EPTReligiosity over facebook. - Page 5
| Blogs > Aberu |
|
guN-viCe
United States687 Posts
| ||
|
darklordjac
Canada2231 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:57 guN-viCe wrote: I think the whole god thing in the pledge of allegiance doesn't even matter. It's kind of missing the bigger picture(devotion to your country). So since it doesn't matter why not take it out. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
goes to hell.  | ||
|
Jacobine
United States174 Posts
TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 18 2011 11:08 Jacobine wrote: For some reason, everyone likes to attack those of us who are religious because we "preach," however if we ask to be left alone and believe what we will, far too often we are preached to about how stupid, illogical, irresponsible, etc. we are eventhough many are pillars in their educational fields. I offer a solution, stfu about religion. Let me believe what I will, you believe what you will. Treat each other with respect and it's amazing how easy it is to coexist with each other. Making sarcastic, mocking comments doesn't help the atheists or the religious make "legitimate" points and far too often side-tracks us from something we actually need to focus on, that being helping those in need. TLDR shh about religion and God (or the lack thereof); go help someone who needs it. See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it. The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular. All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that). But yeah, think about it. | ||
|
Mr. Wiggles
Canada5894 Posts
I wonder if people could accept this? That none of us know. You can't say there is a God, you can't say there is not a God. You cannot prove the existence of a God, you cannot disprove it. If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, or lack thereof, I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, to see how you know this thing. I was reading Plato's Apology today, and it made me start to think, that was the result as far as this thread is concerned. | ||
|
Deleted User 45971
533 Posts
On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound? I wonder if people could accept this? That none of us know. You can't say there is a God, you can't say there is not a God. You cannot prove the existence of a God, you cannot disprove it. If you claim to have absolute knowledge of God's existence, or lack thereof, I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, to see how you know this thing. I was reading Plato's Apology today, and it made me start to think, that was the result as far as this thread is concerned. The way I see it it's really simple: you are an atheist because you do not believe in any deity(s) or whatever random fantasies you will find in old texts written by bitter old men or whoever writes them. If you don't actively believe in a god or religion you are an atheist since you are not a theist, there's really nothing else to it that matters in my opinion. | ||
|
Derme
United States41 Posts
On January 17 2011 21:08 IdrA wrote: no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design why do students have a right to learn about intelligent design? theres no support for it, its just an attempt to stick god into a concept that has no need for him. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway? Featured on that website is a statement signed by over 700 scientists that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.". To sign that statement, they must "either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine". At the very least, we can say that a significant minority of reputable scientists do not accept Neo-Darwinism wholesale. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5633 Posts
On January 18 2011 22:26 Derme wrote: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway? IdrA's mind or your mind or my mind are mostly irrelevant in considering what a legitimate biologist is. The scientific community has its own methods. These methods involve clarifying knowledge over time with new evidence. Evolution by natural selection (I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to dismiss evolution by artificial selection) is no longer the baby of a few scientists in the 19th century (although you don't say this, the page you link is dissent from Darwin, who is long dead). Basically the central theorem of biology *is* evolution by natural selection. Skepticism is laudable, but don't turn it into ignorance-fueled bigotry. On January 18 2011 13:58 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I actually think I'm going to change my stance on deities/spirituality/supernatural. I'm going to claim ignorance. I do not know if there is a God, I do not know if there is not a God. I have no absolute knowledge of these things, and so am acknowledging my own lack of knowing. How does that sound? But you ought to acknowledge that there is no evidence in favor of any supernatural cosmogony or especially interfering gods. Particularly there is no evidence for any such claim made by your fellow man (who have the same mammalian brain you have). Edit: A good point is that while there are disputes within evolution by natural selection (as you would expect in science), there isn't serious dissent from evolution. | ||
|
Derme
United States41 Posts
On January 18 2011 22:39 oBlade wrote: IdrA's mind or your mind or my mind are mostly irrelevant in considering what a legitimate biologist is. The scientific community has its own methods. These methods involve clarifying knowledge over time with new evidence. Evolution by natural selection (I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to dismiss evolution by artificial selection) is no longer the baby of a few scientists in the 19th century (although you don't say this, the page you link is dissent from Darwin, who is long dead). Basically the central theorem of biology *is* evolution by natural selection. Skepticism is laudable, but don't turn it into ignorance-fueled bigotry. All right then, I guess you agree that none of us laymen have the right to state "no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design". Ignorance-fueled bigotry is not the aim at all. Rather, I'd just like to submit that scientists with good credentials dissent from Neo-Darwinism(not simply Charles Darwin as you might assume from the URL). I'm happy to see you agree skepticism is laudable. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5633 Posts
On January 18 2011 23:04 Derme wrote: All right then, I guess you agree that none of us laymen have the right to state "no legitimate biologists believe in intelligent design". I think emancipation from being a layman comes from being able to read, and when biologists say "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," it's not a stretch for a skeptical mind to take their word. | ||
|
Derme
United States41 Posts
Saying "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," does not actually mean nobody believes in intelligent design and does not mean there isn't a significant minority. In any case, I'm not interested in discussing intelligent design as much as showing there is dissent against Neo-Darwinism(again). Edit: On January 18 2011 23:40 oBlade wrote: you think the list is a point for intelligent design? Do I have this right? No, I don't think the list constitutes any form of evidence for Intelligent Design. All I'm saying is that it's a LIST that shows there are many scientists with good credentials that dissent. In other words, the list actually lists a fairly great number of good scientists that dissent. Hence, there is a significant minority that do not agree with Neo-Darwinism. Choose to make of that what you will, but to me it says the case for Neo-Darwinism is not water-tight. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On January 18 2011 23:56 Derme wrote: I'm fine with it being a statistic. From the start I was saying I just wanted to point out there is a significant minority of good scientists dissenting from Neo-Darwinism, and I see many biologists and chemists along with the engineers and mathematicians. Saying "we by and large dismiss intelligent design as pseudoscience, and when we do accept it and other religious beliefs, specifically divorce these personal beliefs from the world of science," does not actually mean nobody believes in intelligent design and does not mean there isn't a significant minority. In any case, I'm not interested in discussing intelligent design as much as showing there is dissent against Neo-Darwinism(again). Edit: No, I don't think the list constitutes any form of evidence for Intelligent Design. All I'm saying is that it's a LIST that shows there are many scientists with good credentials that dissent. In other words, the list actually lists a fairly great number of good scientists that dissent. Hence, there is a significant minority that do not agree with Neo-Darwinism. Choose to make of that what you will, but to me it says the case for Neo-Darwinism is not water-tight. Intelligent design is not within the realm of science so I posit that it's completely inappropriate for "credited scientists" to comment on its possible validity. It's a matter of faith. It's like an engineer who studied nothing of theology saying "as an engineer, I will sign a petition supporting my belief in the miracles of Jesus." In that case, his credentials would be called a red herring, there's simply no logical connection between what said scientists know and what they're attempting to talk about. Skepticism of Darwinism itself is fine, but positioning intelligent design as its main opposing 'theory' is completely unscientific. EDIT: having read your description of the link, I realize that that site doesn't have that much to do with ID. I apologize. However, your implicit suggestions that their acceptance of the validity of 'irreducible complexity' as an argument against Neo-Darwinism lends credence to intelligent design are offensive. | ||
|
Vulcant
United States53 Posts
A topic of debate that has affected religion and science a like is evolution. The theory of evolution has been a extraordinary advancement in science but has also created negative effects on communities with traditional religious beliefs such as in a rural town in Pennsylvania. What originally was a beautiful mural created by a high school student, depicting apes evolving into man, honoring the evolution theory, was burned to ashes by Bill Buckingham, a man who rejected the theory of evolution. Since this event, there have been multiple issues and controversies that have arisen over the theories. Bill Buckingham attempted to have textbooks redistributed that do not discuss the theory of evolution, but instead contain information on the intelligent design theory, which some experts refer as creationism in disguise. Aquinas would disagree with Bill Buckingham and possibly creation-science because it is demonstrates hypocrisy. Aquinas would not agree with these ideas because they went against everything he had learned through philosophy and his experiences. Aquinas would be the one to speak out against creation-science as it tries to hide its motive such as it replacing creationism with intelligent design in the first draft of the book, “Of Pandas and People.” This documentary offers many lessons that help me and others. Intelligent design only created more issues and controversy. This documentary perfectly describes the conflict that this whole case has caused and has caused this town to completely separate. It goes against our Christian values and promotes hypocracy. The intelligent design theory was designed to replace the evolution theory, because many people believed that it had multiple “gaps”. This replacement theory has been accepted by some of society, as well as being referenced by figures such as George W. Bush during his election, a president who supports the intelligent design theory. A study shows that roughly one-third of the US does not believe in the theory of evolution; intelligent design theory is the closest replacement content wise to creationism as it mentions an “intelligent agent” who created all life forms. The theory states that humans and animals were too complicated and complex to be created over time but were instead created at once and were only partly affected by evolution, such as an already existing species of bird that, over time and because of an environmental need, developed a larger beak. There is some, though not a large amount of evidence supporting the intelligent design theory, such as the bacterial flagellum, that is said to be too complex to be made from evolution. This evidence, has however been debunked, therefore leaving little tangible evidence to support this theory at this time. People seem to have replace the theory of evolution with the theory of intelligent design for only two reasons: for one, it is the closest scientific theory about the creation of life to Christianity and other religions, as well as because it is considered a more “modern” discovery. It will take a long time to settle the debates such as one in Dover; school board officials apparently received sixty copies of a textbook by an anonymous donor that contains the intelligent design theory, called “Of Pandas and People”, that fails to mention the theory of evolution. Yet, it was later found that the school board itself bought the textbooks, though they may not have actually distributed the books to the children. However, the school board officials read a one minute statement to science classes, stating that there were “gaps” in the evolution theory, and would therefore teach intelligent design. Since this has taken place, several lawsuits have been filed including one filed by twelve parents against the school board. This lawsuit is known as Darwin v. God. In conclusion, scientific evidence collected up to this point still supports evolution as the prime factor in the development in human beings, the source of life as we know it on Earth. It has passed tests for nearly 100 years which is incredible for any scientific theory while Intelligent Design Theory is constantly being debunked. Some of the things I talk about are from this video: http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/# Interestingly enough, I had to write this last week. In case any of you haven't heard of this trial, it's basically about a group of parents suing a school board because they were trying to teach intelligent design. School board was a bunch of hypocrites. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On January 18 2011 22:26 Derme wrote: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/ Many researchers with solid credentials(microbiologists, biochemists) do dissent from evolution, and you might note they mention their acceptance of irreducible complexity and other concepts central to Intelligent Design. I'd say that the acceptance of evolution is not as one-sided as you think it is. And what constitutes a legitimate biologist in your mind anyway? Featured on that website is a statement signed by over 700 scientists that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.". To sign that statement, they must "either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine". At the very least, we can say that a significant minority of reputable scientists do not accept Neo-Darwinism wholesale. 1. List included anyone with a PH.D, not just biology related degrees 2. Using the terms "Darwinism\Neo-Darwinism" as if they mean anything 3. Quotes people talking about abiogenesis, not evolution (learn the difference) Pretty good clues you\the website have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
And finally religious belief is yours, not everyone's. This country is about freedom. It was founded on the principles of people fleeing from the catholic church, as protestants. The founding fathers were fighting against a theocracy for their freedom as a nation. Most of the founding fathers were deists, meaning they believed there was a god, but they had no belief in the Christian god. They publicly outcried against religion. Not to say they are right, but to proclaim that this is a Christian nation is only true in the sense that the majority of people that are citizens here are Christians. A country being secular, which ours is traditionally in practice governmentally, doesn't take away from your religious practices whatsoever. You are still allowed to teach your children everything you want to. You wouldn't want the schools to take over and teach your children your personal beliefs that you want to pass on to them would you? That's how it feels for atheist parents, like the government is trying to tell them that there isn't a such thing as raising a child as someone who makes up their own mind one day. Just wanted to throw in my two cents here to the original topic (seems like we've gotten derailed into intelligent design?), as a Christian I agree with most of what's in the OP, though I just wanted to point out that only Ben Franklin was an outspoken proponent of Deism .. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's religious views are in controversy, with conflicting testimonies and evidence. Adams was Uniterian, John Jay was Anglican, and Alexander Hamilton was Presbyterian. In any case, what's more important than their religious views is what they had fled from -- a suppressive feudal gov't that persecuted Protestants (as opposed to the ruling Catholics). It's interesting to note an excerpt from the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Further, an entry from Madison's papers includes: Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.... If you read it carefully, these words seem to be spoken from the point of view of protecting religion from the government, not the other way around -- makes sense if you think about the cultural context of which it was written under. As a Christian, as much as I think there is good that comes out of legislating "morals" and such, I'd rather lean towards the separation of church and state -- both in support of our individual freedoms, and also because for me it's not hard to imagine a time in the future where Christians may be persecuted by the law. (As they already are in other countries around the world) Sources: all wikipedia baby | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On January 18 2011 13:18 Djzapz wrote: See the problem with religion isn't what people like you do with it. The problem is what those beliefs do for some people. And it's also a problem when the government picks one religion when it's supposed to be secular. All Americans have "In God We Trust" written on their money even though that's unconstitutional. This is an important infringement - that and the added part in the pledge of allegiance. You may not care, but some people do - so when you're telling us to shut up, you should first realize that there's an actual problem that people are trying to solve. We're not just bashing on you and your outdated primitive beliefs (although there's a bit of that). But yeah, think about it. As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it. I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion. I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms. And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past. | ||
|
happyft
United States470 Posts
On January 19 2011 05:58 Haemonculus wrote: As an atheist, I couldn't care less if "God" is written on my money. I can still buy things with it. I grew up saying "Under God" everyday at school for my entire public school life. I still grew up and came to my own conclusions about religion. I do however care when someone else's religious beliefs start to hinder my personal freedoms. And let's be frank. Christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past.  Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things? | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
At least where slavery, women's rights, and minority rights were concerned. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On January 19 2011 06:57 happyft wrote: Prison reform, mental hospital reform, abolitionism of slavery, women's right to vote, minority's equality, and caring for all kinds of sick (especially those dying of very infectious diseases like the plague and tuberculosis), orphaned, and the impoverished, to name a few things? Don't forget the thousands of years of oppression and tortue, the support of slavery (god himself allows slavery, also they told slaves they'd go to heaven to make them feel better as slaves), hindering womens rights (men are better then women in the bible). Oh, and the right to sacrifice people, the right to kill others for not believing what you believe, the right to rape, the right to kill your own children if they don't act well, the right to stone women. I can go on and on, but the poster before you was right, christianity has never really been a force for social progression in the past. Religions definitely hindered our society more than it's helped. | ||
| ||
