Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Buddahaid]

And some will fall and go anywhere she points, but yes. This thread is about creation isn't it. :yeah:

[August]

And some will fall and go anywhere she points, but yes. This thread is about creation isn't it. :yeah:

You brought it full circle.

That's cool man! :cool:

[Sammi79]

I thought that happens all the time judging by the number of disaffected altar boys around here. :)

Seriously though i imagine that most loss of faith is related to despair in some way.

:)

I agree with that. I would only add that for those whose minds naturally become developed enough as young adolescents to really question the validity of their belief, the inevitable transition itself is often a cause of great despair, psychological trauma and suicide. The demolishing of identity that occurs as a result of their fractured self definition as a believer leaves some in a practical state of shell shock.

I would have fewer criticisms were the scriptures treated entirely as allegory but by all believers, they are not. I maintain my point about those moral pointers being severely confused. That is all fine, but like I said, no more special treatment - ideas stand (or fall) on the evidence of logical tests and until an idea (including ID, Creationism, Gods or afterlives) has been tested and found true, false or somewhere in between, then it is speculation. If the truth (or falsehood) is assumed before the evidence is provided then that is an assumption, about which there is a vulgar phrase I'm sure people here can remember. I can understand the comfort blanket effect of 'knowing' you'll go to heaven and spend eternity in paradise but to be quite frank, even as I find that a little childlike, honestly I would never seek to remove that comfort from someone who relied upon it, nor anyone else, though I will always hope that they might one day learn that it is a shackle, not a blanket, and to live without it and the weight it adds.

So, Creationism then. Anyone got any supporting evidence yet?

I thought not. :haha:
seriously though if anyone thinks they have any I will consider it.

Cheers for an entertaining discussion folks, goodnight/day.

[Sailor Steve]

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.
I don't think the Big Bang theory assumes what came before the Bang. The Bang itself is theorized on the concept that the universe is expanding, and seems to have been doing so for as long as it has existed. If that is true then it likely had to start somewhere. What came before can only be guessed at.

[Sailor Steve]

Begs the question though, what would it take a believer to become a sceptic?
In my case it was seeing more questions and finding less answers.

[Sailor Steve]

So, Creationism then. Anyone got any supporting evidence yet?
That is a valid question.

I thought not. :haha:
That is trolling. That is what we are trying to avoid here. You get to challenge, question, and even provoke. Open mockery is not welcome.

seriously though if anyone thinks they have any I will consider it.
That redeems you a little. Please don't go down that road again.

[Sammi79]

[edited upon reflection from Hottentot]
I apologise for any offense caused, that was not my intent. My intent was humour, to keep things light. it was in bad taste, but it amuses me I can't help it.

[Hottentot]

Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?

Chill a little, mate, there is no secret religious reptilian conspiracy running the whole Internet. Steve was just pointing out that one specific line in your post was out of line with the rest. He's a moderator, that's what they do.

[Cybermat47]

I apologise for any offense caused though that was not my intent

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright :yep:

[Sammi79]

Chill a little, mate, there is no secret religious reptilian conspiracy running the whole Internet. Steve was just pointing out that one specific line in your post was out of line with the rest. He's a moderator, that's what they do.

You're right about Steve. I explained and apologised and I will edit my post directly. I can do no more and I stand by the statements I have made, which only August & MH (2 non religious folks) deemed worth approaching in any way. [edited]

Don't really know where you're going with the reptilian conspiracy thing. I don't see conspiracy - I see bad intellectual habits formed over centuries of religious manipulation of governments and people. Habits that are neither justifiable nor reasonable and habits that I will encourage people to drop, if and when I encounter them in discussion. In your opinion is that unreasonable?

[Sammi79]

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright :yep:

If you take offense at anything I have said, then tell me what exactly and why. If you'd noticed, my stated concerns include all people, religious or not. As you state you are religious, I would appreciate any counter argument you may have to offer.

[Skybird]

Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?

^This. "We want to seriously and open-mindedly debate."

No, Mr. creationist, you want that NOT. You want to sneak in through the backdoor where at the front door you got rejected.

To debate something seriously and openmindedly demands a.) an object deserving that, and b.) open mindedness of the talking sides. In case of religious believers, the latter must be put into question, since they do not want to allow getting convinced by evidence, proof or argument. They want to get away with strawman arguments of their own, hilarious claims and playacts by themselves, and ridiculous construction of their think tanks that claim to be "evidence".

Steve may call it politeness to play by these rules and endlessly discuss this Serious and open-minded. I call it avoiding the necessary confrontation, and a distorted sense of tolerance and a perverted desire for harmony where harmony is not justifiable.

Creationists come with something, which indeed i not just another repetition of the same old claims once again, and it gets tested in the scientific process, and if it stands the test - THEN we politely, seriously, open-mindedly discuss that proof and what it means for the established theories of how life emerged and unfolded on earth. Doing so without that proof given first - is appeasement.

[Cybermat47]

a perverted desire for harmony

Huh? :-?

[Skybird]

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright :yep:

You compare apples with oranges.

If I go and tell people: "Creationists are idiots, no offense", and leave it to that - then it is an offense.

If I go and say "creationists claim this and that, it has been proven wrong by this and that so many times, and still they repeat it, making themselves look like dogmatic fools", then this is something different.

And yes, of course people have the right to be held responsible for what they say (or believe in). So if you defend something that does not stand the test of reasonable analysis by scientific methods, just repating it endlessly nevertheless, then this makes oyu look like a parrot, and if you give reasons as aerguments that so very very very often have already been proven wrong, then this allows conclusions on your intellectual state of mind. - And then it may be justifiable to shportcut the long drama and avoid the endless useless propaganda march, and just tell somebody: "You believe that? Idiot. Leave me alone."

Because the problem at the root of the problem is: try to make an idiot aware of what an idiot he is! :haha:

No respect where no respect is due. Inflationary distributing respect, devalues it. That is my view on it all. Creationists, believers and all the like have to earn people's respect instead of demanding to get a free ride for nothing. Until they understand that, its better if them and people not wanting to share their believes, stay separate, everybody for himself. So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

[Skybird]

Huh? :-?

What in those five words exactly is it that you do not understand?

[Hottentot]

So if provocation is allowed as Steve states - Come on then you religious folks, what are you afraid of?

Perhaps they understand that just because you are allowed to provoke by one moderator's word doesn't mean that you should do so or that it would contribute to anything.

Don't really know where you're going with the reptilian conspiracy thing.Comments like these help creating the idea:

In fact when people like me decide to point certain things out about it, I am called an 'ignorant atheist' and/or otherwise actively discouraged from speaking my mind. It's OK to ridicule politicians or celebrities, it's OK to berate people behaving badly, but religious texts are off limits for simple criticism?

No. No more special treatment. This world does not owe that book or any other immunity.
Or is this yet another special plead for immunity where religious ideas are concerned?As rhetorical questions those do not work. If they were true, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 18 pages and counting.

I don't see conspiracy - I see bad intellectual habits formed over centuries of religious manipulation of governments and people. Habits that are neither justifiable nor reasonable and habits that I will encourage people to drop, if and when I encounter them in discussion. In your opinion is that unreasonable?I can comment on that if you can first show me where I implied it's unreasonable, or took any side for or against religion at all.

[Sammi79]

Perhaps they understand that just because you are allowed to provoke by one moderator's word doesn't mean that you should do so or that it would contribute to anything.

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out. Here I should point out my admiration for the lack of response, :oops:

Comments like these help creating the idea:

Well in my defense the 1st was a statement of fact as referenced in this thread and for the 2nd would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it?

It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all. When it comes to ID, Creationism, etc. it is based on scripture, or at least assuming the truth of the premise of it. Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth.

Like I said, I don't think of myself as a particularly critical thinker, I just do my best. I fail from time to time, nay, often. Nobody's perfect and I try to make amends after the fact. I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people, I simply firmly disagree with many of the interpreted morals in scripture, such as homosexuality being a 'sin', the subjugation of women (how can you interpret the 'good' morals in that?) and would go as far to say I think it should probably have an age rating attached to it. That or a careful edit. It's been done many times before as I understand it.

Were they published today can you imagine the outcry from large numbers of people within society? Myself included.

As rhetorical questions those do not work. If they were true, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for 18 pages and counting.

Again you are correct, and I think you answered that already in your first post. I was under the mistaken impression since various commentators on this thread had not been reproached for some pretty insulting generalisations depending on your point of view that it was either personal against me, or personal for him, and made a generalisation of my own. That and I think it polite to answer any reply. Shall I delete the whole thing then? why not.

I can comment on that if you can first show me where I implied it's unreasonable, or took any side for or against religion at all.

I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement?

[Bilge_Rat]

The evidence backing up the big bang theory is pretty scant at best (and can be explained in other ways). Most of it seems to be a lot of postulation. There are also huge problems with it and our other theories, like for example how did the galaxies spread out as far as they did in the time frame that the universe was supposed to come into existence.

As for the existing evidence, my suspicion is that they are measuring signals from the birth of galaxies, not the universe. I really do not think that the universe truly exists in our linear perspective of time. I am also not sure that it has a beginning or an end, in time, or space, or anything.

Plus the theory to me logically does not make sense. In the beginning, there was nothing (not even time or space or anything), then there was some universe creating explosion and the universe went expanding out in all directions from one point, the end.

I am also skeptical of the entropy theory as well, though the logic is more sound at least. I suspect though, that the universe has mechanisms to deal with this, and that the formation of galaxies is cyclical.

But this is pure wild theorizing.

You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.

[Hottentot]

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out.

In your defense, such comment could have been aimed at other people as well and I'm hardly innocent of poking people every now and then myself. But as our old president used to say: ”If someone is trying to provoke you, don't get provoked.” It rarely leads to anything, aside from the petty satisfaction that lasts, according to my experiences, for whole 10 seconds.


would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it? I see so many people demanding special treatment to their favorite ideology that I really can't decide anymore which ones of them are religious and which are not.

Personally I try to give religions the same treatment as, say, vegetarians: I respect that some people find them important in their life and if I criticize them for something, I try to be constructive about it instead of just pointing finger and laughing at them. If they are constructive about it, we are going to have a discussion. If they are not, then I haven't really ever seen the point of trying to convert a brick wall. And I have had many more discussions with the followers of scriptures than with the vegetarians.

That's no special treatment, but simple civil discourse. Also when I say I'm critical towards something, it means by my definition that I must also be critical towards what I believe to be true. That includes my current beliefs and values regarding religions.



It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all. I fully agree with the sentiment, but would again stress that if you are going to poke fun of anything, then be a fair player and poke fun of yourself every now and then too. If you've read my AARs at the General Games section, for example, you know that I love taking potshots at academics and I've written a whole story making fun of a stereotypical Finn.

It's not because I'd want to use them later for argument and say ”look at this”: it's simply because I love laughing at myself every once in a while. This is something that the most loud mouthed ”critical” (in varying contexts) people, in my opinion, seem to often be incapable of.


Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth. That's sounds like a healthy attitude. It's difficult to have a discussion about anything if the other party just wants to convert you. Been there, done that.


I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people You didn't (at least to me) come across as someone harboring hatred towards anyone. Simply as someone who perhaps was starting to take this a little too seriously.


I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement? Fair enough: as I have said above, your goals don't seem too unreasonable and you don't seem like an unreasonable fellow yourself. But it seemed to me that you were getting a little anxious about it and that's not a good foundation for convincing people of your viewpoint. I know it's easy for me to say, being a third party observer here, but you can obviously convey your viewpoints well enough without resorting to low tricks.

[NeonSamurai]

Science gets things done.

Hitchens nailed it on top best: "I'm not an atheist because it is cool. I'm not an atheist because religious extremism or oppression in some depraved corners of the world. I'm not an atheist because I don'T think evil can exist in a world with a god. I am not an atheist because I think science can disprove god. I am an atheist because of one simple fact: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION. If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you."

And Dawkins said this: "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing. (...) Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.

This is exactly why I do not like either Hitchens or Dawkins, not only are they so blind and arrogant to see that their positions are also faith based. They don't even understand basic scientific principles.

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something. The concept that you need evidence to prove something is utter hogwash in science, I can propose any scientific hypothesis I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my hypothesis is wrong. So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists. Or it would anyhow if either was a scientific hypothesis/theory which neither is.

Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.


Hypothesizing, actually. A theory requires some proof.

Sorry for being pedantic...

Well that is quite debatable, as again, proof does not exist. As I said above, evidence does not prove things, it just fails to show a theory/hypothesis to be wrong. Same goes for testing theories. This is how science progresses, as it refutes old theories with new evidence, and is forced to come up with a new theory.

It would be more accurate to say, that a theory requires some testing that does not disprove it ;)


You have to realize that human knowledge is always evolving. Religions were early attempts by man to explain his environment.

The Big Bang Theory is the most logical explanation based on our current scientific knowledge, but we could easily be in a situation 50-100 years from now where a better explanation is found.

I am well aware of that yes :) I also have zero doubt that the big bang theory will be refuted as it is too seriously flawed in my opinion. I fully expect all our scientific theories to eventually be refuted as none of them are "the truth".

[Sailor Steve]

Steve may call it politeness to play by these rules and endlessly discuss this Serious and open-minded. I call it avoiding the necessary confrontation, and a distorted sense of tolerance and a perverted desire for harmony where harmony is not justifiable.
In this particular case I'm only concerned with the rules we play by here.

Creationists come with something, which indeed i not just another repetition of the same old claims once again, and it gets tested in the scientific process, and if it stands the test - THEN we politely, seriously, open-mindedly discuss that proof and what it means for the established theories of how life emerged and unfolded on earth. Doing so without that proof given first - is appeasement.
I completely agree. I like being polite, and I like debating things. I don't expect everyone to feel the same. My comment to Sammi only concerned the rules here.

Sammi, you're doing fine.

[Tribesman]

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something.
You sound like my old maths teacher of many many years ago.
I think that was about a theory too.

[Sammi79]

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something. The concept that you need evidence to prove something is utter hogwash in science, I can propose any scientific theory I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my theory is wrong. So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists.

As the positive proposition is that of the theists, it is their burden of disproof if you like, not sure quite how you worked the switch around there. And you cannot propose a Theory which is an explanation of falsifiable facts, if you do not have them. [edit2] Upon re reading your post you do clearly state that the religious ideas are unscientific but I didn't miss it did I, - ninja edit :cool:

Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.

As (A)theism is a lack of belief which is dissimilar to belief, Am I to be defined as an (A)trainspotter and an (A)tennis fan, as well as all the other things I am not? Atheism simply means I am unconvinced by each and every argument and their sum total I have ever heard for theism.

Theism or religious belief is a position that requires a complex personal construction of varying degrees of imagination about metaphysics, oft containing contradictions to established scientific facts. This is very difficult for discussion as the facts have already been shown to be falsifiable, and everyone is encouraged to repeat or renew the process. The facts may be false of course and we still might never know, but until this is demonstrated we will remain more confident that the fact is true.

As both are words describing ones position of belief, neither are mutually exclusive with Agnosticism which is a word describing ones position on knowledge.

This is why I say, doubt is the most redeeming feature of humanity. I always retain doubt in absolutely all things - I am 99.9^10% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but I can easily imagine a whole bunch of vastly unlikely scenarios in which it wouldn't. This is also why I challenge the very idea of faith in religion, which is held up as the primary virtue. Faith can be virtuous when it is in people and the good in them, but with religion it comes startlingly close to voluntary gullibility. This is not an insult- it is how it appears to me, and I hope if someone has a measured response they will say it. Doubt has been keeping cautious people (as well as a lot of not so cautious people as a by product) alive since people were people or before, not to mention animals. The lack of doubt regarding the safety of human competition in the environment has led to the extinction of entire species in relatively recent history.

[edit] I should add, faith in governments or nations appears to me to be indistinguishable from faith in religion.

[Sammi79]

I completely agree. I like being polite, and I like debating things. I don't expect everyone to feel the same. My comment to Sammi only concerned the rules here.

Sammi, you're doing fine.

Thanks Steve - you're a gentleman to me I appreciate it. :salute:

[Sailor Steve]

This is exactly why I do not like either Hitchens or Dawkins, not only are they so blind and arrogant to see that their positions are also faith based. They don't even understand basic scientific principles.
I'll agree about Hitchens, but then I'm biased, having a great distaste for his style. Where Dawkins is concerned, no less a scientific authority than Neil DeGrasse Tyson would disagree with you. That he respects Dawson and his opinions carries a lot of weight in my book.

You don't need evidence to prove something, evidence cannot nor will not prove anything. The only single thing that evidence can do is disprove something.
I disagree to a point. Evidence is not proof. On the other hand proposing something for which there is no evidence is not science at all. You need evidence to have a hypothesis in the first place.

I can propose any scientific hypothesis I like so long as it remains scientific, in that it is refutable or that there is a way of showing that my hypothesis is wrong.
Yes you can. I have often proposed the hypothesis that there are little bug-eyed blue men from Atlantis living in the ocean. There is no proof for this, nor even the slightest bit of evidence. The only proof I have is that you can't disprove it. Based on that alone you should believe me, because I say it is so.

So no the burden of proof does not rest with religion, the burden of disproof lies with atheists.
Not so. You don't have to prove anything to me, but if you want me to believe you then you suddenly do. If a believer wants his faith to spread, then he needs to provide something that will convince his listeners. The atheist, on the other hand, merely needs to ask for that proof. He doesn't have to disprove anything, any more than you have an obligation to disprove my little bug-eyed blue men. If I want you to believe it then I have to show some evidence. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, then why would I tell you about it at all?

Or it would anyhow if either was a scientific hypothesis/theory which neither is.
Very true. When it comes to the origins of the earth it becomes a different story. Creationists want their faith to get equal time in schools with the Theory of Evolution. To do this they attempt to bring down Evolution by finding flaws in it. What they fail to do is to apply the same tests to their own version. Therefore they want a faith-based conception with no evidence to back it up at all taught equally with a valid and accepted scientific theory. In this case the burden of proof is very much on them.

Just as much as the theists have no proof that god exists, atheists have no proof god does not exist either. Both positions are faith based, both sides believe something is true and neither has any evidence to show the other side is incorrect. The only logical answer to the question if you really want to be scientific is "I do not know" aka Agnosticism.
And that's where I ended up, though I don't like that label. Where God, or any supernatural being is concerned, there is no evidence, one way or the other. None at all. The question for me is this: Is it more logical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I have ended up with the conclusion that the rational answer is the latter.

[Sailor Steve]

I always retain doubt in absolutely all things - I am 99.9^10% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but I can easily imagine a whole bunch of vastly unlikely scenarios in which it wouldn't.
My only question here is whether you stole my philosophy or I stole yours. I used to be a believer, and the thing that led me to my present postition was doubt. I've been wrong so many times about so many things that I realized I could be wrong about my faith as well. Other things led me to stop thinking about it at all, and when I did I tried to believe again, but had too many doubts. I tried to be a devout Atheist, if you will, but knew I could be as wrong about that as well. At that point I started asking questions, and the more questions I asked the less answers I had.


[edit] I should add, faith in governments or nations appears to me to be indistinguishable from faith in religion.
Again I agree. I put my take on it into a song I wrote a few years ago.
I may be right and I may be wrong, but the same is true for you.
I know I don't know anything, but I think you only think you do.

[Safe-Keeper]

Seriously though, bang and the universe was flung into existence?Nope. All the universe was compressed into a single point, the singularity, which then expanded. Whether you think it sounds too incredible to be true (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) doesn't really matter, what's important is the evidence -- and it points towards the so-called "big bang". Which of course wasn't an explosion at all, despite the misleading name of the theory.

[Sammi79]

My only question here is whether you stole my philosophy or I stole yours. I used to be a believer, and the thing that led me to my present postition was doubt. I've been wrong so many times about so many things that I realized I could be wrong about my faith as well. Other things led me to stop thinking about it at all, and when I did I tried to believe again, but had too many doubts. I tried to be a devout Atheist, if you will, but knew I could be as wrong about that as well. At that point I started asking questions, and the more questions I asked the less answers I had.

I was brought up firmly agnostic, neither position on belief was encouraged or discouraged, for which I am grateful. Over my 34 years I have phased in and out of entertaining various metaphysical imaginations, none bearing any resemblance to any religion or scripture, apart from the soul concept, which between the ages of 11-16 I was more than confident in the truth of it. In those time I had a worldview roughly along the lines of a bad cosmic joke, that nothing that gradually evolved could become so ludicrous and contrary.

As you are agnostic, I feel comfortable relating one of my imaginations that stuck with me for a long time after the accidental death of a close school friend when I was 12. It was the first time I'd experienced that total numbing of emotion that occurs when a psychologically traumatic event is first felt, possibly as a shock absorbing mechanism. I cried for days but I felt nothing. It was a truly bizarre experience for me. The phrase 'I think therefore I am.' is more accurate if think is changed to feel. Anyway, after about a week, the emotions started to surface again one by one. Anger at the lorry driver and a furious desire to know the exact circumstances of his death came first, then later that week of course the grief set in, not having said goodbye etc. and upon learning the circumstances (like the trucker had his own 9 year old son in the cab with him, it was a complete freak accident on a warm sunny day, the truck was passing on the opposite lane and for some eternally unknowable reason Stanley on a bicycle suddenly swerved right out in front of him.) all anger and fury at the driver immediately melted into real pity for him and his son. I heard he stopped working and acquired an alcohol problem for a while but happily not too long, and with not much damage.

Now the first part of my imagining stems from a dream I had shortly thereafter. I was in the house I grew up in, and Stanley was there. Only he was all busted up in my imagination from being squashed by a truck. I said something like, 'Woah, Stan. You look awful, are you Ok?' to which he replied 'I feel [expletive] awful, what you think?' I felt another pang of grief and woke up. I thought for a few days about the feeling of his presence and at that time I was pretty convinced his soul had actually visited me, for which I was grateful, but a bit bemused about the circumstance of the dream. It wasn't very nice. Then a week later on the dot, I had another dream.

If you have read the 'Winnie the Pooh' books then you'll know about the final goodbye tea party at the end of the final book, in a light fir tree wood with a late afternoon sun shining through underneath the branches. A long wooden table with 2 long benches and a chair at either end. Symbolically this story is about Christopher Robin growing up, and leaving behind his childhood fantasies of talking stuffed pets, who are all the guests at his meal of honour. In my dream I was in the place I had imagined from my childhood reading. Stanley was there, absolutely back to his old self, smiling, mischievous. My parents and sister were also guests as were his parents and brother. I had such a warm feeling, it is very hard to describe, but without any doubt I knew that this was Stans goodbye tea party. I remember no more, but I will never forget what I do remember about it.

When I awoke from this dream, the grief was still there, but somehow inhibited. It had the edge taken off. The funeral was bloomin' tragic, inevitably under the circumstances. the hymns in the church had just about everyone in uncontrollable tears. Over the subsequent years I mused on my dreams and my boosted conviction in the concept of the soul, and I came to the imagination that -

Imagine that there are an infinite number of alternate dimensions or realities co-existing simultaneously, but crucially each and every soul exists in all of them. When you make choices you step into realities limited by your choices. When in one reality a soul is subjected to an unnatural or unfortunate death, its experience is immediately and seamlessly Shifted into a reality where its choices did not lead inadvertently to its death. I had personally had a few real experiences that did not immediately occur to me that I was inches, or seconds, from my own painful death until afterward, and this seemed to support my imaginary world.

The implications of this metaphysical fantasy are quite profound. Every living thing gets to live a full natural life, without ever experiencing the pain of a premature or unnatural death. Maybe the last transference leaves you in heaven, I don't know. I have never liked the concept itself alongside hell, and I firmly believe that the scriptural meaning of these are symbolic descriptions of life in reality. Now, disregarding my lack of need for heaven, is that not a nice comforting thought? I don't often tell people about that as to my mind it would appear quite irrelevant to them being based on my own unfalsifiable experience. Of course I do not believe it now, I never truly did. It still brings me comfort to remember though. My current conclusion on the whole matter is that my subconscious mind built those dreams for me, in order to heal the grief wound. It didn't quite work the first time, so I got another, much more powerful and vivid one.

When I was 22, I read and re read Catch 22 - alongside Slaughterhouse 5 and found my favorite books of all time. Shortly after I met the first person in my life that would simply not entertain the concept of the soul, under any circumstances. That was intriguing to me as it seemed so rare, and at first I could not understand how anyone could deny the existence of souls. That was the start of a gradual slide to where I am now, with no conviction in metaphysics at all, a few old comforting imaginations, and no weight on my back.

So we came to similar conclusions after having life experiences half a world apart I guess. As a born agnostic and grown atheist if you will, I assume our experiences are markedly different. If I may ask, did you find any part of your transition unpleasant in any way, and how long did it take you?

It would gladden me to hear that you did not suffer.

Again I agree. I put my take on it into a song I wrote a few years ago.

Those are groovy lines Sailor Steve, I am a singer/guitarist myself of sorts though I tend to (not always) play covers. The best lines I ever came up with were;

Born with vision, learn to be blind.
Born to freedom, become self confined.
Lose the way, find it hard to find,
A little peace of mind.

Born to passion, gives way to lust.
Born to love, betrays mistrust.
All I am is worth my weight in dust.
Do what you must.

Not much I grant you, but I like it.

P.S. sorry for the text explosion I don't quite know how I became so verbose. I really enjoy discussions on this forum, like no other.

[Sammi79]

I fully agree with the sentiment, but would again stress that if you are going to poke fun of anything, then be a fair player and poke fun of yourself every now and then too. If you've read my AARs at the General Games section, for example, you know that I love taking potshots at academics and I've written a whole story making fun of a stereotypical Finn.

It's not because I'd want to use them later for argument and say ”look at this”: it's simply because I love laughing at myself every once in a while. This is something that the most loud mouthed ”critical” (in varying contexts) people, in my opinion, seem to often be incapable of.

Again you are absolutely right.
I am not so great at laughing at myself admittedly, it always comes off a little forced. I am fully aware that people may find me or my views amusing or silly, however, and I genuinely am glad of it if it brings them any from of happiness. To critically analyse myself, I would say the silliest characteristic I posses is that of a 'drama queen' :wah: - I feel therefore I am, and my emotions are often severe. This results in me getting rather too involved in things as you pointed out, and I can see the amusing side. I had a very hard time learning to develop relationships with women, as I would tend to profess my bare feelings totally and immediately, which generally is a very scary prospect I imagine for a girl expecting a night of fun. I often wondered as the years ticked by, whether or not you could become ill through lack of sex, - well you know you hear these stories about celibate priests. I often despaired that I would die alone and childless... but as John Cleese once said, 'It's not the despair. I can take the despair, It's the hope...':har:

Nowadays I don't particularly worry about any of that. In view of my recent experience I think dying alone would be acceptable, and possibly the least I could do to spare my friends and family the stress of it all.

I think about the Japanese concepts of Bushido, how death is immediately accepted and welcomed from the moment you enter your masters employ, and how having a graceful, honorable death was something to think about and prepare for, since it defined your status upon reincarnation. I would not go that far, I appreciate the beauty of achieving nirvana at the heightened sense at the moment of death, but I like humour better. If I could make someone laugh through the event of my death, I would be truly proud (were I still alive) and if I can die hearing that sound, I will have had my cake and eaten it. That or if I managed to rig some Wallace and Gromit style contraption that automatically tidied my own body away and left nothing for anyone else to clean up.

[Skybird]

Neon,

have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

I would agree that Hitchens is the more aggressive of the two, he is more polemic and he did not hide that that was what he wanted to be - which does not mean that his intellectual arguments are weaker for that reason. They are not. The videos that occasionally were linked here by me or others, showed that.

The book by Dawkins I have read myself - and in parts twice. I am aware of the criticism and attack against him, Google easily finds you plenty of that stuff. But since I know the book quite well, I know how intentionally misleading, demagogic and often simply wrong these criticisms are, especially when they come from pro-church/faith/God/religion activists of any kind, and that should not be of surprise to anyone. Often the claims are simply wrong and can easily be shown wrong by just referring to the book itself. Sometimes it is blatant lies told about the book, and what should have been said in there.

I also fail to see Dawkins to be arrogant, he certainly is no in the book, and by the many videos I saw him appearing in on youtube, I must say that mostly he usually speaks very calm and friendly, witty and humorous, and very much british gentleman-like. That must not mean there may be films where he bites like a rabid dog. But I am not aware of these, I have not seen them, if they would exist.

And finally, his scientific standards. Well, the book on God is very rationally arguing, and very scientific in approach, forming two hypothesis (God exists, God exists not), and then comparing what can be found about their probabilities of being true. The formulation that God most likely does not exist, is by Dawkins. He does not say God exists, he says that the matter is scientific for two reasons: first, that is showing in his approach, and second, because religion has played such a suppressive role in trying to prevent science producing insights into life and cosmos that the church did not like. What he finally concludes, is this: the probability for a godf existing, is so small that it does not jusatify to take it as a possibility he wishes to seriously deral with, and also, according to Ockahm'S razor that demands to keep explanations as simple as possible, God also is not needed for explanations. Dawkins asks at one point whether it really would be less pleasuring to enjoy the beauty of a blossoming garden if not assuming that there are fairies living in the underground there?

So when you base your assessment on just some propagandists throwing mud at the man without knowing how he has structured the book and how he argues there, you necessarily must consider him to be violating scientific standards, and I can only recommend you then start to care a little bit for his book itself instead, to get your facts right.

BTW, his early book on genetic evolution (The selfish gene) is today seen as an academic standard work, the university of Oxford installed a new chair just for him to mediate science better to a wider public ("public understanding of science"), and beside writing many books he assisted media and government as scientific advisor. He is often referred to as one of the most influential biologists of modern times.

Before you start to attack him over his standards, make sure you really got your acts together properly. Chances are he easily outclasses you, me, or anyone here. I have seen him doing that in many discussion fora on stage, friendly, calmly, elegantly. I can understand if somebody does not like Hitchen's determined cavalry charges, although they are well founded as well, but Hitchens and Dawkins really were two very different men. One should not try to compare the two.

[MH]

Before you start to attack him over his standards, make sure you really got your acts together properly. Chances are he easily outclasses you, me, or anyone here. I have seen him doing that in many discussion fora on stage, friendly, calmly, elegantly. I can understand if somebody does not like Hitchen's determined cavalry charges, although they are well founded as well, but Hitchens and Dawkins really were two very different men. One should not try to compare the twoIts not cavalry charges it is stand up comedy and mockery for the benefit of the show and ego of the viewers.
It is show business otherways why even bother watching him if you are atheist...or some what like the money making TV American churches.
You don't need really self assurance about your stance do you and it is not that he comes up with something unique.
In short dumbest atheist can feel like Nobel prise nominee on his show.:haha:

[u crank]

So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

This is at least the second time in a week you have said this.

I say bullcrap.

The German Constitution
Article 4 (Freedom of faith, of conscience and of creed)
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed religious or ideological, are inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,


The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Seems pretty clear to me. You can say what you want. Anybody else can say what they want.

[Skybird]

Its you talking bullcrap - XXL size. Freedom of religion necessarily also means freedom from religion for those not interested. Else it would be religious dictatorship that enforces religion even on people not wanting to have something to do with it.

Your freedom ends where you start damaging mine. So do your religion, if you want that, but in a way that others must not be bothered by it. Keep your religion to thyself.

You just illustrated the bigotry that religious people time and again show: a heavy bias to claim freedom for religion, but not caring for the right of others to be free from religion.

BTW, all three countries have a wider legal context that limits your freedoms. If you claim your religion's freedom is to rip the heart out of other people and sacrifice it to your deity, you will nevertheless get locked in a psychiatry for lunacy, or thrown into jail for murder. Religion does give you immunity from the simple fact that your freedoms end where you start to damage the freedom of others.

I also have a right to play my TV or radio. But if I pump up the volume too much, sooner or later relationships with neighbours detoriate, and sooner or later the police will appear on my doorstep.

You ARE free to be religious. Like you are free to walk around fully naked - in the privacy of your own private sphere where nobody must see your nakedness. I you walk naked in the public city center, you will get into trouble soon.

[Safe-Keeper]

You can say what you want. Anybody else can say what they want. ...and considering Skybird said nothing to the contrary:-?...

have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?I also recommend the documentary version, "The Root of all evil?" (the TV producers chose the name, not Dawkins). It was on Google Video last time I checked.

[Sailor Steve]

I was brought up firmly agnostic, neither position on belief was encouraged or discouraged, for which I am grateful.
I guess that sort of applies to me as well. I like to say that I was brought up nothing at all. Nothing was ever said about it one way or the other.

So we came to similar conclusions after having life experiences half a world apart I guess. As a born agnostic and grown atheist if you will, I assume our experiences are markedly different. If I may ask, did you find any part of your transition unpleasant in any way, and how long did it take you?
Yes, no, maybe, maybe not. My stepmother made me go to chuch a couple of times. I've never been sure why, because she didn't go herself. Maybe she thought it would do me some good. When I was seventeen I became a Mormon. This was in Los Angeles, and it happened not because of any quest on my part, but because my best friend was doing so and they made it look pretty cool. This led me to spend a year in Utah at Brigham Young University. I hated it, not because of anything particular, but because college wasn't for me. I joined the navy. I got out of the navy. I moved to Utah. I met a girl who was a Born-Again Christian. I like her church, because it wasn't a church. On Sundays we met in a very large park and weekday bible meetings were at people's houses. I ended up married for eleven years. I was never an aggressive person, so my wife sort of guided everything we did. I gave up music for her, and pretty much everything else I liked. I started suffering from depression (a side note here: looking back I think I probably had a very real depression problem going back to childhood), and withdrew into myself. She thought I wanted a divorce and gave it to me. I was so far gone I didn't really care anymore. I didn't even grab the chance and start playing music again for another six years.

Since then I've come to realize that I really don't have any answers to any of the major questions, and I wonder if anyone else does. Everyone I've met who claims to have answers seems to be operating within a very narrow framework, usually clinging to one answer which seems to work for them, so they claim it's the only answer and insist it will work for me too. I don't blame anyone else for my disaffections or my problems, but I don't trust anyone else with them, especially people who say they know what's wrong and what can fix it.

It would gladden me to hear that you did not suffer.
Sorry, but I've left out a lot. Suffering seems to be what I do best.

Not much I grant you, but I like it.
Not bad at all. Do you have music for it? A link?

P.S. sorry for the text explosion I don't quite know how I became so verbose. I really enjoy discussions on this forum, like no other.
Introspective people sometimes have to let it out. Others think "He just likes to talk about himself", but it helps.

[u crank]

Its you talking bullcrap - XXL size. Freedom of relgion necessarily also means freedom from religion for those not inerested. Else we are talking about religious dictatorship that enforces religion even on people not wanting to have something to do with it.

Nonsense. Freedom of speech and expression is just that. If you or any one else does not like it, walk away, close the door, or hit the off button.

Your freedom ends where you start damaging mine. So do your religion, if you want that, in a way that others must not be bothered by it. Keep your religion to thyself.


See above quotes from the law makers.

You just illustrated the bigotry that religious people time and again show: a heavy bias to claim freedom for religion, but not caring for the right of to others to be free from religion.


You know that is kinda funny coming from a guy who thinks nothing of giving his opinion time and time again. Do you enjoy a special status?

If you claim your religion's freedom is to rip the heart out of other people and sacrifice it to your deity, you will nevertheless get locked in a psychiatry for lunacy, or thrown into jail for murder.

Don't be ridiculous.

You ARE free to be religious.

You are free to be an Atheist. What would you say if I told you to be quiet about it? Keep it to your self be cause it bothers me. Freedom of expression is a tricky concept isn't it?

[u crank]

...and considering Skybird said nothing to the contrary:-?...

You are kidding aren't you?

[frau kaleun]

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom. If we say something that someone else finds offensive, they are going to be offended. Claiming "freedom of speech" doesn't change that fact. If we say something other people think is stupid, or misguided, or claim that something is fact without evidence to back it up, we can expect some people to exercise their own freedom of speech and call us out on that.

Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so." Those are the consequences of expressing one's beliefs in the company of those whose 100% agreement with those beliefs hasn't already been confirmed.

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom. And that's where I see a problem sometimes - and not just in the area of expressing one's religious beliefs, but other things as well. "But I have freedom of speech! I have freedom of religion! I have freedom to express my religious beliefs!" Well, sure, but other people have just as much freedom to disagree and say so. The fact that it's someone's cherished religious beliefs that are being disagreed with, or held to a scientific standard if being put forward as "science," doesn't change that.

Just my two cents anyway.

[Skybird]

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you become a Muslim and move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And btw, I AM silent about "my atheism" as long as I do not run into another debate on religion claiming special right and freedom for itself - at the cost of those not wanting to have anything to do with it. that in a thread on religion you have opinions pro and against,m should not surprise you. If this were a thread on cuisine and cooking recipes, you would get these instead.

I am also not making a fuss about me breathing air. Only when I run into somebody trying to hold my nose and mouth shut and threatening to hinder me breathing freely, I become aggressive. Very.

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine. Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want. The medieval has had religion unchained, controlling state politics and cultural life. It was hell. They call it the dark age not only due to the lack of candles. We must not want religious dictatorships again. Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.

Frau Kaleun also is right on the mark with her notes.

[u crank]

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so."

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.


I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

[Platapus]

Well written Frau Kaluen. :yeah:

[u crank]

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you were Muslim living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And just would that be? I don't think I have suggested any 'kind of religious freedom'. Can you be more specific?

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine.

I would never do that.

Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want.

I have never done that.

We must not want religious dictatorships again.

Do you know of any Democratic nations that are in danger of becoming one? Yours maybe? Mine isn't.

Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.


No doubt, but where there is "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general" there is almost always freedom of religion. Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

[frau kaleun]

I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

I'm not saying that I would have it any other way, I'm simply saying that when "non-believers" talk about not wanting special exemptions for religious speech, this is often the kind of thing they're talking about: people who not only want the freedom to express their religious beliefs, but the freedom to be exempt from an open expression of disagreement with those beliefs, or from the fairly predictable consequences of stating something as a universal truth that simply cannot be backed up by anything other than "because I believe it."

Someone (may have been you) mentioned how it would feel for an atheist to not have the freedom to say out loud in public that he is an atheist. Well, probably it would feel lousy, and for much of western history it could have had very dire consequences indeed and in some places still does -but as Skybird already noted most atheists don't make a point of publicly announcing their disbelief on a regular basis, in the average social interaction it typically only happens in response to someone else bringing the subject up for discussion. Many times in my own experience it does not happen at all even in those circumstances, because depending on the company the non-believer may well decide that it's just not worth the trouble it would cause if they didn't keep their mouths shut. If they do not keep their mouths shut, however, they can't be singled out as the cause of the trouble just for taking part in the discussion.

In the realm of science it's even trickier, because science has definable standards. "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God" is one thing and everyone may agree to disagree and part friends. But "I believe the Bible and have the science to back it up" is another thing entirely, if they can't back it up according to the standards that apply to scientific investigation they are not exempt from criticism because religious belief is also involved. But for some of those people, attacking the 'science' is treated as an attack on their religion - which it very well may be, but IMO by putting their religion on the same battlefield with questionable science to stand against a common foe they pretty much asked for it. You know what I'm sayin'? It's like suddenly shoving a toddler onto the front lines of a raging conflict and then screaming "Baby killer!" at your enemy when the kid takes a bullet.

The thing is - most atheists and agnostics have no need or desire to proclaim their doubt and disbelief without provocation because they have no interest in converting anyone else to it, as long as religious belief disguised as science or law or something else of a secular nature is not being forced on them by others. In contrast to that, for many religious people - and in the US, at least, for many Christians in particular - proselytizing for their beliefs is so built into the system as something that must be done that doing it is sometimes confused with just having those beliefs.

And that's the problem. If someone wants to believe every last word of the Bible is literal truth, hey, whatever. When they want to PROVE that it is with questionable science as a justification for teaching it in science class and someone finds that objectionable on scientific grounds, when they want to stop me on the street to share their faith and I refuse to stop what I'm doing and listen to their testimony, when they want to proclaim that their beliefs are universal truths and other people state their disagreement or ask for verifiable evidence that this is so - they are not "victims" of anything. But some of them want to be treated as such.

I'm NOT saying that this is going on in this thread, because to be honest I haven't read every page and every post. I'm just saying that this is what I see in my own experience.

[NeonSamurai]

Ugh multi-quote so this is going to be long... sorry...

I'll agree about Hitchens, but then I'm biased, having a great distaste for his style. Where Dawkins is concerned, no less a scientific authority than Neil DeGrasse Tyson would disagree with you. That he respects Dawson and his opinions carries a lot of weight in my book.

There are many people I respect, but just because one of them likes someone else doesn't mean much to me.

I disagree to a point. Evidence is not proof. On the other hand proposing something for which there is no evidence is not science at all. You need evidence to have a hypothesis in the first place.

Ah you hit on the biggest conundrum of all in philosophy of science. You can't have evidence with out a theory or hypothesis as you can't identify it as being evidence without the theory saying it is. This is where genius lies in science, being able to develop a theory out of the endless facts and thoughts.

Yes you can. I have often proposed the hypothesis that there are little bug-eyed blue men from Atlantis living in the ocean. There is no proof for this, nor even the slightest bit of evidence. The only proof I have is that you can't disprove it. Based on that alone you should believe me, because I say it is so.

I am really not sure where your argument lies here. A lack of evidence is not proof, it is simply a lack of evidence. this does not mean you should therefore believe the theory (I would argue that you should not fully believe any theory, as they are all likely wrong). It only means you cannot rule the theory out, so your theory of blue men may be true as we don't know the oceans very well, but it may not be very probable (something else we can't calculate either).

Not so. You don't have to prove anything to me, but if you want me to believe you then you suddenly do. If a believer wants his faith to spread, then he needs to provide something that will convince his listeners. The atheist, on the other hand, merely needs to ask for that proof. He doesn't have to disprove anything, any more than you have an obligation to disprove my little bug-eyed blue men. If I want you to believe it then I have to show some evidence. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, then why would I tell you about it at all?

People believe things for all kinds of foolish reasons without being rational about it in the slightest. Proof doesn't really exist, the truth is unknowable. The atheist asking for proof is a hypocrite as he has no proof for his stance either, and they also proclaim that they posses the truth. By your logic, would they also not have to present evidence that they speak truth as well? Like I said, a lack of evidence is not evidence itself.

Very true. When it comes to the origins of the earth it becomes a different story. Creationists want their faith to get equal time in schools with the Theory of Evolution. To do this they attempt to bring down Evolution by finding flaws in it. What they fail to do is to apply the same tests to their own version. Therefore they want a faith-based conception with no evidence to back it up at all taught equally with a valid and accepted scientific theory. In this case the burden of proof is very much on them.

Absolutely, in this case there is very strong evidence from multiple sources that the world was not created 6000-10000 years ago. Evolution has not been proven true, and never will be. It just has not been proven false as of yet. Cherry picking is a big problem with many who support creationism, they pick and choose what evidence to include in their "testing" and what they do not, this is a key reason why it is not scientific, even though the young earth theory could be considered a scientific theory as it is testable and refutable.

And that's where I ended up, though I don't like that label. Where God, or any supernatural being is concerned, there is no evidence, one way or the other. None at all. The question for me is this: Is it more logical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I have ended up with the conclusion that the rational answer is the latter.

I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.



Nope. All the universe was compressed into a single point, the singularity, which then expanded. Whether you think it sounds too incredible to be true (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) doesn't really matter, what's important is the evidence -- and it points towards the so-called "big bang". Which of course wasn't an explosion at all, despite the misleading name of the theory.

As I have written several times now evidence neither proves nor points to theories. Given how infinitesimally small our knowledge of the universe is, it is utter hubris on our part to claim such.



Neon,
have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

Not to completion, although my mother did. I myself couldn't finish it. I know my mother thought very negatively about it, and she and I tend to think alike on such matters. She raised me and my sister with the freedom to choose religion or ignore it, and the home was religion free. I also have great respect for her opinions as they are generally very well thought out. My view is based on what I read of his work, and my mother's criticism of it.

I would agree that Hitchens is the more aggressive of the two, he is more polemic and he did not hide that that was what he wanted to be - which does not mean that his intellectual arguments are weaker for that reason. They are not. The videos that occasionally were linked here by me or others, showed that.

The thing that I tend to hate most is hypocrisy in people, and I feel that many atheists tend to be rather hypocritical as do many theistic people. As much as many atheists like to proclaim their view is not belief based, it is. Their belief is not grounded in science as they can't disprove god. Most Atheistic attacks center around religious conundrums and obvious errors.

The book by Dawkins I have read myself - and in parts twice. I am aware of the criticism and attack against him, Google easily finds you plenty of that stuff. But since I know the book quite well, I know how intentionally misleading, demagogic and often simply wrong these criticisms are, especially when they come from pro-church/faith/God/religion activists of any kind, and that should not be of surprise to anyone. Often the claims are simply wrong and can easily be shown wrong by just referring to the book itself. Sometimes it is blatant lies told about the book, and what should have been said in there.

I bring my own thoughts to the table, not anyone elses' without my own careful thought on the matter. I am also neither pro nor anti faith directly, though I do find blind belief in anything very worrying (be it religion or politics or whatever.

I also fail to see Dawkins to be arrogant, he certainly is no in the book, and by the many videos I saw him appearing in on youtube, I must say that mostly he usually speaks very calm and friendly, witty and humorous, and very much british gentleman-like. That must not mean there may be films where he bites like a rabid dog. But I am not aware of these, I have not seen them, if they would exist.

Several of his arguments I don't entirely disagree with; I consider the biblical god to be extremely unlikely (but not impossible). I do find his strong assertion that god(s) in any form do not exist at all period to be arrogant, as he is asserting knowledge of something he cannot possibly posses, just like many theists do.

And finally, his scientific standards. Well, the book on God is very rationally arguing, and very scientific in approach, forming two hypothesis (God exists, God exists not), and then comparing what can be found about their probabilities of being true. The formulation that God most likely does not exist, is by Dawkins. He does not say God exists, he says that the matter is scientific for two reasons: first, that is showing in his approach, and second, because religion has played such a suppressive role in trying to prevent science producing insights into life and cosmos that the church did not like. What he finally concludes, is this: the probability for a godf existing, is so small that it does not jusatify to take it as a possibility he wishes to seriously deral with, and also, according to Ockahm'S razor that demands to keep explanations as simple as possible, God also is not needed for explanations. Dawkins asks at one point whether it really would be less pleasuring to enjoy the beauty of a blossoming garden if not assuming that there are fairies living in the underground there?

His arguments at best are philosophical, not scientific, as they are entirely logic driven. The idea that he can calculate probabilities from his twin hypothesis is beyond laughable as he has absolutely nothing to measure them by or calculate them on. Also Occam's Razor does not demand that explanations must be simple, just that the simplest explanations are often the best to examine first. As for his last statement, I fail to see what that has to do with the possibility of a creator existing.

So when you base your assessment on just some propagandists throwing mud at the man without knowing how he has structured the book and how he argues there, you necessarily must consider him to be violating scientific standards, and I can only recommend you then start to care a little bit for his book itself instead, to get your facts right.

I thought you would know me better than that by now, when have I ever just randomly thrown propagandists into the mix?

BTW, his early book on genetic evolution (The selfish gene) is today seen as an academic standard work, the university of Oxford installed a new chair just for him to mediate science better to a wider public ("public understanding of science"), and beside writing many books he assisted media and government as scientific advisor. He is often referred to as one of the most influential biologists of modern times.

There are plenty of scientist out there who are very well respected and influential, who don't know the first thing about how it all really works (in fact I would say large swaths of the scientific community don't understand it very well). I've known a few myself. Your quote suggests he doesn't really, since he was going with the need for scientific "proof". As if science actually "knows" anything (I call that arrogance on the part of the scientist). Their theories are just somewhat more objective and rigorous.

Before you start to attack him over his standards, make sure you really got your acts together properly. Chances are he easily outclasses you, me, or anyone here. I have seen him doing that in many discussion fora on stage, friendly, calmly, elegantly. I can understand if somebody does not like Hitchen's determined cavalry charges, although they are well founded as well, but Hitchens and Dawkins really were two very different men. One should not try to compare the two.

I was not comparing their styles so to speak, more the arrogance of the absolute natures of their positions, and how I feel it mirrors many on the other side of the equation. This is what I mean by hypocrisy. I also think he has it totally backwards, being comfortable with not knowing is a good thing, it leads to open-mindedness, humility, and caution. The problem with both sides is, both are convinced they know, and both are wrong. Being a skilled debater also does not make his arguments more correct either.

As for the second part of his book, does he really think humanity needs religion to act like total <insert censored word here>? Blind faith in anything is bad (even blind faith in science). People will do all kinds of horrible unspeakable things to each other over any old excuse, often because of difference. We are generally not a very nice species, and not having religion wouldn't have changed much. We could come up with another excuse to do utterly nasty things to each other.


As the positive proposition is that of the theists, it is their burden of disproof if you like, not sure quite how you worked the switch around there. And you cannot propose a Theory which is an explanation of falsifiable facts, if you do not have them. [edit2] Upon re reading your post you do clearly state that the religious ideas are unscientific but I didn't miss it did I, - ninja edit :cool:

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.



As (A)theism is a lack of belief which is dissimilar to belief, Am I to be defined as an (A)trainspotter and an (A)tennis fan, as well as all the other things I am not? Atheism simply means I am unconvinced by each and every argument and their sum total I have ever heard for theism.

Theism or religious belief is a position that requires a complex personal construction of varying degrees of imagination about metaphysics, oft containing contradictions to established scientific facts. This is very difficult for discussion as the facts have already been shown to be falsifiable, and everyone is encouraged to repeat or renew the process. The facts may be false of course and we still might never know, but until this is demonstrated we will remain more confident that the fact is true.

As both are words describing ones position of belief, neither are mutually exclusive with Agnosticism which is a word describing ones position on knowledge.

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.


Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

[Buddahaid]

.....I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.....


I think I understand you better now. I have no problem saying that God is the reason behind what I, or science as I'll side with, cannot explain. It is as valid as any other descriptor by all means. I just don't buy the grumpy father figure, full of righteous, nearly drunken anger management problems God. I don't respect that behavior in anyone, you see?

[Sammi79]

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.

No sir. You are quite wrong about that and that is not an opinion. You are correct that it is simple as there is one rule, and one rule only, for fair and reasonable discussion that being;

If you make a claim or statement of fact, you inherit the burden of proof required to support that claim.

Consider someone who had never heard of or read about god until you told them your theory about it (for the purposes of disambiguation you should use hypothesis to distinguish between the deeper overarching scientific definition of Theory) and they refused to believe you until you provided some convincing corroborating evidence, or simply tell you 'Well I don't think so.' why should they then have to prove your claim wrong? why must they accept your hypothesis unless they can produce proof of its fallacy? are they being hypocritical? If what you say is true, why do we not compile encyclopedias of facts by the premise that they cannot be proven false? All are strictly rhetorical - they don't, they don't, no and that would be insane.

To take a real world example, in a court of law the accused need not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove the defendants guilt.

If you deny the responsibility of this, or to attempt to shift that burden, you should not take umbrage if people either ignore or refuse to grant respect or equal status alongside a falsifiable tested scientific Theory for your claim, as you have offered no supporting case for it. You should also be aware that proof burden shifting is a starkly obvious logical fallacy and a serious reasoning error so expect to be called on it each and every time.

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.

Since that is an accusation :O: of improper word use, I plead innocence. For my defense, please explain the contradiction between my description of atheism and your dictionary definition 2a, because I say my description is sound. Disbelief is simply a refusal to believe, and the reason for my disbelief in the existence of deities is because I have heard neither convincing evidence nor sound reasoning in support of their existence.

Again with theism, how is my description in contradiction with your dictionary definition?

With agnosticism, your dictionary appears to be limited to definitions involving god.
ag·nos·ti·cism (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifg-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm)n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism

So my statement that agnosticism is a position on knowledge stands. The defense rests.

Who will be the jury? I recommend Sailor Steve be the judge. :)

So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

Belief is neither equivalent to nor a function of faith. Belief with good reason and disbelief in the absence of good reason for belief are both entirely logical positions. Since atheism can be defined as the latter as I have demonstrated above, it may not always be entirely logical, but it certainly can be.

[Skybird]

Rejection of a belief is not a belief. It is rejecting a given a belief, and the act of believing itself. Atheism is no religion. When somebody refuses to drive in a car or walk outside on the street, you cannot somehow argue that nevertheless he participates in public traffic while truth is he sits at home and has not left the house.

Atheists refuse to share beliefs in deities. Simply this, not more, not less. Some think there is/are no god(s). Others simply do not care for dealing with the question in the first, are simply uninterested.

Agnosticism: to know that one cannot know the final truths about things existing, life, universe, deities. That is the basic idea. It is a form of scepticism that does not dare to take any position pro or against deities existing. To me, it is indifference, maybe even a form of intellectual cowardice that does not want to call itself atheist for whatever a reason. But while not all atheists are agnostics, all agnostics in the end are atheists, if you think it to the end. That's why I do not see myself as agnostic, though i say myself that as human beings we cannot think (and thus: know) outside the tracks the define what "human" is. I know we cannot gain absolute knowledge. We can increase and foster our understanding of the world, life, things, ourselves. But we cannot gain a total, final, absolute knowledge. For that, we would need to be the entire universe itself, not just a part of it.

[Skybird]

Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."
You just advocated for the first steps towards it, and spend a whole posting to deny that. All what you implied and posted, says "religious people's practice first and unlimited, all others have to live with it and have to step back where they fell affected".

That is religious tyranny, plain and simple. Of course you will continue to claim the opposite you are meaning/saying/thinking, I know I know. But you contradict yourself.

I'm not caring for the parties you tthrow in your household. But when the noise becomes such that me and nweighbvours cannot sleep, cannot live our own life without needing to realise your party day in day out, cannot play pour own TVs and radios without simultaneously participating in your show, then I come over and kick you around until you stop messing up our lives becasue you want to have party "your style".

It may be your house. Your house and property has borders beyond which you have no right to annoy people. I do not care for the colour on the walls in other people's houses, nor do I usually care for what the believe in, or not, and why, as long as they do not damage other humans (including their children). But when people run around and tell everybody day in day out that the colour of their walls is so wonderful and why one does not do it like them, too, and that public buildings should be painted like that, too, then it starts to become a problem for everybody else.

Keep thy religion to thyself. There it must not concern anybody else, there you can believe as often and strong and long as you want, nobody will care. And that is how it should be, and that is how you are free and the others as well. Where your religion claims it must be aggressively spread and offensively preached, it becomes an aggressor and invader. And that is where tolerance ends and the boots start kicking religious butts - in self-defense. We must not want our freedom from religion sacrificed for your religion. Build a club house, have a chart at the entrance inviting people to come in and check you out, if that is what you want. That'S the non-invasive, civil, polite way to do it. Walking from door to door in start preaching and missionising, already illustrates the basic aggressive attitude behind that religion that wants to claim more and more for itself. First the privacy of others. Than laws and rights. Then others freedoms. Then the school'S curriculum. Finally the policy of the state.

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

[Skybird]

Neon,

a theory somebody disagrees with must be proven wrong by this somebody only if it is a qualified theory by scientific standards indeed. If it is no theory but just hear-say or imagination or arbitrary claim put into the world by somebody, then the burden of evidence is not on the one saying that it is drivel, but the one claiming in the first that this drivel is true and a "theory". You put something into the world nobody every has heard of or has seen and witnessed - you show your claim that it is out there is true. Not the other has to prove that you are telling nonsense. The burden of proof is on YOU. When I claim Obama is a Martian, I have to prove it - you must not disprove me. When I claim the Earth'S core is hollow, and in reality the grass is blue and the sky is green and there are intelligent invisible marshmallows flying over the summer meadow, then I have to prove my claims to be true - nobody has to take it upon him to disprove me. And when I say there is a big cosmic superman floating over the water, then I have to prove that claim to be true - I have no right to expect to be taken for real as long as nobody has disproven my claims. All these examples are no hypothesis I set up - they are claims. Speculations. Products of my fantastic, chaotic imagination, basing on nothing. Jules Verne based on more ground than I do here. So, the described brilliant outlets of my sparkling intellect are no hypothesis. And certainly no theories.

Claiming God exists, is no theory. The burden of evidence is on those claiming he does exist.

At best you can make "God exists" a hypothesis to work with. And that is what Dawkins did. He then set a second, alternative hypothesis, "God exists" not, and compared the probabilities for both being true by using several different perspectives and approaches on things.

I would not even go so far to say "God exists" is a hypothesis. Even formulation a hypothesis - the pre-stage of a theory that so far has not even seen the very first stage of evaluation and testing - needs something causal justifying it. Often that is the observing of a natural phenomenon, or an event. You then, without having any further information, think and say "could it be that what I have seen is because of this and that causal link/factor?" And then you start to verify or falsify your first guess. Sometimes, this leads to evidence hardening the hypothesis, and you then formulate a theory. Sometimes you need to alter the hypothesis first. Sometimes you just have to kick it into the garbage bin. There is a condition for formulating hypothesis, obviously. They must be, like theories, of such a kind that you can work on them to prove or disprove them, even if the work is far-reaching and needs insights from mother branches and is a long-termed project. Physics and astronomy come to mind. A hypothesis or theory not allowing that, is speculation, is claim. And claiming you can just everything, infinitely, endlessly, since you must never justify it by reason, logic, causal work, or anything.

As far as I am concerned, "God exists" is not even a hypothesis, and Dawkins used it as that probably only for pragmatic purposes on behalf of the design of his book's structure, he wanted to give it a reason-based approach, and for that some basis of a minimum standard was necessary. 'To me, the claim is less than a hypothesis - it is a speculation. Imaginative, wild, unfounded, and for its chance of actually being true completely depending on random chance. "It'S not a god, its flying pink elephants on Ganymed" already is better than that, because actually you can fly to Ganymed and check the place for pink flying elephants. Already a hypothesis in science must fulfill basic criterions to be seen as a hypothesis. Amongst that is that, like a theory, it can be tested. A hypothesis gets pragmatically formulated to have a theoretic construct one can work with and work on. That'S why in German the talk often is of "Arbeitshypothese" (working hypothesis). Its the more precise full name of "hypothesis".

Dawkins said it himself, one of logic's dilemmas is that the nonexistence of something cannot be proven with logical means. Its like you also cannot do divisions by zero. That'S why he said you cannot say God does not exist, and so he says: God most likely does not exist. The probability is such that I think it just does not justify to take the possibility for real.

[August]

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

As if any army ever in the history of man would have you.

Keep thy religion to thyself.Freedom of religion does not mean to hide it from your sight. Either be a part of society or leave it.

[HundertzehnGustav]

it is one thing to stand on the corner holding books and looking like a Bum (Jehovah's whitnesses)
It is another thing to shove religion in my face by ringing at my doorbell or sounding the churchbells that resound all over the goddamned valley.
(yes, goddamned :rotfl2: )

Its not unreligious people that need to leave the public and create nuisance.
unreligious people do not do, preach, propagate religion. we aint makin no fuss, aint nobody got time for dat.

me, as an unreligious person, i just want religion gone from my life, from the public, from the power.
Then i will maybe be able to respect it, this new, powerless, uninvasive religion, and even accept it to a certain degree.

...which is what i percieve skybird to strive for, too.

[HundertzehnGustav]

and yes... if it were to come down to a war between religion and no religion, i would muster up too.
should be fun.

[August]

and yes... if it were to come down to a war between religion and no religion, i would muster up too.
should be fun.

Luckily folks like you and Skybird are in the minority. I think the armies of religion would make short work of you.

[Feuer Frei!]

it is one thing to stand on the corner holding books and looking like a Bum (Jehovah's whitnesses)Bums? Here they are actually dressed better than...well...bums. Thye wear black pants, white shirts and black ties.
It is another thing to shove religion in my face by ringing at my doorbell or sounding the churchbells that resound all over the goddamned valley.
(yes, goddamned :rotfl2: )
It's not unlike a commission-based vacuum cleaner salesman :haha:

Its not unreligious people that need to leave the public and create nuisance. Aww you poor poor unreligious people, who can't defend themselves.

me, as an unreligious person, i just want religion gone from my life, from the public, from the power. Ain't never ever gonna happen.
Then i will maybe be able to respect it, this new, powerless, uninvasive religion, and even accept it to a certain degree.
And herein is the hypocritical part. You want all religion gone from your life, totally.
But then how can you respect something which you don't know?

[HundertzehnGustav]

okay okay, then let me rephrase that:

Just stop the bellringing, the "Christian" Democratic party (lol), the invites to church in my mailbox, the voodo master offering me to connect with my lost ones for a fee..., the selling of Religion and spritualities of all sorts.

But you may at the same time be right...
i do not care for religion, and therefor probably have no wish to gain respect for it. As of today, i can only shake my head over it, and currently can not respect religion much, no.


But i could start to respect the people that discuss their religious beliefs in the small circle. Discussing in a way i cross them, at the bus stop, or overhearing a conversation... that would be okay. religion on a personal, private level, i can accept that. They are free to believe. And believing is all right.

Respect for them keeping their religion more or less private, instead of using its banner for all sorts of things.

Accepting people that are different from me, without getting in my face all the time about said difference on the believer-nonbeliever subject.

On the "masses" subject...
True.

One of the reasons i currently dispise Religion.
It clouds the mind of 90% of Earths population because of the way religion is lived. "my god has bigger balls than your god"

:nope:
Maybe no nneed to wage a awar against all religions.
Maybe all i need to do is set up the religions against each other, and let them kill each other mutually. They might be dim enough to do that.

a good way to fight Overpopulation of this planet.:rotfl2:

[August]

Maybe all i need to do is set up the religions against each other, and let them kill each other mutually. They might be dim enough to do that.

a good way to fight Overpopulation of this planet.:rotfl2:

Quoted for future prosecution. :yep:

[Betonov]

Just put the religius leaders in the arena and let them duke it out.

I think the faithfull and nonbelievers wont have trouble living with one and another after that :yep:

[Feuer Frei!]

I've noticed a lot of strong anti-believer remarks here. Seems to me to be more non-believers than believers here. Maybe the believers know better than to enter here :haha:

Seems to me that some of you are also stereotyping us believers into 1 basket and saying that: 'those dam pesky believers who can't keep their beliefs to themselves and accost me at my home or in the street or at the drug store...and that you religious people should keep your religion to yourselves, behind closed doors, like some plague.

Not all of us believers are accosting you at your door, or accost you whilst doing your weekly dishwashing detergent shopping, or thrusting God's words into your ears while you are cleaning the bugs off your bumper bar.
No siree, for example, i'm a believer, i believe in God the almighty. But that doesn't mean to say that i go and plan to visit all you non believers here in this thread one by one to make you believe in God.
Nope. nor does my father, who also believes.
So, let's just be careful about lumping all us believers into the one basket of: 'pesky, annoying bible bashers' who won't leave you alone to your non-believing.

[Feuer Frei!]

One of the reasons i currently dispise Religion.
It clouds the mind of 90% of Earths population because of the way religion is lived. "my god has bigger balls than your god"
But why do you care about something you don't care about?


Maybe all i need to do is set up the religions against each other, and let them kill each other mutually.
It's been done for you. Muslims and Christians are looking at you, for example.

[Armistead]

I got involved in fundamentalism at about age 14, not that I really intended to do so, a cute girl invited me. It was a revival with a mountain preacher screaming his lungs out about the tortures of hell. I wasn't so much concerned about finding God then as I was about being tortured, so I went and got saved. I spent 9 years in that church.

Certainly, there were some good aspects, but it wasn't worth the emotional trauma. I can remember much conflict over science in school and what the church thought. In church we're told the earth was 6000 years old and that evolution was false.

Course the teens accepted what the church taught. I walked around for years waiting for God to strike me dead over a host of sins, natural things like masturbation. We were taught that mere sexual thoughts were adultery and that if we willfully did it, we probably weren't saved. About 19, I was teaching Sunday School, later became the youth pastor. I became very frustrated at every revival, seems the entire youth would get saved again. I realized they were suffering and dealing with the same emotional trauma I was. It became more serious to me when a 17 year old young man took his life over the fact he couldn't stop masturbating.
I know for a fact that the majority of fundy kids went wild when they reached adulthood.

It was when I went to bible college that I learned I wasn't to take everything literal. The more I studied, the more I questioned, even though the motto of our church was "Don't question God." I later did mission work in Africa and Borneo, saw more suffering than could be imagined. I became very skeptical, my views changed somewhat, but I didn't quit believing, but I dropped out of church.

Over the years, I spend 1000's of hours of sincere study trying to figure out God, what religion was right with an open mind and a sincere heart. If God existed, I couldn't figure him out. Later I recall talking to a pastor who told me my unbelief was "I got away from the bible". Seems my options were closing my mind, my heart and my logic to accept a version of God or remain skeptical. I chose to remain skeptical, hoping that if God exist, he would prefer an honest sincere skeptic over a dishonest close minded believer.

I don't trust any religion regarding the education of my children, because it starts with them closing their minds to critical thinking, resulting in a mind that can be easily controlled.

I would love to KNOW God exist, but I cannot know. It doesn't mean I don't think it possible, I just don't know. I do know I became a more moral person without religion, more loving and more concerned for my fellow man.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Ih that case, you are out of luck...


if
*there are believers propagating their beliefs (churchbells to doorbels, any channel, any media)
coupled with
* there are so many more believers than nonbelievers

then the believers appear to be an overwhelming mass to me, and appear as a threat to my quiet and religionfree life (void of any religion, and almost void of spirituality)

leading to a stereotype - maybe.
Guilty me? :O:

[HundertzehnGustav]

But why do you care about something you don't care about?


because it gets on my nerves?$

for example from 06.00 in the morning, every 15 minutes, till 08.00 in the evening. every day.
and it is especially bad around the full hour, near noon.

because i read them getting power and tax money. privileges and stuff.
I do care about religion... about religion losing all of that!:woot:

[August]

So, let's just be careful about lumping all us believers into the one basket of: 'pesky, annoying bible bashers' who won't leave you alone to your non-believing.

There is no place for you or me in Skybird and HundertzehnGustav's brave new world.

[HundertzehnGustav]

There is place for you and your religion.
on your own property, on your own land.

[August]

for example from 06.00 in the morning, every 15 minutes, till 08.00 in the evening. every day.
and it is especially bad around the full hour, near noon.

I have never heard of such a thing. You are either exaggerating or you are the most proselytized person on the planet.

[August]

There is place for you.
on your own property, on your own land.


No i'm gonna knock on your door every 15 minutes 365 days a year and try to convert you to my non religion.

[Feuer Frei!]

Was about to say something like that, what is he doing? Watching the religious satellite channel from 6am till 8pm?
How are you getting fed Religion this much in your life Hundert?
I don't, not even my Dad, who goes to church every day.

[frau kaleun]

I have never heard of such a thing. You are either exaggerating or you are the most proselytized person on the planet.

I believe he is talking about the incessant ringing of church bells at various times of day, not people knocking on his door every 15 minutes trying to convert him.

Honestly if I lived somewhere that had church bells ringing every 15 minutes for 2 hours at the crack of dawn every morning, I'd prefer people knocking on my door. At least I'd have a shot at sleeping through the latter. :O:

[Hottentot]

It's always marvelous to notice that I, whom none but the most delusional "us versus them" folks would label "religious", still find myself nodding and agreeing all the time with the pro-religion people, when on the other side of the fence are people like Skybird and HundertzehnGustav. Keep doing the disservice to your cause, guys. :up:

[Armistead]

If people believe this, they will believe anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VqbVH6SNP4

This movement in the "Christian" belief visited one of our churches that basically believes the same. During a revival, course the church youth invited school mates. They assured them a "glory cloud" of gold would appear. My son wanted to go see, I wasn't sure, but I trusted he would use enough logic. He went, sure nuf a large fog cloud appeared, not gold glitter. Course it was known several kids were going to the meeting just to collect glitter and test it, probably why fog appeared instead. My son said it was clear someone was running a fog machine through the vents.

However, others have gone to the above church in the video and collected the gold glitter sent from God. It turned out that God loves Martha Stewart #9 painted glitter.

[Sailor Steve]

Ugh multi-quote so this is going to be long... sorry...
They usually are. It's the nature of the beast.

There are many people I respect, but just because one of them likes someone else doesn't mean much to me.
You said neither Hitchins nor Dawkins understands basic scientific principles. I only wanted to show that one of the most respected scientists around disagrees with that assessment.

I am really not sure where your argument lies here. A lack of evidence is not proof, it is simply a lack of evidence. this does not mean you should therefore believe the theory (I would argue that you should not fully believe any theory, as they are all likely wrong). It only means you cannot rule the theory out, so your theory of blue men may be true as we don't know the oceans very well, but it may not be very probable (something else we can't calculate either).
Actually I was agreeing with you. I was also pointing out what I consider to be the greatest flaw in Creationist arguments. A concept (hypothosis) is proposed on the sole basis that someone said it is so. There is no evidence at all, yet they dare you to disprove it and attack a theory is is based on evidence. I decided to do the same.

The atheist asking for proof is a hypocrite as he has no proof for his stance either, and they also proclaim that they posses the truth. By your logic, would they also not have to present evidence that they speak truth as well? Like I said, a lack of evidence is not evidence itself.
The problem is that the theist wants to tell you about his God. When told he can't prove that his God even exists he brings up your "negative" argument. If the athiest proclaims that "There is no God", then indeed your argument is true. If he askes that the proclaiming theist give proof for his claim, then he is not making a counterclaim but merely challenging the original claim. This is very much more common than the other.

I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.
This is why I will never claim to be an Atheist. As long as I can't show for a fact that there is no God I will have to be lumped into the 'Agnostic' category.

Everything else was addressed to someone else, so I'll stay out of that part.

[August]

I believe he is talking about the incessant ringing of church bells at various times of day, not people knocking on his door every 15 minutes trying to convert him.

Honestly if I lived somewhere that had church bells ringing every 15 minutes for 2 hours at the crack of dawn every morning, I'd prefer people knocking on my door. At least I'd have a shot at sleeping through the latter. :O:

Ah I see it wasn't that clear to me.

But that method of announcing the time is hundreds of years old.What is different about him and the people who move in next to an airport then complain about the noise.

[Armistead]

because it gets on my nerves?$

for example from 06.00 in the morning, every 15 minutes, till 08.00 in the evening. every day.
and it is especially bad around the full hour, near noon.

because i read them getting power and tax money. privileges and stuff.
I do care about religion... about religion losing all of that!:woot:

Best business in the world, why so many atheist get in the business of religion.

[Tribesman]

Honestly if I lived somewhere that had church bells ringing every 15 minutes for 2 hours at the crack of dawn every morning, I'd prefer people knocking on my door. At least I'd have a shot at sleeping through the latter. :O:
If you lived next to a church that did that you probably wouldn't even notice it after a very short time.
But a brass band marching past your bedroom every Sunday morning on their way to church is another matter entirely

[HundertzehnGustav]

Well, religion is about everywhere in here. You hear a politician make a statement on Radio he somehow manages to place the words "christian values" in a discussion about fiscal fraud.

Churchbells ringing as a call to duty (ever since i remember)
Churches running hospitals and refusing treatment to people... and the state pays the bills.

Walk along the Streets of town, you see the Whitnesses do their standing.
sunday morning, 10 AM, doorbell rings. again them. Okay, twice a year... still too much.

religion is not in my face every day - it is in the fabric of my life like a friggin infection.


and whom do i serve (disserve)? what cause? what is written on my banner? nothing. there is no banner, no group, no association. so i do not do disservice to anyone but me by nagging people.

hate me.

ah no you cant... you wold go to hell for dat, eh? :haha:
oops!

[Sammi79]

I guess that sort of applies to me as well. I like to say that I was brought up nothing at all. Nothing was ever said about it one way or the other.

That sounds more familiar than I was expecting. I was probably around 6 or 7 when I first quizzed my parents over the whole issue, wondering why if as they taught in school that this biblical account of events was historical reality, did it not seem to figure in our lives? I was met with 'some people believe, some don't. It's up to you to decide whether you think it is true or not.' and upon further 'When dealing with apparent dilemmas it is important to make sure there is not a third option or middle way.' and without the mental faculty to understand the latter I became what you could describe as firmly atheist until high school when the myriad complexities of natural reality and ludicrous nature of human politics and social rituals started to push me back towards metaphysics.

Sorry, but I've left out a lot. Suffering seems to be what I do best.

Understood. I'm quite practiced myself actually... but then I have been haunted by the eerie beauty of sorrow just as much as the elation of joy ever since I was played Barrios by my father before I could form memories. My favorites aren't on youtube, but stuff like this:

:Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090ptcp1jA8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090ptcp1jA8)
:wah:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZTndq2qdXY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZTndq2qdXY)

should give an idea of the emotive range of such an instrument. I have a handmade Spanish guitar and play it but this stuff takes decades of scales and theory.

Not bad at all. Do you have music for it? A link?

Sadly, no link. that was part of a song, and I have the music in my head. I have barely recorded anything and for a long time now I've just been learning rock/blues covers that can be transcribed down to 1 man and his guitar, as over the years my experiences with bands have been frustrating - kids, jobs, college, uni make it practically impossible for 3 people to get together all at the same time for a few hours a week.

Introspective people sometimes have to let it out. Others think "He just likes to talk about himself", but it helps.

I try not to worry too much about what people think about me, rather than simply what they think. Though point taken about the monologue :yep: I just feel I get relatively few responses to arguably reasonable questions and in the end, often just simply explain how I see it instead.

[Hottentot]

what cause?

This cause:

and yes... if it were to come down to a war between religion and no religion, i would muster up too.
should be fun.


hate me.You wish.


ah no you cant... you wold go to hell for dat, eh? :haha:Can't rightly say since such concepts are largely irrelevant to me.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Oh, that would be a fictious cause, for the time being.
I do not think they would take me. I dislike mankind too.:yeah:
stupid Buggers.

But that is another Topic. Back to the T-Rex... :D

[frau kaleun]

Back to the T-Rex... :D

I'm afraid he's a bit preoccupied at the moment...

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/11/12/yzase8e3.jpg

[Armistead]

Oh, that would be a fictious cause, for the time being.
I do not think they would take me. I dislike mankind too.:yeah:
stupid Buggers.

But that is another Topic. Back to the T-Rex... :D

The question may be, are we evolving or devolving as a race.
Maybe we're a lower life form than those previous.

[HundertzehnGustav]

If i was supposed to answer briefly and dead serious, the answer is a loud YES.
i am not talking about IQ or Facebook, about fast cars or nukes, concorde or dynamite, banalities in the larger picture. Not about Religion, Politics or worldwide communication and recording of data in various forms (images on caves to the latest SSD...)

Humans have left the system, the nature, have outgrown its intended place on this planet. They imagine things waiting for them after life, think big thoughts about parallel lifes and universes..., yet sometimes deny the same things to their dogs and kettle.

humans have grown a massive ego.

It may be a short term evo-lution, like a local, tactical victory, a triumph of performance and complexity, all weak and relative in the face of mother nature.

But in the long term, humans are not doing themselves a favor by evolving and using technology.
Therefor moving backwards because nature is still stronger than us.

As a race we are evolving. But like all things, the results of our evolution will bring us to a dead end. (in my opinion)
Is that enough to say "de-volution?"

[Skybird]

The question may be, are we evolving or devolving as a race.
Maybe we're a lower life form than those previous.
We are an ultra-modern, self-writing AI-simulation software code running on a very old hardware that bases on an archaic BIOS.

The archaic BIOS is our problem. It is what sends us bluescreening.

The hardware is the reason that needs the AI-software learning how to update it.

The AI software is what is going CTD time and again because of the primitive BIOS.

So what we are is a new software experiment by the evolutionary coders that has led them into a dead end because they have neither the hardware nor the BIOS to make effective and lasting use of this new software.

What I mean is abstract intelligence coupled with our amount of individual self-awareness seem to be unique and seem to be a first on this Earth. They are young concepts still, and their value, from an evolutionary POV, still has not been proven. Possible, that the experiment will run out and will be replaced by something different, so that the features defining us will never be tried again.

Whale sharks are almost unchanged in design since over 400 million years. That makes me think (the first dinosaurs appeared around 230 million years ago, and went over the cliff around 70 million years ago).

[HundertzehnGustav]

like our minds are faster than our biological updates?
might be...
if we could get rid of this bio mass that we need and feed...:hmm2:
and replace with either no body (ghost style) or integrate our minds into our networks, replacing AI by our own intelligence, therefor making the networks and server farms our own.
and the physical part can be dealt with by roboters... controlled by human minds from within the networks.

[Skybird]

No, more like our survival instincts from eons ago helped us back then, but today seal our doom for they collide with our reason and insight into what needs to be done in the changed environment today. We want to solve problems of the present by the instincts designed for situations long time ago.

Those situations may return again, however. After our fall.

[HundertzehnGustav]

may return... more like: after our fall we hope to still have these instincts as backup instructions for survival.:o

I am convinced for no appearent reason that a "fall" lies ahead. Whatever shape it might have how ever it will manifest itself.

That will be the moment where we (have to) get back into the system nature, instead of trying and proclaiming to dominate it.
Is that an evolution? an evolution WITH our surroundings, instead of like today evolution disregarding our surroundings?


random questions:
Is the Human of today his own God, when he looks back at his past (and making the same mistakes time and again, wars:-?) and when he is amazed by his achievements? (percieved achievements... facebook :-?)

Is the thought and concept to have been created by a God, and to have won the battle against the T-Rex (&Co) not a form of Arrogance that is typically human, as it portrais ourselves to have survived these beasts, and all those that came after them, up until now?

Is this "painting ourselves as Victors" not almost the same as "proclaiming us bigger better and more badass than the rest of nature..." proclaiming us GOD ourselves?, just one tiny little bit?

Yes, it is late... nap time.
these thoughts confuse my stupid mind.
Humans... silly humans, aren't we.

[u crank]

I'm not saying that I would have it any other way, I'm simply saying that when "non-believers" talk about not wanting special exemptions for religious speech, this is often the kind of thing they're talking about: people who not only want the freedom to express their religious beliefs, but the freedom to be exempt from an open expression of disagreement with those beliefs, or from the fairly predictable consequences of stating something as a universal truth that simply cannot be backed up by anything other than "because I believe it."

This is not what I was talking about. I don't believe that any one should be exempt from criticism if they make their beliefs known. Period.

This is what I was talking about.

So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

This seems to me to go beyond mere criticism of someone's beliefs. It appears that he wants to deny people the right to freedom of expression. If it isn't he made no attempt to say so.

Someone (may have been you) mentioned how it would feel for an atheist to not have the freedom to say out loud in public that he is an atheist.

I did say that. It was in response to the above quote.

-but as Skybird already noted most atheists don't make a point of publicly announcing their disbelief on a regular basis, in the average social interaction it typically only happens in response to someone else bringing the subject up for discussion.


Here I would have to disagree with you. Atheist's have websites, blogs, TV shows etc. They have organizations and they hold conventions. And they write books, some which have been best sellers. They are freely expressing their beliefs all the time. And they should be able to. Shouldn't every body have this right? Actually they do. It's the law in your country and mine as well as Skybirds. If he isn't saying that then I would apologize but he would have to clear the air in regards to his demands to keep it "to keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it,"

In the realm of science it's even trickier, because science has definable standards. "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God" is one thing and everyone may agree to disagree and part friends. But "I believe the Bible and have the science to back it up" is another thing entirely, if they can't back it up according to the standards that apply to scientific investigation they are not exempt from criticism because religious belief is also involved.


I believe there is a Creator being and I would call myself a Christian, but I am not what you would call a fundamentalist. I do not think that religion should be the basis for scientific thought. They are two completely different disiplines. Nor do I believe that the earth was created in six days. Nor do I believe that a human would have much of a chance against a T rex. :O: I love science and try to keep up on the latest advancements. I miss my calling. I think I would look good in a lab coat.:D

[Skybird]

The "fall" will most likely be caused by global war over sweet water, food, farming land, resources, ideological dominance (most likely not politically but relgiously motivated); or natural desaster, cosmic desaster, or a global epidemic outbreak. Starvations and depletion of even the most basic natural resources like firewood, fishes to fish, animals to hunt, also are within the possible. I refer - once again - to Jared Diamond: Collapse (http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Succeed-Revised-Edition/dp/0143117009/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1365634813&sr=8-3&keywords=jared+diamond). Not the only book on these issues I know - but the best book on these issues that I know. That's why I recommend it again every couple of months.

The manifestation of the fall will be a collapse of the higher functions and structures of human civilization, in reverse sequence of their construction. From supranational bodies back to regional structures, from regional structures back to tribal structures. First communication and traffic, internationally, break down. Trade breaks down. Since resources are no longer traded, local economic crisis. Collapse of fiscal and economic systems. Collapse of states' authorities. No army, no police anymore, no law, no system to replace these. Anarchy. Tribal communities. Fewer people. Much fewer people. If mankind goes e3xtinct, it will be a longer process, most liekly (ignoring biological or atomic wars, meteor strikes and such obvious killer events, and even these would take months and years to come to full extinction effect, except maybe getting hit by a stellar radiation stream from the sun or a distant pulsar or something like that).

How did we get to discussing this now...? :-? :timeout:

[HundertzehnGustav]

Freedom of expression?

The churches built all over europe, as an example... are.. a form of freedom of expression by the believers?

i have rarely seen an atheist build some kind of... church or some such large protruding building.

because that would be "shoving our point of view into the face of the people living around you"

nor are there courses on how to become a good atheist at school... that young ones have to attend, no questions asked, no options given.
That would be "shoving our POV in the face of others".
church, religion, believers do that.


nor do nonbelievers have a head of nonbelievers, leading the pack.
nor do the nonbelievers have some sort of guidance book and a set of rules to follow lest ye rot in hell, scumbag!
That would be "shoving our POV in the face of others".
see the media coverage of the new Pope...

...shoved in my face for days without end, and barely a way to avoid it.
like a sickness that only time, and a focus on other things can cure.

nor do nonbelievers shove their nonbeliefs all over the globe by killiing believers for the good of their cause.
...i bet religious people still do that, all over the globe.

far as i can tell, nonbelievers see believers and simply do not care.
because nonbelievers mostly gave up believing for a reason, and therefor have made some sort of choice.

Religion... is the absence of choice. It gets in my face and on my nerves like Propaganda gets in the face of a North Korean Farmer.
has gotten in my face as a kid... religion based education, religion-based lifestyle, religion based rites, habits and whatnot.

religion has had its fair share of "Freedom of expression" with me.

...largely overstepping boundaries in a quite agressive fashion.

But news is good!

At least in the domain of building "(Christian) religion-in-our-face" churches... we are making progress.
A church not far from me was torn down because it was old, ground moved, and could not be repaired, it was simply not worth the hassle. :rock:
http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/news/story/19402102

Mare Norstum...
http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/MareNostrum-Der-Supercomputer-in-der-Kirche-221951.html
a Christian Church re-used to support the new church of bits and bytes... google says hello.
still a church (from one malheur to another), but no bellringing, no propaganda except for students that are interested in visiting the place.
:yeah:

Belgium...
unused church converted to a shop for expensive stuff...
http://www.zonebattler.net/2008/08/20/einmal-brighton-und-zurueck-3/


freedom of expression is one thing - getting on the nerves and into the lives of people is another don't you think.

[HundertzehnGustav]

The manifestation of the fall will be a collapse of the higher functions and structures of human civilization, in reverse sequence of their construction.

How did we get to discussing this now...? :-? :timeout:

Something like that, yes.
how exactly it will be... time will tell.
I am scared it might happen in my lifetime.
But the last 30 years that i was here things have not gone bust on a global level, so i may just make "the run to my grave" without whitnessing such a dead-end scenario.

it is interesting. such thoughts have haunted me since i was a kid of 8, 9 something... wars, nukes and natural disasters, but most of al, human arrogance.

civilization is just the icing on the animals we atill are.
That i hope we still are, in that case.
:D

[u crank]

You just advocated for the first steps towards it, and spend a whole posting to deny that. All what you implied and posted, says "religious people's practice first and unlimited, all others have to live with it and have to step back where they fell affected".

That is religious tyranny, plain and simple. Of course you will continue to claim the opposite you are meaning/saying/thinking, I know I know. But you contradict yourself.

You just edited my quote to change the meaning. That's a good debating tactic. What I said quite plainly was that religious freedom is part of the package that includes freedom of speech and opinion. What I said.

No doubt, but where there is "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general" there is almost always freedom of religion. Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not caring for the parties you tthrow in your household. But when the noise becomes such that me and nweighbvours cannot sleep, cannot live our own life without needing to realise your party day in day out, cannot play pour own TVs and radios without simultaneously participating in your show, then I come over and kick you around until you stop messing up our lives becasue you want to have party "your style".


Why don't you stop using these vague stories and say exactly what you mean? Are you afraid I won't understand it or are you afraid to say it?

Keep thy religion to thyself.

Where your religion claims it must be aggressively spread and offensively preached, it becomes an aggressor and invader. And that is where tolerance ends


Skybird if you can give one single example of where I have done anything like this please feel free to post it. If you can't you should stop saying it. You are obviously speaking in generalities but you are directing it at me as if I am doing this. I consider that a cheap shot.

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

That's all we need.

[Penguin]

I believe there is a Creator being and I would call myself a Christian,
:o:huh::stare:
Why don't you move to the Vatican, your natural homeland, you Buddhist Taliban? You certainly like stoning women to death, and commit genocide on all kafirs and gojims.

Ups, I am sorry, I am just a cowardly fencewalker, who doesn't dare to take a stand, and want to keep all doors open if I meet a deity after death...

I hope one day I will learn that binary thinking is the only true philosophy of the intellectual superior. Anything else is just dogma, indoctrination or sitting on a fence, nobody else who holds some thoughts has made up their mind.

666 Greetings, Reverend Penguin :salute:

[HundertzehnGustav]

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"
:D
in this life or the next. :P

[August]

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"
:D
in this life or the next. :P


If the Atheists are right nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. No matter how much a person believed in God or didn't we all end up as worm bait.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

[August]

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"
:D
in this life or the next. :P


If the Atheists are right then nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. A persons thoughts and life experiences vanish with the electrical impulses of the dead brain matter. No matter how much a person believed in God, or didn't, we all end up as worm bait and our passions, believes, likes and dislikes, arguments and debates are all left for the living to take up in their own minds if they choose to.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

One or the other.

[Skybird]

You just edited my quote to change the meaning. That's a good debating tactic. What I said quite plainly was that religious freedom is part of the package that includes freedom of speech and opinion. What I said.



Don't put words in my mouth.



Why don't you stop using these vague stories and say exactly what you mean? Are you afraid I won't understand it or are you afraid to say it?



Skybird if you can give one single example of where I have done anything like this please feel free to post it. If you can't you should stop saying it. You are obviously speaking in generalities but you are directing it at me as if I am doing this. I consider that a cheap shot.



That's all we need.
Lalala.

U_crank, you started over religion having the right to do what it wants for reasons of freedom of religious practice. You implied by that that the freedom of religion is of higher meaning than the freedom of others not needing to be bothered, touched, effected by it. You denied that freedom of religion also must mean freedom from religion - for those not wishing to have anything to do with it. This says something about you and religious people sharing this sense of bigotry, and that is what I call it for sure: bigotry, double-standards, privileged 1st class freedoms for religion, and second class freedom for those not sharing religion, but being expected to fall back so that religion can freely practice as it wants. And religious ALWAYS wants more and more.

I have nothing more to tell you. I think I made my arguments clear enough, here, and in other threads. Your religion has to stop where you start to expand your freedom at the cost of mine and that of others.

In Germany, the Friday before Eastern has a law that forbids people dancing and listening to9 music ion restaurants, discos, even if thes eplaces wopuld make sure that outside it cannot be heared or seen, not to bother those people who for religious reasons want all world becoming silent like a grave and no joy being enjoyed by anyone. Tell me why the of people over here are banned from living their lives as they want if they do not interfere with people'S doing inside private homes or inside their temples. Tell me why all people are submitted to obeying a religious demand that THE MAJORITY and especially the younger ones do not share in belief, with the huge majority being critical of the churches and not literally believing in the miracle tales of the bible anyway. It is state-enforced legalised religious discrimination. The right way would be: discos make sure their music and fun is not so loud that it interferes with what goes on in churches and private homes, and churches make sure that their demands are mandatory only for those joining the mass and sharing the belief.

But no, that is not good enough. ALL must be forced to give ground to more freedom for religion, and less for private persons. Religion must be pushed. It demands special recognition. Special status. Exceptions from the state's laws. Privileges. It demonised those opposing it and attacks and offends them. And when the attacked defend themselves and defend their freedom and strike back, then sudeenly religion starts preaching "respect!" and "watch your mouth!" Heck, the new pope on his first appearance after being voted into office demonised all people not sharing the theistic believe in a deity as godless people who pray to Satan. Where is the respect, the humane tolerance, the peacefulness there? The Catholic and Protestant churches assist their worse and most intolerant enemy, Islam, because for the only reason that Muslims also believe in a single deity. Chgristians get killed by the many thosuands every years by Muslim progroms and mass killings around the world. They remain silent about that. They compliment the ideology motivating this barbary as "respectable" and sharing "the same belief in the one creator". Why they do it? Becasue even a hotile theist believer is better to them than somebody not allowing them to isse control mover their kinds and freedom. a killing Islam is better than a peaceful atheism. Andf finally: the church would authorize the same crimes if it still would be in power like it was in the medieval. Our freedoms and morals today have not been formed because of the churches, but in bitter fights and painful conflicts against the bitter resistance of the church. History shows us why it is a bad idea to let religion come back to those powers again. It would lead us back into hate, intolerance and inhumanity.

Religion is not and never was about freedom and equality. Religion is about total control, and expansion, and subjugation. It is about poisoning the minds of already the weakest and most defenseless: our children, to get their thinking under control from earliest age on: brainwashing. Instead of letting people chose, it wants them to submit. Instead of freedom, it wants conformity.

Always was. Is now. Always will be. Heck, it's religion.

[Penguin]

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.


and people who did good deeds all their life, but didn't believe will also rot in hell... :-?

Also there are chances for the deists that they put their money on the wrong deity :O: - or painted a wrong picture of them:

http://www.abload.de/img/kkkjfuu7.jpg

[August]

and people who did good deeds all their life, but didn't believe will also rot in hell... :-?

Maybe I suppose but I was thinking more about the few minutes after death when one realizes that death wasn't actually The End of a persons conciousness.

Also there are chances for the deists that they put their money on the wrong deity :O: - or painted a wrong picture of them:

That would truly be some cosmic justice wouldn't it? :up:

[Betonov]

Maybe I suppose but I was thinking more about the few minutes after death when one realizes that death wasn't actually The End of a persons conciousness.


That would actualy be good news for me.
I wish there was an afterlife. I'm just not convinced. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it eh ??

[Sammi79]

If the Atheists are right then nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. A persons thoughts and life experiences vanish with the electrical impulses of the dead brain matter. No matter how much a person believed in God, or didn't, we all end up as worm bait and our passions, believes, likes and dislikes, arguments and debates are all left for the living to take up in their own minds if they choose to.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

One or the other.

Pascals wager :down:

If god is as all knowing as the theists claim - he would know that you were hedging your bets. Far from promoting the view that theistic belief is 'safer' rather it is an insulting description of people so weak they'd forgo pursuing the truth of the matter at the risk of an ethereal eggy face.

And I could not care for, respect, let alone worship a god who expected me to accept him without good reason that can be made clear to me, as opposed to faulty logic like that above. In the books, there are miracles, divine magic, visions, angels etc. otherwise, none of the characters in the stories would have believed.

[Penguin]

That would truly be some cosmic justice wouldn't it? :up:

Well, at least the historical figure Jesus was certainly not the palest guy - if people's pigmentation didn't change in this area during the last 2000 years :smug:, but try explaing this to a bonehead...

[HundertzehnGustav]

If the Atheists are right then nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. A persons thoughts and life experiences vanish with the electrical impulses of the dead brain matter. No matter how much a person believed in God, or didn't, we all end up as worm bait and our passions, believes, likes and dislikes, arguments and debates are all left for the living to take up in their own minds if they choose to.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

One or the other.

Or something in between...
We "know" exactly SQUAT about whats going on after death.
"KNOW" not "Believe, hope..." none of that near death experience.

therefor talking and projecting what will happen... is a waste of time.

Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

see what i mean. these are things you believe... an evil, mad god.
i aint even buying that.

[MH]

and people who did good deeds all their life, but didn't believe will also rot in hell... :-?only if you a (not)Christian:haha:...i think but don't really know what is Christianity stance on this:hmmm:.

[Buddahaid]

If the Atheists are right then nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. A persons thoughts and life experiences vanish with the electrical impulses of the dead brain matter. No matter how much a person believed in God, or didn't, we all end up as worm bait and our passions, believes, likes and dislikes, arguments and debates are all left for the living to take up in their own minds if they choose to.
One or the other.

Another concideration regarding those thoughts and experiences we cherish is where do those thoughts and experiences go for an elder with Alzheimer's disease, or someone with brain damage. People lose their minds before our very eyes.

[August]

...he would know that you were hedging your bets

I agree he would know, but I wouldn't be hedging my bets because I actually believe that God exists. I live my life fully expecting to be judged by the creator on how I lived it once it ends.

[August]

see what i mean. these are things you believe... an evil, mad god.
i aint even buying that.

Who said anything about an evil, mad God? Why do you Atheists always feel the need to exaggerate peoples position? The thing is HG I don't give a single hoot whether you personally believe in God or not. Your salvation has absolutely nothing to do with mine.

[HundertzehnGustav]

what about if he judges you on how many infidels you killed?
maybe your expectations are wrong

maybe he judges you on how many children you have, or wether or not you made a contribution to keep your environment intact.

maybe he will judge you by things you do not even imagine.

which leads you to live a life you can only hope is right... and hope is not wrong.


maybe there is a god, but no judgement. maybe you "awake" in another life, another episode, another universe... as something different, someone different, barely able to remember your past, your previous life...

have fun expecting.
good luck in expecting the right thing. your chances of walking the righ path are slim at best.

[August]

Another concideration regarding those thoughts and experiences we cherish is where do those thoughts and experiences go for an elder with Alzheimer's disease, or someone with brain damage. People lose their minds before our very eyes.

At least they seem to but I don't think we should see the afterlife as a snapshot of a persons mental and physical state at the moment of death. To me the soul is a lot more than that.

The aged and demented woman who doesn't recognize her own children now was once a young person full of vitality. I can't imagine that God would prefer she live though eternity crippled and mindless.

[Skybird]

There are 46 "confessional schools" i Germany, who again campaign for biblical interpretations of scientific data being put on equal status with scientific methodology. And while by lip-confessions they want to avoid being seen as creationists (who have a very bad reputation over here), they claim that interpreting evolution on the basis of a 7 day creation cycle should be put en par with science.

GERMAN link (http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article115215588/Wo-Biologie-mit-der-Bibel-unterrichtet-werden-soll.html)

That'S what it always is about, in all such cases. Compromising science by having delusion and fiction being raised in status - to be seen as of equal validity than science. Once that is achieved, one can go for the next target: science being toned down and being understood to be allowed only where it supports religious claims, in other words: science becoming a propaganda tool for religion, no tool for seeking the truth as objectively and independently as possible.

This is the role of sciences in Islamic countries, since over a thousand years. Once superior in algebra, physics, optics, medicine, the great stagnation caused by Muhammad led to this advantage and leading role being equalised by developing Europe, and then surpassed, and with the West over the centuries becoming incredibly successful and dominating the world, the Islamic world fatalistically froze in time, with sciences then only allowed where they were abstract and did not touch upon themes where the Quran claimed interpreting and deciding dominance (maths for example were still allowed, for example), or being forced to not ask questions of the like "Why is this, how does it function?", but only questions of the type: "Why is the Quran right in its explanation of it?" Obviously, there is a very huge difference in both attitudes displayed in these ways of asking questions. The big wake-up call then was Napoleon landing in Egypt, and the shivering Muslim world realising that it was not the cultural heavyweight and was even impotent to prevent those foreigners walking in their lands and doing what they want, while being hopelessly superior in technical and scientific possibilities. The reaction of the religious? The French landing became known to them as "the great offense to Islam".

Yeah, if somebody does better than you do and knows more and trains better and can do more things than you can and has undergone an evolution that outclasses yours, then it is not your best bet to try to improve and learn and become better yourself, no: you claim that the superiority of the other is offending you! :yeah:

Sounds familiar when considering statements from Catholic spokesman and popes. The great challenge, the great offense of science that it has put into the world by questioning God. Satan working in sciences to make people move away from the church for rational scientific reasons.

Yeah, sure. Science has nothing better to do than that.

In fact there were times it indeed had better things to do. For example fleeing or avoiding being burned and tortured by the church.

[u crank]

:o:huh::stare:
Why don't you move to the Vatican, your natural homeland, you Buddhist Taliban? You certainly like stoning women to death, and commit genocide on all kafirs and gojims.

Ups, I am sorry, I am just a cowardly fencewalker, who doesn't dare to take a stand, and want to keep all doors open if I meet a deity after death...

I hope one day I will learn that binary thinking is the only true philosophy of the intellectual superior. Anything else is just dogma, indoctrination or sitting on a fence, nobody else who holds some thoughts has made up their mind.

666 Greetings, Reverend Penguin :salute:

Don't worry little grasshopper soon all will be revealed. When the mother ship returns there will be free cigars and sugar cookies for all and the gojims will run free. We will all drink Pepsi Cola from a can and ride into the sunset. Until then stay alert and wear clean socks. :smug:

[Jimbuna]

Can we all remain respectful of one another please.

[August]

...and the gojims will run free.

How about we leave the racism out of it please?

[Penguin]

Can we all remain respectful of one another please.

:06:

You don't mean u-crank's or my post by any chance?
Because in my post I made fun of the b/w thinking some posters here have shown - and I surely didn't mean ucrank's line of thought. And it seems he understood the spirit right, took the ball and responded correctly: with even more nonsense than I wrote. :yep:

[u crank]

:06:

You don't mean u-crank's or my post by any chance?
Because in my post I made fun of the b/w thinking some posters here have shown - and I surely didn't mean ucrank's line of thought. And it seems he understood the spirit right, took the ball and responded correctly: with even more nonsense than I wrote. :yep:

Thank you Penguin. You are right. :salute:

If I have offended anyone I apologize.

[Penguin]

If I have offended anyone I apologize.

I forgive you, my son - you couldn't know that I prefer Pepsi in bottles. :D

[u crank]

I forgive you, my son - you couldn't know that I prefer Pepsi in bottles. :D

:har:

I was raised a Pepsi in a can drinker and I shall die one.

Long live the can.:rock:

[u crank]

U_crank, you started over religion having the right to do what it wants for reasons of freedom of religious practice.

I did not say that. Religion does not have the right to do what it wants. Religious organizations and individuals must obey the law. I posted the laws concerning religious freedom in Germany, the USA and Canada. I didn't write those laws but I agree with them. If you don't like them take it up with the people who wrote them.

You implied by that that the freedom of religion is of higher meaning than the freedom of others not needing to be bothered, touched, effected by it.

I implied no such thing. If I did quote me on it and I will retract it.

You denied that freedom of religion also must mean freedom from religion - for those not wishing to have anything to do with it.

Again, no I didn't. If I did quote me on it and I will retract it.

This says something about you and religious people sharing this sense of bigotry, and that is what I call it for sure: bigotry, double-standards, privileged 1st class freedoms for religion, and second class freedom for those not sharing religion, but being expected to fall back so that religion can freely practice as it wants. And religious ALWAYS wants more and more.


What a fairy tale. There are no Western democracies with laws like this. 'Sense of bigotry'. 'First and second class freedoms.' You're making this stuff up.

In Germany, the Friday before Eastern has a law that forbids people dancing and listening to9 music ion restaurants, discos, even if thes eplaces wopuld make sure that outside it cannot be heared or seen, not to bother those people who for religious reasons want all world becoming silent like a grave and no joy being enjoyed by anyone.

How inconvenient. Will you be requiring therapy? Once a year the main street of our city is closed to all traffic for the Gay Pride parade. Should I complain?

Religion is not and never was about freedom and equality. Religion is about total control, and expansion, and subjugation.

I think you need to do some research. You have a very one sided world view. Is it a coincidence that Democracy began in the modern era in countries that were Christian? Please don't misinterpret that statement. I'm not saying that Christianity is solely responsible but it did play a role. Christian Evangelicals played a prominent role in the abolitionist movement. There are many other examples of Christians doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing. Have religious people been responsible for evil? History clearly says yes. But all of them? You put jihadists and Quakers in the same group. You need to be more specific in your criticisms so that you don't accuse the innocent. Your view of religion as a way of life is also jaded. Today in free Western societies many people believe, not by force or brainwashing but by choice. The question is why? Is every single one of them, as Dawkins says, deluded? Some of these people are highly educated, very intelligent and perfectly normal. Have they missed something? Could any one philosophy fool that many people? I think that it clearly shows that there must be something of value in it. Whether God exists or not is not the real issue. In Western societies millions of people have faith in God and live happy, normal and productive lives. I realize that politics/religion or science/religion can be a point of contention but for most believers they are not. They could care less. They live their lives like any one else. And whether you believe it or not they contribute to their societies in a meaningful and productive way. You need to broaden you field of view. I have read books by atheists and agnostics. Have you read anything about Christian apologetics? Do you understand all aspects of what you are criticizing so harshly?

I have nothing more to tell you. I think I made my arguments clear enough, here, and in other threads.

You know I think you may be right. Sometimes I think we are talking about two different things.

Your religion has to stop where you start to expand your freedom at the cost of mine and that of others.

My personal beliefs and actions have never hindered the freedom of others. I sincerely hope you can say the same thing.

[Armistead]

Good post U Crank.

Religion certainly has no more rights than other groups, except tax exemptions in several areas.

Everything around us seeks to control out minds, the media, politics, religion, etc., it's up to us to control our minds using critical thinking. Cetainly, many religions don't like that and want to indoctrinate you with tools of guilt and fear, but it's not forced.

Anyone can walk to your front door with a cause, don't like it, put up a no trespass sign.

[gammaphialpha]

This reminds me of two canvas prints I have in my room. They're of the Darwin change design that's been pretty popular recently. I'll try to find a link..

[Skybird]

I did not say that. Religion does not have the right to do what it wants. Religious organizations and individuals must obey the law. I posted the laws concerning religious freedom in Germany, the USA and Canada. I didn't write those laws but I agree with them. If you don't like them take it up with the people who wrote them.



I implied no such thing. If I did quote me on it and I will retract it.



Again, no I didn't. If I did quote me on it and I will retract it.
If you even deny the most obvious essences and implications of your posts, then it is impossible to communicate with you.

What a fairy tale. There are no Western democracies with laws like this. 'Sense of bigotry'. 'First and second class freedoms.' You're making this stuff up.

The discmrination of atheists compared to Christians in Wetsenr country is a fact, in Germany as well as in the US. Your states have laws in many of them who limits rights of everyday life on religious occasions even that of people not sharing that religion, and several states have rules that prevent people holding certain public offices if they are not member of a theistic belief. even of those people not sharing that religion. In Germany, I even must pay money for religion'S institutions when I am no member of them, via my ordinary taxes. When i am Christian, I must even pay additional mandatory church taxes.


How inconvenient. Will you be requiring therapy? Once a year the main street of our city is closed to all traffic for the Gay Pride parade. Should I complain?[/[/[quote]
That is the typical reaction of religious bigots like you. If religion cuts freedoms of others, then that is okay, that is a non-issue, that can be ridiculed, its just some stupid infidels dumb enough to not believe. If others would do the same to you, you would cry to heaven. - And you claim you are not defending two class freedom rules? You are absurd.

[quote]
I think you need to do some research. You have a very one sided world view. Is it a coincidence that Democracy began in the modern era in countries that were Christian? Please don't misinterpret that statement. I'm not saying that Christianity is solely responsible but it did play a role. Christian Evangelicals played a prominent role in the abolitionist movement. There are many other examples of Christians doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing. Have religious people been responsible for evil? History clearly says yes. But all of them? You put jihadists and Quakers in the same group. You need to be more specific in your criticisms so that you don't accuse the innocent. Your view of religion as a way of life is also jaded. Today in free Western societies many people believe, not by force or brainwashing but by choice. The question is why? Is every single one of them, as Dawkins says, deluded? Some of these people are highly educated, very intelligent and perfectly normal. Have they missed something? Could any one philosophy fool that many people? I think that it clearly shows that there must be something of value in it. Whether God exists or not is not the real issue. In Western societies millions of people have faith in God and live happy, normal and productive lives. I realize that politics/religion or science/religion can be a point of contention but for most believers they are not. They could care less. They live their lives like any one else. And whether you believe it or not they contribute to their societies in a meaningful and productive way. You need to broaden you field of view. I have read books by atheists and agnostics. Have you read anything about Christian apologetics? Do you understand all aspects of what you are criticizing so harshly?

Many people behave reasonable - despite formally signing in to a religion. But the institution itself always has been and wants like I said. Also, people taking their religion in the meaning religion defines itself, are indeed highly critical neighbours to have. I do not wish to have anything to do with them - got burned often, won't get burned again. The more believing somebody is, I learned, the more unpleasant it is to deal with him over a longer period of time. Many people also have made their own private versions of their religions, due to disagreement with too primitive dogma. It is no secret that in Europe, of those formally signing in to christian faith, a majority is opposing the church and is avoiding them, especially the Catholic. If these people really are representing that religion anymore, or are more on a spiritual quest themselves and just do not care or forgot or or do not dare to leave ties to that religion also formally behind, is hard to say. I had some of these, when I taught meditation courses. What do I say, some. Most of them were disappointed people who felt betrayed by their Christian religion as they knew it. Dogma cannot replace insight into yourself. Belief is not knowledge.

Sometimes I think we are talking about two different things.
Strange, i never have this feeling with you. The unambiguousness of your answers is what provokes my opposition to and conflict with you.


My personal beliefs and actions have never hindered the freedom of others. I sincerely hope you can say the same thing.
Oh, I have hindered the freedom of some people, and that was good, I will never apologize for that. Because you can abuse your freedom for bad acts and improper things, and then getting you stopped is indeed a good thing.

[MH]

As long as religion is important to people as it is the issue is about common ground and some compromise.
There is no other choice , that is the nature of democracy and freedom when all sorts of views are interacting one with the other.
You can not have it 100% according to your personal preferences, not sure you should.:haha:

The debate where the red lines are is legit though.
I have mine as well.

[Armistead]

Certainly "religious" discrimination once existed, but because it was an overall part of our culture that influenced basically every walk of life. But a mass shift has been taking place, now it seems that christians are discriminated against in many ways as well and I fear it will become even worse as the US becomes more liberal. My fear as we become more liberal, there is an attitude of payback against religion for past bigotry, bias, whatever.. Heck, maybe religion deserves it, but history seems to repeat cycles, so it could revert back the other way in 100 years.

I don't know what happened with it, but not long ago a gay group wanted to sue churches for hate speech. If you open your door to the public and then use hate/racist/bias speech and offend someone, they have the right to file charges. Is this the future?

Be nice if we could all live and let live, but there will always be people, groups, wanting control of your mind and politics will go with the masses.

[Buddahaid]

I have a question for you Skybird. Is there any organisation you're OK with? You seem to be a complete anarchist wishing to live in an insulated bubble of your perfect world dispensing your critiques as the only right way if those other would only agree.

[Tribesman]

Is that an insulated bubble or an insulted bubble?

[sidslotm]

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood. :hmmm:

[Armistead]

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood. :hmmm:

Is that yet another translation of Gens.:D

[Skybird]

I have a question for you Skybird. Is there any organisation you're OK with? You seem to be a complete anarchist wishing to live in an insulated bubble of your perfect world dispensing your critiques as the only right way if those other would only agree.
Let's put it this way: I see a strong inversely proportional relation between group size and individuals' intelligence. Intelligence goes out of the window, conformity comes in through the door.

My trust in groups and clubs is very small. My trust in political parties and religious clubs is non-existent.

But that is a strawman question only, we both know it, don't we. All i ask for is religious freedom not put above freedom from religion, and the natural politeness of not bothering others with something that is your most private stuff. No believer of any religion there is has the right to make others not sharing his faith making concessions to his religion, needing to compromise their freedom to give hiom more.

That is healthy reason and also basing on the very first and most basic premise of classical liberalism and libertarianism: that everybody from birth on owns himself and his own body and thus has a right to be and to exist, as well as that he fully owns what he finds and that nature has laid before him and that before him nobody other has claimed first and by that took possession of, so that when he picks it up or uses it to create something different by it or to trade with it, it is considered to be his private property until he voluntarily gives or trades it away. This is freedom, and without consensus on this, there is neither freedom nor can - or should! - conflict due to one person trying to steal from the other or to submit and own the other be avoided.

I think it is not too difficult to understand the close relation to the question fought over in this thread: your freedom ends where you start to limit the freedom of others. And religion has to pay respect to that principle, too. In western countries, it already gets allowed to get away with so many enforce concessions and compromises at the disadvantage of people not subscribing to religion(s). Fans of religion of course see that as okay and want the other not to make big waves over their discrimination- the religious crowds got what it wants: privileges for its hobby. Problem is, if not the crowd then the religious institutions always want more. And more. And more.

Keep thy religion to thyself. No religious demand on the street: no atheist counter-reaction on the street. Push the other to fall back and let you get more for yourself, and don'T be surprised if the other pushes back and starts to resist to you. It is so simple to understand how it works.

BTW, no religious person or club so far needs to accept his taxes in parts spend for atheist propaganda. Nobody needs to fear there come holidays for atheist purposes. Atheist propaganda symbols are not officially shown in schools. There is no atheist formula in public oaths and pledges. Nobody gets banned by regional/local laws from public offices or is being hindered to go shopping on days that are of a meaning for atheists (if only there were such atheism days...). But imagine this all would be the case, what you would think, how does it go along with your religious feelings when you are not discriminating, but become the one getting discriminated? That is how it feels for millions and millions of people since all these privileges are accepted on behalf of Christian religion in the West. Not even mentioning how hidden people must run their lives and must hide their atheism in regions and towns with strong fundamentalist communities, because they would lose their jobs or their kids mobbed at school if their neighbours learn they are atheists.

What you think you must believe in, is in your head. Leave it where it belongs - leave it right there in your head. That way it stays where it came from and is save and secure. Keep thy religion(s) to thyselves, people. It's like the dirty laundery in your laundry container. Your sexual habits in the sleeping room. Your shower in the morning: You leave it in your private sphere, not to be taken note of by others. Why must they need to see all this? Well, religious feelings and confessions are like that, too: they are part of your private, your intimate sphere. Do it, if you like it. But in a way that does not interfere with the freedom and right of others who maybe do not want to take note of your precious hobby, because they have their own thoughts and your own life to live and there own things to run.

And no, it is not just evil satanic Skybird thinking that way. It is millions and many millions thinking that way. Even many believers who are members of the church think that way. ;) Celebate your Easter thing if you nwant. But there is no excuse why I must limit my life because of your religion - that I give a damn for. I tell that in principle everybody. Muslims. Jews. Christians. I don't care what you call yourself. Just stop making claims for other people's lives. You do not own them , you have no rights for them, they owe you nothing.

[sidslotm]

No man can be an athiest merly by wishing it so, Napoleon.

Concerning freedom:- for a man to desern truth he must first, be truly free. The Advent horizon of truth eludes all men because it is unseen, but once crossed you cannot return. When a man learns the true value of truth, he does not use it to control or hinder others, but he helps others to see what he has found.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/freedom?q=freedom

[August]

Anyone else read Skybirds latest diatribe against society and wish you could be transported to Germany so you could ring church bells outside of his window? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

What would an Atheist know about manna from heaven?
And you don't see it the least bit hypocritical to invoke a heaven you repeatedly claim does not exist?
Anyone else read Skybirds latest diatribe against society and wish you could be transported to Germany so you could ring church bells outside of his window? :hmmm:
Okay, this is nothing but trolling. Stop it.

[Armistead]

Anyone else read Skybirds latest diatribe against society and wish you could be transported to Germany so you could ring church bells outside of his window? :hmmm:

I'm rather skeptic about everything, including myself, but I rather enjoy the church bells in our small town, but that damn mill whistle 5 miles away that blast 3 times a day........Worse, that emergency broadcasting when I'm half asleep watching TV....BERRR BERRR BEERR, wake the dead.

[August]

I'm rather skeptic about everything, including myself, but I rather enjoy the church bells in our small town, but that damn mill whistle 5 miles away that blast 3 times a day........Worse, that emergency broadcasting when I'm half asleep watching TV....BERRR BERRR BEERR, wake the dead.


Makes you jump right out of your skin huh? I can sympathize, as I used to live just down the street from a fire station. Even today sirens irritate the heck out of me.

[August]

Okay, this is nothing but trolling. Stop it.

Call it what you want Steve, it's how I feel but sure i'll stop it.

[Armistead]

Makes you jump right out of your skin huh? I can sympathize, as I used to live just down the street from a fire station. Even today sirens irritate the heck out of me.

and if we're gonna ban those dang church bells, I want that blasted Friday night football from the high school stopped, can hear it from across the river, ruining my peaceful nights, except now those damn crickets, can we ban them as well....

All these people feel they have the right to put noise in the atmosphere, end it all...

[August]

and if we're gonna ban those dang church bells, I want that blasted Friday night football from the high school stopped, can hear it from across the river, ruining my peaceful nights, except now those damn crickets, can we ban them as well....

All these people feel they have the right to put noise in the atmosphere, end it all...


:)

But that is the point though. Where do we draw the line with "keep it to thyself? and still manage to have a society? Like you say just about anything can irritate people, especially when it comes to noise and lights, but eliminating them is impossible especially in urban areas.

No problem finding quiet up at my cabin but I would never expect to find it in the city.

[Skybird]

I'm rather skeptic about everything, including myself, but I rather enjoy the church bells in our small town,
Believe it or not, I sometimes do, to. Distant church bells on a summer day sounding over the fields and meadows, sun shining, mood is right. Depends on setting, the bells themselves, etc. The ordinary cheap chruch bell noise every Sunday , the common routine - that however is something very different.

A Muezzin yelling and balking I would not bear, however, never. And If I do not tolerate the one, I cannot tolerate the other, too, without making myself vulnerable for questions.

These attempts by some posters to go into hilariously pedantic details over issues I did not even mention in order to ridicule my arguments, are just tactics to divert from what I maybe could have really meant and wrote about. Adressing this stuff endlessly on a 1:1 basis only would confirm a flanking tactic meant to bypass what I am really after. Doesn'T impress me one bit, only blueprints the corner they are in. Submarines carry such distraction measures, too. They are called noisemakers.

If you guys have the opportunity to spend 24th Decembre, night, in Lübeck, Germany - do so. The old town is beautiful, very atmospheric, and not big, so to have a walk in this night short before midnight, is almost "mandatory" :) . Plenty of very old, small buildings, ponds, rivers and parks, christmas lights in the shopping streets. Most gemütlich place one can imagine for christmas. But there are, in this small place, five Gothic churches and cathedrals, huge ones, with seven towers, and bells in every one. Lübeck is famous for that, too, not only was it called the queen of the Hanse (and is home to the best marcipane-producing company in the world, Niederegger), but also they called it the city of the seven towers. Before 10 or 11 pm they start ringing all those mighty bells together. And then in most areas of the oldtown, the air is vibrating and you hear these beautifully sounding voluminous multiple bells, almost "massaging" the air. You can feel it on your skin, and sometimes even in your bones . It is incredible, and a most beautiful experience. Christmas nights in Lübeck are very special nights.

No, I/we do not attend the mass, nor do we care for the religious part of the show, when we are there. Still: the beauty of this bell experience is not reduced to us.

I also listen to music by - Bach... :huh:

Heck, I even like Gregorian chants... :o

[MH]

... now you made me cry.
http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-Trex-dinosaurs-hugging.jpg

[Armistead]

:)

But that is the point though. Where do we draw the line with "keep it to thyself? and still manage to have a society? Like you say just about anything can irritate people, especially when it comes to noise and lights, but eliminating them is impossible especially in urban areas.

No problem finding quiet up at my cabin but I would never expect to find it in the city.


Life is noisy. we can't escape it. We can't escape people talking, pushing their points of view on politics or religion, etc. The problem is people pushing their rights on others through politics or legal means that would force them into a belief or system. Cetainly, religion can do this, but so can everything else.

As a nation we'll continue to evolve morally and culturally, norms will change, that's life, that's evolution. I just wish govt. would stay out of peoples business, but because we can't live and let live, that will be the future.

[August]

Life is noisy. we can't escape it. We can't escape people talking, pushing their points of view on politics or religion, etc. The problem is people pushing their rights on others through politics or legal means that would force them into a belief or system. Cetainly, religion can do this, but so can everything else.

As a nation we'll continue to evolve morally and culturally, norms will change, that's life, that's evolution. I just wish govt. would stay out of peoples business, but because we can't live and let live, that will be the future.

Dig it.

[HundertzehnGustav]

...and still manage to have a society?

as sky said: the higher the numbers, the higher the stupidity.
or: society fails at intelligence. Hm?

i find the basic view he describes to match my own.

That is healthy reason and also basing on the very first and most basic premise of classical liberalism and libertarianism: that everybody from birth on owns himself and his own body and thus has a right to be and to exist, as well as that he fully owns what he finds and that nature has laid before him and that before him nobody other has claimed first and by that took possession of, so that when he picks it up or uses it to create something different by it or to trade with it, it is considered to be his private property until he voluntarily gives or trades it away. This is freedom, and without consensus on this, there is neither freedom nor can - or should! - conflict due to one person trying to steal from the other or to submit and own the other be avoided.

be equal, play fair, respect each other in your doings, havings and not-havings.

religions and religious groups are a little bit "more equal" than those not in religious groups these days.

[August]

religions and religious groups are a little bit "more equal" than those not in religious groups these days.

What you say may be true but you must admit that there is far more equality between religious and non religious groups than ever before in western society.

[HundertzehnGustav]

okay... accepted.

still... Way not enough equality in my opinion. too much religious influence in europe's public affaire... (subjective opinion)

I want it gone, out of sight, out of mind, out of hospitals, no extras or clemence sexual offenders within church, no extras in finance or tax privileges, no candy for religion.

and the path is long yet.

before, like maybe a thousand years ago, religion offered an answer to many myths and things unexplained.
i want the public aspect of religion to be reduced to what it really has to offer in answers and facts. (tm) :hmm2:

nowadays it seems different... religion offers less and less answers, science offers more. to the point where there are scientific groups and churches popping up.
yet another religion.
dang!

[Buddahaid]

okay... accepted.

still... Way not enough equality in my opinion. too much religious influence in europe's public affaire... (subjective opinion)

I want it gone, out of sight, out of mind, out of hospitals, no extras or clemence sexual offenders within church, no extras in finance or tax privileges, no candy for religion.

and the path is long yet.

before, like maybe a thousand years ago, religion offered an answer to many myths and things unexplained.
i want the public aspect of religion to be reduced to what it really has to offer in answers and facts. (tm) :hmm2:

nowadays it seems different... religion offers less and less answers, science offers more. to the point where there are scientific groups and churches popping up.
yet another religion.
dang!

Out of hospitals? The one I work for is run by St Joseph's as a non profit. I don't think that is possible for one and uncaring for the emotional needs of the many who are religious with loved ones in need.

[u crank]

If you even deny the most obvious essences and implications of your posts, then it is impossible to communicate with you.

Surely you must be joking. You have made repeated comments about things I have allegedly said. I have repeatedly asked you to quote them. So far you have refused. Now you are alleging that I have made 'obvious essences and implications'. Would you care to tell me what they are? I find your debating tactics to be less than honest.

How inconvenient. Will you be requiring therapy? Once a year the main street of our city is closed to all traffic for the Gay Pride parade. Should I complain?

That you didn't see this as humour and sarcasm amazes me. Here's some more. Stand up every once and awhile. That way less stuff will go over your head.

That is the typical reaction of religious bigots like you.

Such slander. If you knew how tolerant I was you would be ashamed. Again, prove it or stick it.

The discmrination of atheists compared to Christians in Wetsenr country is a fact, in Germany as well as in the US.

If there is discrimination against Atheists or anyone based on there personal or religious or non religious beliefs it is in direct violation to the Laws of almost every Democracy in the West. Because some people in a group break the law does that mean that all are guilty? Such poor logic. It would be like saying, if one German was once a Nazi then all Germans are Nazis.

Oh, I have hindered the freedom of some people, and that was good, I will never apologize for that.

Well that is something to be proud of.

Buddahaid ask you a very good question. Your answers are revealing. No one can live in a world where every thing is as they wish. Diversity and opinions that we may disagree with make the society stronger and the end add to the knowledge base. It is the kind of society that I would prefer to live in. One in which no ones' thoughts or beliefs are restricted within reason.

All i ask for is religious freedom not put above freedom from religion, and the natural politeness of not bothering others with something that is your most private stuff. No believer of any religion there is has the right to make others not sharing his faith making concessions to his religion, needing to compromise their freedom to give hiom more.

I wish that you could give some clear example of this. I'm not talking about inconvenience or annoyance. Everyone has to deal with this on a daily basis. I could write a book. Are you being restricted from going any where? Are you being prevented from writing, publishing or publicly saying anything? Are you being held without cause. Are you being subjected to violence?

This is what freedom is about. Not mere inconvenience or annoyance. Not a disagreement in philosophy and world view. It would appear that you have confused the two.

I think it is not too difficult to understand the close relation to the question fought over in this thread: your freedom ends where you start to limit the freedom of others.

I wonder if you see the irony in making that statement?

What you think you must believe in, is in your head. Leave it where it belongs - leave it right there in your head. That way it stays where it came from and is save and secure.

If this is your conviction then surely you, as well as others, must obey it.

[HundertzehnGustav]

I wish that you could give some clear example of this. I'm not talking about inconvenience or annoyance. Everyone has to deal with this on a daily basis. I could write a book. Are you being restricted from going any where? Are you being prevented from writing, publishing or publicly saying anything? Are you being held without cause. Are you being subjected to violence? How about this one,
http://www.berlin.de/special/familien/2865362-2864562-schule-religionsunterricht-ist-nicht-sch.html

Kid get put into Religion Class even if she is raised as a nonreligious person.

judges says she has to participate in class and mass, because that religion does not pose a threat, and is good for her.

Like...
what the bleeping buster?

Kid aged around 6 is free to chose on her own, and since she has no experience on the subject, by default it is her parents that chose in such matters.

but the parents choice is overruled by the state who, in a small exaple and probably in an effort to make things simple, puts the kid in Religion class.

Ah, and no, they are not baking cookies there. they talk about Friend Jesus and God and stuff.

so yes, Kids are forced "into religion" by the law... with them (or their parents) being given no choice...

i hope that is an example that is practical andf tangible enough.
you want another one?

[August]

That is an amazing story HG. I wish I could read German.

Why did the court order this girl to attend a religious class over her parents objections again?

I never heard such a thing over here.

[Betonov]

I never heard such a thing over here.

You don't live close enough to Vatican.

It's harder, near impossible for small congregations to pull stunts like these, while the Roman catholic church has still considerate influence in Europe. It's not a religius order, it's organized crime.

[Tribesman]

Kid get put into Religion Class even if she is raised as a nonreligious person.


Gustav
Did the parents perhaps choose to send their child to a religious school?


A Muezzin yelling and balking I would not bear, however, never. And If I do not tolerate the one, I cannot tolerate the other, too, without making myself vulnerable for questions.

Skybird
Perhaps you should listen to yourself as it is your rampant habit of self contradiction which leaves yourself vulnerable to questions so often:yep:

[Skybird]

Like in America, in Germany by legal basis the state should have no role in propagating any religion and support it in public institutions like public school. Religious courses should be banned from public school. The history of how religions behaved over centuries, should be soberly described in history classes. Religion'S morals and ethics are highly biased towards relgious dogma, and thus should not be taught at public schools in explicit, separate courses. Where in history and philosophy classes comparisons between different world views and ideologies are vital to explain historic events, it should be done in context of these history courses, and dealt with as historic data.

Needless to say that religious symbols on walls and religious formulations in school formulas should have no place. Crucifixes do not belong into schools, like green flags with white swords, Turkish flags or a David's star do not belong there, too. On the formulation "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in American schools, there is only one thing to say: originally it was not there and was added to the wording not before some heavy campaigning of a Catholic conservative order in the middle of the last century - some 60 years ago or so. America was not founded on basis of such stuff. The words "in God we trust" also were not added to the printing on dollar notes and coins before modern times, and originally where not part of their design. Again, it was religious campaigning (again by Catholics) that made these changes possible.

I would like to see confession-free ethics&philosophy classes replaciong religion classes, and a boost in number of history hours.

The claim some will raise here that without religion there is no moral behavior, I reject. History shows it to be untrue. Ethics existed before the theistic dogmas started to haunt the world. And often ethics not basing on these dogmas show more humane quality and less barbaric excesses, than those following morals grounded on religion. Just imagine how much violence, discrimination and brutality is carried out right now in the explicit name of religion, with the overwhelming majority silently tolerating it and not raising against this being done in their name.

Not to mention past times.

In the Ayn Rand thread I just quoted a wonderful definition of that morality is.

You can be moral while being atheist. You can be immoral while being an atheist. You can also be moral while being a believer, and you can be immoral while being a believer. For some people, the link between the two, in any direction, is causal. Other people are such that neither their morals lead them to a relgion, nor that a religion makes them act morally. Critical it becomes where religion turns them into behaving immorally. But just the fact that none of the possible four causal links can explain all four combinations should make it obvious to everybody that any claim that the one causally leads to the other and that the one cannot be without the other, is nonsense.

One thing, though. Where you only do a good deed becasue your erlgion tells you you should be dpoing this good deed, if this is your motivation, you may be doing a good deed. But morally acting you are not: you are obedient.

[Schroeder]

That is an amazing story HG. I wish I could read German.

Why did the court order this girl to attend a religious class over her parents objections again?

I never heard such a thing over here.
It's ripped out of context. The father said the kid should go to religious classes and the mother objected to that. The judge ruled that the kids can go to religious classes until the dispute between the parents is settled. So no, the state didn't force children to attend religious classes against the will of the parents.

[Skybird]

It's ripped out of context. The father said the kid should go to religious classes and the mother objected to that. The judge ruled that the kids can go to religious classes until the dispute between the parents is settled. So no, the state didn't force children against to attend religious classes against the will of the parents.
Considering that I got banned from religious classes because of asking too many questions and being stubborn on that, i already assumed that the story had a wider context. However, in 30 years since then, schools have changed. I liked the school I experienced, but I do not like what I get in feedback and am being told about school today.

[u crank]

i hope that is an example that is practical and tangible enough.
you want another one?

Thanks. Interesting but lacking details. Tribesman asks a very relevant question. What kind of school is this ? Private, religious or public?

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

Article 7 [School education]

(1) The entire school system shall be under the supervision of the state.

(2) Parents and guardians shall have the right to decide whether children shall receive religious instruction.

(3) Religious instruction shall form part of the regular curriculum in state schools, with the exception of non-denominational schools. Without prejudice to the state’s right of supervision, religious instruction shall be given in accordance with the tenets of the religious community concerned. Teachers may not be obliged against their will to give religious instruction.

(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed.


Options.
1.Choose not to receive religious instruction.
2.Send child to non-denominational school
3.Send child to private school.

Doesn't seem quite as tyrannical as the article suggests.

If it is a public school then I would say someone's rights are being abused. This kind of thing would not happen here, Canada. Hey we're still taking immigrants. :O:

[HundertzehnGustav]

okay, the parents were fighting over the subject.

one of the parents to object to indoctrination... is that not good enough?
How can that be?!



But the matter is christian religion. and christian religion... oh it is all right, isnt it. like, comeon, they are not debating big things there, they are talking about the bible, christmas, easter, how to be good, the ten commandements.
no big deal, right?

While at the base i agree (i have walked that path, it taught me some...)

how about if in the future these classes were on the subject of Allah, islam and their books, rites and values.

now that would be fun would it not. People would go raving mad.

actually...
we should try that!


The population would start to scratch they heads about reléigion in they lives, a-aight?:hmm2:

[u crank]

Needless to say that religious symbols on walls and religious formulations in school formulas should have no place. Crucifixes do not belong into schools, like green flags with white swords, Turkish flags or a David's star do not belong there, too.

From Wikipedia article Freedom of religion in Germany

In the Crucifix Decision the German Federal Constitution Court in 1995 decreed a law that insisted on the presence of religious symbols (crucifixes) in public institutions to be illegal, excluding in some Roman Catholic elementary schools. The court further demanded that the symbols must be removed if a parent does not agree with them.

[Tribesman]

how about if in the future these classes were on the subject of Allah, islam and their books, rites and values.

In case you didn't notice, religious education class covers all that.

[Skybird]

The EU court for Human Rights ruled in second instance in 2011 that crucifixes in rooms of public school can remain there. The case was about a conflict in Italy, but the sentence applies to all EU countries. This sentence therefore overrules German law.

I have repeatedly pointed at the secular nature of German laws being in stark contrast to reality. I listed th church's tax evading schemes, it'S collection of property at the cost of the tax payer, the financial model of Christian hospitals, and the mandatory nature of church taxes that the state collects, as examples. There are more examples. There is a rich literature in German by church critics who have written many books on these issues and proved them black on white and with formal documents as well, because in Germany it is especially bad - that is why the German Catholic church is usually referred to as being the richest worldwide. Somewhere they must have gotten all that wealth from. The network of political support is just one factor.

Even before the EU ruling, federal state sin Germany were simply ignoring the legal demand that crucifixes must be removed if somebody demands that, and found ways that even held against the constitutional courts'S original verdict. The criterions for parents achieving that crucifixes get removed were raised so high that in most cases people are discouraged from all beginning on and must accept long and expensive court procedures up to third instance, or, like in Bavaria, a single sentence was added in the federal states constitution claiming that a criterion is that the parents must bring up reasons that are clearly understandable - the instance deciding whether it is understandable or not of course is the state who objects to removing the crucifixes. Guess how it ends: it ends in nil consequences. So much for freedom from religion. There are a million ways to without freedom from people without needing to formally call it a rejection of freedom. Just make qualification for freedom so impracticable and make the costs so high that nobody can afford it, and they musts give up all by themselves... It is a prime scheme of politics for preventing something without allowing to get called by name over it. "Of course they can go all the way - if they can afford it." :D :D :D

Additionally, courts have ruled that public school must obey to demands by Muslims for being given prayer rooms inside the school building or on its compound. Double standards like this of course also are unacceptable. At public schools, there should be this rule: regarding religious confession, it is neutral ground, and no world view has to claim for any privileges in its framework. People should not be needed to sue the school to become "not religious". The public school should be all by itself all neutral ground. Like public offices. Like courts. Like hospitals whose finances by lion's share get payed by the tax payer. Religious claims, rules, symbols belong into religious club houses, institutions payed for and financed by religion, and the private space of its believers - they belong not into the public sphere. - Additionally, children should be protected from being exposed to religious manipulation at ages where their intellect still is indifferent and their psychic structure still is vulnerable to manipulation, is insecure, still forming up, and can easily be effected for the better or words. We have minimum age rules for cigarettes, alcohol, driving licenses, and sun bathing studios. But none against religious brainwashing? We could then also not care for sects like Moon or Scientology approaching and trying to bind to themselves our children. To form opinions on religion's arguments that are well-grounded, to assess religions' records, to weigh the pros and cons of religion with intellectual competence - that takes quite some age and adult ripeness before you can do that competently and without compromising your own security against religious corruption. I bet that the vast majority of people coming into contact with Jewish, Muslim or Christian dogma form a more independent, intellectually potent image of it and define their attitude towards it differently, than when children from early age on get brainwashed with according sweet tales and miracle belief and thus internalize all this without any emotional or intellectual distance. And that is the reason why religion demand children being exposed to it from as earliest ages on as possible. Because it is about right preventing them from turning into independent, intellectually potent adult individuals who decide for themselves. Cigarette makers aimed heavily at the young in their adverts, because it is a proven fact that it is more than four times as unlikely that somebody becomes a frequent smoker by habit/addiction when he had his first cigarette at the age of 22 or higher, than if he had his first at the age of 16. Comparable reasoning behind religion'S aim at children and the young.

I say: let people grow up, become a person with a grounded identity and a finished education and a developed intellect and then let him/her chose freely whether he wants to confess to any religious dogma, worldview, or whatever. These people have a choice, then, and they have the ability to use it. Children have not, and cannot. It is the adults' duty to protect them, as long as their mental "chitin armour" still is soft and vulnerable.

[HundertzehnGustav]

In case you didn't notice, religious education class covers all that.

in theory... :hmmm:

http://www.legilux.public.lu/rgl/1991/A/1345/1.html
Active Law.

A.Dans l'enseignement secondaire les lignes directrices se spécifient de la manière suivante:
1. Dans les classes de la division inférieure, l'élève approfondira la foi chrétienne en se basant surtout sur les textes de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. La vision chrétienne de l'élève s'enrichira d'une introduction aux Droits de l'Homme.
at the age between 11 and 13/14 the child will strengthen his christian faith by studying the old and new testament, as well as taking a small insight into the human rights.

Fun, eh?

Sa relation à Dieu et au monde, sa responsabilité à l'égard du prochain et de soi-même trouveront un fondement évangélique.
L'enseignement lui présentera la communauté chrétienne comme lieu d'une foi vécue et d'une vie épanouie au sein d'une société qui n'est pas forcément chrétienne.
His relation to God (Capital Gee) his responsabilities to his next amd himself will find an evangelic base.
the teacher will present the christian community as a lived faith, give a full life inside a society that is not necessarily christian.


What i read:

You will be taught to know your bible, to follow its guides, and treat your next as a good christian would.
You will show the world what christianity is about, even though you might not live in a christian community (live in saudi arabia, live in china)



When the Kid gets older, between 14/15 to 18, the law reads this:
2. Dans les classes de la division supérieure, l'élève étudiera le phénomène religieux en général, ses expressions dans les différentes croyances et la mise en question de la religion par les athéismes, les idéologies et les courants philosophiques et scientifiques. Le cours insistera sur les raisons de croire, d'espérer et d'aimer.


In the upper levels of secondary school, you will study religious effects in general, how they express themselves, and also see atheism, other ideologies and philosophies, sciences, how these put religion into question.

The couse will insist on the need to believe, to hope, and to love.

Yes...
see atheism and science, how they question your faith in God, but dismiss them, put the student back on the path of religion.
LOL.:hmm2:

L'étude des étapes majeures de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament et de l'histoire de l'Eglise fera découvrir à l'élève la dimension historique et culturelle de la foi chrétienne.
L'élève apprendra à connaître les vérités fondamentales de cette foi, à savoir la foi en un Dieu Créateur, la foi en Jésus le Christ, la foi en l'action de l'Esprit Saint ainsi que la valeur de ces vérités pour l'orientation de sa vie.
Further studying of the events of the old and new testament will make the student discover the culture of the christian Religion.

The student will learn the fundamental truths of this faith, to know faith in God the creator, to have faith in jesuus christ, to have faith in the actions of the Holy spirit, and to recognize the value of these truths for his life.

:yeah:YESSS !
you on da right path now, Kid.
Bleepin ell?? :rock:

L'enseignant incitera l'élève à une réflexion critique et responsable face aux divers systèmes éthiques. Partant d'une anthropologie chrétienne, il lui apprendra à se situer, comme homme/femme et citoyen, par rapport au réalités du monde: le mariage, la famille, le travail, la justice sociale, les droits et devoirs de l'homme, l'écologie etc. Le monde contemporain y apparaîtra sous le double éclairage de l'Evangile et des Droits de l'Homme.Teacher will incite, motivate the Kid to a critical and responsable reflection on ethic systems.
Based on a Christian anthropology, teacher will teach on where the student will stand on the realities of the world: mariage, family, work, social justice, human rights, ecology.

The world will appear under the light of Evangelism as well as human rights.


Summa summum:
Make the kid a good christian first.
Then show him other faiths and beliefs, but keep him on the christian path.
Then see Human rights, position of religion and why it is a need to believe.

Sum the course up, by teaching him how to live in (and the order is important!)
- marriage
- family
- work
- justice in society
- human rights
- ecology


Religion (marriage...) comes over social justice, comes over human rights, comes over ecology.



Tell me this is not indoctrination.
tell me this is a fair and unbiased view on the subject of religion and non religion.

The couse, the books and subjects treated by the teachers in our schools have to follow and respect these guidelines.

I love the fact that i gave my religion teacher a hard time.
when bullied into a corner by propaganda that is thicker than the nutella spread on my bread... even a dummie like me managed to yawn and dismiss his speeches. (their speeches - i had several teachers)

[HundertzehnGustav]

another interesting setup (oka, its statistics... i doubt them a bit)

http://www.religionslehrer.lu/statistics/WU_Statistik_2006-2011.pdf
is the numbers of students that take part in either
"morale chretienne" (MORCH) or "formation morale et sociale" (FOMOS)

In higher quality levels (the ones destined to become diploma-carrying dudes and dudettes, and study at an university) about 2/3 take the morale chretienne cousre.

same picture in the intermediate levels, (designers and ingeneersss:), accountants, managers...)

on the lower levels (service personnel, factory workers, mechanics...) the image is reversed, they mostly take the religion-neutral course.

Why that is so, and how that affects society, i do not know.
It might mean that lawmakers and judges will have a christian background, once they have a means to influence the rules of this country.

whis is... a big "HMMMMM" in my book.

but pure speculation.
maybe the lower levels of education are full of dim people that do not understand a thing on religion - too complicated. the religious-neutral course might be percieved as "easier to pass".

let s see how things turn out.

[CaptainHaplo]

okay, the parents were fighting over the subject.

one of the parents to object to indoctrination... is that not good enough?
How can that be?!

Simple - the parents are not together and one is the "custodial" parent. As the primary custodian of my son, I get to make decisions that his mother, while she may object, cannot overrule. Why? Because he lives with me, not her, and thus the responsibility for decisions must fall on me as the more informed and present party.

My son is in counseling - she wants him taken out, I continue to have him treated. She can take it to court if she wants. The non-custodial parent in the above case apparently did, and the judge ruled that the custodial parent has the deciding ability.

[HundertzehnGustav]

well then...

i am glad i wont be in their position. Ever.
:huh:

[NeonSamurai]

No sir. You are quite wrong about that and that is not an opinion. You are correct that it is simple as there is one rule, and one rule only, for fair and reasonable discussion that being;

If you make a claim or statement of fact, you inherit the burden of proof required to support that claim.

I honestly think you should reread my post as you totally missed the root point (and several other things), which is that proof does not exist and never has. Facts (aka evidence) cannot prove anything, if they did, theories would never be disproven as they were all 'proven' true with evidence. The burden of proof does not exist because proof itself does not exist.

For example, it is not unusual for two competing theories to point to the same facts as proving each theory correct, do the facts prove both theories are true? Or is it just a failure to prove either wrong, as I am proposing. In a sense in science, proof is useless, it is disproof that gets you someplace.

Consider someone who had never heard of or read about god until you told them your theory about it (for the purposes of disambiguation you should use hypothesis to distinguish between the deeper overarching scientific definition of Theory) and they refused to believe you until you provided some convincing corroborating evidence, or simply tell you 'Well I don't think so.' why should they then have to prove your claim wrong? why must they accept your hypothesis unless they can produce proof of its fallacy? are they being hypocritical?

Where did I ever say that you had to accept a theory simply because it is proposed (I guarantee I never suggested such a thing, particularly as I am by nature a skeptic). I am saying that if you disagree with it, you need to offer evidence to show it is false. Once again you cannot prove things, only show them false.

FYI I tend to use the experimental science meanings when using the words theory and hypothesis. A theory is the overarching concept, and a hypothesis is a part of the theory that has been made directly testable (ie the heart of an experiment). It is really hard for me not to smirk at the more general use of the word theory, which indicates there is some evidence behind it (see my root argument).

If what you say is true, why do we not compile encyclopedias of facts by the premise that they cannot be proven false? All are strictly rhetorical - they don't, they don't, no and that would be insane.

That line makes me smile as it reminds me of a tale about a kingdom trying to make a map of the kingdom containing everything within the kingdom, and the map ends up being the size of the kingdom. Yes you could compile 'facts' (another term I have a problem with also as I don't think facts are really facts, but we can save that for another time), but it won't accomplish anything. The problem though is trying to assemble facts into a theory. It is kind of magical really, there is no logical progression from facts to a theory, only from a theory to a hypothesis. Facts also in of of themselves are not theories.

That said, I fail to see your point with this.


If you deny the responsibility of this, or to attempt to shift that burden, you should not take umbrage if people either ignore or refuse to grant respect or equal status alongside a falsifiable tested scientific Theory for your claim, as you have offered no supporting case for it. You should also be aware that proof burden shifting is a starkly obvious logical fallacy and a serious reasoning error so expect to be called on it each and every time.

Again I honestly think you should read what I wrote more closely. In all cases I said very clearly I was talking about scientific theory, and even demonstrated why religious theory is generally not scientific (many religious theories have no way of being disproven). Also my reasoning is very well grounded in the philosophy of science (which is all about how science really works), something, which sadly, so very many scientists are woefully ignorant about.

Again for clarity. The burden of proof does not exist as proof does not exist. This is not a logical fallacy it is well grounded in philosophy (which like mathematics, is pure logic). As a paraphrase of what my mentor likes to say (and he is a very well respected theoretician in AI and the human brain), I can boldly theorize about what ever I want, no matter how ridiculous it may sound, and offer no evidence for it, so long as these theories are refutable. The refutability is all that matters, and is what makes a theory scientific - nothing else does.

Since that is an accusation :O: of improper word use, I plead innocence. For my defense, please explain the contradiction between my description of atheism and your dictionary definition 2a, because I say my description is sound. Disbelief is simply a refusal to believe, and the reason for my disbelief in the existence of deities is because I have heard neither convincing evidence nor sound reasoning in support of their existence.

Atheism is belief based as you are dealing with something that is not knowable, and totally outside the realm of science. This has been the other prong of my argument, as I said both theism and anti-theism are belief (or faith based), both sides believe their position is correct, without any proof or disproof of any kind from either side.

The logical answer is "I don't know" as no one has any idea about this question, even though many like to think they do.

With agnosticism, your dictionary appears to be limited to definitions involving god.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism

So my statement that agnosticism is a position on knowledge stands. The defense rests.

Who will be the jury? I recommend Sailor Steve be the judge. :)

Check definition 2 of my quote.

Belief is neither equivalent to nor a function of faith. Belief with good reason and disbelief in the absence of good reason for belief are both entirely logical positions. Since atheism can be defined as the latter as I have demonstrated above, it may not always be entirely logical, but it certainly can be.

Using your dictionary, definition #2 is "belief that is not based on proof". Is that not what atheism is? The only aspects of Atheism which are logical, are the parts which attempt to logically refute claims made by organized religions. The base argument, however, that god(s) cannot exist is not logical as there is no logical point to argue from as it is totally unknowable.


Neon,

a theory somebody disagrees with must be proven wrong by this somebody only if it is a qualified theory by scientific standards indeed. If it is no theory but just hear-say or imagination or arbitrary claim put into the world by somebody, then the burden of evidence is not on the one saying that it is drivel, but the one claiming in the first that this drivel is true and a "theory".

Ultimately if you choose a side in such cases, it is because of belief. You still have no way of knowing if you are right. These things may go against your own experiences, or how you construct the image of your world. but it does not mean they are false.

You put something into the world nobody every has heard of or has seen and witnessed - you show your claim that it is out there is true. Not the other has to prove that you are telling nonsense. The burden of proof is on YOU. When I claim Obama is a Martian, I have to prove it - you must not disprove me. When I claim the Earth'S core is hollow, and in reality the grass is blue and the sky is green and there are intelligent invisible marshmallows flying over the summer meadow, then I have to prove my claims to be true - nobody has to take it upon him to disprove me. And when I say there is a big cosmic superman floating over the water, then I have to prove that claim to be true - I have no right to expect to be taken for real as long as nobody has disproven my claims.

Most of those claims you used as examples are by in large disprovable, or possible (the sky may be green to you) . There have also been piles of theories about things which at the time were not tangible or observable, but predicted their existence. A smart person will try to refute claims if it is possible, though. But like I said, this requires that the theory be testable, your invisible intelligent marshmallows theory is not at the moment testable.

While I agree though that some sort of evidence is nice, you cannot claim absolutely that something is wrong, without having some evidence to show it is wrong. But there is nothing to show that in fact there are invisible intelligent marshmallows floating around, and it is not impossible per say.

All these examples are no hypothesis I set up - they are claims. Speculations. Products of my fantastic, chaotic imagination, basing on nothing. Jules Verne based on more ground than I do here. So, the described brilliant outlets of my sparkling intellect are no hypothesis. And certainly no theories.

No offense meant, but sometimes I wish you would put a little more care into your writing, it gets very hard to decipher your meaning(s) at times.

Claiming God exists, is no theory. The burden of evidence is on those claiming he does exist.

See my above refutation of the concepts of proof.

At best you can make "God exists" a hypothesis to work with. And that is what Dawkins did. He then set a second, alternative hypothesis, "God exists" not, and compared the probabilities for both being true by using several different perspectives and approaches on things.

Which is right where I really roll my eyes at Dawkins. Forming probabilities from those arguments... really? How is he calculating these things? Furthermore isn't the basis of his argument that the universe itself is logical, with everything ordered and having logical purpose?

I would not even go so far to say "God exists" is a hypothesis. Even formulation a hypothesis - the pre-stage of a theory that so far has not even seen the very first stage of evaluation and testing - needs something causal justifying it. Often that is the observing of a natural phenomenon, or an event. You then, without having any further information, think and say "could it be that what I have seen is because of this and that causal link/factor?" And then you start to verify or falsify your first guess. Sometimes, this leads to evidence hardening the hypothesis, and you then formulate a theory. Sometimes you need to alter the hypothesis first. Sometimes you just have to kick it into the garbage bin. There is a condition for formulating hypothesis, obviously. They must be, like theories, of such a kind that you can work on them to prove or disprove them, even if the work is far-reaching and needs insights from mother branches and is a long-termed project. Physics and astronomy come to mind. A hypothesis or theory not allowing that, is speculation, is claim. And claiming you can just everything, infinitely, endlessly, since you must never justify it by reason, logic, causal work, or anything.

Except you can't form a hypothesis without a theory to base the hypothesis from.

Also like I said again, scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven. Plus many scientific theories (like physics and astronomy) rely on really wild speculation. Many of these theories have little in supporting evidence

As far as I am concerned, "God exists" is not even a hypothesis, and Dawkins used it as that probably only for pragmatic purposes on behalf of the design of his book's structure, he wanted to give it a reason-based approach, and for that some basis of a minimum standard was necessary. 'To me, the claim is less than a hypothesis - it is a speculation. Imaginative, wild, unfounded, and for its chance of actually being true completely depending on random chance. "It'S not a god, its flying pink elephants on Ganymed" already is better than that, because actually you can fly to Ganymed and check the place for pink flying elephants. Already a hypothesis in science must fulfill basic criterions to be seen as a hypothesis. Amongst that is that, like a theory, it can be tested. A hypothesis gets pragmatically formulated to have a theoretic construct one can work with and work on. That'S why in German the talk often is of "Arbeitshypothese" (working hypothesis). Its the more precise full name of "hypothesis".

Theory and hypothesis are often abused words and seem to have multiple meanings depending on the perspective you are coming from. As I said above I go by the meaning as used in theoretical/experimental science. A theory is an overarching concept that in of itself is not directly testable (it has no specific criteria of its own). A hypothesis is a portion of the theory made predictive (if the theory is not false then this should happen or be observable), and therefore testable and refutable. The hypothesis is directly tied to the theory, and invalidating the hypothesis will probably invalidate the theory (unless there are confounds or other flaws in the hypothesis or experiment).

As for Dawkins, he was trying to make something intangible, tangible so that he could try argue against it. But as I see It, he created a number of logical flaws of his own.

Dawkins said it himself, one of logic's dilemmas is that the nonexistence of something cannot be proven with logical means. Its like you also cannot do divisions by zero. That'S why he said you cannot say God does not exist, and so he says: God most likely does not exist. The probability is such that I think it just does not justify to take the possibility for real.

And where I take umbrage with that statement is how does he even begin to calculate the probability that god does not exist, particularly once we strip away all the human concepts (which I agree are deeply flawed and probably are not overly probable)?


You said neither Hitchins nor Dawkins understands basic scientific principles. I only wanted to show that one of the most respected scientists around disagrees with that assessment.

With some of the arguments I see from them, yes I do not consider them very knowledgeable about the roots of science. As I said above, there is a huge number of scientists out there, who have no idea how science works, or where all the numerous flaws are in it. I can't count the number of scientists I have met, who were convinced they had the truth, and that science was nigh infallible. They also failed to understand that "proving" things in science is both irrelevant and a false concept, and that the best thing you can do in science is to show theories false, as that is how progress is made.

Actually I was agreeing with you. I was also pointing out what I consider to be the greatest flaw in Creationist arguments. A concept (hypothosis) is proposed on the sole basis that someone said it is so. There is no evidence at all, yet they dare you to disprove it and attack a theory is is based on evidence. I decided to do the same.

Ah I was not quite sure where you were going with it. The problem with creationist theories, is that they frequently have elements that are refutable (and generally have been thoroughly refuted), and elements which are not refutable/scientific (intelligent design specifically). This camp also loves to engage in pseudoscience, by cherry picking, and trying to present supposition as fact.

The problem is that the theist wants to tell you about his God. When told he can't prove that his God even exists he brings up your "negative" argument. If the athiest proclaims that "There is no God", then indeed your argument is true. If he askes that the proclaiming theist give proof for his claim, then he is not making a counterclaim but merely challenging the original claim. This is very much more common than the other.

My negative argument as you put it only works with scientific endeavors, IE stuff that can be refuted. As for theist and atheist behavior, sure most will ask for proof, but from my experience, many will follow up with "god doesn't exist" because the theist couldn't offer proof. My response is that neither position is logical.

This is why I will never claim to be an Atheist. As long as I can't show for a fact that there is no God I will have to be lumped into the 'Agnostic' category.

I am an agnostic as I doubt virtually everything, so much so that I doubt even all of my experiences. The only thing I do not doubt, is that I have consciousness, I experience. Everything else is unsure. As my mentor loves to say "If I have a brain, then I can't have a brain, as the brain operates by interpretation". As such everything is an interpretation if true, including the interpretation of the brain, by the brain, therefore I can't have a brain. :D

[Armistead]

I am an agnostic as I doubt virtually everything, so much so that I doubt even all of my experiences. The only thing I do not doubt, is that I have consciousness, I experience. Everything else is unsure. As my mentor loves to say "If I have a brain, then I can't have a brain, as the brain operates by interpretation". As such everything is an interpretation if true, including the interpretation of the brain, by the brain, therefore I can't have a brain. :D


I guess maybe my wife was right about me not having a brain, but at least by your method it's not so insulting.

[Sailor Steve]

In all cases I said very clearly I was talking about scientific theory...The burden of proof does not exist as proof does not exist.
Sorry to cut so much out, but I wanted to address this specific point. First, let me thank you for reiterating that one point until I can finally begin to understand what you're talking about, if only a little. I think I'm also starting to see what the problem that I and some others are having. When we use terms like "burden of proof" we're thinking in legal terms, not scientific, and there is a huge difference between the two in the definitions of terms like "proof" and "evidence". I know I tend to think in terms of what would stand up in a court of law, not in how scientific theory is validate. I suspect that others do the same, whether they realize it or not. In that regard a claim certainly does have to be backed up if it is to be accepted. I mention this mainly in regard to the earlier discussion of different types of dictionaries.

I think I'm beginning to get a glimmer of where you are coming from on this. Just a glimmer, I suspect.

The logical answer is "I don't know" as no one has any idea about this question, even though many like to think they do.
I've been saying the same thing for a long time now. Perhaps not as well.

Using your dictionary, definition #2 is "belief that is not based on proof". Is that not what atheism is? The only aspects of Atheism which are logical, are the parts which attempt to logically refute claims made by organized religions. The base argument, however, that god(s) cannot exist is not logical as there is no logical point to argue from as it is totally unknowable.
I think this really hammers home the earlier question of definitions. There seems to be a vast difference between the scientific, the legal, and in this case the philosophical concept of "belief"; and yet they are all tied together at their core.

While I agree though that some sort of evidence is nice, you cannot claim absolutely that something is wrong, without having some evidence to show it is wrong.
Again I think we're seeing the difference between how science works and how law works. Most of us tend to think the way we are used to thinking, and don't realize how foreign some concepts actually are to us.

...per say.
Per se. And I can prove you're wrong here. :O:

See my above refutation of the concepts of proof.
Again I think that Sammi, like myself, tends to think in legal terms, not scientific. Of course I don't know if either of us truly understands the legal definitions either, but that's the way we've been taught to think.

Which is right where I really roll my eyes at Dawkins. Forming probabilities from those arguments... really? How is he calculating these things? Furthermore isn't the basis of his argument that the universe itself is logical, with everything ordered and having logical purpose?
Okay, I'm beginning to understand your distaste for the way he works. Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that I agree with him, or that the way he says it sounds good to me. I need to learn more about what you're talking about, but I think I'm starting to get it.

Theory and hypothesis are often abused words and seem to have multiple meanings depending on the perspective you are coming from. As I said above I go by the meaning as used in theoretical/experimental science.
This seems to be in line with my thoughts on scientific versus legalistic versus philosophical thinking. It's hard to understand one when your framework is alien to that concept.

As for Dawkins, he was trying to make something intangible, tangible so that he could try argue against it. But as I see It, he created a number of logical flaws of his own.

And where I take umbrage with that statement is how does he even begin to calculate the probability that god does not exist, particularly once we strip away all the human concepts (which I agree are deeply flawed and probably are not overly probable)?
And again you help me understand why you feel the way you do about him. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I am an agnostic as I doubt virtually everything, so much so that I doubt even all of my experiences. The only thing I do not doubt, is that I have consciousness, I experience. Everything else is unsure. As my mentor loves to say "If I have a brain, then I can't have a brain, as the brain operates by interpretation". As such everything is an interpretation if true, including the interpretation of the brain, by the brain, therefore I can't have a brain. :D
I see that at the core we are very alike in that. People get argumentative when I say I don't know anything, but I really do feel that way. As for questioning our own experience, I think one of the most overused quotes in existence is actually one of the best in this case. I mean, of course, Rene Descartes' summation of his own self-doubts, "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

[Skybird]

Neon,

I recommend you read his book again. And maybe this time more carefully.

[Sammi79]

@NeonSamurai,

:yep: Your post is informative, thank you. I think we have somewhat crossed wires however, as far as I can tell our views are not so different. Bear with me and I'll try to explain the problems I have with your definitions of proof, facts, theories, and atheism. I think you likewise have missed my points and I urge you to take apart and show me the fallacy in any statement I have made.

First of all, the dictionary definitions are not inclusive - the word can mean any or all of the definitions, or it can mean one exclusively. Therefore - I have no problem being called an atheist, as defined as one who refuses to believe in god(s). I do not claim to know they do or do not exist, and as such I am also agnostic. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, in my experience Muslims are more open to this idea than Christians - the knowledge that whatever you think you know [about god(s)] you might be wrong, though you may still believe that it is more likely that god(s) exist. I just happen to think it more likely that they don't.

Now if I break it down logically, to explain the burden of proof in more detail (it is neither scientific nor legal, it is a burden that you give yourself every time you make a claim of truth or statement of fact, it is part of the rules concerning logic, reason and rhetoric as defined in classical education.

Consider a debate between a (1)theist and an (2)atheist like myself.

(1) states that a god exists as either truth or fact, then to fulfill his burden of proof offers arguments a,b,c

(2) makes no counter claim, but points out the flaws in (1)s arguments a,b,c

What is the result of this debate?

(2) although having offered no counter claim, has shown all of (1)s arguments to be flawed. Crucially (2) has no reason to change position, nor offer any arguments against (1)s claim.

(1) has been shown to have no case (without the arguments the claim has no support), and must either offer more arguments, retract his claim, or change his position. (If he is playing fair of course)

I hope that is clearer now - If I disagree with your claim that does not mean I have made or must make a counter claim. If I can show good reason why the arguments your claim stands upon are fallacious, and you cannot offer any non fallacious arguments then I have no reason to take your claim seriously until you can, and neither does anyone else.

Ok, now onto the facts and Theories. A fact is true as far as we know. Facts are like tiny binary pieces, 0 or 1. On their own they do not mean a great deal. This is where the (Scientific) theories come in. A scientific theory explains a whole bundle of facts in a way that is falsifiable, in the same way the facts are falsifiable. A theory is much greater than the sum of its facts. Just to be clear - falsifiable is what you mean when you say what science does is disprove things. In order for facts or theories to be accepted as true or proven, they must logically be open to tests that could disprove them. This is exactly why the hypothesis of gods and afterlives are irrelevant, they are not open in this way, so without making any claims of my own, I will not accept them until they are, and neither should anyone else. At least if they care about the truth.

If I may add another point about the probabilities you mentioned. Simply because there is no proof either way does not mean the probability must remain 50/50, and I will give you an example: Imagine a jar full of marbles, and you do not know how many. Far from being unable to define how many in any way, there are a great many numerical values you can discount immediately. There are more than 2. There are less than 1000. Of these facts you can be absolutely certain, even if you never count the marbles one by one by removing them from the jar.

Finally the word atheist. As well as the dictionary definitions we should not ignore the root - 'without theism' As a negative it is slightly nonsensical in itself, as we do not need negatives for all the other things that cannot be disproven - like an Afairyist, an Aunicornist, etc. However if one is needed to distinguish between believers and un/non/disbelievers then I am fine with that label.

I will reiterate, disbelief is dissimilar to belief. disbelief is not belief in the negative - that would be the same as belief. As an agnostic you do not believe either way, does that mean you are certain of the negative in both or either?

regards,
Sam.

[vienna]

Per se. And I can prove you're wrong here. :O:


Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :)

<O>

[Sailor Steve]

I do not claim to know they do or do not exist, and as such I am also agnostic.
No, youi are just confused. An agnostic actually believes something. He believes the existence or non-existence of God or gods is not known and cannot be known. "Agnostic theist" is a word game. I am neither Theist nor Atheist, and am neither Gnostic or Agnostic. I don't claim to know one way or the other, nor do I claim that we can or cannot know. All I know for certain is that I myself don't know, and if someone wants me to believe they need to show me some evidence. I don't care what anyone else believes in that regard, and I don't deny that any of them may or may not have the truth. I also don't trust any of their claims, as I don't trust anyone who claims to have any definitive answers. The closest I can come to a description of my state is "Skeptic", but I don't really even like that, as most self-proclaimed skeptics are actually atheists.

I just happen to think it more likely that they don't.
On what basis do you think that? Is there any reason at all, or is it just your belief?

Now if I break it down logically, to explain the burden of proof in more detail (it is neither scientific nor legal, it is a burden that you give yourself every time you make a claim of truth or statement of fact, it is part of the rules concerning logic, reason and rhetoric as defined in classical education.
You seem to have missed Neon's point entirely, as well as mine, which is that every field of study has its own rules and its own terminology. The rules of logic, reason and rhetoric don't apply to science and they barely apply to law. Neon demonstrated that claims made in science don't work the same way as other fields. He actually brought science into a scientific debate, and showed why the claims in this case are not what you or I thought they were. You are now trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges.

Consider a debate...
Your hypothetical was based entirely on rules of logic. All Neon tried to do was show us that the rules of science are different, and you didn't hear a word he said. You've constructed a huge counterargument that works with law and works with logic as you know it, but as he has shown has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Ok, now onto the facts and Theories.
All that is good math, but has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is what this was about.

If I may add another point about the probabilities you mentioned.
Again, good math, and good statistics as far as I understand it, but an irrelevant hypothetical and nothing at all to do with the reason Neon objected to Dawkins' stated probabilities. Neon's point, as I think I begin to understand it, is that the probability of God existing or not existing is not 50/50, it is 0/0. Don't take that to mean I think there is no chance. What it means is that a probablility requires a basis to start from, and if there is no evidence one way or the other then there is no basis to begin a calculation. It's easy to say there is no likelihood of God existing, or that there is every likelihood, or anything in between, but in fact there is no likelihood of having a basis for the claim one way or the other. There is nothing, evidence-wise, so there is nothing to base any claim on.

Finally the word atheist. As well as the dictionary definitions we should not ignore the root - 'without theism'
Actually the Greek word 'atheos' means "without god", and it is used to describe someone who denies the existence of any deity.

As an agnostic you do not believe either way, does that mean you are certain of the negative in both or either?
It means what he reiterated several times: I Don't Know.

[Sailor Steve]

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :)
Of course, or I wouldn't have said it. On the other hand, since I'm so much smarter than you, you'll just have to take my word for it. :O:

[vienna]

On the other hand, since I'm so much smarter than you...


Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :D

<O>

[soopaman2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV8x5WWDcNg

I am making an effort to be nice, so whatever comedy you want, you are just gonna have to use your imagination, and envision the vile mockery I would impose on this.

I like cuss words alot, and mocking religious morons who ignore science and truth when it makes your book of fables look bad.

Religion is a great oppression tool.

Tool....


Yeah tools...

You can love your lord, without being societys tool.

Treat each other good, is the main tenant of any religion, yet the one most ignored by any firebrand.
(of any religion)
See why I call religeo-tards out?

Disclaimer: I like Jesus, Heck of a guy, but he would treat most of todays Christians as he did the money changers in the temple.

[Sammi79]

No, youi are just confused.

No, I am quite clear, I am an agnostic atheist. It is not that hard to grasp; agnostic describes my position on knowledge (that knowledge about absolute reality or knowledge of absolute truth are unachievable from an individual experience), and atheist describes my disbelief in the truth of claims regarding theistic god(s). I have explained the chosen definitions of my words and provided the dictionary sources - so if you dispute that then please show me my error.

It is the science regarding our physical nature that makes me firmly agnostic - the way our brain interprets the electrochemical signals from our senses. We are forever removed from absolute reality. The illusion that we experience is compelling and we must play along with it. To make any judgement about reality at all we need first make some assumptions. Science relies on its axioms, and god(s) cannot be (dis)proven. Nether the less, we must have some kind of value judgement when it comes to pursuing the truth, no matter if it can never quite be caught, and it is the theists who pose the question.

On what basis do you think that? Is there any reason at all, or is it just your belief?

Because I see no reason why there should be god(s) that fit human imaginations of untestable deities (supernatural beings with magical powers), along with all the paradoxes they bring. Were it true and I was to somehow to become aware of this unknowable truth, I would be somewhat disappointed that reality was so contrived. Moreover if no human imagined god(s) exist I see no reason why any others should either.

You seem to have missed Neon's point entirely, as well as mine, which is that every field of study has its own rules and its own terminology. The rules of logic, reason and rhetoric don't apply to science and they barely apply to law. Neon demonstrated that claims made in science don't work the same way as other fields. He actually brought science into a scientific debate, and showed why the claims in this case are not what you or I thought they were. You are now trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges.

I disagree. Logic and reason are fundamental to the scientific method, and claims are the same in science as in all fields; they are simply claims - that require proving before they are to be considered to have anything to do with truth. What Neon is talking about is falsifiability as I outlined before.

Your hypothetical was based entirely on rules of logic. All Neon tried to do was show us that the rules of science are different, and you didn't hear a word he said. You've constructed a huge counterargument that works with law and works with logic as you know it, but as he has shown has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Well I don't see it as a huge counter argument, just a small one to a statement he made about the burden of proof. The positive proposition is that of the theists, and the word atheist does not necessarily mean one who denies the proposition, but simply one who is unconvinced by the theists claim that sinks by the weight of its own burden of proof. I only disbelieve as a result of the fact that people affirm it to be true. If you relieve your idea from its burden of proof, you relieve me from the burden of giving it any appreciation at all.

All that is good math, but has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is what this was about.

Again, good math, and good statistics as far as I understand it, but an irrelevant hypothetical and nothing at all to do with the reason Neon objected to Dawkins' stated probabilities. Neon's point, as I think I begin to understand it, is that the probability of God existing or not existing is not 50/50, it is 0/0. Don't take that to mean I think there is no chance. What it means is that a probablility requires a basis to start from, and if there is no evidence one way or the other then there is no basis to begin a calculation. It's easy to say there is no likelihood of God existing, or that there is every likelihood, or anything in between, but in fact there is no likelihood of having a basis for the claim one way or the other. There is nothing, evidence-wise, so there is nothing to base any claim on.

0/0. Yeah I can see your point. But like I said, If no one had ever claimed it was true, I would never have been compelled to assign it any value either. In terms of (possibly wrongly) making a value judgement I would lump a lot more things than theistic belief in to it. Take anything supernatural, full stop. There is evidence for the natural in nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural in nature. There is no evidence for the natural outside nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural outside nature. I think in terms of behaving properly and responsibly as a human being, it is healthier to be truly skeptical on almost all metaphysical matters.

[nikimcbee]

OMG!OMG! OMG! I solved the problem for everybody!
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[/URL]
[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=5OsUkXghUQPYWM&tbnid=4TP5aka6CFxXvM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-prophetic.com%2Farticles%2Fhow-do-you-view-jesus%2F&ei=A9BsUY_XPIyk2gWGkYCQDA&psig=AFQjCNHP2C7YidtTUDKLbkrerJnFK6U_1A&ust=1366172036272404"]http://www.e-prophetic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Watchtower_Jesus.png (http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2010/11/christian.html)


Jesus, where did you get your hair done? That's a smashing haircut you have. Good to see you're finally taking care of yourself.

[Tribesman]

Jesus, where did you get your hair done?
The 1970s

[Mork_417]

http://www.e-prophetic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Watchtower_Jesus.png (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=5OsUkXghUQPYWM&tbnid=4TP5aka6CFxXvM:&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.e-prophetic.com%2Farticles%2Fhow-do-you-view-jesus%2F&ei=A9BsUY_XPIyk2gWGkYCQDA&psig=AFQjCNHP2C7YidtTUDKLbkrerJnFK6U_1A&ust=1366172036272404)


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSApqr681-wyuWep8dQSnxMk0vD4_ylin20h0_3evult-OvWbdn
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSl5G80cfVZZOLXp9BT9cC3mPu-i8V-x2mTXBjo73dIaYo5EVQxA


:hmmm:

[Armistead]

Life is so amazing, the chances that billions of processes working perfectly in some imperfect way is beyond our minds to grasp. Time and space are eternal, can't grasp it. My views have changed, if God exist, I don't know that any one religion has any grasp on it, but I'm in the "I don't know" camp. I can understand anyone having faith to believe in God.

[Catfish]

^ Billions of processes work out perfectly, in a way that we have what we have today ?
This is a completely wrong view. Those processes were not guided, nor were they intended to create the current situation or anything perfect. This all happened by chance - thinking "wow god put oxygen into the atmosphere so mankind has something to breathe" is a not a very clever way to think about it. Our predecessors adapted to breathing air, otherwise we would have died out. Oxygen was (and is) a poison lots of life died of, when it accumulated in the atmosphere during the Carbon age.
Would the dinosaurs have thought, they probably imagined they were the crown of evolution - which they certainly were, in their time. 160 million years ago.

Certainly the dinosaurs did not die out, they just changed and adapted and they are indeed all around us.

[Armistead]

^ Billions of processes work out perfectly, in a way that we have what we have today ?
This is a completely wrong view. Those processes were not guided, nor were they intended to create the current situation or anything perfect. This all happened by chance - thinking "wow god put oxygen into the atmosphere so mankind has something to breathe" is a not a very clever way to think about it. Our predecessors adapted to breathing air, otherwise we would have died out. Oxygen was (and is) a poison lots of life died of, when it accumulated in the atmosphere during the Carbon age.
Would the dinosaurs have thought, they probably imagined they were the crown of evolution - which they certainly were, in their time. 160 million years ago.

Certainly the dinosaurs did not die out, they just changed and adapted and they are indeed all around us.

If may have happened by chance, maybe not. Certainly I agree that it was chaotic, but the fact remains the many energy sources that work together to give life are rather amazing that I have no problem with people believing in a creator.

[Skybird]

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about the universe:

You all are stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded, because the elements (the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, all the things that matter for evolution) weren't created at the beginning of time - they were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so that you can live.

Lawrence Krauss, physicist



If evolution means developing things from simpler to more complex states of order and structure, then the absolutest form of complexity - the god that is claimed to have created it all - cannot have existed at the very beginning, but must be the final construction result at the very end of all evolutionary process. God did not create the universe - the universe creates God, so to speak.

free summary of a reasoning by Dawkins



All things, forms of existence, states of the universe, life forms, are absolutely perfect in every single present moment in the meaning of that they adapted to the conditions and variables of existence as best as was possible for them in the time so far having been available to the universe.

Not sure, I think again Dawkins, or an amalgamate by me from different sources that I threw together.

[Sailor Steve]

Those processes were not guided, nor were they intended to create the current situation or anything perfect.
How do you know that? Answer: You don't. You only believe it.

This all happened by chance - thinking "wow god put oxygen into the atmosphere so mankind has something to breathe" is a not a very clever way to think about it.
Assuming you know the answer is not a very clever way to think about it either. You seem to be one of the people who were talked about before; you have so much faith in what you believe that you can preach it as absolute truth. It's not. It's where the evidence seems to lead, but you don't know it any more than the absolute believer "knows" there's a God.

[Sailor Steve]

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :D

<O>
Are you calling me a liar? :stare:

[u crank]

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about the universe:

You all are stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded, because the elements (the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, all the things that matter for evolution) weren't created at the beginning of time - they were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so that you can live.

Lawrence Krauss, physicist

More religion, different coat.



If evolution means developing things from simpler to more complex states of order and structure, then the absolutest form of complexity - the god that is claimed to have created it all - cannot have existed at the very beginning, but must be the final construction result at the very end of all evolutionary process. God did not create the universe - the universe creates God, so to speak.

free summary of a reasoning by Dawkins


Either you or Dawkins or both are making the same error in criticism. Dawkins asks the question in effect "if God created everything, then who created God?" He clearly doesn't understand that the traditional view is that God need not be created, since God is a per se necessary being, that is, a being whose essence includes existence. Not one single person I know who believes in God believes that He was created. It is a gaping hole in his discussions of philosophical theology. It doesn't matter whether God exists or not. If you are going to criticize an error at least get the error correct before doing so. It shows a lack of understanding in traditional theology that makes the argument somewhat less effective.

[Sailor Steve]

No, I am quite clear, I am an agnostic atheist. It is not that hard to grasp; agnostic describes my position on knowledge (that knowledge about absolute reality or knowledge of absolute truth are unachievable from an individual experience), and atheist describes my disbelief in the truth of claims regarding theistic god(s). I have explained the chosen definitions of my words and provided the dictionary sources - so if you dispute that then please show me my error.
I thought I did. Webster's definition of 'Atheist' is "one who believes there is no deity". Fine so far. 'Agnostic' is defined as "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". One believes there is no God; the other believes you can't know whether there's a God or not. By the definition you claim to use, you can't be both.

Because I see no reason why there should be god(s) that fit human imaginations of untestable deities (supernatural beings with magical powers), along with all the paradoxes they bring. Were it true and I was to somehow to become aware of this unknowable truth, I would be somewhat disappointed that reality was so contrived. Moreover if no human imagined god(s) exist I see no reason why any others should either.
So it is just your belief, and not based on any real probalility one way or the other.

I disagree. Logic and reason are fundamental to the scientific method, and claims are the same in science as in all fields; they are simply claims - that require proving before they are to be considered to have anything to do with truth. What Neon is talking about is falsifiability as I outlined before.
Neon went to great lengths to explain how the scientific method actually works, and you want to contradict that while ignoring everything else. Fine. You get to think what you want. You don't have to learn anything new.

Well I don't see it as a huge counter argument, just a small one to a statement he made about the burden of proof. The positive proposition is that of the theists, and the word atheist does not necessarily mean one who denies the proposition, but simply one who is unconvinced by the theists claim that sinks by the weight of its own burden of proof. I only disbelieve as a result of the fact that people affirm it to be true. If you relieve your idea from its burden of proof, you relieve me from the burden of giving it any appreciation at all.
Again you're talking about conventional logic. Neon was speaking only of the scientific method, but you don't seem willing to accept that.

0/0. Yeah I can see your point. But like I said, If no one had ever claimed it was true, I would never have been compelled to assign it any value either. In terms of (possibly wrongly) making a value judgement I would lump a lot more things than theistic belief in to it. Take anything supernatural, full stop. There is evidence for the natural in nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural in nature. There is no evidence for the natural outside nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural outside nature. I think in terms of behaving properly and responsibly as a human being, it is healthier to be truly skeptical on almost all metaphysical matters.
That's great, but has nothing at all to do with what Neon was talking about. It is relevant to this discussion, and I have nothing to add or subtract since I feel pretty much the same way. Cool. :sunny:

[Catfish]

How do you know that? Answer: You don't. You only believe it

I have a problem with people who claim that science would be a religion, or "just another belief". It is not.

Science has a certain view of aspects of the world, until another or better theory comes along. It is open to arguments, as long as those can be backed up by evidence. It can also change completely, if you think of relativistic effects or chaos theories.
No religion i know of is that open, or able to change or adapt.

If may have happened by chance, maybe not. Certainly I agree that it was chaotic, but the fact remains the many energy sources that work together to give life are rather amazing that I have no problem with people believing in a creator.

You may be right, who am i to doubt that without evidence :salute:

But it may well be that the successors of the theropods (=some "dinosaur" species back then) survive us and deveklop intelligence as we know it, do you think those will have a religion where some god created just of all humans after his own image ? Or will he look like they do then ?

I admit i have less difficulties of a god or creator that does not resemble the one described by the bible (or Quran or whatever human religion), however if there is a god who created the whole universe with its billions of galaxies and even more stars and planets, do you think he would care so much for humans, especially in the state mankind is in now ?
Would 'he' really look like man, or dinosaur ?

I have nothing against believers of religions as long as they take tolerance and the freedom of dissenters earnest, but creationsists do not seem to belong to this fraction.

Back to the original poster - do you take the theory of this creationist mentioned by the OP serious ?

[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish,

The idea that God made man in His "image" is not talking about physical form. Its dealing with the spirit - God created the spirit in humanity on the same "plane" or level as He is.

SailorSteve - by the definition of "agnostic" - wouldn't honest believers also have to be agnostic? While a believer accepts by faith the existence of a Supreme Being, the reality is that we cannot "Know" the Mind of God. Because God cannot be "proven" empirically, belief or faith that results in a "knowing" is only a surety of said belief or faith. Thus, one could say that I "know" God exists, but I am agnostic (since I cannot know as a human) as to WHAT God is - since all I "know" is what is provided historically. Since the human mind could not comprehend "God", then "I don't know" must be part of the equation. So are all honest believers still somewhat agnostic?

[Sammi79]

By the definition you claim to use, you can't be both.

That is the definition you are insisting I use, not the one I claim and choose about atheism which is, one more time for clarity; One whom disbelieves in the existence of theistic god(s)

The clue is the word disbelieve, in this sense defined as 'A refusal to believe' - this does not mean belief professed or not in the non-existence of god(s) - again it is like the proof burden shifting, just because I refuse to believe does not mean I automatically believe nor am I required to believe in the negative. In fact Neon described the problem quite well with his use of 'anti-theism.' Your definition of atheism would be more appropriately labelled in this way. One who outwardly opposes the presumed truth of god(s)

Agnosticism is as I have said not about belief, it is about knowledge, and not exclusively about gods or primal truths but absolute knowledge in any way - like one of Neons absolute facts that would never change - these are unattainable or at least indistinguishable to us due to the limits of our perception, and the assumptions that must be made before any knowledge or value judgement of it has a basis as you put it. As such it is not mutually exclusive with either theism or atheism. It is a position of honesty about the ultimate limits of human knowledge.

Neon went to great lengths to explain how the scientific method actually works, and you want to contradict that while ignoring everything else. Fine. You get to think what you want. You don't have to learn anything new.

No, I simply disagree. The scientific method could not exist without logic and reason. At this point I am not sure whether Neon has the best grasp of the scientific method, or that you are misunderstanding what he said.

Again you're talking about conventional logic. Neon was speaking only of the scientific method, but you don't seem willing to accept that.

OK, what is unconventional logic?

That's great, but has nothing at all to do with what Neon was talking about. It is relevant to this discussion, and I have nothing to add or subtract since I feel pretty much the same way. Cool. :sunny:

Hmmm, yes but again this is a value judgement Steve, as 3-1 against metaphysics being true in any way, It is the same as me saying I think it less than likely that god(s) exist, as god(s) are by definition included in metaphysics. Still... it is an opinion not a belief.

Like I stated I believe all 3 of our views are not as far removed from each other as they at first might seem.

[Skybird]

More religion, different coat.
Not religion, but by current cosmological paradigm: fact.


Either you or Dawkins or both are making the same error in criticism. Dawkins asks the question in effect "if God created everything, then who created God?" He clearly doesn't understand that the traditional view is that God need not be created, since God is a per se necessary being, that is, a being whose essence includes existence. Not one single person I know who believes in God believes that He was created. It is a gaping hole in his discussions of philosophical theology. It doesn't matter whether God exists or not. If you are going to criticize an error at least get the error correct before doing so. It shows a lack of understanding in traditional theology that makes the argument somewhat less effective.
He does not ask that question, at least not in this context of the snippet of text you refer to. What he does is he points out two totally different timelines. He also does not refer to theology there, he simply does not care for it here. He comes to a conclusion on basis of the timeline from evolution: from simple to complex order. If that holds truth, it makes no sense that this process should have started with the utmost and absolute complex thing there is in this idea: a creator who then starts the process of creation from simple to complex.

And theology, that you referred to, it means nothing here, or else. It is not grounded on any facts or reproducible results. It is a set of unchecked fictional claims. It's no science and no experience. To claim that something is like it claims just because it claims so, is - rich in fantasy, to put it mildly.

[Sailor Steve]

That is the definition you are insisting I use, not the one I claim and choose about atheism which is, one more time for clarity; One whom disbelieves in the existence of theistic god(s)
Which dictionary is that version from?

No, I simply disagree. The scientific method could not exist without logic and reason. At this point I am not sure whether Neon has the best grasp of the scientific method, or that you are misunderstanding what he said.
That's a polite way of saying you are indeed sure that he does not have a good grasp of what he's saying, nor I of understanding. If you feel that way about him, there's nothing more to say. You are convinced you know better, and that's the end of it.

OK, what is unconventional logic?
What you responded to with that question: The scientific method, as espoused by Neon. I would have thought that was obvious.

Hmmm, yes but again this is a value judgement Steve, as 3-1 against metaphysics being true in any way, It is the same as me saying I think it less than likely that god(s) exist, as god(s) are by definition included in metaphysics. Still... it is an opinion not a belief.
You're the one who said it was a probablility. It's not. Now you say it's an opinion, but what is it based on? Nothing but belief.

Like I stated I believe all 3 of our views are not as far removed from each other as they at first might seem.
That may be true, but Neon started by explaining why he doesn't like Richard Dawkins, and all you've done is argue.

[Sammi79]

Which dictionary is that version from?

Actually it was from Neons original quote from the Webster Online, definition 2a. To elaborate a little further, from wikipedia;

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

That's a polite way of saying you are indeed sure that he does not have a good grasp of what he's saying, nor I of understanding. If you feel that way about him, there's nothing more to say. You are convinced you know better, and that's the end of it.

Actually, no that is not the end of it, unless Neon declines to reply. I am not convinced I know better, rather I have a sneaking suspicion I have totally misunderstood what he has said, but on this particular point I can not simply take yours or his word for it. Show me where what I have stated contradicts the scientific method. If Neon is talking about falsifiability then we are simply using different terminology for the same thing, and I agree with most of what he has said.

What you responded to with that question: The scientific method, as espoused by Neon. I would have thought that was obvious.

OK let me put it another way, what is the difference between conventional logic and logic as employed by the scientific method?

Besides, as you have both pointed out, when we are dealing with claims regarding metaphysics, then why even bring up the scientific method, as it is irrelevant, in point of case it has absolutely nothing to say. Logic and reason however are critical.

You're the one who said it was a probablility. It's not. Now you say it's an opinion, but what is it based on? Nothing but belief.

Stop misrepresenting what I have said :O: - a belief implies a certainty I have never expressed. I said it was a value judgement, or an assumption of likelihood about a non certain non zero conclusion, that does not appear to be in contradiction with the world around me.

Here I have a direct question for you, What would be the difference in behaviour/outlook be between someone who was unconvinced by metaphysical ideas and someone who believes that metaphysical ideas are unknowable?

That may be true, but Neon started by explaining why he doesn't like Richard Dawkins, and all you've done is argue.

Quite. If you will start off by shifting the burden of proof then I am going to argue. I liked his books 'The Ancestors Tale' and lately 'The Magic of Reality' but I am not so keen on him as a presenter or speaker. His science is more impressive than his religion bashing, however he did expose some worrying truths about the quality, particularly of biology and science education within the UKs 1/3rd faith based schools. Not that it changed anything mind you.

If a deity had any intelligent effect that differed from natural processes on natural reality there would be physical evidence of it. There is no evidence of supernatural effects on natural reality. No evidence that the laws of physics have been bent or broken, at least on a local scale. Therefore, if there is a deity, it has no effect on natural reality at this scale. This leads me to assign a closer to zero likelihood of all deities that are believed to have any effect on natural reality, and since this includes all deities ever worshiped by humans that have been claimed as real, especially the big three, I have no problem placing a value of unlikely next to the question of their existence.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we may yet find or interpret some more or less convincing evidence but since I am not concerned with proving but rather highlighting why I think one reality is more likely; until someone does, I have no reason to think otherwise.

If you were to suggest a deity that effected natural reality on the scale of the superstructure of the observable universe or bigger who was not either aware nor concerned about humans on little earth, striving for its own ends, then I have much less reason to assign a value either way, likewise a deity that simply set the universe in motion without any forethought, is similarly reasonable as far as I know, but no-one worships gods like these, so such hypotheses do not pose a real question.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually it was from Neons original quote from the Webster Online, definition 2a.
Link, please. I've looked at Webster's online, Miriam-Webster online and several others, and they all say the same thing: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or of a supreme intellegent being.

To elaborate a little further, from wikipedia;
An encyclopedia's job is to examine all parameters of a question. You cited a specific definition. I consider this to be changing the subject.

Actually, no that is not the end of it, unless Neon declines to reply. I am not convinced I know better, rather I have a sneaking suspicion I have totally misunderstood what he has said, but on this particular point I can not simply take yours or his word for it.
That is more than fair. I read his words and see two totally different subjects, even different concepts. Explaining it isn't quite as easy for me, because I as I said to him I think I'm only getting a glimmer of understanding myself. I'm no scientist.

Show me where what I have stated contradicts the scientific method. If Neon is talking about falsifiability then we are simply using different terminology for the same thing, and I agree with most of what he has said.
I can't, since I'm not an expert in the scientific method. I'm only taking his explanations as I understand them, which is likely not fully or well. It just looked to me like every time he explained it you wanted to argue some more. That's fine, but it looked to me like you were arguing about two different things.

OK let me put it another way, what is the difference between conventional logic and logic as employed by the scientific method?
Conventional logic is based on a single premise: If this, then that. There is nothing more. Whole books on the subject are devoted to nothing more than showing and explaining all the possible fallacies. Philosophers over several millenia have debated and discussed how logic should work.

The Scientific Method, as Neon explained it, requires that the premise be disprovable. If it can't be disproved then it is accepted. That is a methodology, and has nothing to do with logic, either conventional or mathematical.

Besides, as you have both pointed out, when we are dealing with claims regarding metaphysics, then why even bring up the scientific method, as it is irrelevant, in point of case it has absolutely nothing to say. Logic and reason however are critical.
Because the topic of the thread was on proving or disproving Evolution and Biblical Creation as scientific hypotheses, not on proving or disproving the existence of God. Neon said right off the bat that neither Theism nor Atheism can be disproved, hence science is not involved.


Stop misrepresenting what I have said :O: - a belief implies a certainty I have never expressed. I said it was a value judgement, or an assumption of likelihood about a non certain non zero conclusion, that does not appear to be in contradiction with the world around me.
Again I have to ask: Based on what? How can there be an assumption of likelihood where there is no evidence at all?

Here I have a direct question for you, What would be the difference in behaviour/outlook be between someone who was unconvinced by metaphysical ideas and someone who believes that metaphysical ideas are unknowable?
In behaviour? None that I can think of. The only difference would be in what they claimed to believe. To me this is like asking what would be the difference in the behaviour between a sixteenth-century English Catholic or Anglican, something I do know somethng about. The difference would be who they claimed was the earthly head of the church. The Anglican might or might not say mass in English rather than Latin, depending on the period. Other than that, their behaviour would be identical.

I consider myself neither Atheist nor Agnostic, yet my behavior is probably indistinguishable from either of theirs in everyday life. In fact, my behaviour is probably indistinguishable from most people who call themselves Christians when it comes to actions in the workplace or the shopping mall.

Quite. If you will start off by shifting the burden of proof then I am going to argue.
Fair enough. I can't argue with that.

If a deity had any intelligent effect that differed from natural processes on natural reality there would be physical evidence of it. There is no evidence of supernatural effects on natural reality. No evidence that the laws of physics have been bent or broken, at least on a local scale. Therefore, if there is a deity, it has no effect on natural reality at this scale. This leads me to assign a closer to zero likelihood of all deities that are believed to have any effect on natural reality, and since this includes all deities ever worshiped by humans that have been claimed as real, especially the big three, I have no problem placing a value of unlikely next to the question of their existence.
That is a fair assessment and explanation, and one I can understand. I'm leaving my earlier challenge in that regard in place, but this does explain your position a lot better. It follows reason and doesn't break any of the rules of logic, at least as far as I can see.

Of course Theistic belief is based largely on the word of someone who lived long ago, and those someones make the claim that in their time these supernatural interventions did indeed take place. I can't disprove them, but I too don't see that as a reason to believe them. I've never seen one myself, and haven't heard of one that couldn't be shown to have happened by natural means.

I've always like the words of Thomas Paine: "If God talks to me, it's a revelation. If I tell you about it, it's hearsay."

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we may yet find or interpret some more or less convincing evidence but since I am not concerned with proving but rather highlighting why I think one reality is more likely; until someone does, I have no reason to think otherwise.

If you were to suggest a deity that effected natural reality on the scale of the superstructure of the observable universe or bigger who was not either aware nor concerned about humans on little earth, striving for its own ends, then I have much less reason to assign a value either way, likewise a deity that simply set the universe in motion without any forethought, is similarly reasonable as far as I know, but no-one worships gods like these, so such hypotheses do not pose a real question.
Good points. I'll finish with what I stated many posts ago, that our concepts and philosophies seem very close to each other. My only argument was over my understanding of Scientific Method vs Conventional Logic. Feel free to reply again, but I'm not sure I have anything more that would add to the understanding.

[Armistead]

I have a problem with people who claim that science would be a religion, or "just another belief". It is not.

Science has a certain view of aspects of the world, until another or better theory comes along. It is open to arguments, as long as those can be backed up by evidence. It can also change completely, if you think of relativistic effects or chaos theories.
No religion i know of is that open, or able to change or adapt.



You may be right, who am i to doubt that without evidence :salute:

But it may well be that the successors of the theropods (=some "dinosaur" species back then) survive us and deveklop intelligence as we know it, do you think those will have a religion where some god created just of all humans after his own image ? Or will he look like they do then ?

I admit i have less difficulties of a god or creator that does not resemble the one described by the bible (or Quran or whatever human religion), however if there is a god who created the whole universe with its billions of galaxies and even more stars and planets, do you think he would care so much for humans, especially in the state mankind is in now ?
Would 'he' really look like man, or dinosaur ?

I have nothing against believers of religions as long as they take tolerance and the freedom of dissenters earnest, but creationsists do not seem to belong to this fraction.

Back to the original poster - do you take the theory of this creationist mentioned by the OP serious ?

I certainly don't take the OP serious. I understand the fundy movement, I was a part of it for years in my teens and 20's. I took the bible literal and simply believed. Sure, questions arosed, but the church basically taught don't question God, backed by tools of fear and guilt.

I guess things fell apart for me in bible college. I learned the bible wasn't literal, for the most part just gave up on religion. Later, I wanted to figure God out, so I spent years of hard study. It wasn't so much lack of belief, but more...who was God. The bible mostly fell apart and for numerous other reasons I became skeptic, certainly became hateful of fundy religions.

I can't wrap my brain around science, for me it ends with cause and effect. Science tends to agree a first cause must exist, you know, the old question "what came first the chicken or the egg" Still, science demands a first cause "origin of life", but it's really an impossible concept...unless God exist or science figures it out down the road.

My isssue is, if you really study the issue, I can't figure God out. I would think if he did exist, we could have a reasonable agreed point of belief, not 100's of religions killing each other, each right and of course the mass of humanity ends up tortured by God. That all smells human to me....

I searched with an open heart, I couldn't figure it out. I simply don't know.
I would like to believe God exist, but I see nothing from religion to prove it.

[soopaman2]

You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

Yeah the meatspin song...Same thing kinda. Just a huge trolling.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f259/Soopaman2/400px-Bible_cycle_zps8e379512.jpg

[Sammi79]

Link, please. I've looked at Webster's online, Miriam-Webster online and several others, and they all say the same thing: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or of a supreme intellegent being.


An encyclopedia's job is to examine all parameters of a question. You cited a specific definition. I consider this to be changing the subject.

Right, I am slightly baffled by the resistance to this generally accepted definition. So first of all, from Neons original post:

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.


Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Is that clearer now?
How about:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism


a·the·ism (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifthhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm)n.

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
or:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism


a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm]
noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I think the point that is not being addressed is that disbelief does not necessarily mean denial, nor belief in non-existence, as evidenced by the dictionaries separation of these concepts. I honestly don't know how to explain it better than that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief


dis·be·lie [dis-bi-leef]


noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief. Anyway, I can say nothing more of value here I think.


I've always like the words of Thomas Paine: "If God talks to me, it's a revelation. If I tell you about it, it's hearsay."


Good points. I'll finish with what I stated many posts ago, that our concepts and philosophies seem very close to each other. My only argument was over my understanding of Scientific Method vs Conventional Logic. Feel free to reply again, but I'm not sure I have anything more that would add to the understanding.

:salute:

[razark]

Link, please. I've looked at Webster's online, Miriam-Webster online and several others, and they all say the same thing: Someone who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or of a supreme intellegent being.
Note the bolded section.

"I believe there is no god."
vs.
"I do not believe there is a god."

The first is denying. The second is disbelief. Disbelief says "I have not been convinced that the claim 'A god exists.' is true." It does not say that the possibility of a god existing has been ruled out. This is my personal state. I, as an atheist, have not been convinced that any of the claims that a god or gods exist are true, but I am not saying that a god or gods do not exist.

[Betonov]

razark here sums up my point of wiew quite nicely :up:

[HundertzehnGustav]

so "i believe there is no god" is still the act of believing, actively.
and since atheists aint beliebers at all, the expression "i beleiebe in God" can not come from an atheist.

Oh come on, guys! you wasting ym time with this hairsplitting.
aint nobody got time for dat! :O:

[soopaman2]

so "i believe there is no god" is still the act of believing, actively.
and since atheists aint beliebers at all, the expression "i beleiebe in God" can not come from an atheist.

Oh come on, guys! you wasting ym time with this hairsplitting.
aint nobody got time for dat! :O:


I stated in the past I believe in god.

It is the human interpretation of gods will and intentions that disturbs me, and turns me off in general to religion.

[nikimcbee]

It is the human interpretation of gods will and intentions that disturbs me, and turns me off in general to religion.

Blasphemy! burn him at the stake!

[HundertzehnGustav]

so...
God has intentions, Huh.
and we Humans interpret them and act accordingly, huh.

ah yea.
ummmm...
Like... yea.
:haha:

Thanks man, that saved my day!:rock::har:

[Skybird]

The study of Gestalt psychology as well as perception psychology, as well as findings from neurological research, show us to what degree we construct contexts and structures that are not there, fall for the results of our own imagination that we mistake for reality, and organize elements of thinking and perceptions always in structures that seem to sort them in a higher order of complexity. We would be overburdened with the input from out senses if we wouldn't not function like this. That would be like paying a total bill of ten thousand dollars in cent coins only - starting new every single moment.

It's a necessary self-deception, but still a self-deception.

[HundertzehnGustav]

like, "we can not handle reality with the tools available" and therefor have to make things up
sounds complex to me...

[Skybird]

More like "a part of it all" cannot handle all of it. Probably everthing existing and having any kind of an awareness (or pendant of that that man cannot imagine) and having any form of ability to decide, always only touches upon a small part of "reality".

You cannot deal with all transactions going on every single second on the stockmarket, its too man y and too fast. You form models to create a scheme by which you act. If the schemes serves your purpose of dealing with it - fine. Problem comes when your artificially created scheme is mistaken for the absolute reality, or you stick to a scheme that functions not good enough. All theory on stockmarket functioning, and why, is pure fiction. - Yesterday I read about a scientific experiment where they used complex computer simulations of chimps' brains to decide on transcactions, sales and buys on a record of historic stockmarket, and then compared that to the real way the indices developed as a result from those digital chimp'S decisions (random-based, since they were niot knowing what they are doing), and model-based (historic records, basing in stockmakert decisions by humans that acted according to their economic theories.

They had a database finally of I think 10 million runs per stockmarket history, mostly from wallstreet, I think. Imagine 1 run representing how a real stockmarket record of indices developed over a historic period of time that is documented, and 9 million 999 thousand 999 runs of digital chimps replacing the historic decisions with their own.

What was the outcome? It is no compliment for homo sapiens' claim to be oh so intelligent and clever. In all 10 million runs, the random-based decisons led to these fictional stockmarket indices int he end beating the historic ones. Not one exception.

In other words: human theories and models on these issues are a total and complete failure, and event decisions based on pure random chance lead to better results, than human decision making. If all players on the stockmarkets today would no longer decide by their reason and their models and theories and present situational needs, but would throw a coin for every decision that must be made on sales, chances would be 10's of million to 1 that the stockmarket in general would become more valuable and indices would be higher in the end than with all that clever smarta$$ing done by our socalled "financial experts".

Reality is bigger than our model of it. That'S what it all is about, religious model construction as well as economic theory-building. And because it is bigger than what we can understand, we must cut it to scales and sizes that we actually can deal with it, somehow, even if we are dealing with it on grounds of false presumptions. Because deciding we must - always. The illusion is not hurting my self-esteem as long as I do not get it that I fall for an illusion.

[August]

so...
God has intentions, Huh.
and we Humans interpret them and act accordingly, huh.

ah yea.
ummmm...
Like... yea.
:haha:

Thanks man, that saved my day!:rock::har:

Is there any purpose to this post besides mocking people?

[Armistead]

so...
God has intentions, Huh.
and we Humans interpret them and act accordingly, huh.

ah yea.
ummmm...
Like... yea.
:haha:

Thanks man, that saved my day!:rock::har:


"If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"
Voltaire

As far back as we can trace humanity, we find spiritual beliefs. Be interesting to know when man or what came up with the idea of a God.
Honestly, I find that complex thinking, more than coming up with an idea to explain what you don't know. Throughout the history of man, it has been proven religious tribes were more advanced than non religious.
No doubt advanced minds learned that people could be controlled by religion.


"A man is accepted into church for what he believes
--and turned out for what he knows." --Mark Twain

[vienna]

"A man is accepted into church for what he believes
--and turned out for what he knows." --Mark Twain

Can I get an "Amen" to this? Amen!...

<O>

[TarJak]

"If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"
Voltaire

As far back as we can trace humanity, we find spiritual beliefs. Be interesting to know when man or what came up with the idea of a God.
Honestly, I find that complex thinking, more than coming up with an idea to explain what you don't know. Throughout the history of man, it has been proven religious tribes were more advanced than non religious.
No doubt advanced minds learned that people could be controlled by religion.

as almost all human cultures have a rich history of storytelling I say that the creation myths developed soon after the development of language. Good question as to when that started.

I'm interested in what you mean by "advanced". Take the Australian Aboriginal culture. Quite religious with its own rituals and deities but until the arrival of Euorpeans, they lived largely the same way they had for 40,000 odd years as hunter gatherer's using Stone Age tools.

[Skybird]

Long time ago somebody looked up into the nightly sky and for the first time ever realized that the couldn't grab the stars, but they were there, and that moon and sun were moving over the sky, but he couldn't grab them and keep up with them. That rose questions.

It is widely agreed on that astronomy was the first science that formed up, with metaphysical interpretations of its observations following closely, and thus in many cults you see a close tie between a regional civilization's religious cults, and the observation of the stars and the sun. Later, the meaning of time of year - according to astronomic indices - and farming was discovered, by repeated observation and seeing the repetition of patterns in constellations.

All that could have led to a pantheistic view, where all nature was seen as a divine revelation. It could also lead to a polytheistic model, where objects of individual observations where linked to fantastic heroes and heroines - the god of the corn, the god of wind, the god of the sea. From there it went on with gods and goddesses representing things that were not observed in a scientific, factual manner, but meant qualities that while abstract nevertheless were seen as important: love, skills in craftsmanship, trading, poetry, and so on.

The nice thing was, that these deities all had one thing in common: they were pragmatic business man. If you payed them with sacrifices and prayers, they would deliver you the incident or event that you begged from them. You could also have a deal for a protection insurance, and another deal for temporarily cancel nature's laws of the cosmos on behalf of your interests, or gaining the option to have the future tailored according to your desire. Anything goes when the price is right!

What all this means, is that it represents man'S attempt to add an order to what he perceives, and to erect the illusion of control over a world that by its ways and goings could crush man any moment and makes him aware of how vulnerable and impotent he really is. And that understanding is a tough burden to bear - too tough for many. It is an artificial order that man sorts his perceptions and hopes in, and it did and does change over time. Like in science, where theory serve the same purpose, just on a more abstract, less selfish level: theories are man'S attempt to sort observations in that kind of order that lets them all rest in the same presentation box with the smallest amount of conflicts between them.

[WernherVonTrapp]

"If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent Him"
Voltaire

As far back as we can trace humanity, we find spiritual beliefs. Be interesting to know when man or what came up with the idea of a God.
Honestly, I find that complex thinking, more than coming up with an idea to explain what you don't know. Throughout the history of man, it has been proven religious tribes were more advanced than non religious.
No doubt advanced minds learned that people could be controlled by religion.


"A man is accepted into church for what he believes
--and turned out for what he knows." --Mark Twain
I found this to be a very interesting debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo

The problem I have come to realize, in my opinion, with evolution, is that not only is there the question of the missing link, but thousands of missing links. They cannot seem to find anything except fossils that they claim are precursors to various unique species. Another problem I have is in the field of genetics, as it relates to evolution. Evolution, at the present time, would have us believe that genetic code (i.e., genetic information) is a complete accident:
"Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendents, including us."
-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_02.html

If we are to extrapolate genetic code according to similar inferences drawn through the same observational methods used to actualize Evolution, one has to ask: Where does "information" come from?
Genetic code is information. It tells a cell how big to grow until it reaches the proper size proportionate with it species, function, etc.. It tells an organism whether to grow a heart, how many hearts, how big the heart should be, etc., etc., etc.. Does information (i.e., genetic code) evolve out of nothing? If we extrapolate from observable references (e.g., ever smaller computer chips that hold ever increasing amounts of information), is it not feasible to note that information only comes from intelligence, or intelligent sources?

[Sailor Steve]

The problem I have come to realize, in my opinion, with evolution, is that not only is there the question of the missing link, but thousands of missing links. They cannot seem to find anything except fossils that they claim are precursors to various unique species.
While that may be true, it doesn't negate the age of the fossils, which is a key argument for the other side. The question is still very much open and as with any scientific endeavour more information is always needed. It also doesn't answer proponents of the "other" argument still have no evidence at all to support their claims.

Another problem I have is in the field of genetics, as it relates to evolution. Evolution, at the present time, would have us believe that genetic code (i.e., genetic information) is a complete accident:
First of all, Evolution is a field of science, and as such cannot "have us believe" anything. Some proponents of Evolution make the claime that the genetic code is an accident. That is their belief. In fact there is no way of knowing whether the code is accidental or designed.

If we are to extrapolate genetic code according to similar inferences drawn through the same observational methods used to actualize Evolution, one has to ask: Where does "information" come from?
Genetic code is information. It tells a cell how big to grow until it reaches the proper size proportionate with it species, function, etc.. It tells an organism whether to grow a heart, how many hearts, how big the heart should be, etc., etc., etc.. Does information (i.e., genetic code) evolve out of nothing?
That is a good philosophical question, but not a scientific one. No one knows whether that information evolves out of nothing or not. At the present time it can't be shown one way or the other, so it is not a scientific question at all.

If we extrapolate from observable references (e.g., ever smaller computer chips that hold ever increasing amounts of information), is it not feasible to note that information only comes from intelligence, or intelligent sources?
It is certainly feasible to believe it. To "note" it? We don't know where intelligence comes from. We don't know where the harmony in the universe comes from. To assume that it has to come from a superior intelligence is still only an assumption.

[Skybird]

Genetics: genetic information does not come "as is", but is self-forming and self-emerging. The organism is confronted by an environmental need ore scores a learning success, and the genetic code changes in what appears to be adaptation to said needs, or a recording of said learning success. By that, it then gets copied to later generations.

Species from different eras of the development line of a given genetic lineage, sometimes can coexist, talk is of so-called "living fossils" like coelacanths (Quastenflosser), or whale sharks, or certain very old reptiles and amphibias. Evolutionary development is not always linear or single-line, it can develop in parallel lines, and can even reverse earlier changes and have a species returning to a state close to an earlier phase of its development.

The question is not where the info comes from that is encoded in the genetic code and that it must have come from any form of creator putting it there, because the very essence of evolutionary theory si that it explains why it changes and gets encoded pretty well. The "How" is explained quite well in principles and mechanisms.

What remains is the question of "Why has it started", so you hit the same wall here that you hit when following the Big bang theory. Where has the first genetic ifnromation come from? Was it a primitive sample created by a lucky event like chemical and physical agents and a lightning bolt coming together and traraaa- there you got it; or was it a meteor carrying genetic samples that infested planet Earth after the meteor struck Earth? Where did the genetic material then originated from in that alien place where the meteor picked it up? Science admits that it does not know. Religion claims that it knows, but in fact: nobody knows, so why the claims and fairy tales. Speculations will not answer that question, and we should be adult and mature enough to admit that we just don't know it.

[Armistead]

I found this to be a very interesting debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2OcIIkpPo

The problem I have come to realize, in my opinion, with evolution, is that not only is there the question of the missing link, but thousands of missing links. They cannot seem to find anything except fossils that they claim are precursors to various unique species. Another problem I have is in the field of genetics, as it relates to evolution. Evolution, at the present time, would have us believe that genetic code (i.e., genetic information) is a complete accident:
"Biologically and chemically, there is no reason why this particular genetic code, rather than any of millions or billions of others, should exist, scientists assert. Yet every species on Earth carries a genetic code that is, for all intents and purposes, identical and universal. The only scientific explanation for this situation is that the genetic code was the result of a single historic accident. That is, this code was the one carried by the single ancestor of life and all of its descendents, including us."
-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/l_044_02.html

If we are to extrapolate genetic code according to similar inferences drawn through the same observational methods used to actualize Evolution, one has to ask: Where does "information" come from?
Genetic code is information. It tells a cell how big to grow until it reaches the proper size proportionate with it species, function, etc.. It tells an organism whether to grow a heart, how many hearts, how big the heart should be, etc., etc., etc.. Does information (i.e., genetic code) evolve out of nothing? If we extrapolate from observable references (e.g., ever smaller computer chips that hold ever increasing amounts of information), is it not feasible to note that information only comes from intelligence, or intelligent sources?

Science itself admits they can't find "origin" although they try. No matter what energy source they find, they end up with another energy source to find.

I find it interesting that man and ape come from a common ancestor, but oddly that missing link hasn't been found. You would think it would be a more common link/fossil since man is a relative new species.

[Armistead]

as almost all human cultures have a rich history of storytelling I say that the creation myths developed soon after the development of language. Good question as to when that started.

I'm interested in what you mean by "advanced". Take the Australian Aboriginal culture. Quite religious with its own rituals and deities but until the arrival of Euorpeans, they lived largely the same way they had for 40,000 odd years as hunter gatherer's using Stone Age tools.

The point is, imagine a primitive man with lil rational logical skills, he is looking all around in his loincloth thinking to himself "how do I explain these things I don't understand". Why would he even need to explain them? So he comes up with an idea, a complex supernatural realm. To me that's advanced thinking.

We know most tribes not connected to each other around the world had beliefs in the supernatural, so I assume the belief formed in mans earliest stages as he left Africa about 70,000 years ago, then evolved as people spread over the world.

I haven't studied it well, but I find it amazing that primitive man could come up with such an idea, an idea that actually was probably needed for the progression of man.

I know Dawkins even hints that aliens could've seeded man and shaped his beliefs. Regardless, it does seem some higher form of life was involved in the process.

Science will never know the origin of life, so they say "I don't know"
Religion claims "origin" is outside the physical realm, it's obvious, so we believe...Either could be right or wrong, but I find it silly that either side would make fun of the other.

[Sailor Steve]

I find it interesting that man and ape come from a common ancestor, but oddly that missing link hasn't been found. You would think it would be a more common link/fossil since man is a relative new species.
There have been several fossils found that "could be" a link, but it's not easy to establish a direct relationship since the DNA is so similar between species. I wouldn't think it would be more common, simply because any connection would have to be so very long ago and despite all the finds that have been made they are still scant compared to the number of "people" that lived during those eons. An equally good question that doesn't get asked nearly enough is that if the finds that have been made are not links of some sort, what are they? Hitherto unknown variant species? If so, where did they come from if they didn't evolve from something else? All the different species of ape-like creatures were all created at the same time, and some thrived while others died out? Possibly, but why? If there were originally equal numbers of each, why haven't more fossils been found of the extinct ones?

There are many questions people don't ask, and I wonder if they don't ask them because their minds are already made up, so they only ask the questions that seem to support their views. Of course I don't know the answer to that one either.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Genetics: genetic information does not come "as is", but is self-forming and self-emerging. The organism is confronted by an environmental need ore scores a learning success, and the genetic code changes in what appears to be adaptation to said needs, or a recording of said learning success. By that, it then gets copied to later generations.

Species from different eras of the development line of a given genetic lineage, sometimes can coexist, talk is of so-called "living fossils" like coelacanths (Quastenflosser), or whale sharks, or certain very old reptiles and amphibias. Evolutionary development is not always linear or single-line, it can develop in parallel lines, and can even reverse earlier changes and have a species returning to a state close to an earlier phase of its development.

The question is not where the info comes from that is encoded in the genetic code and that it must have come from any form of creator putting it there, because the very essence of evolutionary theory si that it explains why it changes and gets encoded pretty well. The "How" is explained quite well in principles and mechanisms.

What remains is the question of "Why has it started", so you hit the same wall here that you hit when following the Big bang theory. Where has the first genetic ifnromation come from? Was it a primitive sample created by a lucky event like chemical and physical agents and a lightning bolt coming together and traraaa- there you got it; or was it a meteor carrying genetic samples that infested planet Earth after the meteor struck Earth? Where did the genetic material then originated from in that alien place where the meteor picked it up? Science admits that it does not know. Religion claims that it knows, but in fact: nobody knows, so why the claims and fairy tales. Speculations will not answer that question, and we should be adult and mature enough to admit that we just don't know it.You bring up some good points, but I don't recall ever addressing the "Big Bang" theory. Also, I am in the process of seeking information and asking questions, not trying to convince anyone of anything. So, I didn't feel the hit of any wall.

Sailor Steve, on the other hand, did lend me some help in one of his answers, which is helping me to understand how science (as a study) thinks. That was a metaphor. You don't have to explain that people think.:up:

[WernherVonTrapp]

I find it interesting that man and ape come from a common ancestor, but oddly that missing link hasn't been found. You would think it would be a more common link/fossil since man is a relative new species.
I was watching a documentary about dogs last week. What I found interesting is that a dogs' genetics is almost identical to wolves in almost every way, except for a scant handful which they say is the result of cross breeding. They even claim that new science indicates that dogs may be more intelligent than first believed, even more intelligent than a Chimpanzee.
I've watched more than one so I don't recall which documentary I saw it in, but I think it was called "The Science of Dogs" or something to that effect. Might have been a National Geographic video.

[Platapus]

I find it interesting that man and ape come from a common ancestor, but oddly that missing link hasn't been found. You would think it would be a more common link/fossil since man is a relative new species.

It actually does make sense.

The ape line of evolution is a successful species as is the human line. The "missing link" it may have been an unsuccessful species. It died out while the other two species survived. There may have been a third or more evolution species that were neither ape nor human that came from this "missing link" that were also unsuccessful and died out.

The bottom line is that the non-observance of the "missing link" neither supports nor refutes the theory that it existed.

1. We may not observe it because it never existed
2. We may not observe it because it existed but died out relatively quickly

Observation, or in this case non-observation can't differentiate between the two. This also applies to the ubiquitous discussion "is there a god?"

I can't observe god. This means one of at least two things

1. God does not exist
2. God exists but is not observable by any capability I currently posses

The fact that I can't observe god does not support or refute either hypothesis.

This is the weakness of using observation as a means of making logical inferences. To quote Ronnie Rumsfeld "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence".

[Platapus]

They even claim that new science indicates that dogs may be more intelligent than first believed, even more intelligent than a Chimpanzee.

Dogs and humans are the only species with an inherent ability to interpret pointing.

Most mammals, when a human points, focus on the tip of the finger. Adult humans and adult dogs, have a greater chance of instinctively following the direction of the point. That's a pretty complex thought process.

[Sailor Steve]

That's a pretty complex thought process.
Or just a bred-in instinct. Or a natural instinct that humans make use of. Apes may not have that instinct. Apes, on the other hand, show a great capacity for figuring things out, or at least to be taught elementary reasoning. Humans may not have that instinct either. We may have seen that instinct in dogs and reasoned out a way to make use of it.

Any of those are possibilities. There may be more.

[Skybird]

Dogs were claimed in some science text some months ago that due to the long relation between man and tamed wolves/dogs, dogs have not only learned to interpret mimic and gesticulation of man to some degree, but also give this knowledge to their puppies - because it is genetically encoded now. That also is the reason why wolves, even if used to humans and close with them from early age on, do not do certain things and cannot do certain things - they lack these adapted genetic information. It is assumed that this also is the reason why dogs balk, but wolves cannot: when man tamed wolves, part of the adaptation process was the animal developing an additional communication form: from grumbling and howling (wolves) to balking (dogs). Wolves may be heavier in natural instincts, but dogs are smarter by now in interacting with humans, I'm sure.

For long time they were wondering why birds can navigate around the globe. But a growing number of ornithologists now claim that they maybe just carry the knowledge for flying paths in their genes - maps and formations inclusive. But the last word on this is not yet spoken.

And then there is this famous laboratory experiment that in principle you can only explain so far with exotic - though fascinating - ideas like Sheldrake'S morphogenetic fields:

Evidence for this is supplied by an experiment started at Harvard University. Over a ten year period, rats were trained to escape from a water maze. Each new generation learned to escape quicker. After ten years, the rats could escape ten times faster than the original rats. This change occurred in all of the rats of the same species and not just the descendants of the original rats. In fact, the change occurred in rats of the same species in other areas of the world (Sheldrake, 1991)

Classical genetics cannot explain this famous finding.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Dogs and humans are the only species with an inherent ability to interpret pointing.

Most mammals, when a human points, focus on the tip of the finger. Adult humans and adult dogs, have a greater chance of instinctively following the direction of the point. That's a pretty complex thought process.
Ahhh, so you saw the same documentary?:up: I thought that part was so fascinating, that they couldn't teach a Chimpanzee to respond to pointing or facial expressions but a dog does.

[Schroeder]

If the human being is an intelligent design, why do we have old genes in us as well? Sometimes these old genes get activated by accident:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
An intelligent design wouldn't have those traits, would it?
Besides an intelligent design, created by an omnipotent god, would surely have better knee joints and a proper spine and not the stuff that we have.:-?

[Platapus]

If the human being is an intelligent design, why do we have old genes in us as well? Sometimes these old genes get activated by accident:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
An intelligent design wouldn't have those traits, would it?
Besides an intelligent design, created by an omnipotent god, would surely have better knee joints and a proper spine and not the stuff that we have.:-?


Can we assume that intelligent design equals perfect design?

[Sailor Steve]

Can we assume that intelligent design equals perfect design?
I don't, but the people who propose it do.

[Platapus]

I don't, but the people who propose it do.

Not sure I have ever read anything that equates ID with perfection.

There are many humans born with defects. I am one of them. I don't think that the observation that I am myopic refutes the theory of ID.

Perhaps ID and evolution can live in harmony? The initial design may have been "intelligent" but as time went on, it evolved to something less "intelligent"?

Like I am an authority on the theory of Intelligent Design. :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Not sure I have ever read anything that equates ID with perfection.

There are many humans born with defects. I am one of them. I don't think that the observation that I am myopic refutes the theory of ID.

Perhaps ID and evolution can live in harmony? The initial design may have been "intelligent" but as time went on, it evolved to something less "intelligent"?
The problem isn't the concept of Intelligent Design. The Deists believed in a God who created the Natural Universe exactly as we find it, and gave us brains to figure it out. If that's the ID you're thinking of, then there is no problem in equating it with Evolution. I can see attributing our universe to a Supreme Being, but it's still a matter of pure faith, not science or reason or logic.

The problem is that the term Intelligent Design is a modern-day substitute for Biblical Creation. There was so much opposition to teaching BC as science that they finally dressed it up with a new name and tried again. Nothing else has changed.

[Armistead]

The problem isn't the concept of Intelligent Design. The Deists believed in a God who created the Natural Universe exactly as we find it, and gave us brains to figure it out. If that's the ID you're thinking of, then there is no problem in equating it with Evolution. I can see attributing our universe to a Supreme Being, but it's still a matter of pure faith, not science or reason or logic.

The problem is that the term Intelligent Design is a modern-day substitute for Biblical Creation. There was so much opposition to teaching BC as science that they finally dressed it up with a new name and tried again. Nothing else has changed.


I'm not so sure about dressing BC up, but I get the point. I think a great many believers no longer accept the biblical account of creation as literal, more accepting of science, just believe a creator is responsible. I see a big difference between those that believe BC and those that believe ID, one accepts science and evolution, the other doesn't.

[Skybird]

ID accepts not science, Armistead. They just act as if. Steve is right on ID being BC coming back in a new dress only. The differences are marginal and cosmetic only, and only serve the purpose to distract.

[Sailor Steve]

I see a big difference between those that believe BC and those that believe ID...
I'm not sure who you've been reading. The arguments presented are identical. Only the names have been changed to protect the subterfuge.

[Armistead]

I'm not sure who you've been reading. The arguments presented are identical. Only the names have been changed to protect the subterfuge.

I think many, if not most, that believe in ID have no religious agenda to push, why those that believe in BC usually do. Seems to me those that believe in BC are more right, fundy, etc.

Now, I would agree there seems to be a more recent movement in churches using ID and dropping the BC theme. I think the Catholics are doing this to a point, but I think it's a business decision more than anything.

Heck, you might be right afterall......

[Sailor Steve]

I think many, if not most, that believe in ID have no religious agenda to push, why those that believe in BC usually do.
You say you think that, and there are recent articles that support that, but the main proponents of ID never use in the context that I've mentioned, that of the Deists. They invariably use it to oppose Evolution, and to support Creationist claims. While the concept is valid as an idea that cannot be proven or disproven, existing only in a philosophical context, its modern usage is just as I've described - a tool of the Creationists to try to gain support for their old ideas under a new name.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Armistead]

The church continues to evolve in it's beliefs, but of course still has to believe in God and creation. No one can argue that science has evolved the church and will continue to do so, but the majority of people that believe in ID, believe in evolution, those that believe in BC don't. I see that as a major shift in religion, don't you?

What will be interesting is to see how religion evolves in the next 500 years.

[Sailor Steve]

the majority of people that believe in ID, believe in evolution, those that believe in BC don't. I see that as a major shift in religion, don't you?
You've said that several times now, but you are the first person I've ever heard it from. Do you have any evidence for that, any IDer saying it is so? As I say, I've seen ID used in place BC in "it should be taught in school" arguments, but never in the context in which you present it.

[Armistead]

You've said that several times now, but you are the first person I've ever heard it from. Do you have any evidence for that, any IDer saying it is so? As I say, I've seen ID used in place BC in "it should be taught in school" arguments, but never in the context in which you present it.

The last two churches I was a part of, Methodist and Universal ND were both both in favor in evolution over BC.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Christian_denominations_acknowledge_evolution

[WernherVonTrapp]

While the concept is valid as an idea that cannot be proven or disproven, existing only in a philosophical context, its modern usage is just as I've described - a tool of the Creationists to try to gain support for their old ideas under a new name.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I read that Wiki article. I honestly wasn't aware of the whole history behind it, surprising as that may be. I wasn't trying to forward any agenda in my OP, but rather, was under the assumption that there was some valid scientific research purported by scientists who claimed to have been blackballed by the scientific community after discovering some type of such evidence.
I really haven't done any research in the evolutionary field since highschool and I see, much has changed. The reason I haven't done the research has nothing to do with my faith. I just couldn't muster up enough interest in it. I have always understood the necessity of the separation of Church and State. What I always knew in the back of my mind, but never articulated properly is that, from a scientific viewpoint, there is no room for "faith" as it relates to any religion. This is where a lot of my misunderstandings have have originated. This thread is strictly about Science, which searches for answers anywhere and everywhere other than Faith. That is the "nature" of Science.

Philiosophically speaking, since I now realize I must clarify these things, maybe the whole idea around "faith" is that there isn't supposed to be proof. Having proof negates the necessity of faith, though faith does not negate the possibility that proof may one day be found. Science does not believe in faith (metaphorically speaking) and faith does not require science. Yes, this is a Eureka moment for me.:haha:

I have never considered myself as belonging to a "religion". I belong to a faith. I won't get into the semantics of that because that is not the issue here. One thing I have learned from science though (philisophically/metaphorically speaking) is that, if I lose my wallet on earth, I certainly will not find it if I search for it on the moon.

[Sailor Steve]

The last two churches I was a part of, Methodist and Universal ND were both both in favor in evolution over BC.
That's cool. Are they proponents; i.e. are they actively trying to get ID taught in schools as an alternative to BC? There are a great many Christians who believe parts of the Bible should be taken allegorically. The Super-Fundies call them "Casual Christians" and "Liberal Christians".

[Armistead]

That's cool. Are they proponents; i.e. are they actively trying to get ID taught in schools as an alternative to BC? There are a great many Christians who believe parts of the Bible should be taken allegorically. The Super-Fundies call them "Casual Christians" and "Liberal Christians".

I know the Methodist are against creation being taught in school in any form other than science. Most modern churches accept no science exist that can prove ID or God, that it's a matter of faith. Most agree it's dangerous ground, because beliefs would enter the process and it becomes biased.

However, the large fundy element at that forum obvious wants BC and the traditional views of God back in the schools. They tend to ignore all science and views of others faith. Frankly, they can be quite scary. I se no hint of the fundies acting as casual or liberal in their beliefs.

[Sailor Steve]

Philiosophically speaking, since I now realize I must clarify these things, maybe the whole idea around "faith" is that there isn't supposed to be proof. Having proof negates the necessity of faith, though faith does not negate the possibility that proof may one day be found. Science does not believe in faith (metaphorically speaking) and faith does not require science. Yes, this is a Eureka moment for me.:haha:
Though I no longer have faith, I honor that belief on your part. For all I know, you're right. I just need proof for myself these days, and the only argument I have with people of faith is when they try to prove it.

[Sailor Steve]

IHowever, the large fundy element at that forum obvious wants BC and the traditional views of God back in the schools. They tend to ignore all science and views of others faith. Frankly, they can be quite scary.
I see where you are coming from with your separation of ID and BC. My point of origin was that "large fundy element". They are the ones who use "ID" as a substitute for "BC" and the ones the article I quoted was refering to. I was unaware that there are churches and groups who use "ID" as a statement of belief but also accept science for what it is. That's what happens when two people are actually talking about two different things. Neither one has a clue as to what the other is talking about unless explanations are made.

[nikimcbee]

Hah, speaking of this thread, I watched Bill Maher's "Religulous" yesterday. I did get a kick out of that Bible theme park that had dinosaurs co-existing with people.:haha:

I think the raptors would have wiped out mankind be fore they knew what happened.:dead:

[Skybird]

maybe the whole idea around "faith" is that there isn't supposed to be proof. Having proof negates the necessity of faith, though faith does not negate the possibility that proof may one day be found.
:dead: :dead: :dead:

Oh my god, instead of simply putting a bullet through your head you now try to assassinate reason. Get back to your senses, man. They probably were meant to serve you for a purpose, once.

[Catfish]

[...] I did get a kick out of that Bible theme park that had dinosaurs co-existing with people.:haha:

I think the raptors would have wiped out mankind be fore they knew what happened.:dead:

Probably not, those Raptors visualized in Jurassic Park had appx. chicken size, in reality.
A better idea would be imaging them in a chicken farm, and killed by the millions for e.g. McDonalds :03:


But i always wonder, how can people who use computers and fossil fuels, be using all that while denying the very stuff they work or play with ?
Obviously you do not need to understand something to use it - when others do the research and produce it for you.
:hmm2:

[Armistead]

Hah, speaking of this thread, I watched Bill Maher's "Religulous" yesterday. I did get a kick out of that Bible theme park that had dinosaurs co-existing with people.:haha:

I think the raptors would have wiped out mankind be fore they knew what happened.:dead:

Religulous was rather silly, edited and setup to prove Maher's views. Throughout the movie he mostly attacked "simple" or uneducated people with the hard questions of science and the educated with simple questions of faith. Cetainly he proved points, that simple people basically follow cultural beliefs, but his editing was rather bias to his opinion.

[nikimcbee]

Religulous was rather silly, edited and setup to prove Maher's views. Throughout the movie he mostly attacked "simple" or uneducated people with the hard questions of science and the educated with simple questions of faith. Cetainly he proved points, that simple people basically follow cultural beliefs, but his editing was rather bias to his opinion.

Yeah, I knew that going into the film. Disclaimer*, I can't stand Maher. I was bored, and I was mildly curious about the film. I was surprized he never visited JW headquarters. I think that would have been entertaining.:haha:

[Cybermat47]

I think the raptors would have wiped out mankind be fore they knew what happened.:dead:

Did you know that the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park aren't actually Velociraptors? They're actually closer to Deinonychus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus)!

[Platapus]

Religulous was rather silly, edited and setup to prove Maher's views. Throughout the movie he mostly attacked "simple" or uneducated people with the hard questions of science and the educated with simple questions of faith. Cetainly he proved points, that simple people basically follow cultural beliefs, but his editing was rather bias to his opinion.


Well it was not a documentary, but a comedy film.

[Sailor Steve]

Did you know that the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park aren't actually Velociraptors? They're actually closer to Deinonychus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus)!
Even closer to Utahraptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_raptor).

[Cybermat47]

Even closer to Utahraptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_raptor).

She adds a whole new meaning to 'big bird' :yep:

[Tribesman]

Even closer to Utahraptor.
I thought a Utahraptor was an aggressive mormon.

[Armistead]

Yeah, I knew that going into the film. Disclaimer*, I can't stand Maher. I was bored, and I was mildly curious about the film. I was surprized he never visited JW headquarters. I think that would have been entertaining.:haha:

I actually like Maher's political comedy, my wife hates him, she prefers Dennis Miller.

[Simmy]

Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth/universe is 6,000 years old.

Evolution is taught in schools as if it is a scientific fact. Even though it is called a theory. It's a theory because it can not be shown to be scientific fact.
Some think dinos died when a meteor struck the earth, some now think it was a comet. Others ask if that is true why aren't all these fossils found in the same layer of earth? They are not.
Some say dinos didn't go the way of the dodo bird, they because birds.
If you look at evolution piece meal you see that the experts agree on almost nothing. Some say evolution happened over great periods of time (Darwin).
Others say over great periods of time with moments of rapid change, still others (the guys I agree with) say the record shows different periods of time with total extinctions and then a stating over.

[Sailor Steve]

Evolution is taught in schools as if it is a scientific fact. Even though it is called a theory. It's a theory because it can not be shown to be scientific fact.
Back to the same game again? In that light there is no such thing as a "scientific fact". All science is theory. Reread NeonSamurai's posts to find out what a Theory really is.

[Platapus]

Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth/universe is 6,000 years old.




I don't think any one is saying that it does.

There were some religious scholars who posited a theory that based on their analysis of the bible, they could calculate that the earth was between 6,000 and 10,000 years old

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Origins

No one of any merit has ever claimed that the bible stated this. It was an inference based on hermeneutical analysis.