would change. People would find different excuses. People who kill in the name of religion have bigger issues than religion. That is the point I'm trying to make, and it's one you still haven't adressed - you've just thrown waves of examples of people using religion as an excuse for their deeds at me.
Religious arguments always get way too elaborate.
People always argue about the consequences of religion or lack thereof which is imho a waste of time.
It's so much easier to disprove religion by just finding a counter-argument to every single reason why people believe in religion. And that is pretty easy by comparison. The one who makes an assumption has to deliver the evidence.
Lol. This thread is FAR the most popular thread in a STARCRAFT community. rofl. That only proves that Debates was the best starcraft map :)
Now, back to religion. You guys should have in mind that none of you will change ideas of anybody in here. I had countless religious debates before, and they always end up the same. Things won't be different here.
Ps: We have a Debates game on Chatroom Contest in less than half hour (4 pm pacific time). All of you are invited to debate religion there. https://www.chatroomcontest.com
Lol. This thread is FAR the most popular thread in a STARCRAFT community. rofl. That only proves that Debates was the best starcraft map :)
Now, back to religion. You guys should have in mind that none of you will change ideas of anybody in here. I had countless religious debates before, and they always end up the same. Things won't be different here.
I know you have always been jealous of my superiority as a mapper. But, I have no hard feelings. If you keep persisting, one day you will make maps as good as mine :)
Yeah, I noticed. It's all your posts seem to be. "Religion is an innocent tool and you are wrong".
I'm arguing that religion predisposes mentally healthy individuals to commit grievous or illogical acts in the name of their subscribed deity.
Except that you're not argueing it. You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion. I've drawn a comparison to people who have murdered for sillier causes, and you're not responding to it.
You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion.
Let me remind you of my examples.
1) Preservation of Polio
2) Subjugation of women
3) Denial of contraception
4) Propagation of Homophobia
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
How you draw the causality to religious superstition is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that if religion hadn't existed at all, we wouldn't have had these problems? Or that different problems of the same scope wouldn't have arisen? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of homophobia, do you think the problem would have been non-existant? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of female subjugation, do you think all females would've lived as free equals to men from the dawn of mankind?
The best example you offered is still that 'witch hunt' article from a couple of topics ago. Let me ask you again; do you honestly think that if religion had never existed, those two folks would have never murdered anybody and be completely fine and upstanding individuals? Yes, religion has a ROLE in all of these instances, but that doesn't make it the cause. PEOPLE are the cause. Like I said multiple times, religion is what you make of it. If I choose to believe in a god and proceed to murder everyone who doesn't believe in my personal god, that makes me a moron, not my religion stupid. If this were untrue, we could assume that religion, as the 'cause' of these evils, makes anybody able to commit them. Which would mean that any upstanding citizen, upon convertion to Christianity, would suddenly become more likely to commit murder than before.
The whole ordeal just doesn't make sense to begin with. The number of Christians in the world has only been on the rise since the 1500's, yet violence has gone down, and 'holy wars' have lessened to nearly the point of extinction. If religion is what causes men to murder, how do you explain this? I do so through stating that our morals as a whole have shifted, not our belief in God.
The only correlation I really see is that 'stupid' people (or rather, 'people capable of murder') are more easily drawn to radical causes because of their state of mind. Or in a nutshell; people who are stupid (or rather 'capable of murder') to begin with are also the ones more prone to believe in lies, making religion not a cause of their violence, but rather a hint to their state of mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
lol, So god couldn't have made a self evolving species? if anything your statement furthers religious argument. It says god flooded the earth to rid of a species that was living at the time, nope that couldn't be possible?, OH WAIT Cro-Magnon were wiped out mysteriously and the current humans took over after that.
EDIT: not cro magnon, I have to find it, will edit this post when I do.
Neanderthals
@EternalWraith: Go
If you're talking about chance, the Multiverse hypothesis would take care of all chance, making the chance of something happening mean nothing. Also, assuming there aren't other universes, I'd have to agree with you. The chances of life forming are quite slim. That said, there's been plenty of time for it to happen, making the chance of it happening actually be quite reasonably, and also the fact that there are countless other planets just like Earth (albeit, we don't know if they have life, I'm just talking about being in very similar conditions to Earth) which further increases the likelihood of life beginning.
You misunderstand.
A god could have orchestrated evolution, yes.
However evolution removes the need for one.
Yes I do, I'm a zoologist and evolucionist. Like Eiviyn said, you looks backwards and everything seems so perfect, but only because species evolved in these conditions. Venus or Jupiter would'nt look perfect to us and if we ever find life there those lifefroms wont find Earth so perfect to them. You need to remove the human lenses and check reality from a neutral point of view.
I'd love to read what exactly you think is "bull", specially because that could tell how much of it you really don't understand. And about the "ape-man" link that dicussion was over a century ago, please renew your knowledge about the subject. I'm not religious but I do agree with you the Bible said God created animals and mem and it doesn't need to go into details about that (something many religious people can't even consider).
So because the way "creation" was written superficially agrees with a sense of evolutionary order it tells us intelligent design is right? No, you should come with better arguments than that. You know I'm not here to argue about the existence of God or anything like that, but if you try to use scientific knowledge to justify your beliefs you should at least know it very well, otherwise they will turn against you. Intelligent design says creatures are what they are because something (God) created them for a purpose and they are perfect for that purpose, but the statement that creatures are perfect is wrong (Blizzard's idea of perfect god-like creatures doesn't count here). Creatures are only good to live the way they live and not always good enough, they are way far from perfection and will always be, because natural selection can only select them to the point they are better than median competitors.
@Eiviyn: Go
Okay whats more likely?, the 50/50 chance that god is real, or the 1:9x10^19 ?
@Taintedwisp: Go
The chance of God being real is far from 50 50... I'm not sure if you've heard, but there are other religions than Christianity, and I can come up with nearly an infinite number of imaginary gods which would make the chance of yours being real even lower.
@Eiviyn: Go This is the anthropic principle.
I knew this would come up.
Ive had discussions like this before with other atheists and their `faith/believe`, and I know its a truly futile discussion. You will use science to prove/explain/justify science, which is really funny. I say God created the moon and universe and whatever, everything. You`ll tell me the `HOW` `and the PROCESS` that created it. I can understand that, but you miss the point.
An analogy to this whole thing, I bake a chocolate cake. Put the ingrediants, leave it in the oven for X time, and whatever, its done.
Atheists "EternalWraith didn`t bake the fking chocolate cake. Its baking powder, chocolate sauce, temperature at X degrees, etc. That how the fking cake was created.". No sh1t, but I was the will, force, and direction behind it.
So you see?, its pointless.
You will always deny the existence of God, always. Unless god personally came down to your house right now and said `Hi, Im God, Believe now?`. Perhaps even then you wont believe.
Have you ever looked at this website by any chance?
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
You`re probably a very intelligent person irl, biochemist. So like many scientists or similar in the field, you probably look down and scoff with pity on us `unintelligent peon` christians. Yet you lack basic common sense and logic.. How ironic. Exactly as the bible says however:/. So im not surprised.
DNA is quite possibly the most conclusive proof of evolution. You should be extremely careful about using it to support creationism.
Im not afraid of bringing science to the bible because it always reconciles perfectly. Assuming the science is 100% accurate.
No respectable scientist on Earth thinks that.
Of course they do. You included. Luck and chance and randomness. That is your God.
Destiny, Intelligent design, purpose. The God of the bible.
But as I said. Atheists will stick to their faith(sorry, but thats the classification), and Christians to theirs.
@EternalWraith: Go I agree that arguing about the processes or not is pointless. No side can prove anything through those arguments, so you too shouldn't use arguments like that, still you tried to use evolution and life as one argument in your favor. See?
The existence of such a site is pointless.
That's really one sided point of view. We don't know how long things are. "intelligent design" perfectly possibly can be effect of matter/non-matter moving towards more harmonized structure. So we can't really say that something is "designed"; it's organized.
Organization is caused due electromagnetic field which is caused by current which is caused by charge which is caused by electrons which are made of all those smallest things, which people still try to find and as i say they won't because it's just matter or perspective. There's no Universe's pixel. The smaller world does not need to have trees and other people; shape or form. Energy, movement is enough. We know we are made of cells. Cells are also made from something. This something is also made of something and so on until infinity.
You say it's designed by someone/something. We made PCs that are effect of one matter (us) affecting other matter (the fact they don't live it's just our property. We should say 'they' are different than 'us').
The entire organization is everywhere, it's just the scale which makes it seems that's not there. So to consider anything at our scale to be designed, in my opinion is incorrect. It's more like thrown out.
Furthermore, we can't say where our roots are. The organization could take some time. You say chances are miraculous impossible for us to be here. We could be anything else and you would say same thing.
Just think outside of the box. Our form, our senses, our abilities are just one of endless amount of possibilities. It's just senses that create this illusion of 'being' in proper way. What we call "life" it's just an occurrence. It's not a gift. It's not good or bad vs other matter. Stuff in space spin yet we don't say it lives.
Imo only proper definition of "God" is a 'source'. Not any intelligent being. More of a cause. Root.
@EternalWraith: Go
I don't recall stating I was an atheist nor that I deny the possibility of a god.
Science operates on probabilities and observations. The probability of there being a god is not 0 nor 1. It would be profoundly unscientific of me to state that there are no gods, just as I view anyone who knows that a god exist as unscientific.
As for science being used to prove science, that's simply not true. Any hypothesis must draw on observable facts before a conclusion is drawn.
The cake analogy is just plain unfair. Firstly, cakes don't breed other cakes with slightly different qualities per each generation. Secondly, in this context, your "baker" is your mother. We are discussing a designer here, not the "baker". I don't really see how your example is relevant.
As for the section on apathy, good science is communicative science. I'm a million miles from Dawkins, but I can do my part. I listen to religious debates, and they all have one thing in common; a fundamental misunderstanding of the science they are abusing. While I don't think I could achieve much on a forum, nor convert a single person even if I had a wider audience, I can at least try to explain the misunderstandings.
You are absolutely free to do that, but know that science does not need any god to operate.
I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by telling me what I do and don't believe. "Your god" also says the Earth is held up by pillars (Samuel 2:8) but I wouldn't accuse anyone of believing such nonsense.
Gene mutation is random. Bad mutations are expunged.
I'm sure they will, because the human mind is hardwired to reject opposing input to pre-existing ideas. Unfortunate really.
That is because you seem to keep missing my point, and the fact that that is what you think I'm replying kind of confirms it. You seem to be saying that religion causes all of this bloodshed. That those boys from that one article would not have killed their sister if religion had never existed. I'm simply telling you that that is wrong. I'll happily agree that religion has been (ab)used as an excuse for atrocities, but so has pretty much everything else that exists in this world. People have attempted to kill because of unrealistic affections for Jody Foster. Does this mean we should oppose Jody fucking Foster for inspiring murder?
This is something I completely agree with. But we don't do it through 'banning' religion. If I could flick my fingers right now and remove any kind of religion from the minds of everyone in the world, nothing would change. People would find different excuses. People who kill in the name of religion have bigger issues than religion. That is the point I'm trying to make, and it's one you still haven't adressed - you've just thrown waves of examples of people using religion as an excuse for their deeds at me.
Yeah, I noticed. It's all your posts seem to be. "Religion is an innocent tool and you are wrong".
I'm arguing that religion predisposes mentally healthy individuals to commit grievous or illogical acts in the name of their subscribed deity.
Religious arguments always get way too elaborate.
People always argue about the consequences of religion or lack thereof which is imho a waste of time.
It's so much easier to disprove religion by just finding a counter-argument to every single reason why people believe in religion. And that is pretty easy by comparison. The one who makes an assumption has to deliver the evidence.
Lol. This thread is FAR the most popular thread in a STARCRAFT community. rofl. That only proves that Debates was the best starcraft map :)
Now, back to religion. You guys should have in mind that none of you will change ideas of anybody in here. I had countless religious debates before, and they always end up the same. Things won't be different here.
Ps: We have a Debates game on Chatroom Contest in less than half hour (4 pm pacific time). All of you are invited to debate religion there. https://www.chatroomcontest.com
Seriously, can i stab you in teh face?
I know you have always been jealous of my superiority as a mapper. But, I have no hard feelings. If you keep persisting, one day you will make maps as good as mine :)
Except that you're not argueing it. You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion. I've drawn a comparison to people who have murdered for sillier causes, and you're not responding to it.
Let me remind you of my examples.
1) Preservation of Polio
2) Subjugation of women
3) Denial of contraception
4) Propagation of Homophobia
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
@Eiviyn: Go
You forgot suicide.
Suicide is illegal just because of religion because the government thinks they know what's the best for our soul.
How you draw the causality to religious superstition is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that if religion hadn't existed at all, we wouldn't have had these problems? Or that different problems of the same scope wouldn't have arisen? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of homophobia, do you think the problem would have been non-existant? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of female subjugation, do you think all females would've lived as free equals to men from the dawn of mankind?
The best example you offered is still that 'witch hunt' article from a couple of topics ago. Let me ask you again; do you honestly think that if religion had never existed, those two folks would have never murdered anybody and be completely fine and upstanding individuals? Yes, religion has a ROLE in all of these instances, but that doesn't make it the cause. PEOPLE are the cause. Like I said multiple times, religion is what you make of it. If I choose to believe in a god and proceed to murder everyone who doesn't believe in my personal god, that makes me a moron, not my religion stupid. If this were untrue, we could assume that religion, as the 'cause' of these evils, makes anybody able to commit them. Which would mean that any upstanding citizen, upon convertion to Christianity, would suddenly become more likely to commit murder than before.
The whole ordeal just doesn't make sense to begin with. The number of Christians in the world has only been on the rise since the 1500's, yet violence has gone down, and 'holy wars' have lessened to nearly the point of extinction. If religion is what causes men to murder, how do you explain this? I do so through stating that our morals as a whole have shifted, not our belief in God.
The only correlation I really see is that 'stupid' people (or rather, 'people capable of murder') are more easily drawn to radical causes because of their state of mind. Or in a nutshell; people who are stupid (or rather 'capable of murder') to begin with are also the ones more prone to believe in lies, making religion not a cause of their violence, but rather a hint to their state of mind.