Atheism discussion

Again, let me asky, why is it ID couldnt have scientific standing? Why is it that just because it says "there might be a God who made" that makes it automatically bad and haviong no proof?

It's not bad to think that or to suggest that, it is just not a scientific discussion, it is religious to suggest that a Creator or an intelligence that defies scientific testability is what causes the jump in the fossil record, and therefore belongs outside of the SCIENCE classroom. If a public school has a comparative religion class or philosophy class, ID could be taught in a public school, sure. But to suggest that evolution be brought up whenever a discussion of creation comes up in a religion class would be mixing science and religion where it doesn't belong, I believe that the reverse applies too.


This whole ID thing being called a "theory" in the same breath as a scientific theory such as evolution is just verbal misuse. It is a mixing of meanings of the word "theory". The same as someone in this thread mixed the phrase "I have it on good authority" to suggest that every logical conclusion could be categorized as "an appeal to authority" which is a fallacy of a logical argument.

I can imagine the day following ID being pushed into Kansas books, when the "theory" of heterosexual marriage is put to the same comparative level as "gay marriage". Let the religious right push this "examine all theories" angle and see where it gets them. Scrambling for the door to keep science in the science classroom and diversity out of the school system as they realize the door they are so righteously opening will set a precedent for discussions of things they would very much prefer to keep out of school altogether.

 

That, at core, just relegated common descent to being equivalent to a philosophy/religion,...which, well, it absolutely is in basis.

The argumentation all amounts to how one is trying to semantically frame it, to line it up, mire and confuse terminology, retrofit a definition of "science," throw common descent into bed with disciplines which it needs and yet do not need it,...and yet there is nothing common descent presents that can be demonstrated by which to distinguish it as being any worthier or more valid than ID.

"Correlation does not imply causation," right?

Double-edged sword here, folks.

I really see no point in arguing this, as it's been done ad nauseum elsewhere, and in more topic-specific and appropriately designated threads in the Senate forum.

 

And what makes Evolution more "worthy" than ID? Predictive power.

Well, as this is the Atheism thread, perhaps we should attack what I see as a common misperception that you called upon D. Brooks.

A philosophy is not a religion!

Religion is a philosophy and atheism is a philosophy. Atheism and Religion have traits in common, but they are not equivalent. It's like saying Ducks and Geese are the same thing.

Reduced from Merriam Webster:
Philosophy: (1) : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought (2) : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

Religion: (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Atheism: (1) : a disbelief in the existence of deity (2) : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

_Darth_Brooks_ posted on 9/10/05 11:44am

---

Y'mean, this isn't [i]the[/i] party?!?
Well wadda'ya know, I've been had again! [face_grin] [hr][/blockquote] This one didn't provide me free alcohol. [face_shhh]

 

Neo-Paladin,


Religion can be vivisected, subdivided and bisected, but all it amounts to is the respective world view an individual holds, the individual's belief.

We could argue semantics all day and into the next century, but in the broadest sense of the term, it is merely the content of our heart.

If you want to rephrase it as 'belief,' or 'faith' or 'philosophy' or whatever, it is still at the end of the day the overriding basis by which we standardize our lives in day to day living.


I don't see a point to quibbling over this,...do you really?


Don't be pedantic. I am well aware of the definitions, but I also believe you take my meaning, and to go further just obfuscates.

There's nothing for you to attack, and "ducks" and "geese" are still lovely birds. Certainly we can make distinctions where necessary, but to "attack" a reference to them as "birds" may be totally superfluous given the case.

 

Regarding geese and ducks, it sure is a good thing that there isn't a religion so silly as to define bats as birds. Imagine, proponents would eventually trying to redefine the scientific definition of birds in the classroom, under some silly idea that the bat-is-a-bird belief being a standard by which so many people base their daily lives should be given equal time in science class. There's no slippery slope!

But don't get me wrong, when those second graders get to shrubbery, a note stating that the book does not touch on the rare bush that spontaneously combusts and channels a supreme being deserves to be stickered in the front of the book, of course.

 

Well, I'm not arguing for that,...however, if that bush burned then it is one of the events of most consequence in history for every person on planet Earth, wouldn't you agree? Could be potentially the most important part of anyone's education.

 

Ah, but I do see the point behind quibbling, as you say. Philosophy is much bigger than religion. I understand your philosophy is your religion, but casting all philosophy as religion makes any philosophy that is not your own represent a conflicting deity, that by necessity must be fought.

I am far too pluralistic by nature to accept that.

Yes, ducks and geese are both lovely birds, and in my opnion Atheism and Religion are both valuable but I see you saying all philosophies are religions equivilant to saying all birds are ducks.

 

See it as you will, it still amounts to majoring on the minors.

You want to relegate it all to the heading of "philosophy," great, the Zebra is still white and black or black and white.




Edit:
Dunno why, just one of the myriad pieces of flotsam and jetsam floating down the random stream of conciousness;

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.

"Go right to the source and ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.
He's always on a steady course.
Talk to Mr. Ed.

"People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say.

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one'll talk 'til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?

"Well listen to this. I am Mister Ed."


Guess it ties into the whole 'nostalgia,' sitcom undercurrent/theme...
and it's just a fun theme song from 'dem days 'o yore.

Putting the "fun" back into "Fundie."

 

I am not an athiest. But I really do severely dislike most religions out there. Especially fundamentalist Christianity. I do believe that there is some sort of god-like being in the universe. But I just hate the way some people preach it. What I hate is that the bible seems to have this set of rules, some people preach if you break any one of these "sacred rules" you will go to hell. But if you think about it, you might come to the conclusion I have: that these people are just using hell as a con to scare people to join them and their "moral values," as demonstated by a very funny episode of South Park (where satan's gay ). Not only is this wrong but they're leading people into a life of false values, therefore brainwashing them, and restarting the cycle: those people then become preachers, who preach the same thing. And here's why I really hate this.

These people (preachers) are not all-holy moral people. They use the bible for their own morals - that that probalby stem form other preachers. And most of the time - in the FUNDAMENTALIST christianity - these are hateful morals. And by telling people that obeying the bible comes before everything else, they force their hateful beliefs on others, becuase thely tell these people it's Jesus morals too. And the people except it without thinking for themselves. They focus so much on obeying the bible they close their mind to what naturally seems right and worng to them. And similar to the the way the dark side eats away at a good person until it's gone, this the-bible-is-always-right mentality works like the dark side, brainwashing them until they truely beleive what the preacher says the bible preaches. But if their preachers let them establish more open mind, then they might think about fundamintalist Christianity in a similar light that I do. But of coarse, if their preachers let them establish an open mind, their preacher wouldn't have those crazy belifs. And for why I hate these beliefs so much. In short, they're just hateful, outdated, and ridiculous.

Hateful: A perfect example - gays. Jesus preached that you should treat everybody equally. To "do onto the least of me as you would me." So please tell me why Jesus would be against gay marraige? Why would he hate gays. Why would he say it's worng? He again would want treat them like a equal, not an inferior. He would DEFINATELY support gay marraige. As for abortions - I can't say what he would think. But this preaching that the lord condems gays is just ridiculus. Not only that, but they say that you will burn in hell for it. I chalenge anybody to axplain to me how this isn't hate.

Outdated: "you shouldn't masterbate becuase it's wasting sperm. Obviously, I don't think anybody TRUELY can interpret the bible word for word, like they say you're supposed to.

Ridiculous: "Praise the lord." No. These people say they're moral just becuase they praise the lord all the time. But think about it, they're just saying that, for what counts is your actions, not your sayings. As far as I'm concered. You could be a satinist and say "Jesus and God should burn in hell!!!", but if you're a good person, and truely have a heart, not just say it, then I think you will have a very good afterlife and not "burn in hell."

But still, I think the bible is flawed. Even in a good way of interpreting it. There are some things that the bible undeniably says that I still disagree with. Like it definately says "Praise the lord," which I think counts for nothing.

So really, I think that saying "god would want you to do this," is stupid, since we don't know anything about god. That's why I could be considered an agnostic. Although I do think there is a spiritual being out there, I think we should just try to be a good person, interpret the bible with an open mind, get out of it what it's worth, but most of all, think for yourself, and decide for yourself what is right.

I also love the Church of Christ and reform Judaism, and I think they get moral values right. I myself, would

 

That brings us back to the root of contention then.
Science is not atheism and it is not religion. It is not dependent on either.
Teaching science is not equivalent to teaching atheism.

Right or wrong (in minutiae or whole), evolution is science, and the best model science has for speciation. Until a better scientific theory can supplant it, it should be taught as science.

Right or wrong (in minutiae or whole), ID does not function without religion and falls outside of science. It should never be taught as science.

 

Ah yes, evolution. I completely agree with you about science evolution, ID and everything.

 

Neo-Paladin,

"That brings us back to the root of contention then.
Science is not atheism and it is not religion. It is not dependent on either.
Teaching science is not equivalent to teaching atheism."

Depends on how it is packaged, doesn't it?


Right or wrong (in minutiae or whole), evolution is science, and the best model science has for speciation. Until a better scientific theory can supplant it, it should be taught as science."

Mendel-ian genetics doesn't require "common descent" to be valid, and in fact he was a "creationist." You need to distinguish between "evolution" and "evolution by common descent via modification."




"Right or wrong (in minutiae or whole), ID does not function without religion and falls outside of science. It should never be taught as science."

ID does function without "religion" but not without philosophically a priori presupposition, and in that it is indistinguishable from "common descent." When one incorporates philosophical naturalism into a definition of "science," one has not only altered the definition of science, one is making a large assumption based upon mere preconception.

<buzzer sounds.>

Sorry, but please try again.

 

Darth_Shredder,

First, allow me to start off by saying, there is an aspect to many of your points which I agree with, indeed, Christ agreed with in The Holy Bible.

My replies are not hostile, nor intended to be seen as derogatory, just straight forward. The tone is matter of fact, and not derisive, and I hope you will take it is was intended.





Okay, but why not pick one point, present some specifics and be open for a little exegesis and hermeneutics.

"What I hate is that the bible seems to have this set of rules, some people preach if you break any one of these "sacred rules" you will go to hell. But if you think about it, you might come to the conclusion I have: that these people are just using hell as a con to scare people to join them and their "moral values," as demonstated by a very funny episode of South Park (where satan's gay )."

You are of course free to base your belief system on a sitcom and satire. Some of us approach it a little more seriously. I'm certain that South Park isn't considered holy writ in your opinion. But, I think this can illustrate how something can be taken out of context or misapplied.

"Not only is this wrong but they're leading people into a life of false values, therefore brainwashing them, and restarting the cycle: those people then become preachers, who preach the same thing. And here's why I really hate this."

Because you say so may work in a parental setting, but for most of us it isn't unreasonable for you to be expected to verify on more than whimsical opinion that those are "false values"(however you define such) and therefore "brainwashing"(however, you define that).

"These people (preachers) are not all-holy moral people."

Who said they were?
A Christian is basically a sinner who is offered salvation through Grace, precisely because they are not "Holy."

"And by telling people that obeying the bible comes before everything else, they force their hateful beliefs on others, becuase thely tell these people it's Jesus morals too."

Okay, so what specifically are these "hateful morals"? Not stealing? Not killing? Not running around on your spouse? Loving your neighbor as yourself? Loving the Creator who bestowed life?


"And the people except it without thinking for themselves."

Really, can you unequivocally present your assertion with proof-positive for us? In the meantime, perhaps you'll explain to us how it was you were thinking for yourself in coming to your own philosophical conclusions and that it wasn't the writers of South Park doing your thinking for you.


"Hateful: A perfect example - gays. Jesus preached that you should treat everybody equally. To "do onto the least of me as you would me." So please tell me why Jesus would be against gay marraige? Why would he hate gays. Why would he say it's worng? He again would want treat them like a equal, not an inferior. He would DEFINATELY support gay marraige. As for abortions - I can't say what he would think. But this preaching that the lord condems gays is just ridiculus. Not only that, but they say that you will burn in hell for it. I chalenge anybody to axplain to me how this isn't hate."

That's patently absurd. Christ made the distinction between right and wrong, while forgiving those who sought forgiveness, and then instructing them to, "Go and sin no more."

Love the sinner, hate the sin.


You say "outdated," okay,...besides your concern over "masturbation" and "sperm", is there anything else? We could go into discussing the link between porn as a visual aid to masturbation, and from thence into the resulting harm within, and destruction of, marriages, and so on and so forth,...in that psychologically masturbation is usually tantamount to the self-indulgent objectification of persons into objects, and on down the line...which should show a fairly sound basis as to why it isn't merely just an act which ultimately hurts no one and doesn't psychologically carry over into other areas of life. We could delve into the d

 

First off, let me say that my whole post was criticizing fundamentalist Christianity, people like Pat Robinson. And now let my rebuttle begin!!

First off, I'd like to say, you greatly misinterpreted my posts, so I will correct in your interpretation.

You are of course free to base your belief system on a sitcom and satire. Some of us approach it a little more seriously. I'm certain that South Park isn't considered holy writ in your opinion. But, I think this can illustrate how something can be taken out of context or misapplied.

I did not base ANY of my beliefs on any show including South Park, which by the way is not a sticom. I think you'd understand better if you could talk to me in person: I am VERY VERY serious about this subject. I'm so erious the reason of talking about South Park was to let people know I have a sense of humor, but please don't tell me I don't take this seriously when I just made probably my longest post EVER and before you have legitimate proof. South Park just nails my opinion right on the ball too, and I know it is very popular, so I was also trying to make people understand better. But I am VERY passionate about his subject. That's why my post was so long.

Because you say so may work in a parental setting, but for most of us it isn't unreasonable for you to be expected to verify on more than whimsical opinion that those are "false values"(however you define such) and therefore "brainwashing"(however, you define that).

If you'll notice, I spend about 5 paragraphs explaining why I think they are false values. So if you're saying I need to provide proof I did.

Who said they were?

Nobody, the point I was trying to make was that you shouldn't listen to everything the preacher says and think that's what Jesus would say too. I was saying that people sometimes listen their preacher and think that's the preacher is preaching about the bible when in fact, the preacher is interpreting the bible, and interpretations can sya very different things.

Okay, so what specifically are these "hateful morals"? Not stealing? Not killing? Not running around on your spouse? Loving your neighbor as yourself? Loving the Creator who bestowed life?

Once again, did you read the rest of my post? I told you about the things that I think are hateful. You even quoted me saying what was hateful. That is that gays are wrong. Really I was basing this on the moral majority, who think they're so moral, and I strongly disagree with them. I'm sure you know about them. But I also said later on in my post, you should get out of the bible for what it's worth, including the morals you were saying: Not stealing? Not killing? Not running around on your spouse? Loving your neighbor as yourself? Loving the Creator who bestowed life?

That's patently absurd. Christ made the distinction between right and wrong, while forgiving those who sought forgiveness, and then instructing them to, "Go and sin no more."

When did Christ ever say that being gay was wrong? *buzzer sounds* eh, wrong. The answer in never. Not only that, but even if christ basically said to treat everbody equally. Now please tell me how making constitutional amendments banning all gay rights and marraige is in the name of Christ. Becuase alot of the people who voted for these amendments didn't ussualy vote, but they did because acdording to their religious teachings being gay is wrong.

You say "outdated," okay,...besides your concern over "masturbation" and "sperm", is there anything else?

EVERYTHING. Come on, the bible is full of stuff that can no longer be applied to today. Like "you shouldn't eat pork." Though that's a Jewish tradition, to me it's silly. The bible says that becuase it wasn't clean, but now it is, so now you can eat it. Another thing "You shouldn't get divorced." Think about why Jesus said that. Becuase the man would leave the woman and she would be left with nothing. And the bible also conems even more sexual activitities for the reason that they are not clean, a.k.

 

Metaphysical considerations change nothing about evolutionary theory or its validity. The very fact that you used a conditional demonstrates that teaching atheism and teaching evolution are not equivalent.

ID does function without "religion" but not without philosophically a priori presupposition, and in that it is indistinguishable from "common descent."

Granted, ?Deity? would have been a better choice of wording over ?religion? but now you need to draw distinctions.

Young Earth ID doesn?t just presuppose, it rides completely on a deity and is very much contingent on religion. It is Biblical literalism, which cannot stand without religion.

The ID that says a creator set the initial conditions and let natural forces take over has a lot in common with the atheist view of how we got here, as you say the only difference is the presupposition.

However, evolution is the study of those natural forces, common decent does not speak to the existence of a deity. Anything beyond those natural forces (deity) is not science. Atheists who insist there is no deity are not using science, and the religious who insist there is deity are not using science. Common decent is science.

Try again? You've already been lapped.

 

ID does not function without religion. ID does not use the scientific method.
Philip Johnson is the founder of the entire ID movement. In his very own words "It is our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

If you advocate ID you are advocating what is nothing more than a political movement as admitted by the very people who invented it.

 

Neo-Paladin,

It only appeared I had been lapped because you were running a race which had not even begun.

ID is not Biblical literalism, that would be "creationism". That you are apparently unfamiliar with the difference in terminology between the two suggests you aren't ready to even begin a discussion.

EDITED:

I see that you've edited your post,presumably predicated upon my comments in this post. You're still trying to mix terminology which IDeai-sts and YEC'er's do not, such that it is still bordering on misrepresentation.

 

VadersLaMent,

Phillip Johnson is merely one vocal proponent of ID, not it's founder.

Be honest, how much do you know first hand, and how much have you simply aquired thru osmosis via other sources?


EDIT:
Johnson is a favorite of mine on the subject, btw. And, while he did make the statements you present, you need to carefully annotate that it was after he made his case that Darwinism/Naturalism is merely a philosophical presupposition which cannot justifiably be left unquestioned within academia and without the inclusion of the only alternative scientific explanation as deduced from observation, Intelligent Design.

 

You just don't want to accept the fact that ID is nothing more than a hoax created by bible thumpers. There is nothing in ID to replace science, evolution, the scientific method etc etc. It is not a legitimate alternative, it is a scam. You belive in a scam.

 

Shredder,


I think you need to reread my post, particularly in regard to what I wrote pertaining to SouthPark being used as an illustration.

And, well, in certain respects, in the gentlest possible way, you are wrong.

I've no doubt you're passionate about this subject. So am I.
Martin Luthor King had passion, but so does Osama Bin Ladin.
We need to channel our passions with restraint and conducively.

As far as masturbation potentially being detrimental to an individual's well-being, laugh all you like, but first I suggest you read a little further on the subject. Sexual addiction is a very real phenomenon.

And, if you wish to fault the scriptures in regard to masturbation and semen, perhaps it would be more effective if you presented the specific verses contextually intact, which to some would seem reasonable.

If you aren't certain where they are, just ask and I'll tell you the location by chapter and verse.

Y'know what they say,"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."



Let's take one reference, which one may assume you were alluding to in your content;

Leviticus 22:4 (KJV, the preferred choice of Fundies everywhere.)

"What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him;

It is touching upon laws of hygience and sanitation used even to this very milli-second at finer modern hospitals and medical facilities everywhere.

The first use of the word "seed" is referring to progeny, in point of fact the male relatives of Aaron, who it is understood by the reader made up the priesthood. It is merely pointing out they are to be kept from priestly service where there is a chance of anyone spreading any form of contagion. It then, goes on to stipulate that anyone who has been dealing with a corpse should also be restricted in case of contagion.(In subsequent verses and chapters it will go on to outline the procedure for decontamination using such materials as ash(used in some soaps) and hyssop(used in products like listerine), and so on and so forth.

The second use of the word "seed" in the passage is referring to semen, and being that we know today that certain diseases(think HIV) can be transmitted via semen it is also pertaining to preventative and precautionary steps to impede the transmission of disease.

Hardly archaic or outdated. I see nothing "hateful" or "ridiculous."

So, yes, the content of your post does begin to appear very "ill-informed."

Shall we continue?


Truthfully, I'm feeling lax and lazy at the moment.

 

VadersLaMent,

Your post seemed to convey an almost shrill desperation.

Have I had a chance to tell you about the waitress who saw the angel?
She said it was a female with outstretched wings who told her basically,"Fear not. Everything will be alright."
Her physician had discovered a problem with her unborn child, and pressure was being placed upon her to abort the pregnancy. It was at that time the angel appeared. Her child was born with severe handicaps, but she loves him and cannot imagine being without him.

Beautiful, isn't it?

 

I'm recently agnostic...I think that there must be something out there, because there's just too much for science to explain if there isn't. Not everything can be just a simple coincidence. But I think that we don't know really what that something is, and if we ever did, it's been literally lost in translation. Look at the Bible - it's been translated, edited, and "revised" countless times. Whatever message it once conveyed has been forever lost. But then again, maybe it hasn't been. I can't bring myself to "commit" to the views of any one religion, and my personal moral and ethical code (considered myself an Episcopolian until a week and a half ago, when I finally decided that I just didn't believe everything that was in the Bible anymore) is unchanged.

But in some ways, I feel maybe just a little lonelier to admit that I just don't know what's out there anymore...

 

Brooks, about the south park think, here's what you said: You are of course free to base your belief system on a sitcom and satire.

You just said I was basing my belief system on south park, so no, you did get me wrong.

As for the masturbation thing, I'll grant you, I'm not a bible scholar, but other people are and this is one quote somebody got from Genesis 38:

7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's [Er's] wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

That basically says you shouldn't spill your seed, basically saying you shouldn't masterbate.

btw, your argument that hospitals today use these same cleaning rules is irrelevent in this case, because there were some cleaning issues back then the UNDENIABLY don't exist now. except it. some things have changed. Like "don't eat pork becuase it's not clean." That undeniably deosn't apply to today. Pork today is perfectly clean.

 

There's no desperation in my last post at all, you just don't seem to like the fact that ID is a hoax. Too bad. Anecdotes don't prove anything btw. You could have replaced 'angel' with 'UFO' and it would have meant as much.