Are you there God? It's me, Margaret.

[U2isthebest]

duly and humbly noted. and corrected.

Mr Rooney...Ed, you're a beautiful man. I want to thank you for your warmth and compassion.

 

[indra]

As soon as ID can meet the same scientific standards (as determined by the scientific community) evolution does, I'll be fine with it being taught as science. Until then it belongs only in religion or philosophy classes.

 

[Harry Vest]

it's not, though, Harry. ID is an explicitly Christianist concept designed to have a patina of pseudo-scientific "credibility" that's a Trojan Horse for a fundamentalist agenda.

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

evolution and creationism cannot coexist on a creationist's terms.

O.K. then. Forget it. Someone (like all kinds of "believers" in a creator) should come up with a more unbiased (towards stricly "Christian") intelligent design theory. Wouldn't that be alright???

 

[VintagePunk]

O.K. then. Forget it. Someone (like all kinds of "believers" in a creator) should come up with a more unbiased (towards stricly "Christian") intelligent design theory. Wouldn't that be alright???

No. The problem isn't one of Christianity, it's a matter of a supreme being not being based in science, so it holds true for any religion.

 

[melon]

O.K. then. Forget it. Someone (like all kinds of "believers" in a creator) should come up with a more unbiased (towards stricly "Christian") intelligent design theory. Wouldn't that be alright???

It's called "evolutionary creationism," or "theistic evolution." It's the scientific Theory of Evolution with a "...but it was created by God" suffix appended to it.

In other words, there's no need to teach anything but science in a science class.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think it should be. Teach both. Spend more time on evolution, since it would be taught in science class and evolution is more science-y, but spend a little time (a few hours, days, whatever) going over creationism, and let the kids make up their minds and research what they want to research.

I know. I have such an extreme, far-right, anti-science point of view.

Yes, you do.

There is no controversy about the fact of evolution in science and teaching creation myths violates the first amendment.

 

[Screwtape2]

Atheist but I do think there is an "afterlife" that at this point can't be understood yet by modern science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Nonsense. One does not neccesarily "disprove the other" - if your talking a purely fundamentalist view (the earth is only 6000 years old) then yes, you're right...but that isn't intelligent design is it? I thought intelligent design is simply allowing for the possibility of a creator. Why are so many people in the secular world afraid of that??? Have an open mind people. Evolution and Creation can co-exist despite what certain "christians" will tell you.

No, evolution removes the need for a creator to explain the diversity and complexity of life. You may believe in a creator and accept evolution, but the creator is superfluous.

 

[U2isthebest]

It's called "evolutionary creationism," or "theistic evolution." It's the scientific Theory of Evolution with a "...but it was created by God" suffix appended to it.

In other words, there's no need to teach anything but science in a science class.

Exactly, I would put myself in the "theistic evolution" category. As you said, nothing but science should be taught in, wait for it...science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Going along the theistic evolution route, what justifies the assertion that God created evolution?

Natural selection is a property of replication, heritable variation and differential survival; a process that will occur wherever those preconditions are met (I would suppose that would include other possible worlds too). Evolution doesn't need a creator, it is an emergent property of systems that meet those preconditions; those preconditions do not necessarily need a creator - although that comes to questions about the origin of universes and worlds which are beyond the purview of science at this point in time.

I respect that unlike other creationists the theistic evolution approach abides by the NOMA concept and becomes a matter of personal faith, but I can't help feeling that it relegates God to a first cause that is irrelevant in our day to day lives; what differentiates that sort of belief system from pantheism or deism?

 

[jasonlee]

These threads never disappoint!

Okay, how do you people feel about politicians taking their oath of office on other than the Bible. Like, for example, the Qur'an? Or, would you ever vote for an atheist president?

Best,
Jason

 

[A_Wanderer]

I want to see them sworn in with the Jefferson Bible.

 

[U2isthebest]

Going along the theistic evolution route, what justifies the assertion that God created evolution?

Natural selection is a property of replication, heritable variation and differential survival; a process that will occur wherever those preconditions are met (I would suppose that would include other possible worlds too). Evolution doesn't need a creator, it is an emergent property of systems that meet those preconditions; those preconditions do not necessarily need a creator - although that comes to questions about the origin of universes and worlds which are beyond the purview of science at this point in time.

I respect that unlike other creationists the theistic evolution approach abides by the NOMA concept and becomes a matter of personal faith, but I can't help feeling that it relegates God to a first cause that is irrelevant in our day to day lives; what differentiates that sort of belief system from pantheism or deism?

I suppose since we're coming at this from 2 different angles it would be hard to really understand the meat of each others points of view. I guess the simplest way I can explain it, is that I believe that anything that's been created has to have a Creator. I don't see how any of the processes of science can function if they weren't created. I don't believe things exist on their own. As a Christian, I believe that it was God created evolution, natural selection, and any other process that shapes the earth and it's processes. Of course, this wouldn't really make much sense to your worldview, which is perfectly fine. This where faith and reason meet for me. Also, you should be applauding me for typing out a serious response while listening to "Erotica" by Madonna.

 

[namkcuR]

I'm going to quote a scene from the West Wing because, sadly, no real politician has, to my knowledge, said anything like this publicly. This is from a scene in the series' final season in which Republican presidential candidate Arnold Vinick says the following to reporters when a line of questioning about religion comes up:

"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it'll be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes. So, every day until the end of this campaign, I'll answer any question anyone has on government. But if you have a question on religion, please, go to church. Thank you."

That is the truth.

When people still say Obama is a Muslim, I get angry, not for one reason, but for two. One is the obvious - he is clearly not a Muslim, and those who say he is are choosing to be ignorant. But the other is this: What if he was Muslim? Or what if he was Jewish? Or what if he was an Atheist? Or what if he was Agnostic? Why should that prevent him from being a good president? Why is it so hard for us, as a society, to accept a president who isn't Christian? That doesn't seem very secular to me.

 

[redhotswami]

I honestly don't know what I believe anymore. Life has fucked me in the head and shaken me to the core. I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that. I'd love to talk to somebody about it, but I've no idea who to go to. I don't want someone imposing beliefs on me, I'd just like some assistance sorting things out.

These threads never disappoint!

Okay, how do you people feel about politicians taking their oath of office on other than the Bible. Like, for example, the Qur'an? Or, would you ever vote for an atheist president?

Best,
Jason

My vote is always one on policy and platform. I couldn't care less about someone's personal life.

 

[corianderstem]

I couldn't care less about someone's personal life.

But what if you found out they ate babies?

 

[U2isthebest]

These threads never disappoint!

Okay, how do you people feel about politicians taking their oath of office on other than the Bible. Like, for example, the Qur'an? Or, would you ever vote for an atheist president?

Best,
Jason

I don't believe a politican should have to take their oath on a Bible unless he or she wants to. If they want to use another religious text or none at all, it should be up to them. Jesus Himself says in the Gospels that swearing on the Scriptures or any religious texts doesn't mean anything. All that matters is that one means what they're saying regardless of their religion or lack thereof. I would have no problem voting for a president who was an atheist. I don't believe people of religious faith have a monopoly on morality. If this hypothetical candidate supported equal rights for all, strong environmental standards and energy goals, a universal healthcare plan, a strong emphasis on peace and diplomacy as opposed to war, a foreign policy that responds to genocide, the AIDS pandemic, disease, famine, etc, a strong education system that allowed equal opportunities for all students, an economy that allowed everyone to get ahead by taxing corporations and the wealthy instead of the middle class and poor, I would strongly support such a candidate regardless of religion. To me, those represent true Biblical morality and it has nothing to do with a candidate's personal religion. We've had a supposedly Christian administration in the White House for the past 8 years that have basically gone against everything I feel is true Christianity. Labels don't matter, character does.

 

[Vincent Vega]

These threads never disappoint!

Okay, how do you people feel about politicians taking their oath of office on other than the Bible. Like, for example, the Qur'an? Or, would you ever vote for an atheist president?

Best,
Jason

A politician should obviously take his oath on the book he believes in. Why should a Muslim take the oath on the Bible, or vice versa? That I would find a bit strange, as he would be taking his oath on something he doesn't believe in.
However, I don't really care that much on what book someone takes his oath (as a side info, in Germany they to my knowledge don't even use a book for that, and even if they did it wouldn't be a religious book), much more I do care that the person later acts accordingly.
And I really don't care at all which religion a politician has, or non-religion for that matter.

What about you?

 

[redhotswami]

But what if you found out they ate babies?

I'd invite him/her over for dinner



<--- not really a baby fan. don't hate!

 

[U2isthebest]

But what if you found out they ate babies?

Sarah Palin eats baby seals.

 

[Pearl]

I believe in God, and the whole Holy Trinity. I believe there is an afterlife. The way I see it, if we are connected to something in life, why wouldn't we be when we die?

As for how life began, I believe in the Big Bang theory, evolution etc., but God was behind it all. And I also believe ID should be taught in science class, creationism in religion and philosophy classes.

I wouldn't mind if a politician was not a Christian, as long as he or she is willing to respect the beliefs of others, and not force their beliefs onto people.

 

[corianderstem]

Instead of clubbing baby seals, I like to take baby seals clubbing.

 

[redhotswami]

Instead of clubbing baby seals, I like to take baby seals clubbing.

I believe in this.

 

[jasonlee]

I think this is endlessly fascinating...

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Article VI.
Clause 3
"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
Comment: Apparently Non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

...and I asked the last couple of questions because polls (for whatever they're worth) say that most Americans would never vote for an atheist president.

And then there's this article which is just too lovely for words...

But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran!
By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; C03

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

"He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison's 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson's copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson's collection and has his customary initialing on the pages. This isn't the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies -- the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions.

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

One person unlikely to be swayed by the book's illustrious history is Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison's use of the Koran. "I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible," the Virginia Republican told Fox News, and then went on to warn about what he regards as the dangers of Muslims immigrating to the United States and Muslims gaining elective office.

Yeah, but what about a Koran that belonged to one of the greatest Virginians in history? Goode, who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.

 

[Vincent Vega]

But what if you found out they ate babies?

What sides and seasoning?

 

[corianderstem]

Coriander.

 

[Irvine511]

I honestly don't know what I believe anymore. Life has fucked me in the head and shaken me to the core. I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that. I'd love to talk to somebody about it, but I've no idea who to go to. I don't want someone imposing beliefs on me, I'd just like some assistance sorting things out.

life will do that.

the best thing i've found is Buddhism. when i don't go on Wednesdays, i feel the dread start to creep in. the meditation and teachings (of which i only find about 50% to be actually applicable, but as religions go, that's pretty good) are tremendously clarifying.

there are times when i feel like saying, "fuck it all" and just moving to, say, Kauai or Santa Fe and meditating for the next 50 years. and perhaps that's the sanest thing to do.

but anyone who looks at all of the curveballs that life throws at you and exclaims, "well, golly, it's all just part of God's Plan," really needs to get a freaking grip on the suffering of humanity.

the best we can do is deal with it, and keep perspective, and offer as much compassion and we possibly can to one another.

in many ways, when it comes to dealing with life here on earth, God has nothing to do with it. just like Tina Turner sang.

 

[redhotswami]

life will do that.

the best thing i've found is Buddhism. when i don't go on Wednesdays, i feel the dread start to creep in. the meditation and teachings (of which i only find about 50% to be actually applicable, but as religions go, that's pretty good) are tremendously clarifying.

there are times when i feel like saying, "fuck it all" and just moving to, say, Kauai or Santa Fe and meditating for the next 50 years. and perhaps that's the sanest thing to do.

but anyone who looks at all of the curveballs that life throws at you and exclaims, "well, golly, it's all just part of God's Plan," really needs to get a freaking grip on the suffering of humanity.

the best we can do is deal with it, and keep perspective, and offer as much compassion and we possibly can to one another.

in many ways, when it comes to dealing with life here on earth, God has nothing to do with it. just like Tina Turner sang.

That's pretty much how I'm leaning at the moment. I don't understand "God's Plan" or the "Everything happens for a reason". I think it is a cop out. I also wonder if people who accept that way of thinking are delusional.

I find it much easier to accept life as unpredictable and mysterious. It's kinda weird though, how it works out, you know? For as much suffering as there is, I do see a lot of love. Life = paradox. But why is that? Is it really balanced overall? Why can things opposing each other exist like that? Does one always have to come with the other? So weird.


Sorry...tangent.

So, yeah, I believe in love.

 

[Irvine511]

So, yeah, I believe in love.

in some ways, it's all we have. and it's the love we give each other -- knowing that you are loved, and loved always in all ways, is *the* reason to get up in the morning.

eff "god" and "jesus" and "mohammad" and whoever the fuck else. they all amount to little more than Santa Clause when the going gets tough.

all we have is each other.

 

[redhotswami]

in some ways, it's all we have. and it's the love we give each other -- knowing that you are loved, and loved always in all ways, is *the* reason to get up in the morning.

eff "god" and "jesus" and "mohammad" and whoever the fuck else. they all amount to little more than Santa Clause when the going gets tough.

all we have is each other.

I.O.U. one superginormous bear hug