|
On January 19 2011 02:23 Romantic wrote:
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.
I've already noted point 1 in the post you've quoted, but there are many biologists on that list as well. And it wasn't anyone with a PhD either (Doctors in Theology don't count). Reread my post maybe, and this time process the content or something.
Neo-Darwinism refers to evolution occurring through the process of random mutation and natural selection. Why doesn't it mean anything?
And finally, if you see the page containing the statement it signed, it says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life". Just in case you don't comprehend, that statement actually means the signatories are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism.
Shit, all I'm saying (reiterating for the umpteenth time) is that a number of scientists with good credentials are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism, and I offered proof. I really don't see what else there is to discuss. Is the possibility that the case for evolution isn't watertight so offensive?
|
United States6980 Posts
A list of 700 people whose only qualification was having a Ph.D in any field is hardly a supporting minority of academia.
|
On January 19 2011 07:33 Derme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 02:23 Romantic wrote:
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. I've already noted point 1 in the post you've quoted, but there are many biologists on that list as well. And it wasn't anyone with a PhD either (Doctors in Theology don't count). Reread my post maybe, and this time process the content or something. Neo-Darwinism refers to evolution occurring through the process of random mutation and natural selection. Why doesn't it mean anything? And finally, if you see the page containing the statement it signed, it says "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life". Just in case you don't comprehend, that statement actually means the signatories are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism. Shit, all I'm saying (reiterating for the umpteenth time) is that a number of scientists with good credentials are skeptical of Neo-Darwinism, and I offered proof. I really don't see what else there is to discuss. Is the possibility that the case for evolution isn't watertight so offensive?
700 vs thousands upon thousands.
You can find a group with more than 700 members that deny the suns existence.
You're right though, I don't know why they're arguing with you, your only point was that there are people that exist that disagree with credentials (albeit poor), but, for most, you didn't need to point that out.
|
yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)
on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian)
minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less)
and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me.
and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
|
On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote:yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian) minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less) and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me. and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians.
How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion.
Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time.
Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves)
Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control.
God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape.
Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe.
If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them.
Women are less than men.
And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death.
Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
|
Uh I would add that, "Christianity" doesn't do anything. People do things. Saying Christianity did this or that is sort of silly, the vague idea of Christianity doesn't do anything. That conversation will go nowhere.
|
On January 19 2011 08:05 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote:yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian) minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less) and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me. and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians. How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion. Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time. Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves) Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control. God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape. Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe. If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them. Women are less than men. And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death. Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell.
Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics?
The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well).
Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them.
As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it.
Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?
Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally.
Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?
Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
|
On January 19 2011 09:08 happyft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:05 PanN wrote:On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote:yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian) minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less) and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me. and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians. How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion. Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time. Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves) Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control. God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape. Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe. If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them. Women are less than men. And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death. Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell. Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics? The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well). Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them. As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it. Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly? Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally. Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress? Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol
"The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well)."
Oh cool, the new testament, well heres a quote from the bible that says you're wrong.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"
And another
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"
Yeah, sounds like a regular fucking bond servant picnic doesn't it?
"As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it."
"At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
You're right, but the passage implies god was there with him, and didn't do a damn thing to stop it, instead, it implies he helped jephthah in the battle. Why is it that God can torture an innocent man to prove a point to the devil (job, had sin, but.... everyones born with it, and he sacrificed animals to make amends, wasn't enough apparently), and wont stop the sacrifice of this innocent girl? Sounds evil to me.
"Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?"
I assume you're trying to be amusing but....
There's an expression for this.
Cherry-Picking
Sure, devote your life to the bible and pick and choose what sounds right to you, it's not like it says to follow everything no matter what, I'm sure Jesus will be ok with that.
"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)"
Oh.
" -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?"
No, I'm not going to argue your point that some Christians were good people, because thats beyond fucking obvious.
I'm arguing the point that it (christianity as a whole) hasn't been socially progressive. Those were peoples actions and words, not gods actions.
The problem is, these are gods word.
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
"Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside"
Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression.
|
On January 18 2011 22:03 Potatisodlaren wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That would make me an implicit atheist, yes. Though I don't really consider myself that, as the term is rather too inclusive. When I say or hear "atheist" I think of explicit atheists, those who have made a conscious rejection of the idea of God, Religion, and Spirituality. I have not made the assertion: "There are no God's, nor spiritual beings, I know this beyond a doubt."
On January 18 2011 22:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
|
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Let's try something here. Let's replace "God" with "magic teapot floating in space".
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a magic teapot floating in space as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering magic teapot floating in space exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a magic teapot floating in space, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a magic teapot floating in space. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
Do you see how wierd the argument sounds, even though both things have absolutely no solid proof that they do exist?
Because that's exactly how any atheist feels about any argument which makes the assumption that God already exists.....
|
On January 19 2011 10:56 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a God as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering god exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing. Let's try something here. Let's replace "God" with "magic teapot floating in space". Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I do acknowledge that there has been no proof of a magic teapot floating in space as most commonly perceived. There has yet to be concrete proof that an interfering magic teapot floating in space exists, I agree. I disagree with theists, non-theists, or anyone else of any kind who push their beliefs on others however. I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a magic teapot floating in space, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a magic teapot floating in space. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing. Do you see how wierd the argument sounds, even though both things have absolutely no solid proof that they do exist? Because that's exactly how any atheist feels about any argument which makes the assumption that God already exists.....
I did not argue that God exists? I personally do not believe that there is an interfering God who meddles in human affairs, but I do not assert to know that this is the case. I do not have the absolute knowledge that there is no god of any kind. Do you? I'd like to know how you came into possession of this knowledge. This same argument can be applied to many things. Do you know that human beings are equal? Do you know that you have free will? Do you know that you exist, and can you prove this to me? Many things that people take for granted and don't think closely about fail when put up to scrutiny. Many of the things we know aren't really absolute knowledge, they are assumptions and observations. The things we do know are comparatively small in number compared to what we do not know. I would just like it if everyone could acknowledge that they do not know everything they assert they do. I have yet to see anyone give a reason for or against any gods or spirituality that doesn't rest on: "But it is, I know it".
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 17 2011 16:39 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 17:33 stormtemplar wrote:On January 16 2011 16:57 Impervious wrote:http://godisimaginary.com/i28.htmThe following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." The link goes into more detail. Out of many "proofs" that are available (which are technically not actual "proofs", since they rely on an assumption that "god exists" so that it can be disproven, when there is actually no "proof" that "god exists" to begin with..... well, at least nothing that doesn't fall apart when put up to logical scrutiny), this is the one that I find to be most convincing. Counter argument is that there is no conclusive proof that god DOESN'T exist and thus the fact that some atheists ridicule people of faith for lack of proof and blind faith is hypocritical. I have rarely met an Atheist that asserts that god DOESN'T exist. They just say they have no belief in any gods because there is no evidence to believe in those things. It's not quite agnosticism, it's just a requirement of evidence to believe something. And for some requests of responses. I got this from a hawaiian friend of hers: Show nested quote + I think the argument is a little convoluted. Facts and opinions are often jaded when it comes to the founding of a nation. The structure of our government and the individual states take on a much different purpose. As the colonies did have their own distinct charters and rules about religion some being strict and others allowing free practice.
But if you look at in a modern perspective its more a matter of personal ideology. I don't know where the lines are drawn but as a christian, and someone who enjoys saying one nation under god in the pledge, i find it just as offensive that I should be persecuted for saying it. I'm going to say it my way why cant other people just not include "under god" when they say it? I responded to that with: Show nested quote + Well the debate isn't whether you want to personally say under god or not, it's whether the government should endorse a religion or not. Our government is bound by the constitution, without that, they could take advantage of us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Making a law, putting "under god" into the pledge is unconstitutional. Is it fair for 1 child in a class of 30 to be isolated for not believing in your god? Children that have been raised by their parents who are muslims, buddhists, atheists, are put into a completely unfair social situation, that is endorsed and sponsored by the government.
Also it's the government saying this nation (meaning the people in it) are under god (meaning worshipping him/her/whatever it is). I'm an atheist, I don't worship a god, so I'm not being equally represented, and my constitutional rights are being violated. and Show nested quote +The treaty of tripoli is my favorite bit of evidence. It was our proclamation towards the muslim nations at the time that we were not going to commit crusades in the name of religion towards them.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Then the girl who is a good friend of mine posted back on hers finally: Show nested quote + wow alrigghty now kevin haha i didnt need an essay on here hahaha...im glad we all have our different opinions but im just saying I hate this politically correct crap and people are a bunch or babies nowadays...who cares if it hasnt been in there as long as "man" has been here but its been in there for way longer then we've been alive so we should jsut leave it at that and respect it. I love my country and support it....i understand your atheist..but this country was founded by the church in the first place...soo with that being said just say it ..or dont say it dang it hahah but everyone needs to respect everyone else's opinons...ho k thank ha And then my response: Show nested quote + Oh yeah I respect your opinions. I just have a lot to say about the issue. It isn't about political correctness, it is about the government upholding the constitution and treating people of different faiths (or lack of faiths) equally. I'm sure you agree that the government should treat everyone as if they were "created" equal don't you? That's all we want.
And well the how long it has been there comment was to show that it has only been there a short time when you take the whole history of America being there into account. And it was only 56 years ago hehe.
The claim that this country was founded by the church can be academically proven wrong, and many historians will disagree. You can ask any US History teacher at any college. A vast majority of them will tell you, it was founded on secularism because the majority of the founding fathers were always opposed to organized religion.
That's not to say religion is bad or anything. It serves it's purpose, makes a lot of people happy, just in cases like this, it tends to put itself ahead of the equality of others. Same with the rights of homosexuals. And many christian churches were behind the anger over desegregation of blacks, and many churches were against woman's suffrage. Historically the churches and religious have, time and time again, been on the wrong side of ethical evolution of mankind. and This was the hawaiian guy's response to that: Show nested quote +Well your talking about a treaty which John Adams signed to do a few things. The first was an attempt to buy off pirates until we could build our Navy up, to secure the release of Americans being held, and proclaim peace and amity.
To the best of my knowledge the treaty lasted only 3 years until Thomas Jefferson authorized our navy to step in and we fought the first Barbary war. The pirates demanded nearly 20% of national budget and still kept on attacking American vessels. Kinda messed up. But the treaty did include the article 11 clause which does site the separation of church and state. Its context however was to state that this is two sovereign powers not religious states attempting to find a compromise. The Arabic version of the text is also up for debate. The founding fathers were crafty paraphrasing many of the articles including or possibly excluding article 11 entirely. I find that a little strange myself but i guess I cant know for sure unless I learn Arabic.
All in all our opinions matter little in the respect that society will simply have to follow the lead of those in power. How do they interpret the constitution in this respect? It is something that changes and I would expect to keep changing for many years to come. To which I replied: Show nested quote +The idea that you always have to follow the lead of those in power is rather resigned. We have a constitution that restricts those powers, and we have laws and checks and balances that attribute we, the people, power in most things. It has been stripped away a great deal, over the years, and it has been strengthened in some areas as well. Honestly there is little way to interpret the constitution so incorrectly as to assume that "Under God" should be in our pledge or on our money. How offensive would it be to the religious if the money said "In No God We Trust". Everyone would be up in arms and talk about sacrilege and how offensive it is, especially those calling this debate out on being about political correctness. She then replied on her post: Show nested quote + oh boy haha you guys all write so much! haha lets just settle this..okay settled ;p Overall the girl who posted it basically had showed that, whatever I wasn't expecting anyone to actually debate what I posted, just expected everyone to like it and agree with me. Kind of short-sighted.
Your female friend sounds like an idiot who is unable to debate logically and tries to laugh things off rather than engage as she is clearly out of her league. You should be straight up with her and call her out on her ignorance.
|
Just like you, I acknowledge that I do not know the answer.
But as soon as someone makes a claim for something, with no tangible evidence to support it, and preaches it as if it's the truth, and tries to make changes in politics, education, science, ethics, etc, using religion/spirituality/God as the basis of/for the need for the changes, I have a problem.
And that happens so fucking frequently.
And to say that things are "assumptions" and "observations", and they base our collective knowledge and they aren't absolute knowledge, while correct, is a massive misrepresentation of how accurate the knowledge we have actually is. Especially when you compare it to the alternatives.
EDIT - The fact is - Science cured Smallpox, not prayer. And by curing that one single disease, science has probably cured more people than the number of recorded "miracle" cures have. I'll take our "assumptions" and "observations" over the alternatives, any day.
|
On January 17 2011 21:44 Azzur wrote:
I do agree that intelligent design shouldn't be forced upon the kids. Thus, I believe that it should be an optional unit to take. However, if a school does decide to do something like this, I'm sure a lot of people will take offense to it.
Also, right now, kids are being taught evolution as fact and only presented with the arguments for it. There is no mention of the weaknesses of the theory.
But to address the OP, I do feel that the facebook post is over the top because it implies that they are deliberately making the facebook post because they "don't care about offending people". A deeper implication is also perhaps that anyone who is offended is possibly unpatriotic? This is where I believe it crosses the line.
Instead, if the facebook poster posted the pledge of allegiance and said I'm a proud American (without the offend part), then it's probably ok. Religious people need to be aware that some of their actions may be construed as obnoxious.
Can you PM me your e-mail address? I would like to e-mail you a copy of Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth.
|
On January 19 2011 11:27 Impervious wrote:
Just like you, I acknowledge that I do not know the answer.
But as soon as someone makes a claim for something, with no tangible evidence to support it, and preaches it as if it's the truth, and tries to make changes in politics, education, science, ethics, etc, using religion/spirituality/God as the basis of/for the need for the changes, I have a problem.
And that happens so fucking frequently.
And to say that things are "assumptions" and "observations", and they base our collective knowledge and they aren't absolute knowledge, while correct, is a massive misrepresentation of how accurate the knowledge we have actually is. Especially when you compare it to the alternatives.
So it looks like we agree partially. That was in part what I meant when I said I disagree with those forcing their beliefs on others. I don't agree with any decision that has the potential to affect others who are not of the same way of thinking to be based upon religion. As soon as you say "I know there is a God, and he wills me to do this", or "He makes this right and I know!", we are going to have a problem. That is why I agree that religion should have no part in those kinds of changes and decisions, because most religion has turned away from being a belief to being an assertion. I have no problem with anyone's personal beliefs, if they want to believe in something, if they don't want to, whatever. I just think they should stay personal, and not enter into a sphere where you push them on other people, one way or another. As far as the United State go, I don't think they should be pushing Christianity into the schools. However, I'd have the same problem if they were pushing for children to be told there wasn't any gods in school, which obviously they aren't doing. It all falls under the same category, it does not matter what the beliefs are.
Also, I agree that what I said is more something abstract than anything most people would live their day to day lives by, or that applies in everyday context. I think most people would agree to eat a sandwich if they were starving than argue about its existence and meaning first. :p
|
The whole concept of "intelligent design" is just a ridiculous and outlandish attempt at validating creationism and the defense of its case, nothing more.
|
On January 19 2011 10:45 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I also disagree with those who say that there is absolutely a god, or a lack of one. What I am thinking, is that we should acknowledge our own ignorance and lack of knowing. I think this could almost be a step to closing the rift between theists and non-theists. You cannot be sure, and thus you say you "believe" there is, or is not a God. That seems fine. The problem arises when you confuse belief with knowledge, and that is where most conflict seems to come from when discussing these matters, that you think you know when you truly know nothing.
So you're an agnostic? To be honest, I consider myself an atheist, but by no means do I believe that I actually know anything about whether god(s) does or does not exist. Its just that if you would ask me to place a bet on whether or not there is a god(s), I would probably guess no.
The reason for this is based on the way I view religion. To me, religion is concerned with explaining the origin of the universe and human experience. I haven't really found a religion that provides a simpler explanation than god does not exist.
Let's take christianity for example. A lot of people who bash atheism complain that it doesn't explain anything. They point out that according to an atheist the world came from nothing and we're going nowhere and nothing really matters (roughly paraphrased). In other words atheism takes the lazy way out of not explaining anything. The funny thing is that attributing the creation of the universe to a deity really doesn't solve the problem of causality, and in fact it makes it really confusing.
By saying the world was created by a deity, there is still no causation for said deity. Of course you could argue that the deity was always there, but how is that really different from saying the world was always there?
If you want to see all the confusion that anthropomorphizing causation can bring, just look at the long history of christian theological disputes. Things like the trinity, communion, and miracles just make it so damn complex and confusing. Obviously there are religions which are simpler than many christian sects, but I haven't seen any that offer a simpler, more elegant explanation than there is not god.
I understand that for a lot of people explaining causality is not one of the reasons they appreciate religion. I believe that there are many religions which provide great moral lessons, but to me religion is something that unnecessarily complicates life without solving any of the problems it sets out to solve.
|
On January 19 2011 10:33 PanN wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2011 09:08 happyft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:05 PanN wrote:On January 19 2011 08:02 happyft wrote:yes early on Christianity may have tolerated slavery, but those who sought to abolish were very clearly Christian (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)on women's rights -- Frederick Douglas (christian), Susan B Anthony (started out Quaker, then Unitariast), Sojourner Truth (christian) minority rights, I was thinking specifically of Martin Luther King Jr (a pastor no less) and PanN, so much is wrong with your post, I'm not even going to respond to it lol. If you want a real discussion, PM me. and going back to the original post, regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, I think we can agree on the healthiness of separation of church state, for both Christians and non-Christians. How about you tell me where I'm wrong here, so others can discuss it as well, instead of acting like a stuck up snob saying what I said has no place in this discussion. Christianity oppressed people for an extremely long time. Christianity supports slavery (there is instructions in the bible on how to treat your slaves) Christians in the 1800's told slaves they would go to heaven, in order to keep them under control. God told a warrior (don't remember the name off the top of my head) to keep all the virgins after a battle, and what do you think the reason for that was? Rape. Another person in the bible, promised god he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when he got home, and it was his daughter I believe. If children are unruly, it tells you to kill them. Women are less than men. And women for committing adultery (or various other things) are to be stoned to death. Where exactly am I fucking wrong here? Please do tell. Mind giving a couple examples of Christianity opressing people for an extended period of time, so we can talk about specifics? The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well). Mind finding that passage on the warrior taking virgins for rape for me? I want to make sure we're talking about the same passage. But I think you might be referring to Numbers 31, in which God told Moses to wipe them out (that's probably another issue to discuss), but the people spared the virgins (for which Moses was angry at them) and were allowed to eventually keep them. As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it. Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly? Re: women unequal to men. Genesis 1: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Equality. Yes, women and men are treated differently, and perhaps unfairly in Biblical times -- however, we understand from the example of Jesus and even the early Church that God and His people valued men and women equally. Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress? Man this is why I wanted to take it to PMs...cuz I doubt anybody else really care about what we're talking about lol "The slavery spoken about in the New Testament is usually translated as servant or bondservant, where people sold themselves in order to repay debts. This is not Paul condoning people going around claiming others as property, but rather Paul exhorting Christians to treat their bondservants well (and their bondservants to treat their masters (or employers would be a kinder word?) well)." Oh cool, the new testament, well heres a quote from the bible that says you're wrong. " However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" And another " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)" Yeah, sounds like a regular fucking bond servant picnic doesn't it? "As for the person who sacrificed his daughter -- I believe that is an example of foolishness, and not to be looked at as a role model. There is no mention of God's approval or disapproval of his vow -- only that the man had fulfilled it." " At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." You're right, but the passage implies god was there with him, and didn't do a damn thing to stop it, instead, it implies he helped jephthah in the battle. Why is it that God can torture an innocent man to prove a point to the devil (job, had sin, but.... everyones born with it, and he sacrificed animals to make amends, wasn't enough apparently), and wont stop the sacrifice of this innocent girl? Sounds evil to me. "Re: killing unruly children -- do I really have to argue this? No actually, holy crap you're right, every Christian has been breaking this commandment. We've got to go preach this everywhere, why is this not being taught correctly?" I assume you're trying to be amusing but.... There's an expression for this. Cherry-Picking Sure, devote your life to the bible and pick and choose what sounds right to you, it's not like it says to follow everything no matter what, I'm sure Jesus will be ok with that. " For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)" Oh. " -- would you care to respond to my prior post about specific Christian people who were at the forefront of advocating social progress in multiple areas in multiple time periods? And if Christianity is so bad, who was better? Who advocated social progress?" No, I'm not going to argue your point that some Christians were good people, because thats beyond fucking obvious. I'm arguing the point that it (christianity as a whole) hasn't been socially progressive. Those were peoples actions and words, not gods actions. The problem is, these are gods word. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htmhttp://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htmhttp://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm"Now nitpicking the minor "contradictions" of the Bible aside" Oh shush, I'm not nitpicking contradictions, I'm blatantly pointing out the disgusting morals of the bible, not contradictions. And trying to paint the point that with standards and morals like that, there is little to no progression.
Regarding the Mosaic law on slavery, you have to understand the times and what exactly was going on back then -- the Israelites and all the other tribes in the surrounding area were bitter enemies. The Israelites came and moved in, a dozen or so tribes didn't like that and they went to war with each other. As bad as you think the Israelites treated them, they treated the Israelites far, far worse. For example, they ran sledges (think spiked heavy sleds) over prisoners of war and used their living bodies for sacrifice, and that was after they sodomized them, brutalized and tortured them, blinded them, cut off their limbs, etc. etc. There are instances in the Old Testament where the Israelites would commit suicide rather than being captured by the enemy, and suicide was considered an extreme sin, that's how bad it was.
So yes, the Israelites did have slaves -- BUT, there was a justice system in place to protect them. Killing a slave was punishable. Crippled slaves were to be set free. Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were also considered free. Slaves also were to enjoy a Sabbath day of rest. And the law expressly prohibited rape, prostitution. Consider this compared to how Israelites' enemies treated them when they were captured. And it's not like the Israelites invented slavery -- the first account of slavery in the Bible in fact relates the Israelites as the slaves, not the slavers.
I don't want to pretend like slavery is an okay and good thing -- but Israel certainly did not invent it, and was probably one of the more compassionate practitioners of it (relatively). But what I"m wondering is how you go from Israelites being enslaved, to having a justice system for slaves, to Christians support slavery, to Christians oppress people, to Christians are the opposite of socially progressive?
Regarding your argument on why God is evil because He allows evil to occur ... first of all, it's a bit problematic when there's a little bit of evil in all of us? So does He forcibly make us all good with no free-will of our own? Keep in mind the Christian definition of good is to love God with all of our hearts mind soul and strength -- so in essence, if God were to take action in rectifying all evil, that would include forcing all humankind to love Him. That's pretty horrifying, and not something a loving God would do at all.
Second of all, God allowed Satan to inflict hardship upon Job -- who is responsible for that, Satan or God? To which I ask, to what extent do beings have free-will? And the other example, why would God allow that man to slay his daughter? (Or allow evil to happen at all)? I believe these are similar questions to the one in the prior paragraph -- to what extent can you stop someone from committing evil? If you had a son who was a heroin addict -- it's in his nature to seek heroin, he can't help himself (definition of addiction) -- what can you do to stop him from going back to heroin time and time again? Every solution you can think of takes away his freedom, his free-will, his ability to act.
Now regarding cherry-picking and killing unruly children -- the irony sir, is that you are the one cherry-picking a few verses of the whole Bible. You are correct in that the law does command extremely strict punishment for sinful actions -- and this is a correct representation of God's nature; that He utterly hates sin and wishes to demolish all that is sinful.
The problem is that there is sin in all of us. All of us have lied at least once, perhaps stolen, disobeyed our parents, mistreated our neighbor -- think about all the hours you've wasted at work, being a dishonest employee and not working honestly for your pay (lol, as I sit here typing from my office computer). If we were to go to a court where the judge was omniscent and knew exactly how much we owed every single person in the world for every misdeed we did to them -- who knows how much each of us would owe in total. If you could put it in numerical terms, the debt would be staggering. (And being an unruly child counts as a misdeed)
+ Show Spoiler [The nature of sin] +And it's worse than just a debt to be repaid -- sin, performing any misdeed or evil, corrupts the soul. Doing bad things corrupts your soul, it is a sad fact of life. It is for this reason that when you enter a holy place, when you get down on your knees to pray, there is a feeling of unworthiness, of shame and guilt. It is not religion brainwashing you into guilt-tripping you to be a better person -- it is your conscience remembering all your misdeeds, bringing you the knowledge that before a most holy God, you are unworthy to stand before Him, you are unable to look Him in the eyes for you know you have sinned...
But there is a hope -- every single book of the Bible (yes, every single one) speaks to a savior to come who would pay our debts by personally paying the price, and more than just giving us our old lives back, he gives us a new life to live -- the perfect life that he had lived. It is by this fundamental doctrine of forgiveness of sins that Christians do not kill their unruly children, nor do we exact justice for every single law and commandment in the Bible -- for our misdeeds have been forgiven.
TL;DR -- grace > sin. Apologies for length, and if I used any Christian lingo that's not clear to the rest of you =T
|
The problem is that we are all so concerned about what everyone else is doing that we forget that the only thing we should concentrate on is what we believe and stop inflicting our will on others. I dont mean forget about everyone else, rather forget about vague belief systems that others hold.
No one is going to change their fucking mind so stop trying to "convince them" with logic or argument. This world is going to shit anyway try to enjoy our time here in peace.
But if you think you're good at SC ill have something to say about it 
P.S. for thread value I'll tell you that I never said the pledge because it's kind of stupid to recite a statement over and over when we are clearly a terrible terrible country that rapes the entire world.
|
happyft, you're arguing that the lesser of two evils is good (otherwise almost every single God-loving person would be in hell anyways).....
And then claim to know the "correct representation of God's nature" for something that is, by definition, unknowable.....
And then preach as if it's correct.....
Yay for logic.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
