Creationism isn't Right

[DublinGuy]

But you believe in philosophy and science because you want to. Philosophy at its most base level is nothing more than opinion and scientific facts can change. So you are choosing to believe in something. You're putting your faith in science and philosopy believing they will be your guide.

Keep in mind, this isn't a derogatory post; I'm not saying your way is bad or mines better or whatever. I'm just saying that despite the fact that you wouldn't believe in something just to believe in it; you actually still are doing that exact thing.

I believe in scientific theories that seem accurate based on empirical testing and hold philosophical beliefs that stand up to the rigorous examination of reason. It is as a result of employing reason and advances in science that I'm an atheist. 'Believing' in induction seems drastically different to holding a belief in an unobservable divine entity. Anyway, I know this is all very far removed from the original topic and I have to leg it! Thanks for the transatlantic chat.

 

[Irvine511]

No, but I'm not trying to change school curricula to suit my exclusionary religious beliefs.

but you should.

for whenever there is something that isn't in perfect accordance with exclusionary religious beliefs, then you are oppressing those with exclusionary religious beliefs and imposing on their freedom to practice their religion as they see fit.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are hilarious.

And, as usual, full of the same absolutes as those you mock.

Okay then quantify God and find the answers to some questions, how was God able to create the world, how does God direct the energy and matter to make it possible for humans to emerge, how does God communicate with his prophets - is it ESP. Does God travel faster than light? Is God able to create new matter - how does he achieve this? etc.

I stipulated as we understand it, that leaves the door wide open to what we think we know about the universe being wrong and actually having God do it. That is not an absolutist position (which would be there is no God and I am 100% certain of that).

 

[martha]

Okay then quantify God and find the answers to some questions, how was God able to create the world, how does God direct the energy and matter to make it possible for humans to emerge, how does God communicate with his prophets - is it ESP. Does God travel faster than light? Is God able to create new matter - how does he achieve this? etc.

Because He's GOD.

He doesn't have to comform to your limited perceptions. Believe it or not, you personally do not know and understand everything in the universe.

Hell, you don't know and understand on earth. None of us does.

 

[INDY500]

i believe in ethics and responsibility and morality as i've come to understand it, which is certainly influenced by religion, but is not shackled to it.

Right, but what happens when you take away that religous influence.

Do they even teach in school anymore the symbolism on the reverse of our national seal? Could they if secular-progressives win the day?

 

[deep]

Originally posted by Snowlock


You have to at least be equitable in this. Maybe conservatives wouldn't have had to try (and in some cases succeed) to get this into the cirriculum if liberals hadn't tried (and in most cases succeeded) to eridicate God from classrooms, holidays, goverment offices, etc. [/B]

Ok
let's truly be equitable

will you let the Science community have 15 minutes at your church service
to present their belief that humans can not possibly all come from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, and their is no geological evidence of a whole earth flood, ...?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because He's GOD.

He doesn't have to comform to your limited perceptions. Believe it or not, you personally do not know and understand everything in the universe.

Hell, you don't know and understand on earth. None of us does.

What are you talking about, I createed the universe and you but I don't reveal how powerful I am because it would upset the experiment, proove me wrong. How is that line or argument any less valid than the one you illustrated above?

 

[Snowlock]

I know the first amendment is such a bitch.

This one? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

 

[Snowlock]

Ok
let's truly be equitable

will you let the Science community have 15 minutes at your church service
to present their belief that humans can not possibly all come from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, and their is no geological evidence of a whole earth flood, ...?

As long as they also explain how a pulsar can exist, where the dinosaurs went and show slides of the missing link? Absolutely.

 

[DublinGuy]

Because He's GOD.

He doesn't have to comform to your limited perceptions. Believe it or not, you personally do not know and understand everything in the universe.

Hell, you don't know and understand on earth. None of us does.

"Because he's God" is far too easy an answer. This is pure religious dogma. Obviously none of us understand everything in the universe but science and reasoning can tell us that the probability is that there is no God. The onus is on the theist to prove God's existence, not on the atheist to disprove it. Saying that our minds are not sophisticated enough to comprehend God just won't do.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This one? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Tax dollars from atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Christians ad infinitum go to the US Government which then spends the money on public education; if that public education has classes that promote religious belief or a religious worldview then that is state money being used to respect and establish religion which is a violation. Religious belief gets no promotion or persecution by the state; if you want to promote a religion start a religious school with your own money.

 

[A_Wanderer]

"Because he's God" is far too easy an answer. This is pure religious dogma. Obviously none of us understand everything in the universe but science and reasoning can tell us that the probability is that there is no God. The onus is on the theist to prove God's existence, not on the atheist to disprove it. Saying that our minds are not sophisticated enough to comprehend God just won't do.

next you will attack my faith in the Tooth Fairy, Santa and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[deep]

As long as they also explain how a pulsar can exist, where the dinosaurs went and show slides of the missing link? Absolutely.

science does not claim to have all the answers

they only present what can be supported


and

is where the dinosaurs went even in doubt?

 

[A_Wanderer]

As long as they also explain how a pulsar can exist, where the dinosaurs went and show slides of the missing link? Absolutely.

Pulsars can exist as a concequence of gravity, most clades of the dinosaurs went extinct except for the aves and missing links and dead ends are all through the fossil record (from Tiktaalik to Ambulocetus) only some people never care to notice them.

 

[2861U2]

The onus is on the theist to prove God's existence, not on the atheist to disprove it.

I disagree with you here.

 

[Irvine511]

Do they even teach in school anymore the symbolism on the reverse of our national seal? Could they if secular-progressives win the day?

you leap to such extreme conclusions.

secular-progressives are fine with the teaching of history -- if religion plays a part in history, by God, teach it.

this is *very* different than making students pray, putting up crosses in classroom, and forcing supersititons into science classes.

 

[BVS]

It says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I love how theocracists always use this line. It means nothing.

 

[DublinGuy]

Right, but what happens when you take away that religous influence.

Do they even teach in school anymore the symbolism on the reverse of our national seal? Could they if secular-progressives win the day?

How is taking away a religious influence on a sense of morality problematic? A capacity for empathy is far more important than the religious influence of morality. Moral values seem to make most sense when derived from non-moral values such as human welfare, rather than from a religious code.

 

[DublinGuy]

I disagree with you here.

Please elaborate.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I love how theocracists always use this line. It means nothing.

It has meaning with free speech etc. but they just don't understand the concept of the secular state protecting their right to believe.

 

[2861U2]

this is *very* different than making students pray, putting up crosses in classroom, and forcing supersititons into science classes.

I think it is you who is jumping to extremem conclusions. What public school is doing what you describe above? People like me dont want that. I simply want the word Christmas to be able to be mentioned and that the Pledge be spoken every day. You seem to think that people like me desire the public school system to be a tool to convert everyone to Christianity, and that is incorrect.

 

[Snowlock]

Tax dollars from atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Christians ad infinitum go to the US Government which then spends the money on public education; if that public education has classes that promote religious belief or a religious worldview then that is state money being used to respect and establish religion which is a violation. Religious belief gets no promotion or persecution by the state; if you want to promote a religion start a religious school with your own money.

I don't want my tax dollars going toward wellfare or building sporting arenas for rich athletes and richer owners. I don't want them to be subsidizing abortion clinics or ethanol refineries. But they do. So how is that any different? Maybe my kid won't play football; does that mean I'll have a deduction from my taxes relative to the percentage that goes toward that sports program? What if I think the choir is a waste of time, or sex ed? Should I not have to pay for those either?

It's not the promotion of religious beliefs that I'm concerned about; its the persecution. If we're so busy trying to make sure we're not promoting religion and start banning all instances of it, then we are in fact persecuting religion.

Teaching the full course on evolution, and then when the eventual hand gets raised that says "yeah, but what started all this evolution" the instructor says "one theory is God and here's why" that isn't promoting religion any more than recounting how the early Catholic Church became the integral part of society that it was during the middle ages.

 

[2861U2]

Please elaborate.

Not much to say, I simply disagree with you. I think it is absolutely impossible for an athiest or anyone else to prove that a God doesnt exist. I dont care how great our science and research is, it is simply impossible to prove there isnt a God. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that there is a God.

 

[Snowlock]

science does not claim to have all the answers

they only present what can be supported

Thank you that's all I've been saying. Science is not the be all and end all of all answers. They only can answer questions as we know them today (or know them relative to any time period). As such, there is room for other views.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't want my tax dollars going toward wellfare or building sporting arenas for rich athletes and richer owners. I don't want them to be subsidizing abortion clinics or ethanol refineries. But they do. So how is that any different? Maybe my kid won't play football; does that mean I'll have a deduction from my taxes relative to the percentage that goes toward that sports program? What if I think the choir is a waste of time, or sex ed? Should I not have to pay for those either?

yes, but such things aren't unconstitutional. you've voted for representatives who are supposed to spend your money. if you don't like how they spend it, vote them out, but you don't get to pick-and-choose how that money is spent.

i don't want a dime of my money going to this horror show in Iraq, but i don't get that choice.


[q]It's not the promotion of religious beliefs that I'm concerned about; its the persecution. If we're so busy trying to make sure we're not promoting religion and start banning all instances of it, then we are in fact persecuting religion.[/q]

no one is banning all instances of religion. they are simply avoiding the promotion of a particular religion. there's a huge difference.

this country is plenty religious. in fact, we look fanatical to most of the rest of the Western world. American Christians are the lest persecuted group of believers in history.

Teaching the full course on evolution, and then when the eventual hand gets raised that says "yeah, but what started all this evolution" the instructor says "one theory is God and here's why" that isn't promoting religion any more than recounting how the early Catholic Church became the integral part of society that it was during the middle ages.

but that's not a scientific theory.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's public money and it's only public money that can't be used for promoting religion. The ammount of religiousity in America is a concequence of the freedoms that the secular state enables to exist. Thats different than building a sports stadium that lets people in regardless of race or religion and even has wheelchair ramps or limited government.

 

[BVS]

Thank you that's all I've been saying. Science is not the be all and end all of all answers. They only can answer questions as we know them today (or know them relative to any time period). As such, there is room for other views.

But the part that you aren't quite understanding is:

they only present what can be supported

Intelligent design can't be supported.

 

[deep]

Teaching the full course on evolution, and then when the eventual hand gets raised that says "yeah, but what started all this evolution" the instructor says "one theory is God and here's why" that isn't promoting religion any more than recounting how the early Catholic Church became the integral part of society that it was during the middle ages.

The answer is Science does not have an answer for a philosophical question.

Science reports what it finds evidence to support, and when new discoveries support new conclusions science presents that information also.

Science is an ever expanding field.

 

[Snowlock]

Pulsars can exist as a concequence of gravity, most clades of the dinosaurs went extinct except for the aves and missing links and dead ends are all through the fossil record (from Tiktaalik to Ambulocetus) only some people never care to notice them.

Wow, with three sentences you solve three mysteries that have been perplexing scientists for over 100 years. How about the recipe for Greek Fire and how the Hanging Gardens were built?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Not much to say, I simply disagree with you. I think it is absolutely impossible for an athiest or anyone else to prove that a God doesnt exist. I dont care how great our science and research is, it is simply impossible to prove there isnt a God. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that there is a God.

So your saying that God isn't falsifiable and thus not an entity that can be approached in a scientific manner and concequently not something to include in a materialistic worldview?