NationStates Jolt Archive

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution?

There is no such lack.

So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

Biology textbooks are a good place to start.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time.

Like antibiotic resistances? Or the ability to feed on synthetic substances?

Nope, haven't seen those.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

Have you bought your tin foil hat yet?

There is no such lack.



Biology textbooks are a good place to start.



Like antibiotic resistances? Or the ability to feed on synthetic substances?

Nope, haven't seen those.



Have you bought your tin foil hat yet?

Pfft, you scientist. We all know you're just part of the evil conspiracy. :tongue:

Oh, poo, I knew I forgot something! I was in Philadelphia with no internet access last weekend; I meant to mention that to you guys beforehand. :p

Boo. Also, your character in AD is temporarily out of commission, for reasons I can't go into, largely because Dem happens to be reading this thread right now.

Dang, but your poll is problematic...

(religious) Intelligent design not science

Is that:
"religious; ID > science!" (That 's what it apperares to be...)
or
"Religious; science pwns ID"

Or is it something else .

As for me, I'm a fairly religious Buddhist, and ID is utter bunk and incompatable w/ the fundamentals as I understand them...

Boo. Also, your character in AD is temporarily out of commission, for reasons I can't go into, largely because Dem happens to be reading this thread right now.

Oh noes, did I die or something while I was away? *goes to read*

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

As to be expected, you completely miss the point. Evolution IS science because scientists test for it. They develop theories and test their theories. They refine their theories. If disproved, they develop new ones. They study, they raise questions, they hypothesize methods to answer their questions, they answer them, they raise new questions. THAT is science.

Evolution, like ALL science isn't about answers, it is about new questions. If Intelligent Design is science, then show me one single peer-reviewed scientifically sound study in which the hypothesis is tested, the questions answered and the data is studied to formulate new questions and refine the theory.

*looks at watch* I'm waiting...

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.


If youve gone this far in life with your head in the sand so you dont ave to see the physical evidence for facts, no amount of links will convince you. Even a middle school biology class would provide you with such evidence. But if you really want to see examples of adaptation and evolution, I present you with the virus. Specifically the common cold.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

We have seen one. Why did we outlive the neanderthalls? Because of our complex inner ear, helping us to balance better, and thus move faster to escape predators. Thats a beneficial mutation. Or were you expecting something out of X-men?

And its only mathimatically impossible if youre one of those idiots who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. Otherwise its totally possible.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.

Does your tinfoil hat keep the aliens from reading your thoughts too?

Intellegent Design is as intellectually respectable as Scientology. No amount of paranoid conspiricy theories will change that.

Oh noes, did I die or something while I was away? *goes to read*

I'm going to have to go with "or something" :D

Daista: I think he means "ID is not science" And just forgot the "is"

Boo. Also, your character in AD is temporarily out of commission, for reasons I can't go into, largely because Dem happens to be reading this thread right now.

Am not.

=)

Because I'm brown. It's what we do.

And dear lord do I love days off.

Go back to Mexico, damn you!

I'm going to have to go with "or something" :D


I turned into spooky music! Yay! :D

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution? So far, I see only attacks on statements concerning the four types of evidence I would like to see, and one person flatly stating that the evidence is there simply to contradict me, but provided no support for that statement.

The practice of science has been around long enough that we should have seen at least one beneficial mutation over x period of time. When you consider that we haven't seen even one, and the number of iterations it would take for the DNA structure of living creatures to adapt to it's present form from "scratch", it becomes mathematically impossible to fit that into the timeframe of the the earth's age.

Which, I should note, is why the scale for radiometric dating has been arbitrarily finessed to make the age of the earth so old - evolutionists who are smart and have considered this argument knew that natural selection would take a very long time, so they set the rules to support their argument. This is propaganda, not science.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

And that's just one example. You have to put on pretty big blinders to ignore the evidence.

the other arguments were undermined earlier.
By whom? When? Where? To whom? In what context? When was it on tv that every single argument about why there are god(s) was undermined for every single religion in the world? At this point, I'd settle even for the Wiki article about that great day that I didn't get the memo about.

if there are religions that have novel proofs for the existence of god that have not already been dismantled, i'm sure we would all love to see them. if they do not have such arguments, then you would seem to be saying that because some religions do not offer proofs, this is a reason to believe them. which is ridiculous.
Yes, it is ridiculous -- by which I mean ridiculous of you to say such a thing, because it is an obvious misrepresentation of my argument. It is an obvious strawman.

I have not said one single word -- not one -- that in any way whatsoever so much as implies that any religion's arguments of any kind about any topic are or can even be considered true. Nor have I ever said anything even remotely resembling a suggestion that any religion's stories about anything should be believed by anyone.

What I have been arguing is that YOUR argument is crap. And I have been making that argument by referring only to YOUR argument. I have not in any way whatsoever compared YOUR argument to anyone else's argument. I have only focused on the glaring flaws in YOUR argument. YOUR argument fails because its structure is not sound. That has nothing -- not one stinking little thing -- to do with any other possible argument that anyone else might float.

and this is not about creation myths. the fact that you still think it is makes me wonder about your comprehension. this is about creation.
1) There is no religious story about creation that is not a creation myth. Creationists who claim otherwise are just wrong on the facts -- facts about the nature of religion, not facts about science. So if you are talking about religious stories about creation, then you are talking about creation myths. Period.

2) Evolution is not about creation, either.

So...apparently, you've managed to miss the point on both sides of the issue. You're wrong about what you are arguing, and you're wrong about what you are arguing against. Impressive.

one cannot be intellectually satisfied with a position if there is a strong outstanding argument against it's truth for which they have no equally compelling counterargument. one can be content with it, one can stop caring, but one cannot honestly claim to be intellectually satisfied.
Speak for yourself, FS. At this point, the best that can be said of you is that you are equally offensive to everyone in your arrogance. You are just as willing to dictate the thought processes of every atheist in the world as you are of every theist in the world. And you do both with the same lack of basis.

it isn't about who said something, but about the arguments that have been made available to us.
It's not about people saying things but it is about arguments? Good one. :D


41% vs 1.6%. no lumping. explain, motherfucker.
Manners, much?

And if you bothered to read the arguments of the person you persist in attacking (despite your lack of progress), you would know that I have not disputed your numbers. I have disputed your use of those numbers. I challenge you to put up an explanation, since you seem to think those numbers are so meaningful, and this time make it an actual explanation, not baseless speculation slammed into people's faces with insults and arrogant dismissiveness.

i don't need direct causation. the correlation is good enough for my argument, <snip>
No point in going on with the rest of your repetitive and still unsupported nonsense. You admit you have no ability to show the causal relationship you claimed, and you assert that you have no intention of looking for one (and perhaps never even tried in the first place).

I rest my case that your remarks are biased, groundless, unsupported, and just as unreasoning as any creationist argument.

EDIT: And I really mean rest my case. I'm done with your crap, and I am filled with resentment against you for having taken up my time, when I could have had more fun jumping on Wuldani. Now everyone else has gotten the best kicks in ahead of me. I blame you for that.

but why so few? does it not strike you as something in need of explanation that biologists are so atheistic?
What, you mean a logical extension of the well-known correlation between level of education and prevalence of atheism? Or are we supposed to ignore blindingly obvious explanations if they run counter to your position?

Like antibiotic resistances? Or the ability to feed on synthetic substances?

Nope, haven't seen those.

My personal favorite is immortality, but HeLa's such an aberrant example of a beneficial mutation that it's not really the best example to bring up. Why can't evolution operate by strict Darwinian principles? It'd be so much easier than cancers that qualify as separate organisms.

Not at all. This is patently wrong. Reconciling scientific understanding with spiritual beliefs is actually a mark of a theist who wishes for fulfillment, intellectual and otherwise. It's called having a consistent worldview.

1) explain why are there so few of them in biology when compared to the general public, or even when compared to chemists
2) doesn't the fact that religious beliefs and science require 'reconciling' imply something to you? how, exactly, is it possible that these things even can be in conflict? it appears to imply something for lots of people - we have their testimony to that.

Do you mean scientific evidence for the existence of god?

not as such, no. if we look to, for example, thomas aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae), we see that he offered what he claims are 5 proofs of the existence of god (though they could really be grouped as variations of the cosmological, ontological {in even stupider than usual form}, and teleological arguments). its all a bunch of philosophy, really.

the problem is that the standard methods of convincing people that some god exists are fucking terrible arguments - or, at best, work only for the person who personally had some experience. they do not withstand even cursory logical interrogation. if i tell you that some gods exists because they spoke to me, all you have to do is find someone else who thinks the gods spoke to them but said things that contradict what they said to me to completely undermine both my testimony and theirs as a good argument for believing. likewise if i say the gods must exist because this book says they do, or if people claim to have seen miracles, etc.

so thoughtful theists throughout history have attempted to come up with rational arguments for god's existence, unreliant on anyone's say-so.

What, you mean a logical extension of the well-known correlation between level of education and prevalence of atheism? Or are we supposed to ignore blindingly obvious explanations if they run counter to your position?

biologists are significantly more atheistic than chemists. education is really a proxy for the academic culture of skepticism and demands for rigorous thinking in general, which accounts for much of the increased atheism and agnosticism across the board, but biologists and physicists go above and beyond even that.

i'm curious as to how increased education-level being correlated with lower god-belief levels would run counter to my position. seems to me that that is my position.

Has any proponent of evolutionary biology on this thread offered an explanation for the lack of physical evidence for evolution?

have you stopped raping puppies?

1) explain why are there so few of them in biology when compared to the general public, or even when compared to chemists

Why should I? You're the one who is claiming that evolution makes it difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. Your observation about a lack of theism in biologists may be related to your claim, but it may just as easily be related to anti-theist bigotry in the sciences. Since you're the one making the positive claim, burden of proof is on you.

2) doesn't the fact that religious beliefs and science require 'reconciling' imply something to you? how, exactly, is it possible that these things even can be in conflict? it appears to imply something for lots of people - we have their testimony to that.

People also have to reconcile their theories to fit with their data. Does this imply that theory is somehow inherently in conflict with reality? No. it does not. Obviously this only need imply conflict if you are looking for it.

not as such, no....
so thoughtful theists throughout history have attempted to come up with rational arguments for god's existence, unreliant on anyone's say-so.

So, you're just talking about logical proofs?

1) explain why are there so few of them in biology when compared to the general public, or even when compared to chemists

Why are the results in economics also very different from those in the general public, or even from those in political science?

Why was there a far greater proportion of Jews in the scientists surveyed than in the general population?

Why is it that the percentage of scientists who labeled themselves as "liberal" versions of their respective religions actually fairly closely matched the general public?

Why is it that the scientists surveyed did not have the same childhood background with religion that the general public did?

There are all sorts of questions one might want to go forward with after a study like this.

the problem is that the standard methods of convincing people that some god exists are fucking terrible arguments - or, at best, work only for the person who personally had some experience.

How is this a problem if one has no intention of convincing others?

biologists are significantly more atheistic than chemists. education is really a proxy for the academic culture of skepticism and demands for rigorous thinking in general, which accounts for much of the increased atheism and agnosticism across the board, but biologists and physicists go above and beyond even that.

Actually, according to the study you referenced, physicists showed no significant difference when compared to psychologists or economists.

And the researchers were clear that they were even unsure about the significance of the numbers among biologists without further, larger studies.

I'm worried that according to the poll NSG is inhabited by at least 14 idiots.

Why should I? You're the one who is claiming that evolution makes it difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist. Your observation about a lack of theism in biologists may be related to your claim, but it may just as easily be related to anti-theist bigotry in the sciences. Since you're the one making the positive claim, burden of proof is on you.

and my evidence is that in addition to just making narrative sense in the face of intellectual history, numerous prominent atheistic biologists have come right out and said that science generally and evolution specifically are major factors. this whole thing referenced a quote from dicky d, you'll recall.

People also have to reconcile their theories to fit with their data. Does this imply that theory is somehow inherently in conflict with reality?

yup. either data fit the theory, or the theory needs tinkering because it conflicts with what is actually the case.

So, you're just talking about logical proofs?

more or less. the lack of any good evidence at all for god is part of my argument against agnosticism, but isn't really relevant here.

How is this a problem if one has no intention of convincing others?

it isn't, if you don't care about such things.

Actually, according to the study you referenced, physicists showed no significant difference when compared to psychologists or economists.

And the researchers were clear that they were even unsure about the significance of the numbers among biologists without further, larger studies.

larger studies are of course necessary, but the differences are at least noteworthy already. they rejected a hard vs soft distinction. the chemists are closer to academic average. the physicists and biologists are on a different plane, though. even they noted this:

"The one exception is among biologists, whose coefficients on the God and attendance
measures show a tendency toward lower levels of religiosity than physicists. If such differences are found more generally, they could mean that many of the perceived conflicts
between religion and science occur mainly among biologists."

yeah thats what got me to start the thread. I got a door to door person telling me about ID. I have never been given the same type of thing about darwanism or e = mc2

Beleive in god if you want but please keep this ID stuff in a religous theory course

ID is not science. That much is irrefutable. And I speak as a Christian.

I don't believe that God zapped the universe(s) into existence in a week. I believe that he created physical existence, and that natural processes carried out the rest of his vision.

Still, ID is not proven through scientific inquiry. It is not dead certain. Thus, it is not science.

I am one of those uninformed fundamental Christians. I believe that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. I also believe that God is essentially unchanging and orderly, and he made His universe to be bound by order. When created, it was mature (in the same way that all the creatures that populated it were mature). In other words, it has the appearance of age.

It is governed by laws that we may not yet understand, but do in fact exist. Nothing inside the universe can violate said laws. If something inside the universe appears to violate the laws, then our understanding of the laws must be incorrect. (Just a side note: God is not of this universe, therefore He is not bound by said laws.)

None of the above precludes scientific inquiry. A secular scientist assumes that regular laws govern the universe, and so he asks "What is causing 'xyz' to happen?", and then forms a hypothesis. As a believer, you hold that God has created the regular laws, and doesn't change them. Thus, you ask the same question: "What is causing 'xyz' to happen?", and then you form your hypothesis accordingly. There is no difference in method, in purpose, and no true difference in applicable assumptions. Only the fact that there are laws governing the universe matters. Where the laws came from is irrelevant.

In order to further a scientific theory, you must make predictions that are verified by experiment, and that others can also verify. We can make as many predictions as we like about the origins of the universe, but it those first few moments are unique. None of us can recreate them through experiment (not once, and certainly not a second time!). Since any theories made about the origins of the universe cannot be verified through any experiment, they cannot be science in the pure sense.

In fact, nothing can truly be absolutely proven through science. "Proof", in the absolute sense, only actually exists in mathematics. We can only pile on evidence to make something more certain, but never absolutely certain. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Similarly, His involvement in the universe cannot be proven or disproven. It remains, as it always has, a matter of faith. All we IDers want is the animosity towards religion and its inquiries to be removed from schools.

I am one of those uninformed fundamental Christians. I believe that God made the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. I also believe that God is essentially unchanging and orderly, and he made His universe to be bound by order. When created, it was mature (in the same way that all the creatures that populated it were mature). In other words, it has the appearance of age.

It is governed by laws that we may not yet understand, but do in fact exist. Nothing inside the universe can violate said laws. If something inside the universe appears to violate the laws, then our understanding of the laws must be incorrect. (Just a side note: God is not of this universe, therefore He is not bound by said laws.)

None of the above precludes scientific inquiry. A secular scientist assumes that regular laws govern the universe, and so he asks "What is causing 'xyz' to happen?", and then forms a hypothesis. As a believer, you hold that God has created the regular laws, and doesn't change them. Thus, you ask the same question: "What is causing 'xyz' to happen?", and then you form your hypothesis accordingly. There is no difference in method, in purpose, and no true difference in applicable assumptions. Only the fact that there are laws governing the universe matters. Where the laws came from is irrelevant.

In order to further a scientific theory, you must make predictions that are verified by experiment, and that others can also verify. We can make as many predictions as we like about the origins of the universe, but it those first few moments are unique. None of us can recreate them through experiment (not once, and certainly not a second time!). Since any theories made about the origins of the universe cannot be verified through any experiment, they cannot be science in the pure sense.

In fact, nothing can truly be absolutely proven through science. "Proof", in the absolute sense, only actually exists in mathematics. We can only pile on evidence to make something more certain, but never absolutely certain. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Similarly, His involvement in the universe cannot be proven or disproven. It remains, as it always has, a matter of faith. All we IDers want is the animosity towards religion and its inquiries to be removed from schools.

I mostly either agree with this or am fine with it, but I do have one question;

When created, it was mature (in the same way that all the creatures that populated it were mature). In other words, it has the appearance of age.

Why?

All we IDers want is the animosity towards religion and its inquiries to be removed from schools.

then stop trying to put your religion where it doesn't belong.

"Proof", in the absolute sense, only actually exists in mathematics.

Funny, because literal reading of the Bible disagrees with it.

Mathematician: Pi=3.14

Bible:
1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Circumference of a circle=Pi*diameter
Therefore Pi=circumference/diameter=30cubits/10cubits=3

<snip>
The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. Similarly, His involvement in the universe cannot be proven or disproven. It remains, as it always has, a matter of faith. All we IDers want is the animosity towards religion and its inquiries to be removed from schools.
Then why do IDers insist on having their "matter of faith" inserted into science classes? Why can't it stay in religious study classes?

All we IDers want is the animosity towards religion and its inquiries to be removed from schools.

what does that mean? religion isnt taught in (public) schools (except in a very few schools with classes in comparative religion classes) what animosity is there?

larger studies are of course necessary, but the differences are at least noteworthy already. they rejected a hard vs soft distinction. the chemists are closer to academic average. the physicists and biologists are on a different plane, though. even they noted this:

"The one exception is among biologists, whose coefficients on the God and attendance
measures show a tendency toward lower levels of religiosity than physicists. If such differences are found more generally, they could mean that many of the perceived conflicts
between religion and science occur mainly among biologists."

The noted that the biologists alone showed that tendency over the other fields. They did not draw a distinction between physicists and scientists overall.

We were created by aliens duh!
Why else would we look like them?

When created, it was mature (in the same way that all the creatures that populated it were mature).
Did Adam have long hair, AS IF the hair had been growing? Or short hair, AS IF it had just been cut? Was he also created with memories of going fishing with his grandpa as a kid? And with the bones of his grandpa buried somewhere?
In other words, it has the appearance of age.
Kind of raises a "what is reality?" question. If there was all that hypothetical back-story behind the moment of creation, isn't that time that existed in God's mind just as "real" as the time from the moment of creation onward?

I am one of those uninformed fundamental Christians.

I stopped reading here. Thank you for stating this at the begining and saving me the time of reading your post.

Why?

Same reason why people believe he went around burying pre-aged fossil bones. God's a mean old bastard who likes to trick people's senses and then step out going "psyche your mind!"

:p

The noted that the biologists alone showed that tendency over the other fields. They did not draw a distinction between physicists and scientists overall.

though you'll note that this was because they chose physicists as their baseline. physicists and biologists have effectively identical godlessness levels, and each was significantly more godless than the chemists (statistically, even).

Same reason why people believe he went around burying pre-aged fossil bones. God's a mean old bastard who likes to trick people's senses and then step out going "psyche your mind!"

:p

God shouldn't be Chaotic Neutral. That's my job. :p

You cannot prove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Similarly, you cannot disprove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Therefore, science cannot prove everything, and science is not to be used as a basis for either proving or disproving God himself.

____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

You cannot prove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Similarly, you cannot disprove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Therefore, science cannot prove everything, and science is not to be used as a basis for either proving or disproving God himself.


Awesome. Except science doesnt "prove", thats math's job. Science shows what the most likely possible explaination is.

And no matter what delusional theistic fundamentalists want to tell themselves, that is evolution.

Except science doesnt "prove" thats math's job.

Oh, then Darwin actually didn't prove anything? Neither did Newton, nor did Galileo, nor did Archimedes. In fact, all the scientific laws ever proven through history were...apparently...never actually 'proven'.

How about I give you a little kick in the shin? Will that 'prove' to you that I find your assertion somewhat absurd? Or will I have to perform a calculation to provide that evidence instead?

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

Oh, then Darwin actually didn't prove anything? Neither did Newton, nor did Galileo, nor did Archimedes. In fact, all the scientific laws ever proven through history were...apparently...never actually 'proven'.

How about I give you a little kick in the shin? Will that 'prove' to you that I find your assertion somewhat absurd? Or will I have to perform a calculation to provide that evidence instead?



How cute. It thinks it knows stuff. Science proposes theories. It keeps testing those theories. The longer those theories hold up, the more accepted they are.

To "prove" something would mean science is done testing it. Which it never will be.

How cute. It thinks it knows stuff. Science proposes theories. It keeps testing those theories. The longer those theories hold up, the more accepted they are.

To "prove" something would mean science is done testing it. Which it never will be.

Indeed. Evolution has been under constant attack since it was proposed. It has survived, and thus I think it's one of the strongest theories there is.

To "prove" something would mean science is done testing it. Which it never will be.

Why are you continuing to argue over vocabulary? Go and try rubbing that word out of the scientific dictionary instead, rather than wasting your breath about it here. Good luck.

It has survived

Only to those who hold fast to it. Just like Creation scientists claim that ID has ‘survived’.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

you cannot disprove God using science

you can, however, disprove specific god-claims using science

Only to those who hold fast to it. Just like Creation scientists claim that ID has ‘survived’.

Except Evolution has survived. Under gone changes? Yes. Had some aspects of it changed in the face of new evidence? Yes.


But the core of it is still the same. It has, for all intents and purposes, survived intense scrutiny, both scientific and otherwise.

Only to those who hold fast to it. Just like Creation scientists claim that ID has ‘survived’.

If Evolution were to be convincingly and decisively disproved, do you know who would be the happiest people on the planet? Scientists. They'd be tickled pink.

Could you imagine religious people reacting the same way if God were convincingly and decisively disproved? Do you really think they'd go, "Whoa! I totally didn't expect that! Okay, let's get to work on that whole 'turtle's back' theory."

Oh, then Darwin actually didn't prove anything? Neither did Newton, nor did Galileo, nor did Archimedes. In fact, all the scientific laws ever proven through history were...apparently...never actually 'proven'. Theory =/= law. A scientific theory is based upon a body of evidence that can be proven wrong. For example, Newton's 'Law' of Gravity (It's actually Newton's Theory of Gravity, to be terminologically correct.) was incorrect, it was corrected by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (Newton's Theory didn't account for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.)

Reading, such a useful thing.

If Evolution were to be convincingly and decisively disproved, do you know who would be the happiest people on the planet? Scientists. They'd be tickled pink.

Could you imagine religious people reacting the same way if God were convincingly and decisively disproved? Do you really think they'd go, "Whoa! I totally didn't expect that! Okay, let's get to work on that whole 'turtle's back' theory."

And thus the difference between scientific and fundamentalist thinking.

Scientist upon being proven wrong: Wow! Fascinating!

Fundamentalist: No! I refuse! Blasphemy!

If Evolution were to be convincingly and decisively disproved, do you know who would be the happiest people on the planet? Scientists. They'd be tickled pink.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having died an Evolutionist, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. Heck. I would be rather nervous, to say the least.

Could you imagine religious people reacting the same way if God were convincingly and decisively disproved?

Heh. Dying and then 'convincingly and decisively' realizing there is actually nothing, when you were expecting something, isn't so bad. But thats just a matter of opinion.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having become deceased, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. I would be rather nervous, to say the least.



This is most likely not an issue. Besides, despite what theists tell themselves when theyre wearing their tinfoil hat, science is not out to disprove God. Science seeks answers to questions. That these answers almost always show the Bible, "God's Word", to be false, is not the fault of science.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having become deceased, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. I would be rather nervous, to say the least. My message to God in that scenario.
"Dear God, you suck at creating things. Stop it. That is all, I'm ready to go to Hell now."

Narnian Council, you seem to be working under the weird assumption that saying Intelligent Design is crap means one cannot believe in God.

Well, newsflash: most educated believers with a little scientific background realize ID is crap. They also realize that if they can believe in God or adhere to a religion, this is essentially a matter of faith. Ergo, they don't try to pass it off as science, because it's not.

Intelligent design is a (very poor) attempt at making religion look like science. It fails.

My message to God in that scenario.
"Dear God, you suck at creating things. Stop it. That is all, I'm ready to go to Hell now."

Id tell him to get a PR guy to undue the damage all his followers are doing to his image. Id also inform him that if he wishes to be taken seriously, in the future he should pick better writers to "inspire" to write his word, and that he should make sure that they not only know their facts (like math...Pi does not equal 3), but that they should all communicate with each other so they dont contradict each other on a regular basis.

Id tell him to get a PR guy to undue the damage all his followers are doing to his image. Id also inform him that if he wishes to be taken seriously, in the future he should pick better writers to "inspire" to write his word, and that he should make sure that they not only know their facts (like math...Pi does not equal 3), but that they should all communicate with each other so they dont contradict each other on a regular basis. I might do an essay on it. :p

you can, however, disprove specific god-claims using science
You can disprove specific god-claims that overlap science by using science. For example, you can easily disprove Genesis-based claims about the age of the Earth using science.

However, science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a god. That is a specific god-claim, but science lacks the data and/or equipment to address it. Nor can science prove that a person who says they were inspired by their god in a given circumstance was not inspired by such a thing. That is also a specific god-claim but it is such a personally subjective one that it also falls outside the purview of science.

When it comes to religion, science can disprove scientific claims, but it cannot disprove non-scientific claims.

You can disprove specific god-claims that overlap science by using science. For example, you can easily disprove Genesis-based claims about the age of the Earth using science.

However, science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a god. That is a specific god-claim, but science lacks the data and/or equipment to address it. Nor can science prove that a person who says they were inspired by their god in a given circumstance was not inspired by such a thing. That is also a specific god-claim but it is such a personally subjective one that it also falls outside the purview of science.

When it comes to religion, science can disprove scientific claims, but it cannot disprove non-scientific claims.

I agree completely.

My message to God in that scenario.
"Dear God, you suck at creating things. Stop it. That is all, I'm ready to go to Hell now."

Id tell him to get a PR guy...

I admire your diplomacy skills! Except...you're preparing a speech, expecting an angry God. You're going to have written for the wrong guy, unfortunately.

_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

Not in my part of the World, Knights of Liberty.

The only place on earth where there are people trying to pass off ID as science is in the Southern United States, as far as I'm aware. The rest of the western world is baffled at this stupidity.

Even highly catholic/christian countries with lower education averages, like in Latin American or Africa, would never even think about trying to pass of religion as science.

You don't see scientists petitioning for the right to bring their academic discoveries inside the Churches to attempt to pass it off as religion. So to all you USians out there: get your asses in gear and take that religion out of the science classes. The two don't mesh well at all.

You're going to have written for the wrong guy, unfortunately.


The OT disagrees.


The only place on earth where there are people trying to pass off ID as science is in the Southern United


Midwest.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having died an Evolutionist, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. Heck. I would be rather nervous, to say the least.

I don't know about your God, but my God would be pretty understanding about the whole thing.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having died an Evolutionist, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. Heck. I would be rather nervous, to say the least.

Would you? That's too bad. I was taught to own up to my mistakes and be proud of them. I'd look My Creator in the eye and say "well, looks like I was wrong. But I have to tell you, vague suspicions, paranoia and pushy fan clubs weren't really going to sway this mind you made for me, and the thing is, you know that already. In fact, you knew I was going to be right here, didn't you? Well, here I am. If being who You made me gets be bad news now, who's fault is that, really?"

Heh. Dying and then 'convincingly and decisively' realizing there is actually nothing, when you were expecting something, isn't so bad. But thats just a matter of opinion.

Well, that much is true. However, I'm pretty sure those who are true believers and just enraptured with the afterlife as it was sold to them would probably be a bit more upset than that. But hey, like you said, it's all opinions and conjecture. Then again, if it's just oblivion, there's nothing there to be upset about, and no mind with which to express the emotion.

The only place on earth where there are people trying to pass off ID as science is in the Southern United States, as far as I'm aware. The rest of the western world is baffled at this stupidity.

You missed Kansas.

I don't know about your God, but my God would be pretty understanding about the whole thing.

“When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if not…mmmmm, boy!”

J. Handey

I don't know about your God, but my God would be pretty understanding about the whole thing.

Thats the way I look at it. I help people. Im a likable guy. I get along with people in most situations. I dont commit atrocities. I make my community a better place. I just have more important things to worry about in life then what the Christians tell me their God thinks.


Any god who sends me to hell with my resume, just because I wasnt part of his fan club, can suck it. Id rather be with the Devil if thats the case.

I don't know about your God, but my God would be pretty understanding about the whole thing.

Yeah, mine too. Pretty understanding person in general really, god, that is.

It's not our fault that Narnian's god is an asshole who takes him/herself way too seriously. Geez.

Midwest.
I stand corrected.

The rest of the world still points at them and laughs, though.

Even highly catholic/christian countries with lower education averages, like in Latin American or Africa, would never even think about trying to pass of religion as science.


Missed this. Thats simply not true. In some parts of Latin America and Africa, science doesnt really exist. Its pretty much, religion.

In all honosty Europe is the exception rather than the rule.

Yeah, mine too. Pretty understanding person in general really, god, that is.

I've always been of the school of thought that believes that if a God truly does exist, he cannot not have a sense of humor.

Clearly, He'd get a good few laughs with all the stupid stuff we end up doing.


Missed this. Thats simply not true. In some parts of Latin America and Africa, science doesnt really exist. Its pretty much, religion.

In all honosty Europe is the exception rather than the rule.
'Fraid I disagree. In those countries, even though the majority of the population does not have access to higher education, those who do reach the upper echelons get good quality science backgrounds. Latin American and African Countries can and do produce some highly qualified engineers, Ph.Ds and assorted university-dwellers. But they don't teach ID in science classes. People who might believe in ID there does so because of their religious faith, not because they had it taught to them in science classes.

There is not (as far as I'm aware) another country who tries to pass off ID as science. Because, quite simply, Intelligent Design is anything but science. It's religion. If you want to teach it, teach it in a religion class, that's fine. Because unless you're willing to let a geologist explain to you in your Church why God decided to make Earth look like 4.5 billion years, or biologists explain to you through which mechanism (evolution) God decided to separate the good grain from the bad, ID has no place in a science curriculum.

The OT disagrees.

Does it? I wasn't aware God had changed. Enlighten me?

Thats the way I look at it. I help people. Im a likable guy. I get along with people in most situations. I dont commit atrocities. I make my community a better place. I just have more important things to worry about in life then what the Christians tell me their God thinks.

What a sorry state we would all be in if heaven was earned via works. You might be a knight in shining armour, parading down the street in all your brilliance - congratulations. Don’t know about you, but I am glad he doesn’t play favourites. Otherwise we’d be stuck praying to him a gazillion times a day, making pilgrimages and fasting weekly in order to attain salvation.
_____________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

I've always been of the school of thought that believes that if a God truly does exist, he cannot not have a sense of humor.

Clearly, He'd get a good few laughs with all the stupid stuff we end up doing.

Yeah, the idea of god as this humorless angry old guy doesn't appeal to me. My god, on the other hand is much more fun. She has an awesome sense of humor.

Thats the way I look at it. I help people. Im a likable guy. I get along with people in most situations. I dont commit atrocities. I make my community a better place. I just have more important things to worry about in life then what the Christians tell me their God thinks.


Any god who sends me to hell with my resume, just because I wasnt part of his fan club, can suck it. Id rather be with the Devil if thats the case.

Yeah, mine too. Pretty understanding person in general really, god, that is.

It's not our fault that Narnian's god is an asshole who takes him/herself way too seriously. Geez.

Yep, I read some of these portrayals of God from the Bible, especially the Old Testament and I hear others and stories about who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I listen to Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roeper talk about who God hates and I really wonder how people could worship a dickhead like that. Most people who worship God seem to have a really low opinion of Him don't they?

Does it? I wasn't aware God had changed. Enlighten me?



You clearly havent read your own book.


What a sorry state we would all be in if heaven was earned via works. You might be a knight in shining armour, parading down the street in all your brilliance - congratulations. Don’t know about you, but I am glad he doesn’t play favourites. Otherwise we’d be stuck praying to him a gazillion times a day, making pilgrimages and fasting weekly in order to attain salvation.




Yeah, it really is great that Ghandi is in hell while John Wayne Gacy, who "found Christ" before his execution, is in heaven. Cosmic justice at its finest.

The Bible depicts your god as a petty asshole who is far more concerned with being worshiped and getting people into his fan club.

What a sorry state we would all be in if heaven was earned via works. You might be a knight in shining armour, parading down the street in all your brilliance - congratulations. Don’t know about you, but I am glad he doesn’t play favourites. Otherwise we’d be stuck praying to him a gazillion times a day, making pilgrimages and fasting weekly in order to attain salvation.


Salvation by faith alone is crap. It dictates that if you're a mass murderer, you get into heaven if you just believe, but someone who saved the lives of thousands of people goes to Hell if they don't. What a bunch of bullshit.

If god punishes otherwise good people for not believing, he's an asshole. One of the many reasons I reject the Christian deity.

Huzzah, evolution. Boo, ID. ID does not exist and never will.

Why doesn't it exist? Because it is not science. Science is a series of tests, refutations, revisions, and more tests.

Take, say, friction, as an example. In the ancient times, the Greeks could push anything in Athens along a floor and it would come to a stop. As time went on, some started questioning this idea, and one particular fellow decided to polish surfaces and push things across them (forgot the guy's name; Newton?). Sure enough, they travelled further. Now, friction is an everyday concept.

ID can never be proven nor disproven, and this is not science. Anything that is not science cannot exist. Sort of. I suppose. I can't just firmly say, "God does not exist!" since I don't know that and can never prove or disprove it. Nor can I firmly say, "God exists!" because that may or may not be true.

Yay?

Yep, I read some of these portrayals of God from the Bible, especially the Old Testament and I hear others and stories about who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I listen to Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roeper talk about who God hates and I really wonder how people could worship a dickhead like that. Most people who worship God seem to have a really low opinion of Him don't they?

Yeah, why worship a total ass?

Basically, the only justification I can see in the many arguments with fundamentalists I've had is that their God is worth worshiping just because he's supposedly powerful and if you don't he'll fuck you up.

I think that's crap. Power isn't worthy of praise in and of itself.

You obviously favor Allah though, yes? No salvation through faith there. Therefore he's cooler, so he must be true, of course.

I wasn't aware that God hated people, Golfballs? Knights of Liberty, I'm not sure you know how well I am acquainted with the Bible. I was expecting a half-decent answer.
_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

What a sorry state we would all be in if heaven was earned via works.

Argh, is this thread going to turn into a Protestant vs. Catholic fight now? Aren't 500 or so years of this particular debate enough to convey the point that you guys are never going to agree on the whole works/faith thing, and that it might possibly be pointless to assert one or the other as if it is the One And Only Truth With Which All Agree? :rolleyes:

Yep, I read some of these portrayals of God from the Bible, especially the Old Testament and I hear others and stories about who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. I listen to Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roeper talk about who God hates and I really wonder how people could worship a dickhead like that. Most people who worship God seem to have a really low opinion of Him don't they?Right. Exactly.
...It makes me wonder why the worship him at all. Do they fear 'everlasting damnation'? I mean, I'm sure you'd get used to it if you had an eternity to endure it. Eventually you'd have to get, you know, bored with it. I can imagine...
"Torture today?"
"Yeah."
''*sigh* This routine is a little old, you know. I don't even scream anymore. It's just...boring. You guys should really reinvent your system. Maybe add a little ice dip after the fire bath?"

You obviously favor Allah though, yes? No salvation through faith there. Therefore he's cooler, so he must be true, of course.

Allahs a prick too. But a I will say, the Qu'ran is a much better read than the Bible. Muhammad was a much better writer.


I wasn't aware that God hated people, Golfballs? Knights of Liberty, I'm not sure you know how well I am acquainted with the Bible. I was expecting a half-decent answer.


Why bother? If you had read the Bible, youd know God is all about smiting, killing, ordering genocide, condoning sexual slavery, etc. Hes a pretty angry guy.

Youre rubuttle is essentially "Nu-uh!" and I dont debate with children.

I still want to know, by the way. How is it supposidly perfect, devine, cosmic justice that Ghandi is in hell and John Wayne Gacy is in heaven?

You obviously favor Allah though, yes? No salvation through faith there. Therefore he's cooler, so he must be true, of course.

I wasn't aware that God hated people, Golfballs? Knights of Liberty, I'm not sure you know how well I am acquainted with the Bible. I was expecting a half-decent answer.


Um... no, Allah is the same as the Christian god....

I don't like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. Clear enough for you? Oh, and my references to god as "she" should have made that fairly obvious.

Why "wonder", Gauntleted Fist? A little absurd when you have someone here to ask, yes? Except I doubt you are looking for any answers beside your own.
___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

Why "wonder", Gauntleted Fist? A little absurd when you have someone here to ask, yes? Except I doubt you are looking for any answers beside your own.


He's bright enough to have the answers.

I dont debate with children.

I still want to know, by the way. How is it supposidly perfect, devine, cosmic justice that Ghandi is in hell and John Wayne Gacy is in heaven?

Haha. I'm not sure why you expect me to answer your questions, when you refuse to answer mine. Rather ironic.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

I'm not sure you know how well I am acquainted with the Bible.

oooh, bible smackdown

Haha. I'm not sure why you expect me to answer your questions, when you refuse to answer mine. Rather ironic.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

What question of yours didnt I answer?


God isnt angry? Curse of Destruction, anyone? It takes a pretty angry dude to order youre envoy on earth kill every adult and child male in a city, as well as the non-virginal women, and have your people take the virgin women into sexual slavery.

Im out for the night. Hopefully when I come back sometime tomorrow, this question will have been answered:

How is it supposidly perfect, devine, cosmic justice that Ghandi is in hell and John Wayne Gacy is in heaven?


But I doubt it. I have yet to meet a Christian (and Ive met several Pastors) who could answer it.

Curse of Destruction, anyone? It takes a pretty angry dude to order youre envoy on earth kill every adult and child male in a city, as well as the non-virginal women, and have your people take the virgin women into sexual slavery.

Sexual slavery? Wow. Confident enough to provide a citation for that?

I would be tempted to get rid of an Canaanite population when it had defiled itself with unnatural sexual relations (I'm not referring to homosexuality) too - their genes (only in existance because of their wrong choices) thus contaminated with horribly deformed and utterly dangerous properties.

Yes, I am now fairly sure you were totally unaware of the background.
__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

Yeah, mine too. Pretty understanding person in general really, god, that is.
My gods are way too busy dealing with this world to worry about the next, which probably has its own gods anyway. Like my gods, my plate is pretty full with this life, too, so I really don't waste time wondering what I'll say to anyone after I'm dead. Also, I doubt I'd have to have any reckoning with any of my gods after I'm dead, because I don't worship death/next life gods.

It's not our fault that Narnian's god is an asshole who takes him/herself way too seriously. Geez.
I often wonder how Christians get converts with such a god. I mean, they come to me with stories about how much their god will make me suffer if I don't do what they want me to -- i.e. join their church and give them money -- and well, it's not really that appealing a pitch.

What a sorry state we would all be in if heaven was earned via works. You might be a knight in shining armour, parading down the street in all your brilliance - congratulations. Don’t know about you, but I am glad he doesn’t play favourites. Otherwise we’d be stuck praying to him a gazillion times a day, making pilgrimages and fasting weekly in order to attain salvation.

Yeah, well, if just being a moral person is not enough to get in good with your god of morals, then I guess I'll just have to continue not being his worshipper, because I don't have time to do anything else for him.

EDIT: Of course, none of this is relevant to the topic, which is about ID. There are plenty of instructions in the Bible about how to behave morally, but as far as I know, there is no instruction that says you must believe the Earth is 6000 years old or any of the other stuff IDers claim. Seems to me that ID has nothing to do with the Christian god, but rather, it's all about the Christians themselves, making up new myths.

Same reason why people believe he went around burying pre-aged fossil bones. God's a mean old bastard who likes to trick people's senses and then step out going "psyche your mind!"

:pDoes that mean Criss Angel is god? MINDFREAK!

Hey, Narnian Council, I'm feelin' kinda left out here.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14232154&postcount=312

Could you imagine religious people reacting the same way if God were convincingly and decisively disproved? Do you really think they'd go, "Whoa! I totally didn't expect that! Okay, let's get to work on that whole 'turtle's back' theory."

Yes, I'm sure many would go gee we where wrong. And then it would be time not to say that so they don't cop crap for being wrong.

Thats the way I look at it. I help people. Im a likable guy. I get along with people in most situations. I dont commit atrocities. I make my community a better place. I just have more important things to worry about in life then what the Christians tell me their God thinks.

Any god who sends me to hell with my resume, just because I wasnt part of his fan club, can suck it. Id rather be with the Devil if thats the case.

The funny thing is KoL is that the Christian God wouldn't knock you back if you weren't apart of his fan club, well at least according to the Gospels.

Im out for the night. Hopefully when I come back sometime tomorrow, this question will have been answered.

Answered, or answered so that you finally take satisfaction? I have a suspicion that you're looking for the former.

In any case, he's not going to drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.

Its called free will. You choose what you believe - and he respects that. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground - so if you disown God, there is only one other place you can go. And he won't tamper with your free choice, because you aren't a robot.

I'm out too. If you're interested in continuing this discussing civilly - TG me. But I doubt that, because people of your kind are always out to prove something to the public, they don't tend to be personally searching for the truth themselves.

Show me differently.
________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7

The funny thing is KoL is that the Christian God wouldn't knock you back if you weren't apart of his fan club, well at least according to the Gospels.
No, but according to some Christians, he would. One wonders where they get such ideas.

Sexual slavery? Wow. Confident enough to provide a citation for that?Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
Try that.

Answered, or answered so that you finally take satisfaction? I have a suspicion that you're looking for the former.

In any case, he's not going to drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.

Its called free will. You choose what you believe - and he respects that. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground - so if you disown God, there is only one other place you can go. And he won't tamper with your free choice, because you aren't a robot.

I'm out too. If you're interested in continuing this discussing civilly - TG me. But I doubt that, because people of your kind are always out to prove something to the public, they don't tend to be personally searching for the truth themselves.

Show me differently.

You did not answer his question at all, let alone satisfactorily. Care to try again?

EDIT: Having your sig be in the body of your posts rather than the sig line is kind of annoying. Just mentioning.

Salvation by faith alone is crap. It dictates that if you're a mass murderer, you get into heaven if you just believe, but someone who saved the lives of thousands of people goes to Hell if they don't. What a bunch of bullshit.

If god punishes otherwise good people for not believing, he's an asshole. One of the many reasons I reject the Christian deity.

Well actually it would be both, as God loves all people equally regardless of their religion and background, you would still get into heaven even if you didn't find salvation.

Allahs a prick too. But a I will say, the Qu'ran is a much better read than the Bible. Muhammad was a much better writer.

Well, I won't debate that overall the Koran is a pretty good read. But surely the history of the OT is pretty good, it has action, adventure, romance a few proverbs in fact all the makings of a good movie.

He left. After I went through all that trouble of finding a citation about sexual slavery in the Bible.

No, but according to some Christians, he would. One wonders where they get such ideas.

Where they get such ideas that God loves all people equally? Or where people get ideas that even not being Christian they will still get into heaven? I don't know I'm just going over what the Bishop said, I may be wrong he may be wrong in the end it dosen't matter.

He left. After I went through all that trouble of finding a citation about sexual slavery in the Bible.
Well, he did say he was going for the night.

Where they get such ideas that God loves all people equally? Or where people get ideas that even not being Christian they will still get into heaven? I don't know I'm just going over what the Bishop said, I may be wrong he may be wrong in the end it dosen't matter.
No, BE, I wonder where they get the idea that even good, moral people will be damned if they don't join the right church. Some people think that. I wonder where they get that idea from.

Well, he did say he was going for the night.Yeah, and speaking of, I think I should go as well.

If he comes back, and I'm not on, would someone kindly link or cite my post for him?

No, BE, I wonder where they get the idea that even good, moral people will be damned if they don't join the right church. Some people think that. I wonder where they get that idea from.

Oh sorry, well I don't know either.

In any case, he's not going to drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.

Its called free will. You choose what you believe - and he respects that. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground - so if you disown God, there is only one other place you can go. And he won't tamper with your free choice, because you aren't a robot.So the only choices are follow me or burn in hell? Doesn't seem like free will; seems more akin to Mobster extortion on a spiritual level.

Anything you read in the bible has already lost its meaning. The language that first wrote the bible was not English. It was written in mainly Hebrew for the old testament and Greek for the new.

One example I like of the constant misinterpretation of the bible is the "son of man" part. The closer definition would be "child of human spirit". None of the terms first written in Greek has anything to do with gender. Or at least that what a priests once said to a me (in a group of students).

Anything you read in the bible has already lost its meaning. The language that first wrote the bible was not English. It was written in mainly Hebrew for the old testament and Greek for the new.

One example I like of the constant misinterpretation of the bible is the "son of man" part. The closer definition would be "child of human spirit". None of the terms first written in Greek has anything to do with gender. Or at least that what a priests once said to a me (in a group of students).

There is also the mistranslation relating to virgin birth.

Is there an accurate translation of the Bible from the original languages that hasn't be edited to fit with church doctrine?

There is also the mistranslation relating to virgin birth.

Is there an accurate translation of the Bible from the original languages that hasn't be edited to fit with church doctrine?
The whole Bible is collected - books that have been chosen as Biblical Canon - with an agenda in mind.

Just think of the apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha)...

Perhaps, most importantly the Gnostic Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospel)

The whole Bible is collected - books that have been chosen as Biblical Canon - with an agenda in mind.

Just think of the apocrypha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha)...

Perhaps, most importantly the Gnostic Gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_gospel)

Yes but you are missing the point - I am talking about the translations used. If I were to read an accurate scholarly translation of the books of the Bible would I get a completely different view?

No, but according to some Christians, he would. One wonders where they get such ideas.

There are some types of people, I think of them as "Us and Them" people. For whatever psychological reason they have a need to have an "Us" and a "Them", the former being unequivocally superior to the latter in their eyes. For some of these people, the "Us" is their religion, and to back up their notion than every other religion is inferior, they made up the idea that God/Allah/FSM will only save people of their particular branch of whateverism, regardless of what the holy text/s actually say.

Sometimes these people will get into an important position in the religion, and the idea that only their flavour is correct will become a main part of that religion. Jack Chick and the like are a good example. Really Jack? English is a perfect language for getting God's word to the masses? I would have figured Mandarin would work out better.

There are some types of people, I think of them as "Us and Them" people. For whatever psychological reason they have a need to have an "Us" and a "Them", the former being unequivocally superior to the latter in their eyes. For some of these people, the "Us" is their religion, and to back up their notion than every other religion is inferior, they made up the idea that God/Allah/FSM will only save people of their particular branch of whateverism, regardless of what the holy text/s actually say.

Which was kind of my point when I was saying it was ironic because God according to the NT all people are equal and no one is more superior than the other. One of the major tenants that Jesus was preaching against Judaism is that all people are equal in the eyes of god regardless of their faith (or lack thereof).

Any god who sends me to hell with my resume, just because I wasnt part of his fan club, can suck it. Id rather be with the Devil if thats the case.
Why wouldn't you want to be with "Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds"?

I always admired the character of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil. A dude who took no bullshit, stood up for what he thought was right, rebelled against the ultimate authority and attempted to free humanity from said authority's clutches.

Currently residing with all the free-thinkers, rock'n'roll stars, party-animals, the sexually aware, and, generally, all those who like a bit of fun.

But I doubt it. I have yet to meet a Christian (and Ive met several Pastors) who could answer it.
Very simple: Not all Christians says Ghandi is in hell.;)

Why wouldn't you want to be with "Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds"?

I always admired the character of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil. A dude who took no bullshit, stood up for what he thought was right, rebelled against the ultimate authority and attempted to free humanity from said authority's clutches.

Currently residing with all the free-thinkers, rock'n'roll stars, party-animals, the sexually aware, and, generally, all those who like a bit of fun.

Also, he's a pimp (http://www.sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-07-08.gif).

Yes but you are missing the point - I am talking about the translations used. If I were to read an accurate scholarly translation of the books of the Bible would I get a completely different view?

Short answer, yes. If you read it, you'd discover that much of the 'Christian' theology we are brought up with is not based on the Bible at all.

Come to think of it, that'll probably happen if you read any version of the Bible carefully.

Why wouldn't you want to be with "Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds"?

I always admired the character of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil. A dude who took no bullshit, stood up for what he thought was right, rebelled against the ultimate authority and attempted to free humanity from said authority's clutches.

Currently residing with all the free-thinkers, rock'n'roll stars, party-animals, the sexually aware, and, generally, all those who like a bit of fun.

He should fire his campaign manager and hire you.

He should fire his campaign manager and hire you.

I still think he hired Anton LaVey for the job just for a laugh.

He should fire his campaign manager and hire you.
Or, more appropriately, Mikhail Bakunin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html).

I still think he hired Anton LaVey for the job just for a laugh.

*wikis Anton LaVey*

It's the sort of thing a person with a sense of humour would do, whereas Jesus is not recorded as having uttered one, single joke.

*rubs chin thoughtfully*

*wikis Anton LaVey*

It's the sort of thing a person with a sense of humour would do, whereas Jesus is not recorded as having uttered one, single joke.

*rubs chin thoughtfully*

I think the bible would be much better if it had jokes in it. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.




I guess that's me then"

I think the bible would be much better if it had jokes in it. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.




I guess that's me then"

"But noone is to stone anyone, until I blow this whistle".

"But noone is to stone anyone, until I blow this whistle".
Jehovah!

Jehovah!

You're only making things worse for yourself!

You cannot prove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Similarly, you cannot disprove God using science. He is beyond scientific laws and principles.

Therefore, science cannot prove everything, and science is not to be used as a basis for either proving or disproving God himself.

____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

NS2 Moderator: Australia in World 7
if you cant prove god then you cant know anything about god.

if you cant prove god then you cant know anything about god.

Nitpick: you mean test - not prove. Very few things can be proven; which is why most of science (excluding math) is all about disproving things, especially your own ideas. Yet another thing the ID crowd doesn't grasp.

But yes, God is untestable and unknowable. Hence the words "Belief" and " Faith".

I wasn't aware that God hated people, Golfballs?

Goofballs. I hate getting hit by 3 irons. And my God doesn't hate anyone. Except maybe Gary Shandling. :)

Goofballs. I hate getting hit by 3 irons. And my God doesn't hate anyone. Except maybe Gary Shandling. :)

Id be very teed off.

Nitpick: you mean test - not prove. Very few things can be proven; which is why most of science (excluding math) is all about disproving things, especially your own ideas. Yet another thing the ID crowd doesn't grasp.

But yes, God is untestable and unknowable. Hence the words "Belief" and " Faith".
no i mean that you cant know anything about god.

all science does is to systemize our knowledge. i see something, i feel something, these have some source. science helps to figure out exactly(ish) what that might be.

IF there were some way to know anything about god, there would be a scientific way to study that knowledge.

for example, if we look at the common source of understanding of god in christianity--the bible--and we put it to a test....is the history presented in the bible correct?.... it fails. the only things that DONT fail are the things that we cant possibly know or test for... is god outside of the observable universe? does god guide evolution? does god love me? (and moreover the modern understanding of god does not jibe with the god of the bible so what good is either?)

*wikis Anton LaVey*

It's the sort of thing a person with a sense of humour would do, whereas Jesus is not recorded as having uttered one, single joke.

*rubs chin thoughtfully*

Oh, Jesus joked. He was jewish, afterall. DO you think I could put my faith in a being who didn't have a sense of humor?

Id be very teed off.

:fluffle:

though you'll note that this was because they chose physicists as their baseline. physicists and biologists have effectively identical godlessness levels, and each was significantly more godless than the chemists (statistically, even).

"Godless" wasn't a measure used in the study.

And if they chose physicists as their baseline, but claimed that biologists tended towards lower religiosity, that means that they were not effectively identical, now doesn't it?


I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be 'tickled pink' after having died an Evolutionist, and realizing that I had been insulting a God, standing right before my eyes, all my life. Heck. I would be rather nervous, to say the least.

How is the theory of evolution insulting to any deity?

no i mean that you cant know anything about god.

all science does is to systemize our knowledge. i see something, i feel something, these have some source. science helps to figure out exactly(ish) what that might be.

IF there were some way to know anything about god, there would be a scientific way to study that knowledge.

for example, if we look at the common source of understanding of god in christianity--the bible--and we put it to a test....is the history presented in the bible correct?.... it fails. the only things that DONT fail are the things that we cant possibly know or test for... is god outside of the observable universe? does god guide evolution? does god love me? (and moreover the modern understanding of god does not jibe with the god of the bible so what good is either?)
Yes, Ashmoria, and hence the difference in meaning between the words "know" and "believe" and "knowledge" and "faith."

You're only making things worse for yourself!

"Making it worse? How could it be worse?!? Jehova, Jehova, Jehova!"

Yes, Ashmoria, and hence the difference in meaning between the words "know" and "believe" and "knowledge" and "faith."
yeah

...

Yes, Ashmoria, and hence the difference in meaning between the words "know" and "believe" and "knowledge" and "faith."

I always find it funny whebn people claim to "know" that there's a god or that their partcular beliegf is "right." I'm just like "Well, actually you don't, because that's the whole fuckin point of it. You know, faith."

"Godless" wasn't a measure used in the study.

And if they chose physicists as their baseline, but claimed that biologists tended towards lower religiosity, that means that they were not effectively identical, now doesn't it?

more atheistic = more godless.

partly they confused themselves by focusing on "there is little truth in any religion" as a measure, despite the fact that the most prominent atheists around are at least willing to concede that religions tend to hit on basic moral truths - golden rule, etc. we should not exclude pz myers from any analysis because of this. and "haven't attended religious services in the past year" is a measure more of whether an atheist still has family that goes to church or not - i haven't gone in a couple years, but every once in a while i get roped into a christmas or easter service still. the focus needs to be on the self identification as atheists (and i'd argue including the agnostics who opt to say agnostic rather than affirming belief in gods, but apparently some people here think those guys should still count towards the godies).

anyway, if you look at either the raw numbers or the coefficients, the biologists and physicists are like twice as close to each other as anyone else is to either of them. if the difference between the physicists and the economists is being dismissed as insignificant, the difference between the phy and bio guys is even less significant. but if we move our confidence level out a bit but keep it fairly reasonable, only the biologists and physicists stay grouped together.

so sure, "more data, please". but the results are at least suggestive.

(the really interesting finding is the chemists - why are they so godful? i would not have guessed that)

You did not answer his question at all, let alone satisfactorily. Care to try again?

EDIT: Having your sig be in the body of your posts rather than the sig line is kind of annoying. Just mentioning.

Hey, at least NC replied to him.

I'm still waiting (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14232154&postcount=312).

Um... no, Allah is the same as the Christian god....

well, allegedly. so is haile selassie, for that matter.

Has anyone got a link that actually shows levels of atheism across all sorts of academic fields, rather than just Chemistry, Biology and Physics?

Has anyone got a link that actually shows levels of atheism across all sorts of academic fields, rather than just Chemistry, Biology and Physics?

here is the full chart i cropped the one seen before from:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2793/religiousityij3.jpg

and since the source is buried somewhere back in the thread and nobody should have to go looking for it,
Ecklund and Scheitle, "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics", Social Problems, Vol. 54, Issue 2, pp. 289–307

I worry that they can't spell Political Science correctly...

I worry that they can't spell Political Science correctly...

it's actually a new field that doesn't really belong among the social sciences, what with the studying polo and all. but they argue that since it is a team sport and they are studying the interactions of those teams and developing hypotheses and such that it totally counts.

more atheistic = more godless.

But "lower religiosity" does not necessarily equate to atheistic.

partly they confused themselves by focusing on "there is little truth in any religion" as a measure, despite the fact that the most prominent atheists around are at least willing to concede that religions tend to hit on basic moral truths - golden rule, etc. we should not exclude pz myers from any analysis because of this.

There are many sources of possible confusion in the study, which isn't unusual in religiosity studies. It probably would have been a better idea to ask individual questions, rather than asking which out of a series best described the respondent. Use of the words deity and deities or even god(s) could have gotten around the likely association of "God" with specific religions.

the focus needs to be on the self identification as atheists (and i'd argue including the agnostics who opt to say agnostic rather than affirming belief in gods, but apparently some people here think those guys should still count towards the godies).

Strangely, one of the questions that always seems to be left out of these studies - but would be the best for answering the particular question you want answers to - is simply "Would you describe yourself as an atheist?" Even then, there may be some confusion - such as a study I read fairly recently in which something like 25% of respondents who self-described as atheists later answered that they did believe in a deity. But it would really be the most direct route for that particular answer.

Meanwhile, no one is arguing that those who gave the more agnostic answer should be "counted towards the godies". The argument has been that we cannot assume them to be atheists. Those people may or may not be atheists - we simply don't have enough information to determine that.

(the really interesting finding is the chemists - why are they so godful? i would not have guessed that)

The cynical answer might be the fact that chemistry involves so much hand-waving. =)

Seriously though, I find it interesting that the political scientists are seemingly more religious than economists and psychologists as well. Why is that? Would these trends still be obvious with the changes to the study I proposed? Would they hold up in a larger scale study?

Like most such studies, this one really leads to more questions than it does answers.

I worry that they can't spell Political Science correctly...

LOL! It was so small on the chart I actually didn't notice until you pointed that out.

LOL! It was so small on the chart I actually didn't notice until you pointed that out.

Maybe someone should do a study about religiosity among proofreaders and copyeditors. ;)

and my evidence is that in addition to just making narrative sense in the face of intellectual history, numerous prominent atheistic biologists have come right out and said that science generally and evolution specifically are major factors. this whole thing referenced a quote from dicky d, you'll recall.

Narrative sense in the face of intellectual history? That's almost as vague as 'intellectually fulfilled'. If you mean that most of the prominent intellectuals were atheists, I would really want a source for that. When I think about famous people who really pushed science forward, I think of Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, both of whom were theists. I think you have a bias against theism and have selectively read history in order to convince yourself there is a narrative.

And while I think your biologists are intellectually fulfilled, I don't think you need to be a biologist to be intellectually fulfilled. So your claim that theism and intellectual fulfillment are incompatible still doesn't make any sense. Unless you are equating intellectual fulfillment with being a biologist.

yup. either data fit the theory, or the theory needs tinkering because it conflicts with what is actually the case.

Right. The data could fit the theory, which shows us that theory is not inherently in conflict with data. Likewise with religion and science. Since religious views and scientific theories can fit each other, that shows that they are not inherently in conflict.

more or less. the lack of any good evidence at all for god is part of my argument against agnosticism, but isn't really relevant here.

So, what can be logically proven to exist? I ask this because if that is your criteria for god, then you must also have that criteria, minimally, for everything else. I have never studied philosophy, but as far as I know the list of things that can be logically proven to exist is quite small, isn't it?

Missed this. Thats simply not true. In some parts of Latin America and Africa, science doesnt really exist. Its pretty much, religion.

In all honosty Europe is the exception rather than the rule.

Which parts of Latin America? I really want to know this.

Seriously though, I find it interesting that the political scientists are seemingly more religious than economists and psychologists as well. Why is that? Would these trends still be obvious with the changes to the study I proposed? Would they hold up in a larger scale study?

my guess for the psychologists is the intimate knowledge of just how religiously prone the human brain is drives up the godlessness. and economists just have a bad case of physics envy, apparently extending to their religious positions as well. and sociology is full of marxists.

just coming into it with my knowledge of the academy, i would take something like poli sci to be around the academic standard, myself.

just coming into it with my knowledge of the academy, i would take something like poli sci to be around the academic standard, myself.

I will say one thing for all the religiosity studies out there - it does seem convincing that those in the sciences - and maybe even those in advanced academia in general - tend to be far less likely to religious in a "standard" sense. And this has also been true of my own experience with scientists and engineers. I think the nature of our disciplines makes us far less likely to accept dogma and the like without questioning which, in turn, makes us more likely to either be nonreligious or to come to our own, generally rather non-standard, idea of religion.

other relevant data, but a bit more problematic since it didn't break things out quite as well as the other study i've posted, can be found here (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html). anyways, onwards!

Narrative sense in the face of intellectual history? That's almost as vague as 'intellectually fulfilled'. If you mean that most of the prominent intellectuals were atheists, I would really want a source for that. When I think about famous people who really pushed science forward, I think of Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, both of whom were theists. I think you have a bias against theism and have selectively read history in order to convince yourself there is a narrative.

really, pushing back to the 17th century? a bit early, don't you think? why do you have to go so far back to get to a time where theism was not just standard in the sciences, but assumed?

And while I think your biologists are intellectually fulfilled, I don't think you need to be a biologist to be intellectually fulfilled. So your claim that theism and intellectual fulfillment are incompatible still doesn't make any sense. Unless you are equating intellectual fulfillment with being a biologist.

that wasn't the claim at all. the claim is that understanding the idea of evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. but if that was the only effect that evolution had - if it had no overall atheistic impact - we should expect biologists to be atheistic at about the same level as the public at large, or at what we might term the academic background effect level, if there are other issues at play too. but this is not what is found.

Since religious views and scientific theories can fit each other, that shows that they are not inherently in conflict.

the only way to make religious views fit with science is to strip them of all of their historical baggage and remove them entirely from the realm of the empirical, making them utterly alien to the entire history of religious thought around the world (outside of a few philosophers from time to time that got worried about such things). the untestable, unknowable, completely outside of space and time god just simply is not the god that anyone believed in a few generations back. it isn't even popular now.

So, what can be logically proven to exist? I ask this because if that is your criteria for god, then you must also have that criteria, minimally, for everything else. I have never studied philosophy, but as far as I know the list of things that can be logically proven to exist is quite small, isn't it?

i reject proof as being necessary for knowledge. as do most people, on pain of skepticism. my argument is with the extraordinarily strong requirement for knowledge that the agnostic sets up. it is not a standard they are willing to use in any other aspect of life - indeed, it could not be put to use at all.

I will say one thing for all the religiosity studies out there - it does seem convincing that those in the sciences - and maybe even those in advanced academia in general - tend to be far less likely to religious in a "standard" sense. And this has also been true of my own experience with scientists and engineers. I think the nature of our disciplines makes us far less likely to accept dogma and the like without questioning which, in turn, makes us more likely to either be nonreligious or to come to our own, generally rather non-standard, idea of religion.

i'd like to see some studies that include other parts of academia. like business, law, medicine, and the fine arts. i really have no idea how it would come out there.

also, that last part is why i fully expect that physicists and biologists really are on a whole other plane when it comes to atheism. the process of questioning only gets you so far until you run into the sort of considerations that lead to the teleological or cosmological arguments for the existence of god. but physicists and biologists work extensively with self-forming, self-organizing and self-maintaining systems that need no intervention to operate. so the "but how could all this have come about if not for god?" just doesn't carry the intuitive weight it does for others.

<snip>

Right. The data could fit the theory, which shows us that theory is not inherently in conflict with data. Likewise with religion and science. Since religious views and scientific theories can fit each other, that shows that they are not inherently in conflict.

<snip>
An interesting point. I was thinking about this in the shower this morning, and I remembered that the deists (whose religious beliefs are the direct sources of current American churches such as the Congregationalists and Unitarians) believed that god was absent from the world, that having set the universe in motion, he/she/it withdrew and went off to do whatever else. The closest deists got to mysticism (and in fact, I would call this mysticism among the deists) was the belief that, if one wanted to understand the mind of god, one could try to do so by studying he/she/its creation, i.e. the natural world -- sort of reverse engineering god's work to figure out what he had in mind. In other words, science was mysticism to the deists, so clearly, their religious beliefs were not in conflict with science.

Buddhism also holds such a mindset, as do some newer pagan religions.

There is no truly open-minded option on the poll.

A truly open-minded person would say "It might be true, but we don't know for sure yet."

An interesting point. I was thinking about this in the shower this morning, and I remembered that the deists (whose religious beliefs are the direct sources of current American churches such as the Congregationalists and Unitarians)

i don't think the deists had much impact on the congregationalists. not directly, anyway. they are like presbyterians with a less unified and hierarchical church structure. unitarians for sure, though they got all jesusy (they got somewhat better).


haha, wiki's article on deism explicitly covers part of my argument here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#The_decline_of_deism

Sexual slavery? Wow. Confident enough to provide a citation for that?



"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

"How shall we do for wives for them that remain?..... And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the woman and the children. And this is the thing that ye shall do. Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying by any male; and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead." (Judges 21:7,12)

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and has a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails....and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." (Deuteronomy 21:11,13)

No, I didnt google this, I have such pages book marked in my Bible for these exact reasons.

You did not answer his question at all, let alone satisfactorily. Care to try again?

EDIT: Having your sig be in the body of your posts rather than the sig line is kind of annoying. Just mentioning.

In all honosty, I never expected an answer. Like I said, much more learned men have tried to give me an answer, and have flat out admitted they dont know.

really, pushing back to the 17th century? a bit early, don't you think? why do you have to go so far back to get to a time where theism was not just standard in the sciences, but assumed?

So, no source that most prominent intellectuals were atheist? Okay.

I don't have to go back to the beginnings of science, but I just thought it would be fun to point out that science as we currently know it was invented by theists. I could talk about Ian Barbour, physicist and theologian. Or Michael Faraday or John Dalton who are sort of in the middle.

It would seem that the narrative describing the relationship between science and religion is far more complicated than simply: I was religious until science showed me the way, as you would want to have it.

that wasn't the claim at all. the claim is that understanding the idea of evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. but if that was the only effect that evolution had - if it had no overall atheistic impact - we should expect biologists to be atheistic at about the same level as the public at large, or at what we might term the academic background effect level, if there are other issues at play too. but this is not what is found.

I'm sorry I thought you said that evolution would make it difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Oh wait. You did:

...not only does evolution make it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but it also makes it significantly more difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Are you now saying that evolution does not make it more difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist?

the only way to make religious views fit with science is to strip them of all of their historical baggage and remove them entirely from the realm of the empirical, making them utterly alien to the entire history of religious thought around the world (outside of a few philosophers from time to time that got worried about such things). the untestable, unknowable, completely outside of space and time god just simply is not the god that anyone believed in a few generations back. it isn't even popular now.

I wasn't discussing that model of god. I don't care for blind watchmakers.

An immanent god who is not omnipotent would also be consistent with current scientific knowledge.

So would many other models of god. If you were more knowledgeable about the history of religious thought around the world, you would know about all these other models. How does the medicine wheel of the plains indians exist in conflict with science? How does Ayurveda have to retreat from empiricism?

But I'm glad to see that you've abandoned the notion that science and religion are inherently in conflict.

i reject proof as being necessary for knowledge. as do most people, on pain of skepticism. my argument is with the extraordinarily strong requirement for knowledge that the agnostic sets up. it is not a standard they are willing to use in any other aspect of life - indeed, it could not be put to use at all.

So, you don't want scientific evidence, nor do you want logical proofs. So, what kind of evidence do you want for the existence of god?

There is no truly open-minded option on the poll.

A truly open-minded person would say "It might be true, but we don't know for sure yet."

The poll isn't about whether or not it is true. The poll is about whether or not it is science.

I hate and don't believe in the entire idea of deities.

Which parts of Latin America? I really want to know this.

Apologies. I should have written "South America". I wasnt really thinking. Latin America I am largely ignorant to.

Apologies. I should have written "South America". I wasnt really thinking. Latin America I am largely ignorant to.

Which parts of South America, then?

Which parts of South America, then?

Ecuador is a notorious example.

There is no truly open-minded option on the poll.

A truly open-minded person would say "It might be true, but we don't know for sure yet."Being open minded doesn't mean you can't dismiss it. It means your open to considering it. I've considered it, and it is an idea with no scientific merit, so I dismissed it.

There is no truly open-minded option on the poll.

A truly open-minded person would say "It might be true, but we don't know for sure yet."

To a degree perhaps. However, sofar every claim ID has made about its own results and merits has been shown to be incorrect. As I said before - once it produces something interesting to put it above its few billion competing "theories" it may be worth my time. As long as the main proponents have nothing to show but lies, deceit and misinformation... nope.

Ecuador is a notorious example.

Notorious for what?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Ecuador-SCIENCE-AND-TECHNOLOGY.html

In 1996, Ecuador had 20 agricultural, medical, scientific, and technical learned societies and research institutes, most notably the General Directorate of Hydrocarbons, the Institute of Nuclear Sciences, the Ecuadoran Institute of Natural Sciences, and the National Institute of Agricultural Research, all in Quito; the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands; and the Naval Oceanographic Institute In Guayaquil. Ecuador has 19 colleges and universities offering degrees in basic and applied sciences. In 1987–97, science and engineering students accounted for 27% of college and university enrollments. In 1987–97, Ecuador had 146 scientists and engineers and 42 technicians per million people engaged in research and development.

Missed this. Thats simply not true. In some parts of Latin America and Africa, science doesnt really exist. Its pretty much, religion.

In all honosty Europe is the exception rather than the rule.

I can't believe you said this, with no sources to back yourself up.

Then again, this is NSG.

Notorious for what?

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Ecuador-SCIENCE-AND-TECHNOLOGY.html

Damn it, I need to focus more on this thread. Im running two trains of thought here, and on two different forums. And in one of them, we're talking about abortion laws around the world.

I was more refering to the legal aspects in Ecuador rather than the teaching of evolution.

The original poster was correct, heavily catholic countries tend to teach evolution and dont try and pull this ID crap. The fact that the Catholic church accepts Evolution is probably a big reason why.

I can't believe you said this, with no sources to back yourself up.

Then again, this is NSG.

Yes, because youve never posted anything before without a source.


As I mentioned, Im fighting two different battles on two different forums, and my mind is all jumbled. The original poster was correct.


ID tends to be more of a protestant thing, and the US and England are the major protestant countries. And Im unfamiliar with Englands educational system.
EDIT: I would also wager that the Mid East tends to not be so open to evolution either.

Yes, because youve never posted anything before without a source.
Not shit like that. Posting "I think your adverse reaction to being pegged is a gender thing" is delving into pure speculation, and obviously so. Claiming something tangible about South American education is not.


As I mentioned, Im fighting two different battles on two different forums, and my mind is all jumbled. The original poster was correct. Yes well I'm in class and distracted because of custody issues I'm facing as well as the looming possibility of drawn-out litigation. So :p


ID tends to be more of a protestant thing, and the US and England are the major protestant countries. And Im unfamiliar with Englands educational system.
EDIT: I would also wager that the Mid East tends to not be so open to evolution either.At least that's phrased as a wager and not an assertion. See? So easy not to piss people off:eek:

Yes well I'm in class and distracted because of custody issues I'm facing as well as the looming possibility of drawn-out litigation. So :p


Yeah, I didnt think itd be hard to one up me:p

So, no source that most prominent intellectuals were atheist? Okay.

when have i ever made any claim about 'most'? it happens to be true that the more elite you go, the less traditionally religious you get (see, for example, the study i linked to in the very post you are responding to), but it is irrelevant to my point.

I don't have to go back to the beginnings of science, but I just thought it would be fun to point out that science as we currently know it was invented by theists.

dude, atheism was invented by (ex-) theists. there were effectively no atheists running around for another 75 years after newton battled hooke and leibniz. but guess what they founded their atheism on...

It would seem that the narrative describing the relationship between science and religion is far more complicated than simply: I was religious until science showed me the way, as you would want to have it.

strawman much?

I'm sorry I thought you said that evolution would make it difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Oh wait. You did:

Are you now saying that evolution does not make it more difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled theist?

i think you missed the implication there.

"the claim is that understanding the idea of evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. but if that was the only effect that evolution had - if it had no overall atheistic impact - we should expect biologists to be atheistic at about the same level as the public at large, or at what we might term the academic background effect level, if there are other issues at play too. but this is not what is found."

instead, we find that biologists are notably more atheistic than political scientists and chemists and ridiculously more than the general public. i am saying that the two go hand in hand. if it is easier to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, it appears that it is at the same time more difficult to be intellectually satisfied with theism (again, speaking in terms of populations). if it was just as easy to remain an intellectually satisfied theist, we should not expect the number of atheists to increase, or at least to increase consistently across a culture.

An immanent god who is not omnipotent would also be consistent with current scientific knowledge.

only if said god did nothing that couldn't also be just as well explained without reference to it. and in that case the god adds nothing - there is no way to tell the difference between a universe involving that god and a universe not involving it, even in principle.

So would many other models of god. If you were more knowledgeable about the history of religious thought around the world, you would know about all these other models. How does the medicine wheel of the plains indians exist in conflict with science? How does Ayurveda have to retreat from empiricism?

um, neither of those things are 'models of god'

anyways, traditional medicine, like traditional ecological knowledge, may or may not work in any significant way. the way to find out is to check empirically. in so far as they work, the religious aspects are invariably irrelevant (thus far, and as long as we account for placebo effects). thus it cannot be held that that those irrelevant parts are actually empirically vital.

So, you don't want scientific evidence, nor do you want logical proofs. So, what kind of evidence do you want for the existence of god?

if i wanted to have an argument about whether god existed or not, i would want either or both. this, of course, has not been what is going on here.
your reading of this aspect of the conversation is weird and ungrounded in what has been written. nowhere have i made either of those claims. and not that it has been relevant, but i explicitly rejected both them.

the thrust of my claim is more like this:
arguments from personal experience or from testimony or from authority for the existence of god are shitty shitty arguments. as such, thoughtful theists have attempted to construct good arguments instead. the best of these broadly fall out as variants of the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments (though the world at large would love to see some others if you've got them). some theists went the empirical route, but this has turned out to be a bad move, as it turns out that old religious texts are not very good sources of information about the universe. good plan if it had worked, though.

as a matter of intellectual history in the west, the cosmological and ontological arguments were beaten up on first, while the teleological argument remained something of a puzzle (hume made the attempt, and did some damage, but nothing particularly conclusive came of it). complex, orderly, and 'purposeful' systems really do seem hard to explain without reference to some higher being designing them...until evolution comes along with an incredibly simple tool that can generate enormous complexity and purpose-like organization from randomness. this clearly undermines teleological arguments, which were premised on the intuition that this sort of thing should have been impossible.

with it being not just possible, but actually kind of easy to generate complex order, the teleological argument loses its force, thus further undermining the case for god. an atheist now could comfortably follow laplace in 'having no need for that hypothesis' in general. and if god is unnecessary and the old religious dogmas are factually untrue, then to remain a theist requires doing extra mental work for no readily apparent logical or empirical reason. some are willing to do it, some aren't, but the having to do it is my point.

I seem to recall previous arguments in this thread about a "lack" of "transitional fossils". Just to refute that, in this months Scientific American they had an article about bat evolution including the mention of a newly discovered bat fossil that had developed flight but had not yet developed echolocation.

I seem to recall previous arguments in this thread about a "lack" of "transitional fossils". Just to refute that, in this months Scientific American they had an article about bat evolution including the mention of a newly discovered bat fossil that had developed flight but had not yet developed echolocation.

You know what would be awesome?

If they found two different types of transition fossils - a transitional bat that was evolving echolocation, and one that was going the other route, and evolving rubber bumpers.

dude, atheism was invented by (ex-) theists. there were effectively no atheists running around for another 75 years after newton battled hooke and leibniz. but guess what they founded their atheism on...


My god, I never knew Siddhārtha Gautama wasn't around until after Newton. How could all those historians have made a two thousand year error?

My god, I never knew Siddhārtha Gautama wasn't around until after Newton. How could all those historians have made a two thousand year error?

if we aren't counting the various supernatural beings of buddhism against its alleged atheism, we have to call lots of animist belief systems 'atheist' as well. which is, frankly, ludicrous.

My god, I never knew Siddh?rtha Gautama wasn't around until after Newton. How could all those historians have made a two thousand year error?
I also blame the US public school system for never having taught me about the big Newton, Hooke, Liebniz Raw smackdown. That must have been epic.

I also blame the US public school system for never having taught me about the big Newton, Hooke, Liebniz Raw smackdown. That must have been epic.

it was, in an intellectual sort of way. newton was a fucking dick.

if we aren't counting the various supernatural beings of buddhism against its alleged atheism, we have to call lots of animist belief systems 'atheist' as well. which is, frankly, ludicrous.
The exact same argument that I rested on your nonsense about "religion" in general applies just as well when you get into specific religions. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you make up for that lack by just willynilly redefining words like fucking Humpty Dumpty. That Narnian person makes more sense than you on this.

Buddhism does not have various supernatural beings. The cultures that Buddhism moved into did and do, but they have nothing at all to do with Buddhism, they are not necessary to Buddhism, getting rid of one's need to think in such terms in the whole point of Buddhism.

it was, in an intellectual sort of way. newton was a fucking dick.
I'm sure it would have been, if it had ever happened. Also, I see you were also there to be personally acquainted with Newton just like you were magically present to know the real truth about everything else you've been making the most obvious errors on because you rely on your biased assumptions more than actual knowledge.

The exact same argument that I rested on your nonsense about "religion" in general applies just as well when you get into specific religions. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you make up for that lack by just willynilly redefining words like fucking Humpty Dumpty. That Narnian person makes more sense than you on this.

Buddhism does not have various supernatural beings. The cultures that Buddhism moved into did and do, but they have nothing at all to do with Buddhism, they are not necessary to Buddhism, getting rid of one's need to think in such terms in the whole point of Buddhism.

alright, then let us draw the distinction this way. buddhism the abstract philosophy, defined in terms of just the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path, is silent about whether there are any gods, and whatever the case they are irrelevant to the task at hand. buddhism the thing that millions of people believe in is fucking rife with them.

I'm sure it would have been, if it had ever happened

wait, what? are you denying the existence of the calculus controversy and newton's bitter feud with hooke that eventually led to what looks suspiciously like newton taking advantage of his position as the president of the royal society to try to erase hooke from history? or do you just object to my calling them battles?

alright, then let us draw the distinction this way. buddhism the abstract philosophy, defined in terms of just the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path, is silent about whether there are any gods, and whatever the case they are irrelevant to the task at hand. buddhism the thing that millions of people believe in is fucking rife with them.
No. I decline to let you set the goalposts exactly where you want them to be so you can claim there is any validity to your pronouncements.

Buddhism uses culture-based beliefs about gods, demons, supernatural buddhas, etc, for a very specific purpose which is to liberate the mind from dependency on and fear of such ideas which the religion of Buddhism believes holds people bound to cycles of suffering.

You do not get to vivisect the beliefs and practices of Buddhism so you can separate and rearrange its parts to suit your own needs. Supernatural concepts are a part of Buddhism BUT NOT in such a way that it fits into your arbitrarily made-up criteria. The fault is in your criteria, not in Buddhism.

No. I decline to let you set the goalposts exactly where you want them to be so you can claim there is any validity to your pronouncements.

Buddhism uses culture-based beliefs about gods, demons, supernatural buddhas, etc, for a very specific purpose which is to liberate the mind from dependency on and fear of such ideas which the religion of Buddhism believes holds people bound to cycles of suffering.

You do not get to vivisect the beliefs and practices of Buddhism so you can separate and rearrange its parts to suit your own needs. Supernatural concepts are a part of Buddhism BUT NOT in such a way that it fits into your arbitrarily made-up criteria. The fault is in your criteria, not in Buddhism.

ok, so approximately what percentage of buddhists have believed that there are devas?

we either cut out the non-theistic parts of the thing, or we must acknowledge that the cosmologies held by all of the major buddhist schools (including early buddhism) contain gods

ok, so approximately what percentage of buddhists have believed that there are devas?

we either cut out the non-theistic parts of the thing, or we must acknowledge that the cosmologies held by all of the major buddhist schools (including early buddhism) contain gods

So, how about that Intelligent Design?

You know what would be awesome?

If they found two different types of transition fossils - a transitional bat that was evolving echolocation, and one that was going the other route, and evolving rubber bumpers.

Pity the rubber bumpers didn't last. :(

wait, what? are you denying the existence of the calculus controversy and newton's bitter feud with hooke that eventually led to what looks suspiciously like newton taking advantage of his position as the president of the royal society to try to erase hooke from history? or do you just object to my calling them battles?
Guess. Do so in the context of the rest of my objections to your "arguments."

ok, so approximately what percentage of buddhists have believed that there are devas?

we either cut out the non-theistic parts of the thing, or we must acknowledge that the cosmologies held by all of the major buddhist schools (including early buddhism) contain gods
The percentage of Free Soviets deliberately missing (as in outright ignoring) the point of what is said to him is 100.

Your either/or is bullshit. I have already explained why numerous times, including the explanation in re Buddhism above. You don't get to change what Buddhism is and how it works and why it does what it does just so you can continue this idiotic line of argument that, frankly, is nothing more than a failing attempt to claim legitimacy for an original assertion that was itself nothing more than a flamebait against religious people.

Once again, FS, you are spending days and days digging yourself into a hole off wrongness, wrong on every fact, making laughable assertions about things you clearly know nothing about (your earlier appeal to your own authority notwithstanding), and being belligerent, obnoxious and pretentious about it all at once.

Plus, you are completely off topic.

So, how about that Intelligent Design?
Yeah, how about it? It isn't science and it isn't rational, but it isn't the only thing that can be said about. :D

Plus, you are completely off topic.

That's uncommon. I can't remember the last time people posted off topic replies in NSG threads, but that's probably because my neural network has imploded.

Intelligent design and creationism are anti-scientific concepts developed by Christian fundamentalists, but why should we leave all the fun to them? I don't see why followers of Wicca or those who have returned to the worship of the Norse gods shouldn't have their own wacky versions of intelligent design. The divine superiority of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not for everyone to behold, after all.

when have i ever made any claim about 'most'? it happens to be true that the more elite you go, the less traditionally religious you get (see, for example, the study i linked to in the very post you are responding to), but it is irrelevant to my point.

I just want you to be clear on the fact that intellectualism and theism are not mutually exclusive, incompatible, or inconsistent, as history shows.

dude, atheism was invented by (ex-) theists. there were effectively no atheists running around for another 75 years after newton battled hooke and leibniz. but guess what they founded their atheism on...

I think your knowledge of the history of atheism focuses too much on one narrow era. Whatever. As long as we agree that science was invented by theists.

strawman much?

If I built a strawman, then perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "Narrative sense in the face of intellectual history". I was thinking that you were talking about how history shows that theism and scientific thought were difficult to reconcile.

i think you missed the implication there.

"the claim is that understanding the idea of evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. but if that was the only effect that evolution had - if it had no overall atheistic impact - we should expect biologists to be atheistic at about the same level as the public at large, or at what we might term the academic background effect level, if there are other issues at play too. but this is not what is found."

instead, we find that biologists are notably more atheistic than political scientists and chemists and ridiculously more than the general public. i am saying that the two go hand in hand. if it is easier to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, it appears that it is at the same time more difficult to be intellectually satisfied with theism (again, speaking in terms of populations). if it was just as easy to remain an intellectually satisfied theist, we should not expect the number of atheists to increase, or at least to increase consistently across a culture.

Oh, I see. Correlation equals causation. Because there is a correlation between atheism and biology, we must assume that biology (or more specifically, one aspect thereof) causes atheism. Okay, sure.:rolleyes:

only if said god did nothing that couldn't also be just as well explained without reference to it. and in that case the god adds nothing - there is no way to tell the difference between a universe involving that god and a universe not involving it, even in principle.

Such a god could still have manifestations such as inspiring personal revelations, guiding evolution through mutation, and any other number of ways that would not show up in the scientific record.

um, neither of those things are 'models of god'

anyways, traditional medicine, like traditional ecological knowledge, may or may not work in any significant way. the way to find out is to check empirically. in so far as they work, the religious aspects are invariably irrelevant (thus far, and as long as we account for placebo effects). thus it cannot be held that that those irrelevant parts are actually empirically vital.

Oh. You don't know what the medicine wheel is. There are the archaeological sites, but there is also the associated symbolic teaching. Here:

http://www.virtualsk.com/current_issue/endangered_stones.html

I like the way you totally dismiss the religious parts as being irrelevant. Considering that many aboriginal groups have had their religious and cultural views dismissed in a similar manner which has then resulted in things like high alcoholism and suicide rates, I am not so sure that history agrees with you.

As for Ayurveda, it is a good example of a spiritual belief system that actively employs empiricism in its formulation of beliefs. The irony is that empiricism itself is not something that can be studied empirically, so according to you, it is now an irrelevant part of Ayurveda.

...as a matter of intellectual history in the west, the cosmological and ontological arguments were beaten up on first, while the teleological argument remained something of a puzzle (hume made the attempt, and did some damage, but nothing particularly conclusive came of it). complex, orderly, and 'purposeful' systems really do seem hard to explain without reference to some higher being designing them...until evolution comes along with an incredibly simple tool that can generate enormous complexity and purpose-like organization from randomness. this clearly undermines teleological arguments, which were premised on the intuition that this sort of thing should have been impossible. ...and if god is unnecessary and the old religious dogmas are factually untrue, then to remain a theist requires doing extra mental work for no readily apparent logical or empirical reason. some are willing to do it, some aren't, but the having to do it is my point.

So, you are saying that evolution showed that teleological arguments do not work as scientific evidence. You seem to be looking at them as alternative hypotheses, and then testing them against observation. This is fine. Very scientific, but you will never find god in that manner.

Mind you, the teleological arguments associated with Abrahamic religions are not from religion but from Aristotle. So, one could just as easily say that your point about 'them having to do the extra work' is as easily applicable to natural philosophers, or anyone else who believes in an outmoded concept. These outmoded concepts would also include those theories and hypotheses that are wrong.

*sniffing around* Medicine wheel teachings? Ohhhh very good, grasshopper!


um, neither of those things are 'models of god'

anyways, traditional medicine, like traditional ecological knowledge, may or may not work in any significant way. the way to find out is to check empirically. I just want to point out that I am always amused by the paternalistic view that 'western medicine' (and science) is the appropriate paradigm, and yes I chose that word deliberately, to investigate and judge non western medicine within.

Back to your god gibbledeegook.

So, how about that Intelligent Design?

do we have anyone still hanging around willing to defend it? last we saw was an "i'm out" from narnia, iirc.

I just want to point out that I am always amused by the paternalistic view that 'western medicine' (and science) is the appropriate paradigm, and yes I chose that word deliberately, to investigate and judge non western medicine within.

there is nothing specifically western about rigorous and systematic empiricism any more than there is something specifically western about wearing pants, you damn naked savage.

I seem to recall previous arguments in this thread about a "lack" of "transitional fossils". Just to refute that, in this months Scientific American they had an article about bat evolution including the mention of a newly discovered bat fossil that had developed flight but had not yet developed echolocation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7736786.stm

From about a week ago..

also, no time today to get into longer posts. could you guys remind me either tomorrow or the next day to come back to this though?

there is nothing specifically western about rigorous and systematic empiricism any more than there is something specifically western about wearing pants, you damn naked savage.

Wha what? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Pants are intrinsically western! I reject them!

Unless they're Gift-of-God's pants, apparently.

Unless they're Gift-of-God's pants, apparently.

But they are HIS pants, not mine. I can't reject his pants. Especially when his fine, taut, muscular ass is in them. Pants then are a thing of beauty and I want in them. But not to wear. Obviously.

But they are HIS pants, not mine. I can't reject his pants. Especially when his fine, taut, muscular ass is in them. Pants then are a thing of beauty and I want in them. But not to wear. Obviously.

sell-out

sell-out

Pfffft, I use a gun for hunting too, you wanna call me a sell out? Here, I bought you this beautiful target-decorated jacket...go run over there.

Oh... just about everyone on this board. We ate everyone who was for creationism/ID for breakfast long ago.

Yes. It turns out that the sadistic sense of humor their creator has led him to make them with the serious design flaw of being delicious.

if we aren't counting the various supernatural beings of buddhism against its alleged atheism, we have to call lots of animist belief systems 'atheist' as well. which is, frankly, ludicrous.

Buddha was an atheist, man.

I believe in ID in the sense that space aliens intentionally created the human race and certain plants and animals on Earth.

Here's my belief.

However many billions of years ago (is it 15 or 10 billion years ago?), God created the infinitely small and infinitely dense particle that contains all matter. He then caused it to explode, and ta-da: universe.

God then created evolution when life began to form on Earth and guided the process along as he saw fit.

I mean, if God's all-powerful, and has no beginning or end, why can't he make the big bang and evolution?

Buddha was an atheist, man.

be that as it may (and it is debated), his followers largely were and are not

*snip*

Actually what I want to know is how this matter came into being in the first place?

be that as it may (and it is debated), his followers largely were and are not

Man, that'd totally destroy my argument if only I had ever mentioned his godsdamned followers. It's almost like you're not reading anyone's posts.

Man, that'd totally destroy my argument if only I had ever mentioned his godsdamned followers. It's almost like you're not reading anyone's posts.
He reads them. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to find individual words to pull out and hang his non-responsive rejoinders on so he can just keep repeating his errors over and over as if suddenly someday they're going to magically become correct. It's really pretty amazing to me how he dares to attack religion on the grounds of factuality, logic and rationality, when he uses all the same false, illogical and irrational tactics that ID defenders use.

Here's my belief.

However many billions of years ago (is it 15 or 10 billion years ago?), God created the infinitely small and infinitely dense particle that contains all matter. He then caused it to explode, and ta-da: universe.

God then created evolution when life began to form on Earth and guided the process along as he saw fit.

I mean, if God's all-powerful, and has no beginning or end, why can't he make the big bang and evolution?
he could.

if he existed.

exactly as stated.

if thinking it made it true.

he could.

if he existed.

exactly as stated.

if thinking it made it true.
Back to knowledge versus belief. The bottom line, basically, is that there is no possible way to prove that such statements are fact, and no possible way to prove that they aren't. As long as no one is trying to force untestable assertions into science classes, I don't see why statements such as Holy Paradise's need to be challenged at all, as some people do. After all he/she stated "Here's my belief" and then went on to describe that belief. Nothing at all about claiming that belief to be fact or scientific, nothing at all about claiming that belief proved or disproved anything about any scientific theories. Merely a demonstration that acceptance of scientific fact is not inherently at odds with holding religious beliefs. People are entitled to their beliefs, even if others do not share them, so long as they do not try to force them onto others. And, personally, I do not really think they need to be reminded at every single turn that others may not share their beliefs, especially when they are not trying to force them onto others.

Man, that'd totally destroy my argument if only I had ever mentioned his godsdamned followers. It's almost like you're not reading anyone's posts.

if you think the mere existence of individual atheists has any bearing on what i've said, i could say the same for you.

if you think the mere existence of individual atheists has any bearing on what i've said, i could say the same for you.How about the Cārvāka? It's a philosophical movement in India that is explicitly materialistic and atheistic and predates Christianity.

For basic geology the earth was formed approxiament 4.567 Billion years ago. The oldest crust is about 3.2 Billion years old. The earliest evidence of life for biologists is very debatable as only things with skeletons were really preserved. Who knows what may have existed in the past.

There is however dinosaur fossils that existed over 100 million years ago and directly go against the idea of the bible. So of course ID must say that these are somehow false

I'm with you Self-Sacrifice.
Christian fundamentalists (and some of the Geeks from the other moronic faiths - Geez I'm tolerant) would love to shove this crap down our throats and theyt cry "Free Speech!"
Well I have one answer for them: "The Scopes Monkey trial" When they had the power, they ruthlessly suppressed the teaching of Darwinian evolution when they had the power to do so. So now....stuff 'em!

Im against it solely as a scientist. There is no scientific method at all applied. There is religous method (book is believed in as correct therefor it is) but that is completely different.

It is an insult to me as a science student to call it anywhere near science.

the biggest problem with intelligent design, is that a hell of a lot of the design, is not all that intelligent.

I'm with you Self-Sacrifice.
Christian fundamentalists (and some of the Geeks from the other moronic faiths - Geez I'm tolerant) would love to shove this crap down our throats and theyt cry "Free Speech!"
Well I have one answer for them: "The Scopes Monkey trial" When they had the power, they ruthlessly suppressed the teaching of Darwinian evolution when they had the power to do so. So now....stuff 'em!

Well I certainly hope you are not going to criticise "The Scopes Monkey Trial" and the outcomes of it then? I mean if you support a similar action then surely you must support it when it happens to them.

"The Scopes Monkey trial" resulted in a loss for the brilliant defence lawyer, Clarence Darrow who logically dissected the creationists arguments and yet the Southern court ruled against him. However, it was a Phyrric victory for the creationists.

The world (the sane world that is - where closed-minded theocracies didn't rule) wnet on to make ever-increasing discoveries that moved so far away from the ridiculous creationist arguments that "Intelligent design" was a dead issue until the neo-cons revived it.
Get over it boys! The Union Army won the Civil War. Damn your eyes George Bush! I reject Satan and all his teachings!

"The Scopes Monkey trial" resulted in a loss for the brilliant defence lawyer, Clarence Darrow who logically dissected the creationists arguments and yet the Southern court ruled against him. However, it was a Phyrric victory for the creationists.

The world (the sane world that is - where closed-minded theocracies didn't rule) wnet on to make ever-increasing discoveries that moved so far away from the ridiculous creationist arguments that "Intelligent design" was a dead issue until the neo-cons revived it.
Get over it boys! The Union Army won the Civil War. Damn your eyes George Bush! I reject Satan and all his teachings!

I'nt it great when people get whomped by not knowing the history of what they're talking about?

"The Scopes Monkey trial" resulted in a loss for the brilliant defence lawyer, Clarence Darrow who logically dissected the creationists arguments and yet the Southern court ruled against him. However, it was a Phyrric victory for the creationists.

The world (the sane world that is - where closed-minded theocracies didn't rule) wnet on to make ever-increasing discoveries that moved so far away from the ridiculous creationist arguments that "Intelligent design" was a dead issue until the neo-cons revived it.
Get over it boys! The Union Army won the Civil War. Damn your eyes George Bush! I reject Satan and all his teachings!

Thank you, I was aware of what The Scopes Monkey Trail was about.But my point was if someone came up with a new theory don't just say well stuff them it goes against what we hold to be true. Now ID has been looked at properly seen that it is bogus and then dismissed which is better than saying stuff them.

Thank you, I was aware of what The Scopes Monkey Trail was about.But my point was if someone came up with a new theory don't just say well stuff them it goes against what we hold to be true. Now ID has been looked at properly seen that it is bogus and then dismissed which is better than saying stuff them.

You see, there's a subtle difference between how scientists respond to a new theory, and, generally, how Creationists respond.
While Creationists might use trials, propaganda, and other tactics to see their agenda through, scientists tend to treat all scientific theories with the same rigor, and they tend to do the same thing to them as all other theories that have been revolutionary in their time.

Wanna know what that is? It's a doozy:
They TEST them. They test the predictions those theories make, they test how well they hold up to observable evidence, to simple reason. And if those theories are borne out by observation, repeated testing, and retesting, and re-retesting, those theories gain traction. They gain weight. People start agreeing with them, and the old, outdated theories tend to fall by the wayside unless they are also, under certain conditions, true.

Take Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. Quantum, when it was first developed, was a totally revolutionary theory, a totally unheard of field of scientific inquiry. It's greatest weakness at the time was that it was so freaking counter-intuitive (it still is, but that's not the point) that, until there was sufficient scientific evidence to back it up, it was (and still, to some is) held in contempt. It wasn't treated as the gospel just because scientists had thought it up. But it was given the deference it deserved once the numbers, the observations, the data started coming in.

Classical Mechanics didn't die out. It's still around because it's a theory that is, if incomplete, still very useful at our spatio-temporal scale. Still, when the new theory was presented, it didn't take a court case to see it through. All it took was all scientists ever ask of any idea presented to them: evidence.

Well I certainly hope you are not going to criticise "The Scopes Monkey Trial" and the outcomes of it then? I mean if you support a similar action then surely you must support it when it happens to them.
I have a question about what seems to be a debating style of yours:

Collectivity's argument is, in essence, that the creationists suppressed the teaching of evolution in school, so now it is hypocritical that they are complaining about the teaching of ID being suppressed in schools.

You respond to that with what appears to be, in essence, "well, if you're okay with suppressing them, then you should be okay with them suppressing you, so you should not criticize them for having done it."

But Collectivity's argument is expressing that it is NOT okay to suppress ideas and that, what was done in the Scopes trial was a bad thing. He is saying "They think A is fine, so let them now enjoy being on the receiving end of A", meaning A is NOT fine and they now get to learn why. You respond with "well, if you think A is fine, then you should not complain about them doing A."

Do you not get, though, that he is NOT saying that A is fine?

True, he embellishes his argument by wishing the creationists a taste of their own medicine, i.e. that they should get a taste of what it feels like to be silenced out of hand and unfairly, and I think he does so because the hypocrisy of their position is infuriating. But that does not change the fact that he was commenting on the irony and hypocrisy of the situation, not necessarily calling for religious people to be silenced and suppressed.

Yet you seem to think he is the one being hypocritical for saying "let's see how they like being on the receiving end of their own tactics."

I notice you do that a lot. Every time anyone complains about someone else being hypocritical, you respond with suggesting that they are being hypocritical for complaining about it. Yet you don't show how the complainer is being hypocritical. You don't show how what they are complaining about is not hypocrisy. You often don't address anything about the situation under discussion at all. It's as if, any time anyone says anything like, "I hate it when people do that", you automatically respond with, "well, you do it, too" without actually having anything to back that up.

Why do you do that?

Also, and I may be wrong about this because I don't keep track of your postings here, but I have only seen you do this to people who are complaining about unfair tactics used by religious people. Yet you do not profess to be defending religion. What's that about?

Thank you, I was aware of what The Scopes Monkey Trail was about.But my point was if someone came up with a new theory don't just say well stuff them it goes against what we hold to be true. Now ID has been looked at properly seen that it is bogus and then dismissed which is better than saying stuff them.
ID is not a new theory, regardless of whether it has been tested and proved bogus or not. It has been around for hundreds of years, and those who wish to suppress science have been invoking it for at least 100 years.

the biggest problem with intelligent design, is that a hell of a lot of the design, is not all that intelligent.

Indeed. So many deaths from head injury could be prevented by the simple act of installing a safety valve in the skull. I really can't see why someone who was capable of creating the universe in six days would have missed that one.

Indeed. So many deaths from head injury could be prevented by the simple act of installing a safety valve in the skull. I really can't see why someone who was capable of creating the universe in six days would have missed that one.
Built-in obsolescence, perhaps? It's not a design flaw if it's supposed to work that way.

Indeed. So many deaths from head injury could be prevented by the simple act of installing a safety valve in the skull. I really can't see why someone who was capable of creating the universe in six days would have missed that one.

You are assuming the creator is intelligent and benevolent. There is no reason he cannot be the type of jerk that would e.g. have a son for the sole reason of having him tortured to death ;)

Thanks for helping me out Muravyets but Blouman was not entirely distorting my position. I'm a teacher and of course we can discuss it. If i were a Science teacher we could deal with it as an alternative theory but be damned if I'd let them force me to teach it as a VALID alternative theory. I'm a big one for separation of church and state and it looks like the neo-cons have ushered in Creeping Jesus freakery into schools.
I'm not into censorship, that is true but a teacher has only so much time to get through the curriculum. Interestingly, in Australia, Religious Education, has been dropped from many government schools' curricula.
Teachers need to fight back. In Australia, we had George Bush's best friend whom we had to surgically remove from George's rectum in the last election in 2007. He was named John Howard and he loved diverting state funding to idiotic religious schools where they teach this crap and away from state schools where they don't.
The Religious Right push Christianity (except for the bits about the meek inheriting the earth and the camel going through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters the "Kingdom of Heaven") and then they have the cheek to cry 'censorship" when the tide turns against them.
So yes, Murayvets I speak with some degree of Schadenfreude that the tide has turned against these LIARS and dinosaurs. You know,I doubt if many of those Neo-Cons went along with the Creationist bullshit. It just suited them to get the backing of the religious right. I think it shows how dishonest they were. And America, apparently, according to some polls the MAJORITY of Americans believe in intelligent design.
That belief may not be all that dangerous in itsaelf but what it represents is truly terrifying. It's brainwashing of a nation! No wonder that Obama had to constantly parade his Christian credentials.

Built-in obsolescence, perhaps? It's not a design flaw if it's supposed to work that way.

God wants us to die early, so he can sell 'Human Mk2', with go-faster stripes? Could be.

You are assuming the creator is intelligent and benevolent. There is no reason he cannot be the type of jerk that would e.g. have a son for the sole reason of having him tortured to death ;)

I like your logic, but it doesn't really accord with the vision of God offered by the ID crowd. At least, not in their opinion.

Thanks for helping me out Muravyets but Blouman was not entirely distorting my position. I'm a teacher and of course we can discuss it. If i were a Science teacher we could deal with it as an alternative theory but be damned if I'd let them force me to teach it as a VALID alternative theory. I'm a big one for separation of church and state and it looks like the neo-cons have ushered in Creeping Jesus freakery into schools.
I'm not into censorship, that is true but a teacher has only so much time to get through the curriculum. Interestingly, in Australia, Religious Education, has been dropped from many government schools' curricula.
Teachers need to fight back. In Australia, we had George Bush's best friend whom we had to surgically remove from George's rectum in the last election in 2007. He was named John Howard and he loved diverting state funding to idiotic religious schools where they teach this crap and away from state schools where they don't.
The Religious Right push Christianity (except for the bits about the meek inheriting the earth and the camel going through the eye of a needle before a rich man enters the "Kingdom of Heaven") and then they have the cheek to cry 'censorship" when the tide turns against them.
So yes, Murayvets I speak with some degree of Schadenfreude that the tide has turned against these LIARS and dinosaurs. You know,I doubt if many of those Neo-Cons went along with the Creationist bullshit. It just suited them to get the backing of the religious right. I think it shows how dishonest they were. And America, apparently, according to some polls the MAJORITY of Americans believe in intelligent design.
That belief may not be all that dangerous in itsaelf but what it represents is truly terrifying. It's brainwashing of a nation! No wonder that Obama had to constantly parade his Christian credentials.
Okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I should clarify something of my own debating style too:

I recognize when someone is expressing a personal reaction to a situation within their posts, but if their main argument has a broader, less personal relevance to the topic, I usually ignore the personal as being just embellishment. After all, what do I care about how you feel about the ID controversy or why? So, to me, the observation that the IDers' complaints of "Help, help! I'm being repressed!" are both ironic and hypocritical was really the only part of your post that mattered to the thread. So it was the part I focused on.

Blouman, please take note of the above.^^

Now, I personally think their complaints that their ideas are being silenced by not being taught in Science class are bullshit. Is World History also being silenced because it is not taught in Science class? No, it has its own class, and so does ID. In the US, that class is called, variously, Comparative Religion, World Religions, or it is a segment of Social Studies, where students get an overview of what various religions have believed and do believe.

The ID argument that their religous belief should be taught in Science classes is nothing more than an attempt to have the Scopes argument and outcome all over again.

I like your logic, but it doesn't really accord with the vision of God offered by the ID crowd. At least, not in their opinion.

Which is silly of them. An intelligent, sadistic creator is much easier to defend when looking at reality.

Which is silly of them. An intelligent, sadistic creator is much easier to defend when looking at reality.
Off topic random musing, not really meant to be followed up: I really don't get why it is considered a sign of malevolence or sadism or other kinds of badness for humans to be mortal and subject to various weaknesses that can lead to death.

I have a question about what seems to be a debating style of yours:

Collectivity's argument is, in essence, that the creationists suppressed the teaching of evolution in school, so now it is hypocritical that they are complaining about the teaching of ID being suppressed in schools.

You respond to that with what appears to be, in essence, "well, if you're okay with suppressing them, then you should be okay with them suppressing you, so you should not criticize them for having done it."

But Collectivity's argument is expressing that it is NOT okay to suppress ideas and that, what was done in the Scopes trial was a bad thing. He is saying "They think A is fine, so let them now enjoy being on the receiving end of A", meaning A is NOT fine and they now get to learn why. You respond with "well, if you think A is fine, then you should not complain about them doing A."

Do you not get, though, that he is NOT saying that A is fine?

Well from his post it seemed with the "shove off" bit it was saying well we will just suppress it without giving it at least open to debate, and once it is found that ID is not true and not scientific then by all means don't allow it to be taught in a science class. But it seemed he didn't want that to happen at all because of this trial, which means we will just do what they did, which I think is hypocritical. The argument and explanation "They think A is fine, so let them now enjoy being on the receiving end of A", meaning A is NOT fine and they now get to learn why. Is different to how I translated to what he was saying

True, he embellishes his argument by wishing the creationists a taste of their own medicine, i.e. that they should get a taste of what it feels like to be silenced out of hand and unfairly, and I think he does so because the hypocrisy of their position is infuriating. But that does not change the fact that he was commenting on the irony and hypocrisy of the situation, not necessarily calling for religious people to be silenced and suppressed.

Yet you seem to think he is the one being hypocritical for saying "let's see how they like being on the receiving end of their own tactics."[/QUOTE]

Well from his post it seemed with the "shove off" bit it was saying well we will just suppress it without giving it at least open to debate, and once it is found that ID is not true and not scientific then by all means don't allow it to be taught in a science class. The argument and explanation "They think A is fine, so let them now enjoy being on the receiving end of A", meaning A is NOT fine and they now get to learn why. Is different to how I translated to what he was saying which is more than likely a poor translation.

I notice you do that a lot. Every time anyone complains about someone else being hypocritical, you respond with suggesting that they are being hypocritical for complaining about it. Yet you don't show how the complainer is being hypocritical. You don't show how what they are complaining about is not hypocrisy. You often don't address anything about the situation under discussion at all. It's as if, any time anyone says anything like, "I hate it when people do that", you automatically respond with, "well, you do it, too" without actually having anything to back that up.

Why do you do that?

Well, I would say that when people say something is wrong and then go and support other people on their side of the fence doing the same action and they are fine with it, then I will call them being hypocritical for not giving the same criticism to those people. For example, someone may say that kids should not be indoctrinated with a certain sense of ideals, but then may go on to say that they tell their kids about various ideals but are fine with that because it is in line with their ideals, is I think hypocritical, and I would call them on it. Now why do I do it? Well I could say it is just the way I am and it infuriates me when people do it regardless of which side of the debate they are on (even if they are on the same side as me). But sometimes I just like to let people know and it may get them to stop and think, well it isn't right for them to do it, but I am advocating my side to do it.

Also, and I may be wrong about this because I don't keep track of your postings here, but I have only seen you do this to people who are complaining about unfair tactics used by religious people. Yet you do not profess to be defending religion. What's that about?

You don't :( :p

I wouldn't say it was people complaining against unfair tactics used by religious people and only against religious people but I would and I think I have said the same thing to people who would support unfair tactics used by religion and then complain when people against religion use them as well (though people usually beat me to it). And not just on religion would I call people on this but really on an issue. I hope this gives some insight Mur, I know it took me awhile to reply and may not be as fully detailed as you would hope, but I tried since you deserve a proper explanation.

Off topic random musing, not really meant to be followed up: I really don't get why it is considered a sign of malevolence or sadism or other kinds of badness for humans to be mortal and subject to various weaknesses that can lead to death.

I am not merely looking at humans. The animal kingdom, especially when looking at insects, is quite brutal. Causing pain and suffering is the norm.

Off topic random musing, not really meant to be followed up: I really don't get why it is considered a sign of malevolence or sadism or other kinds of badness for humans to be mortal and subject to various weaknesses that can lead to death.

"Death is the greatest kick of all - that's why they save it for last!" (old Hippie saying):tongue:

I like your logic Muravyets.

We're organisms so we die. One day, this great universe will die.

People are frightened of death so they invent a God to give them everlasting life.

Now if we were to be scientific would Newton's Laws apply (e.g. Energy cannot be ceated or destroyed - merely transferred)

I'm not into censorship, that is true but a teacher has only so much time to get through the curriculum. Interestingly, in Australia, Religious Education, has been dropped from many government schools' curricula.

Well I'm not to sure, but it certainly is still a viable topic for all Year 12 students in SA to be able to study RE.

He was named John Howard and he loved diverting state funding to idiotic religious schools where they teach this crap and away from state schools where they don't.

I went to one of those so called 'idiotic religious schools' and we were taught about evolution in science class as well as many other people I know who went to other religion schools, and I was never taught about ID at all at school. And one of the reason why money was also given to these schools is because they needed it as well and students whose parents decided to send them to mind you (and not always because of religious reasons) needed to be able to have education money spent on them so they could also get a decent education. But that is for another thread and debate.

No wonder that Obama had to constantly parade his Christian credentials.

While I am religious I am glad that it is not at the same extent in Australia as it seems it is in America.

Okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I should clarify something of my own debating style too:

I recognize when someone is expressing a personal reaction to a situation within their posts, but if their main argument has a broader, less personal relevance to the topic, I usually ignore the personal as being just embellishment. After all, what do I care about how you feel about the ID controversy or why? So, to me, the observation that the IDers' complaints of "Help, help! I'm being repressed!" are both ironic and hypocritical was really the only part of your post that mattered to the thread. So it was the part I focused on.

Blouman, please take note of the above.^^

Ok fair enough.

Now, I personally think their complaints that their ideas are being silenced by not being taught in Science class are bullshit. Is World History also being silenced because it is not taught in Science class? No, it has its own class, and so does ID. In the US, that class is called, variously, Comparative Religion, World Religions, or it is a segment of Social Studies, where students get an overview of what various religions have believed and do believe.

The ID argument that their religous belief should be taught in Science classes is nothing more than an attempt to have the Scopes argument and outcome all over again.

Something I agree on, I don't think it should be taught as scientific basis in a science class.

Thanks for sharing Blou. And I'm not saying that all religious schools are necessarily idiotic or close-minded.
Fair funding for all schools is fair enough - but why subsidise the monster-raving loony schools? The answer is obvious! Because political parties are into pork barrelling - they don't really care about the curriculum, they're just after votes.

Thanks for sharing Blou. And I'm not saying that all religious schools are necessarily idiotic or close-minded.
Fair funding for all schools is fair enough - but why subsidise the monster-raving loony schools? The answer is obvious! Because political parties are into pork barrelling - they don't really care about the curriculum, they're just after votes.

Indeed they are, but how many non-state schools in Australia are like those? I know there are some but they are few and far between.

Well from his post it seemed with the "shove off" bit it was saying well we will just suppress it without giving it at least open to debate, and once it is found that ID is not true and not scientific then by all means don't allow it to be taught in a science class. But it seemed he didn't want that to happen at all because of this trial, which means we will just do what they did, which I think is hypocritical. The argument and explanation "They think A is fine, so let them now enjoy being on the receiving end of A", meaning A is NOT fine and they now get to learn why. Is different to how I translated to what he was saying
<snip for length>
Okay, I get your point, but I guess the difference between us is that I do not believe it is an unfair tactic to make a "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" or "turnabout is fair play" kind of argument. If someone has done something to you, and you comment that now they are having the same done to them and that seems like justice, I fail to see how that is an unfair argument. Nor do I see how it is hypocritical to argue that it is fair for hypocrites to be treated the same way they have historically treated other people.

Okay, I get your point, but I guess the difference between us is that I do not believe it is an unfair tactic to make a "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" or "turnabout is fair play" kind of argument. If someone has done something to you, and you comment that now they are having the same done to them and that seems like justice, I fail to see how that is an unfair argument. Nor do I see how it is hypocritical to argue that it is fair for hypocrites to be treated the same way they have historically treated other people.

Well, neither would I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander is unfair (and if I did it, I didn't express myself clearly) but I don't think saying well it's not right for people to do this, but when people say it isn't right for this to happen and then go around and do it to other people then I would call them up on it. It would be similar to slaves and those against slavery saying it is wrong for people to have slaves, but then go around and enslave the old slave owners (or even say that this should be done to them to teach them what it is like), that is what I would call people up on being hypocritical about. It is all very well to say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" but then don't go and say it isn't good for the gander so we will do it to the geese. I think, I started to confuse myself there lol.

I am not merely looking at humans. The animal kingdom, especially when looking at insects, is quite brutal. Causing pain and suffering is the norm.
Yes...and...?

"Death is the greatest kick of all - that's why they save it for last!" (old Hippie saying):tongue:

I like your logic Muravyets.

We're organisms so we die. One day, this great universe will die.

People are frightened of death so they invent a God to give them everlasting life.

Now if we were to be scientific would Newton's Laws apply (e.g. Energy cannot be ceated or destroyed - merely transferred)
Well, to be honest, if you were religious and followed most religious traditions, I don't see why you would fear death, either. Most religions assume an after life, so what is death the end of, then? Not much, it seems to me.

The Abrahamic religions specifically teach an after life that includes great reward for those who live properly according to their rules in this life, so if you do the right thing now, should you be afraid to die? Quite the opposite, it would seem. In fact, there have been many Christian scholars and some Christian sects who emphasized that Christians should not fear death at all, but embrace it when it comes in its ordained (by their god) time and not even mourn the deaths of their loved ones but rather celebrate them in the assumption that the dead are with their god.

Among the ancient pagan Greeks, there were philosophers who likewise advocated that people should not fear death, some on the grounds that the justice of the after life is nothing to fear and that people have the ability to make their fate by their own actions in this life, and others on the grounds that there is no after life, only nothingness, and in nothingness there is nothing to fear.

Among religions that believe in reincarnation, death amounts to little more than a change of venue or change of form. It makes little or no difference in the continuous existence of the soul (with or without continuous consciousness of self). So, if what matters is the immortal soul, who cares about the impermanent form of a body?

Yes...and...?

Causing pain and suffering is generally considered to be a bad thing[tm].
Of course, a philosophical topic on why could be interesting, though I expect it to die after page 3 if not enough religion, abortion, sexual fantasies or gays are mentioned.

Well, neither would I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander is unfair (and if I did it, I didn't express myself clearly) but I don't think saying well it's not right for people to do this, but when people say it isn't right for this to happen and then go around and do it to other people then I would call them up on it. It would be similar to slaves and those against slavery saying it is wrong for people to have slaves, but then go around and enslave the old slave owners (or even say that this should be done to them to teach them what it is like), that is what I would call people up on being hypocritical about. It is all very well to say "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" but then don't go and say it isn't good for the gander so we will do it to the geese. I think, I started to confuse myself there lol.
Yeah, but my point is that the anti-IDers are NOT doing to the IDers the same bad thing the IDers did to them back in the day. ID is not being supressed.

Anti-IDers, in my view, are making a "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" observation. They are calling IDers out on THEIR hypocrisy for claiming they are being suppressed after they themselves went to so much trouble to suppress others' ideas.

Causing pain and suffering is generally considered to be a bad thing[tm].
Of course, a philosophical topic on why could be interesting, though I expect it to die after page 3 if not enough religion, abortion, sexual fantasies or gays are mentioned.
I think it is generally assumed to be a bad thing if the "why" of it is not considered, and if one accepts some, in my opinion, rather self-serving assumptions about what the Abrahamic god's "plan" is.

But you are right. A serious discussion of such matters is likely marked for failure.

/hijack.

Yeah, but my point is that the anti-IDers are NOT doing to the IDers the same bad thing the IDers did to them back in the day. ID is not being supressed.

Anti-IDers, in my view, are making a "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" observation. They are calling IDers out on THEIR hypocrisy for claiming they are being suppressed after they themselves went to so much trouble to suppress others' ideas.

Yeah ok sorry, as I say I may have mistranslated Collects post, and then unfairly called him up on it. As ID isn't being suppressed simply because it is different to what we hold to be true but after it was examined and found to be false by tests than by not allowing it to be taught is not the same thing as the example Collect gave. So my calling on him (due to a bad translation on my part) was also wrong. Of course if ID was being suppressed simply because these people did it to other people or because it challenged their way of thinking then I would be calling them on it, since I know that is not the case I wouldn't being doing that and my earlier claim was poor reading on my behalf.

Damn it Mur you have done it to me again :p

Yeah ok sorry, as I say I may have mistranslated Collects post, and then unfairly called him up on it. As ID isn't being suppressed simply because it is different to what we hold to be true but after it was examined and found to be false by tests than by not allowing it to be taught is not the same thing as the example Collect gave. So my calling on him (due to a bad translation on my part) was also wrong. Of course if ID was being suppressed simply because these people did it to other people or because it challenged their way of thinking then I would be calling them on it, since I know that is not the case I wouldn't being doing that and my earlier claim was poor reading on my behalf.

Damn it Mur you have done it to me again :p
Well, to be fair, I am arguing about what the Evolution vs ID debate is "really" about.

That said, there are some people -- in this very thread, in fact -- about whom your argument and criticisms stand and are correct and appropriate.

I guess that I just like to keep it straight who is doing what to whom, when, etc. Also, I could be motivated to ignore the people who make what I personally see as stupid comments against religion just as much as I tend to dismiss and ignore stupid comments against science.

Yeah ok sorry, as I say I may have mistranslated Collects post, and then unfairly called him up on it. As ID isn't being suppressed simply because it is different to what we hold to be true but after it was examined and found to be false by tests than by not allowing it to be taught is not the same thing as the example Collect gave.

It is also not merely the fact that many claims of the ID crowd have been proven wrong - it is also that the ID crowd sofar has nothing to show.

Why should we honour their "alternative view" over the billions of other alternative ideas - which they are always very careful to not mention - by letting it be taught in the classroom ? Let them produce something worth mentioning first instead of whining and moaning.

It is also not merely the fact that many claims of the ID crowd have been proven wrong - it is also that the ID crowd sofar has nothing to show.

Why should we honour their "alternative view" over the billions of other alternative ideas - which they are always very careful to not mention - by letting it be taught in the classroom ? Let them produce something worth mentioning first instead of whining and moaning.
Okay, dammit, MORE clarification:

We are not stopping it from being "taught in the classroom." We are stopping it being taught AS SCIENCE in the SCIENCE CLASS.

It can be covered perfectly well in religion classes.

THAT is what I meant by ID not being supressed. It is free to be fully expressed in its proper venue, which is religion, not science.

Okay, dammit, MORE clarification:

We are not stopping it from being "taught in the classroom." We are stopping it being taught AS SCIENCE in the SCIENCE CLASS.

It can be covered perfectly well in religion classes.

You are confusing "Intelligent Design" and "the idea that there is a Creator".
The second is covered in religious class, as it should be.
The first isn't and shouldn't be taught anywhere. It is neither religious nor scientific.

You are confusing "Intelligent Design" and "the idea that there is a Creator".
The second is covered in religious class, as it should be.
The first isn't and shouldn't be taught anywhere. It is neither religious nor scientific.
I disagree. Of course, I disagree in a way that will be extremely unsatisfactory to IDers, but who cares?

My view is that a description of ID as "the belief that God made the world in such-and-such a way, in such-and-such a time period, and that he did this-and-that trick here-and-there which accounts for such things as apparent age of rocks and the presence of fossils, etc," and that this belief is something espoused by some Christians for <list of asserted of reasons>, and that, yes, this is a direct contradiction of what science tells us, which the people who espouse this idea reject for <list asserted reasons>", is all a perfectly acceptable way to cover ID in a comparative religions or religious history class.

Such an approach would present the ID point of view in opposition to science without pretending that ID is science. Rather, it would acknowledge that it is an inherently religious world view, which it is.

I disagree. Of course, I disagree in a way that will be extremely unsatisfactory to IDers, but who cares?

My view is that a description of ID as "the belief that God made the world in such-and-such a way, in such-and-such a time period, and that he did this-and-that trick here-and-there which accounts for such things as apparent age of rocks and the presence of fossils, etc," and that this belief is something espoused by some Christians for <list of asserted of reasons>, and that, yes, this is a direct contradiction of what science tells us, which the people who espouse this idea reject for <list asserted reasons>", is all a perfectly acceptable way to cover ID in a comparative religions or religious history class.

Such an approach would present the ID point of view in opposition to science without pretending that ID is science. Rather, it would acknowledge that it is an inherently religious world view, which it is.

Hmm. How would you fit design inference and irreducible complexity in there ?