Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

According to who? And what says that it wasn't "god" who cuased the event using natural means?

According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

So thats not evidence of anything other than many different people having different opinions and perspectives and has zero to do with weather or not a god or gods exists

No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

If your refering to Genisis and the Tale of Giglimesh

No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

the flood tale in one form or another is pretty much an allmost world wide ppenomena

Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

And your leaving out all the eyewitness testemonies

No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands.

like Paul in the Bible

Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Additonally there are Biblical scholars and scientiests who would flat out say your wrong and that many such things have been found

Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ.

billions of people world wide feel compelled to believe them.

So if billions of people believe them they must be true? How about only one billion? Would that make something true? Well, according to this site there are about 1.1 billion "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" people. I guess we have enough numbers to satisfy your requirements?

The numbers of people who may or may not believe something is irrelevant to the truth of that belief. How many people actually believed the Second Coming was going to happen last month? Didn't happen. How many people still claim to believe the world will end in 2012 because of the Mayan Calendar? Doesn't mean it's true.

So what makes you any defferent from a thesist...what makes your opinion the only right one?

I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

[denuseri]

According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

Science? What science has proved god doesnt exist? Hummm? I didnt think so. Sounds like your using just as much wishful thinking as any thesist. My point is...your making an assumption too and one that has no more basis in fact than anyone elses in so far as the topic is conserned.


No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

Its not compelling to the thiests now is it. Again...its a matter of opinion...not fact.


No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.


Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

That doesnt mean it didnt happen in so far as the thiests are conserned...and you have no evidence to say it didnt happen anyways.


No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. (to you) To the thiests they are all the evidence they need apparently. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands. Many scholars on this subject disagree with your interpetation of their findings however.


Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Again...thats a matter of opinion...and not part of written history...its your belief...but not the belief of the theists. And its no more valid than theirs eaither.


Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ. Again...when you pick and choose your evidence as you see fit without bothering to really see if there is any validity too it and exclude all evidence that supports the theists...you take much on faith...your faith apparently mainly lays with those who hate religion, any religion, becuase it isnt atheism.


So if billions of people believe them they must be true?


I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.

And yet again more insults.

I didnt say anything about true or that one had to have a certian number of people who share their beliefs...just that people should be allowed to believe what they wish on the matter since no proof exists to the contrary. If I bring up numbers its to simply point out that the "atheists" are not in the majority...you lumped a whole bunch of people who are not "atheists" into the same pice of the pie chart in an attempt to bolster your sides appeareance.

When you make use of sophistry and avoid all logic and continue to take at position full of belicose rehtoric thats no different from the religious zealotry you claim to be against you look exactly like the opposite side of the same fundamentalist coin from my perspective.

And when you call everyone who doesnt share your beliefs hoodwinked, or a dummy...you sure are not preaching tolerance or secularism...you are indeed saying if its not your way...its wrong.

[Thorne]

Well, denuseri, as usual we are running around in circles here. I ask you for evidence that gods exist and you give me nothing but pleas for respect. When I show you evidence which conflicts with religious belief you deny it, in favor of belief. And you want me to show evidence that something does NOT exist, without you providing evidence that it does!

Well, lets try this, then. I believe there is an invisible pink unicorn living in your living room. You can't see it, feel it or touch it. You can't smell it or hear it. It doesn't eat, and doesn't eliminate wastes. But it IS there! And it want's you to pray to it.

Now, PROVE to me that the unicorn does NOT exist! You might also want to look up Russell's Teapot while your at it.

The problem with faith is that you are not arguing from a rational position. You make grandiose claims based on little other than what feels good. You hide under a blanket of respect and tolerance, then get upset when someone comes along and doesn't show respect or tolerance for your beliefs. Your world view is so steeped in your religious beliefs that you cannot comprehend someone NOT having religious beliefs. So you constantly misrepresent my position as a belief rather than non-belief.

I'm beginning to think that you might be afraid to accept even the idea that there MIGHT not be any gods. So any evidence, any logical constructs, which threaten your beliefs are summarily discarded as "opinions". You will not, or can not, provide any evidence other than "billions of people believe" to support your god stories, yet you demand absolute proof that the pink unicorn doesn't exist.

One of the complaints I've heard from other atheists regarding arguing with Creationists is that the Creationists continuously throw out claim after claim, without evidence or citation, demanding that scientists prove this or that. Then, when scientists start to show them evidence, they quickly jump off to another topic altogether, again tossing out multiple claims without taking a breath, and demanding answers immediately. Then, when the scientists start to answer, the Creationists go back to their original questions, as if they hadn't already been answered. (It's called the "Gish Gallop" and you might want to look that up, too.) I feel like I'm getting a better understanding of the process.

So I'm going to make a simple request. Show me YOUR proofs of gods. ANY gods. Make sure it is testable proof, something which can be examined and studied and which has no other possible explanation. If you can do that I will gladly admit that I was wrong, and that there are indeed gods.

(For the record, the "invisible pink unicorn" is not my creation. It's a challenge given to kids attending Camp Quest, a summer camp for the children of non-theist parents.)

[denuseri]

I dont have to provide anything...Im not the one saying that Gods do not exist or that it has to be something scientifically provable for someone to respect someone elses beliefs. Im not the one bucking the majority belief or who is trying to bring in a new viewpoint or make any such claim that God exists or does not.

We both know the only reason you dont wish to call your viewpoint a belief or you deny that you yourself dont have any faith (ie trust) in something you personally havent proved via science (probabely becuase you cant since your not a physicist or cosmologist etc :so you have no recourse but to have faith that what such scientists are telling you in laymans terms is correct etc) is becuase you know according to the rules of the english language and the current definitions of said word usage and its definitions...that you would outright loose any argument according to the coresponding way that rehtoric functions with logic of any kind under the Scrutiny of the Socratic method. ( which means your basically arguing useing pure sophistry 101) Becuase your view point is by defualt... of equatible value (all else considered when no proof of validity is capable of being provided by eaither side in a argument of ideals) as the theist's own views in any such discussion. Yet your own position is one that theirs is inheriently wrong...so you simpley cant abide any such distinguishment as a possiblitity...which is why to overcome the paradox...you basically make things up and try to have them sound favorably to you. Since such onesided positions between equally valid positions have only one solution absent verifiable proof you dont wish to appear as the bad guy you hence obscure any attempts to point out this fact. You may or may not be consiously aware of this (despite many attempts to point it out to you) but thats becuase its human nature 101 to act that way...something Socrates and Plato found to be really unproductive for the purposes of actual intelectual exchanges which is why they campaigned so ardhently against the position of the sophists.

And again your making a lot of assumptions conserning my personal beliefs...most of them are dead wrong btw.

The main reason I come out in defence of the theists in these threads isnt to expouse a personal belief in god on my part. It is to point out the hypocricy of the atheists position when it is presented in the manner in which you have been doing.

Its oneseided, its uses sophistry, its belicose, it shows an extreme lack of respect for the beliefs of others if they do not coincide with their own and it appeares to be mired in the exact same kind of zealotry as any fundamentalist religion that it wishes to de-claim; all without a single shread of any proof that it's claims are any better than anyone elses.

The only logically conclussion then would be to promote secularism.

But for that to work it requires that all parties recognize the fact that no side is the only right side or in lue of that that their belief in the other side being wrong is no reason to try and take away their right to hold their viewpoints and pracrice their belief system whatever it may be within their dominion as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting anyone else what does it matter anyway.

Thankfully I live in a country that does that very thing.

[Thorne]

Thankfully I live in a country that does that very thing.

Yeah, for now!

[denuseri]

Sorry I dont personally give see any veracity from unreputable scources regardless of which side presents them.

[Thorne]

From what I've seen you don't put much faith in reputable sources, either. But don't trust me, don't trust my links. Look it up yourself. Hell, just watch the news, especially the news of some of the political candidates. They are all but demanding we pull back from the guaranteed separation of church and state in order to set up a "biblically correct" government. If that should happen it would only be a short step before dissenters like me are arrested as heretics, and possibly executed, in accordance with "God's will." Jews and Muslims, I'm sure, wouldn't be far behind, and even those of the Baha'i faith wouldn't be likely to escape.

THAT is what I'm arguing against, the establishment of a legal system based on ancient mythology instead of on rational science. We've seen the horrific results of such a theistic government in the Taliban. We don't need that kind of terror and hatred here. Yet if we do NOT oppose the fundamentalists, do not show their beliefs to be fallacious and evil, we will all to soon have that same kind of repression in the US. And it will, of course, all be according to "God's will." THEIR God, not yours.

[denuseri]

Oh I am well versed in differentiating between reputable sources and their counterparts...even had formal trainning on making such distinctions in college, you dont get far there without making good use of that skill set.

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.

Such an attitude and approach doesnt support a secular state and only fans the flames against it, breeding intolerance.

And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.

And regardless of your wishes to the contrary, atheism when used in such fashion is in every way defined as system of belief. It may not be religious in nature, one may call it a philosophy, but it is a belief system all the same since it takes on all the qualities there of.

And based upon how the athiests comport themselves in expression of thought, word, and deed its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious, that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography in support there of until all religions everywhere are abolished and replaced by what the athiests want in its stead.

Which I can only imagine will resemble something like what happened in all other states who adopted such a poliecy...religious persecution, fear, and terrorism of the poulace...mass punnishment...all for what one believes as opposed to what they do.

Which is imho quite ironically hypocritical of the atheists all things considered.

I base my position soley on what I have witnessed not only here from you but via direct observation in many other venues including books written by pomiment atheists and other academics about the subject.

When one says they want seculaism our of one side of their mouth while they then do everything intheir power to oppose it, one in effect becomes imho just as bad as any religious zealot since it appears then that what one wants in actually practice is something based upon their own system as opposed to secularism to become dominat.


Which is why I personally take a dislike to such zealotry becuase it makes them in every way the same as the worst of those they take their views against, it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.


And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner, especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it...I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.

[Thorne]

Supporting the American tradition of seperation between Church and State however doesnt require that one be demeaning, belicose, sophistic, or disrespectful of one's opponents and their beliefs or go on a campaign to abolish their first amendment rights.

You are absolutely right. But it also doesn't require me to respect everyone's beliefs just because they have them. I can respect a person for himself, can respect another person's rights, without having to respect a belief which I find ridiculous.

And a non-secular state, a state with only one belief system (which need not be religious in nature) appears to be exactly what the athiests are actually "preaching" for...your own rehtoric in many cases in several threads including this one clearly shows that.

Don't paint me with that brush! I have never proposed a state with only one belief system. Like the founders of the US seem to have intended, I have always proposed where everyone's beliefs, or non-belief, are given fair and equal treatment within the law. Personally, I wouldn't be dismayed by the eventual decline and disappearance of religious thought, but it's not something I would want to force upon anyone.

its an anti-any religion system of non-belief centered around the abolishment of any and all things even remotly religious,

No, that's not what I've said. Just keep it in its place, where it belongs. Religion belongs in church, or in the homes of believers, or in the hearts of believers, NOT in the science class, or the government.

that obviously includes not allowing parents to have their children even raised the way they wish in their own faith

Again, that's not what I've claimed. All I've said is that parents do NOT have the right to force OTHER children to be taught what they believe by forcing those beliefs into the school system. Again, while I think parents may be harming their children by NOT teaching them to be critical thinkers about everything, including religion, I don't say they shouldn't be permitted to raise their children religiously.

or anyone anywhere to be able to publically speak about or display iconography

They are free to display any iconography they wish, as long as it is not on property owned by the City/State/Country. Those properties belong to EVERYONE, not just one religion. And even there, I would pull back from some of the more radical elements and say that I don't see any problem with, for example, a Church putting up a Christmas display, provided they get the necessary permits, pay for all of the labor and materials, and properly remove the display when the season ends. And that would also include the rights of a Temple to mount a Hanukkah display, and the rights of the local Mosque to put up a Ramadan display. EVERYONE has the same rights, or none can. THAT is where most communities run into trouble. They want their manger scene, but don't want an equivalent Muslim, or Hindu, or non-christian themed display.

I have to run now. I'll try to get to the rest of the post later. In short, though, I don't think we're that far apart. You just don't like my tone.

[Thorne]

it makes those athiests who take such a stance just like those who cuased so many of the colonists who first came here to flee the religious persecution in Europe as evidenced by all the people who fled religious persecutions in the countries where similar systems were adopted in modern times as well.

You are aware, I'm sure, that those colonists who were fleeing religious persecution were being persecuted by other religions? Even other Christians? And I'm sure you'll agree that the vast majority of those who fled Communism did so for political and economic reasons, not for religious reasons, or at least not ONLY for religious reasons.

And thats why every single time you slam religion or anyones belief system or philosophy in such manner,

You have to admit that I'm fair, though! I treat all religious beliefs which are based on faith instead of evidence the same way. I don't discriminate.

especially when they dont really hurt anyone by having it.

I'm sure I've posted this link before. It shows some of the harmful effects of different kinds of actions, or inaction. There's a whole section on religions. I'm not saying that ALL beliefs are harmful, only that some are, so claiming they won't hurt anyone is wrong.

..I will respond accordingly to defend their right to have it and freely express it, and to tech it to their children or anyone else who is by the laws we hold dear considered to be under their dominion.

I will also defend people's rights to have a belief, and to express it within the constraints of the law (you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless there really IS a fire!) And, because I don't see any humane way to prevent it, I would even defend the rights of parents to teach their faith to their children, at home or in church or in parochial schools. But there have to be lines drawn, if for no other reason than to protect children from being harmed in the name of religion. Read some of the stories from that link to understand what I'm talking about.

[Thorne]

I want to speak to the idea that religious ideas are deserving of respect. Those here who have read my posts know my views, and that I have no respect for any idea which not only flies in the face of reality but does so without any real, testable evidence. Every claim I've ever heard from theists start with the assumption that God exists, and any evidence which might deny that existence must be wrong. Science starts with the question, "Does God exist?" If you assume that he does, the next question must be, "How do we prove it."

Yes, you can claim that the existence of God is a matter of faith, not science, and therefore doesn't require evidence. Which is fine. But if God cannot be proven through scientific means then God has no place in a science classroom. Without evidence you cannot claim that a hurricane, or tornado, or a flood, are God's punishment for something you don't happen to like. Without evidence God has to be withdrawn from our concept of the natural world and placed into the supernatural world.

Again, this is fine as far as it goes. I wouldn't deride someone just for believing. But when someone tries to tell me that the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other theological text, is absolutely true and must be accepted as the Word of God, I'll laugh and poke fun. Not because THEY accept it as such, but because they are trying to tell me that I must accept it as well.

And then there are the REAL kooks: (Note - to keep from having to many hyperlinks I'll post the URL's without the links.)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5767 - This first is Dr. William Lane Craig. When asked how he can reconcile the concept of a just and loving god with the idea that God commanded the Israelite army to destroy the Canaanites then living in the Promised Land, "every man, woman, and child". After a rather long and rambling statement about the inerrancy of the Bible and the justice an love of his God, he comes to this lovely gem:
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."
Say what? He feels no sympathy for the "evil" Canaanite adults who watched their children being slaughtered, or for the innocent children who may have witnessed their mothers and sisters being raped and killed. No, his concern is for the soldiers who had to do the killing! Is this deserving of my respect? Absolutely not!

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9554506 - The second is Pat Robinson, speaking about the Haitian earthquake last year. Watch the video, if you haven't seen it already. Basically, he claims that the Haitian people made a deal with Satan to help them get out from under French oppression, and they've been cursed ever since. Apparently God wasn't helping them, so they had to go for number two. Is this kind of thinking deserving of respect? I think not.

The last, for now, involves the recent End Times Prophecy of Harold Camping.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...045,b=facebook - This man, who happens to be my age, spent his entire life savings on an ad campaign for this. I truly feel sorry for the guy, but seriously, what the hell was he thinking?
There were others (I can't find the links now.) Like the couple who sold their home and are staying in a motel in Florida with their child, with one on the way. They had budgeted their money so they would spend their last dollar on May 21. Wonder what they were doing on the 22nd?
Or the couple who depleted their daughters' college funds, to send to Camping, on the premise that they wouldn't need it. This despite the objections of the two daughters.

Anyone think those things are deserving of respect? Anyone believe no one was harmed by Camping's religion?

[denuseri]

I think your still trying to paint all religious adherents with the same brush however. And that brush is dripping with all the things I mentioned that you hate most about religions...atheist dogma that doesnt support secularism but speaks against it which only ever points to the bad, and allways overlooks the overwhelming ammount of good religions have brought us.

As for the anti religious movement of the Soviets...People who were stuanchly communist in every other ideological way outside of their religious faith had to leave, hide or die. I' m married to a man whose elders on his fathers side had to flee Russia for places abroad for no other reason than they believed in a god and the atheist goverment wouldnt tollerate it.

Just like some of the realitives on my greatgrandfathers side had to flee the Pale for palistine and my mother and I when too little to understand it all had to flee lebanon, that we all had to flee or be killed for our beliefs or that we were born jewish etc was far more of an issue I can assure you than what the beliefs were of the people who made us flee. Athesist or religious or as in the case of my moms mother in WW2 "racial purity" were all equally hateful and intollerant idologies to us.

I could care less about what religions or atheists have done in the past however...this isnt back then...this is now. I only point to the past to show what happened and what could happen if intollerant ideologies are supported. We live in a secular society today, most nations in the weastrn world have learned thats prefferable to abolishment of personal beliefs or exclusion of all others save the one and is in fact a human right.

I also see nothing wrong with people in a community teaching their children what they wish to teach them in the schools that they pay for with their local taxes so long as they also teach respect and tollerance and do so in an objective fashion. Like this is the "theory" of evolution and it entails this... etc etc...here is the evidence some scientists have gathered for it etc etc...and this is the theory of the creationists...most creationists explanations express belief in a god or gods to be envolved with the making of our world via some form of intellegent design etc etc....and this is the theory of some of the early philosophers in greece who believed that the world was made of a subtance called ether.... etc etc you get the picture.

Above all that though...I believe that the children in any school, private or state funded, should be tuaght to be objective and tollerant and respectful of everyone's beliefs, theories, ideologies etc etc whatever they may be, becuase when they are not...they are indeed being shown its ok to be intolerant and not to respect others...they are in effect being groomed for the very thing that tears secularism down in a place...as it was in the country of my birth.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR=pink]I think your still trying to paint all religious adherents with the same brush however.

No, I'm not. I've specifically said that I don't believe all theists are evil. Or even that all religions are evil. I just think there are evil things done in the name of religion which are far less likely to occur under other circumstances.

atheist dogma

LOL! There's an atheist dogma? Why haven't I been told about this? I guess you have to attend the atheist church before they let you in on the secret.

which only ever points to the bad, and allways overlooks the overwhelming ammount of good religions have brought us.

I've never denied that religious organizations can do good. Mostly because they are made up of people who want to do good things for their communities. And yes, religious groups generally are more tolerant of outsiders (with a few notable exceptions) than in the past. This has more to do with adjusting to the mores of their constituents, mores which come from outside the Church, than from any inner workings of the religious establishment. I point out the bad things to do with religion because all too often those things are hushed up by religious organizations, like the RCC's protection of pedophile priests, or of priests raping nuns in some 3rd world countries. And these things happen in other religious organizations, too. We seldom hear about them because the parents of those children who were harmed are so besotted with their religion that they either refuse to believe a priest could do such a thing, or because they are forced by the Church to sign confidentiality agreements or risk excommunication.

But none of that stuff is exclusive to religion, I agree. It happens everywhere. The difference is that religious organizations and leaders attempt to take the moral high ground, claiming to speak for God, to do God's work, while performing unspeakable evils, or covering up those evils.

As for the anti religious movement of the Soviets...People who were stuanchly communist in every other ideological way outside of their religious faith had to leave, hide or die. I' m married to a man whose elders on his fathers side had to flee Russia for places abroad for no other reason than they believed in a god and the atheist goverment wouldnt tollerate it.

I'm sure you know more about these things than I do. But the Soviet model was not so much atheist as Stalinist, replacing God with the supreme Soviet. Just like Chinese Communism replaced God with Mao, and Cuban communism replacing God with Castro. While these states were not religious, and even anti-religious, they were far from any kind of atheist ideal.

We live in a secular society today, most nations in the weastrn world have learned thats prefferable to abolishment of personal beliefs or exclusion of all others save the one and is in fact a human right.

I agree with all of that! But in the US right now there is a movement to make this country a theocracy! This movement has captured the right wing of the Republican party, and is threatening to take control of the government. THAT is what I am fighting against. I do not, and most atheists I know do not, advocate abolishing religion. We only want to keep religions, ALL religions, where they belong!

I also see nothing wrong with people in a community teaching their children what they wish to teach them in the schools that they pay for with their local taxes so long as they also teach respect and tollerance and do so in an objective fashion.

This is fine as long as you have a unified community. All Christian, or all Muslim, or all atheist. Muslim citizens pay taxes to support schools and governments, too. Why should they and their children be forced to endure Christian ideology? Atheists pay taxes, and don't want their children inundated with ANY theology.

Like this is the "theory" of evolution and it entails this... etc etc...here is the evidence some scientists have gathered for it etc etc...and this is the theory of the creationists...most creationists explanations express belief in a god or gods to be envolved with the making of our world via some form of intellegent design etc etc....

Except that Creationism is NOT a theory. It is an ideology. It makes no testable claims, has no evidence for the claims it does make, and presupposes a God without any evidence for such a being. Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed up in science-like terms. I listened to a debate about teaching ID in schools and the ID proponent admitted that ID has no real theory to base their "science" on! As the science proponent said (paraphrasing), What are you going to teach? Some people believe a god or gods created the universe 6000 years ago. Then what? You have no evidence to review, no experiments to run, no discoveries to make. Sure, a teacher could take 5 minutes at the beginning of the term to spout out all the different creation beliefs, saying for each one, "This is not science." But what's the point?

Above all that though...I believe that the children in any school, private or state funded, should be tuaght to be objective and tollerant and respectful of everyone's beliefs, theories, ideologies etc etc whatever they may be,

Objective and tolerant, yes. And teach them to think critically, to question everything and everyone, regardless of position. And teach them to respect other people in general, of course. Treat others as you would like to be treated. But I don't extend that respect to beliefs which I consider to be silly: like the 'thetans' of Scientology, or the inscribed golden plates which only Joseph Smith could read, or the global flood of the Judeo/Christian mythology. If you are going to base your life on silly stories, how are you any different from the ridiculous 'trekkies' who live in their own fantasy world.

[Thorne]

denuseri, just ran across this quotation and thought it rather apropos. Lest you think that I'm the only asshole around!

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."
[Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991]

[Thorne]

Another quote I ran across just now. (Honest, I'm not searching for these, just coming across them in my reading. I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!)

"…once a person admits to not believing in God, this raises the question of whether or not that person believes in America . . ."
[Chief spokesman for National office of the Boy Scouts]

Is this the kind of tolerance and respect that we can expect from theists? It's certainly typical of what I've seen for myself.

[denuseri]

No, I'm not. I've specifically said that I don't believe all theists are evil. Or even that all religions are evil. I just think there are evil things done in the name of religion which are far less likely to occur under other circumstances.

And history has shown that you are wrong...that evil is done regardless of if a religion is being practiced or not, that when one relpaces religion with something else...such as atheism, evil still gets done, in fact... by some perspectives it seems to get done even easier than before.


LOL! There's an atheist dogma? Why haven't I been told about this? I guess you have to attend the atheist church before they let you in on the secret.

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.

I've never denied that religious organizations can do good.

No you just pointedly overlook it or blandize it as being becuase of something other than the having to do with the poeples faith involved with it as a sophistic tatctic to agrandize the position of the atheists over that of all others. As evidenced by your statement imediately following this one above where you procceed to do that very thing:

Mostly because they are made up of people who want to do good things for their communities. And yes, religious groups generally are more tolerant of outsiders (with a few notable exceptions) than in the past. This has more to do with adjusting to the mores of their constituents, mores which come from outside the Church, than from any inner workings of the religious establishment. I point out the bad things to do with religion because all too often those things are hushed up by religious organizations, like the RCC's protection of pedophile priests, or of priests raping nuns in some 3rd world countries. And these things happen in other religious organizations, too. We seldom hear about them because the parents of those children who were harmed are so besotted with their religion that they either refuse to believe a priest could do such a thing, or because they are forced by the Church to sign confidentiality agreements or risk excommunication.

But none of that stuff is exclusive to religion, I agree. It happens everywhere. The difference is that religious organizations and leaders attempt to take the moral high ground, claiming to speak for God, to do God's work, while performing unspeakable evils, or covering up those evils.

Atheists try to take the same exact high ground only basing their suposition on that of man himself and his ability to reason or by replacing it with "science" or belief in a philosophical dogma of some kind. All while commiting equally unspeakable evil acts or covering them up!

I'm sure you know more about these things than I do.

Which is why I correct you when you try to seperate the atheists from the communists in such manner as you do bellow. such a distinction is not something the communists themselves do:

But the Soviet model was not so much atheist as Stalinist, replacing God with the supreme Soviet. Just like Chinese Communism replaced God with Mao, and Cuban communism replacing God with Castro. While these states were not religious, and even anti-religious, they were far from any kind of atheist ideal.

Really? They fit the ideal of the atheists in those regions just fine. There are you are aware of different kinds of atheist sects just like their are differnt political, scientific, philosophical and religious factions. The communists were plain and simple atheists...they never advocated the "whoreship" of any of the things you just described they made no religion around them, they started no churches, etc etc. They are a prime example of what a communist state that embraces atheism ends up looking like.

I agree with all of that! But in the US right now there is a movement to make this country a theocracy!

Its not a right now thing anymore than it was back when we founded the country. The current evangelical movement lost most of the wind in its sails amongst the GOP back when Bush Jr left office...he basically ruined that approach for a long time to come for anyone who would follow...a much more non-religious affiliated canidate was chosen to run in the next primary who did not recieve the evangelicals advocacy so much as the more moderate portion of the parties support...much to the chagrin of the evangelicals I might add since we came out in droves against them... which evidenced this lack of influence in even the far right of the party which has traditionally been orientated twoards being fiscally conservative as well as politically conservative...which means not changeing a good thing like freedom of religion. Being republican in other words does not = being a theist or an evangelical, unlike the communists who only embraced one non-secular replacement for all religions (ie atheism) the republicans in general believe in freedom of religion in the manner in which the founding fathers intended it. You will also note that during Bush's administration no one took over the government and made the usa into a anything even remotely rsembling a theocracy...we still have our freedom of religion intact in full. And not becuase some valient athiest stood on the steps of the capital with a gun and a flag in each hand eaither...but becuase the republicans themselves would never support any such measure.

This movement has captured the right wing of the Republican party, and is threatening to take control of the government.

No it hasnt the right wing of the party has way more non-evangelicals in its ranks than you wish to give us credit for.

THAT is what I am fighting against.

Then fight against that instead of attacking all religions in general.

I do not, and most atheists I know do not, advocate abolishing religion. We only want to keep religions, ALL religions, where they belong!

Which I can only assume from the actual dogma of said atheists isnt ussually what they want one to think it is, since most of the rehtoric I see them use is anything other than secular.


This is fine as long as you have a unified community. All Christian, or all Muslim, or all atheist. Muslim citizens pay taxes to support schools and governments, too. Why should they and their children be forced to endure Christian ideology? Atheists pay taxes, and don't want their children inundated with ANY theology.

And in those areas where people dont want it they have changed the laws to accomadate them despite their minority status in said areas. God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.

Except that Creationism is NOT a theory.

I have a theory that your just trying to use sophistry again.

It is an ideology.

I am testing it each and every time you try to twist the meanings of words and how they are used or avoid actual logic becuase your so affriad of anything religious of any kind being given equal status with atheism (which btw is just a theory like any other too and one thats soley based on untestable assumptioms and ideology). Which is not at all supporting anything secular as you "claim" it to be when you do this.

It makes no testable claims, has no evidence for the claims it does make, and presupposes a God without any evidence for such a being.


Intelligent Design is just Creationism dressed up in science-like terms. I listened to a debate about teaching ID in schools and the ID proponent admitted that ID has no real theory to base their "science" on! As the science proponent said (paraphrasing), What are you going to teach? Some people believe a god or gods created the universe 6000 years ago. Then what? You have no evidence to review, no experiments to run, no discoveries to make. Sure, a teacher could take 5 minutes at the beginning of the term to spout out all the different creation beliefs, saying for each one, "This is not science." Butwhat's the point?

The point is: A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon and you should really know better than to use such sophistry in a debate with me if you expect me to take you seriously or recognize what your saying as having any veracity to it.

Objective and tolerant, yes.

And respectful...without all three what you end up with isnt any kind of secularism that will work...I should know was born in a country where we neglected to have all three essential components and look what happened there.

And teach them to think critically, to question everything and everyone, regardless of position. And teach them to respect other people in general, of course. (and the validity of their beliefs...otherwise your just going to be promoting intolerance anyways.)

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day. How ironic.

But I don't extend that respect to beliefs which I consider to be silly: like the 'thetans' of Scientology, or the inscribed golden plates which only Joseph Smith could read, or the global flood of the Judeo/Christian mythology. If you are going to base your life on silly stories, how are you any different from the ridiculous 'trekkies' who live in their own fantasy world.
(And again with the insults...keep them coming...I should have a lot of statistics gathered to test my theory as if it were a scientifc hypothisies soon.)

Which explains a lot imho as to why you want to sound tollerant...but you preach intolerance all the same...since you are lacking in respect for the beliefs of others.


PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned, based in conjunction with the results of my testing of my soon to be hypotheisies of weather or not your actually promoting secularism or just being a adherent to non-secular atheists dogma ..its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.

Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.

[Thorne]

Every single "ism" out there works within the concepts of its own dogma, atheist or otherwise.

That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally, so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.

God forbid a child have a bible sitting on her desk to read during reccess or at lunch in any public school or even pray if she wants before she eats etc...lest some atheist take exception and file a lawsuit.Where as in a truely secular society...that litle girl's behavior should be perfectly acceptable and garenteed as a human right.

This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists. In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves. They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.

A theory doesnt need to be a scientific hypotheises to be a theory hon

It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!

In other words loving thy nieghbor as thyself....hummm that sounds rather familiar I wonder who came up with that one. Oh yeah it was those pesky religious folks way back in the day.

I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.

PS: in so far as Mr Robisnson and other little "quotes" you want too pull up are concerned ... its becoming rather obvious your yet again trying to focus on the bad apples over the vast majority of religious adhereants who do good and are by no means really working in favor of secularism.

Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.

Please do keep them coming...I will soon have enough data collected for a peer reviewed paper.

[/QUOTE]
Ah, my dear, you are peerless!

[denuseri]

That doesn't make them a religious system. Unless 'conservatism' is a religion.

I didnt say it had to be religious to be a system, nor does dogma = religion. Stop trying to re-define words allreadly will you.

But regardless, I don't subscribe to any dogma, personally,so just for you I'm going to abandon the terms 'atheism' and 'atheist' with regards to myself and use the less loaded terms, 'non-theism' and 'non-theist'. Hopefully that will eliminate some of the non-sense.

You can call yourself whatever you wish, you can "say" your not doing something that you are in fact doing all you wish...it wont change who and what you are or what you do in the slightest however.


This kind of behavior is been an over-reaction by the school authorities, not something promoted by any non-theists.

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.

In fact, some, if not most, of these kinds of prohibitions are actually initiated by the Christian communities themselves.

To avoid being attacked by over zealous asshats who hate them simply becuase they are religious.

They don't want to have to permit those Muslim children to be able to read their Qur'an during lunch, or say their prayers during school hours, but they cannot prohibit them unless they prohibit ALL forms of religious activity. It's like those schools who have permitted, even encouraged, extra-curricular Bible study clubs, but then learned they had no grounds for refusing a non-theist club. So they ban all such clubs. Or the RCC being unwilling to pay medical benefits for spouses of same sex couples, so they don't pay for any couples.

Or like when the atheists bring law suits against them. The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong...not that they hold an ideology in and of itself. Yet again your trying to sidestep the real issue.


The law doesn't prohibit these things: it guarantees that ALL people are treated equally in such matters, and that the government itself does not promote a particular religion over any others. It's the over-reaction of the (generally, in the US) Christian communities that ALL mention of religion is banned.

Re-painting the actual facts doesnt change things eaither.


It does if you want to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom, darlin'!

Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method and in a science class to expound upon different theories of thought conserning the the topic that do not need have a hypotheisis or the scientific method involved....in fact, take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.

I would venture to guess that it came about long before any religions did. Otherwise humanity would have been extinct long before the evolution of religion.

Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?


Except that these are LEADERS in religion, not followers. They make their pronouncements of what God wants and people believe them! The person who encourages a lunatic to shoot an enemy is just as guilty as the lunatic who does the deed.

I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.


When the Pope falsely claims that condoms actually SPREAD AIDS rather than decrease the spread, he is guilty of murder!

When a religious leader condemns non-theists as inhuman and deserving of death, he is just as guilty of murder as the fool who does the killing.

I'd equate it to making the claim that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. In actuality, it's the leader who aims the weapon and pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.

No its the people who pick up the guns and pull the triggers who actually kill people. Its a consious desicion...not something someone does against their own will. And again has zero to do with anything...since you dont have to be religious to use a gun...nor does it help one in any way. I thought you wanted to really debate here...and not just resort to the same sophistry youve used in all the other threads on the topic Thorne. Hummm what happened to that? Why keep trying to cover ground thats been covered repeatably, the outcome isnt going to change. All your doing is making your approach more evident for what it really is.

Ah, my dear, you are peerless![/QUOTE]

Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.

[Thorne]

I was specifically refering to an atheist doing just that...bringing a lawsuit against a school.

I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.

The point being all such intolerant and disrespectfully types of practices by individuals in any given area are whats wrong

I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs. In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"

Blinks...oh really...well you would be surprised to know than that the word theory does in fact exist outside of the scientific method

I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?

take any science class that goes at all into the histroy of itse own development (which is allmost all of them) and you will perhaps find how that very thing is done.

But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!

Too bad the only evidence you have to go on for that "guess" is the Bible huh?

The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it. That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.

I dont care if they are the founder of their faith. They do not represent all of the people who are religious, nor perhaps even all of the people who share the same religion as they do, and even at that..their statements actually countradict their own tennets of faith...meaning they are in the wrong.

The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.

Come be peerless with me then and cut this pro atheism anti-religion rant bs out with all this sophist use of dogma ... your not helping "the cuase"...come over to the secular side of the fence...not only is the grass here greener...instead of fighting all the time we can devote our efforts to kinky pursuits instead.

LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you!

[denuseri]

I'd love to hear the context. I have doubts that the lawsuit was simply about a girl having a bible with her during class. Unless the school was permitting her to proselytize during class hours. That would be inappropriate.

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.

I agree with you! The problem (as I see it) is that too many, though not all or even most, theists have no difficulty disrespecting OTHER people's beliefs.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.

In fact, many think it their duty to denigrate other religions (ref. that Pat Robertson quote about Episcopalians,Presbyterians and Methodists). It's only when you attack THEIR religion that they scream "Intolerance!"

Again the same claim can be equally made when it comes to the atheists. Or any ideology that preaches intolerance and dis-respect and says only my way is right and all others are unacceptable or need to be curtailed.

I do hope you aren't deliberately missing my point. Yes, the WORD theory can be used anywhere, in any circumstances by anyone. It's just a word. Within the confines of SCIENCE, however, a theory has a much more rigid definition, and it DOES require evidence for it to be accepted.

You mean within the confines of the scientific method. Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not, and even then peer review is nessesary before anything of fact becomes a consensus or becomes acceptable as past of the scientific cannon.

I can have a theory that, when you put a bag of microwave popcorn into your microwave, tiny little invisible nanodevils are excreted by the paper bag and make the kernels pop by poking them with their fiery prongs. It's "just a theory", and you can't prove they don't, so you can't say I'm wrong, can you? Do you think we should teach this "alternative theory" in a science class?

Again you choose a far fetched example which has nothing to do with the discussion or any pre-established theories conserning the subject as an obvious attempt to use sophistry perhaps?

I think I was pretty clear, let me re-clairify for you: When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented. Especially if thats what the parents of said students have expressed a desire for whithin their own community. Yes...Even in a science class. Otherwise "science" places itself on the same pedastel of postulation as any religion.


But again, you're talking HISTORY, even the history of science, and not actual SCIENCE! And even when teaching such history, it has to be relevant to the science! And it has to be noted as history, and not necessarily our current understanding.

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.

We can, for example, teach that at one point the common people believed that the Earth was flat. It would then be appropriate to teach how we came to understand the spherical nature of the world. It would NOT be appropriate to have to explain that there are still some people now who believe the Earth is flat, and then teach THEIR reasons for believing that. Why should we care about their reasons? They are WRONG! They have no SCIENTIFIC basis for their beliefs. Those beliefs should NOT be taught in a science class!

Here we shall I am affriad have to disagree. Your missing the point as well...Im speaking specifically about teaching mutual respect, understanding, and tollerance at every level in every classroom without exception.

The Bible had nothing to do with my guess. And it is only a guess. I have no data to support it.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.

That's why I said it was a guess! I do, however, see how cultures and sub-cultures throughout history, and even today, tend to destroy themselves quite effectively when they ignore the golden rule. If you have to worry that every person you meet on the streets could kill you, you don't develop any kind of civilization. Look into the study of chimpanzees and the great apes. You'll find that, within any given group, there are hierarchies and rules of behavior. Those who violate those rules are banished from the group. You find the same kind of behavior in every group of social animals. There's no reason to believe that humans couldn't develop these rules themselves, without some pronouncement from on high.

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us. Just as there is no reason to think it unliekly that the reason its part of us is becuase a God desired it to be that way. Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.


The problem is that they represent the leadership of the religion, not the faith. They set the rules! Believers follow the rules or are excommunicated. These kinds of people attain an extremely devoted group of followers, much like rock stars. You see people all the time who mimic their favorite TV and movie stars, trying to wear the same clothes, restyling their hair, getting botox injections. How much more potent, and dangerous, when the person you admire claims to be in direct communication with God!

And those same people are just as likely to stand up and say no, thats wrong we wont do it and this is what we are going to do instead...just like they did countless times with various leaders of all kinds, theist or otherwise.

Faith is not the problem. Religion, or more accurately, religious organizations are the problem.

Again I disagree...just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem". Its what the people do not what they think or decide for themselves to follow thats the real issue.


LOL! That's ALMOST an offer I can't refuse! I'm not so sure you could handle me, though. And I'm DAMNED sure I couldn't handle you!

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.

[Thorne]

The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.

Given the scenario you are presenting, I have to agree: I see no problem with her answering questions posed by her classmates, or having a civil discussion with willing classmates. To my mind it's no different than kids arguing about the relative merits of particular video games.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.

You may be right. I don't know squat about psychology.

Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented.

Ahh, but who decides what is plausible? Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms? What about other Creation myths? Shouldn't they be given time as well? If you allow ANY non-scientific claims to be taught, you MUST allow ALL of them, and you no longer have a science class. You have the Internet. Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science? If so, such a claim does not belong in a science classroom!

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for. Should we poll the students to determine what their opinions on spelling words are? How about math problems? "How many of you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? A majority? OK, then, that's what we'll learn today!"

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.

So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.

YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us.

Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.

And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.

just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem".

And again I agree. It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.

That sounds positively ... divine!

[denuseri]

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

Poor word choice on my part then...and inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.


Ahh, but who decides what is plausible?

The community.

Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms?

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do. It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

What about other Creation myths?

I never said it was supposed to be a Christianity as Thorne knows it vs The "theory" of evolution did I? No... yes relevant creation theories are acceptable...of course one will have to tailor the relevance to the student body...one doesnt have to cover anything mor than generalities.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?

No

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for.

They certiantly shouldnt be there to tell the students that they are not allowed to have thier own opinions or that their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents are stupid etc eaither. They should present the information and leave such judgments up to the individuals.

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

Cross disiplinarian approaches to learning are far more educationally valuable and inclussive however and teach one how to think for themselves and respect the beliefs of others and promotes secularism as opposed to the current system, and that applies equally to all types of classess, science or otherwise.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

Thats there decission to make, and I could care less about such speculations, especially since it equally applies I am sure to Atheist parents who are afriad their children might get even a glimpse of a cross or other holy symbol.


So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.


YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Alas you will have to at least for the time being wait, since the only way to find out for sure currently is to die. And again...the sophistry and belicosity are completely unnessesary. The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

But no evidence that eaither of those things mentioning loving thy nieghbor as thyself. Another moot sidestep, but not worth giving you anymore sophistry points.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

Which is even more of a reason to respect each others faiths since they do indeed seem to be coming from the same source.


Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Nor does it make it un-true.


And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.


And again I agree.

Yet you said just the opposite of what you said now several times as it suited you to try and sully anything religious, and that my friend is why I am in opposition to you.

It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Yes it applies to Atheism with equal zeal.

That sounds positively ... divine!

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

[MMI]

Sorry to drag this thread back, but it has moved on quite a bit since my last visit. I want to respond to the points Thorne addressed to me a while back, and I beg your indulgences, everyone.

Actually, I have two young granddaughters, both bright-eyed and vivacious. They are wonderful, beautiful, and made of matter which was once buried deep inside of stars. Ultimately, however, like all of us, they will one day be nothing but meat and bones, no life remaining in them. I hope that day will be a very, very long time coming, but I see nothing "testable" about their existence as relates to gods.

You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?

I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions. We are Stardust? At what point in the dying phases of a star's existence does self-awareness get blasted out into space, for example?

balanced? Perhaps. There is some evidence which shows that certain universal constants are at just the values necessary to build this universe. So what? How many times did the universe come into existence without those values so tuned, leaving barren and empty space to await the birth of another universe, with slightly different values? Again, nothing testable to show evidence of gods.

So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening. Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?

I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne. And I don't think that, say, comparing a winning lottery ticket with all the tickets that lose even begins to account for all the coincidences you require your theory to resolve all at once.

noticed how, as science has learned more and more about the universe the numbers of "miracles" have declined? Don't you wonder why that is? But at least this would be testable. Except that, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, every 'miracle' which has been tested has been shown to be coincidence, placebo effects, mass hysteria or fraud. Not one has been shown to defy the laws of nature.

Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.

There is much anecdotal evidence, certainly. But testable? Not so much.

Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.

I agree, it is my opinion. Based upon evidence, not wishful thinking.

What evidence? Show me this evidence: testable evidence.

I'm not going to argue psychological hocus-pocus. I don't know enough about it, in the first place. But in effect I agree: we do have to be able to distinguish between reality and imagination. Which is why I am an atheist.

I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.

(Aside: Now I've done it! He'll read up on it and tear me apart. At least I get to look like I hold the high ground for a while http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/im...ilies/cool.gif )

It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination. I look forward to receiving your corrections, but meanwhile, I contend science cannot pronounce upon matters such as [individual(?)] existence so it cannot pronounce upon the existence (or otherwise) of anything else.

I’m not demanding proof, just testable evidence. As for proving a negative, we are talking about proving that something does not exist. One can provide evidence that makes it unlikely that something exists, and even evidence which makes it probably that something does not exist. But absolute proof? Can't be done.

You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.

Not sure what you mean by "instinct" here. My position is based on my understanding of the evidence.

I used "instinct" to serve as a synonym for "belief".

I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.

I don't know that Einstein had anything to say about the cause of the Big Bang. I have heard many hypotheses about possible causes. It is just as fair to claim that God caused it as anything else. There is no evidence for any of the speculations, each more fantastic than the last, but to my knowledge there is no evidence for any of them.I don't know that we will ever be able to delve that far back into time so as to answer that question.

I should have read this far first. I have highlighted the sentence which, I believe, shows we are, in fact, in complete agreement

, again, that my position is based on testable evidence. Their positions are, generally, contradictory and based upon... What?

And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science? Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?

I understand that. But I still claim that a negative belief is not the same as a LACK of belief.

Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.

I'm not an economist, but isn't it true that we can measure the effects of capitalism? And that a capitalist economy can co-exist with other economies around the world? We can measure the effects of all of these economies, and even the effects of interactions between these economies.

...

I must have misunderstood. You're rejecting it without reason? I don't think that's sensible at all! You cannot claim it does not exist, as there is ample evidence for it. You can, perhaps, make the case that it is a failed system, providing evidence for that position, but you cannot provide evidence that it does not exist! Even if it didn't exist you could not provide any such evidence.

You have missed my point. I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.

Of course matters of faith can only be considered in terms of belief! If we could find evidence to justify and test them, then they would no longer be matters of faith but of reality. It's why we no longer consider the Earth to be the center of the universe. We've tested it and found reality.

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

[Thorne]

inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.

And also untestable. They do not have workable theories which can be tested for evidence of their validity, nor any way that they can be falsified. And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science.

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do.

The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans.

It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?
No

No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how.

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? And you can keep the disrespect in, for all I care.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief!

The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

Yes, it does!
"Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter."
and
"Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation."
and
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world."
and, most telling,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,"

Theological claims may be classified as philosophical theories, but not scientific theories.

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

[Thorne]

You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?

This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.

I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions.

But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand at that.

So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening.

As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.

Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?

Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.

I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne.

Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.

Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.

Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

My parable for the day.

Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.

They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.

I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.

All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.

It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination.

Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.

I the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.

I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.

If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.

And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science?

Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.

Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?

I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.

Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.
I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.

I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.

I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation.

I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.

After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system.

The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.

There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other:

Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.

God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath?

[denuseri]

You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation. After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system. There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other: God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

[denuseri]

And also untestable.

Just as untestable as atheist assumptions and theories.

They do not have workable theories (actually a good number of them do) which can be tested for evidence of their validity, (yet) nor any way that they can be falsified (oh lots of things can be falsified). And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. That was an assumption only made by some. not all Christians...not too mention all the other theists your leaving out of the equation in your crsade against the chirstians...and there is nothing wrong with them believing it if they wish.The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science. Apparently you havnt been keeping up with the ID theories.


The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans. Again your deliberatly trying to paint things differently...most creationsist theories say that the creator made the laws of physics to begin with...made in fact everything, so in essence science is only showing us how it was maby made and how what was made works.


Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant. Only they are not all nessesarally "inane". At least not any more or less inane than the theory of atheism.


No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how. Ive allready covered the field of noetics a long time ago in a thread far far away...additonally, since I believe that the laws of physics are part of creation, the thing is tested every day, but thats not what you said...you said outside of science...where as I say what science cant prove today doesnt mean it may not be able to prove tomarrow.


I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? Well now perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...you see, every single class Ive taken on a religion, or philosophy (even the ones held by thesists) have done that very thing. So why shouldnt science do it as well.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief! So atheism is equally out then...since it has zero evidence to support its claims?

The theory of atheism is just as much a philosophical claim as any other. Not a scientific hypotheisis. So science by your line of thought as no place whatsoever in any discussion about it...so why keep bringing it up?




Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

Points to the clouds above those flames and then down to my virginia...oh darling...why not both?

[denuseri]

A sidebar on the origens of the Geocentric model since some may find it informative:

The geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the theory, that our planet is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it.

This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations like Greece and Egypt.

It also predates the advent of Christianity.


As such, most scientists (philosophers and astrologers etc being the early scientists) assumed that the everything circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristole and Ptolemy.

Two commonly made observations supported the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

The first observation was that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, making the Earth the center of that system. Further, every star was on a "stellar" or "celestial" sphere, of which the earth was the center, that rotated each day, using a line through the north and south pole as an axis. The stars closer the equator appeared to rise and fall the greatest distance, but each star circled back to its rising point each day. At least from the observations they were able to make at the time.

The second common notion supporting the geocentric model was that the Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth bound observer, and that it is solid, stable, and unmoving.

In other words, it is completely at rest.

The geocentric model was usually combined with a spherical earth model by ancient Greek and medieval philosophers.

It is not the same as the older belief that the earth was flat which was never widely accepted by anyone as anything other than a myth associated with the uneducated.

However, the ancient Greeks believed that the motions of the planets were circular and not elliptical, a view that was not challenged in the west before the 17th century through the synthesis of theories by Copernicus and Kepler.

The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years.

The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but was gradually replaced from the late 16th century onward by the heliocentric model.

Even though the transition between these two theories met much resistance, it did not meet it from only the Catholic Church (whose theologians I might add consulted many many learned men on the subject before deciding upon the issue) but also from those scientists who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory.

[Thorne]

Oh he wont like the idea of that becuase it takes the "evil" out of religion and puts the blame for a misguided theory squarly on the shoulders of the guys who really came up with it...which btw were not christian monks at all but much earlier astrologers. And alltough they were undoubatable believers in a religion in their day and age...they based their assumptions about a terra centric model on the scientific observations that they were capable of making.

Oh, I have no problems with that. I agree, the early astrologers could only work with the tools they had. And at first the heliocentric theory met with resistance because it was unable to predict the positions of the planets with any more accuracy than the geocentric model. Primarily this was because they still considered the planets to be moving in perfectly spherical orbits, according to divine plan. Then Galileo came along with his telescope, which showed that there were satellites orbiting Jupiter, not Earth, and that Venus showed phases just like the Moon, indicating a heliocentric system. The Church didn't like that idea, though, as it went against dogma that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was only after Kepler deduced that the orbits of the planets were, in fact, ellipses that the heliocentric theory was able to overturn the old geocentric theory. Even then there were detractors, though, who based their opposition on the teachings of the Church. If nothing else, the Church's stranglehold on education seriously delayed the advancement of science and freedom for the common man. That's evil enough for me.

[denuseri]

Only your trying to blame the Church for something it didnt do...its position conserning geocentricism wasnt founded on dogma from the Bible but on the observations made by many many people who came before the Church even existed..also traditionally in the west the Chruch acted as a preserver of knowledge and a promoter of education and if it were not for that fact we would most likely be having this conversation via hand written letters in arabic instead of on computers.