GOD or EVOLUTION?

[Jack]

The title is pretty self explanatory . What are your views on the subject? Was it GOD that created the world and everything on it, or was it down simply to evolution and nature?

Really want to here peoples opinions on this one. :D

[Crocolyle]

Those two views don't necessarily disagree each other. Most Christians, at least the Catholics and most mainstream Protestant denominations, admit the evidence for evolution is irrefutable and understand that it is the basis for genetics and modern biology. Most modern Christians understand the Bible to be spiritually true and divinely inspired, but not to necessarily be factually, historically, or scientifically true, particularly the old testament. Scholars in the Vatican, perhaps the leading Christian center of the world, express doubts about the historical accuracy of stories like the Flood and many other stories in the Bible; however, let me reiterate that the stories are held to be spiritually true, wrapped in allegory and symbolism. The Bible is to be analyzed contextually. Scholars try to understand who the authors were, what the time was like, what they were trying to say, and why they wanted to say it that way.

This being said, Christians, as well as people who belong to other religions, can therefore accept the scientific understanding evolution to be true. If there is a God, all-powerful and all-knowing, and if he created life, who is to say how he did it? For example, at no point, in your life has God just mystically breathed life into you. You were conceived and born in a process explained by scientist. Can't humans have evolved from less complex forms in a scientifically explained process?

[Jack]

Well, that said. By God i mean the creation story. I don't understand how anyone can believe, despite the amount of physical proof that contradicts it, that god created man from dust, and woman from one of mans ribs. It denies all laws of pyhsics for thier to be an almighty being that existed before the universe. The Universe refers to everything that has ever and will ever exist, so for thier to be a being that existed before the universe, i cannot see how anyone can believe this.

I understand that when the bible was 'written', people had very little grasp of science and had no other way of explaining how the world, or the moon and sun or stars got thier. They still thought the Earth was flat becuase they had no reasoning to say that it wasn't.

For me, saying that thier is a God is as illogical as saying that he created man from dust. Or, as the old testament says, homosexuals and left handed people are evil and come from hell.

[Crocolyle]

The story of Adam and Eve is pretty impossible to believe. That's why most Christians don't consider it to be historically true--the parts of the stories Christians would understand to be true are that: 1) God created people. 2) Somehow people became distanced from God. Those Christians who do consider it to be true are most likely wrong, though I envy their faith. However, the untruth of one story doesn't mean there is no higher power.

I'm not a scientist so please elaborate. What law of physics does there being a God that existed before the universe specifically deny? How has anything come into existence. In order for something to exist something must have created it. So something must have created the something, and something must have created the something that created first something. I mean, we don't know.

I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't go as far as to say belief in him is illogical. For it to be illogical, there would have to be evidence that there isn't a god; however it is equally illogical to say that there is one, since there isn't evidence that there is one. The only logical stance is uncertainty.

Also, the Bible does not say that homosexuals come from hell. It merely says that homosexual behavior is "abomination," and therefore sinful. While I don't necessarily agree with that statement, it is understandable since such sexual unions can't create babies--the same reason masturbation, certain non-penetrative positions, etc. was also considered abominable.

Stout atheism and fanatical religiosity and the two opposed pinnacles of illogic, rising above the foggy field of uncertainty and doubt.

[Jack]

When i say it breaks the laws of physics, i simply mean it is impossbile for something to have existed before matter itself. The way i feel, is that we don't know what there was before the universe, but to say that there was a greater being that could conjure up matter from thin ait and create life from dust just seems irrational. The way i look at it, is that the bible was written as a way of creating reasons to things that back then were inexplainable. The bible, for instance, states as though its is fact that the Earth was created 5000 years ago, which is something that we now know for a fact, is not true.

I am an atheist. I don't beleive in god or any of the stories within the bible. I don't beleive in devils or ghosts or spirits or the supernatural. I simply beleive in things that can be presented as rational and scientifically possible. I also don't beleive in the after life. Rip me to pieces if you will.

The fact that the bible says the homosexuals are an abomination becuase it does not possess the ability to create life shows how wrong those people were. We now know that homosexuality comes as a result of men and woman having excess amounts of the oppsite genders sex hormones.

[Mercy]

There's also ID, Intelligent Design (which is NOT Creationism. Aliens could have created us, after all).

Personally, I believe in both. There's no way it was a random occurrence, as stated in the theory of Evolution. Everything is far to complex to be random. However, I do believe it is possible for humans (and other animals) to evolve.

[Crocolyle]

First, since you have more scientific knowledge, explain to me, what created matter?

I have the same view on the Bible. The Old Testament can be compared to Greco-Roman Mythology. A combination of explanations, folk tales, and historical accounts distorted by centuries of oral tradition. The Gospels are just an exaggerated collection of stories about a teacher who most likely--most credible historians agree-lived in Galilee during the Roman occupation, perhaps claiming to be the messiah. But a book of stories doesn't prove that there isn't a God.

I don't believe in anything supernatural--devils, ghosts, spirits, an afterlife, everything you named, and I am also pretty much an atheist (I'm more agnostic). You say that you don't believe in any higher power because no higher power can be proven to exist, but you fail to realize that you can't prove that a higher power doesn't exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. For example, many people believe that there is life on other planets--however there is no evidence of that, whatsoever.

Again, the bible does not homosexuals are an abomination, but says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. The actual lines in Leviticus say something like, "A man should not lay with another man as if he were a woman. It is abomination."

EDIT:
@ Mercy
As I understand it, evolution isn't really all that random. Sure there are slight mutations and variances in genes that could be considered random, but what makes them the defining traits of a creature don't. Example: there's a valley, where group of horse-like creatures that eat leaves. There is a shortage of food and the population of horse-things can't be sustained in this valley. Naturally, there's a small variance in traits like height and neck-length, so only the tall horse-things with the longest necks survive. Because the short necked creatures died, their genes (having a short neck) isn't passed on. If only the percentage of horse-things with the longest necks next survive long enough to have children out of each successive generation, neck length will increase. Now imagine this happening to several traits over thousands and thousands of years.

I think of it like language or dog-breeding. Some dog breeds have been developed relatively recently through selective breeding. Italian at one time was Latin, but now it's almost completely different.

[Mercy]

@ Mercy
As I understand it, evolution isn't really all that random.

So I've read so far, the start of creation was supposed to be 'random', also known as 'The Big Bang'. Evolution, itself, is not. Sorry for the confusion. ^^;

[Jack]

Well many believe the big bang was just one of many. And after the universe exopands to a certain point it will all crsuh back again ( the big crush) then there'll be another big bagn etc. etc.

[lango]

Well the Bible to me is a book of virtues, and as such, I don't see how religion (that particular religion at least) should conflict with science. But I'm not a master of religion.
Yet, as someone mentioned, I don't believe in so random a coincidence that we exist
though that's just us humans trying to look important. We don't want to be a random happening, we'd rather be someone's chosen creation

[eriko]

Well many believe the big bang was just one of many. And after the universe exopands to a certain point it will all crsuh back again ( the big crush) then there'll be another big bagn etc. etc.

The new theory is the big bounce theory. I did not read the whole of the article but just the heading. I am not a religious person but I do beleive in God. Well actually I follow spritual science. The Law of Karma. As for the Adam and Eve theory that is totally ridiculous. The point that woman was created from a man's rib indicates the thought process of the then society that is women is inferior to man. It is quite reasonable that priests/saints whatever those religious people are called must have created a stupid fairy tail for some kind of justification.

I read the bible. It was a children's edition comic book type. Not the whole of the Bible but teachings of Christ, His life and stuff. To be frank I found the whole thing senseless and more importantly very boring. It said that this happened..that happened but gave no logical reason for it. I am not the kind of person to base my belief just because it is morally good to do so. We should be God loving and not God fearing.

And I don't believe in creationism theories that exists in other religions as well. And I just hate when people talk about creationism. But that does not stop me from believing in God. I have noticed that Islam and Chritianity are both about faith and nothing else. But if you look at the religions of the East (talking about all of them especially Buddhism) they are either balanced in their approach that is 50% is faith and 50% is science or the whole of it is science like in Buddhism. By science I mean spiritual science.

As for how life first came on Earth this has been proved. Due to lighting and stuff like that the inorganic matter tranformed into organic. And after many centuries later blue-green algae came into existence. This experiemnt was done in the laboratory by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1954. And the scientist who proposed this as a theory was J.B.S Haldene in 1929.

[Jack]

The Big bounce. That was to explain the theory ere to start off the universe was infinitly big, which is impossible becuase it would have had to collapse in to a certain amount of anti-matter. It says that the collapse of the perveious universe was the cuase of the big-bang, which was the begining of the spawning of a new universe. If that theory is correct, we could well be living in the first of all universe, but we are just as likely to be living in the 300 billionth universe.

[eriko]

Yet, as someone mentioned, I don't believe in so random a coincidence that we exist though that's just us humans trying to look important. We don't want to be a random happening, we'd rather be someone's chosen creation

What I believe is the coincidence itself happned because of God. I know it is a little lame but to me its the only explanation to keep my faith in both God and evolution (atleast before I come across a better theory).

The Big bounce. That was to explain the theory ere to start off the universe was infinitly big, which is impossible becuase it would have had to collapse in to a certain amount of anti-matter. It says that the collapse of the perveious universe was the cuase of the big-bang, which was the begining of the spawning of a new universe. If that theory is correct, we could well be living in the first of all universe, but we are just as likely to be living in the 300 billionth universe.

I don't know about this. But coincidently I have come across a similar explation in a spritual science book which I am studying right now. According to it the Universe is divided into materialistic one and spritiual one. The materialistic one is the shadow of spritual one. The Earth falls into the category of middle planetary systems. Their are higher planets that have life as well. They are zillions of light years away. The highest planet possibly in some other Universe. At the dawn of that planet our universe collapse and begins anew. Now this is what is called spritual science:P. Don't believe if you don't want to.

[Jack]

Don't believe if you don't want to.

I don't believe it. But every one is entitled to thier own views and opinions. I myself, find it hard to beleive that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, billions of galaxies in what maybe an infinitly large universe, and some one can honestly think ours is the only planet with life.

[eriko]

I don't believe it. But every one is entitled to thier own views and opinions. I myself, find it hard to beleive that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, billions of galaxies in what maybe an infinitly large universe, and some one can honestly think ours is the only planet with life.
I won't say that I totally believe in all this. But much of it actually makes sense. Whatever I said is possibly about 50,000 years old. Do you really think that people at that time knew about planets. But these people actually knew. From time to to time whenever modern science makes any advancement it comes out that it only proves a long-forgotten theory that people in the ancient times believed. You can take example of Yoga. There are supposed to be five types of Yoga but right now only one exists the others have been lost. Anyways debating on this won't be worth it. When something is lost and then it is reinvented or rediscovered even if there is proof/evidence to prove that this is just a repetion, it lacks conviction. Nevertheless, I mostly study spritual science because of it great content. It comes in handy while writing a fantasy.;)

[hades cornerstone]

What a good point. If something is lost should look for it or should we focus on what we have.
life. Science is something I dont understand, but I do. Looking for anwsers when the right question has not been asked.
Scientists can be good and very intelligent or we can be very gullible and trusting.

Is it all faith based? belief in science or in God
mine I shall keep to myself.

[jordanisonfire]

Right now, I'm open to anything. I read Croc's first post, and I was actually going to write something similar to that, that a God or Gods or some other higher power could have created life by evolution, or maybe evolution isn't true. Hell, there could be some truth in the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion, that deities may have planted evidence of history and that the world actually began a couple of centuries ago. :D We don't know for sure, and most likely never will know, maybe not even if we die.

[Andy]

I believe in both. That God made the universe, and evolution was one of the methods he used to create it, and one which continues to affect the world today, as creatures continue to evolve.

As for the creation stories, I don't take them literally, and the statements about life and nature what its symbolism implies is enough for me to accept a symbolic view. For example, we find that after the sin, Adam is embarassed with both himself and Eve, God is angry, and they are forced to leave the garden. The meaning? Sin alienates us from ourselves, other people, God, and nature. With the man from dust: humans are an important part of the world, and depend on it. With the ribs, men and women are made for each other, and from each other (ie, sex). Basically, if you take the creation stories as purely literal and historical, which is not their intent, then you miss all the meaning in those passages.

When i say it breaks the laws of physics, i simply mean it is impossbile for something to have existed before matter itself. The way i feel, is that we don't know what there was before the universe, but to say that there was a greater being that could conjure up matter from thin ait and create life from dust just seems irrational. The way i look at it, is that the bible was written as a way of creating reasons to things that back then were inexplainable. The bible, for instance, states as though its is fact that the Earth was created 5000 years ago, which is something that we now know for a fact, is not true.
While it seems impossible for something to have existed before matter itself, it is equally mind-boggling to believe that matter has always existed, extending infinitely back, being timeless. Which begs the question of why matter has all the properties it does, and behaves in a predictacle, logical way, ie, the periodic table. So basically, it's a choice between two amazing options. Something either caused matter to be, or matter is the only thing that has always been.

About the physics thing, I think most people would accept God to be spiritual, not material, operating on a level that physics can't pick up. So really, you can't claim that to be impossible, since there's no way to test whether something spiritual exists or not. :P

Just for fun: only one thing could have undeniably existed before matter itself: Truth. Because truth, just plain is, and it's not material, either. And Jesus called himself the Way, Truth, Life. ;)

[Shaun]

Andy: New theories and explorations into subjects such as dark matter, etc. are opening doors into explaining the creation of the universe. It's possible that there are scientific ways to explain the creation of matter from "nothing." Course, then we have explain where that nothing came from. The problem with saying "God did it" is also a paradox, since God had to come from somewhere as well. But then there's the whole "well he's God so he can just poof" or some crap. I never bought that. Seemed illogical and still does.

Mercy: Intelligent Design and Creationism are exactly the same thing. The only difference is that someone gave ID a different label and changed some wording, but under close scrutiny the theory is exactly the same. Not to mention it's a fabrication. Creationism was turned down time and time again by folks with brains and in order to force that theory onto others they simply changed the name and a few things around. No actual new studies were conducted to prove anything they were saying, because nothing they say is actually true. Mankind did not live with dinosaurs. The earth is like 4,000 years old or however old they are saying. Evolution is real. It's proven and irrefutable. Etc.
If anything, ID is a further disservice to the Christian people by aiding in spreading a very clear message of ignorance and idiocy amongst those of faith. It's aided in ruining the U.S. reputation in the world by creating an imaginary divide amongst scientists. People like Kirk Cameron, who run around without any understanding of how evolution or any facet of science works, help to spread lies, trick our children, and generally commit treason against the human race. This is an intentional attempt to destroy modern thought in America and elsewhere (where ID can be found). ID proponents are literally trying to destroy hundreds of years of scientific discovery by spreading false information and forcing our children to become ignorant, scientifically illiterate people. The dangers are of this are already showing themselves in society if you're willing to look. The fact that there is a sizeable population of people who claim the creation in the Bible is real and yet have no understanding of how evolution works at all is testament to this fact.

As for this whole discussion:
As Croc said, evolution isn't random. This is a lie perpetrated by radical Christians (RADICAL not intelligent Christians such as Andy or even priests in the Vatican, some of them). The purpose of spreading that was to make it seem like we're just accidents, when actually we're not. We're naturally evolved creatures that have become this way for a reason. That reason may not be as all high and mighty as being created specifically by a god, but it's probably a more valid and important reason. We are the way we are because it is beneficial to our overall survival. We have the eyes we have, the hands we have, the legs we have, the brains we have because it allowed us to survive to a greater degree and to move beyond our roots.
True, we make mistakes and screw things up, but we can also make choices to fix our problems, to change. Most other creatures lack that ability (except, perhaps, members of the great ape family, who are more intelligent than we often give them credit for). Nature works within all of us to direct us on a path. That path is one of advancement. All species go through this. All. We can actually witness evolution working in our backyards (or someone's at least). New species spring up because they need to evolve to become better equipped to survive the new conditions of their environments. Some species simply die out because they can't evolve fast enough or because nature has simply selected them to disappear. It sounds cruel, but no more cruel than a god wiping out mankind for its sins as is often found in religious texts of most every description.

My opinion on the matter is that one can believe in a god of any form and still believe in evolution. God doesn't have to have a direct hand in any of it. You can beleive that he does, or you can believe that he doesn't (or she, or it). It doesn't matter. What matters is understanding from a logical and factual perspective how our universe works, how we work, how evolution works. etc. The more we understand about the universe we live in, the more prepared we will be for the future. And educating people to understand the difference between faith and science is important. You believe in God, you know that the Earth revolves around the sun. You believe in Jesus, you know that the tides are a result of the Moon's rotation around the Earth. You can have both, just not in the same classroom.

[Mercy]

Mercy: Intelligent Design and Creationism are exactly the same thing. The only difference is that someone gave ID a different label and changed some wording, but under close scrutiny the theory is exactly the same. Not to mention it's a fabrication. Creationism was turned down time and time again by folks with brains and in order to force that theory onto others they simply changed the name and a few things around. No actual new studies were conducted to prove anything they were saying, because nothing they say is actually true. Mankind did not live with dinosaurs. The earth is like 4,000 years old or however old they are saying. Evolution is real. It's proven and irrefutable. Etc.
If anything, ID is a further disservice to the Christian people by aiding in spreading a very clear message of ignorance and idiocy amongst those of faith. It's aided in ruining the U.S. reputation in the world by creating an imaginary divide amongst scientists. People like Kirk Cameron, who run around without any understanding of how evolution or any facet of science works, help to spread lies, trick our children, and generally commit treason against the human race. This is an intentional attempt to destroy modern thought in America and elsewhere (where ID can be found). ID proponents are literally trying to destroy hundreds of years of scientific discovery by spreading false information and forcing our children to become ignorant, scientifically illiterate people. The dangers are of this are already showing themselves in society if you're willing to look. The fact that there is a sizeable population of people who claim the creation in the Bible is real and yet have no understanding of how evolution works at all is testament to this fact.


Why isn't it a plausable theory? You can't disprove ID just as I can not disprove evolution. Teaching society about ID is not destroying years of scientific study. I see nothing wrong with teaching both ID and evolution as theories.

[Zombified]

Why isn't it a plausable theory? You can't disprove ID just as I can not disprove evolution. Teaching society about ID is not destroying years of scientific study. I see nothing wrong with teaching both ID and evolution as theories.

I sure as hell do.

Then again, you ARE a Catholic School girl so...

[Shaun]

Why isn't it a plausable theory? You can't disprove ID just as I can not disprove evolution. Teaching society about ID is not destroying years of scientific study. I see nothing wrong with teaching both ID and evolution as theories.

Because ID is not based on any scientific fact. It's based on a human assumption that something exists, but can't be proven precisely because we created it to be unprovable and undisprovable. The entire concept of teaching ID is a logical absurdity. Evolution is based on pure, hard facts. They are indisputable, even though ID proponents would claim that evolution isn't provable. We have proven evolution to be more than just a theory. The only weight anti-evolutionists have at this juncture is the incomplete proof in human evolution, which, as we're learning, is becoming harder and harder to deny. Take for instance the fact that we have discovered the existence of the fused chromosomes that would account for the difference in number between us and the great apes. That proves that we did, in fact, evolve from a similar ancestor. Now we have to find the point of the split.

ID, however, teaches improper science, ignores the scientific method, expects to be respected and ushered into our school curriculum even though no definitive proof can be provided that it is valid and even though it has not gone through the proper scientific channels (peer review journals, and this thing called the scientific method that ALL science must adhere to). ID teaches our children things that are not true with the intention to misinform for religious purposes. ID is not a scientific theory; it is a religious theory and as such belongs firmly in the realm of the religious: church. If you want to misinform people, do it on your dollar, not my tax dollars. And yes, ID is destroying scientific study be denying that it should be held to the same standards as all other scientific hypotheses and theories and subsequently contributing to the rampant scientific illiteracy in the United States and elsewhere. It preys on people who don't know any better and seeks to further the ignorance that builds its base. If more people are in the dark and don't understand the basic tenants of science, then they are more willing to believe in something that coincides with their religious views. Squash the challenge to religious ignorance and you squash science, which has, for hundreds of years, proven itself to be a formidable foe to forced ignorance and genocide against reason. There's a reason why more and more people are becoming atheists and agnostics: faith is only as strong as it willingness to let people choose for themselves; as soon as faith becomes a force that prevents you from being who you want to be and pushes for an oppression of rational though, then it loses face with those looking for something more.

[Shaun]

I should add: If we are to allow ID into public schools as an alternative to evolution (a strictly scientific theory rather than one based entirely upon faith), then we are obligated to open the door to EVERY religious creation myth and theory that is still believed in. And we will face the consequences of that. The thing is, ID proponents and Christian fundamentalists aren't willing to make this leap. They want only their theory taught with evolution (or without evolution), but not anyone else's religion. For a group of individuals who claim to have such faith this seems to run contrary to their assumption of confidence in their faith. If you are confident in your faith, you shouldn't have to spread it by forcing it down people's throats.

[Mercy]

I should add: If we are to allow ID into public schools as an alternative to evolution (a strictly scientific theory rather than one based entirely upon faith), then we are obligated to open the door to EVERY religious creation myth and theory that is still believed in. And we will face the consequences of that. The thing is, ID proponents and Christian fundamentalists aren't willing to make this leap. They want only their theory taught with evolution (or without evolution), but not anyone else's religion. For a group of individuals who claim to have such faith this seems to run contrary to their assumption of confidence in their faith. If you are confident in your faith, you shouldn't have to spread it by forcing it down people's throats.

Only the fundamentalist do this and by no means are all Christians fundamentalists. I might add that there are fundamentals of all religion or no religion and that they act the same way.

Personally, I believe it should be taught in schools along side evolution. If you show me proof that scientists have found proof that ID is not possible - whether we were created by aliens, God, whatever, then I would like to see it. As far as I know, there are still many flaws in the evolution theory. ID has its flaws as well, I am not stating that the theory is perfect.

In any case, refusing to teach any theory if it can not be disproved seems wrong. That is retarding education.

Besides, doesn't all scientific theories start out as a human assumption?

@Zombified:

Yes, I admit that I am influenced by my Catholic upbringing. However, I have not been Catholic all throughout my life. I have gone from being Catholic to atheist to agnostic to wanting to be Buddhist to agnostic again. Yes, I do believe in ID and I do think it should be at least mentioned in public schools, but that is only because I believe it necessary that the generations have all the information so that they can make their own choices.

[Shaun]

Only the fundamentalist do this and by no means are all Christians fundamentalist. I might add that there are fundamentals of all religion or no religion and that they act the same way.[QUOTE]

If you push for ID in public schools, you are a fundamentalist. You are a fundamentalist if you make any presumption that science is complete fallacy or believe that science doesn't prove anything. You are a fundamentalist if you believe Genesis (the creation) is literal fact or that the Earth is in fact not as old as scientists have proven or if you believe that dating methods don't prove anything, etc. Non-fundamentalist Christians are the ones who don't want to break the separation of church and state, who don't believe ID is a proper theory, who don't push for it or for any religious "science" in classrooms. Non-fundamentalist Christians are the people who generally don't get involved in these discussions (although, not always, since there are exceptions to every rule).

[QUOTE]Personally, I believe it should be taught in schools along side evolution. If you show me proof that scientists have found proof that ID is not possible - whether we were created by aliens, God, whatever, then I would like to see it. As far as I know, there are still many flaws in the evolution theory. ID has its flaws as well, I am not stating that the theory is perfect.

Science doesn't work that way. This is a common and relatively ignorant qualifier for the teaching of ID. Science is not about whether your theory can be disproven. Technically speaking, ID isn't even a theory because it has NOT gone through rigorous testing, analysis, or peer review and made it to the next phase. Science works by proposing an idea, testing it, retesting it, finding evidence or adjusting as necessary when the evidence runs somewhat contrary to what you suppose. When, and only when, this hypothesis seems to hold up with evidence (both experiment-based and factual, hard proof) it becomes a theory, and even then the testing doesn't stop. At the theory stage it becomes open game for anyone wanting to disprove it or enhance it, and so it goes that evolution has become far more than simply a theory, but something bordering on a natural law.
Since ID has not done any of this, it is not a theory and therefore not something that can, by scientific standards, even be taught to children. But ID proponents such as yourself think that religious ideals painted as "science" should be allowed to circumvent a process that has proven to be effective for quite a long time. Evolution didn't get to where it is now by just being shoved into schools without being researched. It got to where it is now through rigorous testing and adjusting. Any flaws in evolutionary theory have little to do with flaws in the general idea, but with the minuscule parts of its workings. There is absolutely no evidence that contradicts the natural fact that species evolve and have been evolving for millions of years. The only things that are perceived as "flaws" are the scientific community's attempts to button down various aspects of the "how" of evolutionary theory. The Christian claim that there is "controversy" amongst scientists is unfounded and more or less propaganda to push creation "science," which in and of itself contains no evidence of its existence, and still doesn't, demands exposure in public forums even though it has no basis in fact, and demands respect on the same level of other scientific theories (true theories, I might add) even though it has done nothing to earn it.
Just because creationists and ID proponents claim it is a valid scientific theory doesn't mean it actually is. I can claim that my "theory" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster pooping us out of a noodle is a scientific theory, but you would laugh at me. Again, science doesn't work by what can be disproven, but by what can be proven. If you want ID in schools, you need to prove it is viable. Since that hasn't happened in all the years creationism has been around, ID doesn't belong in schools. Not to mention it is a violation of the separation of church and state that is clearly visible in the Bill of Rights.

In any case, refusing to teach any theory if it can not be disproved seems wrong. That is retarding education.

No, it's called responsible science. You don't teach something that hasn't gone through rigorous testing. Would you be okay with teaching that the Earth is actually purple and little elephants that we can't see run around moving us and we're just oblivious? Because if we can teach ID, which has no basis in fact, then we can teach ANYTHING. This is what religions have done for hundreds of years and I suspect that much of the push for ID has to do with a fear of losing control, since clearly the invention and inception of science into the commonplace has had adverse impacts on how people worship. People are less afraid of threats made to them through scripture than they were three to four hundred years ago when the Church still had a stranglehold on people.

Besides, doesn't all scientific theories start out as a human assumption?

No, as I said. Here is the scientific method in a nutshell:
1. Ask a question
2. Observe (gather data, information, etc.)
3. Form hypothesis (a proposal to explain the data/info/facts)
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data (check the results and data collection against the hypothesis, etc.)
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (go back to 3 and start over, or if you're lucky you don't need to form a new hypothesis and go on to 7, which never happens).
7. Publish results (in peer review journals. Your research is then checked by other scientists, ripped to shreds where it proves to be wrong, new information is gathered, etc. If at this point your hypothesis isn't up to snuff, you go back to 3.)
8. Retest (either by you or others. Depending on your findings you either go to 3, if you're really wrong, or you do minor adjustments and start at 6).
9. Theory. Your hypothesis becomes a theory, which will be adjusted as necessary when new data comes in, etc. This means you jump all over the place from going to 6 again, to 5 and 4, to 7, to 8, etc. This is the point when rigorous testing is meant not necessarily to disprove the theory, but to find the holes and the solutions to them (the how of the theory). The basic idea of evolution, being a proven fact, stays up here primarily because it's irrefutable. But the how of it is constantly being tested and we are constantly learning more and more that continues to prove evolution. The only time we discover something that runs contrary is when it disproves some small piece of the puzzle. For example, say something to do with how cells transmit data. Perhaps one scientist said one thing and that seemed to work with the data, but another scientist finds out that it's not exactly true, and then we adjust. The overall outcome (evolution) remains the same, but little bits (how we evolve) can adjust when new data comes up. Evolution has yet to be removed from it's place at the line between theory and law.
10. Law (almost nothing ever gets here, even in science.). Laws are basically "this is the way it is." There isn't any more fiddling with the theory, because presumably we know everything we can know about this. Evolution will likely never get here, not because it's not viable, but because evolution as a theory is so massive that it could take us the rest of our lives to full understand every piece of it. It may be an ongoing research project for us.

Yes, I do believe in ID and I do think it should be at least mentioned in public schools, but that is only because I believe it necessary that the generations have all the information so that they can make their own choices.

Which goes against the Bill of Rights and would thus violate the rights of millions of Americans.

[Mercy]

If you push for ID in public schools, you are a fundamentalist. You are a fundamentalist if you make any presumption that science is complete fallacy or believe that science doesn't prove anything. You are a fundamentalist if you believe Genesis (the creation) is literal fact or that the Earth is in fact not as old as scientists have proven or if you believe that dating methods don't prove anything, etc. Non-fundamentalist Christians are the ones who don't want to break the separation of church and state, who don't believe ID is a proper theory, who don't push for it or for any religious "science" in classrooms. Non-fundamentalist Christians are the people who generally don't get involved in these discussions (although, not always, since there are exceptions to every rule).

But it isn't breaking church and state if you teach ID, because ID is not Creationism. It does not lean on religious teachings, but simply the idea that something greater than us created us.

A fundamentalist is someone of intolerance, not someone who stands up for their beliefs.


No, it's called responsible science. You don't teach something that hasn't gone through rigorous testing. Would you be okay with teaching that the Earth is actually purple and little elephants that we can't see run around moving us and we're just oblivious? Because if we can teach ID, which has no basis in fact, then we can teach ANYTHING. This is what religions have done for hundreds of years and I suspect that much of the push for ID has to do with a fear of losing control, since clearly the invention and inception of science into the commonplace has had adverse impacts on how people worship. People are less afraid of threats made to them through scripture than they were three to four hundred years ago when the Church still had a stranglehold on people.
[/quote]

Yes, ID can not be tested yet. Maybe in the future, with different technology, it could be tested. But why is giving children a ticket down a one-way street right? Why can't they choose which theory they want to believe in. Just because it can't be proven yet, doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if this goes against the scientific method, in my view, something is impossible only when it is disproved.

The church probably is anxious over its loss of control, but this isn't really about the church. It's about diverse possibilities, even if there is the smallest chance of them being true, and allowing someone to choose for themselves what they want to believe in. Just because I choose to believe in a God doesn't make me stupid or a fundamentalist. It doesn't exempt me from wanting to expand my knowledge. Believing in something that may or may not be true does not make one ignorant.

[Shaun]

But it isn't breaking church and state if you teach ID, because ID is not Creationism. It does not lean on religious teachings, but simply the idea that something greater than us created us.
A fundamentalist is someone of intolerance, not someone who stands up for their beliefs.

As I said before: ID is the exact same thing is creationism. The only difference is that they changed the name and changed some of the wording, but the basic principle is the same.
And belief in something "intelligent" is a religious concept, not a scientific concept. ID cannot provide evidence of the existence of this "intelligent" creator. You simply believe in it. And it is a direct violation of that separation because it is an attempt to push religious beliefs into school classrooms and thus violate our right to freedom from religion. It stands to reason that ID is a religious ideal when the people who are pushing the hardest for it are the religious. And the fact that the same people who came up with that creationism BS are trying to push this stuff doesn't help either. If you look at it, it's basically the same thing. Little minor deviations here or, there but not drastically different. It was a religious attempt at science back when creationism got shot down, and it's exactly the same today. Just because it doesn't have "religious teachings" doesn't mean it isn't a religious belief. It still teaches the existence of something (i.e. God) creating us as science, which is like saying me telling you that farts cure AIDS is science.

Yes, ID can not be tested yet. Maybe in the future, with different technology, it could be tested. But why is giving children a ticket down a one-way street right? Why can't they choose which theory they want to believe in. Just because it can't be proven yet, doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if this goes against the scientific method, in my view, something is impossible only when it is disproved.

BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY. If you cannot test it, it is NOT SCIENCE. Science is based on FACT. You just said it right there: ID can not be tested. It doesn't matter if you believe it will be testable in some far off future. Right now it CANNOT be tested. Therefore, not science. By this logic, then we should teach our children ANYTHING, any crackpot hypothesis about anything at all. We should teach them the the Earth is made of Jelly, that the the government created aliens to abduct people, etc. There is no limit to what we can teach if we are allowing something that cannot be proven to slip right on through to theory. Theories do not exist without evidence. Period. That's how science works.

And while that is YOUR view, that is NOT how science works. Science is a fine tuned machine. If we circumvent its rules, we basically destroy everything that makes science a viable subject for human development. BELIEF is not science. Belief is something that should remain where belief is often found: at home or in your church. Science deals in what can be proven, not in what we believe.

The church probably is anxious over its loss of control, but this isn't really about the church. It's about diverse possibilities, even if there is the smallest chance of them being true, and allowing someone to choose for themselves what they want to believe in. Just because I choose to believe in a God doesn't make me stupid or a fundamentalist. It doesn't exempt me from wanting to expand my knowledge. Believing in something that may or may not be true does not make one ignorant.

It's about lying to the public about something to push religion on our children. We've seen this over and over with the forced inclusion of abstinence only programs (which are proven to not only be a failure, but to actually contribute to spreading of STDs, teen pregnancy, unprotected sex, etc.) and now we're seeing it, again, with ID, which is a religious attempt to push religious assumptions about the universe on everyone as if it were provable fact.

If you don't think that science isn't already a rather diverse field, then you need to read more about science. What they teach you in school is intentionally reduced to a bare minimum because it would take a decade to teach kids everything they need to know about the vastness of scientific exploration. Evolution alone has spawned thousands of research fields in all sorts of disciplines from psychology to physics.

If you want to teach kids about religion and crackpot theories like ID, you can do that in your own home or in your church. That's where it belongs. It doesn't belong in public schools. It doesn't deserve my tax dollars.

And believing in something you know may or may not be true does make you ignorant and while your belief in God doesn't make you a fundamentalist, your push for ID in public schools does because it speaks to the same willing ignorance that so many fundamentalists have who believe that pushing religion on children by any means necessary is an okay thing to do. Our founding fathers made a nation that separated church and state for a reason: they were tired of religion violating our rights, oppressing people, forcing itself into politics, etc. If they could see what has become of America today they would probably have heart attacks. We've gone from a nation that prided itself on that separation, to a nation that can't live without it. And as recent studies have proven: the more religious a nation, the more willing it becomes to violate the rights of citizens and the worse off the nation is in general. America is no exception to that. Eight years of George W. Bush has proven exactly what the fundamentalist movement can do to a nation; it can destroy it from the inside out, so much so that we can hardly recognize it anymore. I for one am not willing to help spread this sort of ignorance and willingness to dispense with reason.

[Mercy]

As I said before: ID is the exact same thing is creationism. The only difference is that they changed the name and changed some of the wording, but the basic principle is the same.
And belief in something "intelligent" is a religious concept, not a scientific concept. ID cannot provide evidence of the existence of this "intelligent" creator. You simply believe in it. And it is a direct violation of that separation because it is an attempt to push religious beliefs into school classrooms and thus violate our right to freedom from religion. It stands to reason that ID is a religious ideal when the people who are pushing the hardest for it are the religious. And the fact that the same people who came up with that creationism BS are trying to push this stuff doesn't help either. If you look at it, it's basically the same thing. Little minor deviations here or, there but not drastically different. It was a religious attempt at science back when creationism got shot down, and it's exactly the same today. Just because it doesn't have "religious teachings" doesn't mean it isn't a religious belief. It still teaches the existence of something (i.e. God) creating us as science, which is like saying me telling you that farts cure AIDS is science.

To me, it seems like this "freedom of religion" jazz is only infringing on our freedom of religion. Basically, in public schools, you are not allowed to have a religion of any kind, am I correct? So, atheists are the only ones getting the good end of the deal. Why aren't kids allowed to learn about their own religion in school? Can't they express themselves? And if they can't, doesn't that only preach intolerance of religion?

"Intelligent" may imply God in some cases, but it could very well be aliens or some other creature. Besides, what created that one cell that we all evolved from? Something had to create it and I refuse to believe it was as random as the big bang.



BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY. If you cannot test it, it is NOT SCIENCE. Science is based on FACT. You just said it right there: ID can not be tested. It doesn't matter if you believe it will be testable in some far off future. Right now it CANNOT be tested. Therefore, not science. By this logic, then we should teach our children ANYTHING, any crackpot hypothesis about anything at all. We should teach them the the Earth is made of Jelly, that the the government created aliens to abduct people, etc. There is no limit to what we can teach if we are allowing something that cannot be proven to slip right on through to theory. Theories do not exist without evidence. Period. That's how science works.

As far as I'm concerned, people teach children that sort of thing everyday in movies, books and tv shows. Even if ID is not allowed in the classroom, it's condemned everywhere else as well. It's ridiculous.


And while that is YOUR view, that is NOT how science works. Science is a fine tuned machine. If we circumvent its rules, we basically destroy everything that makes science a viable subject for human development. BELIEF is not science. Belief is something that should remain where belief is often found: at home or in your church. Science deals in what can be proven, not in what we believe.

Science is the pursuit of proving beliefs.



It's about lying to the public about something to push religion on our children. We've seen this over and over with the forced inclusion of abstinence only programs (which are proven to not only be a failure, but to actually contribute to spreading of STDs, teen pregnancy, unprotected sex, etc.) and now we're seeing it, again, with ID, which is a religious attempt to push religious assumptions about the universe on everyone as if it were provable fact.

The majority of people who believe in ID are not trying to push it on people, but only suggest it as an alternative or a companion to evolution.


If you don't think that science isn't already a rather diverse field, then you need to read more about science. What they teach you in school is intentionally reduced to a bare minimum because it would take a decade to teach kids everything they need to know about the vastness of scientific exploration. Evolution alone has spawned thousands of research fields in all sorts of disciplines from psychology to physics.

I understand that science is diverse. But focusing on one theory in class is absurd and laughing at a possible theory is even worse.



If you want to teach kids about religion and crackpot theories like ID, you can do that in your own home or in your church. That's where it belongs. It doesn't belong in public schools. It doesn't deserve my tax dollars.

And that's your belief.



And believing in something you know may or may not be true does make you ignorant and while your belief in God doesn't make you a fundamentalist, your push for ID in public schools does because it speaks to the same willing ignorance that so many fundamentalists have who believe that pushing religion on children by any means necessary is an okay thing to do. Our founding fathers made a nation that separated church and state for a reason: they were tired of religion violating our rights, oppressing people, forcing itself into politics, etc. If they could see what has become of America today they would probably have heart attacks. We've gone from a nation that prided itself on that separation, to a nation that can't live without it. And as recent studies have proven: the more religious a nation, the more willing it becomes to violate the rights of citizens and the worse off the nation is in general. America is no exception to that. Eight years of George W. Bush has proven exactly what the fundamentalist movement can do to a nation; it can destroy it from the inside out, so much so that we can hardly recognize it anymore. I for one am not willing to help spread this sort of ignorance and willingness to dispense with reason.

It is not ignorance. Yes, I push for teaching ID in public schools, as well as optional classes for each religion. I believe in offering students every bit of information we can give them. Not teaching them or letting them express their religion is the same as telling me I can't write about elves because the government says so. I'm not saying that we should impose morals of different religions on them, but giving them the chance to learn and understand is important. Restricting knowledge is restricting progress.

[Shaun]

To me, it seems like this "freedom of religion" jazz is only infringing on our freedom of religion. Basically, in public schools, you are not allowed to have a religion of any kind, am I correct? So, atheists are the only ones getting the good end of the deal. Why aren't kids allowed to learn about their own religion in school? Can't they express themselves? And if they can't, doesn't that only preach intolerance of religion?

There's no law preventing any individual from being religious in public schools. It is simply against the law for the institution of public education to support the teaching of religion or to have "school prayer." If anyone tells you that you are not allowed to pray during recess, then you are well within your right to sue the hell out of that school for violating your right to exercise your religion (granted, you can't do it during class).
It seems like atheists are getting the good end of the deal, but remember that you have the option to go to a church. There are churches EVERYWHERE. If you aren't teaching your kids your religious values, that's not the school's problem. Their job is to educate them on subjects they will need to succeed in life: math, science, history, social studies, PE, etc.
Read the Bill of Rights. You have the freedom to religion, but likewise you have the freedom from religion. The government is not allowed to impose religious views on anyone. It's written there to protect us from the oppression that religious laws can create. That's part of why the U.S. was created. We need to escape that stranglehold (and the stranglehold of the Empire).
Intolerance against religion would imply that public schools are there to teach you not to be religious. Public schools are there to remain neutral on the subject. They aren't forums for religious teaching or anti-teaching. The separation of church and state maintains neutrality, not a leaning in any particular direction. Public schools are neutral locations. If you think that is grounds for calling them discriminator, then churches are sites of discrimination as well, since clearly I cannot go to a Christian church and preach about the great Finglefub Monkey who created the universe out of a puddle of mud and a banana. Church is where religion belongs. Public school is meant to be a neutral site, as is government (clearly that's not working too well), and anti-Christian meeting groups are where that sort of stuff goes.

"Intelligent" may imply God in some cases, but it could very well be aliens or some other creature. Besides, what created that one cell that we all evolved from? Something had to create it and I refuse to believe it was as random as the big bang.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. This is another thing that has been taught to you which is a flat out lie. Evolution is only the theory of how life evolves, not how it is created or how the universe is created. Any use of the term "evolution" in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics or in actual creation is meant to paint a picture of the movement and changing of things that are not living. The universe doesn't "evolve" like a lifeform, but it doesn't change, so the word "evolve" is appropriate. There are other theories and hypotheses for how life began, but they are far from being as firm as evolution is in regards to how life changes.
And why does there have to be a being that created life? Why? The reason is because we are human and we are unable to admit to ourselves that we are somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We want to feel important. It's an ego thing. The problem is that we're pretty much irrelevant. If we ceased to exist tomorrow, nobody in the universe would care. The universe sure as hell wouldn't care and if aliens do exist and discover the remains of our civilization, we'll still be irrelevant.
And of course it could be aliens that created us, but that's not what ID is attempting to do. It says that's what it is doing, but that's not what it's actually doing. It's pushing "God." It changed that one feature with the intention of making it seem like something that isn't religious, but as I said, the people who propose ID as valid are rarely ever valid scientists, are Christians, and push for a Christian God, rather than anything else. What they say and what they do are different things. This is called lying.
And ID, again, has to provide evidence of aliens or other things. If it wants us to take it seriously, it needs to prove that there could possibly be a creator with evidence. And it needs to prove that the other things it says are true, which it hasn't and won't. We didn't live with dinosaurs and the Earth is not 4,000 years old.

As far as I'm concerned, people teach children that sort of thing everyday in movies, books and tv shows. Even if ID is not allowed in the classroom, it's condemned everywhere else as well. It's ridiculous.

And that doesn't tell you something? The same thing happens to people who believe in Bigfoot and the Chupacabra. It's illogical and preys on the ignorant, which accounts for why it has such a problem getting a good foothold in places where reason still exists (the west and the east).

Science is the pursuit of proving beliefs.

No, actually it isn't. Science is the pursuit of answers based on factual evidence. Beliefs are far harder to shake than a scientist's hypothesis. If I were to provide a Christian conclusive evidence that God didn't exist, they'd likely still believe. But if a scientist is shown conclusive evidence that his or her hypothesis is wrong or at least not completely correct, then they just go back to the drawing board. Science doesn't base itself on what people believe.

The majority of people who believe in ID are not trying to push it on people, but only suggest it as an alternative or a companion to evolution.

Except that they want to put it in classrooms and teach it to kids. Right, that's not trying to force itself on anyone. It's trying to suggest itself as an alternative based on a fantasy. Again, if you want to teach this stuff, which has no evidence to suggest it is even remotely possible, then you have to let every other crackpot idea in as well. Again, this is just fundamentalists attempting to circumvent the law and force our children to learn about religion in a place where they're supposed to be learning about things that we actually know.

I understand that science is diverse. But focusing on one theory in class is absurd and laughing at a possible theory is even worse.

Possible theories aren't taught. You're not getting it, Mercy. ID cannot be taught in a classroom until it goes through the proper scientific channels. It isn't a theory. They've just tacked that name onto it to make it seem like it is, but that's like tacking "Nice Guy" onto Hitler. Until ID actually becomes a theory, and not just something that proponents of it say is a theory ,it has to stay out of classrooms. We don't teach a lot of scientific ideas in public school precisely because they're not theories yet. They don't have all the evidence and haven't finished their trip through the proper channels.
As of yet there are no viable alternatives to evolution. None. ID and creationism have yet to meet that mark. They say a lot of things, but 99% of everything that those ideas have proposed have been proven wrong by science. Until you can provide evidence and successful experiments, ID is not a viable theory, it's just a crazy idea. Of course, it won't be a viable theory because there isn't any evidence. It deserves to be laughed at. If you knew anything about it you'd realize that it's basically insanity in a shiny religious rapper. Because Jesus really did walk with dinosaurs and all...*sarcasm*

And that's your belief.

No, that's the law. If you want to change the law and force religion down our throats and give the middle finger to the people who helped make this country the great country that it is today, then by all means do so and I will leave to find somewhere far more rational and capable of intelligent thought.

It is not ignorance. Yes, I push for teaching ID in public schools, as well as optional classes for each religion. I believe in offering students every bit of information we can give them. Not teaching them or letting them express their religion is the same as telling me I can't write about elves because the government says so. I'm not saying that we should impose morals of different religions on them, but giving them the chance to learn and understand is important. Restricting knowledge is restricting progress.

There's no law that says one cannot express their religion, except where it becomes an interference. There is no knowledge in ID. It hasn't provided anything but lies. That's the problem. You're proposing we teach lies to children in an institution for learning facts.

No, the government telling you can't force religion on people in public schools is telling you that you cannot break the law that was put in place by people wise enough to know where religion doesn't belong. Read your history. Religion has, in the past, done a wonderful job of stifling knowledge and preventing progress from occurring. Galileo, for example, who was imprisoned for his observations by the Church because his now proven true concepts (well, proven relatively true, since we have better ways to see now) were considered to be heresy. Gee, wonderful.

And yes, if you believe in something that you don't know is true or not, then you are being an idiot. You either believe God is real or you don't. There is no middle ground.

[GeorgeMichael]

Just because it can't be proven yet, doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if this goes against the scientific method



Easy Dirty Harry...

Ok I'm jumping into this debate really quickly... mainly because I wanted to lay that joke out on you all...

Anyways, I agree with Shaun, it doesn't matter that ID is not Creationism, it just should not be taught in public schools.



in my view, something is impossible only when it is disproved.


in a courtroom sure... maybe... but in Science. no. otherwise the Spaghetti Monster Theory (So that's a real thin then. eh?) could easily fall into that category. Any gibberish would have to be taught as long as it couldn't be proven false. I could demand that they teach that Psychics do exist and can further our community or that 20/12 will be the end of the world (That's the date right?) under that justification, and obviously you can see why that would be crazy.

[Andy]

Andy: New theories and explorations into subjects such as dark matter, etc. are opening doors into explaining the creation of the universe. It's possible that there are scientific ways to explain the creation of matter from "nothing." Course, then we have explain where that nothing came from.
No, that's impossible. If you were to argue that matter exists because from nothing, a piece of matter and its corresponding antimatter emerged, you'd have to explain why we don't witness matter coming from nothing nowadays. Obviously, there would have to be conditions for such a spontaneous occurrence to happen or not, otherwise it would be happening all the time in front of our faces. And if there are physical conditions that need to be met, then that means something affecting it, thus it's not truly "nothing"

The problem with saying "God did it" is also a paradox, since God had to come from somewhere as well. But then there's the whole "well he's God so he can just poof" or some crap. I never bought that. Seemed illogical and still does.
Not necessarily. That's where the concept of eternity comes in.

Also, consider this: You either think that the universe has always existed in some form (eternity), or it came from nothing (spontaneous existence). Those are the only possibilities of a God-less creation theory. And those two could also be used to apply to God's existence as well. Right? If the universe, why not God, too? CS Lewis in one of his books pointed out that the idea of evolution could be used to explain the existence of a deity.

Is God the last remnant of some super-culture? We don't know.

Don't try to make a strawman out of this "poof!" idea, Shaun. :P

[Shaun]

No, that's impossible. If you were to argue that matter exists because from nothing, a piece of matter and its corresponding antimatter emerged, you'd have to explain why we don't witness matter coming from nothing nowadays. Obviously, there would have to be conditions for such a spontaneous occurrence to happen or not, otherwise it would be happening all the time in front of our faces. And if there are physical conditions that need to be met, then that means something affecting it, thus it's not truly "nothing"

Hence the quotes around nothing. And what's to say that this process isn't occurring all the time? You have to remember that the universe is enormous and we only watch a minuscule part of the sky. The things that could be happening that we're not seeing because we either don't have the technology to see it or aren't looking there are mind boggling. Just in the last decade, with our pushing for visual technologies, satellites, etc. we've seen an explosion of discoveries about the universe.

Not necessarily. That's where the concept of eternity comes in.

Which is, in and of itself, a logical absurdity. It seems God is the only one that can get away with not having an explanation.

Also, consider this: You either think that the universe has always existed in some form (eternity), or it came from nothing (spontaneous existence). Those are the only possibilities of a God-less creation theory. And those two could also be used to apply to God's existence as well. Right? If the universe, why not God, too? CS Lewis in one of his books pointed out that the idea of evolution could be used to explain the existence of a deity.

Or neither. The point is that there is no origin to all existence. The more you learn about it, the more you need to know. God is an attempt to create an origin that doesn't need explanation. And it fails for rational thinkers who wonder where God came from...because we don't accept that "God just is." That sort of argument is simply absurd. There is always something before, even in the supposed "nothingness." <--again, notice the quote. They are important.

Is God the last remnant of some super-culture? We don't know.

Don't try to make a strawman out of this "poof!" idea, Shaun. :P

Can't help that the "poof" bit is relevant here.

And if God is a remnant of some sort of super-culture, then he ceases to be the Christian God and simply a being that can be explained. The point of believing in God or a god or gods is to circumvent the human need for explanation. It works for a lot of people.

[Andy]

Hence the quotes around nothing. And what's to say that this process isn't occurring all the time? You have to remember that the universe is enormous and we only watch a minuscule part of the sky. The things that could be happening that we're not seeing because we either don't have the technology to see it or aren't looking there are mind boggling. Just in the last decade, with our pushing for visual technologies, satellites, etc. we've seen an explosion of discoveries about the universe..
Then the question seems open-ended, and ultimately a matter of faith, since there is so far nothing to suggest that matter can come from nothing. You can't prove it came from nothing any more than I can prove in this thread God exists.

And I never said that a process responsible for matter forming couldn't be occurring all the time. I said it was limited. Whatever process caused rocks to be and be visible is obviously not happening right in front of us. Some thing or condition is restricting it. So it couldn't be nothing.

Which is, in and of itself, a logical absurdity. It seems God is the only one that can get away with not having an explanation.It's absurd only insofar as time exists and you believe that time applies to everything. As already proven, time is relative. Those who argue that God created time would argue that he is not restricted by it (Augustine?). That which is not restricted by time would not need a beginning.

And that's basic basic logic! Nobody would try to restrict a person's qualities only in terms of the things they create. Computers! We designed a magnetic system of zeroes and ones for computers to store data. A supermagnet can fry a computer. It can't ruin a person's memories. We're above magnets. This is no logical absurdity. This is not getting away without an explanation. We made computers and the memory they require. Why not say God made people and the time they require?

Or neither. The point is that there is no origin to all existence.No, there is no "or neither." The universe either had a start point or it didn't. True or false. Those options are mutually exclusive, and you saying there is no origin to all existence would seem to fall under the first "eternity" option.

The more you learn about it, the more you need to know. God is an attempt to create an origin that doesn't need explanation. And it fails for rational thinkers who wonder where God came from...because we don't accept that "God just is." That sort of argument is simply absurd. There is always something before, even in the supposed "nothingness." <--again, notice the quote. They are important.What's "an origin that doesn't need explanation" supposed to mean? :confused:

And your constant pointing to """nothingness""" is basically agreeing to what I said in my previous post. The universe either has always existed in some form - even maybe in some strange way, OR it came to be at some point from true nothing. If your "nothing" isn't really Nothing, then it's the universe existing in some form. You just don't want to say which one you really think is true, hence "nothing". :P

Can't help that the "poof" bit is relevant here.

And if God is a remnant of some sort of super-culture, then he ceases to be the Christian God and simply a being that can be explained. The point of believing in God or a god or gods is to circumvent the human need for explanation. It works for a lot of people.I don't recall saying it had to be the Christian God. Nor can an evolution explanation possibly imply that God can be fully explained.

I don't see how belief in God circumvents a need for explanation. It is an explanation, isn't it? What's it circumventing?

[Mercy]

There's no law preventing any individual from being religious in public schools. It is simply against the law for the institution of public education to support the teaching of religion or to have "school prayer." If anyone tells you that you are not allowed to pray during recess, then you are well within your right to sue the hell out of that school for violating your right to exercise your religion (granted, you can't do it during class).
It seems like atheists are getting the good end of the deal, but remember that you have the option to go to a church. There are churches EVERYWHERE. If you aren't teaching your kids your religious values, that's not the school's problem. Their job is to educate them on subjects they will need to succeed in life: math, science, history, social studies, PE, etc.
Read the Bill of Rights. You have the freedom to religion, but likewise you have the freedom from religion. The government is not allowed to impose religious views on anyone. It's written there to protect us from the oppression that religious laws can create. That's part of why the U.S. was created. We need to escape that stranglehold (and the stranglehold of the Empire).

There's a difference between imposing and teaching.
Next, obviously something's wrong if people get so upset that there's a news article on a kid dressing up as Jesus for Halloween. If public school was neutral and it wasn't against anyone's rights, why did a Halloween costume cause such a ruckus?


Intolerance against religion would imply that public schools are there to teach you not to be religious. Public schools are there to remain neutral on the subject. They aren't forums for religious teaching or anti-teaching. The separation of church and state maintains neutrality, not a leaning in any particular direction. Public schools are neutral locations. If you think that is grounds for calling them discriminator, then churches are sites of discrimination as well, since clearly I cannot go to a Christian church and preach about the great Finglefub Monkey who created the universe out of a puddle of mud and a banana. Church is where religion belongs. Public school is meant to be a neutral site, as is government (clearly that's not working too well), and anti-Christian meeting groups are where that sort of stuff goes.

I'm not saying that public schools should become religious, but rather teach about religion. Having one class that informs students of the facts of all religion would be great. Lack of knowledge about a subject may cause someone to be discriminate. For example, I go to a Catholic school and if I talk about God or something or other, people believe I'm shoving it down their throats when I'm not. But if an atheist were to condescend to a Catholic or preach their beliefs, no one gets irritated with them. Not only would it cut down on intolerance, but it would provide students with information so they can decide their denomination.


The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. This is another thing that has been taught to you which is a flat out lie. Evolution is only the theory of how life evolves, not how it is created or how the universe is created. Any use of the term "evolution" in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics or in actual creation is meant to paint a picture of the movement and changing of things that are not living. The universe doesn't "evolve" like a lifeform, but it doesn't change, so the word "evolve" is appropriate. There are other theories and hypotheses for how life began, but they are far from being as firm as evolution is in regards to how life changes.

And I've never said that evolution is wrong. What does it believe of creation? I've heard that a single cell just popped out of something none-living and eventually joined with other cells and other cells until humans, plants and animals were created. Which is just down right silly, in my opinion.


And why does there have to be a being that created life? Why? The reason is because we are human and we are unable to admit to ourselves that we are somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We want to feel important. It's an ego thing. The problem is that we're pretty much irrelevant. If we ceased to exist tomorrow, nobody in the universe would care. The universe sure as hell wouldn't care and if aliens do exist and discover the remains of our civilization, we'll still be irrelevant.
Perhaps we are irrelevant. But why does the universe have to come from nothing? Why can't we believe in a God or aliens or whatever? It's not entirely egotistical, it's just how you perceive God and religion.


And of course it could be aliens that created us, but that's not what ID is attempting to do. It says that's what it is doing, but that's not what it's actually doing. It's pushing "God." It changed that one feature with the intention of making it seem like something that isn't religious, but as I said, the people who propose ID as valid are rarely ever valid scientists, are Christians, and push for a Christian God, rather than anything else. What they say and what they do are different things. This is called lying.

No, ID is pushing that everything is designed. That everything has a purpose, basically. Look at bone structure, muscle structure. If Anatomy and Physiology has taught be anything so far, it's that the human body is far too intricate to be random.

Many evolutionists are Christians as well. Many of the greatest minds have been Christian. And why is it that only Christianity is pointed out? What about Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism?

And it isn't lying. It's thinking outside the box. It's pondering the reason we're here, what life means, why everything is the way it is. It's the question of whether God exists or not. Whether we exist or not. It's not lying at all. Just because person A sees something a different way than person B, it doesn't mean that person B is lying. It's a case of subjective truth.


And ID, again, has to provide evidence of aliens or other things. If it wants us to take it seriously, it needs to prove that there could possibly be a creator with evidence. And it needs to prove that the other things it says are true, which it hasn't and won't. We didn't live with dinosaurs and the Earth is not 4,000 years old.
That's fundamental Creationism, not ID.
ID is possible, despite the fact it hasn't been proven. It can be, in the future. Anything is possible. As I see it, doing that is just closing your eyes to the world. If you refuse to accept possible, maybe not provable ideas at the time, how can you expect to progress?



And that doesn't tell you something? The same thing happens to people who believe in Bigfoot and the Chupacabra. It's illogical and preys on the ignorant, which accounts for why it has such a problem getting a good foothold in places where reason still exists (the west and the east).

People are ignorant. Religion isn't. It is a person's choice to be ignorant and narrow minded. No where does it say that religion should rule your life and you should only accept one religion. The New Testament tells us to accept people. People tell us to hate others, out of greed and power. Blaming religion for society's problems is silly.


No, actually it isn't. Science is the pursuit of answers based on factual evidence. Beliefs are far harder to shake than a scientist's hypothesis. If I were to provide a Christian conclusive evidence that God didn't exist, they'd likely still believe. But if a scientist is shown conclusive evidence that his or her hypothesis is wrong or at least not completely correct, then they just go back to the drawing board. Science doesn't base itself on what people believe.

Beliefs are different than Faith.
Belief in God is faith.
Believing that the world rotates on its axis is a belief.
Science is the pursuit of answers and truth, and yes, with facts. But before facts are possibilities.



Except that they want to put it in classrooms and teach it to kids. Right, that's not trying to force itself on anyone. It's trying to suggest itself as an alternative based on a fantasy. Again, if you want to teach this stuff, which has no evidence to suggest it is even remotely possible, then you have to let every other crackpot idea in as well. Again, this is just fundamentalists attempting to circumvent the law and force our children to learn about religion in a place where they're supposed to be learning about things that we actually know.

ID, even if it's just a mention in the classroom, is good enough for me. It's completely possible and giving children an interesting theory to ponder isn't bad at all. Who knows? Maybe they'll discover the answer.

Religion is something we actually know. It's something we live with everyday.



Possible theories aren't taught. You're not getting it, Mercy. ID cannot be taught in a classroom until it goes through the proper scientific channels. It isn't a theory. They've just tacked that name onto it to make it seem like it is, but that's like tacking "Nice Guy" onto Hitler. Until ID actually becomes a theory, and not just something that proponents of it say is a theory ,it has to stay out of classrooms. We don't teach a lot of scientific ideas in public school precisely because they're not theories yet. They don't have all the evidence and haven't finished their trip through the proper channels.

Evolution hasn't finished yet, either.

As for the scientific method, here's an expcert from an ID site:

"Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed." -http://www.intelligentdesign.org/


As of yet there are no viable alternatives to evolution. None. ID and creationism have yet to meet that mark. They say a lot of things, but 99% of everything that those ideas have proposed have been proven wrong by science. Until you can provide evidence and successful experiments, ID is not a viable theory, it's just a crazy idea. Of course, it won't be a viable theory because there isn't any evidence. It deserves to be laughed at. If you knew anything about it you'd realize that it's basically insanity in a shiny religious rapper. Because Jesus really did walk with dinosaurs and all...*sarcasm*

Why is it crazy?
Why is your belief in evolution better than our belief in ID.
Why does it deserve to be laughed at?
Why are Christians fundamentalists but Dwarinists aren't?
Why do you assume we all believe the same thing?



No, that's the law. If you want to change the law and force religion down our throats and give the middle finger to the people who helped make this country the great country that it is today, then by all means do so and I will leave to find somewhere far more rational and capable of intelligent thought.

Can you not believe the law.
Again, there's a difference between forcing and stating.
Did you realize that the majority of people who made this country great were Christians?
In addition, laws have been changed, government is not perfect.


There's no law that says one cannot express their religion, except where it becomes an interference. There is no knowledge in ID. It hasn't provided anything but lies. That's the problem. You're proposing we teach lies to children in an institution for learning facts.

No, it is subjective truth. It is a theory.
I'm proposing we teach ideas to an instituation teaching ideas.


No, the government telling you can't force religion on people in public schools is telling you that you cannot break the law that was put in place by people wise enough to know where religion doesn't belong. Read your history. Religion has, in the past, done a wonderful job of stifling knowledge and preventing progress from occurring. Galileo, for example, who was imprisoned for his observations by the Church because his now proven true concepts (well, proven relatively true, since we have better ways to see now) were considered to be heresy. Gee, wonderful.

Public school are not the government. Not exposing them to the facts of all religions creates ignorance.

Religion does not stifle knowledge. It is the people in power who stifle knowledge.


And yes, if you believe in something that you don't know is true or not, then you are being an idiot. You either believe God is real or you don't. There is no middle ground.
There is always middle ground - nothing is black or white.
And by my statement, I meant that some people or not sure whether he exists or not and so I counted their opinion. I for one, do believe in a God.

[Shaun]

Then the question seems open-ended, and ultimately a matter of faith, since there is so far nothing to suggest that matter can come from nothing. You can't prove it came from nothing any more than I can prove in this thread God exists.

True, except I'm not talking about something I necessarily believe and I'm not talking about it as provable scientific fact. I would in no way suggest we teach these unproven, unfounded concepts in a public school classroom. The difference is that one presents an infinite chain of knowledge, while the other only offers a wall to progressive intelligence.

And I never said that a process responsible for matter forming couldn't be occurring all the time. I said it was limited. Whatever process caused rocks to be and be visible is obviously not happening right in front of us. Some thing or condition is restricting it. So it couldn't be nothing.

If theoretically there is no way to ever see that limit and we can only assume the limit exists, then there is no limit.

Actually, considering the new scientific discoveries in subjects such as dark matter, etc. we're learning that there are processes we never see or notice except by direct or indirect observation that are going on right under our noses. One cannot, after all, see a black hole, but we can indirectly monitor its influence on the spaces around it.

It's absurd only insofar as time exists and you believe that time applies to everything. As already proven, time is relative. Those who argue that God created time would argue that he is not restricted by it (Augustine?). That which is not restricted by time would not need a beginning.

Except he must be restricted by it considering that God was only invented some 100+ thousand years after Homo sapiens sapiens appeared on the Earth.
All things need a beginning. The only reason God doesn't need a beginning is because human beings don't want to think beyond God. It's an attempt to solve the human drive for answers to our existence. Saying "God did it" is an easy out so we don't have to do any work anymore. Course, that statement has and continues to fail, since human beings will always be concerned with where we came from, but some people are willing to stifle their minds by accepting a logical absurdity rather than find better answers.

Why not say God made people and the time they require?

Because it's too simple and life, as we know it, is not simple at all. We should automatically be skeptical of anything that is as simple as God.

No, there is no "or neither." The universe either had a start point or it didn't. True or false. Those options are mutually exclusive, and you saying there is no origin to all existence would seem to fall under the first "eternity" option.

Again, unless the starting point is in a position of infinite knowledge, where we can never reach that point in knowing, in which case there is only a beginning by the assumption that things have to start from somewhere, but discovering that beginning is inevitably an infinite process.

What's "an origin that doesn't need explanation" supposed to mean? :confused:

Saying "God did it." Stops any necessity to know beyond that point. So, to say that God created the universe implies that the origin no longer needs an explanation, because God, this being that makes no sense that we have invented for whatever purpose, simply is and we don't have to understand him beyond that. He is therefore the universe is.

And your constant pointing to """nothingness""" is basically agreeing to what I said in my previous post. The universe either has always existed in some form - even maybe in some strange way, OR it came to be at some point from true nothing. If your "nothing" isn't really Nothing, then it's the universe existing in some form. You just don't want to say which one you really think is true, hence "nothing". :P

Depends on your definition of "true nothing." Technically speaking nothing should refer to matter, but not all functions of the universe are dependent upon matter, so there are forces that work beneath us on a level where matter is not present which could and probably did have an impact in the creation of the universe.

I don't recall saying it had to be the Christian God. Nor can an evolution explanation possibly imply that God can be fully explained.

I don't see how belief in God circumvents a need for explanation. It is an explanation, isn't it? What's it circumventing?

I didn't say it was only a Christian God and evolution doesn't explain God because it has nothing to do with any sort of religious thing. Science isn't about religion. It's about human knowledge about subjects that we are capable of observing.

Again, to simply say "God did it" is to provide an explanation that isn't an explanation at all. It's denying us the ability to truly explain, to provide valid and logical explanations to the origins of whatever it is we're saying "God did."

[Shaun]

There's a difference between imposing and teaching.
Next, obviously something's wrong if people get so upset that there's a news article on a kid dressing up as Jesus for Halloween. If public school was neutral and it wasn't against anyone's rights, why did a Halloween costume cause such a ruckus?

There is no difference when it comes to forcing public schools to teach religion. It is an imposition in and of itself.

To the second point: it's because people are stupid and get so upset over nothing these days. Unless the kid was going around school explaining who Jesus was and essentially preaching, there should be no reason why the kid can't dress like that. But again, people are touchy, stupid, and generally ignorant.

I'm not saying that public schools should become religious, but rather teach about religion.

Which is against the law.

Having one class that informs students of the facts of all religion would be great. Lack of knowledge about a subject may cause someone to be discriminate. For example, I go to a Catholic school and if I talk about God or something or other, people believe I'm shoving it down their throats when I'm not. But if an atheist were to condescend to a Catholic or preach their beliefs, no one gets irritated with them. Not only would it cut down on intolerance, but it would provide students with information so they can decide their denomination.

Actually, there is no correlation between discrimination and lack of religious teaching in public school. None whatsoever. There is in relation to race, but not religion, because people are exposed to religion outside of school either by their parents or just by being out there.

And again, people are stupid.

And I've never said that evolution is wrong. What does it believe of creation? I've heard that a single cell just popped out of something none-living and eventually joined with other cells and other cells until humans, plants and animals were created. Which is just down right silly, in my opinion.

Which has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution is not, as you have apparently been taught, about the creation of life, just about how life changes from the point of its existence. That's it.
And actually, scientifically speaking it has been proven that the process above as you describe it (minus the popping into existence part) actually works and it can be traced through our DNA. You can thank the Human Genome Project for that, which has pretty much provided all the firm evidence anyone needs to indicate that, in fact, we all sprung up from some single-celled organism some long long time ago, etc. It sounds silly because it's complicated and as human beings we're generally inclined to avoid the complicated as a societal/cultural thing, which explains why religion is so easy to spread.

Perhaps we are irrelevant. But why does the universe have to come from nothing? Why can't we believe in a God or aliens or whatever? It's not entirely egotistical, it's just how you perceive God and religion.

You can believe in whatever the hell you want. I'm just going to say you're wrong and tell you it isn't science. The universe could have come from a flying bunny rabbit or a rabid hamster with cerebral palsy. But those are both stupid ideas with no basis in fact. Believe what you want, but if it's not science, keep it out of the science classroom. It's quite unfortunate that there is such a push for religion as science because the people who have to deal with it in the worst way are college professors who have the task of basically reteaching basic science when they should be focusing on more complicated scientific concepts...

No, ID is pushing that everything is designed. That everything has a purpose, basically. Look at bone structure, muscle structure. If Anatomy and Physiology has taught be anything so far, it's that the human body is far too intricate to be random.

Designed by SOMEONE (i.e. God). It's claiming that the eye is so complicated it could only have been designed, which is absurd because we can actually trace the evolution of the eye. It's pushing fake science as real for a religious purpose. After all, the question that will be asked is "who was the designer?" to which only two answers are relevant: I don't know, or God. And no doubt "God" will be the popular choice.

Many evolutionists are Christians as well. Many of the greatest minds have been Christian. And why is it that only Christianity is pointed out? What about Islam and Buddhism and Hinduism?

Evolutionists are fundamentalist Christians. ID proponents are. Big difference.

That's fundamental Creationism, not ID.
ID is possible, despite the fact it hasn't been proven. It can be, in the future. Anything is possible. As I see it, doing that is just closing your eyes to the world. If you refuse to accept possible, maybe not provable ideas at the time, how can you expect to progress?

You need to educate yourself on what ID is actually about and what it proposes. Even Wikipedia is pretty much accurate on this, which is surprising. Learn where it came from, what it is, and why it is a pack of lies. Whoever the people are who are teaching you this stuff need to be fired, because they're teaching you a way to lie, not to present accurate science.

And ID is EXACTLY THE SAME AS CREATIONISM. Look it up. The same exact people who created Creationism, and then were shot down because it wasn't science, came back with ID using basically the same textbook they had proposed last time, with minor changes. The same people are behind ID as creationism and they're trying to play it off like it is science, when it isn't.

And again, because you're not getting it, if ID is possible, then the people who propose ID NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. It is not science until there is evidence and until it because a scientific theory. It has not fulfilled its burden of proof. You and other ID people presume that science works by presenting ideas because we believe it is possible. That's not. Science works by proving it through rigorous testing. No such testing has been done that can prove anything that ID says is true. Therefore, it isn't science. It is religion. End of story.

People are ignorant. Religion isn't. It is a person's choice to be ignorant and narrow minded. No where does it say that religion should rule your life and you should only accept one religion. The New Testament tells us to accept people. People tell us to hate others, out of greed and power. Blaming religion for society's problems is silly.


Religion was created by people. By the transitive property of algebra, religion is ignorant. Doesn't matter if it says you should be ruled by it, people are ruled by it. And religion does a wonderful job of accepting people. Let's think: the Jews, not so much, Blacks, not so much, other colored people, not so much, women, not so much, homosexuals, not so much, transgenders, not so much, non-religious, not so much. At no point in all religious history can you see any sort of full adherence to this idea of "accepting people." It doesn't exist because religion is a human thing, and thus is susceptible to human idiocy. Not to mention, if you look at your Bible it tells you to do a lot of horrible things to other people. And if the Old Testament doesn't count, then stop including it in the Bible. The New Testament is just as bad.

Beliefs are different than Faith.
Belief in God is faith.
Believing that the world rotates on its axis is a belief.
Science is the pursuit of answers and truth, and yes, with facts. But before facts are possibilities.


Beliefs and faith go hand in hand. Believing the world rotates only occurs if you don't know that the world rotates. But people who are educated actually know this because it's proven. With facts. And it's been that way for a very very very long time, so pretty much everyone knows.
Nobody knows that God exists. They just believe it.
And you keep saying possibilities as if that automatically makes it okay to just teach whatever the hell you want. It's not. It's entirely possible that a giant penis and vagina swam around in the sky and created the Earth through sexual intercourse...but we're not going to teach that to kids, are we?

ID, even if it's just a mention in the classroom, is good enough for me. It's completely possible and giving children an interesting theory to ponder isn't bad at all. Who knows? Maybe they'll discover the answer.

Possible by religious standards. And it can't be taught in classrooms because, as I have repeated myself numerous times now: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. And it IS NOT A THEORY. They put the name theory on the end, but it is NOT A THEORY. It is just an attempt at making religion seem scientific. I explained the scientific theory to you. That's how it works.

Religion is something we actually know. It's something we live with everyday.

I don't. Religion is one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated upon people by other people.

Evolution hasn't finished yet, either.

Nope, because evolution continues on and on, but the principle of evolution is proven fact.

As for the scientific method, here's an expcert from an ID site:

"Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed." -http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

So, basically you're saying that ID hasn't actually done the research yet and therefore hasn't proven anything and wants to be included into public schools having not actually proven anything yet...so, as I said, since it hasn't provided evidence of anything it proposes, it isn't a theory. Thanks for proving my point.

Why is it crazy?
Why is your belief in evolution better than our belief in ID.
Why does it deserve to be laughed at?
Why are Christians fundamentalists but Dwarinists aren't?
Why do you assume we all believe the same thing?


I don't believe in evolution. I know that evolution is true because I can see the evidence with my own eyes. Just as I know that the sun shines and the moon goes around the Earth. Evolution is better than ID because evolution makes sense, has been proven, and doesn't attempt to lie and steal its way into things.
ID deserves to be laughed at because it's ridiculous fundamentalist propaganda.
Because Darwinists aren't showing up in Churches trying to tell you that God doesn't exist.
I don't assume we all believe the same thing. I don't believe in God. You do. It's not my fault that you make the conscious choice to ignore the reality of evolution.

Can you not believe the law.
Again, there's a difference between forcing and stating.
Did you realize that the majority of people who made this country great were Christians?
In addition, laws have been changed, government is not perfect.

Aha, so it comes out! You want to make this a Christian nation and basically say "fuck you" to all those who like having a secular government. Wonderful. Let's go back to the lovely time of the crusades and the inquisition. Might as well! Hell, let's be like the radical Muslims in the Middle East too! Let's just change the constitution! Fuck the constitution. It's not important. It was only put there by those same CHRISTIANS that you were talking about specifically because they didn't want to deal with a nation that prided itself on imposing religious laws.

Learn some history, Mercy. You're hurting my head.

No, it is subjective truth. It is a theory.
I'm proposing we teach ideas to an instituation teaching ideas.

Again, not a theory. You already proved this to me earlier.
School is not an institution for teaching ideas. It's an institution for teaching facts. If we taught only ideas in public schools we'd really have a lot of problems on our hands with stupid people.

Public school are not the government. Not exposing them to the facts of all religions creates ignorance.

Public schools are funded by the government and thus an extension of the government. Hence why private schools can teach basically whatever the hell they want.
No, religion creates ignorance, as you have proven to me in this back and forth repeatedly with the fact that you, just like everyone in ID, don't understand the scientific method, or history, or anything to do with this whole subject. That's ignorance.

Religion does not stifle knowledge. It is the people in power who stifle knowledge.

Do you even know the history of religion? Do you just make this stuff up because it sounds good? I wish we lived in a rosy world where religion was nice and flowery, but that world doesn't exist. Go read some books on how religion is stifled knowledge since its inception.

There is always middle ground - nothing is black or white.
And by my statement, I meant that some people or not sure whether he exists or not and so I counted their opinion. I for one, do believe in a God.

No, you can't believe in something you don't know exists. That's a logical absurdity. You believe in him if he exists, or you don't if you don't believe he exists. No gray.
And I know you believe in God. You'd have to to support ID. It's sort of required.

[Diocletian]

To the second point: it's because people are stupid and get so upset over nothing these days. Unless the kid was going around school explaining who Jesus was and essentially preaching, there should be no reason why the kid can't dress like that. But again, people are touchy, stupid, and generally ignorant.

The kid can preach whatever he feels like. The school and public system itself is not supporting his belief nor is it helping him advertise; if he does it on his own, that's his choice. And don't worry, your precious dollars aren't being wasted because he's not receiving any sort of funding for it.

Which is against the law.

No, it's not. The Establishment Clause has overwhelmingly been interpreted to mean that the federal government will not prefer one religion over another. It says nothing about advocating - or at least acknowledging - the concept of religion itself.

Designed by SOMEONE (i.e. God). It's claiming that the eye is so complicated it could only have been designed, which is absurd because we can actually trace the evolution of the eye. It's pushing fake science as real for a religious purpose. After all, the question that will be asked is "who was the designer?" to which only two answers are relevant: I don't know, or God. And no doubt "God" will be the popular choice.

Because "God" is the only choice when tracing the fundamental creation of the universe and really, fundamental anything. Where did the laws of physics spring up from, Shaun? Please do tell me...unless, of course, you don't know, which suggests that something had to design them in the first place. Laws do not suddenly arise from nowhere and matter does not suddenly form from nothing. There is always a process of creation.

Evolutionists are['nt] fundamentalist Christians. ID proponents are. Big difference.

No, ID proponents are people who accept evolution as true and are simply adding a religious perspective on to the theory. They believe that there was a guiding hand to evolution and natural selection. They are in no way similar to the Young Earth Creationists or any other such group, as far as I know.

Religion was created by people.

You are imposing your own belief here; you are basically stating that you don't think God exists, which is fine, but don't try to pass it off as such a brazen fact like you just did, considering that you're doing the same thing you accuse religious people of doing. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your paragraph.

Possible by religious standards. And it can't be taught in classrooms because, as I have repeated myself numerous times now: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. And it IS NOT A THEORY. They put the name theory on the end, but it is NOT A THEORY. It is just an attempt at making religion seem scientific. I explained the scientific theory to you. That's how it works.

It's not against the law; have you read the US Constitution? If all religions are respected, it's fine. Atheism doesn't play into this nor did the Founders intend it do; if you want atheism to have the same level of recognition as religion in classrooms, then go to the Courts, but until another amendment is added supporting this, we are going by the Constitution, which inherently assumes that there will always be religion in the first place.

Aha, so it comes out! You want to make this a Christian nation and basically say "fuck you" to all those who like having a secular government. Wonderful. Let's go back to the lovely time of the crusades and the inquisition. Might as well! Hell, let's be like the radical Muslims in the Middle East too! Let's just change the constitution! Fuck the constitution. It's not important. It was only put there by those same CHRISTIANS that you were talking about specifically because they didn't want to deal with a nation that prided itself on imposing religious laws.


Stalin was an atheist; he killed over 20,000,000 innocents. Hitler was an atheist; he killed over 12,000,000 innocents. Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were atheists; they killed millions of innocents. Atheism is evil! We should eradicate this vile belief immediately!

...

You see how ridiculous your "arguments" against religion are? You seem to deliberately set up a straw man, attacking not the religion but purely its practitioners. If that's the case - and it is - then come out and say so. Don't hide behind attacking any religion in general, because there is not a single example in any religious texts that advocates stifling scientific progress or murdering the masses. The practitioners are the ones who commit such atrocities.

Do you even know the history of religion? Do you just make this stuff up because it sounds good? I wish we lived in a rosy world where religion was nice and flowery, but that world doesn't exist. Go read some books on how religion is stifled knowledge since its inception.

How ironical, considering that religion...doesn't do any of those crimes you claim it perpetrates. Go show me proof, please.

[Mercy]

There is no difference when it comes to forcing public schools to teach religion. It is an imposition in and of itself.

So, if I didn't want to learn English because all the stories were fake and a teacher was forcing me to learn it, wouldn't that be an imposition as well.

There is a difference between teaching and imposition, as I said before. And if not, then everyone would have been imposed upon at one time or another because not everyone likes every subject in school.


To the second point: it's because people are stupid and get so upset over nothing these days. Unless the kid was going around school explaining who Jesus was and essentially preaching, there should be no reason why the kid can't dress like that. But again, people are touchy, stupid, and generally ignorant.

Yes, I agree people are stupid. They put too much focus on why religion is bad. It's the new thing these days.



Actually, there is no correlation between discrimination and lack of religious teaching in public school. None whatsoever. There is in relation to race, but not religion, because people are exposed to religion outside of school either by their parents or just by being out there.

And again, people are stupid.

Which is why teaching them about different sort of religions is important. Usually, what people get from the outside world is simply a vagueness of religion and half the time it is incorrect.



Which has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution is not, as you have apparently been taught, about the creation of life, just about how life changes from the point of its existence. That's it.

But that's what several evolutionist believe, is it not?


And actually, scientifically speaking it has been proven that the process above as you describe it (minus the popping into existence part) actually works and it can be traced through our DNA. You can thank the Human Genome Project for that, which has pretty much provided all the firm evidence anyone needs to indicate that, in fact, we all sprung up from some single-celled organism some long long time ago, etc. It sounds silly because it's complicated and as human beings we're generally inclined to avoid the complicated as a societal/cultural thing, which explains why religion is so easy to spread.

True, people tend to clasp onto simpler explanations. I have also learned about the Human Genome Project and I understand that they have proved this. I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I do believe in evolution. However, if what you said earlier was true, then why is there even a debate over this? The creating of life and evolution are different things, so we can teach about both respectively.


You can believe in whatever the hell you want. I'm just going to say you're wrong and tell you it isn't science. The universe could have come from a flying bunny rabbit or a rabid hamster with cerebral palsy. But those are both stupid ideas with no basis in fact. Believe what you want, but if it's not science, keep it out of the science classroom. It's quite unfortunate that there is such a push for religion as science because the people who have to deal with it in the worst way are college professors who have the task of basically reteaching basic science when they should be focusing on more complicated scientific concepts...

What makes you think you are right? How do we judge right and wrong? There is no proof that either of us is right and that either of us is wrong.

Also, I am not pushing for religion as science. I'm pushing against the limiting of ideas.



Designed by SOMEONE (i.e. God). It's claiming that the eye is so complicated it could only have been designed, which is absurd because we can actually trace the evolution of the eye. It's pushing fake science as real for a religious purpose. After all, the question that will be asked is "who was the designer?" to which only two answers are relevant: I don't know, or God. And no doubt "God" will be the popular choice.

But it will not be the only choice. With every answer comes another question and with every question comes another mind to find the answer. Just because we find one solution doesn't mean the question will go away.



Evolutionists are fundamentalist Christians. ID proponents are. Big difference.

I'm guessing you meant "aren't". ID proponents are not fundamentalist Christians. I am not a fundamentalist and I hope I will never become one. Evolutionist can be fundamentalists of evolution and be just as annoying as other fundamentalists, you know.



You need to educate yourself on what ID is actually about and what it proposes. Even Wikipedia is pretty much accurate on this, which is surprising. Learn where it came from, what it is, and why it is a pack of lies. Whoever the people are who are teaching you this stuff need to be fired, because they're teaching you a way to lie, not to present accurate science.

I understand what ID is. Trusting Wikipedia only causes me to disregard statements you make, you realize this?

They are not teaching me this, actually. This is what I've come up with from my knowledge and experiences. I automatically question everything someone tries to teach me. In addition, never in science class have I heard a teacher discuss ID. In all actuality, we have only skimmed evolution and there have been times when I was completely against religion and ID. So it isn't that I'm ignorant as you claim.

And why is it that you think I'm ignorant? Because I don't agree with you?


And ID is EXACTLY THE SAME AS CREATIONISM. Look it up. The same exact people who created Creationism, and then were shot down because it wasn't science, came back with ID using basically the same textbook they had proposed last time, with minor changes. The same people are behind ID as creationism and they're trying to play it off like it is science, when it isn't.

It is not the same thing. Just because two things are similar doesn't mean we're the same. Identical twins, for instance, may look the same but they have different personalities.


And again, because you're not getting it, if ID is possible, then the people who propose ID NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. It is not science until there is evidence and until it because a scientific theory. It has not fulfilled its burden of proof. You and other ID people presume that science works by presenting ideas because we believe it is possible. That's not. Science works by proving it through rigorous testing. No such testing has been done that can prove anything that ID says is true. Therefore, it isn't science. It is religion. End of story.

Why do I need to get it? Why is it so important to you that you change my beliefs?
Just because ID does not have proof as of yet, does not mean it isn't possible. You have to start somewhere and ID proponents are starting with their idea, with their question.


Religion was created by people. By the transitive property of algebra, religion is ignorant. Doesn't matter if it says you should be ruled by it, people are ruled by it. And religion does a wonderful job of accepting people. Let's think: the Jews, not so much, Blacks, not so much, other colored people, not so much, women, not so much, homosexuals, not so much, transgenders, not so much, non-religious, not so much. At no point in all religious history can you see any sort of full adherence to this idea of "accepting people." It doesn't exist because religion is a human thing, and thus is susceptible to human idiocy. Not to mention, if you look at your Bible it tells you to do a lot of horrible things to other people. And if the Old Testament doesn't count, then stop including it in the Bible. The New Testament is just as bad.

Then blame the people. People, not religion are the ones that take it too far.
Second, religion was written long ago and of course there are errors. I'm not sure about other religions on this subject, but in the New Testament, Jesus tells us we must accept people.

The Old Testament does not count because it is simply a "history" that the New Testament can reference back too. The laws are not meant to be taken from the Old Testament, albeit the Jewish people do use them [I think] because they do not have a New Testament.



Beliefs and faith go hand in hand. Believing the world rotates only occurs if you don't know that the world rotates. But people who are educated actually know this because it's proven. With facts. And it's been that way for a very very very long time, so pretty much everyone knows.
Perhaps, but you can also believe in something that isn't religious.


Nobody knows that God exists. They just believe it.
And you keep saying possibilities as if that automatically makes it okay to just teach whatever the hell you want. It's not. It's entirely possible that a giant penis and vagina swam around in the sky and created the Earth through sexual intercourse...but we're not going to teach that to kids, are we?

No, it's not okay to teach whatever you want through possibilities, but it's great to mention them. Getting people's minds ticking - that's what it's about. Only learning what the teacher's give you won't solve anything. Mentioning these kinds of things in class - possibilities, is what might instigate creativity and other ideas which might lead to answers.



Possible by religious standards. And it can't be taught in classrooms because, as I have repeated myself numerous times now: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. And it IS NOT A THEORY. They put the name theory on the end, but it is NOT A THEORY. It is just an attempt at making religion seem scientific. I explained the scientific theory to you. That's how it works.

The law is not always right. And it is a theory and it is not religion.



I don't. Religion is one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated upon people by other people.


No, the greatest lie is omitting information from the people and telling them they don't need it. Telling people they don't need knowledge of one subject because not everyone agrees with it is wrong. It's history. It tells what people have thought in the past. Taking away religion is like taking away the right to read about the Civil War or ancient civilizations.


Nope, because evolution continues on and on, but the principle of evolution is proven fact.


And I am not saying that it's not a fact.


So, basically you're saying that ID hasn't actually done the research yet and therefore hasn't proven anything and wants to be included into public schools having not actually proven anything yet...so, as I said, since it hasn't provided evidence of anything it proposes, it isn't a theory. Thanks for proving my point.

But there's still a possibility that it can prove something.



I don't believe in evolution. I know that evolution is true because I can see the evidence with my own eyes. Just as I know that the sun shines and the moon goes around the Earth. Evolution is better than ID because evolution makes sense, has been proven, and doesn't attempt to lie and steal its way into things.

I'm not saying evolution isn't there.
ID makes sense as well.
And it's not attempting to lie or steal things. It's simply an idea.


ID deserves to be laughed at because it's ridiculous fundamentalist propaganda.
Because Darwinists aren't showing up in Churches trying to tell you that God doesn't exist.
I don't assume we all believe the same thing. I don't believe in God. You do. It's not my fault that you make the conscious choice to ignore the reality of evolution.

But they show up everywhere else, isn't that right?
Why do you say it like it's a bad thing? Like I did something wrong?
There's nothing wrong with believing in a power greater than I.
And as I ahve stated before, I'm not saying that evolution is wrong and I do believe in evolution.



Aha, so it comes out! You want to make this a Christian nation and basically say "fuck you" to all those who like having a secular government. Wonderful. Let's go back to the lovely time of the crusades and the inquisition. Might as well! Hell, let's be like the radical Muslims in the Middle East too! Let's just change the constitution! Fuck the constitution. It's not important. It was only put there by those same CHRISTIANS that you were talking about specifically because they didn't want to deal with a nation that prided itself on imposing religious laws.

I said nothing like that and you are miscontruing my words.
I want to teach ALL religions. Every single one. The basics, anyway. Even atheism. I don't want this to become a religion based country, only a religion-tolerant and knowledgable country. Weren't you irritated with the propoganda that Obama was Muslim? Why would that matter unless people were ignorant about Muslims?

By the way, the Consitution wasn't written for that one purpose and the Bill of Rights was added much later. Really, it was all economics and indepence in the beginning, and then it led to rights and economics.


Learn some history, Mercy. You're hurting my head.
I'm learning history as I go and I know about religious battles.
But please listen when I say this, it was people, not religion. It was never the religion but the people. Religion was just something to "justify" what they were doing. If we can understand that, then we can accept religion as something that people believe in and that shouldn't be used for power. I'm not suggesting that we make a theocracy.



Again, not a theory. You already proved this to me earlier.
School is not an institution for teaching ideas. It's an institution for teaching facts. If we taught only ideas in public schools we'd really have a lot of problems on our hands with stupid people.

I believe we already have a problem with "stupid" people as you call them. Yes, school teaches facts but also ideas. They go hand in hand. How can we discover new facts without ideas?



Public schools are funded by the government and thus an extension of the government. Hence why private schools can teach basically whatever the hell they want.
No, religion creates ignorance, as you have proven to me in this back and forth repeatedly with the fact that you, just like everyone in ID, don't understand the scientific method, or history, or anything to do with this whole subject. That's ignorance.

Alright, I'm going to request this now.
Usually, I'm all for getting rough, because people need tough skin. However, you repeatingly saying that I, or other ID propenants are ignorant is very rude. People are not ignorant for what they believe, no matter how wrong you think they are. I have respected your opinions and have not called you ignorant and I hope you will respect mine.



Do you even know the history of religion? Do you just make this stuff up because it sounds good? I wish we lived in a rosy world where religion was nice and flowery, but that world doesn't exist. Go read some books on how religion is stifled knowledge since its inception.

Yes, I know the history. But again, religion is not the cause. It is the people who manipulate it.



No, you can't believe in something you don't know exists. That's a logical absurdity. You believe in him if he exists, or you don't if you don't believe he exists. No gray.
And I know you believe in God. You'd have to to support ID. It's sort of required.

I believe in God because God does exist.
Again, I was using my words to describe the fact that not everyone thinks God does exist. I'm sorry for that confusion.

Also, God is not required with the idea of ID.

[Shaun]

The kid can preach whatever he feels like. The school and public system itself is not supporting his belief nor is it helping him advertise; if he does it on his own, that's his choice. And don't worry, your precious dollars aren't being wasted because he's not receiving any sort of funding for it.

Technically, he can't preach on public school grounds, since those grounds must remain neutral due to the law.

No, it's not. The Establishment Clause has overwhelmingly been interpreted to mean that the federal government will not prefer one religion over another. It says nothing about advocating - or at least acknowledging - the concept of religion itself.

If you have a brain you can't misinterpret that clause. The problem is that a lot of people don't have brains.

Because "God" is the only choice when tracing the fundamental creation of the universe and really, fundamental anything. Where did the laws of physics spring up from, Shaun? Please do tell me...unless, of course, you don't know, which suggests that something had to design them in the first place. Laws do not suddenly arise from nowhere and matter does not suddenly form from nothing. There is always a process of creation.

So, because I don't know the answer or you don't know the answer, it must automatically mean that God was behind it? That makes no logical sense whatsoever, because by that logic everything we've discovered since the creation of religions wouldn't exist...except they do.
This whole statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Because any time we don't know the answer, you're suggesting we should just pass it off to being God. But what does that say about God when we prove that something once thought the realm of God turns out to not really be all that closely related at all? Because that happens all the time.

No, ID proponents are people who accept evolution as true and are simply adding a religious perspective on to the theory. They believe that there was a guiding hand to evolution and natural selection. They are in no way similar to the Young Earth Creationists or any other such group, as far as I know.

Then you clearly aren't reading much into it. ID proponents try to contradict evolution in much the same way as young Earth Creationists and other forms of creationist nonsense. It's basically the same thing.

It's not against the law; have you read the US Constitution? If all religions are respected, it's fine. Atheism doesn't play into this nor did the Founders intend it do; if you want atheism to have the same level of recognition as religion in classrooms, then go to the Courts, but until another amendment is added supporting this, we are going by the Constitution, which inherently assumes that there will always be religion in the first place.


Yes, actually, I have. You clearly haven't because it states in the Constitution that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. <--that is pretty damn clear.
And you need to learn some history, because the Founding Fathers were largely deists and largely secularists. A certain important member even rewrote the Bible to present a more secular view.
This isn't about atheism. We're not teaching students to be atheist. School is not a place to teach ideology; it's a place to teach facts: 1+1 = 2, 1066 is the year of the Norma Conquest in England, yadda yadda. It does not teach that God doesn't exist, nor does it teach that Christianity is the proper religion or Muslim is the proper religion, or any values as held by those religions.
The Constitution maintains that you may be religious and have a religion and that the government may not take that away from you, but it does not grant you the right to impose that religion on anyone else through the law or any government institution, and since public schools are funded by tax dollars, it is an institution under government control. This is why private schools, which are largely religious bodies, exist: to provide an educational environment that allows for religious teaching.

Stalin was an atheist; he killed over 20,000,000 innocents. Hitler was an atheist; he killed over 12,000,000 innocents. Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were atheists; they killed millions of innocents. Atheism is evil! We should eradicate this vile belief immediately!

None of them killed in the name of atheism. This is an argument brought up over and over and over and over. I'm not even an atheist. These people killed people not in the name of atheism, but for their own political agendas and religious ideals that placed a single man at the top of the tier into the position of "god."
When you can cite an example of an atheist who commits genocide in the name of atheism, as many of the religious wars have done in the name of Christianity or the Christian God, then we can talk. Until, the point is moot.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Learn your history. It's impossible to ignore that fact.

You see how ridiculous your "arguments" against religion are? You seem to deliberately set up a straw man, attacking not the religion but purely its practitioners. If that's the case - and it is - then come out and say so. Don't hide behind attacking any religion in general, because there is not a single example in any religious texts that advocates stifling scientific progress or murdering the masses. The practitioners are the ones who commit such atrocities.


I assume, then, that you haven't read the Bible? Or the Koran?

How ironical, considering that religion...doesn't do any of those crimes you claim it perpetrates. Go show me proof, please.

It's in a history book. How many crusades were there? What about the inquisition? Or the almost worldwide witch burnings or the use of religion to validate slavery and then discrimination against blacks? For someone telling me to provide proof you seem pretty much oblivious to thousands of years of human history. You could Google this stuff without trying hard...

[nagarjuna]

I might as well jump into the fray.

We now know that homosexuality comes as a result of men and woman having excess amounts of the oppsite genders sex hormones.

It's not that simple. That is one theory. But it's definitely an open question and not a closed case.

The only logical stance is uncertainty.

Show me a person who can live on logic alone, and I will show you Robby the robot. It is impossible to sit on all the fences all the time. It may not be logical, but there are times when it is advantageous and sensible to commit to a belief even though it may possibly prove false. Faith does not exclude openness to new evidence--it just means that you allow the belief to change you, for the present.

It's significant that we're not talking about "logic" here; we're talking about what you believe in and why. When it comes to saying that something is a scientific theory, or proven or whatnot, you have to demonstrate how it bears up under the scientific method. When it comes to religious belief (which is not scientific, Eriko, even if it is as worldly and pragmatic as Buddhism), why bother with the paperwork? :confused: Loosen up, believe in something. Even atheists do it.

As for the Adam and Eve theory that is totally ridiculous. The point that woman was created from a man's rib indicates the thought process of the then society that is women is inferior to man. It is quite reasonable that priests/saints whatever those religious people are called must have created a stupid fairy tail for some kind of justification.

You'd be interested to know that there's a current in Christianity called Gnosticism, based on the Jewish Kaballah (sp?), which has the opposite story. According to their version of Genesis, Adam was just a soulless body until God sent Eve down to breathe life into him. For every irritating Western belief, you'll find some intelligent folks standing next to them who believe just the opposite. :rolleyes: That goes for Creationism, too. Some of us belief in a God who's more than 6,000 years old.

"Both read the Bible day and night,
But you read black where I read white." --William Blake.

I read the bible. It was a children's edition comic book type.

Then it probably taught a childish understanding of God. There's nothing wrong with that... if you're a child. I think that probably explains why it didn't terribly impress you.

I have noticed that Islam and Chritianity are both about faith and nothing else.

There's a difference between what Christians teach and what Christ taught. Christ was a very sensible guy. He taught to judge the tree by its fruit--in other words, believe in something if its fruit is good, otherwise disbelieve it. This is the same as what the Buddha taught. Same goes for people who refer to themselves as Christian. If they live as Christ lived, then they are rooted in Christ. Otherwise, they'll be thrown into the fire--and not in the after-life mind, but here and now.

It seems like one of the biggest arguments here is the whole debate about the First Cause. Frankly, I think it's all silly. In the words of Dr. Emmet Brown of "Back to the Future": "You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally!" Time is essentially just another dimension, like the three spacial dimensions we're familiar with. It may have a beginning and an end--or stretch out infinitely in one or both directions--and has anybody considered the possibility (I think Buddhists believe this) that time is cyclical? Maybe the beginning and the end are identical (something else that Jesus taught.) Or maybe God is outside of time, and the "creation" is a process that is ongoing? There are a lot of possibilities. Most of us are guilty of taking the limits of our imaginations to be the limits of the world.

[Crocolyle]

I sure as hell do [see a problem with teaching both ID and Evolution as theories, as Mercy suggested].

Then again, you ARE a Catholic School girl so...

A "theory" is a scientific explanation, not a "we're not entirely sure, so we'll say this until we think of something better." Theories aren't promoted into laws--laws and theories are exclusive of each other. ID is not a theory. Evolution is proven fact. It is a proposed, non-scientific explanation designed allow the teaching of religion in a thinly veiled disguise, in public schools.

As a Catholic school boy, I learned evolution in my biology classes. My sister, a Catholic school girl's, religion textbook last year even encourages belief in evolution. Not creationism. Not ID. In most Catholic universities, evolution is what's typically taught in biology.

As far as Christians go, Catholics do believe some crazy things--at communion that really is the body and blood of Christ (i. e. it isn't symbolic. Look up "transubstantiation"), they accept tradition as well as the Bible as sources of theological ideas (rather than the sola scriptura of many Protestant denominations... on another note, that Protestant idea is nonsense, because tradition determined what books were and were not accepted into the canon), Popes, saints as intercessors, etc., but young-earth creationism isn't one of the Church's crazy ideas...

[Shaun]

There is a difference between teaching and imposition, as I said before. And if not, then everyone would have been imposed upon at one time or another because not everyone likes every subject in school.

Comparing mathematics to religion is kind of like comparing raisins to spaceships. So this whole bit doesn't make sense, since we're talking about imposing religion, not imposing knowledge.

Yes, I agree people are stupid. They put too much focus on why religion is bad. It's the new thing these days.

Maybe I'm sick of people trying to cram their religion into my schools and making shitty decisions that fuck up the country...or stifling science and knowledge, etc. etc. Maybe some of us are about sick and tired of religion trying to control everything. That could have a lot to do with it. It's unfortunate that we're not like western Europe where religion, while still very present, has backed off and become less radical, and in fact, produces far better results amongst its people because it has stopped, for the most part, trying to control everything. While they've been making things better for everyone, we've been progressively pushing for fundamentalist nonsense.

I wouldn't focus on the bad if religion in the United States would start doing some good.


Which is why teaching them about different sort of religions is important. Usually, what people get from the outside world is simply a vagueness of religion and half the time it is incorrect.

Technically speaking schools can teach ABOUT religion from an historical context and they often do (teaching English history, for example, often brings up Christianity). What they can't really do is teach it from a religious perspective, even if they include other religions. This has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. You're talking like this is 1920. Kids have the Internet. Anything they can't learn in school they can learn online. And kids these days are far more in tine with current events than people before us were. So public schools aren't really producing ignorance.
Not to mention, when the hell would they have time for a religion class? kids these days are often taking 3 or 4 or 5 AP classes in hopes of going to some awesome college...

But that's what several evolutionist believe, is it not?

Several? Sure, but what they believe doesn't really matter in the context of evolution, since evolution isn't about what they believe, but what they know, and is also not about how life came to be, just how it evolved. Quite a few evolutionists are Christian; they simply see the difference between science and religion.

True, people tend to clasp onto simpler explanations. I have also learned about the Human Genome Project and I understand that they have proved this. I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I do believe in evolution. However, if what you said earlier was true, then why is there even a debate over this? The creating of life and evolution are different things, so we can teach about both respectively.

Because Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's an idea that people have claimed to be true, but haven't proven. If you're not going to listen to me I'll close this thread, because I've repeated myself over and over now. You don't teach something that isn't at the very least a viable theory as something that is science. Public school is not the place for ideas so much as a place for knowledge. Until ID can provide evidence and experimental proof, it will remain nothing more than an idea.
And the controversy is one created through propaganda. An overwhelming majority of scientists are on the side of evolution, not ID. In fact, most of the ID proponents don't have degrees, and those that do have often proven to not actually be all that prominent, let alone good scientists. The controversy we're seeing is something that is simply made to seem real when it isn't. Almost all scientists hold on to evolution. The segment of ID proponents is so tiny it's insignificant.

What makes you think you are right? How do we judge right and wrong? There is no proof that either of us is right and that either of us is wrong.

Prove it to me and I'll believe it. Until then, I'll stick by science, which tells me that 99% of the stuff in the Bible is bullshit (history too) and that if there is a god or some sort of force or whatever, it certainly isn't involved in any way we can understand.

I'm guessing you meant "aren't". ID proponents are not fundamentalist Christians. I am not a fundamentalist and I hope I will never become one. Evolutionist can be fundamentalists of evolution and be just as annoying as other fundamentalists, you know.

If you're an ID proponent you are a fundamentalist, as I've said.
Fundamentalist evolutionists are only annoying because they speak in facts and truth, rather than lies and deceit. Often times the truth can be jarring for people who believe in nonsense. Imagine trying to explain what we know now to people in 500 AD.

I understand what ID is. Trusting Wikipedia only causes me to disregard statements you make, you realize this?

Oh, I know. I generally despise wiki, but I actually looked and it's not that far off, which is a plus. It gets to the good points.

They are not teaching me this, actually. This is what I've come up with from my knowledge and experiences. I automatically question everything someone tries to teach me. In addition, never in science class have I heard a teacher discuss ID. In all actuality, we have only skimmed evolution and there have been times when I was completely against religion and ID. So it isn't that I'm ignorant as you claim.

I'm totally open to schools allow for questions.
And skimming evolution is kind of a disservice, since a lot of people grow up to be ID/creationist people and then claim they understand evolution, but don't.

And why is it that you think I'm ignorant? Because I don't agree with you?

Because you don't know your American history or other factors of history.

It is not the same thing. Just because two things are similar doesn't mean we're the same. Identical twins, for instance, may look the same but they have different personalities.

"May" is the key word there. Clearly the opposite of may applies here, since ID is not significantly different from creationism at all. That and ID is still trying to push its way past the proper channels to make it so it's the exception to the rule. Evolution never got into schools that way. It had to fight its way up the scientific channels to get there, and even then it was heavily contested because it was highly controversial when it really started to take off. ID has to do the same if it wants to be taken seriously, and this is my problem with teaching ID, because it isn't something that has evidence, it is just an idea based on faulty assumptions and no facts.

Why do I need to get it? Why is it so important to you that you change my beliefs?
Just because ID does not have proof as of yet, does not mean it isn't possible. You have to start somewhere and ID proponents are starting with their idea, with their question.

Yes, and that's fine to start somewhere, but you don't teach it to kids at that stage. It isn't a theory, and thus has to work its way there. That's how science works. Almost everything that is taught in science classes are things that have gone through all the steps until they have become solid enough to be worthy of teaching.

Then blame the people. People, not religion are the ones that take it too far.
Second, religion was written long ago and of course there are errors. I'm not sure about other religions on this subject, but in the New Testament, Jesus tells us we must accept people.

Or I could just blame religious people. Which hits both with the same ball.

No, it's not okay to teach whatever you want through possibilities, but it's great to mention them. Getting people's minds ticking - that's what it's about. Only learning what the teacher's give you won't solve anything. Mentioning these kinds of things in class - possibilities, is what might instigate creativity and other ideas which might lead to answers.


Teaching beyond general knowledge is what college is for. And that's generally what college does: challenge to think outside of the box. Hence why Unis are where new ideas often spring up. Public school is for general knowledge, not for religious teaching, or teaching unproven concepts.

The law is not always right. And it is a theory and it is not religion.

No, it's not always right, but the Constitution pretty much is right.

And just because you keep saying it is a theory doesn't mean it is. It has not met the standard of the scientific method, therefore it is nothing more than an idea.

No, the greatest lie is omitting information from the people and telling them they don't need it. Telling people they don't need knowledge of one subject because not everyone agrees with it is wrong. It's history. It tells what people have thought in the past. Taking away religion is like taking away the right to read about the Civil War or ancient civilizations.

Which explains exactly why I dislike religion in all forms, because it wants to sneak its way in any way it can, including by giving false information, lying, making it seem like everyone else is the badguy to get its way, then trying to force itself on our children. The more that I hear this stuff, the more that I hate religion. I think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.

I'm not saying evolution isn't there.
ID makes sense as well.
And it's not attempting to lie or steal things. It's simply an idea.


ID currently makes no sense, since it proposes that things that do make sense aren't actually true.
And since the people who created ID are the same bastards who created Creationism, and by extension used the same tactics then as now, it is an idea that is being proposed and pushed via a lie and it is in fact trying to steal its way into classrooms as a theory rather than earning its way there like every other scientific concept. Religion and the science it creates don't get any freebies just because it is religion/science. It's proposing we shit in the face of all theories that have earned their way to where they are. You and ID proponents are suggesting a "get out of doing the work" card. This is like the fat lazy ass kid getting a raise at work for not doing anything, while you, working your ass off, are still getting minimum wage.

But they show up everywhere else, isn't that right?
Why do you say it like it's a bad thing? Like I did something wrong?
There's nothing wrong with believing in a power greater than I.
And as I ahve stated before, I'm not saying that evolution is wrong and I do believe in evolution.

Because science doesn't belong in Church unless you invite it there, and I said that to serve a point. Darwinists are not forcing their way into religion. They are simply presenting science, evidence, and fact. That's science and science belongs just about everywhere, since our entire nation is practically founded upon it. We're using something that was invented by scientists (or some version of a scientist, anyway).

I said nothing like that and you are miscontruing my words.
I want to teach ALL religions. Every single one. The basics, anyway. Even atheism. I don't want this to become a religion based country, only a religion-tolerant and knowledgable country. Weren't you irritated with the propoganda that Obama was Muslim? Why would that matter unless people were ignorant about Muslims?

It's less about being ignorant about Muslims and more about the damn good job Bush and his chronies did of making Muslims out to be the bad guys. And you teaching religions in schools isn't going to work anyway because it's not going to make those that are already so horribly ignorant any more intelligent on the matter. These people are ignorant from some conscious or unconscious decision of their own and from the failures of the system to provide funding to schools that need it most.
I'm irritated by any attempt to make religion a centerpiece of politics, regardless of which religion it is. Because I honestly don't give a shit if someone is Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Pagan. It doesn't matter to me.

By the way, the Consitution wasn't written for that one purpose and the Bill of Rights was added much later. Really, it was all economics and indepence in the beginning, and then it led to rights and economics.

No, it was written for a lot of purposes, but the Founding Fathers set out purposefully to create a secular nation. Gotta read more than just history books. Read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, etc. Lots of good stuff there.

I'm learning history as I go and I know about religious battles.
But please listen when I say this, it was people, not religion. It was never the religion but the people. Religion was just something to "justify" what they were doing. If we can understand that, then we can accept religion as something that people believe in and that shouldn't be used for power. I'm not suggesting that we make a theocracy.

You're not helping religion here.

I believe we already have a problem with "stupid" people as you call them. Yes, school teaches facts but also ideas. They go hand in hand. How can we discover new facts without ideas?

Public schools are not places for research. Universities and organizations are places for research. Public schools are for learning facts and knowledge. That's it. We don't have time to explain why we're teaching kids the idea that 1+1 is actually 13. they need to know what is actually true: 1+1=2.

Alright, I'm going to request this now.
Usually, I'm all for getting rough, because people need tough skin. However, you repeatingly saying that I, or other ID propenants are ignorant is very rude. People are not ignorant for what they believe, no matter how wrong you think they are. I have respected your opinions and have not called you ignorant and I hope you will respect mine.

ID proponents are ignorant. They assume they know things they don't and don't know things they should. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or sophistication.
Taking it as an insult is your decision.

I believe in God because God does exist.
Again, I was using my words to describe the fact that not everyone thinks God does exist. I'm sorry for that confusion.


Right, but the point was that you can't believe in something you don't know exists. People who believe in god believe he exists. There isn't a question in their minds. They just believe it. But people who don't, simply don't. the people who are in the middle don't know what they believe, which means they don't necessarily believe in God or any other being. There isn't a "I believe in God, but I don't know if he exists" here. It's somewhat insane to take that position.

[nagarjuna]

Prove it to me and I'll believe it. Until then, I'll stick by science, which tells me that [...] if there is a god or some sort of force or whatever, it certainly isn't involved in any way we can understand.

Science says no such thing. Science does not and cannot say a single thing about God.

Or I could just blame religious people. Which hits both with the same ball.

Like you and me, religion contains good and evil. People will say incredibly stupid, petty, harmful things and attempt to back it up with religion. They will also say true and profound things, and again back it up with religion. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Which explains exactly why I dislike religion in all forms,

ALL forms? That's precisely the kind of thing a fundamentalist would say.

because it wants to sneak its way in any way it can, including by giving false information, lying, making it seem like everyone else is the badguy to get its way, then trying to force itself on our children. The more that I hear this stuff, the more that I hate religion. I think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.

You're personifying religion quite a bit here. The fact is that people are sneaky and deceitful and all those things. Religious people, too. But to aver that ALL religious people are like this would be deceitful on your part.

Right, but the point was that you can't believe in something you don't know exists.

So there's no distinction between "believing" and "knowing?" The English language is equipped with two perfectly good words for a reason. Belief and knowledge are different things. We don't always known something for certain, but we have to act on certain assumptions. Otherwise we would be paralyzed skeptics and couldn't assert anything at all.

People who believe in god believe he exists. There isn't a question in their minds.

This is untrue. Faith does not exclude doubt.

They just believe it.

That's a loaded phrase, "just believe it." You're implying that there is never any rationale behind the belief, which is untrue.

But people who don't, simply don't. the people who are in the middle don't know what they believe, which means they don't necessarily believe in God or any other being. There isn't a "I believe in God, but I don't know if he exists" here. It's somewhat insane to take that position.

Wouldn't it be equally insane to say, "I don't believe in God. I am certain, beyond the shade of a doubt, that there is no God?" There is a fine line between good reasoning and self-deception.

[Shaun]

Science says no such thing. Science does not and cannot say a single thing about God.

I think I misrepresented what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that science was saying God doesn't exist. Science makes no attempt to prove or disprove God. I was simply trying to make the point that I refuse to believe in something that as of yet has no scientific proof. If evidence of God is found that is conclusive, then we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Like you and me, religion contains good and evil. People will say incredibly stupid, petty, harmful things and attempt to back it up with religion. They will also say true and profound things, and again back it up with religion. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Sorry, I'm not interested in an organization that cannot seem to make up its mind on whether it wants to be good or evil. And since the interpretation of religious texts is far too easy to manipulate, I'm equally as uninterested in it due to that. And, to be perfectly honest, when I stopped going to church and believing in God, I didn't lose anything whatsoever and actually felt rather relieved. It's like being unchained.

ALL forms? That's precisely the kind of thing a fundamentalist would say.

I meant to indicate religion in all forms as in Muslim, Christian, etc. on the negative side. I generally have no problem with people who are religious and don't preach to me or impose their religion on me or other people. But, if we're talking about such people, we should take note that they aren't the types that generally get involved in these discussions because they usually have better things to do...like make cupcakes and go to their kids' basketball games or whatever.

You're personifying religion quite a bit here. The fact is that people are sneaky and deceitful and all those things. Religious people, too. But to aver that ALL religious people are like this would be deceitful on your part.

No, that's true. I should clarify that I'm speaking primarily of fundamentalist religious people, which are largely separated from non-fundamentalists, again because non-fundies you generally don't know are religious until it randomly comes up.

This is untrue. Faith does not exclude doubt.


If you doubt your faith, you cease to have it.

Wouldn't it be equally insane to say, "I don't believe in God. I am certain, beyond the shade of a doubt, that there is no God?" There is a fine line between good reasoning and self-deception.

Good reasoning to me means being able to provide evidence for the existence of something. Since God is incapable of manifesting himself to me in any fashion, I am inclined to say that he does not, in fact, exist, and until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, I am certain of that. It's only insane if you don't operate on assumptions of evidence and fact, and since I am, generally speaking, a person who holds science to be of far more importance than most any of form of "fact," I see no insanity is stating that something that has no current basis in known fact simply doesn't exist. Otherwise, to state that I believe it's possible that God exists when nothing says he does would mean I'd have to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that the giant Hamster in the sky exists, and little purple elephants run around moving us inch by inch exist. I'm just not willing to make that sort of leap into absurdity. I like what has some basis in reality.

[eriko]

I haven't read the whole of the debate from point to point. So there might be some repetion. Here is what I have to say.

1. Religion should be taught at home. ID should not be given preference before it is proven. Even though I beleive in it if it says God is the reason for evolution.
2.There are two types of sciences spritual and materialistic. Materialistic that is the modern science should not interfere with the spritual one.
3. God exists because their is no proof against it. He is eternal. Someone who has no end or beginning. This can be said because we again have no proof agaist this.
4.Science is not always about facts. It is about sense as well.

Here is an example:

50,000 years back Lord Ram constructed a bridge on water to cross the Indian Ocean to Sri Lanka. This is proven. Because the constructiong material that is the stones have been found. The name Ram has been found inscribed on the stones.

Fundamentalist- Oh! because they incribed the Lord's name on the stone it gained the ability to float on water.
Non-beleiver- Somebody would have done it prove the existence of God on Earth.
Modern Scientist- The stone that was used must have had some kind of floating ability.
I- The stone must have had the some kind of floating ability and the good citizens of the kingdom (talking about India) must have inscrbed the Lord's Name (because he was the King) in respect and devotion.

I will again and again state that God has nothing to do as how are society is run. Whenever he influences our society he is called an Avatar/Prophet/Saviour. To me God is a scientist. Who has made some laws which we as living beings have to obey. He has created this universe through evolution and since nothing exists about how matter came into existence (not even in spritual science I might add..based on what I have been able to understand), I simply beleive that some questions can be left unanswered.

As for somebody said why finger is not pointed at Hinduism then I am here to answer your question. And Buddhism as well because Buddhism is actually reformed Hinduism.

Here is story to prove my fourth point: 16th century India.
Traveller: Your Majesty I have heard about your kingdom so much. Please I would like to pose a question and anybody in the court can answer this.
Ques: Prove that this world is nothing but an illusion.
Fundamentalist: It is because it has been written down in the Shastras(holy books to you guys and spritual science to me) and Shastras are always correct.
Traveller: You are giving me an philosiphical arguement. I want a practical explanation.
The fundamentalist sits on his chair and looks down in embasssement. (heee! heeee!:P)
Inteligent/wise/practical: Sir, where are the Himalayas?
Traveller: To the North
Intelligent: If you were in Tibet. Where would they be?
Traveller: To the South.
Intelligent: That anwers your question.

Side Note: The inteligent man was Tenali Raman who was a jester in the court of King Krishna Deva Raya.

Though I have some knowledge about spritual science. But I would respect everyone here not mix it with materialistic one. Because: I would get mad..totally mad at that person due to his incorrect knowledge (though only in the field of Hinduism say something about Chritiianity and stuff I don't mind).:D

Good reasoning to me means being able to provide evidence for the existence of something. Since God is incapable of manifesting himself to me in any fashion, I am inclined to say that he does not, in fact, exist, and until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, I am certain of that. It's only insane if you don't operate on assumptions of evidence and fact, and since I am, generally speaking, a person who holds science to be of far more importance than most any of form of "fact," I see no insanity is stating that something that has no current basis in known fact simply doesn't exist. Otherwise, to state that I believe it's possible that God exists when nothing says he does would mean I'd have to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that the giant Hamster in the sky exists, and little purple elephants run around moving us inch by inch exist. I'm just not willing to make that sort of leap into absurdity. I like what has some basis in reality.
People have their personal relationship with God. The goal of one's life is to revive one's realtionship with him. And some people including me beleive in this. You cannot deny the fact that their has never been supernatural incident that gives evidence about God. There is a place near Agra (the Taj Mahal). It is Vrindavan. There on some night (full moon or maybe moon less..don't remember) one can hear the playing of flute with dholaks and other Indian Instruments. But one cannot peak inside. People who have tried have lost their eyesight. Cameras were installed broke down. You can hear the music but you can't see anything. The authorities have covered the whole place to prevent peope from looking in. I am talking about this because I am Hindu and this is what I know. There must be certainly many evidences in Islam and Chritianity as well.

And just to add: Bible to me has always come up with senseless explanations about this world..but I believe in Christ. Bible was written down not by Son of God but stupid lunatics who have modified to it such an extent that it has lost its real meaning.

[Rafael Domination]

And just to add: I don't like Bible. It is boring and senseless. Not because it is not my holy book but because it has already been proved that it is a corrupt document.

Let's not go stating anything too quickly. I could easily have Azrael rip apart your whole religion if I want to. There are a lot of juicy points I could stab at. Starting with the statement that the laws of nature are more important than God, but for the sake of tolerance, which I have shown for everyone who isn't of the same religion, I will turn the other cheek - something listed in the Bible.

And to counter your comment about my faith being founded on a corrupt document, The Bible, and this had been prophesied too, had been made into versions that are corrupted by man but versions holding on to its true essence have and will survive. Your version of Christ is different form mine, but you cannot claim him true just as easily as I cannot claim mine true in any debate. Stick to the topic instead of bashing on someone else's religion. Or this could turn very messy. ^^

As for the theory of evolution, I would like to elaborate on the fact that science requires a lot of faith too. Especially when it comes to stuff like the Big Bounce. You cannot say for sure. Besides, it is a logical fact that nothing will only produce nothing. So when scientists say 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded' is quite the concept. To say that matter always was is even more confusing. God, a cosmic entity beyond the constraints of physics and logic, needs a beginning, but not mundane matter, which is bound to the mentioned laws of the cosmos?

To create means to make something out of nothing. The Bible itself never elaborates on the specific methods of creating something out of nothing, although it does give a time frame: a week, and one day per stage. But who's to say God didn't do something like speed up time and use the process of evolution as a side tool? I'm not saying I do believe in evolution, but my point is no one can say for sure. Just like the atheist needs concrete proof of God's existence, a scientist has to document the actual process happening for me to believe. It's all too possible for Intelligent Design and Evolution to be true at the same time. God could have created the Big Bang and then sped everything up, causing billions of years to pass by within a week. Again, I'm not saying I believe that. I'm just saying no one can say for sure. Faith and Theory aren't very far from each other. People think one's more 'logical' than the other.

But, speaking as a devout Christian, lemme put it this way: if the atheist is right, and there is no God, it's still a win situation me. I get a long rest after a tiresome life. If 'nut-cracks' like me are right, and there is a God who has certain rules of conduct, well, eternity is a long time to spend...

[eriko]

Let's not go stating anything too quickly. I could easily have Azrael rip apart your whole religion if I want to. There are a lot of juicy points I could stab at. Starting with the statement that the laws of nature are more important than God, but for the sake of tolerance, which I have shown for everyone who isn't of the same religion, I will turn the other cheek - something listed in the Bible.

My apologies. I was to quick and my response was too impulsive. But as I had clearly stated in the next gew lines. Bible was written down not by Son of God but stupid lunatics who have modified to it such an extent that it has lost its real meaning. And I stand by this even now. And ofcourse Hindu shastras and other works are corrupt as well. But the fact is I am not a devout Hindu. And I don't follow things that make no sense. I have taken something from one religion and something from other relligion to define my beliefs. But I am very much influenced by South Asian Culture. To be frank there is more to what that actually defines my beliefs. But I won't elaborate and it is not the Religion Hinduism.

As for the Laws Of Nature being more important than God that is my own belief, nothing to do with Hinduism. To some extent influenced by Buddhism.

Apollogies to all the youngwriters whom I have offended. My views have not totally formed and are still in the progress of formation. I will take this as a lesson and won't repeat it. (and yeah I have also deleted what I said)

And to counter your comment about my faith being founded on a corrupt document, The Bible, and this had been prophesied too, had been made into versions that are corrupted by man but versions holding on to its true essence have and will survive. Your version of Christ is different form mine, but you cannot claim him true just as easily as I cannot claim mine true in any debate.
Your are putting the words in my mouth. I never stated your faith as based on a corrupt document. Let me clear the mess I have made:
1. There was a prophecy. But I don't stand by it. I will take back what I said since its got nothing to do with my culture.
2. No version of Christ exists in Hinduism. This is your own imagination.
3. I am against the
a.Ulemas (because of the sufferings that I see muslim women got to in India) they are at no.1 place
b. next comes 14-15th century christian catholic church and 18-19th century hindu pandits and brahmins
----this point is valid cause what I mean is if these people would not have personalised the holy texts of various religions then nobody would have questioned the existence of God, i.e. we would not have been debating. Please I am not against the Bible but this corrupters whom I hate so much. I talked of only of the Bible cause this is a very christian atmosphere.

Stick to the topic instead of bashing on someone else's religion. Or this could turn very messy.
Actually I stuck to it. This was in response to:For example, we find that after the sin, Adam is embarassed with both himself and Eve, God is angry, and they are forced to leave the garden. The meaning? Sin alienates us from ourselves, other people, God, and nature. With the man from dust: humans are an important part of the world, and depend on it. With the ribs, men and women are made for each other, and from each other (ie, sex). Basically, if you take the creation stories as purely literal and historical, which is not their intent, then you miss all the meaning in those passages.

[nagarjuna]

Sorry, I'm not interested in an organization that cannot seem to make up its mind on whether it wants to be good or evil. And since the interpretation of religious texts is far too easy to manipulate, I'm equally as uninterested in it due to that.

The conclusions of science have led to the atomic bomb and biochemical warfare. Are you uninterested in science?

And, to be perfectly honest, when I stopped going to church and believing in God, I didn't lose anything whatsoever and actually felt rather relieved. It's like being unchained.

That's your personal experience and I'm saying nothing against it. But others have had the opposite experience, i. e. they found atheism chaining and conversion to religion liberating.

I generally have no problem with people who are religious and don't preach to me or impose their religion on me or other people. But, if we're talking about such people, we should take note that they aren't the types that generally get involved in these discussions because they usually have better things to do...like make cupcakes and go to their kids' basketball games or whatever.

Or campaign for home rule in India, or for gay rights, or help the poor, or heal the sick, or counsel the lost. In other words, to do God's work on earth. Just because someone doesn't shove their religion down your throat doesn't mean they're "moderate." Some are as radically loving as fundamentalists are radically hateful. They often have better things to do than make cupcakes (although that's also a worthy cause :P)

No, that's true. I should clarify that I'm speaking primarily of fundamentalist religious people, which are largely separated from non-fundamentalists, again because non-fundies you generally don't know are religious until it randomly comes up.

There are non-fundies who's life and religion are inseparable. And they're working from the same scriptures the fundies are. What accounts for the difference is that these people are motivated by the spirit of God rather than their own lust for power.

If you doubt your faith, you cease to have it.

On the contrary, faith is continuing in a belief *even though* you have doubt.

Good reasoning to me means being able to provide evidence for the existence of something.

Earlier, you were demanding conclusive proof.

Since God is incapable of manifesting himself to me in any fashion

In any fashion that you currently know of. This means that it may not be the fashion you expect or are looking for. That you see no evidence does not disprove God. You also can't conclude from your own poverty of evidence that other people can't see any evidence of God, either. If you speak for them, you are beginning to do what you wouldn't tolerate in a fundamentalist.

I am inclined to say that he does not, in fact, exist, and until such time as there is evidence to the contrary, I am certain of that.

Now you are claiming certainty about something for which you can give neither evidence nor proof. That the lack of evidence for A is not evidence for the negation of A.

I see no insanity is stating that something that has no current basis in known fact simply doesn't exist.

It may not be insane, but its not science either. Lack of evidence for existence is not evidence for nonexistence.

Otherwise, to state that I believe it's possible that God exists when nothing says he does would mean I'd have to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that the giant Hamster in the sky exists, and little purple elephants run around moving us inch by inch exist.

You may not consider the belief of thousands of people in God to be evidence, but it's certainly more of a basis for even *considering* the possibility of God than is a joke religion like FSM.

I'm just not willing to make that sort of leap into absurdity. I like what has some basis in reality.

Me, too. Where we disagree is on the absurdity of an open mind. I think that a mind open to the possibility of being wrong is sane and healthy. I first opened my mind to the idea of God when I noticed that a helluva lot of people much older, wiser, and more intelligent than me were religious. I came to the conclusion that it was more likely that I was insane than that they were. So I took a break from rational constructions and just *considered* it.

I have no problem with atheism. It's a valid approach to the divine. But intolerance of others' ideas, whether coming from an atheist or a theist or a polytheist, is not.

[Crocolyle]

[Atheism] is a valid approach to the divine. But intolerance of others' ideas, whether coming from an atheist or a theist or a polytheist, is not.

A little off topic:
Truer words have never been spoken. Though I identify myself as an atheism, I think militant atheism is an absurd ideology. Those who say that beyond a doubt there is no god are equally as closed-minded as those who do believe in a god. The only rational approach, in my opinion, would not actually be atheism or even theism, but instead agnosticism, since there is no compelling evidence either way.

Time and time again, I try to make this point on this board, but it's almost always overlooked.

[Diocletian]

If you have a brain you can't misinterpret that clause. The problem is that a lot of people don't have brains.

The Supreme Court has, multiple times, determined that clause either to mean

a) The government cannot establish one religion for the whole nation
b) The government cannot promote one religion over another

There's nothing in there about advocating - or at least informing of - religion itself.

So, because I don't know the answer or you don't know the answer, it must automatically mean that God was behind it? That makes no logical sense whatsoever, because by that logic everything we've discovered since the creation of religions wouldn't exist...except they do.

No...because we both don't know the answer, religion is a perfectly valid conclusion considering that you have no idea what the answer is either and so cannot denounce another without solid proof that it is impossible. This is the whole idea behind "innocent until proven guilty".

This whole statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Because any time we don't know the answer, you're suggesting we should just pass it off to being God. But what does that say about God when we prove that something once thought the realm of God turns out to not really be all that closely related at all? Because that happens all the time.

Actually, that has never happened. Only interpretations of God by humans have been overturned by science, which is perfectly acceptable because religion has always stated that human interpretations are flawed. Many of the concepts in the Bible and other religious works are metaphysical and so cannot be proven or disproven by science. Therefore, you cannot use science to counter true, core religious arguments like you are currently doing.

Then you clearly aren't reading much into it. ID proponents try to contradict evolution in much the same way as young Earth Creationists and other forms of creationist nonsense. It's basically the same thing.

No, it's not. No matter what the personal beliefs of the people who came up with ID, it simply is about believing that although evolution may have occured, God was behind it.

Yes, actually, I have. You clearly haven't because it states in the Constitution that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. <--that is pretty damn clear.

Once again, pretty much every Supreme Court ruling having to do with the clause has implied that the argument isn't about religious or non-religious, it's about one religion vs. another.

And you need to learn some history, because the Founding Fathers were largely deists and largely secularists. A certain important member even rewrote the Bible to present a more secular view.

Why do you use the fact that they are Deists in your argument? I thought you were against "religion in all forms".

This isn't about atheism. We're not teaching students to be atheist. School is not a place to teach ideology; it's a place to teach facts: 1+1 = 2, 1066 is the year of the Norma Conquest in England, yadda yadda. It does not teach that God doesn't exist, nor does it teach that Christianity is the proper religion or Muslim is the proper religion, or any values as held by those religions.

Teaching that evolution was the sole factor in the existence of mankind (which biology teachers heavily heavily imply, as I've personally seen) may as well be promoting atheism because it counters pretty much all religious beliefs.

When you can cite an example of an atheist who commits genocide in the name of atheism, as many of the religious wars have done in the name of Christianity or the Christian God, then we can talk. Until, the point is moot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution (this is the most egregious example of persecution in the name of atheism)

Happy reading.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Learn your history. It's impossible to ignore that fact.

No, Hitler was an atheist and at worst, a little superstitious. He might have been born a Roman Catholic, but he hated Christianity and there are numerous quotes in which he states that Christainity was a weak religion deserving of extermination. He was against Christianity in the name of existentialism (his own vicious brand of existentialism, anyway).

I assume, then, that you haven't read the Bible? Or the Koran?

Instead of rhetoric, how about a clear and unambiguous example of what you claim?

It's in a history book. How many crusades were there? What about the inquisition? Or the almost worldwide witch burnings or the use of religion to validate slavery and then discrimination against blacks? For someone telling me to provide proof you seem pretty much oblivious to thousands of years of human history. You could Google this stuff without trying hard...

You are circumventing what I've been saying since the beginning. The Inquisition was not explicitly recommended in the Bible. Neither were the Crusades, or torture and execution of thousands of women "witches". The Bible does not recommend these (the Old Testament may, but not the New Testament), and neither does any religious text out there.

Oh, and by the way:

But, speaking as a devout Christian, lemme put it this way: if the atheist is right, and there is no God, it's still a win situation me. I get a long rest after a tiresome life. If 'nut-cracks' like me are right, and there is a God who has certain rules of conduct, well, eternity is a long time to spend...

Pascal's Wager is one of the stupidest arguments for religion I've ever heard of. It was fine centuries ago, when the only religion most people in Europe knew about was Christianity. But there are literally hundreds of religions out there, so it's not an "either this or that" situation. Also, what kind of Christian are you if your belief is at least partly to selfishly save yourself after death? Where does "love for Jesus and God" play into this again?

[Rafael Domination]

Also, what kind of Christian are you if your belief is at least partly to selfishly save yourself after death? Where does "love for Jesus and God" play into this again?

Rules of conduct also include, for a Christian, imparting love and the knowledge of free salvation unto others. I cannot give what I haven't received. It would be hypocritical for a christian to urge people to choose heaven when he or she is damned for hell, which can only be established through a relationship, not a form of duty, to a God so loving, he sacrificed part of himself manifested as a human without a second thought, to impart free salvation. And the point I was directing it at was the risk of choosing atheism, not concerning religion itself, pointing out that since (and you and I have agreed on this) science and neither prove nor disprove faith, people tend to rely on odds. Why not be on the safe side?

You are circumventing what I've been saying since the beginning. The Inquisition was not explicitly recommended in the Bible. Neither were the Crusades, or torture and execution of thousands of women "witches". The Bible does not recommend these (the Old Testament may, but not the New Testament)

There are a lot of things written down in the Bible that God has changed in the New Testament. For example, pork was illegal to eat in the Old, but now clean in the New. God can do that. If it's his universe, it's his rules. If I bought a Sim City game, I can do anything I want to the people there. They are equivalent to nothing in rank compared to me, and since I control the very fabric of reality while they can do nothing about it, what I say goes. Then again, not everything in the Bible is to be mimicked. There are events there that God puts as an example that we can distinguish as wrong and learn from. For example, when Lot's two daughters had sex with their father: that was to show how far even 'christians' can fall, and no one is invincible to sin. David committed adultery, and he was the champion of God at the time, and oh he paid for it. So to say that the Bible is overall a corrupt document in its entirety is utterly false.

When you can cite an example of an atheist who commits genocide in the name of atheism, as many of the religious wars have done in the name of Christianity or the Christian God, then we can talk. Until, the point is moot.

In the name of Chrisitianity. I can kill someone in your name, Shaun, but you still wouldn't be affiliated with me, or have encouraged it. I will have used you in a way and purpose never intended by God, but by human lust for power.

Please I am not against the Bible but this corrupters whom I hate so much.

Oh, as I have mentioned, they have already been mentioned of in the Bible itself. While I hate them too, there is nothing one can do about them. They will continue to attack the Bible, twist it for their own twisted agendas, and soil the true meaning and purpose behind the book.



And to go back to the topic of evolution: what about irreducibly complex systems? No one has found a solid counter to that yet. Just the clotting process takes up numerous and vital decisions to make, so complex that to work backwards from it will result in the creature with the incomplete steps to be unfit for survival. You mean to say those evolved slowly, or came via accidents? Or shall you stick to the conclusion of 'we don't know yet, but there has got to be an evolutionary explanation. For now, we just have to believe that it all came about due to a bunch of random mutations that allowed a string of RNA to form into frighteningly complex organisms'.

Oh, and get this, that process in which the building blocks of RNA forms in water via the result of lightning striking some primordial ooze...one wonders how RNA survived or how those building blocks came together. Another accident, maybe? One that scientists have to put their faith into?

[nagarjuna]

There are events there that God puts as an example that we can distinguish as wrong and learn from. For example, when Lot's two daughters had sex with their father: that was to show how far even 'christians' can fall, and no one is invincible to sin. David committed adultery, and he was the champion of God at the time, and oh he paid for it. So to say that the Bible is overall a corrupt document in its entirety is utterly false.

I have difficulty understanding why people don't see the Old Testament as corrupt taken by itself. Perhaps there is a good reason, but I don't know it. Since God IS invincible from sin (according to Christians) if a God were to behave the way YHWH behaves in the Old Testament (even on a 'symbolic' level), I would never worship that God.

And to go back to the topic of evolution: what about irreducibly complex systems? No one has found a solid counter to that yet. Just the clotting process takes up numerous and vital decisions to make, so complex that to work backwards from it will result in the creature with the incomplete steps to be unfit for survival. You mean to say those evolved slowly, or came via accidents? Or shall you stick to the conclusion of 'we don't know yet, but there has got to be an evolutionary explanation. For now, we just have to believe that it all came about due to a bunch of random mutations that allowed a string of RNA to form into frighteningly complex organisms'.

This is very much a God of the Gaps kind of theory. Yes, there are things that we cannot explain (yet) with evolution. But so-called examples of "irreducible complexity" are constantly being replaced with, "Oh, wait, that can happen by natural selection!"

You might find this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html) link interesting.

Oh, and get this, that process in which the building blocks of RNA forms in water via the result of lightning striking some primordial ooze...one wonders how RNA survived or how those building blocks came together. Another accident, maybe? One that scientists have to put their faith into?

It doesn't matter how it happened. The ultimate origin of life is not a question that evolution addresses. It simply states our common descent from a single ancestor. You don't need to know the explanatory mechanism to prove that.

[Zombified]

*Sigh*

See what religion does?

It makes everyone fight.

This is why you don't discuss things like this with other children.

And, yes, I just called you all children.

Except for Shaun, Croc, Scotty, and Raf.

They are grown ups.
;)

[Rafael Domination]

Well, technically we made each other fight, but I get your point. :D

I adore you, Zomb.

[Mercy]

*Sigh*

See what religion does?

It makes everyone fight.

This is why you don't discuss things like this with other children.

And, yes, I just called you all children.

Except for Shaun, Croc, Scotty, and Raf.

They are grown ups.
;)

Religion doesn't do that.
It's pride that makes people fight.;)
No one wants to be wrong.

[Zombified]

Religion doesn't do that.
It's pride that makes people fight.;)
No one wants to be wrong.

Which is why debating religion is stupid.

So stop doing it.

[Mercy]

Comparing mathematics to religion is kind of like comparing raisins to spaceships. So this whole bit doesn't make sense, since we're talking about imposing religion, not imposing knowledge.

But it's the same idea, isn't it? The actual subjects that were compared weren't the point. It was the fact that you can say that teaching anything is imposing on someone's rights, so what makes religion different?


Maybe I'm sick of people trying to cram their religion into my schools and making shitty decisions that fuck up the country...or stifling science and knowledge, etc. etc. Maybe some of us are about sick and tired of religion trying to control everything. That could have a lot to do with it. It's unfortunate that we're not like western Europe where religion, while still very present, has backed off and become less radical, and in fact, produces far better results amongst its people because it has stopped, for the most part, trying to control everything. While they've been making things better for everyone, we've been progressively pushing for fundamentalist nonsense.

I'm not saying that religion should take over. I'm simply suggesting that ID could be at least mentioned in the public school classroom as a possibility.


I wouldn't focus on the bad if religion in the United States would start doing some good.


But it does do good. Several religious organizations donate to the poor and such. At my school, we are collecting money for Haiti (I think that's how it's spelled).

And tell me five bad things that religion has done recently.



Technically speaking schools can teach ABOUT religion from an historical context and they often do (teaching English history, for example, often brings up Christianity). What they can't really do is teach it from a religious perspective, even if they include other religions. This has absolutely nothing to do with ignorance. You're talking like this is 1920. Kids have the Internet. Anything they can't learn in school they can learn online. And kids these days are far more in tine with current events than people before us were. So public schools aren't really producing ignorance.
Not to mention, when the hell would they have time for a religion class? kids these days are often taking 3 or 4 or 5 AP classes in hopes of going to some awesome college...

Well, I still think it should be a good optional class. Personally, I can't wait till I get to take world religions next year...it'll be so much better than Catholicism.

Also, as far as I can tell, there are still several kids without internet access. I know this because I've seen loads of kids waiting hours for a computer at the library. Not everyone is able to afford computers, you know.

In addition, I have a friend who went to a public school for awhile. Her English is atrocious and she constantly blames it on her public school. There are also several others public school students whom I've met who lack any work ethic and don't really care about college or school at all. Of course, my state has problems with Education, so perhaps it's just us..


Several? Sure, but what they believe doesn't really matter in the context of evolution, since evolution isn't about what they believe, but what they know, and is also not about how life came to be, just how it evolved. Quite a few evolutionists are Christian; they simply see the difference between science and religion.

Then why are we debating this, again? I'm suggesting ID created the world and that the first creation then evolved as you say. So, if evolution isn't about creation, then there should be no debate.


Because Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's an idea that people have claimed to be true, but haven't proven. If you're not going to listen to me I'll close this thread, because I've repeated myself over and over now. You don't teach something that isn't at the very least a viable theory as something that is science. Public school is not the place for ideas so much as a place for knowledge. Until ID can provide evidence and experimental proof, it will remain nothing more than an idea.

It is a theory.
Also, closing a thread simply because I am not agreeing with you is silly. What about all the people who want to discuss this topic? It isn't fair to them.


And the controversy is one created through propaganda. An overwhelming majority of scientists are on the side of evolution, not ID. In fact, most of the ID proponents don't have degrees, and those that do have often proven to not actually be all that prominent, let alone good scientists. The controversy we're seeing is something that is simply made to seem real when it isn't. Almost all scientists hold on to evolution. The segment of ID proponents is so tiny it's insignificant.

Prove to me that there are ID proponents that don't have degrees and are not good scientists.

Why should it matter if they believe in evolution instead of ID, when the two are not related to each other, as ID talks about the creating of the universe and evolution is after the creation.

Prove it to me and I'll believe it. Until then, I'll stick by science, which tells me that 99% of the stuff in the Bible is bullshit (history too) and that if there is a god or some sort of force or whatever, it certainly isn't involved in any way we can understand.

The Bible is a text that has been warped by it's years. From the writing styles, it has been determined that four editors have changed the original scripts. The Bible is not perfect and even in the Catholic school, we are taught that. In addition, we are told not to take everything in the Bible literally, because there are different styles and symbolism.



If you're an ID proponent you are a fundamentalist, as I've said.
Fundamentalist evolutionists are only annoying because they speak in facts and truth, rather than lies and deceit. Often times the truth can be jarring for people who believe in nonsense. Imagine trying to explain what we know now to people in 500 AD.

But why is that so?
Couldn't I just as easily call you a fundamentalist?

I'm not saying that they are lying, but neither are ID proponents.



I'm totally open to schools allow for questions.
And skimming evolution is kind of a disservice, since a lot of people grow up to be ID/creationist people and then claim they understand evolution, but don't.

I agree, my friends and I wanted to learn more about evolution than the cell, which we studied for nearly a whole school year. Our teacher was horrible and the majority of my friends didn't like her.


Because you don't know your American history or other factors of history.

I think I know my American history (at least up till the late 1800s). I'm currently taking an AP American History class and I've been taking American history since the fifth grade. I believe that I'm far from ignorant.



"May" is the key word there. Clearly the opposite of may applies here, since ID is not significantly different from creationism at all. That and ID is still trying to push its way past the proper channels to make it so it's the exception to the rule. Evolution never got into schools that way. It had to fight its way up the scientific channels to get there, and even then it was heavily contested because it was highly controversial when it really started to take off. ID has to do the same if it wants to be taken seriously, and this is my problem with teaching ID, because it isn't something that has evidence, it is just an idea based on faulty assumptions and no facts.

That doesn't mean that it can get facts in the future.



Yes, and that's fine to start somewhere, but you don't teach it to kids at that stage. It isn't a theory, and thus has to work its way there. That's how science works. Almost everything that is taught in science classes are things that have gone through all the steps until they have become solid enough to be worthy of teaching.

Kids at what stage, exactly? How old do they have to be? Or must they only have your point of view to be able to learn it, that way, they reject it just like you do?



Or I could just blame religious people. Which hits both with the same ball.


Religious people, people and religion are different things.
People killed in the name of religion. Religion didn't force anyone to kill.



Teaching beyond general knowledge is what college is for. And that's generally what college does: challenge to think outside of the box. Hence why Unis are where new ideas often spring up. Public school is for general knowledge, not for religious teaching, or teaching unproven concepts.

Maybe I'm just eager for college then.
Why isn't it for teaching about different religions? What's so wrong with that? The more you teach kids to think outside the box, the better they'll be in college.



No, it's not always right, but the Constitution pretty much is right.


So what's the problem? If it isn't always right, isn't it possible that it could be wrong in this instance?


And just because you keep saying it is a theory doesn't mean it is. It has not met the standard of the scientific method, therefore it is nothing more than an idea.


And what's wrong with an idea? Again, in the scientific method, everything starts out as an idea/question.


Which explains exactly why I dislike religion in all forms, because it wants to sneak its way in any way it can, including by giving false information, lying, making it seem like everyone else is the badguy to get its way, then trying to force itself on our children. The more that I hear this stuff, the more that I hate religion. I think the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves right now.

So you dislike all religion?
Why?
How can religion sneak, give false information and lie. Those all sound like human traits to me. And religion is not a human being. So explain to me, how can it do all those things? And how can it force itself on children? Oh my, atheism has never tried to force itself on children.

It's fine to dislike religion, but be aware that being free from religion does not mean that you are free from imposing your beliefs on other people.



ID currently makes no sense, since it proposes that things that do make sense aren't actually true.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Someone created us like an author creates a story.


And since the people who created ID are the same bastards who created Creationism, and by extension used the same tactics then as now, it is an idea that is being proposed and pushed via a lie and it is in fact trying to steal its way into classrooms as a theory rather than earning its way there like every other scientific concept. Religion and the science it creates don't get any freebies just because it is religion/science. It's proposing we shit in the face of all theories that have earned their way to where they are. You and ID proponents are suggesting a "get out of doing the work" card. This is like the fat lazy ass kid getting a raise at work for not doing anything, while you, working your ass off, are still getting minimum wage.

They are NOT the same people. If that were true, Palin would be wearing and ID shirt, but she isn't. She's Creationism.

It is not lying or trying to cheat its way into classrooms. And we are trying to do the work - but it's difficult at the moment. But that doesn't mean that we're not trying. It's not like we can get proof by snapping our fingers, just like you can't get proof by snapping yours.


In any case, it is still possible and it is still a theory. Look at all the parallel world theories. I even read one about humans "sniffing" our all the possibilities to get from point A to point B, even going so far that we "sniff" out a trail to the moon. That's a "theory" and it hasn't been proven. So is the Cat Problem.


Because science doesn't belong in Church unless you invite it there, and I said that to serve a point. Darwinists are not forcing their way into religion. They are simply presenting science, evidence, and fact. That's science and science belongs just about everywhere, since our entire nation is practically founded upon it. We're using something that was invented by scientists (or some version of a scientist, anyway).

And religion is just presenting religion as what it is - religion. And then people get in a tissy about it because religion is just so awful, it's imposing itself on us.



It's less about being ignorant about Muslims and more about the damn good job Bush and his chronies did of making Muslims out to be the bad guys. And you teaching religions in schools isn't going to work anyway because it's not going to make those that are already so horribly ignorant any more intelligent on the matter. These people are ignorant from some conscious or unconscious decision of their own and from the failures of the system to provide funding to schools that need it most.

Either way, it's being ignorant for religion.
The more you know, the less ignorant you are.

I'm irritated by any attempt to make religion a centerpiece of politics, regardless of which religion it is. Because I honestly don't give a shit if someone is Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Pagan. It doesn't matter to me.

And yet is someone believes in ID, you get angry?
Why can't you apply that same tolerance to this discussion.

Honestly, I'm getting sick and tired of you called me ignorant.


No, it was written for a lot of purposes, but the Founding Fathers set out purposefully to create a secular nation. Gotta read more than just history books. Read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, etc. Lots of good stuff there.

I would, but unfortunately my time is completely filled up with AP and honors homework, People to People. And I do read more than just history books, thank you.



You're not helping religion here.



And you're not helping me listen to you at all.
You do realize, that if you stop the insults, I'd be more inclined to listen to you.
I do the same thing in religion class. My book is the most disgusting, evangelical, fundamentalist piece of shit I've ever read and I don't listen to it at all. And and it's intolerant and insulting to my friends.

So, in short: the more you call me ignorant and treat me like I'm stupid, the less I'm likely to listen to you.



Public schools are not places for research. Universities and organizations are places for research. Public schools are for learning facts and knowledge. That's it. We don't have time to explain why we're teaching kids the idea that 1+1 is actually 13. they need to know what is actually true: 1+1=2.

But that's math, and in reality, the truth is far more complicated.
I'd much rather learn that now than wait till college.



ID proponents are ignorant. They assume they know things they don't and don't know things they should. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or sophistication.
Taking it as an insult is your decision.

They don't assume they know things - they're trying to discover things. I know what ignorant means.


Right, but the point was that you can't believe in something you don't know exists. People who believe in god believe he exists. There isn't a question in their minds. They just believe it. But people who don't, simply don't. the people who are in the middle don't know what they believe, which means they don't necessarily believe in God or any other being. There isn't a "I believe in God, but I don't know if he exists" here. It's somewhat insane to take that position.

There are always questions. Not everyone is a buffoon like you believe.

[Mercy]

Which is why debating religion is stupid.

So stop doing it.
It's not stupid because everyone has different view points and everyone matters. What if someone told you, "You're stupid for debating about movies". You'd be pissed, right? Besides, it's exercising freedom of speech. :)

[Zombified]

It's not stupid because everyone has different view points and everyone matters. What if someone told you, "You're stupid for debating about movies". You'd be pissed, right? Besides, it's exercising freedom of speech. :)

Oh, no, I ain't taking the bait.

I don't debate with children.

No sirree.

I shall withdraw myself from this conversation now.

You can go ahead and fight all you want.

[Mercy]

Oh, no, I ain't taking the bait.

I don't debate with children.

No sirree.

I shall withdraw myself from this conversation now.

You can go ahead and fight all you want.

Um...okay?:confused:
I wasn't trying to pull you into a debate, you know.

[Rafael Domination]

Oh, no, I ain't taking the bait.

I don't debate with children.

No sirree.

I shall withdraw myself from this conversation now.

You can go ahead and fight all you want.

You mean you don't squabble with children! :D

Such the pacifist, Zomb. Where were you when people were cutting up each other on TW? Coulda saved a lot of broken hearts.

[Andy]

How come all the interesting threads are ones where people gang up on Shaun? I remember the Eragon stuff. :rolleyes:
Such the pacifist, Zomb. Where were you when people were cutting up each other on TW? Coulda saved a lot of broken hearts.
Use proper tense. "Where ARE you..."? :crazy::D

[nagarjuna]

Oh, no, I ain't taking the bait.

I don't debate with children.

No sirree.

I shall withdraw myself from this conversation now.

You can go ahead and fight all you want.

I guess periodic repetitions of the same condescending remark don't qualify as debate. :huh: I would ask for this by now incredibly inane thread to be closed, but if the global moderators behave this way, I see no point.

[Diocletian]

No...please, keep it open for a few more days. I want Shaun to reply to my last rebuttal.

[Rafael Domination]

How come all the interesting threads are ones where people gang up on Shaun? I remember the Eragon stuff.

Trust me, he's holding his own.

Use proper tense. "Where ARE you..."?

Mad burn.

No...please, keep it open for a few more days. I want Shaun to reply to my last rebuttal.

That's the essence of YWO debating: fairness. I applaud you for keeping it alive.

I would ask for this by now incredibly inane thread to be closed, but if the global moderators behave this way, I see no point.

It's pacifism. I prefer it to ignorance to all-out carnage. :D

[Zombified]

I guess periodic repetitions of the same condescending remark don't qualify as debate. :huh: I would ask for this by now incredibly inane thread to be closed, but if the global moderators behave this way, I see no point.

It's not condescending, and if it came off that way, I apologize.

I merely meant that I do not wish to cross words with a person who will not change their ways and will keep debating even though both parties repeat their stances.

The old me would just rip you a new one and tell you to shove it, but as Raf said, I'm trying to turn a new leaf.

Anyway, let your debate continue.

It's not like anyone's mind will be changed.

[nagarjuna]

It's not condescending, and if it came off that way, I apologize.

Thanks, apology definitely accepted. I hope I'm the only one who took it wrong.

The old me would just rip you a new one and tell you to shove it, but as Raf said, I'm trying to turn a new leaf.

You would be unsuccessful at the former. You would have to find me and kick my ass in person. And even then, you would lose to my remarkable powers of laying down and taking it. :P


Anyway, let your debate continue.


Nooooooo thanks.

It's not like anyone's mind will be changed.

That's generally ones hope in a debate. It's not like debates are about comparing dick size. They're about learning something.

[Shaun]

I'm playing catchup tonight all, so I'll be replying to something or another at some point tonight on here...

[Shaun]

The conclusions of science have led to the atomic bomb and biochemical warfare. Are you uninterested in science?

Yes, and? Science also made it possible for us to be having this discussion, or for there to be medicine that cures diseases, etc. A few hiccups for an overwhelming mass of good. I'd say it was worth it.
And then there is the fact that after the bomb was made, the folks that made it regretted it. Sure, we got some great stuff out of it, but seeing what it could do proved a lot for them to handle. The good news is that at least the atomic bomb was only used twice on a military/civilian target. Hopefully it stays that way. Religion has yet to remain as neutral.

That's your personal experience and I'm saying nothing against it. But others have had the opposite experience, i. e. they found atheism chaining and conversion to religion liberating.

Generally speaking you don't realize you're chained to something when you are actually chained to it. Religious people rarely, if ever, sit down and think "am I controlled by my faith."

Or campaign for home rule in India, or for gay rights, or help the poor, or heal the sick, or counsel the lost. In other words, to do God's work on earth. Just because someone doesn't shove their religion down your throat doesn't mean they're "moderate." Some are as radically loving as fundamentalists are radically hateful. They often have better things to do than make cupcakes (although that's also a worthy cause :P)

Well, the fact that they remain so quiet in a nation (the U.S.) overrun by fundamentalist assholes pretty much makes them accomplices. If they are, in fact, these loving people, they should be doing something to prevent the Christian name from being any more untarnished. Martin Luther King didn't create change by sitting on his ass eating pork rines or baking cupcakes. Not enough "good" Christians are actually doing good. That's the problem.

Earlier, you were demanding conclusive proof.

I don't see the difference between irrefutable evidence and conclusive proof.

In any fashion that you currently know of. This means that it may not be the fashion you expect or are looking for. That you see no evidence does not disprove God. You also can't conclude from your own poverty of evidence that other people can't see any evidence of God, either. If you speak for them, you are beginning to do what you wouldn't tolerate in a fundamentalist.

No, but by the same token, I can't disprove the existence of the giant spaghetti monster, or the giant floating penis, or Alfred the hiccuping chipmunk.
And actually I can conclude that people don't see God, because I guarantee you that if you did a study on the people who claim to see or speak with God, that they are either lying or there is something wrong with their brains. The people who speak in tongues are probably both at the same time.
The thing is, this argument about not being able to disprove something means it can exist is siimply absurd. Because then ANYTHING can exist and the idea that we believe in one god is so riduculous it's astonishing that people believe it at all. We should believe in everything. We should believe in Zeus, Vishnu, the flying fish monster, the McDonald's clown (as a god), etc., because in this little fantasy world where something exists because we can't disprove its existence, anything goes. I don't want to live in that world. That's a world driven by insanity and we've only just begun to get out of that sort of nonsense.

Now you are claiming certainty about something for which you can give neither evidence nor proof. That the lack of evidence for A is not evidence for the negation of A.

Technically, you can. Something doesn't exist until it has evidence to prove its existence. Dark matter does not exist until we can prove it. We just believe it may or may not exist. And I can provide evidence that God doesn't exist. If I walk outside right now and say "may God strike me down if he exists" and I survive, then he doesn't exist. You can try to claim that God just doesn't work that way, but then you're just trying to navigate around having to explain why your theory of God has no basis in fact. Just because people made a bunch of crap up back in the day, doesn't mean that it's non-factual-foundation allows for its existence.

It may not be insane, but its not science either. Lack of evidence for existence is not evidence for nonexistence.

Then, as I said, everything ever thought of exists. EVERYTHING. That means, by this logic, there is no reason to believe anything is true or not true. With this logic, if people actually followed it, we would probably have just died off because we would have been too stupid to survive. The apple is really there even though I can't see it or feel it, so I'll just eat it and it will be in my stomach...oh, wait, it doesn't exist. It's absurd to make this argument.

You may not consider the belief of thousands of people in God to be evidence, but it's certainly more of a basis for even *considering* the possibility of God than is a joke religion like FSM.

Two groups of people making crap up for the purpose of bringing people together under the same idea. I don't see the difference.

Me, too. Where we disagree is on the absurdity of an open mind. I think that a mind open to the possibility of being wrong is sane and healthy. I first opened my mind to the idea of God when I noticed that a helluva lot of people much older, wiser, and more intelligent than me were religious. I came to the conclusion that it was more likely that I was insane than that they were. So I took a break from rational constructions and just *considered* it.

You opened your mind to God because people you perceived to be smarter than you were religious? That's your basis for all of this? Hitler was probably smarter than a lot of people. Does that mean we should all try to slaughter the Jews? Should we do what smarter people do just because they are smarter? The absurdities of this justification are astonishing. We can justify anything by it by saying that someone smarter or wiser did it too. If a smarter/wiser person than you says "let's jump off this bridge onto the rocks 200 feet below," would you be open to that idea?

I have no problem with atheism. It's a valid approach to the divine. But intolerance of others' ideas, whether coming from an atheist or a theist or a polytheist, is not.

Unfortunately this intolerance isn't going to go anywhere so long as secularism isn't maintained. The more religious people push, the more anti-religious people push back, and vice versa. The problem is that the fundamentalist movement wants conversion; they want everyone to be like them. And I don't think they realize that it's not going to happen because people aren't as sheep-like as they used to be.

[Shaun]

The Supreme Court has, multiple times, determined that clause either to mean

a) The government cannot establish one religion for the whole nation
b) The government cannot promote one religion over another

There's nothing in there about advocating - or at least informing of - religion itself.

So you just proved to me that the Supreme Court is often made up with people that don't have brains. Good.

The actual text reads that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. An establishment of religion. That means no law can be made that respects any religion. Period. Not a single religion. Any religion. There will be no official religion, no public policy enacted through religious ideology, etc.

And then once you've read what the Founding Fathers had to say about this stuff, it becomes crystal clear that what they wanted was a secular nation. The fact that the Supreme Court is made up of old white men who simply don't get it, and obviously are not well read, doesn't make anti-secular government a reality.

No...because we both don't know the answer, religion is a perfectly valid conclusion considering that you have no idea what the answer is either and so cannot denounce another without solid proof that it is impossible. This is the whole idea behind "innocent until proven guilty".

Religion is a human invention. Therefore it is flawed, easily manipulated, corrupted, and generally screwed up, even when in the hands of good people.

Actually, that has never happened. Only interpretations of God by humans have been overturned by science, which is perfectly acceptable because religion has always stated that human interpretations are flawed. Many of the concepts in the Bible and other religious works are metaphysical and so cannot be proven or disproven by science. Therefore, you cannot use science to counter true, core religious arguments like you are currently doing.

Core religious arguments such as the creation of the Earth? Adam and Eve? You know, those real big things in there that are kinda important to the whole religious myth. All proven to be false. In fact, the Bible is pretty much a pack of fictional stories with moral concepts in them, not examples of any truth, since science has proven pretty much everything in the Bible is false. Even the characters who are claimed to have spoken with God have largely been shown to have not existed.
The only way your argument works is if the Bible is not actually a representation of what God supposedly did to create the world and do all the things he did, etc. etc. If that's true, then the basis of Christian religion is on a book that isn't true.

No, it's not. No matter what the personal beliefs of the people who came up with ID, it simply is about believing that although evolution may have occured, God was behind it.

Read up on it. You'd be surprised how far Creationism is up ID's butt.

Why do you use the fact that they are Deists in your argument? I thought you were against "religion in all forms".

Because you have to separate the Founding Fathers, who believed in God, from the religious fundies of the time. They're believe, however, wasn't founding in scripture, which is important to note.

Teaching that evolution was the sole factor in the existence of mankind (which biology teachers heavily heavily imply, as I've personally seen) may as well be promoting atheism because it counters pretty much all religious beliefs.

If they're teaching evolution as the answer for creation, then your biology teachers should be fired.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_%28Spain)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_%28Spain))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution (this is the most egregious example of persecution in the name of atheism)

Happy reading.

I see no mention of atheism whatsoever. I see people revolting against the Church and largely getting pissed off, which isn't unusual at all, but I don't see anything about them running around saying "I kill you in the name of Atheism." So, again, no examples.
Maybe find some non-wiki articles. You might find what your looking for in legit sources.

No, Hitler was an atheist and at worst, a little superstitious. He might have been born a Roman Catholic, but he hated Christianity and there are numerous quotes in which he states that Christainity was a weak religion deserving of extermination. He was against Christianity in the name of existentialism (his own vicious brand of existentialism, anyway).


Right. Mein Kempf and the things he told his generals runs counter to this. The guy was Catholic. I don't know why people hav such a hard time accepting it. He even said that he was killing the Jews for the Lord. It's in his book. You don't even have to read it. You can look it up in Google Books.

Instead of rhetoric, how about a clear and unambiguous example of what you claim?

I don't even remember what this is in reference too and I've spent too much time online with this crap to look it up. If you really want me to answer this, you can quote me one what I originally said. There's too much crap going on in here.

You are circumventing what I've been saying since the beginning. The Inquisition was not explicitly recommended in the Bible. Neither were the Crusades, or torture and execution of thousands of women "witches". The Bible does not recommend these (the Old Testament may, but not the New Testament), and neither does any religious text out there.

No, that may be so. It may not say specifically do to these things, but God has done them and has condoned them in the Bible. Likewise, the Bible, being written by mankindand subject to the will of man, is quite easy to use for horrid purposes. The fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly say to do the horrible things that have been done in the name of God doesn't exclude the fact that entire religious societies have used the Bible for slavery, genocide, war, etc.







If anyone else wants me to respond to crap you can tell me so...

[Rafael Domination]

he fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly say to do the horrible things that have been done in the name of God doesn't exclude the fact that entire religious societies have used the Bible for slavery, genocide, war, etc.

So, if several cults and I were to perform countless acts of slavery, genocide, war, and etc in YOUR name, that would make you a bad person, eh? ^^

[Shaun]

So, if several cults and I were to perform countless acts of slavery, genocide, war, and etc in YOUR name, that would make you a bad person, eh? ^^

Only if those people created me and I was complicit in their actions. Since religion is the firm domain of man (no other creatures we know of have religion), and man created it and thus can bend it however they like to serve whatever purposes they desire, religion can become a bad thing.

I, fortunately, am not so easily bent as the Bible is and would be very difficult for any cult wishing to perform atrocities in my name with my willingness to be a part of it.

[Rafael Domination]

Irrelevant. You were still used for something you were never meant to be, and that makes you evil.

[Shaun]

That may be so, but I wasn't a part of that process, since my creation had little to do with my use.

[nagarjuna]

Nooooooo thanks.


Lol. Watch me backpedal.

Shaun, I think we should transplant this debate to a different thread, since its not about "GOD vs. EVOLUTION." Otherwise we'll clutter the thread and make it annoying for these fine folks. But here's my reply for now:

Yes, and? Science also made it possible for us to be having this discussion, or for there to be medicine that cures diseases, etc. A few hiccups for an overwhelming mass of good. I'd say it was worth it.

Naturally. That's exactly my point. I would say precisely the same for religion... except that neither religion nor science have had only "a few hiccups."

Generally speaking you don't realize you're chained to something when you are actually chained to it.

And doesn't this apply equally well to you?

Religious people rarely, if ever, sit down and think "am I controlled by my faith."

No, often they don't. But I have, and do constantly, as do most of my religious friends. I have to come to the conclusion that I am more free as a believer than I could ever be as an atheist.

I would like to ask you the same question: how often do you sit down and think "am I controlled by my lack of faith?"

Well, the fact that they remain so quiet in a nation (the U.S.) overrun by fundamentalist assholes pretty much makes them accomplices.

The *U. S.* is overrun by fundamentalists? Check the rest of the world. Nor are the non-fundamentalists "quiet." They are simply not given a voice. Not being as obnoxious, violent, or quick to self-aggrandizement as the fundamentalists, they receive far less coverage.

If they are, in fact, these loving people, they should be doing something to prevent the Christian name from being any more untarnished.

I couldn't care less for the "Christian name." They can tarnish it all they want. It's theirs.

Martin Luther King didn't create change by sitting on his ass eating pork rines or baking cupcakes. Not enough "good" Christians are actually doing good. That's the problem.

I absolutely agree with you.

I don't see the difference between irrefutable evidence and conclusive proof.

I may have misread you (and I just went back over the whole thread and couldn't find the post I was referring to O_o) but I think you were calling for proof of God in one part of your post, and evidence in general in another part. It just seems to me that you have a double standard--you want irrefutable proof before you believe in God, but for most beliefs you will accept reasonable evidence. Although it's true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, one still has to be self-consistent.

No, but by the same token, I can't disprove the existence of the giant spaghetti monster, or the giant floating penis, or Alfred the hiccuping chipmunk.

That's right, you can't. It wouldn't be good science to claim conclusive proof that those things don't exist.

And actually I can conclude that people don't see God, because I guarantee you that if you did a study on the people who claim to see or speak with God, that they are either lying or there is something wrong with their brains. The people who speak in tongues are probably both at the same time.

Or perhaps when they say "see God," they aren't talking about with their eyeballs. There may be the crazies who have "seen God," but most of mean something a little more subtle.

The thing is, this argument about not being able to disprove something means it can exist is siimply absurd. Because then ANYTHING can exist and the idea that we believe in one god is so riduculous it's astonishing that people believe it at all. We should believe in everything. We should believe in Zeus, Vishnu, the flying fish monster, the McDonald's clown (as a god), etc., because in this little fantasy world where something exists because we can't disprove its existence, anything goes. I don't want to live in that world. That's a world driven by insanity and we've only just begun to get out of that sort of nonsense.

You've entirely missed my point. I was pointing out (if I remember; again, can't find the post) that to claim certainty in God's non-existence when you can't provide disproof is not science. It may be reasonable from your point of view, but if you claim a basis for that belief in good science, you are wrong. A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for the opposite. You're right there.

Something doesn't exist until it has evidence to prove its existence.

O_o Are you arguing a form of solipsism here?

Dark matter does not exist until we can prove it.

No. If I can prove that dark matter exists, it will have existed the whole time, even during the time I was ignorant of it. Changing our belief about something doesn't change the reality or unreality of that thing. Is that what you're claiming?

We just believe it may or may not exist. And I can provide evidence that God doesn't exist. If I walk outside right now and say "may God strike me down if he exists" and I survive, then he doesn't exist.

Or, uh, maybe he just doesn't do everything you tell him to?

You can try to claim that God just doesn't work that way, but then you're just trying to navigate around having to explain why your theory of God has no basis in fact.

No. I never claimed to believe in a puppy dog with a bolt of lightning.

Then, as I said, everything ever thought of exists. EVERYTHING. That means, by this logic, there is no reason to believe anything is true or not true. With this logic, if people actually followed it, we would probably have just died off because we would have been too stupid to survive. The apple is really there even though I can't see it or feel it, so I'll just eat it and it will be in my stomach...oh, wait, it doesn't exist. It's absurd to make this argument.

This in itself is a sort of evidence for the existence of God. People who believe in God are (surprise surprise) able to live normal lives. They are not unable to function due to their "delusions." In fact, many of them are psychologically better off for their belief in God. No, this does not prove his existence--but neither does your distaste for religion prove his (I should start saying "her") nonexistence.

Two groups of people making crap up for the purpose of bringing people together under the same idea. I don't see the difference.

You haven't demonstrated to me that religion is crap (whereas FSM is manifestly crap, even if it's entertaining), so I can't accept "I don't see the difference."

You opened your mind to God because people you perceived to be smarter than you were religious? That's your basis for all of this?

Nooooo. That's what got me thinking. Since then, I have come to believe in God for my own reasons.

Hitler was probably smarter than a lot of people. Does that mean we should all try to slaughter the Jews? Should we do what smarter people do just because they are smarter?

You are creating so many straw men of my arguments. I included "wise" with smart. This means that I observed that with these people who were smarter than me, the fruit of their actions was also good, sensible, and in line with plain reason. I had quite a bit of trouble believing that they were maniacs or brainwashed sheep.

Unfortunately this intolerance isn't going to go anywhere so long as secularism isn't maintained. The more religious people push, the more anti-religious people push back, and vice versa.

Perhaps we should just stop pushing (wish is what I'm arguing for; I am NOT arguing against atheism) and advocate for others to do the same? That is the ONLY method which will produce tolerance.

The problem is that the fundamentalist movement wants conversion; they want everyone to be like them. And I don't think they realize that it's not going to happen because people aren't as sheep-like as they used to be.

Do we disagree on this point?

[Shaun]

Naturally. That's exactly my point. I would say precisely the same for religion... except that neither religion nor science have had only "a few hiccups."

Wait, you mean science was responsible for thousands of years of slavery, rape, murder, genocide, discrimination, hatred, violence, mutilation, torture, and war? News to me.

And doesn't this apply equally well to you?

Nope. I unchained myself a while ago. Already went through all the crap that comes with disentangling myself with the lies of religion.

No, often they don't. But I have, and do constantly, as do most of my religious friends. I have to come to the conclusion that I am more free as a believer than I could ever be as an atheist.

I would like to ask you the same question: how often do you sit down and think "am I controlled by my lack of faith?"

The very concept of heaven and hell, in any form, is a factor of control exerted by religion. You gotta be good or you burn in hell. Psychologically controlling and manipulative.

And actually, no, I'm not controlled by my lack of faith because the only one that controls my destiny is me. I don't have to fear that I will burn in hell for imaginary sins. The only thing I have to fear is retribution on Earth for the things I do that are morally reprehensible. As of yet I haven't murdered or raped, so I'm good on that front. I don't generally spend my days arguing about religion. I don't have to go to church. I don't have to believe in anything that can't be proven, etc.

The *U. S.* is overrun by fundamentalists? Check the rest of the world. Nor are the non-fundamentalists "quiet." They are simply not given a voice. Not being as obnoxious, violent, or quick to self-aggrandizement as the fundamentalists, they receive far less coverage.

In the U.S. they are silent. In much of Europe the non-fundies have largely come out of the woodworks and set things right, since much of Europe is largely secular. Europe is a little bit smarter than we are at this point.

It should also be noted that the very fact that the U.S. is so drastically conservative and not a socialist nation goes against the Christian faith. That's what happens when fundies run rampant: we stop caring about people unless they are doing things that go against what we believe in.

Or perhaps when they say "see God," they aren't talking about with their eyeballs. There may be the crazies who have "seen God," but most of mean something a little more subtle.

Or they're all crazy.

You've entirely missed my point. I was pointing out (if I remember; again, can't find the post) that to claim certainty in God's non-existence when you can't provide disproof is not science. It may be reasonable from your point of view, but if you claim a basis for that belief in good science, you are wrong. A lack of evidence for something is not evidence for the opposite. You're right there.

Considering that religious people can make up any excuse for the nonexistence for God, such as this surprisingly recent bit of "logical" nonsense, it would never be possible to prove or disprove God, because you could always just go "oh, well that evidence doesn't mean anything, because God works in mysterious ways." This is the sort of nonsense that springs up when people can't accept the fact that their religion is founded on lies and deception. Psychology is a wonderful thing.

No. If I can prove that dark matter exists, it will have existed the whole time, even during the time I was ignorant of it. Changing our belief about something doesn't change the reality or unreality of that thing. Is that what you're claiming?

It will have existed after the discovery, but not prior. Nothing exists until it is discovered. On a physical plane, sure, it technically exists, but in reality it does not exist until it is proven to exist.

Or, uh, maybe he just doesn't do everything you tell him to?

Or he doesn't exist. The burden of proof to prove the existence of God is on the religious, since they made the claim of his existence.

This in itself is a sort of evidence for the existence of God. People who believe in God are (surprise surprise) able to live normal lives. They are not unable to function due to their "delusions." In fact, many of them are psychologically better off for their belief in God. No, this does not prove his existence--but neither does your distaste for religion prove his (I should start saying "her") nonexistence.

No, that's evidence for a genetic anomaly that makes us stupid enough to fall for superstitious mumbojumbo, not any sort of proof of the existence of God. After all, "normal" people have been believing in all sorts of crazy shit for thousands of years, but most of that we consider to be nonsense now. Why? After all, if the fact that normal people can believe in stuff and seemingly not be psychologically impacted (they are, actually) is evidence for something, then every religion in existence was right. Zeus and Vishnu and all those tribal gods, etc. All real. So, the question becomes, if this is evidence of their existence, why do people only believe in one? It stands to reason that it has a lot to do with how the human mind works.

You are creating so many straw men of my arguments. I included "wise" with smart. This means that I observed that with these people who were smarter than me, the fruit of their actions was also good, sensible, and in line with plain reason. I had quite a bit of trouble believing that they were maniacs or brainwashed sheep.

You know, people who follow maniacs or brainwashed sheep usually don't think they are maniacs or brainwashed sheep. If we could see who were the maniacs and who weren't I suspect that most of the world's atrocities would never have been committed.

Perhaps we should just stop pushing (wish is what I'm arguing for; I am NOT arguing against atheism) and advocate for others to do the same? That is the ONLY method which will produce tolerance.

Then stop trying to cram religion into public schools, preaching nonsense, and trying to make people follow your rules. I won't stop pushing until that stops. When religious people leave people the fuck alone, that's when we can live tolerantly, even peacefully. I might even have more religious friends. But since that isn't happening and the religious are constantly pressing to impose religious values on everyone, I'll keep pushing and other people far more fundamentalist (who show up to public debates, picket lines, etc etc etc.) will keep pushing.

[nagarjuna]

Wait, you mean science was responsible for thousands of years of slavery, rape, murder, genocide, discrimination, hatred, violence, mutilation, torture, and war? News to me.

I don't know about thousands of years, but science as been responsible for every item on that list. Science in the sense we know it is much younger than religion for one. But in its brief history, it has indeed but responsible for slavery, discrimination, hatred, torture, and war. Not that I claimed that it was--but it so happens that it has been.

Nope. I unchained myself a while ago. Already went through all the crap that comes with disentangling myself with the lies of religion.

Your words were "Generally speaking you don't realize you're chained to something when you are actually chained to it." I am saying that this very fact makes your own claim to being "liberated" pretty suspect.

The very concept of heaven and hell, in any form, is a factor of control exerted by religion. You gotta be good or you burn in hell. Psychologically controlling and manipulative.

It is when it is abused, as it so often is. When it is not abused (as it is not by most Christians, Buddhist, Muslims...) it is pretty matter of fact. Its another way of saying that we reap what we sow. Which would be dangerous NOT to believe. I, personally, do not believe a loving God capable of eternal punishment. There are thousands like me. As I said before, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Do not assume that fundamentalists are representative of the spirit of religion. They are not.

And actually, no, I'm not controlled by my lack of faith because the only one that controls my destiny is me.

We both know that that's bullshit. :)

I don't have to fear that I will burn in hell for imaginary sins. The only thing I have to fear is retribution on Earth for the things I do that are morally reprehensible. As of yet I haven't murdered or raped, so I'm good on that front. I don't generally spend my days arguing about religion. I don't have to go to church. I don't have to believe in anything that can't be proven, etc.

Religious conduct isn't about belief in the first place. It's about, well, conduct. That's the claim of a number of evangelical Christians toting the idea that you have to accept the "free grace" of God in the form of Jesus or else burn in hell (which, of course, means that it was never free. So more for unconditional love.)

That's not good religion. It's snake oil. It's not in the Bible. What you're doing is failing to distinguish the proper use of religion from the abuse of it.

In the U.S. they are silent. In much of Europe the non-fundies have largely come out of the woodworks and set things right, since much of Europe is largely secular. Europe is a little bit smarter than we are at this point.

[QUOTE]It should also be noted that the very fact that the U.S. is so drastically conservative

Drastically conservative we are not, not by a long shot. Saying who can get an abortion and who can marry who is not conservative compared with what is going on outside of the safely secular walls of the U. S.

and not a socialist nation goes against the Christian faith. That's what happens when fundies run rampant: we stop caring about people unless they are doing things that go against what we believe in.

True. Are you then admitting that what the religious nutsos do in the U. S. is not representative of the true Christian faith?

Or they're all crazy.

You're the scientist. Bring out psychiatric evidence of this. Tell me where "religion" is listed as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM. Tell me what precisely is wrong with ALL these people's minds.

Considering that religious people can make up any excuse for the nonexistence for God

As can you for his existence.

such as this surprisingly recent bit of "logical" nonsense

What are you referring to?

It will have existed after the discovery, but not prior.

Then what, prior to its discovery, existed in its place? "Here be dragons?"

Nothing exists until it is discovered. On a physical plane, sure, it technically exists, but in reality it does not exist until it is proven to exist.

You're getting quite New Agey here. It's interesting, but it's not science.

Or he doesn't exist. The burden of proof to prove the existence of God is on the religious, since they made the claim of his existence.

There's no burden of anything. I don't have to prove anything to you, and I'm not trying to. The fundies are, sure, but I am not.

No, that's evidence for a genetic anomaly that makes us stupid enough to fall for superstitious mumbojumbo, not any sort of proof of the existence of God. After all, "normal" people have been believing in all sorts of crazy shit for thousands of years, but most of that we consider to be nonsense now. Why? After all, if the fact that normal people can believe in stuff and seemingly not be psychologically impacted (they are, actually) is evidence for something, then every religion in existence was right.

I do, in fact, believe that all religions have been right far back into human history. That is, they were right in the context of their own times. Religion is not propositional. It it not about proof. I don't care what Catholics or whoever believes about proving God from first principles. It's bullshit. It's poetry, not science.

Zeus and Vishnu and all those tribal gods, etc. All real.

"Tribal Gods?" Okay, if India is a tribe. I do believe, by the way, that Zeus and Vishnu are both real in their own ways.

So, the question becomes, if this is evidence of their existence, why do people only believe in one? It stands to reason that it has a lot to do with how the human mind works.

Of course it does. Religion has everything to do with how the human mind works. In fact, it has little to do with anything else. Here it is... nagarjuna is coming out as an atheist. You're absolutely right, you won't be able to find God by probing around with your fingers and your telescopes. Nobody but fundamentalists will have you believe that you can. God is to be found by meditating on our own hearts and minds. It's not remotely scientific. It's not about anything that can be proved (OR DISPROVED) with science. This is why science (except some kooks like Richard Dawkins) doesn't attempt to answer or even ask the kind of questions found in religion.

You know, people who follow maniacs or brainwashed sheep usually don't think they are maniacs or brainwashed sheep.

Who, pray tell, are you following?

If we could see who were the maniacs and who weren't I suspect that most of the world's atrocities would never have been committed.

Granted. But I don't plan on committing any atrocities. You'd be surprised how peaceful some of us Jesus freaks are.

Then stop trying to cram religion into public schools, preaching nonsense, and trying to make people follow your rules. I won't stop pushing until that stops.

SOMEBODY is going to have to grow up. Either you or them. "An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." If you don't leave your bitterness behind, you are simply a fundamentalist. Regardless of what you believe or disbelieve.

When religious people leave people the fuck alone, that's when we can live tolerantly, even peacefully.

There already are religious people who leave people alone. You are not finding them because you are not looking for them. As you said, religion has a lot to do with how the mind works. You will find that militant atheism is also mostly about how the mind works.

I might even have more religious friends. But since that isn't happening and the religious are constantly pressing to impose religious values on everyone, I'll keep pushing and other people far more fundamentalist (who show up to public debates, picket lines, etc etc etc.) will keep pushing.

Have fun playing tug-of-war with Fred Phelps and the Taliban. I'm sure you'll be real successful. I'll be doing more important things. Like making some noise against Prop 8 and other miscellaneous bigotry. And making cupcakes.

[Shaun]

I don't know about thousands of years, but science as been responsible for every item on that list. Science in the sense we know it is much younger than religion for one. But in its brief history, it has indeed but responsible for slavery, discrimination, hatred, torture, and war. Not that I claimed that it was--but it so happens that it has been.

You're thinking of religion.

Your words were "Generally speaking you don't realize you're chained to something when you are actually chained to it." I am saying that this very fact makes your own claim to being "liberated" pretty suspect.

The very act of liberation is an unchaining.

It is when it is abused, as it so often is. When it is not abused (as it is not by most Christians, Buddhist, Muslims...) it is pretty matter of fact. Its another way of saying that we reap what we sow. Which would be dangerous NOT to believe. I, personally, do not believe a loving God capable of eternal punishment. There are thousands like me. As I said before, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Do not assume that fundamentalists are representative of the spirit of religion. They are not.

There is no spirit of religion. That's kind of the point. Your brand of religion is not like someone else's. There's no consensus, and as such there isn't any "true" spirit, just what people consider it to be.

We both know that that's bullshit. :)

Nope, not BS.

Religious conduct isn't about belief in the first place. It's about, well, conduct. That's the claim of a number of evangelical Christians toting the idea that you have to accept the "free grace" of God in the form of Jesus or else burn in hell (which, of course, means that it was never free. So more for unconditional love.)

Which is in the Bible.

That's not good religion. It's snake oil. It's not in the Bible. What you're doing is failing to distinguish the proper use of religion from the abuse of it.

What exactly is "proper use?" There's no such thing. If there was any sort of truth to this concept of proper use, I imagine this world would not be how it is today.

Drastically conservative we are not, not by a long shot. Saying who can get an abortion and who can marry who is not conservative compared with what is going on outside of the safely secular walls of the U. S.

Secular walls of the U.S. Boy, you need to meet some truly secular nations, then. We're far form secular.

True. Are you then admitting that what the religious nutsos do in the U. S. is not representative of the true Christian faith?

Nope, because I don't think there really is any true Christian faith.

You're the scientist. Bring out psychiatric evidence of this. Tell me where "religion" is listed as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM. Tell me what precisely is wrong with ALL these people's minds.

Just go to a mental health facility and meet all the people who say they are Jesus or God or an angel or whatever. We lock these people up for a reason: they are crazy. It's surprising that religion has received an out for pushing delusion and nonsense.

Then what, prior to its discovery, existed in its place? "Here be dragons?"


Depends. Take the New World. Before that people thought the Earth just ended and you'd fall off the end. Now that's BS, but still, it was real back then.

You're getting quite New Agey here. It's interesting, but it's not science.

No, it's philosophy.

There's no burden of anything. I don't have to prove anything to you, and I'm not trying to. The fundies are, sure, but I am not.

Then don't tell me he exists.

Of course it does. Religion has everything to do with how the human mind works. In fact, it has little to do with anything else. Here it is... nagarjuna is coming out as an atheist. You're absolutely right, you won't be able to find God by probing around with your fingers and your telescopes. Nobody but fundamentalists will have you believe that you can. God is to be found by meditating on our own hearts and minds. It's not remotely scientific. It's not about anything that can be proved (OR DISPROVED) with science. This is why science (except some kooks like Richard Dawkins) doesn't attempt to answer or even ask the kind of questions found in religion.

Richard Dawkins makes a lot more sense that the people who claim the existence of God. Science doesn't attempt to answer the questions, but it inevitably does by extension. That's just the way it is. The more we know about the universe, the more the claims of the religious are found to be basically bologna. Religion, unfortunately, is one of those things that people can just change whenever something runs contradictory to it so that it seems like it was right all along. It's kind of sad.

Who, pray tell, are you following?

Not Jesus.

SOMEBODY is going to have to grow up. Either you or them. "An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." If you don't leave your bitterness behind, you are simply a fundamentalist. Regardless of what you believe or disbelieve.

Bitterness doesn't make someone fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are those who are active in the pushing of their beliefs on others. I'm not picketing at your house and I'm not trying to enact public policy to make you agnostic.

There already are religious people who leave people alone. You are not finding them because you are not looking for them. As you said, religion has a lot to do with how the mind works. You will find that militant atheism is also mostly about how the mind works.


The comment about how the mind works had little to do with religion being founded on truth, but with religion being founded on human imagination and psychology. We invent things to make us feel better.

Have fun playing tug-of-war with Fred Phelps and the Taliban. I'm sure you'll be real successful. I'll be doing more important things. Like making some noise against Prop 8 and other miscellaneous bigotry. And making cupcakes.

Prop 8 sucks.

[nagarjuna]

You're thinking of religion.

Um, no. I'm thinking how science was used to argue that black people are inferior.

The very act of liberation is an unchaining.

If you have, in fact, been liberated.

Which is in the Bible.

Where? And I want an analysis of the original languages, none of this King James bullshit. The Bible does not say that there is a place called hell where people who don't love Jesus go to burn eternally.

Secular walls of the U.S. Boy, you need to meet some truly secular nations, then. We're far form secular.

Oh, please. We don't exactly live in a theocracy. Check Iran.

Just go to a mental health facility and meet all the people who say they are Jesus or God or an angel or whatever. We lock these people up for a reason: they are crazy. It's surprising that religion has received an out for pushing delusion and nonsense.

I've been to [in] mental health facilities. A greater than usual proportion of the people in them are atheists.

Depends. Take the New World. Before that people thought the Earth just ended and you'd fall off the end. Now that's BS, but still, it was real back then.

The Bible, however, is not a science textbook.

Richard Dawkins makes a lot more sense that the people who claim the existence of God. Science doesn't attempt to answer the questions, but it inevitably does by extension. That's just the way it is. The more we know about the universe, the more the claims of the religious are found to be basically bologna.

Quiet the reverse. The more science I learn, the more I understand and revere God.

Bitterness doesn't make someone fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are those who are active in the pushing of their beliefs on others.

I'm not picketing at your house and I'm not trying to enact public policy to make you agnostic.

But you are, in your own words, "pushing." By your own definition above, you are a fundamentalist. So are Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

The comment about how the mind works had little to do with religion being founded on truth, but with religion being founded on human imagination and psychology. We invent things to make us feel better.

We invent things to function in the world. Science does this by predicting empirical phenomena, religion, yes, by making us "feel better," but also by giving us a framework for the world which allows us to be spiritually complete.

Prop 8 sucks.

No shit.

Arguing with you is like walking on a treadmill. Getting nowhere, but it's good exercise. However, I'm done. I'm really tired of this, and I see that your misconceptions about religion are pretty total. So I give up.

[Diocletian]

So you just proved to me that the Supreme Court is often made up with people that don't have brains. Good.

The actual text reads that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. An establishment of religion. That means no law can be made that respects any religion. Period. Not a single religion. Any religion. There will be no official religion, no public policy enacted through religious ideology, etc.

For one who respects the US Constitution so much, you sure have hostility toward the concept of "checks and balances". The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as best as they can, and if they do so in a way that's not to your liking, too bad. That's the wonderful thing about American democracy (or rather, republicanism). You can't simply just have your way whenever you feel like it, and the courts are there to make sure of that. The Court has multiple times supported the two interpretations of the Constitution that I mentioned, and furthermore, it represents the will of the majority of Americans as well.

And then once you've read what the Founding Fathers had to say about this stuff, it becomes crystal clear that what they wanted was a secular nation. The fact that the Supreme Court is made up of old white men who simply don't get it, and obviously are not well read, doesn't make anti-secular government a reality.

Actually, it does. That's the whole point of the "will of the people". Over the last two hundred years, the Court has been reflecting that. When you get a case in which the Court decisively interprets the clause otherwise, then come and talk. But that hasn't happened and I'm sure it won't happen anytime soon.

Religion is a human invention. Therefore it is flawed, easily manipulated, corrupted, and generally screwed up, even when in the hands of good people.

Well, thanks for admitting that religion itself isn't flawed, but can be and sometimes is flawed by human foibles. Religion itself is not to blame.

Core religious arguments such as the creation of the Earth? Adam and Eve? You know, those real big things in there that are kinda important to the whole religious myth. All proven to be false. In fact, the Bible is pretty much a pack of fictional stories with moral concepts in them, not examples of any truth, since science has proven pretty much everything in the Bible is false. Even the characters who are claimed to have spoken with God have largely been shown to have not existed.

Except these tales aren't meant to be literal.

The only way your argument works is if the Bible is not actually a representation of what God supposedly did to create the world and do all the things he did, etc. etc. If that's true, then the basis of Christian religion is on a book that isn't true.

Have you heard of metaphors? They're used a lot in literature.

Read up on it. You'd be surprised how far Creationism is up ID's butt.

Perhaps, but the fundamental argument itself, stripped clean of the biases of its proponents and any extremist additions, is sound.

Because you have to separate the Founding Fathers, who believed in God, from the religious fundies of the time. They're believe, however, wasn't founding in scripture, which is important to note.

John Locke's work was a completely subjective belief that had no basis in history or evidence to prove it was effective. Whether it did work or not is another issue, but the Founding Fathers took his ideas on his belief and nothing else. At the time of the Constitution's conception, it was as faith-driven as the Bible.

I see no mention of atheism whatsoever. I see people revolting against the Church and largely getting pissed off, which isn't unusual at all, but I don't see anything about them running around saying "I kill you in the name of Atheism." So, again, no examples.
Maybe find some non-wiki articles. You might find what your looking for in legit sources.

The establishment of the "Cult of Reason" and the destruction of Christian churches in post-Revolutionary France doesn't strike you as killing in the name of atheism? That's exactly what it was.

And Wikipedia is reliable. First of all, any vandalism on its articles (as proven time and again) is quickly fixed within minutes by knowledgeable users. Secondly, it cites trustworthy sources at the bottom of each page. Thirdly, I challenge you to find an article that contains blatantly incorrect information that was kept there for a sustained period of time. Fourthly, wasn't there a study which found Wikipedia to be more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica?

Anyway, here is a "legit" source for you that coincidentally says the exact same thing that the unreliable Wikipedia article did. http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap7c.html

Once you read that, there's really no way you can still make the argument that religion itself is the force that drives people to commit atrocities; as the example of the French Revolution shows, atheism can be just as powerful an intoxicant. It all comes down to the people themselves, not what they believe.

Right. Mein Kempf and the things he told his generals runs counter to this. The guy was Catholic. I don't know why people hav such a hard time accepting it. He even said that he was killing the Jews for the Lord. It's in his book. You don't even have to read it. You can look it up in Google Books.

What he said in public was very different than in private, because he was a shrewd politician. Here are some quotes of Hitler as recorded by Bormann:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." - 10/10/1941

"If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of know- ledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It is Christianity that is the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself." 10/14/1941

"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity...By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea."

I don't even remember what this is in reference too and I've spent too much time online with this crap to look it up. If you really want me to answer this, you can quote me one what I originally said. There's too much crap going on in here.

My source is Hitler's Table Talks, a book of Hitler's quotes to his inner circle.

This is yet more proof that irrationality can be perpetrated by the most staunch atheists as well as the most staunch fundamentalists. It has nothing to do with the religion itself, only human personalities and nuances.

No, that may be so. It may not say specifically do to these things, but God has done them and has condoned them in the Bible. Likewise, the Bible, being written by mankindand subject to the will of man, is quite easy to use for horrid purposes. The fact that the Bible doesn't explicitly say to do the horrible things that have been done in the name of God doesn't exclude the fact that entire religious societies have used the Bible for slavery, genocide, war, etc.

Your absolutely right, it doesn't. Which is why we have to keep in mind that God himself isn't to blame for these atrocities, but the people who have corrupted his words for their own ends. You seem to be saying the exact same thing, so I'm not sure why, at the same time, you blame religion itself for the downfalls of humanity.

If anybody else wants me to respond to crap...

Crap, huh? Way to be respectful during debates.

Sorry, but I think I've said all I can say about this issue. You just don't seem to see the point I'm making, which is that religion itself isn't a monster set out to destroy humanity, but humans themselves can, and often do, twist its words for greedy purposes. That's humanity's fault, not religion's. I'm going to step out of this debate now, so thanks for a [relatively] gracious discussion.

And by the way, I'm not a Christian - probably the farthest thing from one, actually. Just in case anyone thought that the fact I was defending Christianity meant that I was affiliated with it.

[Crocolyle]

Both science and religion are indoctrinating forces. Keep your minds open for, you must remember the axiom, he who fights monsters must take care lest he become the monster.

[Shaun]

Agreed, Croc. Kinda :P.

And as for the rest. I'm not going to both repeated myself anymore. The problem with these sorts of debates is that they run in circles. A month from now the same arguments will likely spring up with the same rationales for creationism/ID, anti-secularism, or whatever. It gets a bit old.

Anyway, I'm out. Have fun everyone.

For the record: I just like to argue. So I'll often take positions that I don't necessarily agree with just for the hell of it.

And when I say things like "crap," you shouldn't take it as an insult. The same for ignorant.

[nagarjuna]

For the record: I just like to argue.

Oh, me too, loads. I don't even care if I'm right. Just addicted. :P

I therefore blame you for feeding my addiction. Grrrr :mad:

So I'll often take positions that I don't necessarily agree with just for the hell of it.

It might help some of our blood pressures (namely) mine if you would indicate when and which ones?

I just want to make one last remark about this whole issue.

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-676.png

I gotta agree with God on this one.

Peace out, everybody.

[Uriel]

Ha! This debate is so easy to figure out!:D It's obvious that God created humans, because if we evolved from monkeys, how com we're not still evolving? :D

[nagarjuna]

Ha! This debate is so easy to figure out!:D It's obvious that God created humans, because if we evolved from monkeys, how com we're not still evolving? :D

You're kidding, right?

[Shaun]

Ha! This debate is so easy to figure out!:D It's obvious that God created humans, because if we evolved from monkeys, how com we're not still evolving? :D

Actually, are are continuously evolving. That and evolution is a process that doesn't happen overnight. Humans are already relatively advanced as it is, so for there to be new evolutionary jumps for us, it could take hundreds of thousands to millions of years, if not more.

On a side note, we can actually trace minute changes caused by evolution in humanity and other species, particularly in how human bodies have adapted to certain diseases (such as malaria). Evolution isn't even a question of "whether" it happened, but "how" it happened, as in the minute details of evolution from the very first living organism to where we are now (and where other species are now). We have a good picture of how all that happened, but there are holes that need filling, which are being filled with all the new stuff in genetics (Human Genome Project especially). Genetically speaking we can even trace the connection to members of the great ape family, which isn't to say we are descendants of them, but that we are related as sort of distant cousins (sort of like how you are related to your uncle's wife's sister's husband's brother's wive's son's daughter (only, a big more distant than that).

Edit: And I'll clarify my actual position on everything later.

[Crocolyle]

As Shaun said, we are still evolving. Certain genes are becoming more common and other genes are becoming less common, which is the basic idea behind evolution. However, this process is extremely slow, made even slower by the fact people who are born relatively weak can be kept alive through modern science. Because people with "undesirable" genes aren't dying off and there is very little pressure on our population there isn't too much "evolving" except through "genetic drift," which I've stated.

Look at small pox. This disease killed a lot of people, though the people who lived tended to have some sort of immunity to the disease. Those without the immunity, naturally perished. After hundreds of years, while there still was a death toll among people in their prime, it was significantly reduced because many of those genetically prone to dying from it, lived. When Europeans came to the Americas, they brought small pox with them and through this disease, which the American Indians had never encountered died (since the disease hadn't killed their genetically prone to dying of the disease ancestors). Pretty crazy, isn't it? That's human evolution in a nutshell.

[nagarjuna]

As Shaun said, we are still evolving. Certain genes are becoming more common and other genes are becoming less common, which is the basic idea behind evolution. However, this process is extremely slow, made even slower by the fact people who are born relatively weak can be kept alive through modern science. Because people with "undesirable" genes aren't dying off and there is very little pressure on our population there isn't too much "evolving" except through "genetic drift," which I've stated.

I think what's really cool is that although we're still evolving biologically, our "evolution" has really been transformed into what we're doing culturally, technologically, and medically. We're still evolving, but we're basically now in control of our evolution (even in the biological sense with what we'll be able to do with genetics pretty soon.) Pretty nifty.

Uriel, I apologize for my uncivil answer to your post. I was having a bad day.

[ScottyMcGee]

What disappoints me so much is the common misconceptions of evolution. As a student of Biological Anthropology in my university, I find it appalling and ignorant. But it's not anyone's fault, merely it's society itself. For example, evolution does not happen at all like how Pokemon evolve. You don't have monkeys suddenly turning into humans.

Let's get two things clear.

1. We did NOT evolve from apes! But rather apes and other primates share the same ancestor that we do.
2. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It simply states that all natural creatures undergo the same process of change.

Also: evolution is not "progress." That too is a misconception, being that we look at human history and see the primitive ape form into the complex human. This is not always the case with other species. Other species have evolved into a simpler, less complex form.

Therefore, when one asks "God vs Evolution," no one realizes it's a useless argument. The two have nothing to do with each other. Believing in God does not mean that evolution is fake, and vice versa. There is no debate, because everything is misconceived.

[Crocolyle]

I was thinking about "progress" the other day, in that sense. Because roaches have better survivability than most other creatures, they're probably the most "highly" evolved.

[appleofmyeye]

Does anyone here believe that the Earth is 6 million years old?

Because, if you believe in creationism, human was the first being and we appeared 6 million years ago. Whenever you put it like that the idea of creationism (or God over evoulution) is pretty silly.

We originated from the smallest, most simple organism. Those organisms developed, grew, changed, ect. Then you'd have fish, then the first laand creature, reptiles, birds, and it goes on. Now, I think God created that first organism. He gave it the potential to evolve. So, in that way, God is a factor, but as the creator of evolution.

[Crocolyle]

6,000*

[nagarjuna]

6,000*

But even 6 million is far too low. 6 *thousand*... is simply absurd.

[Shaun]

6 billion is a good number, but even that is rough.

[Rafael Domination]

But even 6 million is far too low. 6 *thousand*... is simply absurd.

Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but for all you know 6-7 billions years did pass by in a single week. Time manipulation isn't exactly impossible for a Cosmic Being of that scale, y'know. :D

*Enlists idea for future novels. Considers potential use.*

[Shaun]

Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but for all you know 6-7 billions years did pass by in a single week. Time manipulation isn't exactly impossible for a Cosmic Being of that scale, y'know. :D

*Enlists idea for future novels. Considers potential use.*

Yup, technically speaking interpreting the Bible literally is sort of absurd on that front. 7 days could be 7 billion years, or 7 God days, or it could just be an arbitrary number that a bunch of people shoved in there to make God sound impressive because they didn't actually know how long it took for the Earth to spring up.

[Rafael Domination]

We might never know. :O

[nagarjuna]

Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but for all you know 6-7 billions years did pass by in a single week. Time manipulation isn't exactly impossible for a Cosmic Being of that scale, y'know. :D

*Enlists idea for future novels. Considers potential use.*

I guess 7 days is significant because it signifies completion, the cycle coming full circle, etc. AND its the basis for certain Jewish laws; i. e. a sabbath every Sunday (when God rested) and a sabbatical (no harvesting) every seventh year. The number 7 is *everywhere* in the Bible, and its always about being "complete." Insisting that, no, its actually about Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc... makes God seem petty and arbitrary. And it's not what the Bible authors had in mind.

In short, I agree with you. :P It needn't be seven of OUR days.

[Crocolyle]

The reason 7 was chosen was because of the Babylonian calender.

[nagarjuna]

The reason 7 was chosen was because of the Babylonian calender.

Genesis is extremely similar to Babylonian creation stories.

[Crocolyle]

Cultural Diffusion

[appleofmyeye]

I forgot where, but I heard all the numbers in the bible just represent something. I know that 40 days just represents a long time, ergo Jesus didn't actually fast for fourty days nor did is rain for fourty days. The bible is all a metaphore. Bits and peices are true but otherwise it is just a fable to get a message across.

[Crocolyle]

I think 40 days represents a cleansing period. In Catholic schools you're supposed to learn some Jewish numerology... but i don't remember most of it.

[Shaun]

And I should probably go back to what I said I was going to do: explain what I actually believe or know to be true.

1. Evolution is real. Period. End of story. There is no contest. I've seen the evidence, I've seen it working in real time, and it's undeniable. The only things that are contestable are the very minute specifics of the theory itself (the hows of every minor itty bitty process). That's normal, though, as far as science is concerned.

2. People who see the Constitution, read it, and find it difficult to understand or interpret are idiots. The Constitution is not that hard to understand and to think otherwise is, quite frankly, idiotic. More often than not religious fundamentalists are behind the misinterpretation of the Constitution primarily because they're upset at the fact that the government isn't there to serve their agenda. Course, we've seen how important that document is in the long run, what with 8 years of someone shitting on it...

3. I don't actually believe that all religious people are bad. Raff isn't a bad person and there are lots of other people that are nice people and religious. But what defines them as nice religious people is what they do. They don't impose their beliefs on others, they don't preach hate, etc.

4. Religion is, by default, evil. Only good people can make it otherwise.

5. There are no instances of significant crimes being committed in the name of atheism. Atheists may commit crimes; atheists may be bad people; but there are no instances that I have ever heard of in which people took on atheism and in the name of it committed things like genocide, infanticide, etc. None. The biggest crimes committed by supposed atheists are almost always done in response to religion.

6. Hitler was Catholic. It's irrefutable. Whether he was a good Catholic (by conduct or by practice) is irrelevant. He was a Catholic. We can argue about how he pretended to be one, yadda yadda, but that's more an excuse than anything else. His writings, his actions, etc. all point to his being a Catholic. It's a clever bit of propaganda to separate Hitler from his Catholic roots.

And I can't think of anything else I needed to clarify...

[Diocletian]

6. Hitler was Catholic. It's irrefutable. Whether he was a good Catholic (by conduct or by practice) is irrelevant. He was a Catholic. We can argue about how he pretended to be one, yadda yadda, but that's more an excuse than anything else. His writings, his actions, etc. all point to his being a Catholic. It's a clever bit of propaganda to separate Hitler from his Catholic roots.

Please, please don't get into this, at least not with the level of ignorance with which your point currently pulsates. Hitler was nowhere near a Christian. You just contradicted yourself in the same post; first, you said that he was without a doubt Catholic, and then you admitted that he may have been pretending to be one. Make up your mind, which is it?

And if you admit that his personal beliefs weren't Catholic, you can't say that he represents, or even blemishes, the overall history of Catholicism, considering he never truly was one in heart. That's like saying that all blond-haired-blue-eyed people are to blame for the Holocaust. A tiny percentage of whites were implicit in it, yes, but they do not speak for any of the others.

On that other thread on religion, I already brought up several quotes from him that clearly define him as an atheist and perhaps a neo-pagan at a stretch. But he was not a Christian; this point isn't even debatable, considering all WWII scholars basically agree on this fact.

[Shaun]

Please, please don't get into this, at least not with the level of ignorance with which your point currently pulsates. Hitler was nowhere near a Christian. You just contradicted yourself in the same post; first, you said that he was without a doubt Catholic, and then you admitted that he may have been pretending to be one. Make up your mind, which is it?

And if you admit that his personal beliefs weren't Catholic, you can't say that he represents, or even blemishes, the overall history of Catholicism, considering he never truly was one in heart. That's like saying that all blond-haired-blue-eyed people are to blame for the Holocaust. A tiny percentage of whites were implicit in it, yes, but they do not speak for any of the others.

On that other thread on religion, I already brought up several quotes from him that clearly define him as an atheist and perhaps a neo-pagan at a stretch. But he was not a Christian; this point isn't even debatable, considering all WWII scholars basically agree on this fact.

If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I never said that he may have been pretending to be one. I said that "We," being people in general, could argue that he was pretending, but that it would be irrelevant to any logical discussion on the matter.

I also never said he was a representative figure of Catholicism. Never said that at all. I even said that he wasn't necessarily a good Catholic to begin with. I simply stated the fact that he is a Catholic. If you want to get all uppity over historical facts because it tarnishes Catholicism, which seems to be an issue for you, that's your problem, not mine.

And you pointing out quotes is somewhat irrelevant since I can dig up just as many, if not more, quotes that refute what you dig up. And what magical WW2 scholars are you talking about? I'm fairly well-read in that field, so I'd be curious to know which ones of any significance agree with what you're saying. At best, the only argument that can be made is that Hitler was pretending to be Catholic, which is, unfortunately, left to the realm of belief rather than hard fact. A bunch of quotes that suggest he was anti-religious aren't definitive proof that he actually was when one considers his actions and all the quotes he made that confirm his supposed religious values. You're basically saying that if Hitler said "I am a monkey charmer," but he never actually charmed monkeys, that we should just assume that he was a monkey charmer simply because he said it. If that's what we should base historical fact upon, then I suspect we should stop calling it history, but pseudo-history, since anything someone says can be construed as pure fact, rather than what someone says and does.

[eriko]

1. Evolution is real. Period. End of story. There is no contest. I've seen the evidence, I've seen it working in real time, and it's undeniable. The only things that are contestable are the very minute specifics of the theory itself (the hows of every minor itty bitty process). That's normal, though, as far as science is concerned.Evolution rocks! But I don't think we should mix it with God or religion.

3. I don't actually believe that all religious people are bad. Raff isn't a bad person and there are lots of other people that are nice people and religious. But what defines them as nice religious people is what they do. They don't impose their beliefs on others, they don't preach hate, etc.Raffy is a good guy. He actually put a little sense into me.:P

4. Religion is, by default, evil. Only good people can make it otherwise.
That's not at all true. Actually religion is, by default, good. Only bad people can make it otherwise. My reasons for supporting religion:
1. It has been found that religious people live longer and better lives. First of all they don't suffer much from diseases such as heart attack. Secondly, their faith also protects them from going insane..that is from psychological problems.
2. Religion is the crux of our modern society. If a person is religious he will be more tolerent and well behaved. Non-religious attititude leads to crime in the society.
3. Thirdly, they are more hard willled and have a good amount of mental strenght to face anything in their life.

5. There are no instances of significant crimes being committed in the name of atheism. Atheists may commit crimes; atheists may be bad people; but there are no instances that I have ever heard of in which people took on atheism and in the name of it committed things like genocide, infanticide, etc. None. The biggest crimes committed by supposed atheists are almost always done in response to religion.

I far as I have heard this has not been the case with all religions. And what about countries like China who have taken away the rights from her people to pray. I am not sure what agenda the government has but this is also very bad (okay maybe this does not fit here).

6. Hitler was Catholic. It's irrefutable. Whether he was a good Catholic (by conduct or by practice) is irrelevant. He was a Catholic. We can argue about how he pretended to be one, yadda yadda, but that's more an excuse than anything else. His writings, his actions, etc. all point to his being a Catholic. It's a clever bit of propaganda to separate Hitler from his Catholic roots. I thought he was an atheist. I suppose there is a debate about his being catholic? Sorry I am not aware of this. But catholic or not he was sure very non-religious:
1. Because he was very superstitious.
2. He thought of himself as the highest power in the world. The terms that he used like Evacuation suggest so. It was as if he thought whatever he did was right. He did not believe in any higher power which I suppose is in total contradiction to what religion teaches.

Personally I feel he was ignorant and foolish (in a different sense when he is categorised as shrewd or cunning). He was a dangerous type, an extreme nationalist. A type of person who always blames everyone else but himself. Many people say that his intentions about his country were good but I don't agree at all. He was a pure racist who took religion as a cover to gather mass support for his actions.

I wasn't supposed to be here(studying for exams) but I couldn't not help it.:P

[nagarjuna]

4. Religion is, by default, evil. Only good people can make it otherwise.


Religion on its own is not good or bad. It's a body of texts, ideas, rituals, etc--since it has the potential to be used either way, it is neutral. Good people will practice good religion, evil people will practice evil religion. The same is true of atheism--it can be used in the spirit of sticking to the truth, or in the spirit of bashing people and destroying the positive creations of religion.

5. There are no instances of significant crimes being committed in the name of atheism. Atheists may commit crimes; atheists may be bad people; but there are no instances that I have ever heard of in which people took on atheism and in the name of it committed things like genocide, infanticide, etc. None. The biggest crimes committed by supposed atheists are almost always done in response to religion.

Um... the French revolution? Soviet Russia and communist China? Did not atheists suppress and persecute (violently) the religious? These were (are) glaring crimes perpetrated in the name of atheism.

6. Hitler was Catholic. It's irrefutable. Whether he was a good Catholic (by conduct or by practice) is irrelevant. He was a Catholic. We can argue about how he pretended to be one, yadda yadda, but that's more an excuse than anything else. His writings, his actions, etc. all point to his being a Catholic. It's a clever bit of propaganda to separate Hitler from his Catholic roots.

You're sure claiming a lot of things to be irrefutable that are, in fact, irrefutable the other way around.

[Rouge]

That's not at all true. Actually religion is, by default, good. Only bad people can make it otherwise. My reasons for supporting religion:
1. It has been found that religious people live longer and better lives. First of all they don't suffer much from diseases such as heart attack. Secondly, their faith also protects them from going insane..that is from psychological problems.
2. Religion is the crux of our modern society. If a person is religious he will be more tolerent and well behaved. Non-religious attititude leads to crime in the society.
3. Thirdly, they are more hard willled and have a good amount of mental strenght to face anything in their life.


First off, being religious has nothing to do with heart attacks or living longer. That has to do with who it is, their genetics and medical history. And faith has nothing for that either.
I guess because I'm Agnostic I'm going to die young after going insane, eh?

Second, I'm not religious at all, never have been, and I'm a good person. Being religious doesn't make you who you are. You're saying that because I'm non-religious I'm going to be someone organized in crime. That's highly ignorant.

Thrid, you have the strength if you have the strentgh, not by your religion.

[Jack]

That's not at all true. Actually religion is, by default, good. Only bad people can make it otherwise. My reasons for supporting religion:
1. It has been found that religious people live longer and better lives. First of all they don't suffer much from diseases such as heart attack. Secondly, their faith also protects them from going insane..that is from psychological problems.
2. Religion is the crux of our modern society. If a person is religious he will be more tolerent and well behaved. Non-religious attititude leads to crime in the society.
3. Thirdly, they are more hard willled and have a good amount of mental strenght to face anything in their life.

I have a few problems with this Eriko. First off, I am an Atheist, and i have a problem with the second point you make. Religious people are more tolerant and well bahaved? I am tolerant and well behaved and so are two dozen other Athesit friends of mine, solely for the reason that civilised and well mannerd people do behave. Its could obeying the law. Lots of people do it. I don't know many cases of people breaking the law because they are Athiests, but i know many cases of people breaking the law becuase of there beliefs and religion. More exmaples of discrimination, slightly unrelated. In a recent survey spanning across America Athiests were were veiwed as less American (than blacks, Lesbians, Gays and Imigrants)

Religion is by default good? Many of the worlds religious texts justify fighting for thier beleiefs against non-believers. Including christianity. Christianity is if anything, discriminative. It states clearly " all non-beleivers are vile and shall do no good" and "Those who do not beleives are fools". In the Jihad, a muslim text it states that Allah grants his followers permision to fight against those who threaten thier religion (non-beleivers), and that is a primary basis for recent terrorist attacks from Al-quada.

It has been found that Religous people live longer and better lives? May I offer some statistics? Christians make up 75% of the prison population. Athiests make up 0.2% of the prison population. Athiests have the least percent chance of divorce than any other tye of marriage.

:)

[eriko]

Religion on its own is not good or bad. It's a body of texts, ideas, rituals, etc--since it has the potential to be used either way, it is neutral. Good people will practice good religion, evil people will practice evil religion. The same is true of atheism--it can be used in the spirit of sticking to the truth, or in the spirit of bashing people and destroying the positive creations of religion.
Yeah! Good point Aidan.

Um... the French revolution? Soviet Russia and communist China? Did not atheists suppress and persecute (violently) the religious? These were (are) glaring crimes perpetrated in the name of atheism.
China....that means I did make a valid point.:P

First off, being religious has nothing to do with heart attacks or living longer. That has to do with who it is, their genetics and medical history. And faith has nothing for that either.
I guess because I'm Agnostic I'm going to die young after going insane, eh?

Second, I'm not religious at all, never have been, and I'm a good person. Being religious doesn't make you who you are. You're saying that because I'm non-religious I'm going to be someone organized in crime. That's highly ignorant.

Thrid, you have the strength if you have the strentgh, not by your religion.

1. I am not being ignorant. This is what I read in the newspaper reports.
2. I did not talk at all about Atheist. A christian can be non-religious, a muslim can be non-religious or a hindu can be non-religious. A non religious person=the one that rides on bike at midnight bashing street lamps with a rod. This is what I meant.
3. As for strenght, longer lives and the stuff I mentioned that is because religions gives you an oppurtunity to believe in something and to trust something unconditionally. Psychologically this is very good. You won't trust another human being but you can always say that God is watching over me and feel contented.
4. I am not a God believer myself (atleast not much) but I support religion because of what I mentioned above.
5. I know you are right that lots is dependent upon medical history and genes. But supposingly if we get two guys together (twins more like it) an atheist and a believer than there is a high probablity that the believer will be more at advantage.
6.I am not sure in what context are you using strength. But strength according to me is preservance.
--And here as well I have not said anything against atheist as you can see..I am merrily supporting religion.

Religious people are more tolerant and well bahaved? I am tolerant and well behaved and so are two dozen other Athesit friends of mine, solely for the reason that civilised and well mannerd people do behave.
I never said anything against atheist.

More exmaples of discrimination, slightly unrelated. In a recent survey spanning across America Athiests were were veiwed as less American (than blacks, Lesbians, Gays and Imigrants)
Any form of discrimation is bad and I accept your point as well.

Religion is by default good? Many of the worlds religious texts justify fighting for thier beleiefs against non-believers. Including christianity. Christianity is if anything, discriminative. It states clearly " all non-beleivers are vile and shall do no good" and "Those who do not beleives are fools". In the Jihad, a muslim text it states that Allah grants his followers permision to fight against those who threaten thier religion (non-beleivers), and that is a primary basis for recent terrorist attacks from Al-quada.
All religions are not the same Draxzar. What I was talking how much beneficial and advantagious any religion can prove to be for a common man. I know chritian history is filled with forced conversions and wars on the name of religion. But as you can very well see that I have generalized religion. And I know now all these wars are being fought in the name of Islam this is very saddening. And don't worry I am not the kind of person who says that terrorist have no religion and stuff.

Anyways then I would as well say in response to this is that we must keep one thing in mind: Islam actually evolved when people were not ready to accept it as a religion. It was kind of necessary for these the people at that time to fight and protect their faith. But it is very saddenning that today Islam is being wrongly interpreted.

And how can we forget Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confuciousism and Japan's origianl religion which starts from the letter S and which I keep on forgetting. Damn all have clean histories.

It has been found that Religous people live longer and better lives? May I offer some statistics? Christians make up 75% of the prison population. Athiests make up 0.2% of the prison population. Athiests have the least percent chance of divorce than any other tye of marriage.
I have already stated that being a christian does not mean that you are religious. And a quirky detail from my side since you have talked about marriage, even though this is totally unrelated. Do you know that in arranged marriges the probablity divorce is less than in love marriage ....ha ha ha read this in a newspaper report.....he he he

----okay back to the topic---
1. Atheism (independent of atheist)- I don't respect this much. My reason is that many people say they are atheist because they say they can not see God. This I feel is foolish (no offense anyone) you did not even try.
2. Atheism (with athiest)- Please I respect your views.
3. Agnostic- Forgive but this does not go into my head, simply. My advice is try yoga, martial arts and meditation..you will see the results for yourself.

[Jack]

I am not an Athiest becuase I don't see God. It is simply becuase i beleives in science and the laws of the universe.

What religion am i to choose? There are a million different religions with a million different beliefs and dieties. In the words of Richard Dawkins- If I had grown up in Asia I would probably be a Muslim, if I had grown up in classical greece i would beleive in Zues, Apollo, Hades etc. Becuase there are so many different religions all believing that they are righgt, it seems to me the only sensible way of seing it is that none of them are right. Al-Quada fights for thier religion becuase they believe this. Peoples faith in thier religion is a likely cuase of many wars, especially modern wars.

So that is way I am an Athiest. I respect every bodies views on thier's and other people's religion, but there are so many of them, I don't see how any of them can be right. #

p.s You should check out the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and this quote: "The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]

[Shaun]

Religion on its own is not good or bad. It's a body of texts, ideas, rituals, etc--since it has the potential to be used either way, it is neutral. Good people will practice good religion, evil people will practice evil religion. The same is true of atheism--it can be used in the spirit of sticking to the truth, or in the spirit of bashing people and destroying the positive creations of religion.

Those same religious texts have built into them writing that calls for the commitment to do evil. Only good people can break that by ignoring them. Hence why we don't stone people to death anymore in most of the world.

Um... the French revolution? Soviet Russia and communist China? Did not atheists suppress and persecute (violently) the religious? These were (are) glaring crimes perpetrated in the name of atheism.

Nope, not a single one of those things were done in the name of Atheism. They may have been committed by atheists (which is a stretch considering the way most of those examples were set up were essentially religions in and of themselves), but there was no grand call to commit crimes in the name of atheism itself. So far, until a legit example is brought to the front, the religious have been the only ones to actually commit crimes in the name of religion, hence why there's all these proclamations of genocide in the name of God, yadda yadda.

That and most of those examples were in response to religion. Again, if religion hadn't been there in the first place, those instance wouldn't have occurred.

You're sure claiming a lot of things to be irrefutable that are, in fact, irrefutable the other way around.

Except it's not, because there is an overwhelming mound of visual and written evidence that basically says "Hitler was Catholic." Hell, even most of the Nazi symbols were built with religious foundations (such as the cross, etc.). A bunch of quotes doesn't suddenly make someone something else. If that were the case then nobody would ever have any secure identity whatsoever, since any old thing could be used to change our perspectives of them. Hitler was Catholic and it's illogical to get all huffy and puffy over it. So what? He was Catholic. Doesn't mean he was evil because he was Catholic. He could have been just as evil as a Muslim, Mormon, Pagan, non-theist, etc. His evil wasn't founded so much in his religious beliefs as in his personal insanity.

[Shaun]

3. As for strenght, longer lives and the stuff I mentioned that is because religions gives you an oppurtunity to believe in something and to trust something unconditionally. Psychologically this is very good. You won't trust another human being but you can always say that God is watching over me and feel contented.
5. I know you are right that lots is dependent upon medical history and genes. But supposingly if we get two guys together (twins more like it) an atheist and a believer than there is a high probablity that the believer will be more at advantage.

There is no scientific or medical basis for any of this mentioned above. In fact, studies point in the opposite direction, especially that recent one which pointed out that nations that are more religious have a higher instance of social pathology (criminal behavior, etc.). This isn't to say that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime, but a nation of religious people who are more vehement in maintaining their religious beliefs are more likely to have markers of social pathology.
But there is no correlation between good health and religion. Belief doesn't influence health at all, in any capacity. An atheist is no less equipped for life than a believer if they are raised basically the same, with obvious exception to belief.

Anyways then I would as well say in response to this is that we must keep one thing in mind: Islam actually evolved when people were not ready to accept it as a religion. It was kind of necessary for these the people at that time to fight and protect their faith. But it is very saddenning that today Islam is being wrongly interpreted.

Considering some of the things I've been learning about your country, Eriko, I find your discussions of Islam hard to swallow...lots of massacres and genocide in India after it became independent, and before...perpetrated by all sides (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.)

And how can we forget Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confuciousism and Japan's origianl religion which starts from the letter S and which I keep on forgetting. Damn all have clean histories.

Shinto is what you're looking for.

Do you know that in arranged marriges the probablity divorce is less than in love marriage ....ha ha ha read this in a newspaper report.....he he he

That's a cultural thing, though, not necessarily a correlation between arranged marriages and stable marriages. Generally speaking divorce is not allowed in arranged marriages, even if it is legal (culturally it is taboo in most countries and cultures that still do these things). That's not the case in other forms of marriage.

3. Agnostic- Forgive but this does not go into my head, simply. My advice is try yoga, martial arts and meditation..you will see the results for yourself.

Tried it. Doesn't work. I saw nothing about God or any of that nature. There's a reason why I am agnostic...

[nagarjuna]

Nope, not a single one of those things were done in the name of Atheism.

What else would you persecute religion in the name of, other than in the name of another religion (which being atheists, they didn't have)? Your objection doesn't make sense.

That and most of those examples were in response to religion. Again, if religion hadn't been there in the first place, those instance wouldn't have occurred.

If you're going to commit a crime in the name of atheism, it's going to be against religion. If there were no religion, you couldn't commit a crime in the name of atheism because there would be no such concept. That doesn't exonerate atheists of the crimes they have commit against believers.

Hell, even most of the Nazi symbols were built with religious foundations (such as the cross, etc.).

Such as the swastika, which is Jain symbol of *peace.* Not war or genocide, but peace. Then Hitler perverted it to be a symbol of war.

Tried it. Doesn't work. I saw nothing about God or any of that nature. There's a reason why I am agnostic...

I'm sorry you didn't get your money's worth. I don't know just how much religious experience you have, but I'm guessing little enough that the statement "Tried it. Doesn't work." is pretty thick (it would be even if you were a religious scholar.) A lot of atheists and agnostics seem to have a talent for being childishly dismissive of religion. Just because YOU saw nothing in it does not mean there is nothing in it. That's a narrow and narcissistic attitude.

This entire argument about whether religion is *used* for good or evil is, in any case, completely irrelevant. (Not only to the thread ;) but also to the mini-debate about religion's worth.) It's an enormous stretch to say that all religious scripture (for example) recommends evil. It is almost completely the opposite. Naturally, you can interpret these scriptures for good or ill. But I believe that, by and large, they suggest good, health, and reasonableness; (as far as Christianity is concerned, this is way more true (in my view) of the New Testament than of the Old.)

[nagarjuna]

I hate to double post, but I think I have a point that needs to be made.

The reason for both militant atheism and militant adherence to a religion (or imagined adherence,) is that people are so concrete-bound in their thinking. They have a childish understanding of God and the world--an understanding which doesn't encompass metaphor, abstraction, or a reality that is not discussable in terms of the physical world.

The thing is that spirituality, religion, poetry, and all these human cultural creations (the ones that aren't "scientific" enough for some people) are not propositional. That is, they are not about statements or questions that can be answered "yes" or "no." Often, they are not about questions that can be answered at all. They are about

-How to act, here, in this world*
-Talking about things that only could be understood by analogy
-Talking about things that cannot be understood at all
-Viewing the world in a way that is not scientific, not quantifiable or maybe not even comprehensible.

It's about *poetry.* The Bible is not history, the Qur'an is not history, the Christian sacraments are not magic shows that turn wine into blood and bread into human flesh (that would be both disgusting and a miracle of science.) Buddhists and Hindus understand this; the problem with Xianity and others is that they *don't* understand and thus the proper function of religion (knowing an unknowable God) is perverted. However, throughout the course of these religions there has *always* been an undercurrent of mystic visionaries (and ordinary but more intelligent believers) who understand the deeper level to their own religion. Often they do not jive well with the established religious institution (Jesus didn't, which is why it is ironic that a dogmatic mega-institution like the Catholic Church would be founded in his name.)

There are all kinds of statements I see floating around that just aren't true if you look at religious/spiritual truth through this more "poetic" or metaphorical lense:

-Only one religion can be true.
On the surface, quite right. But religion isn't about surface appearances. It's about inner truths, and *those* are identical (or at least akin) from one religion to another.

-Only the physical world exists.
Although it may be true that all of the phenomena we experience are explicable in terms of physics (such as consciousness being explicable as neuron firings, etc.) we don't have to think about it in those terms. We can talk about things like conscious, free will, life--and God--even though they are "just atoms," "just particles." This is where we move beyond either/or thinking.

-Either the big bang or God created the world (but not both.)
Science and religion don't really overlap in this regard. Different things are meant by "creation." One is in a mundane sense, the other in a spiritual sense. This would apply to the thread's original topic as well--it's not either/or because two levels of meaning are coming into play. Confusing the levels of meaning results in false alternatives.

The bottom line is that religion (understood the right way) is not about physical truths, period. It's not even really about God. It's about the human spirit. As William Blake (my fav poet) said, "And a length they pronounc'd that the Gods had ordered such things. Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."

Okay, diatribe over. :)

*so no, the main purpose of religion is not how to get to heaven, it's how to live here.

[Bowie20049]

Maybe God created the big bang that created the world. Maybe God isn't as perfect as we all believed and created the evolutionary system so creatures can live here. *Twilight Zone music.

[Jack]

The reason for both militant atheism and militant adherence to a religion (or imagined adherence,) is that people are so concrete-bound in their thinking. They have a childish understanding of God and the world--an understanding which doesn't encompass metaphor, abstraction, or a reality that is not discussable in terms of the physical world.



Would everyone stop slagging off Atheism please. The way you describe Atheist's makes them sound ignorant and stupid. Chilidsih understanding of God? It doesn't matter how Athiest's understand God, it matters that they do not believe in God. How many ways are there to understand God?

Concrete-bound in thier thinking. Hmmm. I think that Atheist's can be described in completely the opposite way. Surely the ones who are religious are so concrete bound in thier thinking that they simply beleive waht is writing down in an old book. I know there is a lot of arguments saying that they don't neccesarilt believe in the Bible, but just it's teachings, but this is simply an argument cropped up after a broader grasp of scientifical understanding arose and scientists started to question some of it's ridiculous stories. Athiests should be viewed as the open-minded of society. I have said this before, there are so many religions in the world, how can one assume that the one they follow is right? You say that only one religion can be right. I say none of them are. Athiests are right. There are no dieties. To me, this is a open minded way of combating the religous peoples arguments that i think every one should at least accept.

[nagarjuna]

Would everyone stop slagging off Atheism please. The way you describe Atheist's makes them sound ignorant and stupid. Chilidsih understanding of God? It doesn't matter how Athiest's understand God, it matters that they do not believe in God. How many ways are there to understand God?

I was talking specifically about the most militant atheists. I have no problem with atheism in general. It also applied to religious fundamentalists.

Concrete-bound in thier thinking. Hmmm. I think that Atheist's can be described in completely the opposite way. Surely the ones who are religious are so concrete bound in thier thinking that they simply beleive waht is writing down in an old book. I know there is a lot of arguments saying that they don't neccesarilt believe in the Bible, but just it's teachings, but this is simply an argument cropped up after a broader grasp of scientifical understanding arose and scientists started to question some of it's ridiculous stories.

It's just the other way around. We didn't start having this ridiculously literal interpretation of the Bible until a scientific understanding made the Bible "questionable" in that sense. There is a long, long tradition of metaphorical and allegorical interpretations of the Bible.

Athiests should be viewed as the open-minded of society. I have said this before, there are so many religions in the world, how can one assume that the one they follow is right?

See my second of the double post above. I address that.

You say that only one religion can be right.

No, I don't.

I say none of them are. Athiests are right. There are no dieties. To me, this is a open minded way of combating the religous peoples arguments that i think every one should at least accept.

Absolute statements like "there are no deities" are not open-minded. True they may be [in some sense], but open-minded they are not. Being willing to question religious dogma is definitely open-minded, and I applaud atheists for that. But being willing to even *consider* the existence of God from the viewpoint that there isn't one, would be the "open-minded" position from your end.

Edit: By "concrete-bound" I meant thinking in overly concrete terms, as opposed to abstract ones. And many atheists can be described in this way. To them "God" is a fatherly bearded guy in the sky; and they are right to reject that God. But that kind of easily dismissed straw-man is hardly the way God is seen by a great many religious.

[Shaun]

What else would you persecute religion in the name of, other than in the name of another religion (which being atheists, they didn't have)? Your objection doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. When someone says "I kill you for God" you are killing in the name of religion. Your examples aren't ones in which people said "I kill you for atheism." In fact, the argument could and has been made that most of those examples are not ones based on atheism so much as an idea, but as a religion. Even atheism has the potential to be turned into a religious ideology, and places liked the Soviet Union and China are clear examples of where atheism became a national religion.

If you're going to commit a crime in the name of atheism, it's going to be against religion. If there were no religion, you couldn't commit a crime in the name of atheism because there would be no such concept. That doesn't exonerate atheists of the crimes they have commit against believers.

No, it doesn't exonerate atheists for their crimes, but to understand why those crimes are committed, which wasn't in the name of atheism, but in response to religion, one has to know the history. These folks didn't just up and decide "Well, let's just kill off the Christians" without cause. It wasn't random. I'm not justifying what they did, because it's wrong no matter who does it, but religious meddling is a damn good way to spark dissent and violence.

I'm sorry you didn't get your money's worth. I don't know just how much religious experience you have, but I'm guessing little enough that the statement "Tried it. Doesn't work." is pretty thick (it would be even if you were a religious scholar.) A lot of atheists and agnostics seem to have a talent for being childishly dismissive of religion. Just because YOU saw nothing in it does not mean there is nothing in it. That's a narrow and narcissistic attitude.

And a lot of religious people such as yourself are just as childishly dismissive of atheists and agnostics because you can't understand why we have not had these magical moments in which God or the gods or whatever changed us and yadda yadda. I have tried the faith thing. I went to church, I prayed, etc. I am far better off now as an agnostic who doesn't waste time in worship or reading the Bible or whatever than I was when I did do those things. In fact, my life is not incomplete in any capacity.

You can't force belief. Some people are simply more skeptical and less likely to fall for divine whatever.

This entire argument about whether religion is *used* for good or evil is, in any case, completely irrelevant. (Not only to the thread ;) but also to the mini-debate about religion's worth.) It's an enormous stretch to say that all religious scripture (for example) recommends evil. It is almost completely the opposite. Naturally, you can interpret these scriptures for good or ill. But I believe that, by and large, they suggest good, health, and reasonableness; (as far as Christianity is concerned, this is way more true (in my view) of the New Testament than of the Old.)

I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about on the most basic fact of the matter. The Bible, for example, establishes multiple divine laws that involve murdering other people for things that today would seem evil. Only people are capable of ignoring those passages. The religion itself and its foundations can't ignore those things because they are built into it. Of course there are good things in the Bible, but just because there is good doesn't mean there isn't bad.

[nagarjuna]

And a lot of religious people such as yourself are just as childishly dismissive of atheists and agnostics because you can't understand why we have not had these magical moments in which God or the gods or whatever changed us and yadda yadda. I have tried the faith thing. I went to church, I prayed, etc. I am far better off now as an agnostic who doesn't waste time in worship or reading the Bible or whatever than I was when I did do those things. In fact, my life is not incomplete in any capacity.

I'm not dismissive of atheism at all. As I've said, I think atheism is totally valid. Neither would I be surprised if your life were complete and healthy without religion. That is your path. Others have other paths. What I am dismissive of is closed-mindedness--because it is not justifiable to dismiss the views of others because they are not the ones you hold, or the experience of others because it is not your experience.

You can't force believe. Some people are simply more skeptical and less likely to fall for divine whatever.

No, you can't force for belief, but it is also not about "falling for" anything. It's more like falling in love than falling for a lie. That this has not happened to you (and hell, maybe it bloody well shouldn't) does not mean that it cannot or does not happen for others and that that is completely valid and acceptable.

I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about on the most basic fact of the matter. The Bible, for example, establishes multiple divine laws that involve murdering other people for things that today would seem evil. Only people are capable of ignoring those passages. The religion itself and its foundations can't ignore those things because they are built into it. Of course there are good things in the Bible, but just because there is good doesn't mean there isn't bad.

I think we've established that religion has both good and bad. You still haven't demonstrated that it is evil without qualification.

[Shaun]

No, you can't force for belief, but it is also not about "falling for" anything. It's more like falling in love than falling for a lie. That this has not happened to you (and hell, maybe it bloody well shouldn't) does not mean that it cannot or does not happen for others and that that is completely valid and acceptable.

Perhaps, but science and psychology can explain away all those instances of religious epiphany, so I doubt I'll ever have such an experience. I like science more. It's much more enjoyable for me.

I think we've established that religion has both good and bad. You still haven't demonstrated that it is evil without qualification.

Read the Bible. Stoning adulterers to death, stoning people who wear certain kinds of clothing or do certain minor things, etc. That book alone has built into it a plethora of evil acts mandated by "God." If that isn't qualification for religion as evil by default, then they all must be magical happy things. Except they're not, because most people don't follow them anymore for good reason: they're wrong. Only people can make religion good, which is ironic, because people created religion as bad in the first place...go figure.

[Jack]

Nicely put Shaun. :)

[nagarjuna]

Perhaps, but science and psychology can explain away all those instances of religious epiphany, so I doubt I'll ever have such an experience. I like science more. It's much more enjoyable for me.

But we're not arguing about what's enjoyable for you. I enjoy science as well. I think that denying the conclusions of science is stupid just as you do. And even if psychology can "explain away" religious experience, that doesn't make that experience unreal or unimportant. Your enjoyment of science can be "explained away'" as well, but it's still important to you (I take it.)

You could also explain *me* away. I'm really just a bunch of subatomic particles. A lot of people have an experience of me as a personal being, but psychology can explain that away rather easily :P. So as you can see, metaphors are not less than real just because they are metaphors. I am a metaphor. God is a metaphor. You will not find him peering out of the sky or hiding under a rock.

Read the Bible.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I already have.

Stoning adulterers to death, stoning people who wear certain kinds of clothing or do certain minor things, etc. That book alone has built into it a plethora of evil acts mandated by "God." If that isn't qualification for religion as evil by default, then they all must be magical happy things. Except they're not, because most people don't follow them anymore for good reason: they're wrong. Only people can make religion good, which is ironic, because people created religion as bad in the first place...go figure.

You still don't understand my point. Yes, only people can make religion good. Only people can make religion good. Only people can make religion anything. There are good scriptures and bad scriptures. People will choose which ones to follow, and that will be religion for them. That is why you cannot, without qualification, call religion in general evil. It would be like calling food evil because some people eat too much of it.

You will find, I think, happy things in the Bible as well. If you don't, you are either not looking or are stupid. Even rabbinical scholars sum up the Torah (where you're taking your nasty examples from) with the golden rule: "Do unto others..."

[eriko]

I am not an Athiest becuase I don't see God. It is simply becuase I beleives in science and the laws of the universe.
There are two types of sciences spritual and materilistic (modern). How can you really think thatwith the materialistoc one you can actually test the the spiritual one? I am a firm beleiver of evolution and that also that it is a design without a designer, so much so that, it is my dream to work in the finest biotech lab in the world. But this has never dissuaded me from my faith.

What religion am i to choose? There are a million different religions with a million different beliefs and dieties. In the words of Richard Dawkins- If I had grown up in Asia I would probably be a Muslim, if I had grown up in classical greece i would beleive in Zues, Apollo, Hades etc. Becuase there are so many different religions all believing that they are righgt, it seems to me the only sensible way of seing it is that none of them are right. Al-Quada fights for thier religion becuase they believe this. Peoples faith in thier religion is a likely cuase of many wars, especially modern wars.
Which religion to choose? It depends upon two things:
1. Your zeal to seek God.
2. Your culture.


So that is way I am an Athiest. I respect every bodies views on thier's and other people's religion, but there are so many of them, I don't see how any of them can be right. #
Why I don't understand? I am a hindu that does not mean that I am being intolerant of other religions.

There is no scientific or medical basis for any of this mentioned above. In fact, studies point in the opposite direction, especially that recent one which pointed out that nations that are more religious have a higher instance of social pathology (criminal behavior, etc.). This isn't to say that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime, but a nation of religious people who are more vehement in maintaining their religious beliefs are more likely to have markers of social pathology.
But there is no correlation between good health and religion. Belief doesn't influence health at all, in any capacity. An atheist is no less equipped for life than a believer if they are raised basically the same, with obvious exception to belief.
I think this is something that we would both disagree on, so I won't argue further.


Considering some of the things I've been learning about your country, Eriko, I find your discussions of Islam hard to swallow...lots of massacres and genocide in India after it became independent, and before...perpetrated by all sides (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.)I don't blame. It is true. Being optimistic is the only hope for India. But here is the reason:
" I have travelled the length and breadth of Indiaand I have not seenone personwho is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seenin this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I ddo not thinkwe would ever conquerthis country, unless we break the very bachbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore I propose that we replace the her old education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is English is good and greater than their own, they will loose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will be what we want, a truly dominated nation".
--Lord Macualay' purported address to the British Parliament, 2 Feb, 1835

Tried it. Doesn't work. I saw nothing about God or any of that nature. There's a reason why I am agnostic...
It takes 25-30 yrs just to see a spark.

The bottom line is that religion (understood the right way) is not about physical truths, period. It's not even really about God. It's about the human spirit. As William Blake (my fav poet) said, "And a length they pronounc'd that the Gods had ordered such things. Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast."

Okay, diatribe over. :)

*so no, the main purpose of religion is not how to get to heaven, it's how to live here.
I totally agree with this. Hell and heaven are both here.
And a lot of religious people such as yourself are just as childishly dismissive of atheists and agnostics because you can't understand why we have not had these magical moments in which God or the gods or whatever changed us and yadda yadda. I have tried the faith thing. I went to church, I prayed, etc. I am far better off now as an agnostic who doesn't waste time in worship or reading the Bible or whatever than I was when I did do those things. In fact, my life is not incomplete in any capacity.

You can't force belief. Some people are simply more skeptical and less likely to fall for divine whatever.
Nobody is forcing belief Shaun. I don't go the temple and I don't pray unless my mother forces it on me. Spektical? Albert Einstien read the Bhagwad Gita.

I'm not talking about interpretation. I'm talking about on the most basic fact of the matter. The Bible, for example, establishes multiple divine laws that involve murdering other people for things that today would seem evil. Only people are capable of ignoring those passages. The religion itself and its foundations can't ignore those things because they are built into it. Of course there are good things in the Bible, but just because there is good doesn't mean there isn't bad.
Well than I could say that just because their is bad doesn't mean their is no good. But it is an open secret on this site that I don't like the Bible (but I respect Christians) so I won't say anything on this.

Perhaps, but science and psychology can explain away all those instances of religious epiphany, so I doubt I'll ever have such an experience. I like science more. It's much more enjoyable for me.
Everybody likes Science. Their is no need for you to have some kind of experience to believe. I wouild have stated quite a few magical incidents but you just won't believe.

Read the Bible.
I would say read the Bhagwad.

-------------------What I have to say-----------------
I don't beleive in communalism/extreme religiousness. I am a firm beleiver of individual religioness. This is why I don't attend those crappy religious meeting nor I will. Nor I pray nor I go to the temple. These things bore me. Communalism/Extreme religioness is what you all are against but it is individual religioness that I am advocating.

Extreme religioness/Communalism (as in case of Al-queda) is extended form of greed, hatred and foolisheness. I don't beleive that if religion is not then than wars would stop (or their numbers would tumble down). Today religion has become a part of human nature (not exactly in the west but in the east at least but even then 72% Americans said they beleived in higher power even though they never attended Church even on holidays). So if we develop a conflict about the color pink and blue (I may like blue and you may like pink) then it is quite obvious that we may develop a conflict on basis of our preference for religion. It is in human nature to fight and control his surrounding environment, though the reason could be religion or something else.

Conclusion- Wars are no basis of saying that we should totally disregard religion. Especially when it has got good in it.

I know that seeing God and stuff can be explained in terms of Psychology and many times it is only halluciation. But you see India is a very spiritual nation. Hinduism as ever existed on this planet long before Christianity or any other thing. And who says that you cannot develop if you believe in God. Let me give you some facts:
1. Invetion of weapons and Aeroplanes- India. 50,000 yrs ago.
2. Aryabhatta was the first to say that the Earth is round.
3. We are the ones who gave numerical system along with the zero and valur of pie to the world.
3. Greatest Emperor of all times: Asoka the Great. he built stone addicts to spread the mesage of good will at a time when emperors all round the world were killing each other for throne. If Buddhism is such a respected religion it is all because of him.
4. Martial Arts, yoga and meditaion: Indian inventions.

[Jack]

Which religion to choose? It depends upon two things:
1. Your zeal to seek God.
2. Your culture.

I do not mean this literally. I mean that the fact there are hundreds and hundreds of religions, does that not point to a reasoning that maybe none of them are right? Maybe there is no Gods. Because every religion believes that it is right perhaps it is that Atheism is right. There is no Gods.

So if we develop a conflict about the color pink and blue (I may like blue and you may like pink) then it is quite obvious that we may develop a conflict on basis of our preference for religion). It is in human nature to fight and control his surrounding environment, though the reason could be religion or something else.

Didn't you just contradict yourself there? You say that if there was no religion there wouldn't be less wars, but that we have developed a conflict on our preference of religion. This goes agasint your point. This shows if there was no religion there would be less war. I take a very obvious example that I am sure the others will shun mw for: The War on Terror, based upon the fact that the Muslim terrorist group Al-Quada thought that there religion was under threst from other, western religions. A clear example of a war that wouldn't have happened if it was no religion.

More? (this took a little bit of research)

The French Religious Wars
The Albegisean Crusade
The Northern Crusades (Christians killing Muslims
The Aragonese Crusade
Thirty Years War
The Sudanese Civil War
The Massacres of Indian Independance (mentioned earlier i tihnk)
Russian Pogroms
The Bosnian Civil War
The Seige and Massacres of Jeruselam
East Timor (still going on to day, Muslims killing Christians i think)
Sri Lanka, 1983 (Hindus killing Buddhists)
Chatila 1982 (Christians and Jews Killing Muslims)

and many, many more. All of the above total billions of people killed in the name of religion.

[eriko]

This is just leading to endless discussion and no concrete conclusion. So I will just say that I respect all religious as well as atheistic views. And I said nothing about that religion is not the cause of wars.Sri Lanka, 1983 (Hindus killing Buddhists)
Actually this one is not based on religion but ethinicity. It is a civil war going on till now. Its Tamils(mostly Muslims and Hindus, some Christians) vs Sinhalas(mostly Buddhists, some Christians).

[nagarjuna]

I'm going to agree with Eriko and bow out of this discussion. I respect all religious (and non-religious) views as completely true and valid, and all I am asking for is a modicum of respect in return; I am not trying to change anyone's view.

Frankly, neither of us would ever admit we were wrong, so this is fated to go in loops forever anyway. :D

[Jack]

Does that bring this debate to a close?

[Shaun]

Conclusion- Wars are no basis of saying that we should totally disregard religion. Especially when it has got good in it.

I have a huge problem with this statement. Should we then let pedophiles rape children? It makes the kids feel bad, but it produces a good effect for the pedophile. By this logic, we can justify anything provided it is good.

Humanity drops things all the time, regardless of what good may be there. You always have to weigh the pros against the cons. The question is whether religion has earned its right to be held by humans, or if its cons outweigh its pros.

[Bowie20049]

and the thread starts hot.

[Jack]

I'm sorry?

[eriko]

Sorry for the late reply. I had my exam and have only just returned from the exam centre.I have a huge problem with this statement. Should we then let pedophiles rape children? It makes the kids feel bad, but it produces a good effect for the pedophile. By this logic, we can justify anything provided it is good.
I don't know why you are connecting the two.O_o I see no relation in them. All I will do is quote what I previously said:
It is in human nature to fight and control his surrounding environment, though the reason could be religion or something else.
And I stand by this even now. It is very easy to bash something (this I have found you are pretty good at:P) and point out mistakes then to remain in the sytem, fight the system from inside and reform it.

Humanity drops things all the time, regardless of what good may be there. You always have to weigh the pros against the cons. The question is whether religion has earned its right to be held by humans, or if its cons outweigh its pros.

But this world is not somekind of a computer machine that if you find that the computer programme you installed is only 35% succesful than you can delete it from the computer. It is very ignorant of you to say that we should totally disregard religion and it should be eliminated from the planet, by this you are only doing what you blame religion for. I think this thread has already served its purpose atleast for me. So I am officially opting out of this. And also because I have exams. All I would say is religion is neutral (see I learned something). Personally I feel there is no real need of believeng God (especially if you understand Karma). But religion is something that binds the person to his past and culture and that is why it is important to me. And as Aidan puts it:All I am asking for is a modicum of respect in return; I am not trying to change anyone's view.
Live and let live that is what I suppose the whole world wants after all.

[Jack]

I thought this discussion was closed. Ah well.

[nagarjuna]

I wish it would just stay closed. :P It's so futile arguing but I know I'll just get pulled in to it... if I post again, tell me to piss off.

[Jack]

Yea, and I do think this is a pretty pointless argument now. Neither side are going to change their views, so there doesn't see to be much point in proceeding. And Nagarjuna, it would be my pleasure to tell you to piss off next time you post :)

[Rouge]

Do you want it closed?

. . . I'll do it.

[Jack]

Well I guess so, if there is nothing else anyone wants to add :)

[Rouge]

Okay, if anyone has a problem with it or wants it reopened, send me a PM.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

God, definitely. Sorry, I've seen too much of the world to notice a consistent streak of intelligence in everything. It's really hard to believe that somehow the pieces of the world were shaken up together and in 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a chance created life. There is still the question... who created the world before the big bang? (if there was one)

EDIT: I didn't read the whole debate because it is rather... long :P

[Shaun]

Yes, but who created the creator? And no, you can't say "he's always been there," because that's just a bunch of lazy B.S. that religiously people came up with so they didn't have to actually answer the hard questions.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

Hehe, hmm that is not always the case but... why can't you say "He's always been there"? If it isn't God you would have to say the same thing about the universe, wouldn't you?

[Shaun]

Here's why:
Religious people are perfectly fine getting to the hard questions, giving an easy answer (God did it), and leaving it at that.
Scientists get to the hard question, work their asses off to find the answer, get to the next question and do the same. They never stop asking and answering. They are always trying to understand everything that makes existence possible.

So, for the religious person, giving up is perfectly acceptable; for the scientist, it is not, because even if we have to accept that we'll never get to the last question, we can still get a little bit close to the edge of infinity.

And this is why I'm not a religious person. I'm not that lazy.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

“Religious” people like many other people, don't always "give up" sometimes they just chose not to answer because the other person tends to get very angry and in the end you cannot argue on a reasonable level anymore. I also have an argument for people who say they are "not religious" but I don't think I'll get into that. But, I would like to know your answer to my questions; who created the world before the big bang? (if there was one) and If it isn't God (who has always been there) you would have to say the same thing about the universe, wouldn't you?

[Shaun]

“Religious” people like many other people, don't always "give up" sometimes they just chose not to answer because the other person tends to get very angry and in the end you cannot argue on a reasonable level anymore. I also have an argument for people who say they are "not religious" but I don't think I'll get into that. But, I would like to know your answer to my questions; and

So, religious people choose not to answer questions asked of them by other religious people, because said religious people get angry? You can't really work around the lazy "God did it answer" by saying that :P.

And to your questions:
who created the world before the big bang? (if there was one)

This assumes that a conscious entity (a person of some description) was involved. Nothing thus far tells me that there was.

So I'm going to cut out the who and replace it with a "what" so as to make it possible to answer your question without debunking human myth.

I personally don't know. This is part of why scientists (and people who love science) are constantly trying to move forward to get to the next question. Right now we're on "how did the Big Bang happen." There wasn't a world before the Big Bang (that much we know, presuming that the Big Bang as we understand it is what happened--current science suggests the beginning of the universe as we know it was likely a big different). I tend to agree with the theory that if there was a Big Bang, then it was created by the collapse of a universe before it, which put all that once exploded energy into once place, and then bam. But, that's a guess right now, and to assume that we can actually know 100% how the Big Bang came to be (i.e. what came before it) is all a guess right now. We're getting closer, but we won't likely have a good answer for a century or so.
and

If it isn't God (who has always been there) you would have to say the same thing about the universe, wouldn't you?

Yes and no. You'd have to say something was there, but it likely wouldn't have been like what we know now to be the universe. The thing about the universe is that it is ever-changing (something that isn't true of God--he's static). It never remains the same (it expands, its elements change into other elements, its stars and galaxies live and die, etc.). So, even if we were to say that the universe always existed, it wouldn't be the same as saying God always existed, because we know the universe changes. God, as far as humans conceive of deities, anyway, has not changed.

Beyond that, though, scientists would be hesitant to say that the universe (in any form) was always there, not from a scientific standpoint, anyway.

[Jack]

Great, who set this frustrating ball rolling again?

[Bowie20049]

We need a sub forum for religious debates >.>

[Jack]

Yeah, especially since almost every debate on here somehow spirals into a religious one.

[Shaun]

To be fair, Drax, this particular debate was already a religious one :P.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

I am sorry, I think I might have started it again :S

Hmm, I just think your theory (that there was maybe nothing before the big bang happened) sounds like spontaneous generation which was scientifically disproven a few hundred years ago; nothing can come out of nothing.
Though the world "changes" scientific laws do not, such as gravity, so I don't think spontaneous generation worked back then but not now.

I didn't mean to get into a debate, especially not with one of YWO administrators O_O I was only stating my opinion... which is opening a debate in a way I suppose :/

[Shaun]

I didn't say that there was nothing before it. I said that I don't know what came before it, but that it was possibly the Big Bang was a result of the collapsing of a previous universe. I don't know if that's true, but we'll get there eventually. But, to be fair to this thread, the Big Bang and Evolution are two very separate things. Evolution does not explain the Big Bang.

And getting in a debate with me is meaningless. I'm not going to ban you from the site for disagreeing with me :P. I disagree with a lot of people on this site. If I was going to ban you for this, then there'd be nobody on this site but me and maybe Bowie (who cowers before me like a wimp).

[Ace-Darkeyes]

I did say "your theory that maybe..." but perhaps I misunderstood when I read what you said before that. I just always found it very interesting that when I did biology in school there were always several labs for each thing we learned but when we reached the module on evolution there was not one and it was all theory with no back up evidence at all. (If monkeys were evolving into humans a few million years ago, why are there still monkeys left? There are no half-dog-half-birds flying around, just dogs and birds, aren’t there different degrees of evolution since it takes as long as scientists say? Where are they?) I have only heard of the cause of evolution in the context of the big bang, but perhaps they are sometimes viewed in some areas as being separate, that I do not know.

Hehe, I knew you wouldn't ban me, I just didn't want to irritate you enough to want to ban me if you ever got the chance :D (though I really hope one of those chances don't happen) I happen to rather like it here ^_^

[Shaun]

Oh, I'm sure there was misunderstanding on both sides. No worries there.

Well, first off, the evidence for Evolution is impossible to replicate in a high school lab (most of them, anyway). To be able to observe evolutionary processes you need equipment that most high schools can't even afford, and you need time. You also might be stuck getting the short end of the stick on evolution in your school because your school board either doesn't allow advanced teaching or for various other reasons. You're in Canada, so that would be a surprise to me, but it may still be true there. High school is really for the simple stuff. You get to the complicated stuff in college (and even then, to get at the meat and bones of evolution you have to take quite a lot of classes; most of what informs evolution is what you're probably learning in biology now: cell formation, splitting, etc.). You can show evolution in a classroom, it's just not easy to do and takes a lot of time (the way they tend to show these processes, when they try, is to use insects like flies to force evolutionary changes, but if you really want to see evolutionary processes at work, just look at dogs and cats...thousands of years of humans fiddling with evolution...and that's generally how you have to do it in a lab to be able to show evolution functioning at a speed we can easily see).

If your teacher is teaching you that we evolved from monkeys, then your teacher is a bloody moron. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share common ancestors with them, but if you look at the correct table you'll see that the line that produced us is very distinct from the same line that gave us monkeys (or at least that's what I was taught in college, and unless that info has changed in the last 5 years...then it's still true).

What you mean is "why are there still apes around when we evolved from them." Because there's no reason for most of the apes to die out (many are endangered, by the way). Evolution doesn't destroy everything once it evolves. If it did that there wouldn't be anything on this planet but a handful of species. Species die out for a lot of reasons (these days primarily because of humans).

There are no half-dog-half-birds because they are from entirely different lines of animals (they are not related). This is the kind of questioning creationist like to throw out there a lot because they think it makes sense. But it's like saying "well, why aren't there slug-humans and talking gerbils?" Well, because evolution is not a mad science experiment like you'd expect to see in a some movie with an evil scientist trying to give a pig wings. It just doesn't work that way.

As for degrees of evolution: many of them still exist, many of them are dead, and many of them don't know they are transitions to whatever is next. We have fossils for many of the transitions, but not for all of them because, well, not all bones fossilize the way we'd like them to.

Evolution is about LIFE processes. It's not about how the universe came to be. Whenever you hear the term "evolution" used in reference to the cosmos, it's evoking the same idea, but it's not talking about the same thing. One is about how life evolves AFTER the creation of the first life form (evolution); the other is about the creation of the universe (which may eventually be involved in evolution, but is a process separate, still). It's a common misconception to put the two together, one made easy to do by scientists who aren't very careful with how they talk about various things.

Hopefully that answered some questions. To be fair to this, though, I am not a scientist. I know a good deal about evolution and the things being studied, but I am not at all an expert. So, please don't come in and say "I won't believe you unless you can explain how the sea turtle evolved from the primordial ooze." I can't answer that question.

And debating me, and irritating me in the process, won't get you banned.

[Bowie20049]

If I was going to ban you for this, then there'd be nobody on this site but me and maybe Bowie (who cowers before me like a wimp).

Alex rage! /spam

[Crocolyle]

A lot of Creationists don't seem to understand the basics of evolution. First off, I'd like to say, as I did earlier in the debate that the existence of God and the ideas of science are perfectly compatible (Even though I personally am an atheist, I'll admit this); however, the historic correctness of the Bible might not be (though how does that make it spiritually untrue?).

Evolution first off isn't exactly random, but instead works on the principles of natural selection and sexual selection. Think of your friends--I bet most of them are different from each other in a lot of ways. Some are taller. Some are smarter. Some are really athletic. Some have blue eyes, others have brown. Basically, even among your friends there is some variance of traits, because everyone has different genes. Natural selection works in such a way that it makes certain genes more common.

Now, let's say there's a group of horse-like animals that eat leaves. There's a famine, so now there aren't as many leaves to eat and only the leaves highest up are available to eat. So let's say only the tallest horse-like animals and those with the longest necks eat enough food to pass on their genes. Tall horse-like animals with long necks naturally tend to have tall horse-like animals with long necks as their children. After many, many generations wouldn't you say it's possible that the tall horse-like animals with long necks look significantly different from there ancestors? Basically, after a lot of slow gradual changes, something can look different.

You know, the Italian language at one time was Latin. Latin did not change to Italian overnight, it happened over the course of 2,000 years. Also, think of dog breeding. Dog breeders select dogs with traits that they like to breed with dogs that have that trait, so they'll very likely have children with that trait. After a while, the dog looks very different from other dogs.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

Crocolyle, I believe you are referring to micro evolution, a change of a species within it's species, which I agree with entirely; what I don't agree with would be macro evolution, a dramatic change of a species outside of it's normal traits. Like dogs do not grow wings but their ancestors could be short and (through the adding of other genes by breeding them with other dogs) will end up being taller than they started out. But those genes were already there, they did not suddenly appear or change to such a dramatic extent that you could not breed a dog from a thousand years ago with one from today. There is also the problem that evolution says we are always evolving to a higher level when, in fact, the gene pool of today is highly corroded and there are many more genetic problems now than there used to be.

I seemed to have acidentally opened a bomb here :P

[Shaun]

Macro evolution is just micro evolution drawn out over time. All evolutionary jumps are based on micro evolutionary changes (many of them).

And you're wrong to say that "those genes were already there." That's not technically true. The gene that made them slightly taller to begin with was, but the gene that created the giraffe from a horse-like ancestor was not. It had to mutate due to environmental pressure. In dogs, there actually was a dramatic change in their physiology and personalities. This explains why wolves are not at all like dogs (related, yes, and with dog traits, but so utterly distinct regardless).

As for constant evolution: actually, some of those genetic problems are created by our subversion of evolutionary processes (i.e. by not allowing nature to take its course and kill off people that otherwise wouldn't have had children; basically, we've created a lot of these problems in ourselves through our technology), but they are also result of changes in us in response to environmental conditions (i.e. they are evolutionary changes). For example (one I bring up all the damned time): sickle-cell anemia. It is a fatal disease, yes, but it is also an evolutionary response in humans to malaria, because in the correct combination of the disease a person is significantly resistant to malaria. It's no surprise, then, that it arose in areas statistically plagued with malaria infections (i.e. around Africa). This is not corrosion; this is changes in our genetic structure on the micro level to adjust to a world full of evolving organisms.

The difference here is this: you assume that it is somehow a simple process for a dog to grow wings, when it isn't. If you want to see major evolutionary changes, you have to look no farther than viruses and bacteria, which CONSTANTLY evolve on a macro level. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any new viruses with new attributes (and for a virus, a new attribute is like you or I growing a second set of legs).

[Jack]

what I don't agree with would be macro evolution, a dramatic change of a species outside of it's normal traits.

I have been following the debate and I am wondering; why you don't agree with the theory of macro evolution, when it is simply the same process as micro evolution?

[Crocolyle]

Though I rarely agree with Shaun, he's pretty much right. Basically, macro-evolution is micro-evolution, just looked at after millions of years. Basically, think about the example I gave with the horse-like things becoming giraffes. Giraffes are not their horse-like ancestors, they are giraffes. But minute changes over a LONG period of time, would eventually lead to something different.

Birds never randomly sprouted wings. At one time there were some dinosaurs (like raptors), that had a mutation, that caused a small amount of skin so their arm was a little webbed (think flying squirrel, except with a lizard.) After a while, of developing, this seeming random and accidental mutation improved the lizard's ability to jump and they'd be able to glide for a short distance, but nevertheless it improved hunting. Many, many micro-evolutionary changes led it to become more pterodactyl or archeopteryx-like until it became one of those, and eventually more micro-evolutionary changes over several hundred thousand years made it indistinguishable from what it used to be. You see, people can only think in terms of a couple generations, when we have to realize change isn't immediate, it happens over thousands and thousands of generations. For example, you may look a lot like your father, right? If you had a painting of your great-great-great grandfather, do you think you'd look much like him? Probably not. Now, think of what your ancestor from 2 thousand years ago would look like, then think about 100,000 and then think about 1 million. Homo Sapiens have only been around for 200,000 thousands years. Your ancestor wouldn't even look at all like us.

Another way to think about it, as I've already stated it, is to think of languages. Languages also evolve. While there is a concscious force behind linguistic changes, remember than Old English, Middle English, and even early modern English (Elizabethan) is very difficult to understand. Also remember, Latin became Italian, and the grammatical structures are very different. For example, Latin doesn't have syntax and nouns change depending on their use in the sentence (think like he (nominative case), his (possessive case) and him (objective case), in English.) In Latin their are five different cases ("Farmer" being used as a subject is Agricola, possessive is Agricolae, an indirect object Agricolae, a direct object or an object of certain prepositions Agricolam, and Agricola (with the second a emphasized) which is usually the object of certain prepositions. Eventually, this system fell out of favor and the system of declining was simplified to subject-verb-object syntax, but this didn't happen over night. It happened over the course of centuries. It wasn't one day that people decided to stop declining. English is constantly evolving, people are slowly becoming unable to decline their pronouns (he, his, him) and we're losing the subjunctive mood.

[nagarjuna]

Crocolyle, I believe you are referring to micro evolution, a change of a species within it's species, which I agree with entirely; what I don't agree with would be macro evolution, a dramatic change of a species outside of it's normal traits.

You are making a strong distinction between changes within and without a species, which makes sense intuitively. However, it doesn't bear out that well in reality. Species is not a simple concept. There are a plethora of definitions which do not line up, and the way species are taxonomized today is a hode-podge of all those different concepts assembled along some general guidelines. (Look up "species problem" on Wikipedia.) That break-down of what is what in taxonomies is constantly changing and the ideas are being revised. So when you say that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are different, I agree 100% with these guys that that is a difference of degree but not of kind. Creationists always try to make macroevolution look silly by collapsing a tremendously long process into a ridiculously short span of time. Dogs sprouting wings, a wristwatch self-assembling from a bunch of gears in a few seconds, and such. It just doesn't work that way. As a (bad) analogy, if you change one letter of a book at a time very gradually for years (or thousands or millions or billions of years) you can easily start with one book and end up with a completely different one; maybe you even jump authors! Every individual change looks totally tame, and from the perspective of one lifetime, no drastic change takes place at all. Luckily, we don't have to stick with the experience of a single lifetime because we have fossil records, carbon dating, cladistics, and such tools to work with. And, however contrary to intuition and common sense, everything points overwhelmingly to macro.

The concept of species needs to get taken off its pedestal. There is no one phenomon in nature we can label "species"; it's a human-created idea which happens to be fairly convenient (when it works) for classifying living things. But insisting on a one-to-one mapping between "species" and living things in the world makes no sense at all. I can't even think why God would do it that way.

(NB: Naturally, if you think that the universe is only about 6,000 years old and was created in 7 twenty-four hour days, at which point it looked, oh, about the same as it does now, then naturally evolution sounds ridiculous. Garbage in, garbage out.)

Like dogs do not grow wings but their ancestors could be short and (through the adding of other genes by breeding them with other dogs) will end up being taller than they started out. But those genes were already there, they did not suddenly appear or change to such a dramatic extent that you could not breed a dog from a thousand years ago with one from today.

What is the sharp distinction between "changing" genes and "adding" them? Genes recombine and mutate in incredibly complicated ways. It's not that hard to get a novel gene out of two already existing ones. And even if this happens only ones in several generations, it's more than enough for macro-evolution to take place.

There is also the problem that evolution says we are always evolving to a higher level when, in fact, the gene pool of today is highly corroded and there are many more genetic problems now than there used to be.

Evolution doesn't say that. There aren't "higher" and "lower" levels, except in various extremely subjective senses. We are not "more evolved" than any other species existing today. We're here at the same time, so we're about as equally "evolved" as it gets. Yes, creatures do get more complex, more adapted, more intelligent, over time. Usually. Sometimes. Since evolution is a messy and quasi-random process, it's hard to make any blanket statements about it at all, much less that it always improves on itself. And when humans breed/genetically engineer animals and planets for agricultural purposes, which I think is what you're thinking of (?), there's even less guarantee.

I for one give macroevolution two opposable thumbs up. :P

Edit: I also, by the way, worship God using this lovely neocortex she gave me.

[Crocolyle]

Well said, Nagarjuna!

[Shaun]

Very well said indeed.

[Ace-Darkeyes]

First off, I am going to have to answer this in a critique sort of way since I happen to have four people after me, lol And sorry I didn’t answer this sooner, I was away a lot for the holidays and getting ready for school again.

Shaun you said;

The gene that made them slightly taller to begin with was, but the gene that created the giraffe from a horse-like ancestor was not. (refer down to what I said to Nagarjuna in the last paragraph)

Draxzar,

why you don't agree with the theory of macro evolution, when it is simply the same process as micro evolution?

There IS a big difference between micro and macro evolution, micro has been proven but macro has not. By saying “because micro is true, macro must also be” is a part to part-to-whole- fallacy, saying something is all true on a larger level because part of it is.

Crocolyle,

Languages also evolve. While there is a concscious force behind linguistic changes, remember than Old English, Middle English, and even early modern English (Elizabethan) is very difficult to understand. Also remember, Latin became Italian, and the grammatical structures are very different. (I think you meant “conscious”) First, languages evolve but, like you said, because “there is a concscious force behind linguistic changes” (if you did need spell that wrong, unless you meant another word, in that case, you will have to tell me since “conscious” is the only word that resembles it) but it is because there is thought behind it, there is change because man has consciously changed his speech habits over time, bit by bit. It is also a bad analogy, language is not science.

Nagarjuna,

you can easily start with one book and end up with a completely different one; maybe you even jump authors! I must now remind you that this, also, is a bad analogy, especially if you want it to back up your view that the world evolved over time.
First, because if letters were changed in a book, one at a time, over a long period of time, what guarantee, if any, is there that it will even make sense, or spell ONE word right? Even if these new letters spelled a few words, the other words would be simply gibberish and have no meaning in the sentence and who is to say those few words correctly spelled even mean ANYTHING? If you stick to your analogy then I must say that I still stand on my grounds that if you are comparing it to the universe being created, it still makes no sense, even if you stuck all the parts of the universe in a bag (like letters in a book) and changed bits and pieces of it and waited MILLIONS of years or however long you wish, who is to say it will create a coherent race of human beings or a world where a planet can support life? (a book that tells a story)

Luckily, we don't have to stick with the experience of a single lifetime because we have fossil records, carbon dating, cladistics, and such tools to work with.
I hate to break it to you but, there is no difference between a fossil ancestor and it’s descendent of today, the ONLY difference they have found is the size, things tended to be larger “in those days.” Looking and analyzing them there is no difference, inside or out (ie. Organs are the same, the animals with hair today had hair back then, the ones with scales still have scales, and they are easily classifiable according to the kind of animal) Not ONE fossil, from however many millions of years ago, shows a difference.
Your opinion that species is just a human term and has no real meaning when compared to the world, is just that, an opinion.

What is the sharp distinction between "changing" genes and "adding" them? Genes recombine and mutate in incredibly complicated ways. It's not that hard to get a novel gene out of two already existing ones. And even if this happens only ones in several generations, it's more than enough for macro-evolution to take place.
Two genes will make a novel one but it will not be outside of what either of them could create, in other words, it’ll be taller, it’ll be shorter but it will not be something outside of that, it will be nothing new, different, but not something beyond what was in the two genes. A gene for blue eyes and a gene for green eyes will not make a kid with red hair.

Anyway.... HAPPY NEW YEAR PEOPLE! ^_^

[Amour]

Two genes will make a novel one but it will not be outside of what either of them could create, in other words, it’ll be taller, it’ll be shorter but it will not be something outside of that, it will be nothing new, different, but not something beyond what was in the two genes. A gene for blue eyes and a gene for green eyes will not make a kid with red hair.

That's true in basic genetics: in theory. But not when considering gene mutations. A mutation is when a gene changes outside of its realm. It's why bacteria become resistant to our medicine, or why sickle-cell anemia exists. These have nothing to do with a normal genetic makeup, but a mutation that has altered our genes and made them different beyond their normal capability.

[Shaun]

I hate to break it to you but, there is no difference between a fossil ancestor and it’s descendent of today, the ONLY difference they have found is the size, things tended to be larger “in those days.” Looking and analyzing them there is no difference, inside or out (ie. Organs are the same, the animals with hair today had hair back then, the ones with scales still have scales, and they are easily classifiable according to the kind of animal) Not ONE fossil, from however many millions of years ago, shows a difference.

This is actually not true. While we haven't been able to trace every single evolutionary development (there are billions of species, after all), there are traceable evolutionary changes that make species different from their ancestors. Your statement would only be true if new species did not come into existence since the inception of evolution. Since they have (and regularly do, by the way), and since on a micro level we know that species change constantly (some die, some don't, some grow immune to whatever, etc.), your statement is false.

Your opinion that species is just a human term and has no real meaning when compared to the world, is just that, an opinion.

Technically speaking, this is an opinion held by many scientists too. It's a heavily contested issue (what is a species). They have simplified the discussion for classrooms precisely because it would take forever to try to explain the intricacies and the subjectiveness of taxonomy to a classroom of highschoolers.

Two genes will make a novel one but it will not be outside of what either of them could create, in other words, it’ll be taller, it’ll be shorter but it will not be something outside of that, it will be nothing new, different, but not something beyond what was in the two genes. A gene for blue eyes and a gene for green eyes will not make a kid with red hair.

Again, not true. This assumes that new species don't come into existence, that we only evolve on a micro level (i.e. we grow immunities, and things like that) rather than on a macro level (new species). They do, and on a regular basis (hell, they found a few dozen new species in the ocean in 2009 alone, ones that weren't there before). Genes mutate. While many genes have stayed the same (things like hair color, eyes, things like that), others have not. Such mutations have been observable. Some can be forced; others are natural progressions.

[nagarjuna]

There IS a big difference between micro and macro evolution, micro has been proven but macro has not. By saying “because micro is true, macro must also be” is a part to part-to-whole- fallacy, saying something is all true on a larger level because part of it is.


"Micro has been proven but macro has not." (a) Says who? (b) You don't really "prove" things in science. Well, you do, informally. I'm sure you'd admit we've as good as proven that the Earth isn't flat and it goes around the sun. Macro-evolution is on par with those other theories* in terms of credibility and to what degree we have "proved" it.

*And no, the word "theory" does not mean that it's purely hypothetical. It only means that in common parlance, not in science.

(I think you meant “conscious”) First, languages evolve but, like you said, because “there is a concscious force behind linguistic changes” (if you did need spell that wrong, unless you meant another word, in that case, you will have to tell me since “conscious” is the only word that resembles it) but it is because there is thought behind it, there is change because man has consciously changed his speech habits over time, bit by bit.

It's not *that* conscious. When language evolves, it is rarely because people sit down together and try to tweak the rules. That only happens with entirely artificial languages like Esperanto. Although it's true that the human mind is behind it, it is a good analogy in that it demonstrates large-scale changes arising due to much smaller ones (like people pronouncing a vowel in a word *slightly* differently, or dropping a sound.) And yet from one Ur-language (or at least very small family of languages) we have arrived at unimaginably drastic differences between languages. The same is true for evolution. Unless you decide to be a hard-liner and insist that it all happened all at once during the Babel incident... I'm not going to go there. But there are many, many examples of micro-to-macro.

It is also a bad analogy, language is not science.

It is if you're a linguist. :huh:

First, because if letters were changed in a book, one at a time, over a long period of time, what guarantee, if any, is there that it will even make sense, or spell ONE word right?

This is a good analogy to arguments about evolution. Some people insist that "mutations" in genes would always be deleterious and that you would never have real small-scale changes that benefitted the organism, or even allowed it to survive. But if you believe in micro-evolution, you already believe that this is true. Not to mention it is virtually the exact same analogy, in many ways, as that of language.

Even if these new letters spelled a few words, the other words would be simply gibberish and have no meaning in the sentence and who is to say those few words correctly spelled even mean ANYTHING?

I refer you to Shakespeare, Chaucer, Lewis Carroll....

If you stick to your analogy then I must say that I still stand on my grounds that if you are comparing it to the universe being created, it still makes no sense, even if you stuck all the parts of the universe in a bag (like letters in a book) and changed bits and pieces of it and waited MILLIONS of years or however long you wish, who is to say it will create a coherent race of human beings or a world where a planet can support life? (a book that tells a story)

It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, or even the "creation" of life (abiogenesis.) Those are completely separate theories. Evolution is only about the way life changes and has changed over time. The time frame is about 3 billion years.

It's hard to even imagine how incredibly long a time that is. The ratio between a year and 3 billion of them is about them same as a blink of an eye and a decade. Or think of business cards being stacked up till they reach the moon. When you have quantities this huge, differences of kind really do occur. That's why the analogy of shaking a box of parts and miraculous getting a person is ridiculous. It feeds on an intuition that is true for things in everyday life but not for geological time spans.

Here's another analogy. For the most part, even though we believe the earth to be a sphere, our everyday intuition is that it is more or less flat. And that intuition works okay in everyday situations. It doesn't make "sense" to think of the Earth as a giant sphere spinning in outer space, because the feeling of solid ground, of down being a single invariant direction, is so ingrained. But we just have to accept, since we know it to be true, that that perfectly useful intuition doesn't hold anymore on much larger scales, like flying to a country on the other side of the world.


I hate to break it to you but, there is no difference between a fossil ancestor and it’s descendent of today, the ONLY difference they have found is the size, things tended to be larger “in those days.” Looking and analyzing them there is no difference, inside or out (ie. Organs are the same, the animals with hair today had hair back then, the ones with scales still have scales, and they are easily classifiable according to the kind of animal) Not ONE fossil, from however many millions of years ago, shows a difference.

This is just plain wrong. I don't know where you got this information. I'd like to see a citation, and I could give you some.

Your opinion that species is just a human term and has no real meaning when compared to the world, is just that, an opinion.

Oh drat! I was trying to convince you that I was a prophet of God and my words were holy and inerrant. Oh well.

Your opinion that species is NOT an opinion is also... an opinion. I guess we're all opinionated. Opinions aren't *totally* subjective. And if you'd like to define them as such, then no, my opinion about species is not an opinion at all. I can back it up.

Two genes will make a novel one but it will not be outside of what either of them could create, in other words, it’ll be taller, it’ll be shorter but it will not be something outside of that, it will be nothing new, different, but not something beyond what was in the two genes. A gene for blue eyes and a gene for green eyes will not make a kid with red hair.

Actually, genes can make completely novel combinations. All a gene is a sequence of codons (a codon is a combination of the four nucleotide bases, A T G and C.) Since you hate the letters analogy, I'll give you another one. It is quite possible to recombine two English sentences and get another which makes sense, and even says something completely different from its parents. [For a silly example, we glue together "Politicians lie" and "cast iron sinks" to arrive at "Politicians lie in cast iron sinks." :P] If you allow for mutating and recombining at the letter level, there's even more possibility for creativity. In theory, you could get any sentence from any other sentence from this process. Likewise, genes can and have mutated and rearranged themselves far beyond their original forms. As have you, unless I'm speaking to an amazingly bright two-year-old.

Anyway.... HAPPY NEW YEAR PEOPLE! ^_^

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

[Shaun]

The one thing that has to be said over and over and that everyone needs to get into their heads is this:

Evolution is the theory of how life CHANGES. It is not the theory of how the universe was created (though the term "evolve" is often used in cosmology to refer to stellar processes); it is also not the theory of how life was created. It is only concerned with the processes through which life changes, at any level.

Comparisons between evolution and the origins of any particular thing (life, the universe, or everything) are the product of both a faulty way of teaching evolution (thanks to anti-evolution people and idiots) and the perpetuation of numerous myths aimed at debunking a legitimate science.

[nagarjuna]

Evolution is the theory of how life CHANGES. It is not the theory of how the universe was created (though the term "evolve" is often used in cosmology to refer to stellar processes); it is also not the theory of how life was created. It is only concerned with the processes through which life changes, at any level.

This is completely true, and yet ironic in this discussion. For someone who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution, accepting this would seem to disqualify evolution. After all, on some level macro-evolution *is* creating something new. New organs, behaviors, body-types, etc. are created in the process (or else we'd all still be brainless one-celled prokaryotes.) So when you say that evolution is just about change, somebody can be tricky by accepting that and immediately turning it around to try to debunk you. Cagey.

The reason that doesn't work is that there's one big difference: abiogenesis is about creating life from *non-life* (thus the abio- prefix.) Evolution is about how life is generated from *previously existing life.* This makes a huge difference. Natural selection combined with genetic drift is sufficient to account for all evolutionary changes, including macro-evolutionary ones. It is not sufficient to account for life to (somehow) assemble from non-living molecules--or however. That is why creationists always use silly analogies like shaking a bottle of chemicals and getting Adam. Or else they use examples that don't even make sense with natural selection, like a dog sprouting wings. There's no evolutionary pressure for dogs to develop wings.

I think the whole debate is really a semantic confusion over certain often-used but never-defined terms: "change", "evolve", "create", "life", "species." Until we provide at least basic/provisional definitions for these, chances are neither side of the argument is even talking about the same thing. If young earth creationists were forced to rigorously define their terms, the kind of double-meanings that they use for ammo would vanish. And they'd be left looking pretty damn silly.

Informal debates never work. There's too much room for subjectivity, and everyone gets to be an expert.

[Crocolyle]

That's true in basic genetics: in theory. But not when considering gene mutations. A mutation is when a gene changes outside of its realm. It's why bacteria become resistant to our medicine, or why sickle-cell anemia exists. These have nothing to do with a normal genetic makeup, but a mutation that has altered our genes and made them different beyond their normal capability.

Slight correction. My understanding of the evolution of bacteria was this:

Someone uses an antibiotic that kills 99.9& of bacteria. .1% of that bacteria just out of genetics, not necessarily a mutation is naturally immune to the antibiotic. Naturally, it proliferates and mixes with other bacteria, allowing its advantage (immunity to that particular antibiotic) spread. Over time, the antibiotic becomes less effective because the bacteria with the natural immunity to it is the bacteria that survived to pass on its genes.

The same thing happened with small pox and Europeans. The European population had been decimated by small pox over a period of centuries. Those weakest to the disease got weeded out progressively over time, so Europeans with the natural immunity passed that on to its children. It was devastating to the Native American population, because their population had not already been devastated by it. They didn't have the right genes to combat it.

But you're right on sickle-cell anemia. Read about that in an article called "Survival of the Sickest."


Ace,

language is not science.

Nor is intelligent design :rolleyes:

[Amour]

Slight correction. My understanding of the evolution of bacteria was this:

Someone uses an antibiotic that kills 99.9& of bacteria. .1% of that bacteria just out of genetics, not necessarily a mutation is naturally immune to the antibiotic. Naturally, it proliferates and mixes with other bacteria, allowing its advantage (immunity to that particular antibiotic) spread. Over time, the antibiotic becomes less effective because the bacteria with the natural immunity to it is the bacteria that survived to pass on its genes.

Many bacterial species are asexual, so they are exactly the same until/unless they mutate. Gene mutation is one of the factors in diversity.

Naturally or due to mutations, I think both apply.

[thecollector]

Being raised a child that does not regularly go to church (My family is out of practice church goers.), I strongly believe in scientific theories such as The Big Bang Theory where two particles of energy collided to make a vortex of opposites, but, like many, I'm not sure either. I'd like to believe that there is something beyond destruction, something bigger than ourselves, but it can't be proved. Science tells us that you can play God in a laboratory full of genetic engineering equipment, but who created the energy that made all of this? The same questions apply to God, too. Who created Him? If death is inevitable, why is there even existence? In the end, I'd say it's a wash. The world is paper being fed into a paper shredder, slowly destroying it's past as it meets the fresh inches called the future. It's only a matter of time before time runs out and all is lost. That much IS FACT.

However, that still never answers (as my one school friend who is an atheist asked me) "If death is inevitable, why is there existence?"

[nagarjuna]

such as The Big Bang Theory where two particles of energy collided to make a vortex of opposites,

According to the Big Bang explanation (which is only one of many, although it's currently the most accepted), the universe was originally an extremely small, hot, dense pocket of matter (in fact, infinitely dense, a "singularity.") It has nothing to do with colliding particles. This sounds more like Dan Brown than any theory I've heard of.

[thecollector]

According to the Big Bang explanation (which is only one of many, although it's currently the most accepted), the universe was originally an extremely small, hot, dense pocket of matter (in fact, infinitely dense, a "singularity.") It has nothing to do with colliding particles. This sounds more like Dan Brown than any theory I've heard of.

I agree with you on that one. The universe was a small pocket like you have stated. However, the idea that, that pocket was created by energy particles has been around for years, although it was never as well known as such theories like The Cell Theory. (I know that one's off topic, but it was the only one at the moment I could think of as well known and accepted by many.) Ideas don't necessarily have to be broadcast about in order to be in existence. I can assure you that is nowhere near works fiction. I can see how it can be misunderstood because it does sound very close to Dan Brown, but this has been studied for many years.

[nagarjuna]

I agree with you on that one. The universe was a small pocket like you have stated. However, the idea that, that pocket was created by energy particles has been around for years, although it was never as well known as such theories like The Cell Theory. (I know that one's off topic, but it was the only one at the moment I could think of as well known and accepted by many.) Ideas don't necessarily have to be broadcast about in order to be in existence. I can assure you that is nowhere near works fiction. I can see how it can be misunderstood because it does sound very close to Dan Brown, but this has been studied for many years.

Citation?

[thecollector]

I understand your concern to make sure the information I was reciting is valid. However, this was an article from a scientific magazine our class read for science about two years ago, so I do not have a hard copy of the citation, but I do remember the information quite clearly (We were tested on different theories for the Big Bang Theory.). And, the year of the discovery was supposedly in the early 1990's (I don't remember the correct year for the discovery because it obviously wouldn't be on a test like that.). I'm sure it can be found in a number of different searches.

Whether or not you believe me is entirely up to you, but let me ask you this. No offense, but why would I be deranged to make up something like that, if by chance that's what you're thinking I did? It's not like this argument is a court case. You're going to believe what you want, and I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone here (I apologize if it appeared that way.). I simply thought I'd add to what seems an interesting discussion.

[nagarjuna]

No offense, but why would I be deranged to make up something like that, if by chance that's what you're thinking I did? It's not like this argument is a court case. You're going to believe what you want, and I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone here (I apologize if it appeared that way.). I simply thought I'd add to what seems an interesting discussion.

I'm not attacking you; I was just curious about the source. I don't think you made it up. Your source might have, I don't know :P In any case, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution... </derail>

[thecollector]

Haha. I knew you weren't attacking me. It's just always awkward at first when people do that, at least for me. :P I agree. We kind of derailed here... So, basically, we both believe that there is evolution, right?

[nagarjuna]

Haha. I knew you weren't attacking me. It's just always awkward at first when people do that, at least for me. :P I agree. We kind of derailed here... So, basically, we both believe that there is evolution, right?

I believe in both [macro]evolution and God. Which means I automatically win.

They say that being in the middle of the road gets you run over by cars, but that's only if you're not very firm. If you're a radical middle-path-goer like I am, then cars (and ordinary extremists) are not a threat. How's that for a mutilated metal-phor?

[thecollector]

Sounds interesting and also true. As Johnny Cash would say, "I walk the line." In this case, for you it's the double yellow line. xD

I'm not sure if I can believe religion. Science has a lot going for it with the things that can be proven. But what if it's all a charade to make us feel concrete? After all, a wise man once said, "Reality is a dream."

[nagarjuna]

I'm not sure if I can believe religion.

That's a pretty meaningless statement when you think about it. Which religion? They do not all say the same thing. Well, perhaps at the core they do. But unless you already believe, that common core is not really accessible to you. So I can't bring myself to believe people who say "I don't believe in God." Either this person does not really know what it is they don't believe in, or else they disbelieve the same things that scads of "religious" people also disbelieve! The differences between atheists and other (ahem) fundamentalists are often quite superficial indeed.

Science has a lot going for it with the things that can be proven. But what if it's all a charade to make us feel concrete?

Well, if it's a charade, it's a charade that also works very well in practice in terms of predictive and explanatory power. If you choose to believe that the physical world is illusion, then fair game. But as far as the physical world goes, science is a very credible method. Render unto Science what is Science's, and unto God what is God's :P.

[Shaun]

That's a pretty meaningless statement when you think about it. Which religion? They do not all say the same thing. Well, perhaps at the core they do. But unless you already believe, that common core is not really accessible to you. So I can't bring myself to believe people who say "I don't believe in God." Either this person does not really know what it is they don't believe in, or else they disbelieve the same things that scads of "religious" people also disbelieve! The differences between atheists and other (ahem) fundamentalists are often quite superficial indeed.

I'd like to call B.S. on this. You're statement assumes that all atheists are of the brand with particularly fundamentalist views on religion. That's like saying that all Muslims run around hijacking planes and doing suicide bombings (or like saying that all Christians are crazed maniacs running around trying to kill off all the gays). In all forms of belief there are people with really big voices (to be fair, of course, at least some of the atheist ones say a lot of truth under all their spitting and frothing, which is not what is said on the other said, but so be it).

You're also equating religion with religious belief, which are, I would argue, not the same thing. Religion is an institution; religious belief is, well, the stuff those institutions are supposed to rest on. You can have one without the other. I, for example, do not believe in any particular religion (in institutional terms). I also don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist because I like to keep things open enough to allow a little supernatural nonsense in (you know, to keep things interesting). Religion as an institution is unfortunately a dangerous thing (history does not speak kindly about institutional religion).

[nagarjuna]

I'd like to call B.S. on this. You're statement assumes that all atheists are of the brand with particularly fundamentalist views on religion.

That's true. I shouldn't have made a blanket statement of this type. However, I think it's true of a number of (if not the majority of) atheists. In particular, I'm thinking of atheists who think of all religion as completely invalid. I know of some who are non-theist but open-minded towards theism (like a number of Quakers, my religion.)

Religion is an institution

I'm going to call B. S. on this. I am religious but I do not belong to any religious institutions. There is such a thing as private religion. It is not strictly communal.

I, for example, do not believe in any particular religion (in institutional terms). I also don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist because I like to keep things open enough to allow a little supernatural nonsense in (you know, to keep things interesting).

I'm a little unclear that you don't believe in God, but are not an atheist. Also, what you're describing doesn't sound like open-mindedness. It's actually pretty patronizing.

Religion as an institution is unfortunately a dangerous thing (history does not speak kindly about institutional religion).

Nor about institutional atheism. Anything sanctioned by a politically powerful institution becomes dangerous. And all basic human instincts, good and bad and neutral, have been or are made into institutions.

You started out your post by accusing me of making false generalizations, but seem to be doing a little yourself. You haven't given me a good example of religion without religious belief. What would that look like to you?

[Bowie20049]

I think he's saying that Religion is different than being religious

[Shaun]

That's true. I shouldn't have made a blanket statement of this type. However, I think it's true of a number of (if not the majority of) atheists. In particular, I'm thinking of atheists who think of all religion as completely invalid. I know of some who are non-theist but open-minded towards theism (like a number of Quakers, my religion.)

And yet you're questioning the validity of a belief system that invalidates other belief systems (which is, of course, a mark of religion (as an institution), since all religions, with the exception of the Universalist Church (hardly a religious institution anyway) exist to denounce anyone separate). Having a strong belief does not make you a fundamentalist. It just makes you a strong believer. Being aggressive and generally insane in pushing that belief (i.e. suicide bombings, running around having "kill the gays" protests, etc.) are certainly marks of fundamentalist belief. Your blanket statement assumed that all atheists act the same way as the fundamentalists (particularly American ones) who are vocal and forceful with their beliefs. Most atheists are not like this and, thus, have beliefs equally as valid as anything else (except scientology, which is the biggest crock of crap I've ever seen).

I'm going to call B. S. on this. I am religious but I do not belong to any religious institutions. There is such a thing as private religion. It is not strictly communal.

Religion is communal. Being religious is not.

I'm a little unclear that you don't believe in God, but are not an atheist. Also, what you're describing doesn't sound like open-mindedness. It's actually pretty patronizing.

Atheists believe in a world that is and always will be explained by rational means. I don't believe we will ever be able to explain the world (let alone the universe) by rational means. There is always going to be an "I don't know" moment. Therefore, I am not an atheist.

Nor about institutional atheism. Anything sanctioned by a politically powerful institution becomes dangerous. And all basic human instincts, good and bad and neutral, have been or are made into institutions.

The difference is that institutionalized religion continues to be responsible for the promotion of hatred, death, and destruction globally...every year. It's been that way for centuries. The handful of instances of atheists going wacko are either unfairly attributed to atheism or somewhat less terrifying than what you get with the alternative.

You started out your post by accusing me of making false generalizations, but seem to be doing a little yourself. You haven't given me a good example of religion without religious belief. What would that look like to you?

It wouldn't look like anything, because as soon as you start trying to put a face to something, you are already speaking in terms of the institution (which is kind of like speaking terms of the colonizer).

And I'm hardly making generalizations here. I'm simply correcting your original statement that paints atheists as fundamentalists simply because they don't believe in God (or gods, or what have you), or because of the actions of a select few. As I said, this would be like saying that all Muslims are suicide bombers...which we all know is total B.S. (we have a handful of Muslims on this site; none of them are the wackos the FOX News tries to make them out to be).

[nagarjuna]

all religions, with the exception of the Universalist Church (hardly a religious institution anyway) exist to denounce anyone separate).

I seriously doubt you're familiar with "all religions" if you can make a statement like this. I'd also like to know what you mean by "hardly a religious institution anyway." I assume you're talking about Unitarian Universalism?

In fact, I would make the opposite claim. Even if the institutionally held opinions (as if institutions had minds or opinions) are highly exclusive, I think that every major world religion has currents of strong tolerance of other faiths, especially when you come to the heretics, who are more or less all in agreement :rolleyes: (only half joking.) Witness Thomas Merton, Thich Nhat Hanh (sp?), and others. You are either being very selective in what you decide constitutes "religion" or else you are largely ignorant of these counterexamples, or both.

By the way, I AM a counterexample. The liberal branch of Quakerism (the FGC) is extremely diverse. There are Christian Quakers, Non-theists, and even Buddhists. I don't know whether you'd call the FGC an "institution" in the sense you're thinking of, but it is certainly religious.

Having a strong belief does not make you a fundamentalist. It just makes you a strong believer. Being aggressive and generally insane in pushing that belief (i.e. suicide bombings, running around having "kill the gays" protests, etc.) are certainly marks of fundamentalist belief. Your blanket statement assumed that all atheists act the same way as the fundamentalists (particularly American ones) who are vocal and forceful with their beliefs.

I'm not even touching how atheists act; that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The point I was making (which I probably did, as I'm admitting, using some undue blanket statements) is that saying "I don't believe in God" without specifying WHICH God you disbelieve in is saying very, very little. People who claim belief in something called "God" or something similar, describe said deity in ways which are wildly diverse and often mutually incompatible. When you use the words "I don't believe in God" without specifying what you mean by God, you are saying zip. So I'll ask you directly, what do YOU mean by "God" when you say that you don't believe? I'm curious if I'm not also an atheist by your definition!

Most atheists are not like this and, thus, have beliefs equally as valid as anything else.

Granted. I think atheism is totally valid. Even as a spiritual path. What I think is invalid is certain statements that are often made and certain loaded questions which are often posed.

Atheists believe in a world that is and always will be explained by rational means.

I thought an atheist was somebody who didn't believe in God? I know atheists who both disbelieve in God and believe in the supernatural and/or phenomena which cannot be explained rationally.

I don't believe we will ever be able to explain the world (let alone the universe) by rational means. There is always going to be an "I don't know" moment. Therefore, I am not an atheist.

I think are definitions are very different, which is fine. As long as we are mutually understood, I'm not going to argue with you about what an "atheist" is or what "religion" is. I AM trying to make a point, however, about the word "God" and the ways it is misused. People are always assuming that the other person has the same associations with that word that they do. And that's why atheists making the claim "I don't believe in God" often miscommunicate what they truly believe.

The difference is that institutionalized religion continues to be responsible for the promotion of hatred, death, and destruction globally...every year.

I totally agree.

It's been that way for centuries. The handful of instances of atheists going wacko are either unfairly attributed to atheism or somewhat less terrifying than what you get with the alternative.

People have been killed and persecuted under institutionalized atheism. I'm not trying to compare numbers or see who wins in the nastiness competition. How religious, respective atheistic people behave is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

It wouldn't look like anything, because as soon as you start trying to put a face to something, you are already speaking in terms of the institution (which is kind of like speaking terms of the colonizer).

"It wouldn't look like anything." Well, didn't you say that religion was distinct from religious belief, and that one did not require the other? Or am I mistaken? I am trying to guage how you are using these words.

And I'm hardly making generalizations here.

Shall I count the instances of the word "all?"

I'm simply correcting your original statement that paints atheists as fundamentalists simply because they don't believe in God (or gods, or what have you), or because of the actions of a select few. As I said, this would be like saying that all Muslims are suicide bombers...which we all know is total B.S. (we have a handful of Muslims on this site; none of them are the wackos the FOX News tries to make them out to be).

Please consider me corrected. I don't think all atheists are fundamentalists or wackos. What I was trying to say with that statement is that those atheists who ARE fundamentalists are in very important ways not different from the other fundamentalists they sneer at.

And now, shall we talk about YOUR generalizations, implicit and explicit?

[Shaun]

In fact, I would make the opposite claim. Even if the institutionally held opinions (as if institutions had minds or opinions) are highly exclusive, I think that every major world religion has currents of strong tolerance of other faiths, especially when you come to the heretics, who are more or less all in agreement :rolleyes: (only half joking.) Witness Thomas Merton, Thich Nhat Hanh (sp?), and others. You are either being very selective in what you decide constitutes "religion" or else you are largely ignorant of these counterexamples, or both.

Until you start reading their "Holy Books" or getting into the deeper underpinnings and realize that all that nice stuff (all the hugs and "we're tolerant") is meaningless when the religions themselves are founded on principles of exclusion, either of other religious forms or people of different types. Name one religious institution that does not do this (your example of Christian Quakers: Christianity is one of the worst exclusionary bodies on this planet; read the Bible).

I'm not even touching how atheists act; that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The point I was making (which I probably did, as I'm admitting, using some undue blanket statements) is that saying "I don't believe in God" without specifying WHICH God you disbelieve in is saying very, very little. People who claim belief in something called "God" or something similar, describe said deity in ways which are wildly diverse and often mutually incompatible. When you use the words "I don't believe in God" without specifying what you mean by God, you are saying zip. So I'll ask you directly, what do YOU mean by "God" when you say that you don't believe? I'm curious if I'm not also an atheist by your definition!

The reason they only say "I don't believe in God" is because it would take forever to say the names of all the deities and religious things they don't believe in. Simply reducing the entire thing to "I don't believe in God" says enough for most people. That's generally what I believe. I don't believe in any religious ideal whatsoever, regardless of where it comes from, what God or gods are present, etc. And no, I am not going to name every single freaking one. It's not worth my time :P

I thought an atheist was somebody who didn't believe in God? I know atheists who both disbelieve in God and believe in the supernatural and/or phenomena which cannot be explained rationally.

They don't believe in God. God is not rational. The supernatural is not rational. They've mis-categorized themselves as atheists if they believe in the supernatural.

People have been killed and persecuted under institutionalized atheism. I'm not trying to compare numbers or see who wins in the nastiness competition. How religious, respective atheistic people behave is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

Of course they have, but religion is the ONLY institutionalized form of belief in which people are routinely killed, enslaved, or exterminated in the NAME of that institution (specifically in the name of God, or gods). There are few, if any, instances of someone murdering people in the name of atheism; there are countless examples of that happening in the name of *insert religious figure here.*

"It wouldn't look like anything." Well, didn't you say that religion was distinct from religious belief, and that one did not require the other? Or am I mistaken? I am trying to guage how you are using these words.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can start describing the religious outside of the institution. It's like trying to describe a black man without also being involved in the institution of race.

Shall I count the instances of the word "all?"

I should clarify: I'm not making inaccurate generalizations. I assumed you were using that term negatively.

Please consider me corrected. I don't think all atheists are fundamentalists or wackos. What I was trying to say with that statement is that those atheists who ARE fundamentalists are in very important ways not different from the other fundamentalists they sneer at.

Agreed.

[zero]

everybody has probably heard of the big bang once or twice if not it is a theorem stating that all of space was once one giant mass yet this mass was unstable thus it exploded causing the infinite space we see today well this bang was so accurate that if it we were to have stumbled one of a million portions of a centimeter farther than we are now we would never have existed . coincidence ? I think not god is the ultimate being prophecised in the qouraan the bible and many other holy books he is the creator of everything since of course nothing can be found by its self imagine a guy coming to you and saying that his house built it self you would most probably think he is crazy.

[Bowie20049]

everybody has probably heard of the big bang once or twice if not it is a theorem stating that all of space was once one giant mass yet this mass was unstable thus it exploded causing the infinite space we see today well this bang was so accurate that if it we were to have stumbled one of a million portions of a centimeter farther than we are now we would never have existed. coincidence ? I think not god is the ultimate being prophecised in the qouraan the bible and many other holy books he is the creator of everything since of course nothing can be found by its self imagine a guy coming to you and saying that his house built it self you would most probably think he is crazy.

The Quran and the other holy books took their stuff from other mythological tales, and each other. So it's not like it was some "huge coincidence" that they all say the same god.

[zero]

Unless I have a wrong impression on what your saying, you believe that the world was founded by its self .God is no coincidence,nor are the holy books ,they do not refer to them selves .What they are is none other than the words of god, and with all dew respect, the world is not evolution, since it cannot evolve from nothing. The term evolve means that an object has gone through physical or chemical change ,relying on the fact that there was an object to begin with.

[/COLOR] The Quran and the other holy books took their stuff from other mythological tales, and each other. So it's not like it was some "huge coincidence" that they all say the same god.

[Jack]

unless i have a wrong impression you are saying that the world was founded by its self .god is no coincidence nor are the holy books they do not refer to them selves what they are is none other than the words of god and with all dew respect the world is not evolution since it cannot evolve from nothing the terms evolve mean that an object has gone through physical or chemical change ,relying on the fact that there was an object to begin with.

Despite the fact that what you just said makes very little sense based on all laws of logic, I think you should probably sort out your grammar and spelling before you can even be taken seriously in this debate.

[nagarjuna]

Until you start reading their "Holy Books" or getting into the deeper underpinnings and realize that all that nice stuff (all the hugs and "we're tolerant") is meaningless when the religions themselves are founded on principles of exclusion, either of other religious forms or people of different types. Name one religious institution that does not do this (your example of Christian Quakers: Christianity is one of the worst exclusionary bodies on this planet; read the Bible).

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. A number take it seriously as an important work of literature while recognize its numerous flaws. They then use the Gospel teachings on love and forgiveness to due genuine and good work for social justice and inter-religious tolerance. The branch of Quakerism I'm talking about is not exclusively Christian. We are obviously not hopeless exclusivists if we are willing to worship together with Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists. Reading the Bible and a few accounts of cruelty and persecution under the Church do not make you familiar with Christianity. Although it is very convenient to ignore the other side of this coin, it is not intellectually honest.

The reason they only say "I don't believe in God" is because it would take forever to say the names of all the deities and religious things they don't believe in. Simply reducing the entire thing to "I don't believe in God" says enough for most people. That's generally what I believe. I don't believe in any religious ideal whatsoever, regardless of where it comes from, what God or gods are present, etc. And no, I am not going to name every single freaking one. It's not worth my time :P

You can't reject "religious ideals" you haven't heard of and are not even passingly familiar with. A statement of the strength you're talking about is one I wouldn't take seriously unless it were from a scholar of comparative religions, and even then I would take it with a grain of salt.

They don't believe in God. God is not rational. The supernatural is not rational. They've mis-categorized themselves as atheists if they believe in the supernatural.

Define atheism however you like, but all of the definitions I've heard place atheists as those who actively or passively disbelieve in God. An atheist can act as irrationally as she/he likes. It seems to be stepping over the line to call other people's self-definitions invalid based on your own private definition which is not even really in currency.

Of course they have, but religion is the ONLY institutionalized form of belief in which people are routinely killed, enslaved, or exterminated in the NAME of that institution (specifically in the name of God, or gods).

Oh, please. There are any number of ideals people have done this with. Racism is a big one. God isn't the only Big Idea that hordes of people have found themselves on the wrong side of.

There are few, if any, instances of someone murdering people in the name of atheism; there are countless examples of that happening in the name of *insert religious figure here.*

Ghandi, King, and Jesus were really slaughterhouses, alright.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you can start describing the religious outside of the institution. It's like trying to describe a black man without also being involved in the institution of race.

"trying to describe a black man...." ? And what is the "institution of race"? How are you defining "institution?" This strikes me as completely absurd. A person can have an experience of God without ever having attended church or Sunday school. You as a non-theist may or may not believe that an experience of God is what it is, but that is how people experience it and it is silly to try to gerrymander around it in your definition of what "religion" is.

I should clarify: I'm not making inaccurate generalizations. I assumed you were using that term negatively.

I think maybe my standard of evidence for a statement peppered with ALL and NONE and EVERY is higher than yours. Offering a few examples of your generalization doesn't prove it. And the onus is not on the more moderate party to provide counterexamples. You'd better have a damned good reason backing up a sweeping generalization of the variety you've been making.

Edit: As for the black man. Would you like me to describe him? Well, his skin is darker than a Caucasian's. How have I referenced an institution?

[Shaun]

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. A number take it seriously as an important work of literature while recognize its numerous flaws. They then use the Gospel teachings on love and forgiveness to due genuine and good work for social justice and inter-religious tolerance. The branch of Quakerism I'm talking about is not exclusively Christian. We are obviously not hopeless exclusivists if we are willing to worship together with Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists. Reading the Bible and a few accounts of cruelty and persecution under the Church do not make you familiar with Christianity. Although it is very convenient to ignore the other side of this coin, it is not intellectually honest.

Whether you choose to worship with other people of different beliefs doesn't change the foundations of your religion. No matter what you do, not everyone gets into heaven. At its very basic, there will always be people who are excluded (maybe for valid reasons, sometimes, but usually for entirely arbitrary ones).

I'm not ignoring the other side of the coin at all, so don't presume that somehow you know me. My grandfather was a pastor, and he was hardly an exclusionary person in principle; but his religion was, on some level.

You can't reject "religious ideals" you haven't heard of and are not even passingly familiar with. A statement of the strength you're talking about is one I wouldn't take seriously unless it were from a scholar of comparative religions, and even then I would take it with a grain of salt.

Then you can't reject ANYTHING, because there is no possible way for any one individual to be even passively familiar with every facet of knowledge available to us. To address the immediate issue: there are too many religions on this planet for any one person to become passively familiar with them all (unless you mean "I can name them" by "passive," in which case...if all you can do is name them, then the argument falls apart anyway).

And yes, you can reject religious ideals you haven't heard of if you don't subscribe to any version of supernatural communion with beings you don't believe exist. Contrary to religious belief, exposing people to religion doesn't suddenly make them religious.

Define atheism however you like, but all of the definitions I've heard place atheists as those who actively or passively disbelieve in God. An atheist can act as irrationally as she/he likes. It seems to be stepping over the line to call other people's self-definitions invalid based on your own private definition which is not even really in currency.

Yes, they don't believe in God. I never denied that. I was simply saying that the definition you were using was incorrect, and it continues to be so.

It's hardly stepping over the line. Your argument is sort of like saying that we should define all belief systems by anyone who claims to be a part of it, even if those people represent something far removed from the original message. That's like saying that Muslims who denounce suicide bombers are somehow overstepping their bounds because, hey, it's just their private definition of what it means to be Muslim, right? That's B.S. Sometimes people are just plain wrong.

HUMANS act irrationally. It has nothing to do with one's faith or lack thereof. But there are things that are part of the rational and part of the irrational. God is not part of the rational, no matter how hard anyone wants him/her/it to be.

Oh, please. There are any number of ideals people have done this with. Racism is a big one. God isn't the only Big Idea that hordes of people have found themselves on the wrong side of.

Yes, because Racism is completely disentangled from religion. Try again.

Ghandi, King, and Jesus were really slaughterhouses, alright.

You're mincing words, and doing it very poorly. Those figures were not themselves slaughterhouses, but they have been used as vehicles for slaughter. Totally different things.

"trying to describe a black man...." ? And what is the "institution of race"? How are you defining "institution?" This strikes me as completely absurd. A person can have an experience of God without ever having attended church or Sunday school. You as a non-theist may or may not believe that an experience of God is what it is, but that is how people experience it and it is silly to try to gerrymander around it in your definition of what "religion" is.

Did you bother to look up the word "institution?" I wasn't being abstract about it. The definition pretty much says what I meant in terms of its relationship to race. And it's hardly absurd. I also never said you can't experience God outside of church or outside of the religion itself. You're putting words in my mouth. I said you can't define religious belief without immediately talking in terms of the institution of religion. It's the same problem you have when talking about race; you can't disentangle the discussion from the institution.

I think maybe my standard of evidence for a statement peppered with ALL and NONE and EVERY is higher than yours. Offering a few examples of your generalization doesn't prove it. And the onus is not on the more moderate party to provide counterexamples. You'd better have a damned good reason backing up a sweeping generalization of the variety you've been making.

Except, it does prove it, since you've yet to provide any counterexamples. Stop trying to play off like you're all high and mighty because you can't come up with anything that refutes my argument. It would be understandable if I didn't have a leg to stand on. That's not the case. So, either come up with something that complicates my argument to the point where I have to back peddle or continue playing this came.

Edit: As for the black man. Would you like me to describe him? Well, his skin is darker than a Caucasian's. How have I referenced an institution?

Why did you describe the black man as having skin lighter than a Caucasian's? That, in and of itself, refers directly to the institution of race--the fact that you immediately referenced his skin color in relation to the color of another (and used the official name of "White"). While it seems innocent (and probably is, to be honest), it still is talking in terms of the institution of race. If you were describing the black man as just a man (an in fact, the question is sort of absurd, since already it's asking you to think in terms of race), then this would be a different discussion. This is, and always will be, the problem of race; you can't get away from its institutional form (remember, Obama is the first Black president; he's not just...the president).

[nagarjuna]

Whether you choose to worship with other people of different beliefs doesn't change the foundations of your religion. No matter what you do, not everyone gets into heaven. At its very basic, there will always be people who are excluded (maybe for valid reasons, sometimes, but usually for entirely arbitrary ones).

Says who? I for one believe in universal salvation, as does "my religion." I don't think it's okay to cast anyone aside for any reason, especially for reasons pretending nobility. It is because religions tend to clump into institutions that people get in silly arguments about which package deal they accept or reject. I don't even think the question worth my while; I'm not looking for a dogma or list of beliefs that I assent to. I thus resent any claim made about what "my religion" teaches. I submit to many ideas that my religious community holds as a whole, but I do not submit to groupthink.

I'm not ignoring the other side of the coin at all, so don't presume that somehow you know me. My grandfather was a pastor, and he was hardly an exclusionary person in principle; but his religion was, on some level.

So then what grounds do you have for rejecting religious beliefs based on religious behavior? If the two are not always correlated, and Jesus was wrong that "by their fruits you shall know them," then why does it make a jot of difference what history has to say about religious institutions? I believe in God and call myself a Quaker, but have no personal investment in hateful ideas. You may not be ignoring the other side of the coin, but you seem to be ignoring that it *is* one and the same coin.

Then you can't reject ANYTHING, because there is no possible way for any one individual to be even passively familiar with every facet of knowledge available to us.

I didn't say I demanded perfection; but I said I had a higher standard of evidence then you (seem) to be holding your assertions to (I want to be careful here; I don't know what's in your head, I am only trying to point out what I see wrong with your arguments.) Yes, there is such a thing as induction. What valid reason do you have for inducing all religious beliefs from those you are personally aware of? I think you are making quite illegitimate generalizations.

To address the immediate issue: there are too many religions on this planet for any one person to become passively familiar with them all (unless you mean "I can name them" by "passive," in which case...if all you can do is name them, then the argument falls apart anyway).

By "passive" I was thinking of the atheists who don't actively believe the statement "there is no God," but simply lack a positive belief in God. Naturally, I think this is totally valid. But when you switch from this to claiming the nonexistence of God, you have to be able to say what God it is does not exist. Otherwise, you are saying nothing at all. That is my assertion. And so, you still haven't answered my question. What/Who is it exactly that you don't believe in?

And yes, you can reject religious ideals you haven't heard of if you don't subscribe to any version of supernatural communion with beings you don't believe exist.

Okay, so now you're a little bit more specific. "Supernatural communion." That is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ask you to describe your nonbelief. But I would point out that not all "God"s are thought of as supernatural. A number of religions believe in a God who is immanent in the natural world. Would you reject these conceptions also?

Contrary to religious belief, exposing people to religion doesn't suddenly make them religious.

I agree. I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion?

Yes, they don't believe in God. I never denied that. I was simply saying that the definition you were using was incorrect, and it continues to be so.

Here is the way I think of it: definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." A word is a bit of noise which means whatever a person or group of people use it to mean. However, when two people don't use a word the same way, but assume that they are, they aren't having a conversation. They're having a drawn-out miscommunication session. And criticizing someone else's definition, especially when they are not trying to prove anything using that definition, can be a lot like claiming that any statement made in French is false because French is not your first language.

It's hardly stepping over the line. Your argument is sort of like saying that we should define all belief systems by anyone who claims to be a part of it, even if those people represent something far removed from the original message. That's like saying that Muslims who denounce suicide bombers are somehow overstepping their bounds because, hey, it's just their private definition of what it means to be Muslim, right? That's B.S. Sometimes people are just plain wrong.

That is different. You don't have to endorse what someone believes or how they behave to admit that they have a right to call themselves something, even if you use that word differently.

An atheist is someone who is not a theist. A-theist. If you don't believe in a God, you are not a theist. This is maybe not the only definition, but it is not so out there that you could call it absolutely wrong.

Anyway, I'm getting weary of all of these fine points which are largely superficial. They're superficial because there is only ONE point I'm trying to make in all of these arguments. A definition is not "right" or "wrong", but it is certainly appropriate or inappropriate DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT. In particular, two people who define a word in significantly different ways will not be able to communicate well using that word. They will get caught in semantic tangles instead of actually making claims and disclaims about the facts of the matter.

HUMANS act irrationally. It has nothing to do with one's faith or lack thereof. But there are things that are part of the rational and part of the irrational. God is not part of the rational, no matter how hard anyone wants him/her/it to be.

The alternative to rational is not irrational. There are things which are not in the domain of the rational that I would not call "irrational." "Irrational" has many negative connotations including that is contrary to rationality or inferior to it. Belief in God may not be "rational" but it is not necessarily "irrational" as in senseless, wrongheaded, or blind. That is a false dichotomy.

Yes, because Racism is completely disentangled from religion. Try again.

It is not fundamentally tangled with religion. People will find just about any excuse to hate one another; it is just a matter of finding a flag to march under. In that regard, whatever distinction, religion, race, gender, is more of a front than anything else.

You're mincing words, and doing it very poorly. Those figures were not themselves slaughterhouses, but they have been used as vehicles for slaughter. Totally different things.

So then why do you keep throwing out babies with bathwater?

Did you bother to look up the word "institution?" I wasn't being abstract about it. The definition pretty much says what I meant in terms of its relationship to race. And it's hardly absurd. I also never said you can't experience God outside of church or outside of the religion itself. You're putting words in my mouth. I said you can't define religious belief without immediately talking in terms of the institution of religion. It's the same problem you have when talking about race; you can't disentangle the discussion from the institution.

What is the "institution" of race and why can't a black guy be described without referring to it?

Except, it does prove it, since you've yet to provide any counterexamples. Stop trying to play off like you're all high and mighty because you can't come up with anything that refutes my argument. It would be understandable if I didn't have a leg to stand on. That's not the case. So, either come up with something that complicates my argument to the point where I have to back peddle or continue playing this came.

That isn't the way it works. A sample doesn't prove the general rule, even if you don't know of any exceptions. And I have given you counterexamples, again and again.

Why did you describe the black man as having skin lighter than a Caucasian's? That, in and of itself, refers directly to the institution of race--the fact that you immediately referenced his skin color in relation to the color of another (and used the official name of "White").

Heck, I could have compared it to coffee or tree bark or dirt or what have you. I could have given you an RGB or HSV value or shown you a picture of him or given you a long list of A's, T's, G's and C's. Even if I do compare skins, I'd like you to explain how skin color is an "institution." Yes, I did look it up. And it still doesn't make sense. An individual can have skin; it doesn't take a society.

[Shaun]

Says who? I for one believe in universal salvation, as does "my religion." I don't think it's okay to cast anyone aside for any reason, especially for reasons pretending nobility. It is because religions tend to clump into institutions that people get in silly arguments about which package deal they accept or reject. I don't even think the question worth my while; I'm not looking for a dogma or list of beliefs that I assent to. I thus resent any claim made about what "my religion" teaches. I submit to many ideas that my religious community holds as a whole, but I do not submit to groupthink.

So, if I murder six million people, in your religion I still go to heaven? So what exactly is the point, in your religion, of following any rules whatsoever?

And whether or not you personally subscribe to what your community thinks is irrelevant. The institution is exclusive; you may not be. That's the difference between religion and religious belief. One is in stasis, the other is mutable.

So then what grounds do you have for rejecting religious beliefs based on religious behavior? If the two are not always correlated, and Jesus was wrong that "by their fruits you shall know them," then why does it make a jot of difference what history has to say about religious institutions? I believe in God and call myself a Quaker, but have no personal investment in hateful ideas. You may not be ignoring the other side of the coin, but you seem to be ignoring that it *is* one and the same coin.

I reject religious belief because I don't believe in it. I criticize religion (as an institution) because it deserves to be criticized just as much as anything else; the result is that I reject such religions for what they do wrong (if you're a part of it, you get rejected; that's just the name of the game). Does that answer your question?

I didn't say I demanded perfection; but I said I had a higher standard of evidence then you (seem) to be holding your assertions to (I want to be careful here; I don't know what's in your head, I am only trying to point out what I see wrong with your arguments.) Yes, there is such a thing as induction. What valid reason do you have for inducing all religious beliefs from those you are personally aware of? I think you are making quite illegitimate generalizations.

By that logic, all generalizations are illegitimate. Think of this in terms of statistics. Sometimes there are outliers; they become exceptions to the rule, not gamebreakers. But, good statistical analysis involves a good sample size, a measurable amount of evidence, and a strong, reliable assertion for a general populace. I'm still waiting for you to point out a religion that has not been part and parcel in the overall damage religion (institutional) has done to the world. If there's something that refutes my statements, then give it to me.

By "passive" I was thinking of the atheists who don't actively believe the statement "there is no God," but simply lack a positive belief in God. Naturally, I think this is totally valid. But when you switch from this to claiming the nonexistence of God, you have to be able to say what God it is does not exist. Otherwise, you are saying nothing at all. That is my assertion. And so, you still haven't answered my question. What/Who is it exactly that you don't believe in?

Passive atheists are really just agnostics. And the rest is just you repeating yourself. Atheists use blanket statements like that to refer to all forms of religious deities; otherwise, the sentence would be too long. I don't believe in any gods, goddesses, God, or other mystical beings whatsoever. Most atheists believe this as well, but say something simple and easy to understand (which is fair to use since the biggest atheist communities happen to exist in Christian nations). But we've been through this.

Okay, so now you're a little bit more specific. "Supernatural communion." That is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ask you to describe your nonbelief. But I would point out that not all "God"s are thought of as supernatural. A number of religions believe in a God who is immanent in the natural world. Would you reject these conceptions also?

What the religions believe God to be is irrelevant. God is outside of the rational, and therefore is in line with the supernatural. Doesn't matter if a number of religions see him/her/it as part of the natural world...that assumes those religions can rationalize (i.e. through evidence) the existence of that God or whatever. They can't. Religious people say a lot of things (the Earth is 6,000 years old, for example); doesn't mean any of it is suddenly true. If God is natural; prove it.

Here is the way I think of it: definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." A word is a bit of noise which means whatever a person or group of people use it to mean. However, when two people don't use a word the same way, but assume that they are, they aren't having a conversation. They're having a drawn-out miscommunication session. And criticizing someone else's definition, especially when they are not trying to prove anything using that definition, can be a lot like claiming that any statement made in French is false because French is not your first language.

The French would find this whole discussion rather offensive, particularly because they place so much value into the words they've spent centuries developing for their language.

An atheist is someone who is not a theist. A-theist. If you don't believe in a God, you are not a theist. This is maybe not the only definition, but it is not so out there that you could call it absolutely wrong.

No, in principle it's correct, but the problem with the original term is that it would place a lot of people in that category who really don't belong there (particularly people who may not believe in God, but certainly believe in other supernatural and religious elements). But, to be fair, that's not exactly something that is made clear in how we learn about atheists or those who would otherwise be lumped in that category (and don't belong there). So, while the etymology of the term seems clear, the community itself and the complexities of culture have made this a difficult term to use.

Anyway, I'm getting weary of all of these fine points which are largely superficial. They're superficial because there is only ONE point I'm trying to make in all of these arguments. A definition is not "right" or "wrong", but it is certainly appropriate or inappropriate DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT. In particular, two people who define a word in significantly different ways will not be able to communicate well using that word. They will get caught in semantic tangles instead of actually making claims and disclaims about the facts of the matter.

You say this as if semantics are somehow not as valuable as the discussion one might have been having before the tangling began. Again, I think the French would find that very offensive :P (well, mostly French theorists, who have a jolly time arguing semantics to great effect).

The alternative to rational is not irrational. There are things which are not in the domain of the rational that I would not call "irrational." "Irrational" has many negative connotations including that is contrary to rationality or inferior to it. Belief in God may not be "rational" but it is not necessarily "irrational" as in senseless, wrongheaded, or blind. That is a false dichotomy.

The negative connotations are attached by you, not me. It's certainly not a false dichotomy in terms of what the rational represents. But, if you prefer, you can trade the word "irrational" for something more fitting to your tastes. Either way, religion is not a rational construct (or religious belief, for that matter). It is founded on irrational conceptions of reality (meaning things that cannot be founded within the rational--science, etc.). If you want to attach the negatives to it, go ahead, but that's your choice, not mine. I prefer to stick with what the term "irrational" means: not consistent with or using reason.

It is not fundamentally tangled with religion. People will find just about any excuse to hate one another; it is just a matter of finding a flag to march under. In that regard, whatever distinction, religion, race, gender, is more of a front than anything else.

Learn your history and come back to me on this.

So then why do you keep throwing out babies with bathwater?

Since I have no idea what this analogy means (never heard of it before), care to clarify?

What is the "institution" of race and why can't a black guy be described without referring to it?

I'm going to refer to the above. I don't have time for a history lesson. It would take me hours to give you an adequate enough lecture to make this understand. Go do some reading. It should become fairly obvious. The short answer is: thousands of years of racism justified and maintained by various forms of authority which have, effectively, turned all discussions of race into discussions about everything that preceded that moment. Right now, the fact that you can't see why referring to a "black guy" isn't also referring the institution that makes him black tells me you haven't learned that stuff yet. And I'm not saying "go learn your history" to be mean here; there are entire volumes of theory and history that go into explaining this problem, and trying to reduce them to something of a reasonable length here, without confusing the hell out of you (or me) is probably impossible.

That isn't the way it works. A sample doesn't prove the general rule, even if you don't know of any exceptions. And I have given you counterexamples, again and again.

Again, the logic here doesn't function. If the general rule I'm proposing is wrong, then you'd be able to provide logical, irrefutable examples to the contrary. But, your counterexamples have all been wrong and thus far what I've said actually holds up.

Heck, I could have compared it to coffee or tree bark or dirt or what have you. I could have given you an RGB or HSV value or shown you a picture of him or given you a long list of A's, T's, G's and C's. Even if I do compare skins, I'd like you to explain how skin color is an "institution." Yes, I did look it up. And it still doesn't make sense. An individual can have skin; it doesn't take a society.

You're still not getting it though. The fact is you're THINKING about how to describe a person's SKIN. You're not describing, perhaps, the build of the black man. You're not describing his personality, his eye color, the shape of his legs, or the way he smiles. You're describing his SKIN COLOR. And in doing so, you're always commenting upon the institution of race, always already thinking in terms of race, even if you use analogies like the above (many of which have additional racial connotations when you think about what they could be misconstrued to represent). The fact that you're still talking in terms of race pretty much means you're as much a part of the institution of race as everyone else (yes, even I am part of it).

This might help a little: http://mysociologicalimagination.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/what-is-race/

It misses almost ALL of the history that made the institution of race, but it does comment upon its present condition and how the institution of race continues to affect society today.

[nagarjuna]

So, if I murder six million people, in your religion I still go to heaven? So what exactly is the point, in your religion, of following any rules whatsoever?

I believe that you would eventually "go to heaven" (although I don't think heaven is a place that you go to so much as a state of being you are in or not in), although it make take a long time, even multiple lifetimes (however that works; I don't know what happens after death.) The kind of person capable of murdering six million people would not be in heaven, so the person would have to change quite a bit first in their heart. Call this exclusive if you want, but the fact remains that I don't believe God turns his back permanently on anyone, and neither should we human beings.

And whether or not you personally subscribe to what your community thinks is irrelevant. The institution is exclusive; you may not be. That's the difference between religion and religious belief. One is in stasis, the other is mutable.

No, actually, the FGC is not exclusive.

I reject religious belief because I don't believe in it. I criticize religion (as an institution) because it deserves to be criticized just as much as anything else; the result is that I reject such religions for what they do wrong (if you're a part of it, you get rejected; that's just the name of the game). Does that answer your question?

By this logic everyone deserves to be "rejected" because everyone is involved some way or another in an institution guilty of highly immoral actions. You are treating religious belief, and inclusion in a religious community, as a package deal. You can believe some ideas from religion and reject others. It is not my fault if other Christians, Quakers, or theists do something naughty. That they believe, or say they believe, some of the same things I do, has nothing to do with my complicity in their actions. If I myself abuse or persecute someone in the name of my religion, that's on me. If I do not, and if I give appropriate attention to and refusal of actions I consider wrong, and make clear that I do not align myself with them, I am not in the least bit guilty of them. As for religious belief itself, the only valid reason to reject it is if you think it is factually wrong; as far as the truth of religious ideas, how people behave is just not relevant. As per your statement above you don't seem to be making that mistake. But you are still, to my mind, making some things out to be packaged together which really are not.

By that logic, all generalizations are illegitimate. Think of this in terms of statistics. Sometimes there are outliers; they become exceptions to the rule, not gamebreakers. But, good statistical analysis involves a good sample size, a measurable amount of evidence, and a strong, reliable assertion for a general populace. I'm still waiting for you to point out a religion that has not been part and parcel in the overall damage religion (institutional) has done to the world. If there's something that refutes my statements, then give it to me.

If by religion you mean a highly macroscopic conglomerate like Hinduism or Christianity, then yes, you're absolutely right. But "religion" is not bunched together this way. There's no reason that each Christian is responsible even ideologically for the actions of another Christian any more than Christians are responsible for the actions of followers of closely related religions like Islam. I believe in evolution even though it has been used in the past to falsely justify racism, eugenics, and other such things. That doesn't make me "part and parcel" of those abuses.

What the religions believe God to be is irrelevant. God is outside of the rational, and therefore is in line with the supernatural. Doesn't matter if a number of religions see him/her/it as part of the natural world...that assumes those religions can rationalize (i.e. through evidence) the existence of that God or whatever. They can't. Religious people say a lot of things (the Earth is 6,000 years old, for example); doesn't mean any of it is suddenly true. If God is natural; prove it.

So you can prove everything you believe? You must not believe very much; nobody has time to rigorously support all of their personal beliefs with statistical evidence or what have you. In the case of God and other "mystical beings," because the ideas are so incredibly abstract, "proof" takes on a different meaning. Believers often do have lines of reasoning and evidence that lead them to believe in a deity. Whether they can convince others or not makes no difference; they are convinced that for them it is most reasonable and likely that God exists (and yes, I am extremely wary of believers who are dead certain of their assertions; that rings false and seems pretty forced and desperate.)

The French would find this whole discussion rather offensive, particularly because they place so much value into the words they've spent centuries developing for their language.

I'm not denying that words are important, and they can certainly be beautiful and highly useful. But it remains that the specific word we use and the meaning attached to it are completely arbitrary. Except in some cases of onomatopeia and sound symbolism, there is nothing in the word itself having anything to do with its meaning; it's just a piece of sound that turned out by a fluke of history to mean what it did. It may be a nice phant'sy to imagine that words in practice always line up with their sanitized dictionary definitions, but it just ain't so. The way people use words is diverse, imprecise, and mutable. And that's actually totally okay; as long as in the scope of a single discussion people understand how those words are being used, and thus are able to communicate clearly and more or less unambiguously, then restricting yourself to the dogma of what a word's "correct definition" is is counterproductive. Don't get me wrong; having such a single generalized definition is quite useful, and if we had to define every single one of our terms in every informal discussion, we would never get to actually saying anything. Nonetheless, it often becomes clear that this is not the way the word is being used, and then it is necessary to clear up, without dogmatizing things, what the local definition of that word is.

No, in principle it's correct, but the problem with the original term is that it would place a lot of people in that category who really don't belong there (particularly people who may not believe in God, but certainly believe in other supernatural and religious elements).

So then who's to say that those people "don't belong there"? I here Buddhism, for example, referred to as "non-theistic" all over the place. Your definition is kind of circular, because the support for saying "they don't belong there" is that atheism is already (supposedly) defined such that they don't.

But, to be fair, that's not exactly something that is made clear in how we learn about atheists or those who would otherwise be lumped in that category (and don't belong there). So, while the etymology of the term seems clear, the community itself and the complexities of culture have made this a difficult term to use.

True. That's why it's necessary to clarify. But I now understand what you mean by "atheist," and I'm pretty confident you understand what I mean by it. So why are we still arguing about the definition? Definitions are for communicating. If you can communicate, the definition(s) has succeeded. Everybody wins! Whereas, with a single rigid standard, only the handful of people who use it that way "win."

You say this as if semantics are somehow not as valuable as the discussion one might have been having before the tangling began. Again, I think the French would find that very offensive :P (well, mostly French theorists, who have a jolly time arguing semantics to great effect).

Hm, well, you know, I can't speak for them, but the French may well be offended. That's just too bad.

The negative connotations are attached by you, not me. It's certainly not a false dichotomy in terms of what the rational represents. But, if you prefer, you can trade the word "irrational" for something more fitting to your tastes. Either way, religion is not a rational construct (or religious belief, for that matter). It is founded on irrational conceptions of reality (meaning things that cannot be founded within the rational--science, etc.). If you want to attach the negatives to it, go ahead, but that's your choice, not mine. I prefer to stick with what the term "irrational" means: not consistent with or using reason.

If you admit that it is a false dichotomy, then why are you ruling out the irrational (as you use the term) when it comes to your own beliefs? If you remove the negative connotations, what is still disqualifying about the irrational? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really am asking for clarification. (I know that this discussion has become heated, but my purpose is to understand you as well as I can, and to make myself understood as well as I can. I honestly don't care if you change your mind, and if you conclude that I'm a dimwit then it's your loss, not mine. :P)

Since I have no idea what this analogy means (never heard of it before), care to clarify?

"Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" means rejecting one thing because you also reject another thing to which you believe that the first is attached, when in reality they are not packaged together and you can accept one while rejecting the other. In other words, making a false generalization. But I'm also accusing you of murdering infants :mad:.

Again, the logic here doesn't function. If the general rule I'm proposing is wrong, then you'd be able to provide logical, irrefutable examples to the contrary. But, your counterexamples have all been wrong and thus far what I've said actually holds up.

Heard of burden of proof? You're the one who has to prove your assertion; until you do, it is up in the air, even if I don't offer a proof to the contrary. Assertions are not true until proven guilty. Thus the onus is yours to demonstrate why your generalizations from a few examples to the general case is valid, 'cause I'm not convinced.

You're still not getting it though. The fact is you're THINKING about how to describe a person's SKIN. You're not describing, perhaps, the build of the black man. You're not describing his personality, his eye color, the shape of his legs, or the way he smiles. You're describing his SKIN COLOR. And in doing so, you're always commenting upon the institution of race, always already thinking in terms of race, even if you use analogies like the above (many of which have additional racial connotations when you think about what they could be misconstrued to represent). The fact that you're still talking in terms of race pretty much means you're as much a part of the institution of race as everyone else (yes, even I am part of it).

Alright, you got me. But then you set me up for it. "Describe a black guy." And naturally, the response is "he's black." So you got what you asked for, which happens to be related to an "institution of race." I concede that. But to salvage this derailed aspect of the conversation, what does this have to do with religion? The analogy I can think of is if you had asked "describe a Christian" and I had given you a number of descriptions, all related to religious affiliation, which I grant is also an institution of sorts, while omitting other details. That's fine, but the step I don't agree with is that being affiliated with an institution makes you part and parcel of and complicit in everything that institution does. That isn't true. Christianity isn't just one monolithic institutions, it's scads of them loosely congregated together around a vague idea of one God and a man Jesus who is historically and spiritually significant. But such non-specific ideas are ALL that Christians need share. It doesn't mean that you must believe gays are bound for eternal torment or that you have acted to oppose legislation in favorite of LGBT people, etc. One Christian is not necessarily complicit in the beliefs, positions, attitudes, history, or good or bad behavior of another Christian, period. Baby, bathwater. Please tell me why you think this is not so.

[Shaun]

I believe that you would eventually "go to heaven" (although I don't think heaven is a place that you go to so much as a state of being you are in or not in), although it make take a long time, even multiple lifetimes (however that works; I don't know what happens after death.) The kind of person capable of murdering six million people would not be in heaven, so the person would have to change quite a bit first in their heart. Call this exclusive if you want, but the fact remains that I don't believe God turns his back permanently on anyone, and neither should we human beings.

No, actually, the FGC is not exclusive.

That's exclusive, since someone still has to earn salvation. Not everyone goes to the happy place. And I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing. Exclusion works positively too (I wouldn't want Hitler in heaven either), but it's still a religion that operates on exclusion, no matter how it tries to spin itself. Someone is always being excluded.

By this logic everyone deserves to be "rejected" because everyone is involved some way or another in an institution guilty of highly immoral actions. You are treating religious belief, and inclusion in a religious community, as a package deal. You can believe some ideas from religion and reject others. It is not my fault if other Christians, Quakers, or theists do something naughty. That they believe, or say they believe, some of the same things I do, has nothing to do with my complicity in their actions. If I myself abuse or persecute someone in the name of my religion, that's on me. If I do not, and if I give appropriate attention to and refusal of actions I consider wrong, and make clear that I do not align myself with them, I am not in the least bit guilty of them. As for religious belief itself, the only valid reason to reject it is if you think it is factually wrong; as far as the truth of religious ideas, how people behave is just not relevant. As per your statement above you don't seem to be making that mistake. But you are still, to my mind, making some things out to be packaged together which really are not.

It seems to me that you're admitting to subscribing to religious institutions even if they do things wrong, and somehow believe that doesn't make you complicit in the actions of that institution. That's almost like saying "well, I wasn't against segregation, but I didn't do anything about it either." While it's not your fault that others believe some crazy things within your particular version of Christianity (assuming there are crazy things), continuing to subscribe to that religious community makes you complicit in their actions.

That said, I don't make the mistake of rejecting religious institutions as a whole. You can reject the institutions, but not the people. I simply don't understand the purpose in continuing to support institutions that continue to be responsible for the worst qualities of humanity. You can be religious without the institution. Sadly, humanity likes groups.

If by religion you mean a highly macroscopic conglomerate like Hinduism or Christianity, then yes, you're absolutely right. But "religion" is not bunched together this way. There's no reason that each Christian is responsible even ideologically for the actions of another Christian any more than Christians are responsible for the actions of followers of closely related religions like Islam. I believe in evolution even though it has been used in the past to falsely justify racism, eugenics, and other such things. That doesn't make me "part and parcel" of those abuses.

Individuals may not be responsible, but that is irrelevant. There were individuals who didn't partake in slavery. That's not the point. The INSTITUTIONS are responsible (made up of people, yes). Hinduism as equally as Christianity as equally as Islam as equally as etc. When I talk about religion, I am talking about the institution, not the individual. Even science (as an institutional form) has been misused, abused, etc. It happens, and it sucks.

So you can prove everything you believe? You must not believe very much; nobody has time to rigorously support all of their personal beliefs with statistical evidence or what have you. In the case of God and other "mystical beings," because the ideas are so incredibly abstract, "proof" takes on a different meaning. Believers often do have lines of reasoning and evidence that lead them to believe in a deity. Whether they can convince others or not makes no difference; they are convinced that for them it is most reasonable and likely that God exists (and yes, I am extremely wary of believers who are dead certain of their assertions; that rings false and seems pretty forced and desperate.)

No, I can't prove everything I believe, but I don't pretend that what I can't prove is somehow rational.

Schizophrenics have "lines of reasoning" too; doesn't make them rational.

So then who's to say that those people "don't belong there"? I here Buddhism, for example, referred to as "non-theistic" all over the place. Your definition is kind of circular, because the support for saying "they don't belong there" is that atheism is already (supposedly) defined such that they don't.

Atheism is generally defined that way, particularly today. Atheists have really become very much proponents of a rational natural world. They tend to reject anything that is inherently irrational (i.e. can't be proven by science). I don't make the rules; I just follow them. :P

Hm, well, you know, I can't speak for them, but the French may well be offended. That's just too bad.

And unfortunately, we're all going to regret it when they invade America and turn every street corner in a seedy French cafe...

If you admit that it is a false dichotomy, then why are you ruling out the irrational (as you use the term) when it comes to your own beliefs? If you remove the negative connotations, what is still disqualifying about the irrational? This isn't a rhetorical question, I really am asking for clarification. (I know that this discussion has become heated, but my purpose is to understand you as well as I can, and to make myself understood as well as I can. I honestly don't care if you change your mind, and if you conclude that I'm a dimwit then it's your loss, not mine. :P)

I don't admit that it is a false dichotomy. I only admit that the word can be exchanged if it makes you feel better :P. I also don't rule out the irrational in my own beliefs. I said earlier in this post that I have such things. I just don't fool myself that they are anything but, and I'm okay with that. Like I said, I have supernatural beliefs too (mostly to keep things interesting).

What is disqualifying about the irrational (without the negative) is that you cannot use it as the basis for policy and education. I am firmly dead set against teaching religion or religious ideals in school precisely because it is a BELIEF system, not a rational system. Such things just don't belong in places that are supposed to be teaching the rational

"Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" means rejecting one thing because you also reject another thing to which you believe that the first is attached, when in reality they are not packaged together and you can accept one while rejecting the other. In other words, making a false generalization. But I'm also accusing you of murdering infants :mad:.

Okay, now put it back in context for me, because I don't remember what you were referring to :P. I've just never heard that saying before. It's a humorous image, though.

Heard of burden of proof? You're the one who has to prove your assertion; until you do, it is up in the air, even if I don't offer a proof to the contrary. Assertions are not true until proven guilty. Thus the onus is yours to demonstrate why your generalizations from a few examples to the general case is valid, 'cause I'm not convinced.

This seems to be more a problem of changing your personal opinion than meeting my burden of proof. We're going in circles though. You don't buy my argument (that's fine), but you also can't offer appropriate counterarguments (that's fine too), and now you're saying "well, even though I can't break your argument, I'm going to say you haven't met the burden of proof yet." It's kind of like saying someone looked at Newton and went "Yeah, so the apple always comes down. I still don't believe in gravity. Give me more evidence." Which he probably did, but didn't have to, since the general rule was correct.

Alright, you got me. But then you set me up for it. "Describe a black guy." And naturally, the response is "he's black." So you got what you asked for, which happens to be related to an "institution of race." I concede that. But to salvage this derailed aspect of the conversation, what does this have to do with religion? The analogy I can think of is if you had asked "describe a Christian" and I had given you a number of descriptions, all related to religious affiliation, which I grant is also an institution of sorts, while omitting other details. That's fine, but the step I don't agree with is that being affiliated with an institution makes you part and parcel of and complicit in everything that institution does. That isn't true. Christianity isn't just one monolithic institutions, it's scads of them loosely congregated together around a vague idea of one God and a man Jesus who is historically and spiritually significant. But such non-specific ideas are ALL that Christians need share. It doesn't mean that you must believe gays are bound for eternal torment or that you have acted to oppose legislation in favorite of LGBT people, etc. One Christian is not necessarily complicit in the beliefs, positions, attitudes, history, or good or bad behavior of another Christian, period. Baby, bathwater. Please tell me why you think this is not so.

The Nazis believed the same thing. "Well, I didn't do all that Jew killing, but I didn't do or say anything about it. So I'm not complicit." Being a part of an institution that, historically, has a history of "violence" against mankind is being complicit in its crimes. That's not to say your particular Christian sect did those crimes (I don't know the history of it, for one), but if it had a hand in it at some point (and it probably does, because it's a religious institution, and they all do at some point or another, even if they don't think they do), and you continue to support it by subscribing to it, by attending its events or simply saying "I am a part of that," then you are complicit in anything it does, even if you personally never get your hands dirty. You are, to use an analogy, the guy who stands by watching as someone else is murdered. You could do something (maybe leave that institution), but you don't. The result? You're an accessory to the "murder" (whatever that murder may be: colonialism, missionary work, exclusion (bad), racism, sexism, homophobia, hate (in other forms), and the list goes on).

[nagarjuna]

That's exclusive, since someone still has to earn salvation. Not everyone goes to the happy place.

1. No, they do not have to earn it. I believe in salvation by grace. Not by works; not even by faith (although by grace they will come to have faith.)
2. Yes, everyone does "go the happy place." That is what universal salvation/restoration means.

And I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad thing. Exclusion works positively too (I wouldn't want Hitler in heaven either), but it's still a religion that operates on exclusion, no matter how it tries to spin itself. Someone is always being excluded.

If it's not a bad thing, and if there exists a religion or institution which is exclusive (exclusively) in good ways, then your original point (which I've practically forgotten, we're going on so long O_o) is undermined.

It seems to me that you're admitting to subscribing to religious institutions even if they do things wrong, and somehow believe that doesn't make you complicit in the actions of that institution.

I don't subscribe to any institutions. That's the point. Because it is impossible not to in our society, I am involved in or participate in various institutions in various ways. But I am also vocal and adamant about what I oppose in these institutions. Go ahead and accuse me of picking and choosing, because that is absolutely what I do. I am also not saying that I am 100% innocent. Of course I'm not; nobody is. But that is not by virtue of anyone's actions or beliefs other than my own (where "my own" does still include actions of others which I *directly* support in some way.)

That's almost like saying "well, I wasn't against segregation, but I didn't do anything about it either." While it's not your fault that others believe some crazy things within your particular version of Christianity (assuming there are crazy things), continuing to subscribe to that religious community makes you complicit in their actions.

Which is why I don't subscribe to Christianity. If I did, others would project onto me things that I emphatically do not believe, and likely construe me to be in support of things I am not in support of. But your argument is still flawed. Choosing to "subscribe" to humanity by labeling myself a homo sapiens does not make me complicit in the actions of misbehaving human beings, even if said humans are relatively representative (that is, the statistical average.) A GROUP of people is not a person and not a moral agent. Only people do. The only example I can think of belonging to a group as conferring direct reponsibility on one of its members OUTSIDE OF that individuals' personal actions or beliefs is if being a member of that institution, for whatever reason (like a gang initiation) automatically implies you have done something wrong. Moral responsibility does not "bleed" between members of a group.

Sadly, humanity likes groups.

Why is that sad? We are social animals. We draw a lot of great benefits from living in community, even if there are major drawbacks also. We are not totally isolated individuals and should not try to be (unless you are trapped alone on a desert island.) The major caveat is that we should belong to groups while also maintaining a sense of responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors. This IS possible, even if your neighbors or even the whole rest of your neighborhood are acting irresponsibly.

Individuals may not be responsible, but that is irrelevant. There were individuals who didn't partake in slavery. That's not the point. The INSTITUTIONS are responsible (made up of people, yes).

See above; institutions are not moral agents.

Hinduism as equally as Christianity as equally as Islam as equally as etc. When I talk about religion, I am talking about the institution, not the individual. Even science (as an institutional form) has been misused, abused, etc. It happens, and it sucks.

Agreed. In fact, I'm thinking I misunderstood you, and wonder a bit what we're still disagreeing about. :rolleyes: I suppose we continue to disagree about what constitutes "subscribing" to an institution in terms of being complicit in negative actions associated with that institution. I would say that, since an institution itself (that is, apart from any individuals or groups thereof) is not a moral agent. So I say that to be complicit, the individual has to do or say something which contributes support to (or does not appropriately oppose) the bad actions. Basically, a teleological viewpoint. Claiming publicly to be a member of that institution may or may not do this; it depends on the situation. If being a member of the institution automatically implies that you have done or will do bad things, then obviously you are guilty. Or, for example, if you pay dues or tithes to an organization which uses that money in a harmful way, you are somewhat complicit (in the case of taxes where you could get thrown in prison if you don't pay, it's slightly more blurry.)

No, I can't prove everything I believe, but I don't pretend that what I can't prove is somehow rational.

Of course not; that's my point. Reasonable maybe, rational not.

Schizophrenics have "lines of reasoning" too; doesn't make them rational.

Sure, but they believe they are being rational. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also believe and disbelieve what you do concerning God(s) because you believe it to be good reasoning. Many people believe things for other reasons, such as wishful thinking, but are not being intellectually honest. In other words, a sane, honest, intelligent person can believe in God.

And unfortunately, we're all going to regret it when they invade America and turn every street corner in a seedy French cafe...

Zut alors!

Like I said, I have supernatural beliefs too (mostly to keep things interesting).

Which strikes me as irrational in the bad sense. I tend to believe things because I think they're true, interesting or not. (As it happens, truth is often quite fascinating.)

What is disqualifying about the irrational (without the negative) is that you cannot use it as the basis for policy and education.

That's true if you mean public policy. But what about personal policies? They didn't give me a constitution when I was born, and I don't have to compartmentalize myself into secular and spiritual the way government does.

I am firmly dead set against teaching religion or religious ideals in school precisely because it is a BELIEF system, not a rational system. Such things just don't belong in places that are supposed to be teaching the rational

I'm totally with you if you mean things like teaching Young Earth creationism in science class, or the importance of chastity in sex ed class. Of course, you could teach about religion in, say, a comparative religions class, as long as it stays objective.

Okay, now put it back in context for me, because I don't remember what you were referring to :P. I've just never heard that saying before. It's a humorous image, though.

I think I misinterpreted you as saying that religion is all bad because religious institutions are all bad. I have been happy to find as this conversation goes along that our opinions are not as irreconcilable as I thought.

Being a part of an institution that, historically, has a history of "violence" against mankind is being complicit in its crimes.

So you believe in original sin? :rolleyes:

That's not to say your particular Christian sect

Which Quakerism is not, but let's stick to the subject.

did those crimes (I don't know the history of it, for one), but if it had a hand in it at some point (and it probably does, because it's a religious institution, and they all do at some point or another, even if they don't think they do), and you continue to support it by subscribing to it, by attending its events or simply saying "I am a part of that," then you are complicit in anything it does, even if you per