Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Classrooms Torn Between Science and Religion
Dystopian Rebel writes "A New Jersey public-school history teacher was recorded telling his students that they 'belong in Hell' if they do not accept Jesus. The teacher, who is also a Baptist Pastor, lied later when he was asked by the school principle what he said to the students. Unfortunately for this dodge, a student recorded the teacher's 'lesson'." From the article: "The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, and that the school develop quality control procedures to ensure that future classes are not proselytized and misinformed. They have also referred the matter for disciplinary action. No apology has been forthcoming from the teacher or from the school."
They live in New Jersey so when they wind up in Hell it won't be much different.
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
they should just tell him to 'go to hell'
It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.
It's a clear violation of the separation of church & state doctrine.
You're not allowed to prosceletize in a public school, period.
The school & teacher could be looking at a sizeable lawsuit.
Oddly enough, the capthca word for this post is "idiots".
Mod parent up.
In some states, like California, recording someone without them being aware of it (even if you are personally there) is illegal. Too many politicians got caught with their pants down and passed a self protective law. :-(
lpq
I wish I could mod stories as -1 Flamebait and then filter them out. The problem is, this thread will see 800 replies which generates a TON of revenue.
What if I stood up in class and said "I accept Jesus as a fucking cunt!"
Does that kind of acceptance get me eternal happiness?
Trolling is a art,
I don't see much difference between this religion and the apocolyptic eco-crazy memes they pump into kids at school these days. Instead of "Your soul will go to hell if you don't study" it has become "The earth will be destroyed if you don't recycle."
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Well, if they end up in Hell, Grand Cayman, that would certainly be a step up from Jersey. Hell, Michigan, probably not so much.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There's no excuse for that teacher's actions. However, school systems need to be consistent. There are plenty of examples of teachers teaching or communicating inappropriately on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, drugs, and politics.
When I was in the Finnish equivalent of high school we had a teacher who simply didn't have what it took to teach us efficiently. The class was never properly under control, people were messing around and no one was learning anything. With other teachers things worked fine.
Eventually we all signed a petition that this particular teacher simply didn't have what it took... and got a new one.
.: Max Romantschuk
"You go to Hell! You go to Hell and you die!" - Mr. Garrison
the "school principle" wasn't his pal.
Funny how until about a decade ago, Science was welcomed and seen as the answer, then suddenly the Discovery Institute came up with Intelligent Design and suddenly the thought that science shouldn't be taught anymore comes up.
Does anyone remember what the dark ages were? Looks like we're about to have a relapse.
MABASPLOOM!
...say something about liars having an appointment with a certain overly warm lake?
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
It's a clash between science and stupidity. You'll never hear someone like Dawkins talk about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science, because he wants to limit the debate to right-wing fundie atheists vs. right-wing fundie Christians.
Quite the contrary. Dawkins talks a lot about the 'moderate' Christians, as he considers that a large number of those have a 'soft' belief that is succeptible to rational argument. He describes the antics of the fundamentalists in an attempt to get through to the millions. And good luck to him.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
The comments made by this teacher were totally inappropriate and took advantage of his authority position. So why not call them that instead of using phrases like "anti-scientific" that imply a war between religion and science?
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
This reminds me of one of the latest South Park episodes.
and wtf is "anti-scientific" ?! Claiming you go to hell if you dont believe in Jesus is as "anti-scientific" as claiming evolution is 100% correct!
Its all conjecture in my oppinion.
Mod parent up.
Don't. It's propaganda pandering to the oppressors.
Stick Men
And this kind of thing happens roughtly a million times a day all over the world.
The big question is: Was anyone supprised by this sensational piece of news?
I'm a beliver of something non-scientific myself, but i never ever forget that it is something that i *believe* in.
It's not a law, or even a propable theory or model, just because i happen to belive in it. I've always found the "this-proves-religion-X" style argument totally foolish and a complete waste of time.
The sad thing is that i often find myself quite alone with this oppinion when among other belivers of this-or-that.
Yeah, or those other crazy religious fantasies, "capitalism is great!" and "democracy is a good way to run a country!"
Everything I've read by Dawkins suggests that he has no concept what non-fundamentalist Christians are; he's talking only about apathetic fundamentalists.
He and the fundamentalists need each other, so he treats fundamentalists as the essential definition of Christianity (rather than as a modernist group under two hundred years old, and a definite minority among Christians in general), and they treat people like him as the essential definition of atheism. Both get the bogeyman they need to have people buy their "cure".
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Religious people of pretty much any flavour seem to be normal people until you hit that one spot where the gears seem to just mash into each other and they go haywire.
This guy shouldn't be teaching, particularly not history. Any loon who tries to tell a bunch of kids that (a) Noah's ark was real and (b) There were dinosaurs on it should have their license to teach revoked.
Marx was right, it is an opiate, because there certainly seem to be a fair share of the users acting like they're on something.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
You don't see scientist sneaking into Religious schools to teach evolution.
Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Why is this in Science? I'd rather not read this political hysteria, so my login doesn't include politics. This is clearly politics.
Why are there these people that feel like every other living soul in the world HAS to accept what they believe, otherwise they should be killed/crucified/outcasted/suffer for eternity in the afterlife? Aren't these the people that killed thousands during the Crusades? Aren't these the people that are killing thousands now in the name of Allah? Are all the religions and dieties that man-kind have believed in one way or another so damn righteous as to demand that their followers mame all others in their name?
I just don't understand why people can't accept that others can believe different things than they do. If the whole world was just more accepting of others and respected others' beliefs even if they disagreed, the world would be a much, much better place. Not to mention that millions of innocent people wouldn't have had to die in ages past.
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
history teacher was recorded telling his students that they 'belong in Hell' if they do not accept Jesus.
Sounds like they are already there.
Table-ized A.I.
His ass should have been fired and barred from teaching in any school in the country.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Remember that Simpsons quote? Ned Flanders wants to put the pal back in principal.
With video evidence.
So fire him. Problem solved.
Deleted
They have evil syentifik brain-sucker machines that turn you into babbling Godless drones!
This is not the signature you're looking for.
They call it teevee.
Stick Men
Everything I've read by Dawkins suggests that he has no concept what non-fundamentalist Christians are; he's talking only about apathetic fundamentalists.
He and the fundamentalists need each other, so he treats fundamentalists as the essential definition of Christianity (rather than as a modernist group under two hundred years old, and a definite minority among Christians in general), and they treat people like him as the essential definition of atheism. Both get the bogeyman they need to have people buy their "cure".
There is a huge difference between reading about him, and reading what he actually wrote.
This is so wrong. Dawkins is British, and knows well the Church of England, a far from fundamentalist branch of Christianity. He has spoken at length about what he feels about Christianity and religion in general, even moderate versions. If you think Dawkins is only targetting minorities in religious, you really haven't read him in any detail.
Actually, Dawkins talks about the millions of Christians who don't oppose science all the time.
You obviously don't read many of his books (such as the latest one, The God Delusion), nor listen to many of his speeches (most of which can be found on YouTube or at RichardDawkins.net), because Dawkins has made that seemingly benign group of people the target of many of his criticisms.
In The God Delusion, Dawkins examines how he thinks these people are able to compartmentalize their lives in such a way that makes belief in God possible while also having a natural and healthy skepticism about other, non-religious claims. For instance, most people scoff at the idea that idea that there should be evidence of God's existance before they believe in him, yet would demand just such evidence if I were to claim I had a dragon in my garage.
While Dawkins certainly loves picking the low hanging fruit (the right-wing religious wackos), he is more than happy to address what he views as the hypocritical moderates. In fact, he has said numerous times that he almost has more respect for people who are steadfast in their religious beliefs than those who are willing to blend modern life with religious dogma.
Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher. If the school district and state dictates that a science teacher should teach evolution, that's what they need to teach. If they dictate they should teach intelligent design, that's what they should teach. And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school. Public schools are kind of like McDonalds ... you may not receive the top of line, but it should always be consistent.
If this pastor/teacher thought that he was going to convert a bunch of high schoolers by damning them all to hell, he must not have a very successful church, and certainly should be fired immediately. If he really wanted to use the classroom as a pulpit, he should have chose philosophy as a subject, or just taught at a parochial school. The most he could have done was to just express his religion very simply (e.g. a cross around his neck, picture on his desk, whatever), and use kids' natural curiousity as a chance to invite them to his church to learn more outside of school. This is dangerously close to some line in the sand, but better to toe the line than to jump clear over it like he did.
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
Teaching in public school is one of the hardest jobs I can think of for a christian.
We as christians are often taught that Jesus is to be in control of our entire lives. So, what happens when you're in a position to teach people who don't have the same beliefs? What is the ethical/moral thing to do? Do you follow the pressure of religion, or the pressure of society at large?
It's not even as bad for politicians, because if they spout something like this, it's ok. Even though they make the rules, they're put there by the people the rules affect. The people that don't like it can vote for someone else later. A politician will just get ridiculed, when a teacher will get fired/suspended, and have a black mark on his proffessional career for the rest of his life.
This country is so fucked. :/ Anybody has any idea what we could do? This is a serious question...
So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that atheism is inherently more rational. Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither. Dawkins, however, has a ton of faith in the latter.
Hardly seems a science or technology related item.
how to spell "principal"? Then he's not that bad in my book. /my book happens to be the dictionary
How many preachers do you see on TV talking about Christianity, again? Now how many atheists do you see on TV talking about atheism, again? I see a few pissed off Jaffa, if even that, on the atheist side.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Isn't this kid guilty of copyright infringement for recording the teacher/pastor's lecture/sermon? The teacher could therefore sue the kid, and have the evidence thrown out.
BTW. How can you go to hell if you don't believe in the Christian universe (and therefore Jesus). Is their an atheist's universe with a seperate hell? Maybe the various deities and non-dieties contracted out the management of their hells to some contractor (like Halliburton).
Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, and therefore cannot prove or disprove what God is purported to have revealed to various inhabitants of the earth at various times. Therefore, to imply that talking about God contradicts science is illogical. There are definitely things about our lives that science cannot understand and never will understand and though people may disagree about what these things are, it does not mean that these things have no answers and do not exist.
Most everyone on here is probably going to hell then since I suspect most of Slashdot's readers are more scientifically minded. Yup...I'm going to hell for thinking it's sad that this kind of thing happens and that today's youth is subject to this kind of "learning" in schools. Ah yes...separation of Church and State at its finest...*sigh*
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Jesus never said anything about people accepting him to avoid hell. There's actually a passage in the bible that says folks who chose the 'wrong' religion but still led a good life will still be accepted into the kingdom of heaven.
The religious nuts tend to avoid anything that might involve inclusiveness or helping their fellow people regardless of their differences. It doesn't jive with Jesus' actual message of chasing people with sticks.
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
While I can understand that the big issue here is that he is saying everyone will go to hell if they don't have his beliefs. There is another underlying issue which will effect his ability to teach, the fact that when a student confronted him in front of an authority figure, the teacher chose to lie instead of fess up. The consequences of this are that he can no longer be trusted by the students or the school. Upon giving the cds to the principal, the teacher refused further comment until he could meet with the union. Once again, poor example, lie until you are caught and when you are caught, run to someone else for help.
Sad state of affairs indeed. Luckily for him, the union will stick up for him, he won't lose his job and I doubt he will get any punishment, for the rest of us though? We have to wonder what our kids are being taught in school. Our kid says something, we ask the teacher and all they have to say is that it was taken out of context... how many times have we been presented with this by our children not only in teaching but also in punishment.
Why on earth would you need to choose?
I was on a (admittedly Dutch) Cathlic highschool. But they taught safe sex, Darwinism (Intelligent Design wasn't a big thing back then), Science, but also the beliefs of Catholism, Jemism, Islamism, Hindoism (sp?).
The job of a school is to educate, not to select. An educated child makes wise decisions, which in turn make them better adults.
Oh, I agree. TV preachers are there to fuel the Sunday couch potato lifestyle of the typical god-fearing American. Still, what atheist needs to preach? and to whom? Also, did you not detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in turgid's tone?
This is not the signature you're looking for.
Thank you. This is a story of something that isn't so bright. :\ Christians are just like everyone else - the majority of them are stupid (just as with atheists, muslims, catholics, etc).
:(
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians...who acknowledge Jesus with their, then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That, is what an unbelieving world, simply finds, unbelievable."
Bad #1 - Preaching hellfire and brimstone in a school classroom about science. The two ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Sure, saying you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus may very well be a fact, it has been well established that you are supposed to seperate church from state in a public classroom. To try to get away with it was stupid.
Bad #2 - Lying about it. He acknowledged Jesus with his lips, THEN turned around and denied him by his lifestyle. What are those very students going to think now?
If you feel justified in defying established rules and try to preach the gospel openly in a public school classroom, you have to walk the walk, and accept the consequences. You can't do this halfway. Either way he was stupid to try it, but lying about it makes it even worse.
Gives Christianity a bad name on every front.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
+4 Insightful? come on!
about the scientists, read some about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This annoys me to no end. Both parties: It's not science OR religion. It's not one or the other.
We're not fighting each other here!
[FromTheMorning]
The Church of England is so far away from the fundies it's not funny. Although they didn't want poofters (that's faggots in the US) to be priests so they're still reactionary in some ways.
In islam it's standard procedure not just to tell them they're going to hell, but to dispatch them immediately :
e.g. http://jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/ira6.htm
...awww, it's not even worth answering an AC on this... You might somehow get the idea that you have a valid point.
Where the "gears grind" (well put!) is called cognitive dissonance. The tension that occurs when 2 strongly held cognitions (beliefs, feelings, concepts etc) conflict. Common in anybody with strongly held beliefs such as some religious fundies, left/right wing political nutjobs, and audiophiles. People who not only refuse to accept evidence that their beliefs are wrong, but actually may not be able to accept it without a sort of major ego collapse. Kind of scary when you encounter it, isn't it?
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VHY1RmS0ZKIJ:r icharddawkins.net/article,335,Public-school-teache r-tells-class-You-belong-in-hell,Jim-Lippard+http: //richarddawkins.net/article,335,Public-school-tea cher-tells-class-You-belong-in-hell,Jim-Lippard&hl =en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1
... you got the big Christian guy who is a teacher...!"
Public school teacher tells class: 'You belong in hell'
Jim Lippard
Reposted from:
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/11/public-school- teacher-tells-class-you.html
The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He seems to be a principled and courageous young man who has caught a really bad teacher:
Kearny, New Jersey
November 10, 2006
A history teacher at the local public high school here may have bitten off more than he cares to chew this fall. Self-described conservative Baptist David Paszkiewicz used his history class to proselytize biblical fundamentalism over the course of several days at the beginning of this school year.
Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, "you belong in hell." Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.
After taking the matter to the school administration, one of Paszkiewicz's students, junior Matthew LaClair, requested a meeting with the teacher and the school principal. LaClair, a non-Christian, was requesting an apology and correction of false and anti-scientific statements. After two weeks, a meeting took place in the principal's office, wherein Paszkiewicz denied making many of these comments, claiming that LaClair had taken his remarks out of context. Paszkiewicz specifically denied using the phrase, "you belong in hell." He also asserted that he did nothing different in this class than he has been doing in fifteen years of teaching.
At the end of the meeting, LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, and presented the principal with two compact discs. The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative. However, he fired one last shot at the student, saying, "You got the big fish
Commenting on the situation, LaClair's father, attorney Paul LaClair said, "In a few short weeks, this teacher has displayed bigotry, hypocrisy, arrogance and an appalling ignorance of science. The school's administrators seem not to appreciate the damage this man is doing to young minds. He has some real abilities as a teacher, but this conduct is the intellectual equivalent of the school cafeteria serving sawdust."
The student and his parents have requested that the teacher's anti-scientific remarks be corrected in open class, a
Unless it is a seminary class, there should be NO room for religion in the class. Except history, maybe, to show how so many random tribes have used religion to justify genocide.
Seriously, learning and study are on the opposite end of memorization and faith. It's not just a simple difference of opinion among some "teachers". It's a fundamental difference between logic and reason, and blind retardation.
No person espousing any type of religious dogma should be considered a teacher by the simple definition of the word. They are not in fact a teacher at that point, but a malignant propagandist for a religious agenda that, 99% of the time is ignorant and bad for humanity, and the rest of the living things on the planet.
If there is debate between religion and science, it is no longer a class room but a seminary room involving a lame argument devolved between two parties where one side uses reason and logic, and the other side says, "The bible says so!".
It's stupid and pointless and if YOUR tax dollars are paying for it, you should be damned pissed off.
I certainly am.
God can go hang out wherever he wants, but not where my money is getting wasted by morons.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I'm sorry, how is science involved? Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive. No matter his personal views, as a teacher he should be leading by a better example then the one he set forth.
and wonder why non-Christians hate them.
This kind of crap happens ALL THE TIME. It is a given for any fundamentalist Christian sect that they will take whatever forum where they think they can get away with it and use it to give the hard sell. (And I do mean "sell", because it's not benevolence they're offering, but a product.)
Another Baptist preacher once used my uncle's funeral as an opportunity to try and convince the non-Christians in our family that we had better accept Jesus before OUR time was up. This jerk didn't even know my uncle, but just wanted to exploit the situation to try to get more people into his church.
Here, another typical instance of high-pressure salesmanship from a fundamentalist preacher, only this time it's not just you he's trying to sell his product to... but it's your CHILDREN.
So he tells your kids that they are going to burn in hell if they don't buy his shtick. That's damn close to child abuse.
Why are you anonymous?
:(
Anyhoo, I'm a christian, I've never claimed to be otherwise. What you state here may very well be true, but you're being prideful and not terribly humble or meek. You're not meeting hte needs of others with your statements.
"Yeah, this is all an accident. Get REAL."
Okay, look. You just insulted a very large base of intelligent people. Evolution, big band, blah blah blah...I would never term those things as "accidental", however there are a large number of Christians that will sit back and plain say that things that are factual, can be PROVEN are fiction in a blind sheep-like sunday-school faith. That's BS too, and you know it. You sound very educated in your studies, you also understand that the King James version is a TRANSLATION from original language, and as such meaning gets lost in translation. There are things that appear contradictory because meaning gets lost...there are cultural norms that there are NO WAY the average person can understand in casual reading.
So please, come down off of your soap box, and lead by serving others. Don't try to build yourself up in a public forum by sounding like a know-it-all and gloating about how everyone else is going to hell. The one that got whipped, beaten, ridiculed, impaled, had nails run through his head, and got to hang there while people argued over his clothes and his friends and family looked on in horror...would probably not appreciate the attitude.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither.
I agree completely. Further, there's no scientific evidence that giant flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. Nor is there evidence that underpants gnomes don't exist (in fact, given the rate of underpants disappearances, I would argue *for* their existance!).
Therefore, as a true scientist, I choose not to take a stance on these issues until evidence is provided that *proves* that flying spaghetti monsters and underpants gnomes don't exist.
This is Ms. Garrison in South Park 10x12!
yes, but tv is something people can choose not to watch, it's a little thing called freedom of speech combined with freedom to choose. A teacher however has a duty of care which overrides any freedom of speech right they may hold outside the classroom.
That duty requires them to teach the children in their care in the manner the community and government define, this is clearly not what happened in this case. Thus the teacher is in breach of their duty of care. T
It's as simple as that.
So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational". Just like how the Christian fundies think everyone MUST be a Christian.
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that atheism is inherently more rational. Neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God doesn't exist have any scientifically admissible evidence behind them. A real skeptic would therefore believe neither. Dawkins, however, has a ton of faith in the latter.
This is a rather strange definition of skeptic.
Let's try an analogy.
The Earth is filled with custard - lots of it, hot and molten.
What do you mean, you don't think so? Surely a good skeptic should neither believe or not believe in that?
It is hard to be a skeptic by your definition - all those (possibly infinite) number of things to neither believe and also not believe!
All Dawkins is doing is being a true skeptic, and saying that he doesn't believe in anything without evidence.
Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything.
Gotta agree with you here. My 7-year-old son came home from school one day (right around Easter) and started talking about Easter ... and the Crucifixion. We asked him where he heard about all that. Oh, his teacher told the class all about it. I phoned the principal, and he said he would look into it. A day later he called back and said the teacher denied it. What can you do?
One of the reasons I cannot stand Christianity is that it compels people to spread the word. Hence the knocks on the door, and the proselytizing in the classroom. It's one thing to harass an adult with their bullshit, as they can be told to fuck off. But to take advantage of their position to preach the gospel to a child when their parents are absent is fucking outrageous. Sons-of-bitches should be drawn and quartered.
A school's job is not meant to brainwash people into believing something, whether that be Science or Jesus. It's job is to teach them how to gather evidence from all points of view, and then come to logical conclusions about that evidence using critical analysis, sound reasoning, valid thought processes, and logic.
Individuals who promote a certain viewpoint, whether that be religious, political, scientific, or whatever, must be able to back their viewpoints with such reasoning and evidence. Otherwise their thoughts are little more than opinions and/or delusions, whether theirs or someone else's, that lack justification, accountability, and credibility.
The idea is that by providing people with valid, unbiased thought-processes through proper schooling, they will be able to draw their own conclusions, and a perception of reality for what it actually is will emerge. This would eliminate the ability for people to be easily manipulated, and/or brainwashed into believing non-truths, fairy tales, and superstition.
Any such schooling is a direct threat to organizations based upon such fantasies, like religions. It becomes next to impossible to make someone believe in something without being able to offer them a whole-hearted explanation, taking all relevant factors into account.
Because of this, fantasy-based organizations become threatened with this type of schooling. The chessboard needs an ample supply of pawns, if you will, and if those pawns disappear, so does the religion. It's not surprising then to see members of a religious cult, such as Jesus Teacher Lady here, lash out against a student in her class.
There will be more lashing out in the years to come, especially seeing as science is starting to exponentially increase its speed of discovering new things about the world around us, many of which completely contradict the bible.
I predict that within the next 30 years, scientists will be able to create life from non-life in a lab. It'll mark a definitive moment in human history, shattering religions to shreds. You can expect protest far greater than Jesus Teacher Lady, and quite possibly far more dangerous.
Not exactly fundamentalists no.
Reminds me of the C of E Bishop who was asked what basic beliefs a person really needed to have if they wanted to become an ordained priest within the C of E. The questioner didn't find the answer very informative so he tried to start from a more concrete position: would one need to believe in God? The Bishop's reply: "That's a very good question."
Richard Dawkins is a troll and needs to be down-modded.
Best Slashdot comment ever
The Church of England is so far away from the fundies it's not funny. Although they didn't want poofters (that's faggots in the US) to be priests so they're still reactionary in some ways.
Being a poofter/faggot myself, I do find this a little reactionary, but they are reactionary in a mild and English kind of way.
Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...
[Knock][Knock]
Homeowner: Yes, hello?
Atheist: Hello. Have you considered not believing in God?
Homeowner: Um, I hadn't really -
Atheist: Perhaps you would care to read some of these pamphlets!
Homeowner: That's okay I -
Atheist: They clearly explain the benefits of not believing in God. Not believing in God changed my life, and it can change yours too.
Homeowner: Uhuh, whatever -
Atheist: Don't you see what not believing in God can do for you? If you don't not believe in -
[SLAM!]
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
"Christianity" has nothing to do with that - first of all, it's *people* who proselytize, just like it's people who kill people and not guns. Secondly, I have been subject to all kinds of "preaching" while in public schools and nonetheless I managed to come out as a normal guys - and guess what: most preachers were trying to spread the word of communism. People like to explain what they think. Get over it.
Global warming is a cube.
As much as I believe in the seperation of church and state, I do also believe in equity. During my education, from junior high through college, there would occasionally be a teacher who would go out of their way to ridicule religion to the class. Not just talk about good or bad aspects, but just come out and ridicule religion - or even class members who were religious. I was never really involved or concerned one way or another, but the teachers were pretty mean-spirited towards some of the class members.
So, in be equitable, I think that the same standard should be applied to both sides. Either let everyone talk about religion as they please, or tell everyone to shut up about it. Just don't tell one group that they have to keep quiet, but allow the other side to keep on about it.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
...you don't get to go to Valhalla.
Sorry.
It -is- a very good question. Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God which is quite a different matter. And in most religions, that is good enough to get you the carrot.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Because that's what God told them, and you don't argue with God. If God says "believe in me or else spend eternity in hell," then who the fuck are you, to use your puny humanoid intellect -- a brain so small that it can't even conceive of 1% of the Lovecraftian aweful truth -- to try to talk God out of his ultimatum?
Now let's say you're a caring, loving person to whom God has told his message. You don't like what God has done, maybe you even hate him for it. You don't understand its seemingly infinite evil, but you also know that you'll never really understand why God has done this, and you just have to accept it. And the thing you have accepted is this: you believe it is a fact that if someone doesn't do what God demands, they will suffer infinitely. It's not something you have chosen; it is the reality imposed upon you.
Is it responsible, given this undesirable situation, to stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? If some hippie says that he understands the universe better than God does, and that "Be good to one another," is a perfectly acceptable policy (and it's certainly a pleasant one!) does that make what the hippie says, be true? Or is it deceiving, taking the easy way out?
Might you be willing to commit a relatively minor atrocity, for the "greater good?" Isn't it really worth it, when you get right down to it, to torture people, put them on the rack or burn them alive, writhing in intense agony -- even doing it for a decade if only a person could actually burn that long without dying -- if it might result in that person doing the right thing? What is a few minutes, or even a century, of suffering, compared to the eternal timescales described in religious dogma? You might not personally have the stomach for it, but "rationally" (please don't explore this too closely ;-) you know that it's a good policy to break a few eggs to make that omelette.
Think about it: is there any conceivable thing, any possible evil, than any puny human can possibly commit with their tiny limited means and impotent nuclear weapons (or even planet-destroying Death Stars), that even compares slightly or is anywhere nearly in the same league, to the infinite eternal suffering that a person will endure if they are not saved?
Killing people? Geez, everyone dies eventually. The long-term question is how many people are going to be saved and enjoy the afterlife forever, versus how many people will be utterly destroyed forever or be tortured forever by the devil's minions.
I think that once a fundamentalist really accepts religious dogma -- if they really believe it -- their seemingly-cruel decisions aren't really all that cruel or evil. They are executing the best policies they can, given a rather nasty premise.
My question to mystics is: What causes you to believe that? What do you see, that the rest of us don't? How did God's message get into your head? That's what's really baffling, not the things that they do as a consequence once they have been given The Aweful Truth.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's a clash between science and Creationists. Billions of other human beings are living on the planet with a set of religious beliefs that peacefully coexist with scientific methods. Most of the luminaries of the past centuries were both scientific and religious. Let's be a little bit more accurate with our headings. It's a class between Evolutionary Scientists and Creationist Christians.
So essentially, he still considers moderates to be illegitimate. He is just as much a fundamentalist as his enemies - in his view, you MUST be an atheist or you're "irrational".
A moderate religious belief is still a belief in an unprovable deity. It is still irrational. Since when has questioning the irrational, no matter how moderate, become fundamentalist?
I guess he missed that whole "Bearing false witness thing" He fails as a Christian as well as a teacher
After all they were the only country scoring below the USA for belief in Evolution (recent survey). They were 34 on the list the USA was 33. Then again maybe he is disgruntled that Turkey is winning the race to root out rational thinkers.
t ype=scienceNews&storyid=2006-11-22T141111Z_01_L092 65541_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-TURKEY-EVOLUTION- DC.XML
When is "Intelligent Design" going to incorporate the belief that Darwins Evolutionary theory is the root of Terrorism? Another area where Turkey is ahead.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?
Public school teacher tells class: "You belong in hell"
Transcript: A look at what was said in KHS class
There's been a lot of teachers doing similar thing in the past, including, but not limited to, the idea that the US government carried out 9/11, and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.
The fact is that there are many, MANY teachers who use their position of authority to try and brainwash their students. I'm sure most of you can think of at least one such experience in your student days. It's irrelevant whether the teacher is pushing religion, politics, historical revisionism, or wacky conspiracy theories; any of them constitute an abuse of authority, and none of them should be allowed. Teachers need to be able to present relevant information in an unbiased manner, not preach from the pulpit of their favorite cause célèbre.
Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God
Well I can't agree with the first part, but quite apart from that - I really don't understand the distinction.
I wouldn't want my kids in a classroom with a dangerous moron like him.
Zealots like him are dangerous and need psychological help, like strap him into a chair and prop open his eyes (ala Clockwork Orange) and make him watch Richard Dawkins videos 24/7 for a month.
The Earth is filled with custard - lots of it, hot and molten.
What do you mean, you don't think so? Surely a good skeptic should neither believe or not believe in that?
Well, that's a silly example. There's evidence the Earth isn't filled with custard. It has a magnetic field.
*However*, if the earth were filled with *magnetic* custard...
So, the Jews began their calendar based on the rise of Satan? Interesting choice.
>..Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...
--
Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8
I agree completely. Further, there's no scientific evidence that giant flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. Nor is there evidence that underpants gnomes don't exist (in fact, given the rate of underpants disappearances, I would argue *for* their existance!). The only difference between God and underpants gnomes or FSM is that the question of God is a central question in philosophy, including discussion of what "God" even means to different people from different real living cultures around the world. Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I'm not going to get over it. These people are breaking the law and clandestinely subverting the authority of parents, while being paid by the parents (through taxes) to do it.
Some people like to rape and murder as well. Do you tell them and their families to "Get over it"? Asshole.
"Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals."
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
The idea that people will to hell if they don't accept christ as their personal savior is, to my understanding, fairly mainstream Christianity. It is very hard to try and prove that one person's irrational belief is ridiculous and radical whereas your irrational belief is completely reasonable. How do you prove a difference? Trying to claim that your religion is demonstrably "truer" or "more Christian" on rational grounds is going to be a bit of a stretch. I'd say that most Christians aren't very Christian in the sense of following the teaching of Christ which centered primarily around caring for the poor among us. By that standard, the idea of a rich "Christian" preacher is an oxymoron.
Also, your analogy is bunk. Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith. It adapts its theories as more information is learned and tested. It is a system of separating what appears to be true from what is true and it slowly changes and adapts. Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason. It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn. It starts out with an inalienable premise and praises people for sticking with it in spite of evidence against it. A person could not be a scientist and still believe in a flat earth because Science is about Empirical Evidence. A person can be Christian and disagree with the parent poster because Christianity isn't a system based on facts and there is no way to prove a person's Christian beliefs to be "right" or "wrong."
But it does mean that you have faith in skepticism as the correct philosophy to live by.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
but most Christians think the earth is something like 6000 years old.
Actually only a tiny minority of christians think that, usually American whackos. No christian I have ever met in Europe does.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Christians who don't oppose science are trying to split the difference between what the Bible says and what the scientific method discovers by contriving a kinder, gentler, less literal version of Christianity that represents what they think the Bible "means" instead of what it says.
As far as I can tell, the more fundamentalist a Christian is, the more Christian they are, by the measures provided in the Bible. What is a moderate Christian doing when they say that, for instance, the creation stories in Genesis aren't "literally" true? Why believe in the Bible at all if you're going to "interpret" all the meaning out what the actual text says?
Fundamentalist Christianity is incompatible with modern Western culture and thought, including science. You have to choose a side. If you seek a different form of theology that is more tolerant, great---don't call it Christianity and don't appeal to the Bible as an authority.
So why would Dawkins address fence-straddlers? They are obviously easy enough to convince since they have chosen the path of least resistance by trying to please two masters.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
So what? Jesus was a person, after all, you know. Many of the biblical stories refer to actual historical events.
No I don't know that a real person by the name of Jesus lived. Nor do I know that if he did live that he did what others, Christians, say he said and did.
I am agnostic:
Falcona, without;
gnosis, knowledge;
agnostic, without knowledge.
Should there be a Law?
why would anyone bother to study it?" I assume you think that the Koran, the Baghvad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Talmud, the Avestae, etc. all 'align with reality' too. I wonder how you explain the parts that contradict the other parts?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Of course atheists haven't resorted to some tactics used by people to proselytize their religion...
r mons.html
[Knock][Knock]
Homeowner: Yes, hello?
Atheist: Hello. Have you considered not believing in God?Actually... They have... AND they thoughtfully made a video of it for our entertainment...
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/11/atheists-vs-mo
Deleted
This is indicative of the poor qualities of teachers we have, which in turn is reflection of our society's value system. There is no fundamental conflict between religion/tradition/spirituality and science/rationality - they address two separate domains, and good teachers wouldn't create the false dichotomy. Why we have lousy teachers? Because we (the royal we) don't value them. We will reap what we sow.
So to be clear on this, you agree; no difference with respect to the scientific evidence for either?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
"Being a skeptic does not mean you have to be agnostic about everything."
But it does mean that you have faith in skepticism as the correct philosophy to live by.
No, it doesn't work like that. Skepticism is not a faith, it is a state of mind that we all achieve, to a greater or lesser extent, simply by growing up - it is part of mature human nature. When we are young, we are are trusting and naive.
Most Christians don't believe in God, they believe in -belief- in God which is quite a different matter.
Wonderfully put! They feel kind of mildly skeptic or agnostic, but believe that a belief is a good thing to have...
Perhaps you misunderstood my motive in my posting. It was to get people to LOOK. If I did not GOAD people on a site like Slashdot to do so, many would just ignore the message to go LOOK.
I'm sorry that you were offended. Sometimes TOUGH LOVE is a tool that someone that cares about other people needs to have in their arsenal when fishing for men. Let people read the post and prove what I wrote to be wrong by LOOKING IT UP FOR THEMSELVES. They won't be able to, but they will perhaps have gotten around to LOOKING.
Thank you for demeaning the gist of my message by your shallow-thinking reply. I noted that you added absolutely zero to the thread that would perhaps cause other people to look at God's Word, but rather gave them reason to blow it off. Good job, Christian. Try to think out of the box next time.
yes, but tv is something people can choose not to watch
From having been in broadcasting for many years & having done a stint at a religious school...most of the "intelligent" people who would agree with this "teacher" have forgotten that you can or can not choose to watch TV or you have freedom of choice. For some reason the off button or channel knob does not exist...just like logic...science & free will for them as well.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
youtube link with better flash player.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmC0DaE6rE
Deleted
Doh.. use some common sense. Of course the dinosaurs didn't get on the ark: That's how they becamse extinct! ;)
Actually thats what some Christian fundies "teach" or say, that dinosaurs were on the ark. I believe in Ohio a new Christian "museum" has one or more displays that characterize dinosaurs and humans together.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Simple, you perform the requested job as required.
As a teacher, convey the information you are instructed to teach in an effective manner. Maintain classroom behaviour and enforce the rules fairly and with compassion.
If you feel it is morally wrong not to try and convert the students to your religion, the ethical thing to do is to simply be honest and not take a job where you would be prevented from what you personally consider your moral responsiblity. Lying saying you will not preach then doing so is also unethical.
I think it's interesting that people will display their "moral reponsibilities" to lie and break the law, while ignoring the fact that such actions aren't ethical.
My ex wife would sit in front of the tv for six hours in the day, then all evening, and moan if I asked her to do anything else.
I've seen that behaviour in all sorts of people.
I divorced her and gave away the telly years ago, I don't miss it in the slightest.
Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals.They are not radicals. They are Trolls. How many people did Jesus H. Christ FORCE to follow him? Answer: none ever, in the NT. A forced conversion is no conversion. It even prevents a real conversion, for simple psychological reasons.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Here's an interesting take on this. Seems the high school is in an economically depressed area, (yet they have a nice web site); the kid is a bit of a shit-disturber; and even Christians feel really uncomfortable around this lunatic.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Actually, questions about "god" are *NOT* central to philosophy---at least, not in the last 100 years or so, and at least in the mainstream anglo-american tradition. (I offer this tidbit since I am a professor of philosophy.) With few exceptions, any such discussions are limited to professors covering classical arguments for the existence of god in a intro class or to some discussion of "philosophy of religion".
Moreover, it is a pretty invidious distinction to say "well, the god question is old, and so real, but the FSM is new and just parody." I mean, the Jesus hypothesis was pretty new at one point . . . .
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
"Who would have ever thought there was such a place as Robot Hell? And that it would be in New Jersey?"
I see a number of religious and non religious people discussing everything.
From their religios beliefs to political opinions and how to do math.
IMO the only one of those topics that belongs in a classroom is math.
While Dawkins certainly loves picking the low hanging fruit (the right-wing religious wackos), he is more than happy to address what he views as the hypocritical moderates. In fact, he has said numerous times that he almost has more respect for people who are steadfast in their religious beliefs than those who are willing to blend modern life with religious dogma.
Dawkins makes some assumptions about religion and faith that I don't agree with. One, is that the religious fundamentalists/fanatics have more faith than those termed "moderates" by outsiders' comparisons.
One of the ironies of the Bible is that it's usually the dogmatic types that are reprimanded by God. Just look at Jesus's assessment of the dogmatic religious leaders of his day.
I believe strongly in God and the Bible, but don't have a problem with science. However, I also don't think I'm separate my rational mind from my faithful mind into compartments. Instead, I have a rational faith, born not out of preacher sermons, but from reading the Bible on my own and believing in its truth independently.
Approaching the Bible independently, I have come to some different conclusions than the popular "fundamentalists", but feel that my fundamentals are as good as theirs.
For instance, I believe in evolution because of the scientific evidence and because in Genesis chapter one God doesn't create life directly, but indirectly by saying, "Let the EARTH produce living creatures." In fact, he begins by creating the "fliers" and the "swimmers" (atmospheric and oceanic life, which is also in line with evolution).
But the Bible isn't a science book anyways, and just as I don't believe Satan is a literal snake as presented in the Garden of Eden story, I think that many of the historical events as recorded in the Bible have been boiled down to their essentials, which means that a lot of details have been abstracted out into parable and other types of metaphor. This would parallel the fact that Hebrew is a very imprecise language, bad for counting numbers or identifying abstract concepts, but great for poetry in a loose language that uses a very primal vocabulary (for example in Hebrew, the same word for "soul" also means "neck" and "spirit" can mean "wind".)
And for all that jazz, I do think the Bible is more than a moral lesson, because quite frankly, the Bible has little to say about how to live your day-to-day life other than just to rely on God. The point of the Bible is that it's a collection of stories that show you the power of a real, living God, who takes action and initiative in our lives. The point is that not all the facts are completely straight, but that the events as told did happen, such as Christ rising from death.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
The thing is though, if you're not a Christian, the threat of going to Hell, a Christian concept, surely isn't that awful? Most people wouldn't complain if a Buddhist told you you would never be reincarnated because you don't believe in Buddha. Not that I condone this guy's judgement - whatever happened to non-biased teaching? - but if I was in his class I wouldn't really take any notice.
Every teacher passes on values to their students. Usually this is a combination of their values, and society's values. If you were cynical, you could call this a form of indoctrination, but really, that's what education is to a fair degree. It can help keep society stable, as it prevents a total re-evaluation of society's foundations with every new generation.
The problem here seems to be that this teacher's values are more in line with a minority (of religious wackos) rather than those of greater U.S. society (more pluralistic), and he appears unwilling to teach according to society's values rather than his own.
Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
No, it mocks people who believe in invisible things for which there is absolutely no evidence, who then attempt to elevate their beliefs to the level of scientific fact, or alternatively, attempt to drag science down to the level of religion.
Similarly, if I met someone who still believed that disease was caused by demonic possession, I'd mock them, too.
Scientific evidence is only material evidence, but I don't believe it's the only valid form of evidence.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Things that can't be proven to be true should not be taught as facts in school. In my opinion religion should be taught in school, but not just one religion. Students should be given information about all of the most common religions in the world and of religion in general. Christianity is not even the most common religion. And it is not the teachers job to push a certain religion to students.
School is a kind of public service offered to children (even though usually it doesn't feel like a service). Public services offered by the state/government should not be tied into any religion. Just like the government/state and religion should be separated as they are in most of the western countries.
This is another fine example of a story designed to get both sides of the coin riled up.
Do we really need to keep arguing like this?
People are always passionate or indifferent about topics like this and will never change their minds on what they believe one way or another.
Anytime a blatantly controversial story like this is posted a troll shall spring forth and spew flames, thus attacting more trolls who will gladly feed off such flames and create more of their own. The cycle shalt never endth.
If anyone needs me, I will be under my bridge....(in a van down by the river)
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Is this you?
The reason they're anti-science is because all established religions throughout history have wanted a monopoly on magic. Clarke's Law is especially applicable here.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I agree the God question is not central to philosophy, but as I said above, it is *A* central question in philosophy, unlike FSM.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
So your argument is "Why practice the Golden Rule, when in fact it doesn't have any Au content?"
Christianity" has nothing to do with that - first of all, it's *people* who proselytize, And what do you think Christianity is other than a bunch of people doing stuff?
Buddhism is even more diverse than this. You have your choice of the following:
1. In the earliest classical orthodox variants, if you committed an gross aggressive act against another person, you would wind up reincarnated HERE, but as a less advanced form of life. Thus after descending to being an understudy of a reality show film double, you would come back the second time as the particular molecule of virus that scientists rip apart to make the hollow double used to prevent the spread of virulent AIDS. Thus through your immediate torment and suffering for your action, you would help save another's life, and thus begin your climb back up the chain of karma.
2. In the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism, you experience a subjective emotional hell right here, right now. You know, that blinding screeching rage against the machine, and Bogombo Snuff Boxes. (Ask Kurt Vonnegut about that last one. Sorry, Kurt Vonnegut short stories are not available through P2P.)
3. In fact, you do not go anywhere. All you have succeeded in doing is making a minor conceptual mistake, for which Buddhism is quite lenient. You are hereby sentenced to another lifetime of approximately the qualuity you are experiencing now, to further study the error of your ways. Sound dull? That's the point. None of that artificial excitement of Christianity.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It is not all malice. After all if you have found the true path to happiness and eternal salvation you are a bit of stinker if you then do not tell other people about it right? Offcourse it gets a bit problematic when those other people just don't want to accept the happy news.
You see, part of the added culture that makes up the various faiths is that there is often some kind of clause that for final happyness to be achieved first all the evil nasty non-believers got to go away. Violence is considered an acceptable way to achieve this.
Cue all the religious wars throughout history.
Your logic fails because you do not have "true" faith. You can accept that other people have different ideas wich you seem to consider of equal value. This is impossible for someone with "true" faith. By the very definition any other view held by someone else MUST be false. If that other view isn't false, then yours can't be true.
This problem isn't just limited to religion. Take other believes like democracy. Right at this moment those who believe in democracy (the EU) are desperately trying to get those who do not (the turkish army) to believe the same way. The problem is simple. Turky is a semi-dictatorship. Under the lead of Ata Turk the army seized power, established a liberal secular state and then allowed something akin to democracy to actually do most of the day to day governing. As long as those elected made sure to keep Turkey secular and liberal or else.
The EU wants none of this nonsense. The armies duty should be defence and that only under strict control of the elected goverment. Not the other way around.
The problem? It is the turkish army that is keeping turkey a modern liberal secular pro-western semi-democracy. From recent election results it would seem that the actual population would support a swing to anti-liberal non-secular anti-western temp-democracy.
In Turkey it is the liberals who are the supporters of the army. Remember that in most army-controlled nations it is usually the liberals who are against the army.
But the EU believes in democracy, it is their one true faith and by golly they shall damn well make turkey see the light even if it damns them. A bit like the old burning someone to purify their soul.
Oh and the US is pretty much the same with its belief in the true faith of capatalism, spreading the happy word across the world no matter how unsuited the local circumstances might be to this particular faith.
Same for that matter with certain linux advocates who think everyone should want to convert or windows users who try to get those who are swayed back on the right path to true user-happiness and Gates wise words.
To close of a long rant. If you have found the "truth" you will want to share it even if others don't want to hear. Just examine your own life. Have you ever tried someone intrested in your music? your hobby? your favorite book?
sounds like me, only without the constant mentioning. I do like to rant on about the garbage that passes for entertainment on tv though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's just FUD
Of course, you are right. There is also imagined evidence, which is very important!
heaven is pretty much a christians only club.
No, Muslims also believe in heaven.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I agree that skepticism is not a faith.
What is faith is this belief you hold:
- it is part of mature human nature.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Mock me not! I have seen evidence of this! Someone showed me this little tube I could look through and there they were, swimming around waving their cilia in scandalous and unholy abandon!
Still, they did look a little Noodly, but they weren't the rightsort of Noodly. And there weren't any pirates, even though I was looking through a tube.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Yeah, they eat tea and crumpets with their politics. They even raise their pinky finger.
... and then they built the supercollider.
It's called counterexample. The fact that the counterexamples used are funny/mocking (or even rude, to some) doesn't make them any less valid. You're right that the question of gods existing is a central question in philosophy. And counterexample is a technique VERY commonly used in philosophy.
He was going up against this:
There is no evidence for or against X, therefore there should be no belief or disbelief in X.
And he filled in X with FSM instead of God. The fact that one is a "central question in philosophy" and the other isn't is exactly the purpose of counterexample.
Firstly, I'm not American. Also, I don't know the law over there but I'm willing to bet that the constitution and thusly, free speech *would* in fact come first. What the guy said was foolish in the extreme, but did he actually harm anyone? No? Good. If someones reality was shattered or their minds changed by something he said then they're weak willied idiots, children or not.
It's nutritionally enhanced custard, with added iron.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Regardless of your opinion on God (and evolution vs. intelligent design), it's readily apparent that the teacher was stepping outside his defined role as a science teacher.
This teacher was a history teacher not a science teacher.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Although your wiggle phrase "up to" gives you plenty of leeway, I want to point out that firing a "government" teacher is governed by local school district policies. Granted, many (if not most) of these make it way too difficult to fire a public school teacher. In Dekalb County, Georgia, where I was a public school teacher for two years, part of our orientation was the policy on firing. IIRC, the only thing that would get you fired was fairly horrible stuff (stabbing a student would probably do it). What stuck out in my mind was a discussion about what would happen if you failed 3 of the 5 possible evaluations in a school year. If you did it one year, not much (maybe they called it "probation", but it had no consequences). Two years, ditto. After 3 years of failing 3 of the 5 possible evaluations, you would no longer get the pay raises that went along with gaining experience. However, if you eventually did manage to pass 3 of the 5, then your pay rate would immediately jump to what it would have been if you hadn't ever failed any. FWIW, I didn't know of any teachers who failed even one observation, so for our school at least this was more of a problem in theory than in practice, but still...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
the issue is not the willpower of the children, it's that he acted in a way contrary to that which he was required to act. A teacher is a public servent, and thus not given the same free speech rights as people in other professions.
Or not.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Baptist preacher? Why, that uppity Heretic!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Try to think out of the box next time."
Hmm. Just out of curiousity, perhaps they do go look for themselves, and decide to initiate dialogue with you. They can't exactly look up anonymous coward.
Righteous anger is one thing. Righteous goading? ???
Erm....tough love is fine and all, but mocking people is hardly appropriate behavior. (So far as I'm aware?)
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
They're not really so benign, because they give religion its power. Without them, fundamentalists would have a much more difficult time with their trash-talking and hatred.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Where's the evidence that we're more than just biological machines? Yet we still desire to live. Scientifically, though, life is just a highly complex form of death, and conciousness is basically a chemical-electrical reaction.
But I have faith in not treating myself, nor any other person, as merely a moist machine. I believe in the "I AM" within people.
And as a result, I feel as though God is at the center of my own existence. I believe I am alive, and that life isn't just an illusion created by a dance of many nonliving things.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Preachers on TV? Hardly any. That's a decidedly U.S.-ian thing. (I don't want to say "American" and tar all of the Americas with the same brush as the USA.)
Atheists on TV? I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching.
Granted, he'll probably be fired but I hope to goodness that no criminal charges become of this because by the letter of the law surely he's done nothing wrong.
Mmm.. Iron Custard.. Sounds yummy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Erm....I don't necessarily wrong you for being upset about Christians that attempt to force-feed you their belief set. The bible does call people to seek and save, but I still feel most christians go about it all wrong.
I do have to take exception to your qualm about Easter. Sure, cultural norm is easter bunnies and hiding eggs, candy, etc, however if you're going to teach facts, how exactly do you tell a child what Easter is without telling them about the crucifixion? Even if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you can't deny the fact that Easter is a holiday in the rememberance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That is a fact, not a matter of faith. It's a well documented historical fact.
So....I can't figure out what your problem is there. You aren't required to believe he rose from the dead, but there's not denying the fact that he was indeed crucified, and we have a holiday that takes remembrance of that fact. You may take issue with that holiday, but taking issue with the fact that a teacher explained it is a bit silly, isn't it?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Ok, so it's counterexample ... I'm not sure what the rules are then, what am I suppose to say next?
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
"Teaching in public school is one of the hardest jobs I can think of for a christian.'
This isn't some case where a teacher mentioned his personal beliefs as an aside. This teacher was not only actively proselytizing his specific religion but he's not even competent to criticize, let alone teach, science.
"Evolution is scientific. You assume that because you've been indoctrinated on that. Truly, the idea of evolution is based on faith. It takes more faith that something came from nothing than God created the earth. If there's nothing, it can't explode. No one ever recorded an explosion creating order. There had to be a being. Gravity -- that's not the creator."
On top of that, when called to answer for his blatant proselytizing he called the student a liar by denying the allegations. Failing to take responsibility for his own actions and bearing false witness doesn't make it sound like he's a good person or a "good Christian" who deserves a lot of support or sympathy over this issue.
Just because you believe it doesn't give it any evidence to it being true, material or whatever else you want to call evidence. I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have.
Are you from a communist country? Because that would be very hard to believe in America.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I didn't mean a different type of free speech, I meant that his rights are limited and thus not free speech.
Granted, a teacher is free to express opinion *provided* that opinion is one related to the subject at hand, but not just any opinion. We don't have automata teaching children, but nor should we have people who will use a classroom to push their own unrelated agenda.
...they believe in -belief- in God
Outstanding! That's one of the best-phrased descriptions of modern involvement in western religion, and many non-western religions for that matter. Put to hard questioning many will acknowledge that they don't really ascribe to the literal meanings of God that the churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc profess. However, being involved in the actions of belief brings psychological comfort.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
"But it does mean that you have faith in skepticism as the correct philosophy to live by."
Not at all. It is quite possible that something could happen to make an irrational world view seem like the correct philosophy to live by. I'm not really sure what that would be but I suspect there are mental illnesses that could do the job. In the mean time I will adhere to a rational world view, not out of 'faith' but because it can be backed up with evidence.
Hey cunt, I thought the bible was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew?
That's because atheists have very little to gain by wasting their time trying to convert people (apart from the odd atheist with a sense of humour).
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
What is faith is this belief you hold:
- it is part of mature human nature.
It isn't faith, or belief. It is a fact of neurology.
I've had the benefit of having taken far too many courses (two Masters degrees and currently ABD on a Ph.D.), so I've actually witnessed this on more than one occasion. On each occasion, the professor has disagreed with the student, but did not "lay into" him. It was basically a "you're entitled to your beliefs, but if this comes up on a test..." type of response. I'm guessing the average professor is too smart to take up class time (or his own) on what will no doubt be a pointless exercise. (I know a couple people who have gone from being Creationists to believing in evolution, but in both cases it involved letting that person come to their own conclusion. Trying to "preach" to them is very unlikely to do any good.)
Now in no way are my few experiences proof that it never happens, or really even that it doesn't often happen - I admit they are just a few case studies. Still, my belief is that it doesn't happen at your average University.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I don't think just because I believe in it it's true.
I believe in it because I have seen evidence for it, but I can't pen this evidence down in a way that anyone can run mathematical proofs through it or reproduce an effect off a set of conditions.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
When people come to my door trying to share their religion, I always thank them for their concern. They don't want to convert me because they hate me, they want to convert me because they care about what happens to a stranger. In American culture, when you see something bad about to happen, you're supposed to do something to stop it - call the fire department when you see a house on fire, etc. To a Christian, a non-Christian is "unsaved": in imminent danger of death, forever.
It's easy to understand how somebody who thinks they see a clear and present danger might act inappropriately to avoid or prevent it. That doesn't excuse it, but hopefully it makes it easier to endure.
If someone honestly believes in the underpants gnomes more power to him, as long as he *doesn't* try to ram the New Pantgelium (written on old underpants no less) down my throat or gathers 3000 of his fellow believers in a Mega-Laundromat for Justice Sunday IV, broadcast live on SoxNews.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The most common example is that free speech does not entitle you to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, but "free speach" can also be trumped by crimes such as "inciting to start a riot" and such. Furthermore, the establishment clause is frequently interpreted to mean that public officials are not allow to _support_ religion while acting in their public role. If this teacher had said something to a student outside of the classroom, it might have raised eyebrows as being inappropriate, but very few people would consider it to be a violation of the establishment clause.w
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Hmmm, is this a troll.
;0) is based on assumptions about basic elements of the universe. We call them axioms they are principles that are accepted as true without rigorous proof. For example Einsteins relativity has the axioms: 1) there is no absolute frame of reference (Lorentz invariance); 2) speed of light is a constant. From these axioms / assumptions we can build time dilation (for example) a measurable effect but we can't certainly say that the axioms are true. Indeed every now and again someone proposes a theory that counters major axioms - like non-constancy of c - which makes things very interesting. Other axioms inhabit a more metaphysical realm, such as existence of other minds, existence of an external reality (brains in vats and all that).
i oms/node3.html .
... please point out the flaws in my argument, there are several.
Try looking up Atheism in a good dictionary. The form of the word gives it away, it's the opposite of believing a god exists, it's believing no god exists. The middle ground (the scientific ground) is called agnosticism. If you've come across any greek words in the past you may recognise the stem "gnost" which indicates something about knowledge, basically I take it to mean "don't know" - this word is used for those that are neither theist nor atheist.
And incidentally physics (the purest science IMHO as a physicist
So are axioms true? It depends what you believe. You can't prove them. There's a very readable account at http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/ax
Sorry, I've gone off on one I think
HTH
Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
You really ought to have been able to do this exercise on your own impulse if you had any intention at all of understanding the point the poster was getting at, but since you insist on being spoon-fed, here comes the big choochoo: replace FSM and Underpants gnomes with Allah, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, etc. etc. If your agument doesn't work as well for them as for the christian God, you really need to provide an explenation why.
sudo ergo sum
Atheists on TV? I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching.
Evolution isn't atheist at all. Even John Paul II, the last Pope, stated evolution was correct. He said something along the lines that "God" used evolution to create life. Of course the new Pope may very well change that. As for myself, I strongly believe in evolution but I am not an atheist. What I am is agnostic, "a", without, and "gnostis", knowledge. I am without knowledge on the subject of whether there is or is not any supreme diety, soul, or spirit.
You don't choose the things you believe in, they choose you!
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is almost right but maybe not worded so well. It's more like "Science requires empirical evidence to show something is true but empirical evidence is not the only way to show something is true." Just think of mathematics. When asked to present mathematical proof you wouldn't go looking for empirical evidence (well you might but you won't get a very good mark). It's somewhat similar in religion. 'God exists' is an underlying assumption in religion. Truths in religion are based fundamental assumptions + scripture + canon. Science has assumptions as well: We can know our world. We can gain knowledge of the world empirically. etc.
Evangelical Baptist beliefs would teach that _everybody_, including baptists themselves, _deserve_ to go to hell... but Jesus, who supposedly never sinned, was able to take our place, and pay the ransom for all time so that anyone who believes in him wouldn't have to go there. There's very little more to it than that.
Seems to me that this particular Baptist preacher should've paid closer attention to what they taught him in Sunday school.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Secular humanism is a religion just like any other. There can be no separation of church and state. If I don't want the state clandestinely subverting my authority as a parent who doesn't want my child taught secular humanism then I should be equally demanding to have the secular humanistic curricula removed.
Yes, but if you went to a cow-sacrifice ritual in Singapore and watched a 3 year-old girl getting excruciating fits then talking like a 40 year-old man, your views on "demonic possession" might be slightly moved.
I have a copy of the "Fundamentals of Neuroscience" and I don't see that fact mentioned anywhere. Now, realize that I share the same "faith" as you, but also realize that to Christians, God is also a "fact". Declaring something to be a fact does not mean that it's not a belief you hold. (Even if it were in the Fundies of Neuroscience :), it would still not mean that it's not a belief. God is found mentioned in quite a few places in one of the best selling "reference" books of all time.)
If you want to argue about contradictions within a belief system (which IMO necessarily include the physical world), then fine. But don't deny that believing in concepts such as causality, reproducibility, etc., are still beliefs. They may be beliefs of an arguably different nature, but still beliefs. Science is, in fact, based on a set of axioms. Those axioms are the cornerstones of the "faith".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
but there's not denying the fact that he was indeed crucified,
There's a lot of denying that Jesus ever even existed let alone that He was crucified
The church of England is a very weird thing. At one end you have the guys over in the US and Canada, who are so permissive they're just about to get kicked out. Then there are the churches over in Africa and other third-world countries that are rather conservative (maybe even what you call 'fundamentalist'). And then there's the part that's actually in England which is leaning towards the permissiveness of the US and the Canadians. If things continue as they are going right now, the Church of England might not exist in England anymore!
At any rate, the Anglicans are a rather diverse bunch and it's unfair to make a blanket statement about them. Even my generalisations were probalby too much.
Actually we have a holiday about Fertility and Growth (hence egg, hence rabbit) Jesus may well have been crucified at that time of year but maybe not. But those who aren't Christian don't celibrate the death and reasurection of Christ at that time of year, they celibrate fertility and growth or maybe they celibrate nothing. Easter as a word has no origin in Christian mythology either, to quote wikipedia:
'The English and German names, "Easter" and "Ostern", are not etymologically derived from Pesach and are instead related to ancient names for the month of April, Eostremonat and Ostaramanoth respectively.'
So yeah I can understand a parent getting annoyed at a teacher foisting their mythology on a charge of theirs when the celebration has nothing to do with it.
Loop, twist and loop again.
custard....crust...icing on top...suddenly it all makes sense! Hail the FSM!
If you can read this, it's already too late.
What, then, *is* "evidence" in your book? Please give us a clear definition.
"Evidence" is a word with a defined meaning. You can't just take it and claim that "having a warm and fuzzy feeling about something" also qualifies as evidence, because... it doesn't.
If you need a word to describe your personal feelings about the existence of god, then go and invent one by yourself, instead of misusing a well-known terminus in an attempt to somehow give your personal beliefs more credibility.
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
That idea is a bunch of hogwash. Unforuntately, it seems to be publically-accepted hogwash, which is why you have religious groups claiming that Christ never lived, the Bible is inaccurate, and God is just a symbol, yet still claiming the moniker of "Christian" while they deny the very person whose name they claim. By making a name mean "whatever someone says it is to them" removes any meaning at all from the word. It becomes totally useless, because when I say "Christian" you have absolutely no idea what it means, because its meaning is undefined.
Science is a system which praises reason over bind faith...Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason.
You're mis-representing religion here by over-simplifying the comparison. Religion doesn't "praise blind faith over reason" in all situations. Religion provides some key tenents which are assumed on faith. Everthing else is derived, logically, from those tenets and other knowledge (including scientific knowledge). Christians don't go out randomly believing anything ("I believe the sky is pink") and avoiding reason ("The sky looks blue to me, therefore I won't believe it's blue"). When something questions the basic assumptions of their faith, they stick to those assumptions, but in all other cases, they're not "anti-reason".
It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn.
Which is why mainstream Christians still believe that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and that maggots generate spontaneously in rotten meat. Oh wait, they don't. The fundamental tenets of faith are rarely questioned (although they are questioned - see the reformation), but then, neither are those of science. How many times have you seen scientists question the validity of empirical observation or repeatable experimentation? But just because their fundamental beliefs don't shift doesn't necessarily imply that their other beliefs don't shift, anymore than it implies that modern scientists believe the same thing as nineteenth century scientists did, just because the scientific method has remained unchanged.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
How about
;-)
"Thanks for the explanation, it went completely over my head".
To extend your analogy, the Au content is exactly why one should practice it---not a 2,000 year old label that says "Contains gold-ish content---really, trust me! Or else!" in Aramaic.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
Please, do not equal our brain induced social properties of behaviour to a proof of a god, divinity or a spiritual existence of any kind. Thank You.
If it was the other way around and the education system was advocation a religious world-view would you really want teachers to toe-the-line, or would you want them to openly express their beliefs along with the beliefs that they were instructed to purvey.
Just asking.
I'd probably say something like: "Easter was originally a Pagan festival that celebrated the end of the dark nights of winter and the coming of new life to the world in spring. That's why we have the eggs-and-bunnies thing. Some time later, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the best way to convert the Pagans to their brand of religion was to hijack all of their festivals so they tied in with Christianity. So they moved Jesus' birthday to Midwinter and his 'deathday' to Eastre - an ancient word for spring. Which is why we have all that hot-cross-buns-and-going-to-church thing."
Lots of people were crucified in Roman times. To non-christians (who don't believe in the resurrection) there's not much point in 'celebrating' Jesus' crucifiction in particular as he was just another bloke nailed to a bit of wood.
I say teaching about religious beliefs should be left to the RE teachers. I don't bang on about Atheism in my ICT lessons, why should this idiot be allowed to bang on about Christianity in his history lessons?
Actually, there are those who deny that Jesus ever existed at all. In response, you'll find Christian books that are devoted to proving that he did exist. I actually heard one public school history teacher say something very much along the lines that there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed and that it is likely that other people wrote the words he is credited with saying.
Still, I agree that mentioning the crucifiction in the context of mentioning Easter shouldn't be a problem as long as it is presented carefully. However, it would be very easy for either a Christian or a non-Christian (Jew, atheist, etc.) to slip up when discussing this, so I'd make sure I had a script to go by when discussing it, I'd make sure that I had discussed the script with the principle, and I certainly wouldn't deny mentioning it if asked by a child's parent.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Cake or death?
It's just a localised spherical area of space that causes us to believe otherwise. Sure the world looks like an oblate spheroid and behaves like one for all normal traversals, but if you were small enough you'd be able to slip inside at the point at which it balloons out from an otherwise flat-ish local space.
PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?
Public schools in the US are government-managed and as such, the government's responsibility not to endorse any religions means that the teacher's preaching is more in violation of the First Amendment than supported by it.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Iron man loves it on his hot dogs!
I think I understand now... politicians come from the reincarnated viruses that didn't get ripped apart?
I still don't know the origins of MPAA and RIAA, but I might be able to grasp it by extending the concept a teeny bit more.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Homeschooling.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I wont blame you for not even thinking to consider other alternatives, you've probably been fed the 'one truth' since a very early age at school and taught not to question it. interesting how things self perpetuate so quickly that way isn't it... ;op
(I was brought up a Christian, I'm not sure what I truly beleive now other than people are stupid and easily lead (comment on most organised religion and not actually meant as an attack on any), and the more 'made a fool of' they may feel when questioned intelligently, sadly the more violently they are likely to react. I intend to teach my children to question all things and seek to learn enough from all sides until they are happy in their *own* decision, above all I beleive people should be good to other (yes event the stupid ones ;o) ) people, and not force their opinions on others)
Origins of the name "Easter": The name "Easter" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE.) a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book De Ratione Temporum that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos." 1 Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. (source http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm )another interesting read would be http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html on the one mention of 'easter' by name in the bible,
this passage is not talking about Easter. How do we know? The word translated Easter is the Greek word pascha (derived from the Hebrew word pesach; there is no original Greek word for Passover), and it has only one meaning. It always means Passover--it can never mean Easter! For this reason, we find a Hebrew word used in the Greek New Testament. Once again, this Hebrew word can only refer to Passover. And other translations, including the Revised Standard Version, correctly render this word Passover.EOM
No no, the idea is that with each iteration you come back as something that's more likely to both be in horrible torment AND help someone through said torment.
Politicians aren't known for their torment OR helping people.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
The Bishop was probably David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham between 1984 and 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edward_Jenkins
He is said to have said "I wouldn't put it past God to arrange a virgin birth if He wanted, but I very much doubt if He would."
More details here on "atheist" priests: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/393479.stm
What are their rituals? Where do I sign to become a member? Do their preachers have to live celibate? How often do they pray? What's their concept on afterlife like, heaven/hell, reincarnation or something completely different? Do they have a concept of reward/punishment like sins or karma?
Free as in mason.
So in other words humanity gets what they always wanted. Multiple times to get it right, never mind the damage inbetween. How very divine.
" 'You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.'
.. Christians don't go out randomly believing anything... When something questions the basic assumptions of their faith, they stick to those assumptions, but in all other cases, they're not "anti-reason"."
That idea is a bunch of hogwash. Unforuntately, it seems to be publically-accepted hogwash, "
Fascinating, yet your objection is one more of indigence than logic. About the only thing that can be considered a universal characteristic of Christians is that they believe that Christ was the Messiah. Your desire to have "Christian" mean something specific--as dictated by you alone, apparently--is understandable but falls into the "if wishes were fishes" category rather than factual argument.
"Religion doesn't "praise blind faith over reason" in all situations
Au contraire, it is this bit of blind faith schizophrenia that makes science and religion such a bad mix. "Oh, we only ignore reason some of the time!" is not an argument that Christians are behaving rationally. If I have a multiplication table and it is only completely wrong some of the time, say 20%, is it still a good tool to use to design a bridge? I'd say not. Saying that your views are only **randomly** peppered with irrationality does not make them logical or reliable.
I once briefly debated a "Creation 'Scientist'". He said he was Christian first and a Scientist second, so there were certain "basic assumptions of [his] faith" that were inviolable. For instance there was no test, no argument and no proof that could ever contradict his Christian belief that the earth was under 10,000 years old. Being a scientist means being open to new possibilities, being religious means the opposite. Most scientist are even open to the possibility that god exists, given unlikely event of their being enough scientific proof (which god could choose to give in spades), but Christians are not open to the possibility that God does not exist.
" 'It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn. '
Which is why mainstream Christians still believe that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and that maggots generate spontaneously in rotten meat. Oh wait, they don't. "
Once again, you are using the argument that only some of your beliefs are irrational. The fact that many Christians believe in some blatantly proven scientific facts is not proof of their rationality. Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven. And that anyone who doesn't believe this entirely reasonable true story deserves eternal punishment. Yup, I can see that logic and rationality rule here. But, back to your point about stagnation. Christianity starts with the premise that you must believe certain tenants of Christianity against all proof to the contrary. That is stagnation. Religion prides its self in blind faith. Once you take pride in being illogical an irrational, you loose the ability to objectively evaluate the world because you give your religious beliefs a free pass.
I'm curious how do you define custard? What's the depth at which the custard starts? Do you accept the existence of magma - at least in the outer core areas?
... sadly I'm dismissive about it being custard because I know that custard is made from milk and cornflour (and other stuff, depending on whether it's packet custard or real egg-custard) and doubt strongly that there is a) enough milk and cornflour ever made to fill the earth; b) a mechanism to conglomerate and bind in earth that much custard; c) assuming gravitational equations to be correct the custard would have to be quite dense ... or perhaps it has dark matter mixed in with it.
... this gives 1.4*10^20 cow years. Which I think means it takes a hundred million cows about a million million years to make enough milk. It's going to take a big saucepan. Also where do the cows live?
I'm with the parent - I believe agnosticism is the default scientific mode. The problem I have is that my experience proves to me God's existence as surely as it proves the existence of a computer in front of me. Sadly that experience is not objectively defensible - until one creates a device to replay memories and establish their verity.
So I believe that the son of God, Jesus died for my sins. But I'm also somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to other minds and existence of an external world. I believe in recent evolution of non-human animals but am agnostic on humans and extended past evolution. I believe that the worlds core is made of molten rock (all the way in!) because it's consistent with my understanding of planetary formation, creation of matter from nuclear stellar reactions and my understanding of creation by God as alluded to in Genesis
PS: I look forward to reading your custard-theory in Nature.
PPS: Average yearly cow milk yield is now approx 7 KLitres (substantially lower in the past!). Approx volume of the earth (-10% for crust) is about 9.75 * 10e23 litres
It's possible to replace every occurance of God with FSM and still have the philosophical question be as relevant. It's just the nonsensical name that makes people think 'God' is more acceptable than 'FSM' and thats the whole point of the FSM argument - it doesn't make sense and it's just like 'God'.
Telling to "the public" that earth is flat is "free speech"
Telling children that earth is flat is "lying".
Or to drive the point through
Making a video of yourself having intercourse with is protected by free speech under the impression that it could be art, and this is probably good, since the exact limit is very hard to define.
Bonking the cleaning person in front of the children might be seen as educative, but nevertheless is a nono and might get you in jail. Using not to good looking images and diagrams is deemed more adequate for sex-ed.
That's right. Christianity is no more dangerous than cyanide. By itself they are fine - it is only when you take them into you that you get a problem.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I thought it was filled with grits. Isn't that why Natalie Portman is always covered in them, becuase she's a demon come to Earth?
Why have I only just found this out?
I love custard — I'm off to find me an excavator and a casket of treacle puddings!
Firstly, I'm not American. Also, I don't know the law over there but I'm willing to bet that the constitution and thusly, free speech *would* in fact come first.
Actually, no. As a teacher, he represents the government and is an employee of the school system - and thus obligated to follow their rules. He's free to do what he wants on his own time but in the school he is subject to disciplinary action if he exercises his right to speech in contravention of their rules. Free speech does not mean free of consequences.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
if the guy who said this was a post-modernist? "...this teacher has displayed bigotry, hypocrisy, arrogance and an appalling ignorance of science...."
I find it hilarious that people can be so schizophrenic about stuff like this. Yes, I'm just guessing that he's a post-modernist, but a lot of people are these days. And when they (post-modernists) say that they believe in evolution as 'science'... I dunno, this kind of false-positive logic circuit makes my brain cells spontaneously combust.
You said that the bible must be taken literally or else discarded completely. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point was, and your attempt to further my analogy really doesn't make any sense. The book is not called "Contains gold-ish content---really, trust me! Or else!" it's called "The Bible" and the title in no way serves as instructions on how to use the information contained therein. That some people have chosen to use it as a factual reference book while others have chosen to use it as an example of how to be a good person does not give one group a monopoly on the term 'Christian'.
When there is disagreement by judges on the interpretation of a law (something written far more recently than 2,000 years ago mind you) do we discard our entire system and fall back to anarchy until we can start from scratch and build a new set of laws? Do we have to find a new term to refer to those judges who disagree with the fundamentalist judges?
This Buddhism thing is really interesting... but I have a question. I can't remember any past lives, so how can I avoid making the same mistakes that I presumably made during my past lives?
I don't understand how I can make progress and gain karma if I can't learn from my mistakes.
There is no such thing as a proof, except from math and law. You can disproof, but not proof.
Also, I don't know the law over there but I'm willing to bet that the constitution and thusly, free speech *would* in fact come first.
No, because free speech implies the freedom *not* to listen, and these kids didn't have that freedom, they were a captive audience.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wrong. Sorry see the presocratic philosophers. You know, Diogenes, Zeno, etc. From the wikipedia article on presocratic philosophy:
"The pre-Socratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations for the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. Many of them asked:
* From where does everything come?
* From what is everything created?
* How do we explain the plurality of things found in nature?
* How might we describe nature mathematically?"
Why do you think nothing worthwhile was done before the Renaissance?
As somebody who has never elected to worship dieties or idols, or otherwise be "religious", I'm unfamiliar with the term "athiest"...is that a label for somebody who was as brainwashed as most of their peers into believing in Gods, but claims publicly not to?
Humans make some very strange choices (and claims). How strange that some need to hope that a superior being will take care of them and their problems, so that they won't have to take responsibility for their own actions and lives.
Meh, two things....nope. Wasn't force fed the "one truth". Took it up and accepted it myself. Second, everyone's reading WAAAAY more into this than I intended. All I was getting at was that if you're defining Easter, wikipedia aside, the publicly acknowledged reason for Easter celebration is the death of Christ. I'm well aware that the european church shanghai'ed pagan holidays. All I'm saying is that there's a difference between saying "What is easter? It's an acknowlegment of the crucifixion of Jesus." and "It's the day Christ died for your sins, and if you don't accept him as your personal savior, you're going to hell."
IMHO, both statements are facts, but the former is allowed by law in a public school classroom, the latter is not. The person in this story stepped over that line.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I am, what most people would call, a right wing fundamental Christian. I believe the Bible to be the absolute truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to meet with God. Because of my relationship with God, I find evolution a laughable concpet... I am 100% convinced that intelligent design is the only explanation. I go to church, twice on Sundays, and a few times during the week. I give over 10% of my money to the church. I however, do not go around telling people they will go to hell. I enjoy reading Slashdot science articles, I don't firebomb abortion clinics. I don't hold up signs like "gay's go to hell" in protest against the Mardi Gras. I'm looking forward to playing Rainbox 6: Las Vegas (sweeeet). I cringe when i saw the youtube video about the crazy Jesus lady. These kind of things embarass me and don't at all reflect who I know my Jesus to be. I try to love as many people as I can, because that is what Jesus did. People, like this pastor, mean well - Jesus is the best thing that's ever happened to me - but their method is their own, and not God's. So don't put us in a box. Don't think this man is a horrible person, in His mind (and mine) the best thing he could ever show the kids in his classroom is Jesus. Unfortunately, his actions showed Jesus to be something that he is not. A liar and a manipulator, and that's the saddest part.
Jesus Saves
I think you've forgotten that an alternative to getting a state-school education is a home education. If the parents don't like it they could pull them out and teach themselves. In fact, that's what's happening all the time. Where's your argument now?
Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Unless you're honest, in which case they are.
A classical answer would be "Touché."
Free Manning, jail Obama.
First, that 'teacher' should get the boot. If he wants to educate his students, he could kill two birds with one stone by giving them a little 'Thou shalt not lie' sermon. He'd teach them morals and irony. Second, has it ever crossed anyone's mind that just because this guy is a nut job zealot doesn't merit bashing religion in general? Yeah, this he's a jerk, but I could list off a atheists who have done much worse (no offense meant to atheists, much offense meant to the all those who subscribe to the Dawkins worshiping, Jack Thompso-esque 'New Atheist' religion). Oh, and for those of you who can't figure it out by yourself, there is a difference between atheists who do not believe in any gods, and Dawkins followers who believe so strongly that there is no such thing that they would lead a crusade on religion. Kudos to Dawkins, by the way. He took what the Catholic Church has been doing for years, that being play on human's need to worship something by bastardizing Christianity (atheism in Dawkins case) for a profit, only he did it with science instead of God.
Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Noah/Ark and Hell are not Christian teachings. The gentleman is not a Christian, he is simply ill and needs treatment. He should also make restitution. He's probably a decent teacher otherwise. Christians wouldn't lie about being Christians, or teaching Christianity.
"PS: Scientists can still be good scientists and believe the world is flat. If I'm the best microbiologist that ever lived but believe the world is flat should you discount my awesome understanding of synaptic chemistry?" This is a conundrum. There **are** many scientists who are religious, yet their objective analysis of the world comes to a screeching halt when they come to their own religion. In practice, we accept the brilliance of scientists within their specialty even if they are dolts otherwise. The reason we can do this is because science doesn't accept these scientists findings on blind faith. They are subject to peer review. So, the science is what survives. On the other hand, it is problematic when scientists are rational only part of the time. You don't entirely know when to trust their judgement.
Student (s) Priest (p) (my comments in italic.)
...
...
...
... he is also completely just. ...
s: Isn't it the whole point of public school so that you can separate personal believes from teachers and administrators from non-religious, you know non-religious teachings during school, like you school prayers and all that and sh..
p: Purpose of public school is to provide free education to people that can't afford education, period.
That's (smirk) the purpose of public school. What it has become is social engineering. It's supposed to reflect the values and believes system of your parents as well as school board elected by the population.
Now I have to believe that most people on schoolboard have faith mainly similar to mine, but yet the state comes up with some weird perception of what education may be [inaudible].
(there I thought public school is there to provide affordable education based on science, while religion is not supposed to enter the picture at all and education at tax expense must be provided fairly and equally to all, regardless of their particular religion.)
p: Public school shouldn't teach religion. But the scriptures aren't religion.
s: They are not?
p: Scriptures are the foundation of the world religion. (I see, so how about those Jedis then?)
s: What if some students don't believe in god?
p: That's your prerogative, what if some student doesn't believe in evolution? What if some student doesn't believe in some aspect of educational theory?
s: Evolution is scientific
p: Is it?
s: Yes, I can get you a whole bunch of information on it.
p: I am 38 years old, I have seen the information. Maybe the scientific method [inaud].
p: this is the issue, god is not all loving
p: you saw the whole Mel Gibson's portrayal? That was pretty accurate.
------
I listened to almost the entire recording (couldn't do the entire thing,) and it seemed to me that the student, who is making the recording is mostly provoking the 'teacher' (priest) in question to talk about various aspects of religion vs evolution.
It looked to me that both had very bad debating skills, both were getting themselves into holes they could not really get out of, both haven't thought through their arguments.
However, while the student in question didn't really understand any better and was adamant in pursuing the priest and trying to push his own believes onto the priest. The 'teacher' (priest) should not have pushed into this territory, especially when he hold very dogmatic ideas as the 'truths' in his head and uses very simple tricks on the students - appeals to authority, ad hominem, appeals to believes, appeal to ridicule, appeal to common practice, appeal to emotion, bandwagon, appeal to popularity, confusing cause and effect, middle ground, misleading vividness, red herring and just about every other trick in the book to present the scientific theory as just another religious believe system, while pushing the personal agenda onto the students.
I do not want a public school teacher to behave in this way, he should know better than get into these kinds of arguments and his role at a public school is not to preach religion but to teach history.
Basically I think both were wrong, the student (for pushing the priest) and the priest (for going with it and for pushing his own agenda.)
I certainly wouldn't want this 'teacher' teaching any kids in a public school.
You can't handle the truth.
When the Catholics admit something is true, you've got to be pretty far gone to still not believe it.
It's unfortunate though that atheists insist on maintaining the intellectual high ground when agnosticism is the most logical perspective on life.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
He doesn't consider moderates "illegitimate" (whatever that means in this context).
He considers them to hold an irrational belief.
Which is true, I must say, as someone still holding irrational religious beliefs myself (and having gone back and forth the deist/agnostic/atheist paths).
We all often hold irrational beliefs. E.g.: that today will be a better day than yesterday, that our friends/relatives are inherently good people, etc. We could argue that some of these are beneficial for rational reasons, yet they would still be irrational beliefs and should not be defended otherwise.
I could argue that I've had personal experiences that strongly suggested me to certain mystical beliefs, but all of these experiences could be explained otherwise through logical and (dis)provable hypotheses. The fact that I do not find these personally satisfying, and believe a more comprehensive (but unprovable) alternative is a personal, and ultimately irrational, choice.
The fact is that atheism is more rational than religious belief in a god: discarding an unprovable thesis is a rational choice, which happens to be a fundamental part of the scientific method. It is not more rational than agnosticism, but one would have to admit it is more "scientific" at least.
Religious belief in the Christian sense is an irrational choice, it is a matter of "faith".
For that matter, the very irrationality of that leap was a fundamental part of Christianity for at least more than a thousand years, and the reconciliation of reason with faith to resolve that tension was a recent campaign driven by scientists and intellectuals in the first place. Often against strong opposition from the different Churches, which perhaps better understood that they were dealing with a Mystery religion by nature.
Dawkins doesn't think everyone should be an atheist because they must be purely "rational". He does have an extremely negative view of religion and the effects of its particular memes in human civilization; and as a scientist, he feels discarding an unprovable thesis with such negative practical effects is the obvious choice.
I do not agree with his black-and-white view of religion, and at the very least I think he overlooks massive historical evidence of the symbiotic relationship between theological beliefs and science. But he currently he points out problems that are dangerous to both religion and modern science (even if he only cares about the latter).
More worrying than whether everyone should believe A or B (which is a pointless discussion as old as civilization) is the facetious redefinitions of science and belief thar are being used as part of the debate. It threatens to miseducate at least a generation on what Science is (dangerous to their secular future) and what Faith is (dangerous to their personal future).
To the credit of Dawkins and Co., it is the Christian fundamentalist who keep trying to confuse both, demonstrating they understand neither.
I'm probably a little biased here, since I'm one of those people who lives happily under both science and religion, but I think you (and Dawkins) dismiss us "hypocritical moderates" a little too quickly. There's a lot to be said for the ability to handle contradictions and ambiguity. I believe in science (if belief is the right word; science hardly needs my belief to exist) and I believe in religion. I don't personally believe that God created the world in seven days, but I believe that other people have believed that, and that that makes it true on some level. Not a rational, physical, affecting-my-daily-life level, like science, but no less true for all that. It's part of our shared cultural genetics, like the Odyssey and gunpowder and corn.
I haven't read The God Delusion yet. I should. But I've kind of been avoiding it because from what I read about Dawkins, he seems to base his arguments purely in the rational, physical, real world while (in my view, being neither an atheist or a fundamentalist) faith isn't about the real world at all. I agree completely that God doesn't exist in the real world, but I also believe completely that God exists nonetheless. Limiting the argument against religion to the physical world misses the point.
I guess since he's an atheist & scientist it's the only world he can argue within, but I'm not particularly interested in being lambasted for my religious beliefs by someone who assumes that disproving that God exists in the real world, as the fundamentalists hold, will prove that God doesn't exist at all. I mean, insult me all you want, but do so for what I believe, not for what you assume I must believe. (And I wonder about the decision to reduce science/God to an either/or choice; the blanket rejection of religion is no less simpleminded than blindly accepting it.) But properly disproving God's existence in my book would be as much a matter of philosophy and history as science.
"...lied later when he was asked by the school principle what he said to the students..."
Lying, mean teachers who produce students who can't tell a principle from a principal.
By the way, one idiot teacher in a New Jersey school hardly equates with "US Classrooms Torn Between Science and Religion", even if it's on Richard Dawkins' blog.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
His descriptions of moderates are consistently descriptions of apathetic fundamentalists; they do not represent any of the other views and models found within Christianity. His whole argument for liberals as "enablers" of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that liberals are just fundamentalists with less conviction.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Actually, the very historicity of Jesus is subject to challenge. However, that's not unusual for history; many historical issues are unclear. However, they are generally presented as being unclear. When it comes to Jesus, however, the very debate tends to get suppressed.
Take the cruci-fiction (spelling deliberate). The Romans kept very good records of criminal trials and executions. Many, but not all, of these records survive today. That the Romans did use crucifixion in Palestine as a form of capital punishment is historical fact. That a Jewish carpenter-turned-rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, during the Passover celebrations, sometime between 20BC and 50AD, is not - the dated records don't survive. Neither the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, both of which are old enough to _have_ the documentary evidence, are prepared to release any.
Now, there is good secondary evidence to suggest that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified. But there is sufficient doubt, along with enough supporting material for alternative theories, that teaching the Crucifixion as historical fact is intellectually dishonest.
As for Easter - yes, you'd want to say that it's a secular holiday based on the Christian tradition of remembrance of the Crucifixion of Jesus. That is fact, even if the Crucifixion itself isn't. You may then want to say that, because the country you live in was a strong Christian tradition, some of the Christian holy days have become secular holidays (and then segue into the etymology of the word). You may then want to point out that Easter should coincide with the Jewish Passover celebrations (which it doesn't any more - well, the Orthodox Christian Easter still does). While you're at it, you may want to point out that Christmas was picked as a date rather arbitrarily.
While you're at it, you may want to point out that Thanksgiving is an old celebration imported from Europe, and it is all about being thankful that you've got enough food put aside that you'll survive the winter. The fact that this original purpose is now mostly irrelevant (it's been a long time in a Western country since widespread famine in winter and Spring was a problem) doesn't mean that the holiday doesn't have a modern reason to continue.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
>As far as I can tell, the more fundamentalist a Christian is, the more Christian they are, by the measures provided in the Bible.
Then you haven't read the Bible.
Fundamentalism is a purely modern invention; it doesn't exist before the 1800s.
The notion that all text is literal accounts of facts is a post-Enlightenment worldview, and is directly contrary to the majority of Christian history, and the beliefs of most Christians worldwide even today.
You are reaffirming my alleged "flaimbait" comment about Dawkins; you and he both start with the assumption that fundamentalism is the "real" Christianity, and everything else is a compromise between fundamentalism and science. It ain't so. Christian interpretation of Genesis as allegory predates Darwin; in fact, it predates the middle ages. It wasn't until the industrial revolution that people started trying to turn all the stories into science, and ignoring their original understood meaning.
The assumption that people who aren't fundamentalists have "chosen the path of least resistance" is very wrong, and betrays a fundamental lack of awareness of the breadth and history of Christian doctrine. The guys on TV are not very much in line with historical Christian practice, it turns out; they do not serve as a good measure for how much something is or isn't "really" Christian.
Now, as it happens, the many people who are fine with science, since they don't see it as conflicting with their religious beliefs, are not dangerous to other people, for the most part, so there's not much point in worrying about them... But if you view them as "the same, only less committed", you will misjudge them badly.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
>The idea that people will to hell if they don't accept christ as their personal savior
>is, to my understanding, fairly mainstream Christianity.
It's certainly a common sound-bite description for Protestants in the US. The "personal savior" line is very rarely found outside of Protestant groups. Of course, the question of what exactly it means is somewhat debated. The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that teach that there are people who do not claim to be "Christian", but who are nonetheless participating in the salvation thing.
The map is not the territory; accepting religious dogma about Jesus is not the same thing as accepting Jesus. Most groups will grant that many people who are "not Christian" are nonetheless going to end up in Heaven, and many groups will grant that at least some people who claim to be "Christian" will not.
Of course, not all Christians believe anyone ends up in Hell. Universalism is arguably a heresy, but then, so is Protestantism.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If you live on faith alone, it means you don't buy & store food, don't wear glasses, don't take medicine. You live each meal on faith that someone will provide it, its just not the world in which we live.
Where did you go to school? I never saw any teacher "ridicule" religion, in grade school, middle school, high school, or college. I have seen students be offended at the teaching of mainstream science and think that being tested on evolution or the age of the earth was intended to undermine religion. I've seen students mocked for making stupid, childish arguments against evolution or an old earth. Every time I've ever seen someone say that schooling was hostile to religion, they meant that evolution and the age of the earth were being taught, and they disagreed with it. But I've never seen a teacher mock religion per se--in the USA, about 90% of the population believes in God to one extent or another, and few atheist teachers would admit their atheism because families would clamor for them to be fired. So what do you mean? Was faith in God mocked? The soul? The divinity of Jesus? Or do you mean that modern science was being taught, and some religious people felt that this constituted an all-out assault on their religion?
As badly as he explained it, the "inconsistency" you cited between the Old Testament passage and the New Testament passage is a change Jesus explicitly made. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the New Testament or Christianity at all, and should be embarrassed much as you would be if you couldn't place Canada on a map.
Of course there are inconsistencies in the Bible. This isn't one of them.
Anybody who believes in something - anything - when there is no evidence to support that thing cannot consider or call themself a scientist.
Faith and true science do not, and cannot, mix.
I must call BS on this one. If you follow the story of Jesus' life as presented in the gospels (I mean read and understand - or try to understand- the story), then you know that it would be next to impossible for the people to get the documents that can prove that. I mean, how much from that time actually survives to this day. Christianity became as organised long after the events contained in the bible happened. Basically, it leads to the following argument. The people who wrote the gospels lied. Admittedly, 3 of the gospels are rather similar which shows that there was perhaps a common influence for the writings. But why would 4 people write a story about the same man, albeit with the details slightly different, who never existed. Why would no one ever claim, and present proof that the story was false. 200 years is a long time. The argument that there are documents that could prove otherwise, but these documents are suppressed by some powerful people, certainly appeals to people who would consider Dan Brown's book a statement of fact. Its always a conspiracy theory's best argument. That certain people are so good at concealing the evidence that you will never find it. so the absence of evidence becomes the evidence itself. Christianity started among the Jews, and then spread to the rest of the world. Amazingly the Jews do not really question whether Jesus really existed. They wouldn't have a reason to cover that up. They certainly were more powerful than the small Christian group at that time, and if there was evidence that it was a sham, why would they not present it. Were they part of the conspiracy as well. Statistically, you cannot keep such a big secret, well, as secret. Sorry, Jesus' existence is historical fact. Period. Now if you want to argue if he was who or what He claimed he was, then that is the subject of another argument. But arguing whether or not he really existed sounds a little desperate.
To get picky, weak atheism (mere non-belief) is extremely defensible, although it's very hard to present an affirmative case for it. Strong atheism (active disbelief) is justifiable for some entities, less so for others.
I have certainly met people who were religiously zealous about their atheism; I have seen someone call other people fake atheists and accuse them of believing things that are wrong for atheists to believe. I've seen an atheist who believed firmly that he had seen convincing evidence for psychic stuff get mercilessly shredded by other people who insisted that a REAL atheist wouldn't believe that.
I would argue that, from a scientific standpoint, the God question is just plain ill-formed; the only scientifically viable position is probably "we will act as though there isn't". But not all of life is science; it's no different from the way that, most of the time, we apply brakes rather than waiting to see whether a hypothesized car-stopping-fairy will materialize.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
More like goatse'd between science and religion.
"Using linux is like a game, if you're able to make it run better than Windows, you're winning" - Unknown slashdotter.
Oh, wait. If I live somewhere...and mess it up....wait...I live on the Earth, and if the Earth is polluted and toxic to life...then...wait...no, never mind, you're right, it still takes a lot of crazy, wacko faith to believe in that line of reasoning. Only the far, far, way far out extreme mega-left wing would believe that.
I was waiting for someone to say this!
To all that believe: Belief is fine, be happy with yourselves - if I want to be as happy as you are, I'LL ASK.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some idea balls to remove from a manatee tank.
Free speech only regards political speech. To use a SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the US; SCOTUS scholars use it a lot, nobody else) justice's trope, free speech covers flag-burning to burning oneself alive to shouting in the streets, but free speech does not cover, e.g., yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Was the teacher rebelling against an oppressive gov't? No, not really.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
Excellent point.
I myself belong to a group of people often known as "reborn" Christians. I stated this on the front end so that my bias would be clear for the atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions in the crowd.
I've been reading Slashdot for probably 8 or 9 years now and this is the first time I've ever posted so go easy on me you smart non believers in hell!
I've got a few points to ramble about.
There are millions of "Christians" who really don't understand their own faith. I was one of them and actually had to almost lose my wife to a divorce before I understood it. Came up with a site for folks in a similar position - I dunno maybe it will help someone going through a divorce -> http://www.glassgloves.com/. It was a spiritual experience that I can not describe in words. It was almost like that scene in the movie Contact where Jodie Foster couldn't explain her experience going through that "worm hole".
While I admire this preacher's zeal - his delivery was poor. In addition, it was a poor choice in lying. However, even "good" Christians make mistakes. Sadly, this mistake probably sent untold thousands of agnostics further towards atheism and painted Christianity in a bad light.
There are many so called Christian sects and Churches that have lost touch with the core message. This "religion" is not a popularity contest and it is not about "following the rules of Christianity". It is more like we believe that the judge of whether you go to heaven or hell is actually our father, God. Imagine yourself being accused of a crime, but it so happens that your Dad is the judge. Any loving father is not going to sentence his offspring to prison for a crime if he can help it, but what if his offspring are unwilling to receive his help? Well I guess those offspring will land in prison. For those that accept your "Dad's" help - you just spend the rest of your life saying thanks by doing your best to follow the rules. You are saved either way once you take Dad's help (i.e., accept Christ).
I've met plenty of atheists, agnostics, muslims and the like who have never taken the time to truly understand the source of most of Christian belief - the Bible. While there are a few who seem to have taken the time (i.e., reading the entire Bible), it is obvious that they didn't take the time to understand it or should consult with believers to better understand the context. They often seem to focus on individual passages without understanding the context.
The Bible never contradicts itself once the context is understood.
Religion and Science are not mutually exclusive. Even Einstein seemed to understand that.
It seems unlikely that a big ball of fire (i.e., the Great Bang) would just appear in space and start a universe.
For the atheists in the crowd - let's just say that you are right. That when we die - that's it. Great - you've lost nothing if you die and if you're lucky maybe you will perpetuate your own genetic code through your children and make some money or something during your life time.
What if you are wrong though? Have you truly researched this subject enough given the potential stakes? If there is a fiery hell - it sure would suck to have missed the chance to at least research it.
The Bible is a huge and complex book. I've read the thing in entirety just once and am only beginning to uncover its full depth. Much of it is plain and simple, but there are many things that I found way too wild to be coincidence or a bunch of hogwash. Google for the book of Daniel and the recent restoration of Israel to see what I mean.
It may gall many that science is respected so much, perhaps even excessively much, but the fact is that it works. If you get cancer and you could use only medicine or only prayer, which you you try? Appendicitis? Gunshot wound? If you want to build a bridge, are you going to rely on prayer to guide you, or the sciences of engineering, metallurgy, etc? Science is rational thought. It isn't everything--it generally makes for bad poetry, for example. It doesn't touch on the genius of Van Gogh or Proust. There is much in the human condition that isn't addressed by science, and this finite scope is readily acknowledged by scientists. The only ones claiming that sciences tries to answer all questions are the religious opponents who don't want to accept science's answers on the age of the earth, or genetic diversity, or something along those lines.
I long for the day when teaching religion to children is classified as child abuse.
>Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.
yes it it.
you're talking about anecdotes and opinions, which don't necessarily have any positive correlation with the truth.
and then there are holy books such as the Bible, which are disgusting, immoral, contradictory, illogical and can be shown to simply be wrong.
You don't get to decide who calls themselves Christians! Christianity isn't a trademark. It is what ever someone says it is to them.
That idea is a bunch of hogwash. Unforuntately[sic], it seems to be publically[sic]-accepted hogwash, which is why you have religious groups claiming that Christ never lived, the Bible is inaccurate, and God is just a symbol, yet still claiming the moniker of "Christian" while they deny the very person whose name they claim.
Yeah, you're right; the definition has become too fragmented. I think it should go back to the first organization that claimed to be christian. Only members of the catholic church are christians and everyone else who refers to their religion as christian must come up with a new name.
Somehow I don't think you'd be happy with that arrangement.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-Bertrand Russell
if there wasn't someone to fight against. They have to have a mission for their faith to be worthwhile, and their mission is to collect more souls for Christ. Yes, they could believe in the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount and dedicate their lives to helping the poor, but that doesn't do much to bolster normal human vanity, nor does it allow one to seek and enjoy power over others, or enjoy much wealth and comfort. Since most humans are vain and like power, influence, and wealth, it's no surprize that many Christians take a reading of the Bible that instructs them to convert souls, rail against evolution and the other teachings of the devil, work their way into government so they can pass laws governing the rest of us, all while living a materially comfortable life in this world. And all the while they can sleep soundly at night knowing that hell exists to welcome anyone they don't like, because anyone they don't like is someone God doesn't like. Why do you think we HAVE religion, anyway?
I have evidence for God from many people I've met in my life, as well as people I've read about. Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.
That isn't evidence, it's an impression. You have an impression that there is a god because of the people that you have met, or read about. When I look into the sky, I get a feeling of wonder and I can understand why people believe in god; but that isn't evidence that there is god.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
>>> They are subject to peer review.
2 01:1-5;&version=46;
Metaphysical notions are also subject to review. However, metaphysics is axiomatic and so review simply causes the opposition of opinions which can't be proved. I think this is the area that Jesus is speaking of when he says (through the author of John's gospel, paraphrasing) "I am the logos" [the word of understanding, the same word that spoke into the darkness to create all things - cf Heraclatus] "I am light of the world, I shine in the darkness".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
...says the anonymous coward. But there are many not afraid to speak openly about this topic, such as myself.
I would be what someone might label as fundamentalist, in that I believe in the infallibility of God's message to us. However, the correct meaning of fundamentalist as used in these conversations is really an extreme legalism (they take things to the extreme on the language, usually failing to realize that the infallible word does not mean someone can't do a biased translation).
I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal of the United Pentecostal Church. We're Oneness (only One, not three in one). We're also classified under the Charismatic, because we practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We're separate from them, though, in our Oneness beliefs and also in what are known as standards. Our women don't cut their hair and usually wear dresses and skirts, our men keep their hair cut short and wear long sleeve shirts and full length pants. We generally don't watch TV (which isn't universally practiced, dvds are allowed to an extent, etc... , but is part of our standards bylaws, debate on this issue continues), go out to movies, drink, smoke, or take any other types of drugs.
So, from reading that, you would think we're the far far far right of all issues, especially on science. You would also be furthest from the truth.
The truth is that our church realizes one thing, that science cannot and will not disprove God, if that science is truly logical in basis and not some half baked theory. Evolution remains unproven, but if you were to ask our scholars, they would similarly tell you, every bit of Evolution (or any other scientific area) that is proven fact is fully in line with biblical accounts. On the other hand, we have no faith that science will ever bring humanity even one inch closer to salvation. We simply recognize that many misguided people would use theory and out of context facts to make a case against Christianity, as if there really were some disagreement between science and biblical truth.
Churches are filled with the technologically gifted. Who do you think runs sound booths, cameras, websites, etc.? Churches have massive IT infrastructures. Christians broadcast on tens of thousands of radio stations worldwide and several denominations run entire TV networks. So, before anyone jumps on the "religion is for low IQ people", like the "New Atheism" people do, realize that such a view is mainly based in geographic epicenters revolving around creation and design, not implementation (the programmers, not the professional users).
As such, the "low IQ" bias doesn't hold, considering the proliferation of "media ministries". And we certainly passed our science and math classes with flying colors. Many will also tell you that faith is not blind. Faith is that we've seen enough evidence to be persuaded, which is the actual use of the word faith in the bible. As Jesus did say, if you don't believe because I'm telling you, believe because of the works you've seen me do. (paraphrasing heavily) We recognize that God has never refused a test, though you better be careful not to tempt him. There's a difference between testing and tempting. If you don't believe, you can test. If you believe, but ask anyways for some undeserving reason, you tempt. That's a very simplified explanation, but should get the message to you.
Now, as for this case, this teacher was misguided, and I'm still waiting for the downloaded audio to listen to the context. But I recognize a few things right off the bat. First off, he was setup.
"The following is from Paul L. LaClair, a NYC attorney who lives in Kearny, New Jersey, and is posted with his permission. David Paszkiewicz, the teacher described here engaging in incompetent teaching and dishonesty, is apparently a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church in addition to being a public school teacher. LaClair's son Matthew has previously garnered attention for protesting Bush administration activities by refusing to stand for
I8-D
> It's unfortunate though that atheists insist on maintaining the intellectual high ground when agnosticism is the most logical perspective on life.
Agnosticism is not even close to being logical. It is simply a "lets get along" view point.
In short, you're a friggin' idiot.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
DAMNED IF YOU DO ... DAMNED IF YOU DON'T ... Fuck'em all for their fear-mongering evil.
... it makes it a lot easier to pick the fun hedonist path to death.
I love catch-22 conditions/situations
Also, all our friends and family will be there waiting for US or get there in time for more fun.
I am greatly comforted by these thoughts on humanity's religious reality, gOD bless US on and all.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
How do you scientifically measure your soul?
I'm really not trying to invite a flame, but am curious with the two questions above as I struggle with them myself. I goto church for community with man (it also allows me to give back to the area around me via charitable mechanisms I believe to be run by good people), I goto the doctor to cure what ails me, I am fascinated with scientific discovery (reading what my schedule allows me to), yet deep inside I have trouble believing our world was a galactic role of the dice. The odds of our universe coming together the way it has to support our life here on earth are just not good. Selective reproduction is one thing, but if we came from monkeys why are our DNA closer to that of a dog? Why has no other monkeys (or fish, or birds, or whatever) turned human in the past (insert whatever number you like) years?
Please provide links (if you know of any) that would explain it to a non-scientist - afterall, I'm just a guy trying take care of his family and answer the age-old questions and there seems to be some very knowledgeable people that comment on these topics but also seem frustrated with the holier-than-thou among us who hold up the bible and plug their ears. My ears are open, but my bible is also in hand.
As a practicing Zen Buddhist, you ego doesn't get reincarnated which is the "I" or "Me" that we experience.
What is reincarnated however is the negative karma, the suffering you have caused yourself and others is recincarnated into the cycle of birth and death. The good karma is 'absorbed' into the Cosmic Buddha.
Everyone is a Buddha, no matter how "bad" or "wicked" they are. It is a matter of realizing your true Buddha nature, the perfection of yourself and others sans the delusional thinking.
Doing Zen meditation (maybe koan study) and following the ten precepts is the only way to realize your true Buddha nature. The ten precepts are not too different than the ten commandments intrestingly enough.
Buddhism doesn't believe in any higher power or god. It doesn't really matter, everyone is responsible for themselves, God/god(s) or not.
As a side note, if you are thrown into a Buddhist hell, according to Buddhist pantheon seems like a far worse place to be than the Christian Hell. But in Buddhist hell you can be reborn into another realm by doing virtuous deeds and saving and helping any sentient being.
No, OP is correct. Science is a system of belief. You believe in certain axioms, which are unproveable by definition. You accept them because it makes the conversation possible. For instance, in order to believe in science, you need to have faith that there is such a thing as 'rationality'-- namely, that the world is intelligible, logically consistent, and so on. It's conceivable that our universe is unintelligible to us. Science may not explicitly reject this idea, but it certainly does so implicitly.
I personally believe that accepting rationality as an axiom is an easy compromise between unhealthy skepticism and full-out acceptance of religious doctrine, because "skepticism" doesn't even make sense without "rationality" (you can't say that an argument is 'invalid' unless you can say that the argument is 'irrational'). The difference between science and something like Christianity is that science has a built-in mechanism for self-correction. It may not work quickly, or perfectly, but you can be damn sure that over time, scientific theory will better fit the facts. This is not possible for a system of belief that relies on doctrine.
I don't see any problems with accepting that science is a system of belief, because as a former student of philosophy, I know the kinds of problems you can run into when you start throwing everything out. Read some Kant or Descartes and you'll see what I mean. Quagmire. My cavalier attitude gives certain anally-retentive people an icky feeling.
Besides, science brought us lasers. Think about that. When did Jesus last bring us lasers?
Not true at all - it is the idea that because no knowledge can be had about the existence of a creator, no assumptions should be made about the existence or non-existence of one. Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Glad to see someone that understands this. Unfortunately many times Christians act on either bad information/education, or just from an ignorant perspective.
:|
I believe I once read that George Washington died because the thought process of the day regarding infections was to "bleed out" the bad blood. So he bled to death at the hands of his own doctors.
It is very, VERY difficult to publicly profess christianity because of persecution that results from christians acting out of ignorance or bad information. I really wish more christians were taught to:
a. think for themselves
b. take up servant leadership BEFORE jumping into going out to "seek and save"
If you reach out to meet the needs of others, the "seek and save" part winds up being a natural extension. Perhaps not comfortable, but natural. You have to create a relationship of trust if you're to share these kinds of things. Why should someone trust Christ if they can't (at least at a basic level) trust you?
Lying about having professed that Christ is the one true way to heaven DOES NOT earn you brownie points towards trust.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Fine by me; call me a protestant Christian or an Evangelical.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I'm not saying that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have documents that prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. What I said is that they haven't released any. My personal belief is that they don't have any such document, nor have they had any since being formally established.
What I said is that there is insufficient evidence to convincingly prove his existence. There is enough to take it as the default hypothesis, but there is room for alternatives. Personally, I don't care either way, but there are some serious Biblical scholars who do.
Want one alternative theory? Sure, here's one. One solid theory about the New Testament is that the Gospels were heavily edited, retrospectively, to make the life of Jesus fit Biblical prophecy. One obvious point is the whole Virgin birth - this is linked back to Old Testament prophecy, which the Jews actually didn't make; the Jewish version of the prophecy has the Messiah being born by a young woman, not a virgin, in the town of David (Bethlehem). Furthermore, this mistranslation occurred during a translation from Aramaic (spoken by the Jews at the time) to Greek (which the Gospels were written in after expanding out of Palestine). The various Gospels, BTW, don't agree on why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem in the first place - an artefact of this revisionist process.
If the editing process can alter the life of Jesus so much, who says that it couldn't have done more? One theory (with some evidence behind it) is that Jesus was actually a pseudonym used by the Apostles themselves, and that the character of Jesus was completely fictional. In essence, Jesus becomes a fictional figurehead of one of the many breakaway Jewish sects, allowing the real leaders of the sect to move around in some degree of safety. This tactic _was_ used by other sects, so there is a chance it was used by the sect that became Christianity. Personally, I think this is reaching at straws, but it is logically consistent, and it shows that Jesus, as a person, really may not have existed.
By comparison, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the various Apostles, including records of many of their court trials (including James, brother of Jesus).
All that said, the default position of most Biblical scholars is that Jesus, the person, probably did exist, and he probably was crucified for the crime of rebelling against the Romans and their Jewish proxies.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
The biggest problem with FSM is that it's a bad analogy. It takes an argument about something necessarily supernatural - a Creator - and forces it into the natural world. Of course it's silly that spaghetti would fly around and talk or whatever FSM does. That's because the properties surrounding spaghetti, as well as the possibilities of it becoming animated, are very well known to people. However, we know very little (zero, in fact) about Creators of the universe.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Seem more like the poster is trying to create friction more than the story has any meat.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
This seems to me one of the many occasions in which we need more and better data to have a worthwhile discussion. If this was one comment on one day made in the context of "I believe that . . ," the fuss is in my humble opinion a bit much. Many teachers have strongly held beliefs and many express them. All teachers are from time-to-time guilty of bad judgment.
Actually, the Bible pretty much states exactly what time the crucifixion did occur: The first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. This spring celebration was fused with local pagan celebrations in some cultures (ours) and thus you get rabbits and chocolate. Not everyone in the world celebrates easter with chocolates and rabbits - the Greeks, for example.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Christianity isn't based on facts?! No denomination of Christianity, or any religion, can be rationally "proved" more sound than any other? "Ahem". I am sick of Slashdotters characterizing me, a Christian, as somebody who believes in a nebulous God at the edge of the universe who doesn't do anything and wants us to accept his existence by blind faith. He doesn't. Faith, as defined in the New Testament, is acting in trust of God's promises, and isn't blind. Rather, I believe in a God who can change lives who made promises that *can* be tested. While parts of the bible (such as Genesis) may be meant to be taken allegorically, God outlines a covenant in the New Testament: a covenant under which Christians can communicate with God one on one through prayer and get actual answers. It is a covenant with promises of deliverance from patterns of addiction and hopelessness, and even such seemingly ridiculous promises as healing from sickness ("By His wounds we are healed."). In short, a Christian who has accepted this covenant can test the will of God by acting on His promises. A promise from God to men is not meant to be taken "allegorically". Jesus did not allegorically die on a cross. He died. And I believe he rose again. As the apostle Paul said, "If Christ did not rise from the dead, we are men to be pitied indeed." He's right; either God has power, and really can answer prayers and work miracles, or my religion is worthless. And as outlandish as it seems, I believe in the Christian God rather than Allah or Buddha because I believe he *does* answer prayers (my parents and I cried out to Jesus for help just before a head-on collision and the other car was suddenly knocked out of our path to the other lane) and *does* heal people (my mom was healed of asthma at a prayer meeting).
This version of reincarnation is among the very oldest. Keep in mind that all very old doctrines start mixing metaphorical thinking that cannot be taken literally.
... waste time that could have been more interesting making better decisions.
Roughly, you're not supposed to recall your errors. Your new situation is supposed to guide you into subtle adjustments.
But recall that this is mixed heavily in with rhetorical language. I follow one of the modern perspectives that there is no Physical reincarnation... so if you waste time making errors... you
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm aware of the complexity of Buddhism (not all of it but enough to know there are way too many variants for me to know), and was afraid when I posted that someone would complain (I probably would do likewise). It's simply the only religion I could come up with off the top of my head that I knew at least one variant off didn't shove none believers into hell.
Also if I remember some variants of Buddhism also have the concept of hell (and Heaven in a non-Nirvana sense) although they're both better defined and more temporary than Christianity (ie: you do X you wind up in this type of hell for Y years).
This is hardly a new issue. Back around 1970 I took a course at UCB in the history of science. The text for the course was A History of the warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/), by Andrew Dickson White, first published in 1896. Little has changed since then (either 1896 or 1970, your choice).
The salient and interesting point of White's work is captured in the title. The warfare is between Science and Theology, not between Science and Religion. White's position, strongly defended, was that science and religion, characterized as faith or belief in powers and existence outside the immediate corporeal world, were not at odds, but that theology, as put forth by religious scholastics with a vested interest in convincing the general populace of the value of unquestioned dogma, was completely at odds with science.
It's a tough go, but worth the effort. After thirty-five+ years, I can still cite that book, although I cannot remember the names of more that a handful of the professors I endured or, in a very few cases, was privileged to study with (requiescat in pace, Dr. Pimentel).
Spiritus ex Machina
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."
Non sequitur. You don't hear the millions of Christans who don't oppose science speaking up for science either, now do you?
The sad thing is that what I fear will come out of all this isn't banning the religious jerks from becoming teachers, but a ban on recordings in classrooms.
--
*Art
It's an attempt to at least respond to an "long term problem". You yourself are supposed to be kind to everyone, therefore your karma goes up.
If some random official makes a cruel policy, he presumably gets his due.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Agnosticism is not really logical, although it is logically correct.
For example, it is logically correct to say that I can say nothing for or against the existence of purple elephants with wings, as I sure as heck cannot prove a negative and I just as assuredly cannot find you an example of one. But it's not really logical.
Now, s/purple elephants with wings/gods, and you see the point.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
Was anyone surprised by this sensational piece of news?Because this time the students have hard evidence that the teacher lied? I think the fact that the teacher lied to the school afterwards is a more serious breach of trust than the fact he tried to preach during class.
Oliver.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett often uses the expression "belief in belief" in his lectures. There are many fascinating audio and video lectures of his found here:
http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php
Also, in the general debate of Science vs/and Religion, there are a number of great video discussions here (15 hours worth!):
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
Session 9 includes particularly fired up conversations...
Although, as a side, one thing tyrannical despotisms all share is a love of keeping good, careful records.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
It's not quite the easy s// operation you might think it is - "gods" are necessarily supernatural concepts, but a flying purple elephant is subject to natural laws that we are well acquainted with.
For that matter, life on another planet very well might have a large elephant-size creature with vestigal wings. In fact we can make up a lot of lifeforms that might be on other planets (assuming for argument's sake that there is life on other planets), but the logical thing to do is not make any of those predictions at all.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
OK, make it flying purple elephants with the power to break the conservation of mass-energy. Now it's a supernatural concept.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
...they are also meant as punishment and a deterrent against continuing whatever action they shouldn't be doing. Wether the student suffered emotional or academic damage only makes a difference on the size of the judgment, not on if the teacher and/or school should be sued or not.
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed. Cuz hey, you're still alive, no harm no foul, right?
The "personal savior" line is very rarely found outside of Protestant groups.
Most Protestant groups don't use the term either.
Why not be more direct? I did a simple google and found some e-mail addresses.
You can voice your opposition or (coff-coff) support directly to the principal of Kearny High School - Mr. Alfred Somma - asomma@kearnyschools.com All this info is published openly on kearnyschools.com, so I don't think I'm exposing the guy to any new risk of e-mail abuse or anything.
No guarrantee he will care, of course.
If the answer is war, you are asking the wrong question
Fascinating, yet your objection is one more of indigence than logic. About the only thing that can be considered a universal characteristic of Christians is that they believe that Christ was the Messiah. Your desire to have "Christian" mean something specific--as dictated by you alone, apparently--is understandable but falls into the "if wishes were fishes" category rather than factual argument.
As I pointed out, even that is not universal among those who call themselves Christian. I don't necessarily want a definition of Christian defined by me - I just want a definition. If I don't agree with that definition, then I'll call myself a protestant, or an evangelical, or whatever definition best suits me. But having Christian not being defined to mean anything just makes the whole term useless. A word which has different meanings to all parties is counter to the whole purpose of language.
Once again, you are using the argument that only some of your beliefs are irrational. The fact that many Christians believe in some blatantly proven scientific facts is not proof of their rationality. Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven. And that anyone who doesn't believe this entirely reasonable true story deserves eternal punishment. Yup, I can see that logic and rationality rule here. But, back to your point about stagnation. Christianity starts with the premise that you must believe certain tenants of Christianity against all proof to the contrary. That is stagnation. Religion prides its self in blind faith. Once you take pride in being illogical an irrational, you loose the ability to objectively evaluate the world because you give your religious beliefs a free pass.
Using that definition, science is also stagnant. Science relies on the idea that empirical observation and reproducible experimentation are the ways to determine if something is true. It starts with the basic premise that you must believe these things, or you are not a scientist. The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that.
Christians generally believe that a woman who never had sex gave birth to God who sent himself to earth as his son to suffer for the sins of his own creation, that God died but was resurrected by himself, who, er never died, so that he could be by his own side in heaven.
Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either. Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"I am sick of Slashdotters characterizing me, a Christian, as somebody who believes in a nebulous God at the edge of the universe who doesn't do anything and wants us to accept his existence by blind faith. "
t ml?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partn er=rssnyt&emc=rss
Well, I don't mean to insult you or create a personal affront. There is just one problem, though, you do believe in god based on Blind faith. You just choose to call it something different, "acting in trust of God's promises." Promises you believe in on blind faith.
"I believe in a God who can change lives who made promises that *can* be tested"
Well, what are those testable promises?
"God outlines a covenant in the New Testament: a covenant under which Christians can communicate with God one on one through prayer and get actual answers...
And as outlandish as it seems, I believe in the Christian God rather than Allah or Buddha because I believe he *does* answer prayers (my parents and I cried out to Jesus for help just before a head-on collision and the other car was suddenly knocked out of our path to the other lane) and *does* heal people (my mom was healed of asthma at a prayer meeting). "
You say that you think God makes testable promises but, I suspect, the **only** answer you will accept no matter what the outcome is that the test is positive for god. Unless you are willing to accept that a test may disprove your concept of god as well as prove your concept of god then it isn't a test at all. In fact, a major study on prayer and healing found no benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.h
Ready to give up God now? No? Why not? You said you could test god. Now, you can debate the details of the study, but before you do you should state what evidence you **would** accept as proof that your concept of god is wrong. If you can't, then there is no point even debating the study because your mind is closed.
You sound like a sincere and nice person--the kind of person I don't like to publicly disagree with over religion because your beliefs are inexorably intertwined with your view of who you are and how you fit into the world. There is no room for you too talk objectively about your religious beliefs because to change them would be to give up what you think of as your most fundamental values as a person.
If the covenant was as you say, then Judaeo Christians would be significantly healthier than non Judaeo Christianss. They aren't. The fact that your mom got better after a prayer meeting isn't proof either. She did a lot of things before she got better. She probably ate cereal that day, too, but you know enough to know that just because something happens before that that doesn't mean it caused what happened after. Statistically, without a doubt, someone died somewhere in the world just after you prayed, but you also know enough not to think you caused that by praying.
I'm not trying to tell you not to believe in your concept of God. What you choose to believe is up to you but don't try and pretend it is scientific.
Did any of you actually listen to this? This guy is getting a harsh deal - this was a class where ideas (the very ideas we were discussing) were to be discussed openly. He's not discussing history - in fact he says that he's not saying Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark are not facts or scientific or even true. They're trying to openly discuss ideas. They're not being tested on this.
The guy wasn't telling his class that they would go to hell. They are having an argument, and he's allowing his students to maintain their beliefs, but also expose them to other beliefs. I have no problem with this kind of discussion in schools. The guy's an idiot, but so are many high school teachers.
Go listen to this tape before you say anything.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
If I did something bad, then lied about it to my boss, I should be fired. If I thought it wasn't bad, then I would have not lied about it. It's the lie that *everyone* should be behind getting him fired for. A kid claimed that the teacher said something. He bore false witness against the kid. The teacher is a pastor, but openly breaks the Commandments. He should be fired from being a pastor for that. He is a teacher but lies to his boss (the principal) about it. He should be fired for that. The idea of religion doesn't need to even be brought up to show that this guy is an undependable liar that should be fired.
Learn to love Alaska
I don't see spammers listed here. Are they in some kind of sub-hell level from which they can never escape (but still have communications access to the rest of us)?
Actions speak louder than words. Actions speak louder than faith. Right now I'm of the opinion that not too many fundamentalists are in heaven. It's crowded with firemen and more than a few atheists. Plus a lot of pagans, Buddhists, and lapsed Catholics. Schindler was a womanizing unbeliever and he's gotta be in heaven. It has something to do with self-sacrifice and service to others - and not telling little kids they're all bound for hell.
No, evolution has NOTHING to do with athiesm or religion. I'll say again since so many fundies get this wrong - belief in evolution does NOT mean you dont believe in God.
Get a grip and get a clue.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
No, the point is that you're trying to appeal to absurdity by making them flying elephants or something else goofy like flying spaghetti. (It's always "flying" for some reason.) However, there are no laws of physics (or any other field of science) which preclude the existence of a creator. There ARE laws of physics that preclude conservation of mass-energy, and evidence from biology that show that purple elephants that can fly just aren't around.
The point is that for your absurdity argument to work, you have to tie it in to natural laws of the universe when we are talking about a force that some claim created those laws - there's just nothing we can say about it, so logically and scientifically we shouldn't postulate anything.
I think we should call for a Separation Between Religion and Science and enforce it strictly. Religion, you're not allowed to say anything about how the world works. Science, you're not allowed to say anything about something that isn't about how the world works.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
"The scientific method - the fundamental bedrock of science - doesn't change. However, given those assumptions, the thought that derives from them changes as new evidence is uncovered. Exactly the same thing happens with evangelical Christianity (can't really speak for other religions). They take the bible as the fundamental bedrock of the faith, and extrapolate theology from that." You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous. "Despite your inaccurate over-simplification, nothing in that sequence is irrational. It is not scientifically proven, it is not even scientifically likely, but it isn't disproven by science either." It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real. I need to have some factual basis for my belief to be rational. There is no factual basis to believe in the Virgin Birth, just a faith-based one. "Besides, assuming you believe in the development of life from non-life, as is the modern scientific trend, I don't see how you can get away with deriding the virgin birth as any more irrational." Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
Why would I choose to be an agnostic only in order to just "get along" when the religious say I'm going to hell and the atheists tell me I'm just being indecisive?
I'm agnostic, but I'm also highly-critical in religious arguments. If I see something which I don't believe makes sense, I don't hesitate to point it out. I'm very confrontational.
My philosophy regarding religion isn't "Let's get along." My philosophy is "I haven't heard a single convincing argument yet, so I don't know."
Albuquerque PC
What a sorry fella, rolled up and smoked like a gonatella, here on level one of robot hell!
Lying's wrong and so is cheating, so is forging phony IOU's,
Let's let lady luck decide what sort of torture's justified,
I'm pitboss here on level two!
Mmmm deepfried robot!
That's the most I can remember off the top of my head :S
All wood?
Easter was originally a pagan festival celebrating the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre.
You're describing Pascal's wager.
The fallacy in Pascal's wager is that you've got several religions to choose from, not just one. What grounds, other than it is the religion you were brought up in, do you have for Christianity (and the flavour thereof that you follow) being the "One True Path" that gets you into the good afterlife and lets you avoid the bad one?
How would you feel if it turns out that you should have converted to Islam? Or that you were out of luck if you weren't born a Jew in the first place? (there's some evidence to suggest that Jesus only ever extended the salvation to the Jews, and that Paul expanded on the message when he started to try to convert the Romans). Maybe Joseph Smith _didn't_ pull Mormanism out of his posterior and it really was revealed to him by God. Or you perhaps should be worshipping Brahman (possibly in one of the many sub-aspects, such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Shakti)? Mind you, if the last one turns out to be correct, you'll get another turn on the Wheel later to try again, so that's probably not worth the risk the first time around.
The point here is that, most likely, the only reason you are a Christian is that you were born into a Christian family. If you'd been born in Iran, you'd probably be Muslim. I repeat - how do you choose which religion to follow?
As for the Bible not contradicting itself, that's flat out wrong. Both the Old and the New Testament are full of contradictions, both within each Testament and between them. Heck, arguably the most important story in the New Testament, the story of the birth of Jesus, is completely different between Matthew and Luke.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
Bodhisattva rule! Sorry. That concept is just one of the reasons why Buddhism makes number two on my list of the ten best religions of all time.
Well said.
I've already been commenting in this topic, so I can't mod you up, but if I could, it would be +1 Insightful.
Thanks for a good post.
Spiritus ex Machina
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."
To the teacher I remind him of one of the more significant commandments:
Thou shalt not bear false witness!
Over and over again, I have to sit and watch virtually every "religious" person I see break their god's laws on a regular basis. I live in the U.S. so I guess that's to be expected. Wish I could get some insight into why Bush think's it's okay to kill when his god says thou shalt not.
Religion sucks. It makes people lie to themselves and to others.
>> That is a fact, not a matter of faith. It's a well documented historical fact.
No it's not. It was a pagan festival first.
Then much like how Mohammad made Mecca a place of pilgrimage to give business to that city to reward his supporters, Jesus has some rules about fish to help on his friends, who were fishermen.
Can you point to the relevant sections of the Bible that give latitude for non-literal interpretations of the content? How much something is or isn't "really" Christian shouldn't have much to do with the breadth of historical interpretations of the Bible. If many people do many things based on the same premise, does that mean they are all right? Or that none of them is more right than any other? Or that they are all wrong? I don't know, I have no idea---do you?
"Fundamentalism doesn't exist before the 1800's"---an ironic post to make on Thanksgiving. Fundamentalism as we know it is a natural outgrowth of the Protestant Revolution, which began a few years before that, as I recall. Biblical literalism (not strictly fundamentalism, granted) was embraced by the Catholic Church before and after Martin Luther whenever it suited their purposes.
I certainly agree that the rise of science has forced a binary choice that has led to more extreme fundamentalism...but that is only due to the conflict of domains that the Bible created. If the Bible had stuck to strictly metaphysical content, I doubt modern Christians would have such widely divergent reactions to science. T'wasn't exactly "futureproof."
But as to whether or not moderate Christians are dangerous---I don't think they are, and I know plenty. However, I think a sensible, well-meaning tolerance for people who seem reasonable can open the door to tolerance for those who are not at all reasonable. And a secular, science-oriented person such as myself can't see a rational reason to see a difference between the two groups that doesn't just devolve into personal preference for open-minded people rather than jerks.
And if I sound intolerant, I suppose I am less blindly tolerant than I used to be. I grew up thinking Christians were generally nice folks, and now I live in a country where a third of people identify themselves as evangelical Christians, and "vote their values," with the attendant catastrophic results. Saying "but that's not me---I'm a *nice* Christian" doesn't quite do it for me, as I can't tell the sheep from the wolves anymore.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
The biggest problem with Baptist, is they don't hold them under long enough. 2 minutes minimum, 5 minutes to be sure, 30 minutes for 100%; provided the water is sufficiently warm.
I believe the word that you are looking for is Truthiness!
How do you feel about this? What is your outlook on your future, your children's future and the fate of the life around us? Do you feel good about the world you live in? Do you feel good about yourself? Are you at peace?
:-) I know it's not as easy as that. But that's OK.
If you act skillfully to address these feelings, then you will be making good progress towards dealing with your karma. If you decide to accept a poorer existence, that is what you will receive. It is within your power to make a difference to yourself. You merely need to decide what you want.
Good thing i saved this bit of text from a previous post.... ive yet to see it debunked in any credible way.
It CAN be proven that god (the Christian one anyway) does not exist.
'But, it is impossible to prove a negative!'
Wrong. People like to say that its impossible to prove a negative, and some negatives are impossible to prove, just as some positives are impossible to prove. But it is NOT impossible to prove all negatives.
The thinking goes that in order to demonstrate that something absolutely does not exist, one would have to be able explore all corners of existence and time and physically SEE that, indeed, nowhere and nowhen in the universe does such a thing exist. But this mode of thinking is incorrect. All one has to do to prove that something does not exist is demonstrate such a thing would be self-contradictory and thus impossible to exist.
For example...
Negative statement. "Circles do not have corners"
Now given that the definition of the word "circle" precludes it from the possibility of one having corners, any shape that DID have corners would be some shape other than a circle. So if a circle did have corners, it would not be a circle. Now unless you start playing silly games & try to redefine what is a circle or a corner we have just proven a negative statement.
One can easily use the same sort of argument to prove all sorts of negative statements like "2 + 2 doesn't equal 3" and "squares are not round" and the like. I will now use it to prove "The Christian god does no exist"
Why the Christian god? well theres so many gods out there & they all have different characteristics, the Christian god (and the faith system built around him) hinges on god being omnipotent which happens to be the easiest way to disprove his existence. It would take several years to go through all the deities that man has ever dreamed up over the eons and disprove them all, the Christian god is a very popular one, so for the sake of brevity, we will use him.
Now the Christian god, as i mentioned earlier, is said to be omnipotent. Which means that he is all-powerful. As well as omniscient. Which means that he is all-knowing.
A being that is all-powerful is able to do anything, create anything, change anything, simply by willing it so. We see evidence of gods power in genesis when he supposedly creates the world, the universe, and all things contained within.
If god is omnipotent he should be able to, for example, create a rock which is so heavy that noone, not even himself, could lift it.
Now if god did create such a rock, there would be something he couldn't do, lift said rock. Therefore he wouldn't be omnipotent. But if god could lift anything, it would be impossible for him to create such a rock and THERE would be something he wouldn't be able to do (create the rock) and again not omnipotent.
The very concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.
On to omniscience. God is said to be all knowing, even insofar as he knows whats going to happen in the future. Any creature that can see the future negates the possibility of free will. He can see what he (or anyone) is predestined to do in the future, and therefore isn't really following his own will when doing things, but merely following the line of events which have already been foretold.
So if god, for example, decided he wanted to have Chinese food for dinner instead of barbecue like he was predestined to do on that particular night, it would be impossible for him to change that. For if he eventually DID have Chinese food his vision of the future was incorrect, therefore not omniscient. If god decided he wanted to have Chinese food, but still ended up having barbecue (as he was predestined to do) then he does not have freewill (as he is described as having in the bible) and is also, incidentally, not omnipotent.
So there you have it, omni potency and omniscience are both self-contradictory and impossible to exist in any creature, ev
If you sit back and let something like that happen without doing anything to help (where it is within your capacity to assist), then it is you who commit a bad kamma.
I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
I've heard this argument before. You generally find, when you talk to agnostics, that their response to the question "Does God exist" is "I don't think so." Let's face it -- if God came down to clarify his existence and perhaps set us straight, the hard Atheists would be the first on the scene. If you're really intellectually honest, you'll be looking for both evidence that this is fake (Look at that man behind the curtain!) and evidence that it's real (That bush is on fire, but the leaves are still green!) And of course, nothing would ever be conclusive enough. We were lied to as children, first about Santa, and then about God. As adults, it will be much harder for us to accept either. And yet, of course we'd be curious if we heard jingle bells on the roof. Now, atheists often argue that without any evidence for a position, we shouldn't believe it. Therefore, since we have no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe at all -- but it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve, and shut your eyes if God ever appears. So, the argument goes, "An agnostic is someone who is ignorant of what an atheist is." I'd argue the converse, as well: "An atheist is someone who is ignorant of what an agnostic is." I am, in fact, agnostic about everything -- but that doesn't mean I have to operate, day in and day out, with "I'm not sure". Having opinions and expectations is fine, so long as you're prepared for them to be wrong -- "I think so" or "I don't think so" is perfectly acceptable, and is, in fact, what any intellectually honest atheist would say. Throughout my daily life, I operate on a set of useful assumptions, and I speak and act as if they were true. Linux, as much as it sucks, is the best operating system we've got right now -- and I don't have to do a cop-out of "At least, I think so, but maybe Bill's right?" I act as if my assumptions were true, because it'd be absurd to be questioning them every second of the day. "Am I really breathing, or do I just think I am? Will I still pass out if I hold my breath too long? Let's find out..." What makes me agnostic, and what makes any reasonable atheist a closet agnostic, is that I am prepared to let go of any of my assumptions. Not at the drop of a hat, mind you -- I'm still skeptical -- but given sufficient evidence, I may be forced to operate on a new assumption. For instance, I used to assume that everyone used Windows because no one knew about Linux -- now I realize I was young and stupid. I currently assume the Earth is mostly full of molten rock, but given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced that it's full of molten custard. And yes, I include in my set of assumptions the assumption that it's logical to see the world as a set of assumptions, not a set of beliefs. If that makes me naive, well... I'm proud to be naive. Better to be naive and curious than rigid and dogmatic. If this sounds like you, then we're really just arguing semantics. Assumption, belief. Atheist, agnostic. Potayto, potahto.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Reposting as "plain old text" -- that appeared on one line because I accidentally posted as "HTML Formatted". Oops.
I've heard this argument before.
You generally find, when you talk to agnostics, that their response to the question "Does God exist" is "I don't think so." Let's face it -- if God came down [theonion.com] to clarify his existence and perhaps set us straight, the hard Atheists would be the first on the scene. If you're really intellectually honest, you'll be looking for both evidence that this is fake (Look at that man behind the curtain!) and evidence that it's real (That bush is on fire, but the leaves are still green!)
And of course, nothing would ever be conclusive enough. We were lied to as children, first about Santa, and then about God. As adults, it will be much harder for us to accept either. And yet, of course we'd be curious if we heard jingle bells on the roof.
Now, atheists often argue that without any evidence for a position, we shouldn't believe it. Therefore, since we have no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe at all -- but it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve, and shut your eyes if God ever appears.
So, the argument goes, "An agnostic is someone who is ignorant of what an atheist is." I'd argue the converse, as well: "An atheist is someone who is ignorant of what an agnostic is." I am, in fact, agnostic about everything -- but that doesn't mean I have to operate, day in and day out, with "I'm not sure". Having opinions and expectations is fine, so long as you're prepared for them to be wrong -- "I think so" or "I don't think so" is perfectly acceptable, and is, in fact, what any intellectually honest atheist would say.
Throughout my daily life, I operate on a set of useful assumptions, and I speak and act as if they were true. Linux, as much as it sucks, is the best operating system we've got right now -- and I don't have to do a cop-out of "At least, I think so, but maybe Bill's right?"
I act as if my assumptions were true, because it'd be absurd to be questioning them every second of the day. "Am I really breathing, or do I just think I am? Will I still pass out if I hold my breath too long? Let's find out..."
What makes me agnostic, and what makes any reasonable atheist a closet agnostic, is that I am prepared to let go of any of my assumptions. Not at the drop of a hat, mind you -- I'm still skeptical -- but given sufficient evidence, I may be forced to operate on a new assumption. For instance, I used to assume that everyone used Windows because no one knew about Linux -- now I realize I was young and stupid. I currently assume the Earth is mostly full of molten rock, but given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced that it's full of molten custard.
And yes, I include in my set of assumptions the assumption that it's logical to see the world as a set of assumptions, not a set of beliefs.
If that makes me naive, well... I'm proud to be naive. Better to be naive and curious than rigid and dogmatic.
If this sounds like you, then we're really just arguing semantics. Assumption, belief. Atheist, agnostic. Potayto, potahto.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The best way to combat this sort of indoctrination is to use the tools they use.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
Matthew 7:15
How do I decern that you are not a false prophet?
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew 7:23
"Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock."
Matthew 7:24
Thier own holy book tells us to beware of these people.
A biological machine with a subjective desire to live has better chance for survival than a biological machine without such desire, eg. by putting more effort to survival in an equivalent situation. Add couple generations of selection, and you have a species with a desire to live.
Any sufficiently complex system will evolve subsystems with desire to live.
I believe I am alive, and that life isn't just an illusion created by a dance of many nonliving things.
Perhaps because that sort of illusion gave you, and the generations of your ancestors, some sort of survival or competitive advantage.
Think that statement is absurd? If yes, then you see why people here think your statement is absurd. If you TRULY believe that you should be witnessing to people and knowing that being a teacher does not allow that (not part of the job description), then you REALLY SHOULD NOT BE A TEACHER. There is no dilemma here, just absurdity.
Meh.
Bodhisattva does not rule. Bodhisattva serves.
I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
You don't choose the things you believe in, they choose you!
and in Soviet Russia?
You sir are in a state of denial.
It's apparent to the rest of the world that most U.S. people see themselves as bastions of pure morality and sanctity, while paradoxically believing they can spread freedom.
In fact, the "freedom" of the American way of life is more like an endless succession of brainwashing, from the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the television at night, through increasingly rich and pervasive media Americans are constantly subjected to carefully chosen content which espouses "politically correct" values:
"Patriotism" which makes it "un-american" to criticize the policies and actions of the U.S. government even when they are clearly costing people's lives.
"Freedom of expression" which one one hand allows the free expression of any amount of violence,
theft or property damage but forbids showing even so much as a woman's breast.
"the American way" fundamentalist Christian dogma under a different name
"Democracy" Which in the American flavour allows legalised bribery in the form of "lobbying", and where the outcome of an election can be decided by a council of judges when it is too close to call.
"Capitalism" that legally forces corporations to put profits above people, and that seeks to put a dollar value on polluting the air we breathe, and ultimately the private ownership of every resource on the planet.
You are conflating process with thesis. The scientific method is a process used to analyze theses to prove or disprove them, partially or utterly. With evangelical Christianity the fundamental (pardon the pun) theses (the bible is divinely inspired, the god of Abraham is real, Jesus was divine) are not up for debate. Your analogy is, well, not analogous.
And you are confusing process with thesis. In Christian circles, the Bible is not up for debate any more than the scientific method is in scientific circles. The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine. Science relies on the assumption that empirical observation is an reliable tool for discovering the truth; Christianity relies on the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If you remove the fundamental assumption of either Christianity or science the whole thing falls apart; neither challenges or changes their fundamental assumptions, yet both scientific theories and Christian doctrine change as the Bible and the scientific method are applied to new circumstances or in new ways.
It doesn't work that way. I can posit any theory I like on anything and declare that science hasn't disproved my theory, say, "Smurfs are real!" But that doesn't make it rational for me to believe that Smurfs are real.
Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity, albeit maybe not evidence you believe. The various books of the Bible (especially the New Testament, which we're really talking about here) are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history. If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational. It might not be proven, it might not even be true, but it may well still be a rational belief.
Believing the gradual evolution of life from simple proteins over millions of years is not even remotely comparable with believing in a fully formed divine/human baby magically growing in a virgin womb. Science has an excellent understanding of how sexual reproduction works in humans and, unlike evolution, a true virgin birth is contrary to science.
I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about the origin of life, two completely different things. Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time", not by any definition of the term. Science has no real explanation of how life can originate from non-life - they have a couple of guesses, and a few unproved theories, a stab or two at some of the processes (like the Urey-Miller experiments) - yet most scientific people believe it all the same. I'd say that would be a nice example of "faith-based" belief; some circumstantial evidence that it might be possible, no definite proof, and yet it's believed anyway.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Just want to point out that Allah and "Christian God" are the same being, just another name for God. In fact, Islam has 100 names for God, Allah is just the most widely used.
The Bible is obviously huge, and has plenty of examples of archaic cultural practices that are not emulated by Christians today, even when they use it as "an example of how to be a good person". Christianity as practiced by non-fundamentalists generally seems to be filtered through a modern moral philosophy viewpoint---Jesus' teachings on one subject are elevated because they seem relevant today, but on another are virtually ignored.
As to the law analogy---laws evolve to fit the society that they govern. Founding principles generally don't change, but the specific laws do, and they should, and disagreement is healthy---because the debate can move things forward. But the Bible doesn't change, exegesis does.
Honestly, I empathize with the struggle to make sense of it, and if that's someone's route to understanding themselves as a moral actor with free will, so be it. But it does seem to function more as a Rorschach test than anything else.
Whatever---I don't expect anyone to change their mind on this subject based on anything I have to say. But I'd put to you that if you don't want to be on the side of bad people, you should distinguish yourself from them in a way that adds up to more than a "big tent"/each-to-their-own approach to Christianity.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
God is a common response to the holes science cannot fill in life (why are we here?) FSM is merely a mockery of thinking any such holes are important.
People are selfish. Why?
So, you're "agnostic" about little pink supernatural unicorns that cause earthquakes by running upside down along faultlines and crap gold deposits when stimulated with fish dildos weilded by mermaids, too?
Or perhaps are you willing to stipulate that when someone invents some silly set of ideas with no basis in reality, atheism -- that is, lack of belief -- is more appropriate than agnosticism?
If you're atheist with regard to the unicorn, but remain agnostic with regard to the idea of "god", perhaps you would enlighten all of us, or even just me, why you give the idea more credence, other than wanting to "get along."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There's your fatal flaw. The bible has changed throughout history. Books added, taken away. Various kings changed it, in more recent history the mormons added books I believe. There are numerous translations, since most people don't speak Aramaic. It was written by dozens and dozens of authors and cobbled into a book as ancient texts were found and people saw fit to include or exclude text. It does not exist in the exact form it did 2000 years ago and as such any interpretation of it as though it were would be wrong. So in fact, the fundamentalists are the ones who are incorrectly hanging on to the past.
As for Christians distinguishing themselves from bad people, do you distinguish yourself from everybody guilty of bad acts? Assuming you are an American, do you call yourself an American? Or do you call yourself something else to distinguish yourself from Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and the KKK? If not you're being hypocritical to expect Christians to do so.
Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
That's incorrect. Underpants gnomes and FSM mock beliefs of today.I'm sorry, but as neither a christian, or somebody that can prove a whole lot about evolution, I'm inclined to say, this teacher should not be punished, humiliated or degraded for what they believe.
Long live the days when you could say to a class "Some people beleive that God created the earth, others think they have found evidence to suggest otherwise"
Hell, I don't even care about the subject perticually, but it really shouldn't be that hard for people to not enforce they're opinions on other people. Especially younger children that are probably more suseptable.
Try Russell's teapot then. Entirely physically possible (though rather unlikely) and certainly can't be disproven - do you believe there's a teapot orbiting the sub between earth and mars? Are you agnostic about it? Or do you simply not believe in it? Most atheists are "weak atheists", which is to say that they happily admit the question of the existence of God remains unresolved. They do believe, however, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence, and, pending further evidence, have to lean toward non-existence.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Maybe the guy was pointing out the correllation between this teacher and the minority who homeschools their kids on similar doctrine: They think evolution will "get" their children.
In short, you're an asshole.
You make the assumption that the only valid evidence is scientific evidence ... why?
Unlike other repliers, I believe there are forms of evidence which aren't scientific in nature. But these forms of evidence are much weaker. If the evidence is unverifiable, subjective, and inconsistent, much as virtually all religion-based evidence is, then it's not particularly useful. Scientific evidence meets a high standard.
I have evidence for God from many people I've met in my life, as well as people I've read about. Just because I can't represent my evidence with data is no grounds for me not to believe it.
Actually, that would be grounds for you not to believe it. After all, there are other possible causes including wishful thinking and coincidence that can generate this evidence as well. The problem is that accumulating even more such evidence doesn't resolve it. That's ignoring that such concepts as God and worship are generally ill-defined to begin with. Even if a single omniscient and omnipotent God exists in much the form that it is speculated to be in, there's no obvious reason why religions are a good way to deal with that.Your fluffy cat is burning in my fireplace. I had to put newspaper under it to get it started.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Well, did we fire any teapots towards Earth and Mars? If not, where would a teapot come from? There are plenty of reasons it is unlikely, because we know about the rules that govern the existence of teapots.
I liken the question more to the existence of a life form on another planet that has something that looks like the number "5" on its body. You can't even begin to think of how to prove or disprove this, and therefore scientifically, the question is not an interesting one. (It makes great fodder for artists, though.)
Secondly, while a good rule of thumb in real life, the "burden of proof is on existence" rule is not a logical one. Mathematicians prove negative theorems all the time.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
No, just morning (wood).
Not buying it. Compared to most on this planet, my existence is far from poor, by any standard you might apply. I will not accept that those who are truly poor, without adequate food, shelter, and medical care, have somehow brought this upon themselves by some decision to "accept a poorer existence." Again, this is no more than a rationalization designed to make those who refuse to share their abundance feel better about themselves. If any of us really and truly believed in treating each other as brothers, we'd forgo luxuries--all luxuries, if that's what it took--to allow the poor to have the bare necessities of life. We don't. If the roles were reversed, the formerly poor wouldn't help us out, either. Almost nobody walks the talk. If there is a hell and we were supposed to love each other and treat each other as brothers, it's going to be a mighty crowded place.
Again, you're tying things into reality. Of course it's silly that unicorns are running around upside down - we know about earthquakes and why they happen because we can observe those things. You're trying to make an analogy to reality when it just doesn't fit.
Now, maybe you might believe that some guy with a crazy name (XHIDSAslw) created the universe for some crazy reason (because all young deities are required to create universes for deity school). But saying that there is no reason the universe was created or that there is no Creator is a tale just the same.
I'm saying it's a thoroughly uninteresting question for science to answer because there's no way to approach it or even test it. So if you are going to be scientific and logical, your best bet is to ignore it than answering questions that don't need answering from a scientific viewpoint.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
you are god.
According to Neo's little friend, you don't exist.
...it is worth considering that any belief in God is only unscientific if that belief is wrong, and that God doesn't exist.
A belief in anything is unscientific if there's no tangible evidence to support it (or the evidence has been massaged to fit the belief). The scientific method relies on evidence; if you haven't got that, all you have is untestable speculation.
Belief by itself is not evidence. It is merely an opinion, however strongly it is held.
So in order to refute a belief in God as being unscientific, one first has to make a definitive judgment that God does not exist
Wrong: in order to refute belief in God as incorrect it is necessary to prove God does not exist. To establish whether belief in God is unsicentific is as simple as asking for any tangible proof of his existence: if no such evidence is available then the belief is not founded in science, and is therefore unscientific. See my previous point.
What does it say about science that in order to declare a belief in God as "anti-scientific", an "anti-scientific" judgment must first be made?
Its important to make the distiction between the terms "unscientific" (without a basis in science) and "anti-scientific" (actively opposed to the scientific method). A belief in God is unscientific, in that it cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method. Refuting the scientific method solely on the basis of one's own religious beliefs is anti-scientific, and that's exactly what this teacher did.
And that's an important point: the complaint was raised not because the teacher believes in God, but because he was using his position in a secular public school to push his personal beliefs (to the point of informing a Muslim student she'd "go to hell if [she didn't] convert"). An individual's spirituality has a place: in the church they choose. It has no place in everybody's schools.
Blank until
Is it more a violation of the codes of being a teacher as opposed to a violation of the law?
Religion has to be more than that. I am a hardcore atheist, and I think my beliefs have encouraged my tendecies towards depression, nihlism and very serious axiety. I believe in 'belief', I certainly believe that believing in God would improve my quality of life. But even so, its just not true - the narcotic might be pleasant but its still a fantasy.
Anyway, my point is that I also believe in belief but im definately not religious so your definition must be incomplete.There has to be an element of literal belief somewhere otherwise there is nothing separating religious and nonreligious belief. Personally, I would actually argue that religion is largely not a belief system at all. It is something practised, a social organization and institution. It is a good way to meet other friends, business contacts and, most of all, girls. Thats a large reason religion is so popular - the people i know who are religious (particularly jewish friends) seem to be having more sex.
My god, this is the first time anyone on Slashdot has ever used a word I actually had to look up. Well done.
Actually they moved Jesus's birthday to the winter solstice (Dec 21, give or take some orbital drift and 2000 years of messed up calendars) in order to place it on another pagan date - the day when the superstitious breath easier cause the nights stop getting darker just when you thought the world was going to end.
Christmas's date was picked to replace the winter solstice which due to bad calendar management and orbital drift doesn't quite line up any more..
Re-read your post, but this time think "old testament god". All your differences are new-testament. Christians and muslims are both doing the whole old-testament-god thing. Christians just branched off to believe that jesus was his son, and later on muslims branched off to believe that muhammad was his prophet. Both are split from judaism. The "Father" from christianity is the whatever-god of jews and the allah of muslims.
Oh, and pointing out that it can't be the same god because muslims have murdered non-believers? I'd love to compare the numbers of people killed by each religion in the name of their respective gods, just out of curiosity.
"The bible is analogous to the scientific method, a scientific thesis is analagous to a point of doctrine."
... are historical documents, written by historical people at a particular time in history."
...in this context if it isn't living then it isn't an entity, is it. Anyways this brings us to the problem of first source. One must always be careful of asking who created you because that brings up the question of who created your creator. If you can accept that God did not need to be created by another god, and so ad infinitum then it is ludicrous to argue that humans must have been created by a creator.
Sorry, you are still conflating thesis and process. I understand the point you are trying to make but your analogy is not analogous. You are trying to conflate the method of scientific discovery with the text bible and the two are apples and oranges. You could legitimately compare the scientific method with various **forms** of religious scholarship and compare their assumptions processes.
"Right. But then, there is no evidence to support the existance of Smurfs. There is evidence for Christianity"
I have no doubt Christianity exists! Churches are proof of that. Proof that the tenets of Christianity are true is a different matter. The bible is not a history book or a science text book any more than Homer's Odyssey is. That it is written is not proof that it is.
"The various books of the Bible
All old documents are "written at a particular time in history." That doesn't make them true. And even if some of the history matches with other historical documents that doesn't make the religious claims true. Just because a docudrama is inspired by a true story doesn't make it a **documentary**.
"If you had eye-witness documents from numerous people indicating the existance of smurfs, belief in them might be a bit more rational."
And yet the New Testament contains zero eye witness accounts! Bible scholars pretty much all agree that the New Testament was written long after every one in the stories was dead.
There are plenty of eye witness accounts written about the Indian Rope trick, yet the original story was a fraud which was picked up and repeated over and over again. You can't believe something just because it is written nor because there are eye witness.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. When faced with a fantastic, scientifically impossible tale of a virgin being impregnated by god we can weigh the evidence versus the extreme unlikelyhood of the claim. What is more likely, that a virgin was impregnated magically by a divine being or that the story is made up? People make up stories on a daily basis. Thousands upon thousands of people do it for a living and people have been doing it for millennia. We have incontrovertible proof that story creation is very common throughout history. Virgin births, on the other hand, are, without in-vitro fertilization, still completely scientifically un-heard of. It would be irrational to assume that the virgin birth story is the more likely one.
Why don't you believe in the divinity of Zeus? There is plenty of evidence that he existed. Stories, culture, statues. There is just as much reason to believe in Zues as the Virgin Birth.
"Non-living entities cannot "evolve over time"
What evidence might that be? The "Oh I saw a bright white light while being under heavy sedatives. So it must be Jesus"-kind of evidence?
That is not how kamma works.
In Buddhism, kamma is action. In other word, what constitute a good kamma (action) is depending to our intention or motivation.
Thus, if the intention for an act is wholesome, then that kamma is wholesome. Conversely, if the intention for an act is unwholesome, then that kamma is unwholesome.
So, to answer your question, when you are enjoying yourself, are you doing it with good intention or bad intention?
Kamma basically means, your action is a cause, and it will have a consequence. How you decide live your life is a personal choice.
I rather be free in hell than a slave in heaven.
Testimony of witnesses is widely regarded as evidence, but is not scientific. It has the rather obvious problem that people can lie, be mistaken etc.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Wow, I was going to argue that there is no faith required in science, but I came to realize that if you actually beleive in an all powerful supreme being, he/she could revoke the laws of gravity at any moment, rendering whole disciplines of science obsolete in a nanosecond. .. well .. constant just to mess with our little minds! No wonder science has such a hard time convincing the non beleivers, when god could plant/revise/invent what ever evidence the scientists hold up as fact!
Hell, God could just be holding planck's constant
So, do you believe in little blue aliens in downtown Detroit?
Uh - no..
But you believe in an all powerful god?
Yes - absolutely!
But what if god decided he required litle blue aliens for some reason, couldn't he invent them?
He wouldn't do that!
He went to all the trouble to fake all those dinosaur bones in the ground, didn't he? Little blue aliens sounds like an easy thing for a god to manage..
Sigh...
Why doesn't Slashdot use writers intelligent enough to know the difference between principle and principal? Quality control is needed, indeed.
Actually, we don't. We just observe the consequences and have crafted a theory to fit. The unicorns want you to think it's "natural"; they're embarrassed about the dildos, of course. You've never been underground to observe them run, nor have you been underground when your imaginary "fault" slipped.
Now, I ask you again -- same question. No evasions. Why, when you have story A and you have story B and neither one has a shred of evidence, do you go atheist on the one and agnostic on the other? Why do you feel it is inapropriate to fail to believe in god (atheism) and instead retreat to "I don't know" instead of the same healthy reaction you had to the unicorn?
Look, let's cut to the chase. Either you believe in god (theism) or you don't hold such a belief. There is no such "separate" stance as agnosticism, because it isn't knowledge we're talking about here, it is belief. Belief doesn't require knowledge (see legions of tarot card users for concrete example of this.) Theist: Believes in a god or gods. Atheist: without belief in a god or gods. You're one or the other, this agnosticism is a copout, plain and simple. Belief: Either you believe, or you don't. So declare yourself and stop this silly pretending to be above such a simple question.I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Wadyamean? "*A* central question" as in "a very, very, very, unimportant question"?
I think the man just said: questions about "god" are *NOT* central to philosophy
jeez...
In American culture, when you see something bad about to happen, you're supposed to do something to stop it - call the fire department when you see a house on fire, etc. To a Christian, a non-Christian is "unsaved": in imminent danger of death, forever.
That's fine and all, except for one thing. It should be clear to one and all that if a house is on fire, it will be consumed if the fire isn't put out. However, this whole "saving a person from eternal damnation" (which, by the way, puzzles me about a being who professes to love all people) is not something that can be proven. They step over the line and harass people. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would Christians tolerate men going door to door with a black robe, devil horns, and a pentagram emblazoned on their exposed chest enjoining them to worship at the church of Satan? At a minimum, they'd probably call the cops. All right. That was cheap. Here's another.
Would Christians tolerate men with dark skin, long beards, Asian accents, and turbans going door to door trying to convert people to Islam? Or would they call the department of Homeland Security? Or would they just shoot first?
There is a double standard in the U.S. regarding this type of behavior.
If you support the enemy, you ARE the enemy. Moderate Christians support fundamentalist Christians, and that makes them the enemies of science -- not to mention freedom, sex, birth control, vaccines that prevent cervical cancer, and all the other things that moderate Christians allow fundamentalist Christians to attack.
In order to call yourself a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of god, follow the ten comandments and the additional, overriding commandment from Jesus "love thy neighbour as you love yourself". The last part basically rules out all of the right-wing fundamentalist "Christians" in the U.S. (and elsewhere; it just seems that most of these people are located in the U.S.). They're "CINOs" (Christian in name only). And if Jesus really was the son of god, they're going to have an awfull lot of explaining to do as to why they willfully misrepresented his teachings when they should have known better.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of a God who rewards you for accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.
Similarly, there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of a God who punishes you for accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.
Rationally, both of these hypothesis must be considered equally likely since there is no evidence to support or invalidate either of them.
Choosing to believe in one of them therefore is irrational (if you have no evidence either way).
Is choosing to believe in neither of them rational? If you believe that hypothesis with zero evidence for or against must be considered, then you must consider ALL hypothesis with no evidence. One of the theories is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Other theories include Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, psychics, luck, cthulu, and an infinite number of other things man has not considered.
If you still choose to believe in God then what you have is faith. Faith is not really rational, but it is what it is.
In case you didn't already, now you know where Colbert got the "truthiness" idea from.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, "you belong in hell." Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.
That's quite a bit different than telling the class that some people believe in God, and some people believe in evolution.
So of course the teacher should be punished for what he spewed out...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
I'd probably say something like: "Easter was originally a Pagan festival that celebrated the end of the dark nights of winter and the coming of new life to the world in spring. That's why we have the eggs-and-bunnies thing. Some time later, the Roman Catholic Church thought that the best way to convert the Pagans to their brand of religion was to hijack all of their festivals so they tied in with Christianity. So they moved Jesus' birthday to Midwinter and his 'deathday' to Eastre - an ancient word for spring. Which is why we have all that hot-cross-buns-and-going-to-church thing."
Exactly, just like they did with the pagan rituals during the winter solstice, turning that into christmas. Long ago certain cultures used to fear that nature was dying out during the winter season, and would bring plants and animals into their homes/huts to make sure their such things stayed alive until spring. They noticed the evergreens survived the winter months, and so these became a sign of life. Some where along the way they started bringing these into their homes and decorating them. Well, when it came time to convert these people the church did what it alwasy does, water the concept down and make it their own.
A more modern recent example of this, christian rock music. Back when rock and roll music was first being played (1950's) the church and religious community considered the music to be evil and even tried to stop it from taking off and becoming popular. Of course, it became popular any ways, and now we have christian rock music. They took something they considered to be opposing to their religion and made it more generic and insereted their message.
And now we have christian science. What an interesting trend we see here, religions continualy opposing new ideas then eventualy having to embrace them continue promoting them selves. I find it amusing, that certain religions that once promoted the concept that there is no new knowledge for humans to find or learn ("there is nothing new under the sun"), now find them selves constantly adapting to try and fit into modern society. People literaly used to get killed by christians for trying to learn science, now the christians proclaim to have their own branch of science! My how things change...
I shall take the side of the most renowned, well-known scientist I know.
Einstein.
I shall not restate his own views. If you wish them, look them up, and his logic.
It is remarkably solid.
But it is, in fact, only cold logic, and not proof.
The only difference between God and underpants gnomes or FSM is that the question of God is a central question in philosophy, including discussion of what "God" even means to different people from different real living cultures around the world. Underpants gnomes and FSM are just artificial creations that mock thousands of years of human insight, intuition, art, and culture.
No. The question "Is there a God ?" asked by most people is actually "Is there something supernatural AND that something equal to my christian/islamic god"
You can put a million things (like simulation FSM etc etc) after the AND, and since nothing can be proven or disproven, all the questions are equally valid. Because you grew up with a certain religion, it is YOU who has a bial and one question seems lot more meaningful while the others seem silly to you.
Python script to convert photos into "artsy" portraits: http://p2pbridge.sf.net/pyPortrait/
As a practicing Zen Buddhist, you ego doesn't get reincarnated which is the "I" or "Me" that we experience.
Doing Zen meditation (maybe koan study) and following the ten precepts is the only way to realize your true Buddha nature. The ten precepts are not too different than the ten commandments intrestingly enough.
Do you ever worry that what you believe in is complete nonsense?
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
We really need this for agnostics too. Something like... Not Jehovah's Witnesses Because We Don't Actually Have Proof For Or Against It.
*knock knock*
Homeowner: "Hello?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Have you ever considered not knowing whether to believe in God or not?"
Homeowner: "Come again?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "God. Have you ever considered that it's impossible to tell whether he exists or not because we do not have irrefutable proof for either?"
Homeowner: "...no?"
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Do you want a pamphlet?"
Homeowner: "That's a big cardboard box with philosophy books in it."
NJWBWDAHPFOAI: "Well, without this stuff you can't really make an informed decis--"
*slam*
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Let's say Story A is the Unicorns and Story B is "a creator caused the universe to exist."
Story A has strong evidence against it because we are familiar with the natural world, and Story A makes a claim about the natural world.
Story B has no evidence either way because it makes a claim about something that by definition, we cannot ever observe - something that existed before the universe.
An analogy I like to use is this: Suppose you and your friends meet a man that says he went out into the woods where no one could have heard him and said what he had for breakfast. Then he promptly shoots himself in the head. Some of your friends say that he said "eggs" in the woods. Other claim he said "bacon and eggs." Others claim that he said nothing at all, and that he could easily be lying. Yet others want to know "why are we debating this and can't we go have some breakfast ourselves?" and refuse to debate the subject.
There you have the Jews, Christians, atheists, and agnostics. The only logical stance to hold is the latter one, because the options are infinite and choosing any one of the options is arbitrary. This demonstrates that atheists have made a choice where it is most logical to make no choice. It's like any good math conjecture - it is either true, false, or unprovable.
Personally, I am Christian - I will readily admit that this is a decision not based upon any scientific principle. It's a decision based on faith, and I made it because it simply makes the most sense to me. However, I argue that atheists who have made the decision not to believe that something created the universe have also made that decision in faith, and therefore should not hold themselves to be somehow logically or intellectually superior.
In any case, it's certainly not a question science should even concern itself with.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Why is FSM a mockery and not God. FSM is an equally valid response to those holes and as legitimate to be taught to children. That's the entire point of it.
Better yet, failure to believe in the FSM doesn't condemn you to an eternity of pain.
This is why the US still depend on importing well educated scientist from free countries, where no religious zealots have a say in what is teached and what not. Why does Heinlein's "-- if this goes on" comes to mind here?
Custard? On hotdogs? eek!
Custard goes on Rhubarb Crumble, on Spotted Dick, on Treacle Pudding...
There are other countries outside the USA which are not communist - anyway after the latest elections we have become a communist country indeed. But what has that got to do with the discussion?
Global warming is a cube.
The most disturbing part of the article, which has not been mentioned yet in this thread, is this:
That is sick and unacceptable. You never single out a student in class. If you have a genuine problem with one, such as behavioral or homework related, you talk to her privately. If you don't like her religion or her parents, you keep it to yourself.
The fact that, after telling his students they were going to hell, singling out a student who may or may not have been present, and lying about it to cover his ass, he is still teaching, shows just how much in short of a supply adequate teachers in the public school system are.
They are breaking the law! So? That was not the point. If you feel offended when people tell you that you belong in hell, either you believe them (in which case you don't belong in hell at all) or you don't (in which case their words don't matter). Besides, if you expect any gov't to protect you, you are both a wimp and gravely mistaken.
Progressive pussification of the world is indeed proceeding at an alarming rate.
Global warming is a cube.
As a non-practicing Buddhist, I don't really care but I find that most of the the precepts are good rules to live by. You know, stuff like how you shouldn't kill or steal. By the way, in Buddhism, the precepts come in various "trims" for you to choose, just like cars. You have the 5, 8, or 10 precepts.
If he was a practicing Zen buddhist, he shouldn't be, since that would mean he doesn't believe in much of anything. Depending. Zen is typically more of a philosophy than a religion. A Zen buddihst may or may not believe that he will be reincarnated after he is dead. He may in fact believe or not believe that he is going to die some time in the future, depending on his feelings that day, or not. Imagine the following exchange of words between a Zen master and a student: Student: Hey, what happens when I die? Master: How should I know? Student: But you are a master! You must know! Master: Well, duh, I'm not dead yet! At it's core Zen doesn't teach you anything that is "supernatural". Reincarnation is what happens to you here and now. Every moment that you experience something your old "self" (oversimplification, who knows if there is a "self") dies and is re-born as a new "self" due to the experience you just had. If that continues after you are dead is just another dumb, and extremely irrelevant, question. What matters is where, how and what you are now. The grandparent feels that Zen meditation helps him deal with what he calls his Buddha nature. Good for him. Another person may find that surfing the beaches of Southern California does the same. I am not sure what you think is nonsense about what he believes, or why you think you know what he believes, but then again, does it matter?
Yeah, and when they talk about the fact that the earth is round and circles around the sun, that is also atheists preaching. Or to put it differently: Are you retarded?
As a practicing Zen Agnostic (and Discordian) I merely do not believe in anything; and I vehemently even dispute that I do not believe in anything.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Thanks for a good laugh guys (alchemy101, thebjorn, jesus_666)! Not being a USian, I never heard of "truthiness" before.
How exactly is God different from the underpants gnomes and the flying spaghetti monster? The only difference is that PersonA has a belief system that includes "God" and PersonB has a belief system that includes the spaghetti monster. By saying that there is an inherent difference between the two you are mocking PersonB, which is not nice. For any sane and rational person, "God" and "The Spaghetti Monster" and "The Underpants Gnome" are equally relevant. Now, you may set the relevance of either to 0 if you wish, but then you have to accept that they all have their relevance set to this level.
Where do you get the idea that I need special permission for non-literal interpretation of content?
The way we read any piece of writing in the world other than the Bible includes looking at the writing, looking at the context, and rom that forming a theory of how the writer intended a given passage. There is no basis for the assumption that every last word of the Bible is literal without explicit proof otherwise.
That said, an obvious starting point would be to notice the heavy use of parables in the Gospels, and the heavy use of analogies in Paul's writing, and the obviously poetic language of Psalms...
But seriously, there's no other text for which you would demand specific statements that it's permissible to interpret the text non-literally. The Bible is a collection of writings from different times and cultures, originally in different languages; expecting every one of them to be interpreted the same way is simply incoherent.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely". There's evidence there, not proof, but evidence, but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely. You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence. At least on the Christian's side is that the Bible itself claims to be factual. And can you provide a link to your claims about the dates of authorship? The latest of the gospels was Luke, and its authorship is generally placed around 60 AD, around 30-40 years after the events it describes. The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you.
So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
So what is it /.? Are all extreme belief systems bad? Or just the ones that match your internal bias? It appears to me all over the Internet that Christianity bashing, whilst forgetting communism or islam, has more to do with leftist political agendas than any sense of objectivity or even scientific thinking.
Plain and simple.
Either you've never looked at a religious text, at a math book, or more likely you're making this up as you go.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Is it more a violation of the codes of being a teacher as opposed to a violation of the law?
I would say so.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Given that Christians believe Jesus to be YHWH, while Muslims simply regard him as a profit, that's pretty far from the truth. And their characteristics are very different - personal relationship, salvation by grace vs. distant relationship, salvation by works.
I cannot believe I'm about to do this, but...
That wasn't the Roadrunner. It was Bugs Bunny.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Religion has to be more than that. I am a hardcore atheist, and I think my beliefs have encouraged my tendecies towards depression, nihlism and very serious axiety. I believe in 'belief', I certainly believe that believing in God would improve my quality of life. But even so, its just not true - the narcotic might be pleasant but its still a fantasy.
But that is the point - so many who label themselves as religious really aren't.
Nonsense. Paul's letters were certainly written while he was still alive. Luke, who wrote Luke and Acts, accompanied him on his journeys and added eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life to his own testimony. Mark predates Luke by some time and originates from Peter's assistant. Read something like FF Bruce's book on the New Testament documents or anything by NT Wright on the subject. Both are respected scholars and would verify this.
God is a common response to the holes science cannot fill in life (why are we here?) FSM is merely a mockery of thinking any such holes are important.
No, it isn't like that at all. No-one is saying that the holes science cannot fill in life aren't important. What is being questioned is why people feel the need to fill those holes with God. Also, there are well-established sets of belief labelled 'religion' held by millions of people that don't fill those holes with God, like Buddhism.
God created earth.. therefore he created earthquakes, tsunamies, hurricanes, floods
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Plain and simple.
I wish they would stop preaching the existence of God in their pledge of allegiance indoctrination. Why should I have to pretend like I believe in something that I don't, whenever I want to recite the pledge of allegiance? I know the pledge of allegiance is actually supposed to be utterly meaningless and worthless, but why single out non-monotheists while we're at it? I think it's pretty low.
Don't you watch Southpark? This could end very, VERY badly...
Unsurprisingly, there are moonbats of every persuasion in any given population.
Fervent Christians who feel it's appropriate to prosytelize in class; radical homosexual 'rights' advocates who lobby 3rd graders' students moral beliefs; neither has a place in the classroom. Neither is particularly the 'example' of the system that its opponents like to make it seem. Both are nuts, and need to be ejected from the profession (not just from the school).
I'm not one of those who believes that school is only about 'reading, writing' and 'rithmatic' - there is a necessity (at secondary and higher education) to discuss complex moral and philosphical issues like gender preference and religion as part of a solid educational experience. However, a GOOD teacher merely encourages and referees the discussion, without revealing his/her own preferences.
Fire this teacher. Case closed.
-Styopa
Well, I bet he's a dab hand at fixing motorbikes.
I don't think atheism has nothing to do with depression or other negative personality traits. Sure I can see that it is possible that a depressive person who is vary pessimist might end up as a atheist, but this the other way pessimism might cause you to become atheist so that you state that "it is all useless" or "we are all going to turn into dust in the end, so who cares?".
I guess that this belief that being religious can make you happy and that lack of faith can be a problem. I am not a depressive person, and I am indeed a atheist and I do know that there are lots and lots of religious people who are depressive. Depression is an illness and it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Apparently, many (if not most) people occasionally recall events from past lives once they get to advanced stages of meditation. In the usual, confused state of mind, you can barely remember the events of previous day, so it's kind of reasonable that you don't recall past lives either. Unfortunately, hardly anyone has the inclination (or karma, if you will) to dedicate a significant portion of their lives to meditation. You don't realize how significant and life-changing the practice is, until after you've done it for a while.
so ... the negative karma comes back, the positive stays with Buddha ... if only the negative returns, that means the humans should be worst and worst with every re-incarnation cycle ... and if only the bad karma comes back, where is the good karma coming from?
i don't know much about Buddhism and i have no idea if your post is true.. but this stuff sounds even worst than the classic fallacies of the Christianity.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Now, s/purple elephants with wings/gods, and you see the point.
Except that people have had visions of God, written tomes about God, experienced miracles, etc. Proof positive? No, but as soon as droves of people start seeing purple elephants with wings, I'll give you credit for your comparison. My point is that while there is no proof for the existence of a god, there is certainly a portion of humanity that sees reason to believe in a deity. Agnositicism is like being a member of a jury in a tough case...you can see both sides points, but really see no decisive proof either way.
--trb
Ah, but it wasn't always that way. Long ago (and still for many people) Hera, Zeus, Krishna, etc. all fit that qualification. Before even the Jews, people had gods. So then this Yahweh fellow comes along, and he's just as good as purple flying elephants... until some guy starts convincing other people.
My point is, purple flying elephants would be just as good as Jesus if I were as convincing about them as Paul was about Jesus [I use Jesus instead of Yahweh because I am familiar with the manner in which the Jesus myths arose, but not the Yahweh ones]. We could even assume that both exist (although only (I/Paul) + a limited subset of the people in the world have seen them); the real trick is convincing other people that not only do they exist---after all, we've got a set of people who've seen them---but that they violate conservation of mass-energy/are the son of God, perform miracles, etc. And convincing people of mass-energy violation is really easy in a time when people will believe that you can duplicate food (IIRC, Jesus is said to have done that with fish and chips or something).
If we assume that both don't exist, then I/Paul have just got to get enough people together that think having many people in the world believe in flying purple elephants/Jesus would serve an immensely useful political goal (say, taking over the nation we live in, which just so happens to believe in a YELLOW flying elephant pantheon with names like Jupiter, Saturn, etc.). Then we write a book with lots of really inspiring stories about how cool flying purple elephants are, and people will want to believe us because something that cool just has to exist, and besides, there are all these people who say they've seen them.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
I'm sure you can find quite a few Christians who are more than willing to share their own experiences that support their faith, too. Sure, skeptics can point out one-in-a-billion things happen all the time, but that doesn't detract from the power of the "whoa" when you have one of those experiences.
But seriously, you don't believe that there are a small handful of basic axioms in science that are absolute? Without these axioms, how do you question or challenge? How do you define "don't work"? Such axioms include such things as causality, reproducibility, the modern version of Occam's razor (as stated by Einstein - the explanation should be the simplest one that explains the phenomenon, but no simpler), etc. Just like with Euclidean or even non-Euclidean geometry, there must be a core set of unchanging axioms. These axioms have served us very well, but you can't prove them because they are axioms. Perhaps the best that can be said is that where these axioms are explicitly stated (e.g., causality) scientists (and/or philosophers) actually are willing to imagine the consequences of dropping that axiom. Still, we need a foundation of axioms upon which to build anything. It's true for geometry, set theory, and, yes, science.
If you want to come up with an explanation of why our "faith" is better, I'd recommend prediction. Unlike many other faiths, we are actively encouraged to test it (as you do mention, of course). We can make predictions about things that have not yet been observed (AKA "the future") with a far better track record than most.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You aren't "supposed" to say anything. You are supposed to think.
You obviously need to do it more, judging from your reply. (Hmm. That may sound rude, but I don't intend it to be. Relate to it as you wish.)
How about: For thousands of years, farming has been an important part of huma lives. This has meant that we have celebrated various things over the course of the seasons. Springtime we used to celebrate the planting of seeds etc, that tradition morphed into what is now Easter i Christianity and Passover in Jewis traditions. We also celebrated the phases of the moon and the sun, since these were so significant features in our lives. For thousands of years we (in the north) have celebrated that mid-winter means longer days and a move towards light, summer and life again. This was always a very big celebration, particularly in Europe. The Christians high-jacked this celebration and made it their most important celebration.
When you think about it Son, there was hardly anything new in Christianity at all when it was created. Most of what the teacher says that the New Testament says are old Egyptian and Greek myths re-branded as stories about this "Jesus" character. The old Greeks and Egyptians should sue the Christians for plagiarism.
I see plenty about evolution, which is basically atheist preaching
So Catholicism is atheism?
You put your faith in a book written down by men after who knows how many centuries of not-so-reliable oral traditions. And you assert that science is misguided to examine the Book of the World and decipher what's written there, that God has lied to us and planted fake evidence therein.
Generally, I'll trust the evidence of the world around us rather than what you find in a book of Bronze age goatherders' traditions.
You have demonstrated that you think there is some higher purpose to everything, that there's a final goal, such as humans, or life on Earth as it exists today. You need to stop that, because that's religion talking.
Clever signature text goes here.
"Today's sermon is taken from a magazine that I found in a hedge..."
You are correct, this is not documented. In fact, the story as given in the bible is, given the information we have, most likely a complete fabrication. There are a number of facts that says so:
This is more or less what the bible says:
There are a number of problems with this story:
The New Testament was never written to be an accurate representation of what actually happened. The writers never intended this at all. The New Testament was written to "sell" a story. They created stories to show points, not to explain what actually happened. The stories were to have morals. Many of the stories about Jesus are more or less verbatime copies of older Greek and Egyptian stories. As historical records, the books of The New Testament are completely fictional.
Are you from a communist country? Because that would be very hard to believe in America.
actually that would be hardest to believe in a communist country ... communism and religion never liked each other, some communist countries/leaders went as far as banning religion altogether
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I have. I have read it. I have studied it. I have even studied other writings from the same are and the same time. I have studied writings that significantly pre-dates the main christian book, The New Testament (NT). One of the first thing one finds when reading NT with this knowledge, is how much litterary "theft" there is in NT. A significant number of the stories written about Jesus, his birth being one of many, are copies of far older stories, familiar to the people that christianity was originally "sold" to. It is easy to understand why it is so. Selling the Jesus idea with old and familiar stories is easy. People only had to change the name of the hero. That people believe these are actual stories about Jesus on the other hand, given that many of these stories were written down several hundred years before he was born, just shows how little christians in fact knows about their bible.
This is patently false, and rubbish to boot. The bible is riddled with contradictory statements. If you take The Old Testament (OT) into consideration, there is hardly a book in the bible that doesn't have some text that doesn't contradict some other part of the bible. There are passages where two books describe the same events, but quite differently. How can both be true at the same time? Start by explaining Genesis. There are, as you probably are aware of, two stories about how God created the world. These stories vary quite significantly, and can not both be true at the same time.
You are absolutely right. That seems highly unlikely. Do you know anyone who believes that this happened? I don't. The problem is that you have no idea what The Big Bang was, and your ignorance makes you jump to bad conclusions.
The Bible is a rather small book written by the intellectual midgets of their time in their region. It is sad that given all the good litterature and philosophy that came out of the eastern Mediterranean in the years 500BC and up to a few years AD, that mundane ramblings of a small group of uneducated, superstitious sheep-herders is what people cling to today. Thankfully we live in a society generally governed, not by the principles of these people but by the intellectual works of the significantly sharper Greeks and others who lived in the same region at the same time.
I mentioned that very socio-economic connection in my earlier flame/troll! I didn't feel a need to go in depth, as it was OT, but I did mention it.
Furthermore, in rebuttal to the Dawkins discrediting, or what have you, In the nuclear age, men who believe in imaginary things should not hold the guns. Regardless of whether you are a carpet muncher (as signified by prayer) or not, you have to see the logic in allowing rational human beings who live their lives based on facts as a safer key turner to nuclear Armageddon.
Mark my words: If the bible-belt republicans, jihad Muslims, and invasion-happy jews retain nuclear power, as they currently seem to be doing, one of them will nuke one of the other ones, and it will be a VERY BAD THING for everybody on the planet. Particularly those of us who LIKE having just two eyes for us, and our children.
I think our government's current use of depleted uranium is yet another example of WHAT is WRONG with not only our political power structure, but the blind-faith idiots who currently reign in it as well.
Spraying nuclear waste all over a country you already shock and awed..... How are we the good guys on this one again?
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
This post was clearly not meant to be funny. I've noticed over the year or so that I've been a member here that you have a habit of labeling posts as funny when they try to represent an unpopular viewpoint, particularly when this viewpoint is religious in nature. If you don't want to believe what a person has to say, that's fine--but it's no reason to call their argument a joke. I was under the impression that /. was meant to be nerd *news*, not some childish nerd popularity contest. Perhaps I was wrong...
In future, I would appreciate you giving *all* viewpoints--even ones which go against the crowd or which you may think are dumb--a fair mod. If the other readers don't agree, let them submit a credible argument against it.
But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
True, but I was just referring to the differences between the Christian and Muslim God, not between the Son of God and the Prophet relationship of Jesus. I don't believe Christians consider Jesus to be God, so assumed that when Christian God was mentioned, it was referring to The God(tm).
So to recap:
The God(tm) == Christian God == Allah
Jesus == Son of God == Prophet of God
Because you have muddled up the ideas of belief and knowledge, your story makes no sense and mis-characterizes the atheist position. With this corrected, your story comes out this way:
Query: Do you believe statement about breakfast was made?
Looking at this, we can see that the atheist position is the open one; no beliefs are held without evidence, the atheist is not only willing to say so, but knows why this position makes sense. The theist position is committed to belief without evidence, cites "faith"; the agnostic hasn't even answered the question, though we know that this is simply an evasion, because the fact is, either you hold a belief, and you're theist, or you don't, and you're atheist.
Tip: As soon as you mis-characterize the atheist position as "believing there is no god" then you're off in never-never land. Atheists are without belief.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I also say "our men". We are family. They are my family, and I am theirs. Why would that stop you reading?
;)
I would write a long post explaining this, but I couldn't even put into words the bond between us. I couldn't even put into words the bond between my wife and me, which is unlike the bond between any couple outside of church. Divorce, adultery, etc are words of a foreign land to us. Children are treated by our churches as if they were our very own. Our women are my sisters. Our men are my brothers. I don't dishonor them by my use of "our", but honor them as being of the family of Christ. We are His; we are the body, and He is the head.
Those on the outside, as I used to be, just don't get it. And usually, it turns into a feminist debate, when in fact there is complete lack of understanding on the outside just how important the women of our church are. We could not be a family without our sisters, nor without our brothers. Our women have a strength in them that if a feminist truly understood, would realize that their arguments do grave injustice to the women of our church. I often compare our women to our backbone, rock solid in their faith, and woe to any man who tries to come along and deceive them. Hell truly hath no comparable fury.
You think we (the men) push "dress codes" on our women? First of all, it's not a dress code, but the difference between standards and a dress code is lost on those outside the church. Second of all, it's women who push them! Oh, surprise surprise, it is our women who lead this. It's their glory on top of their own heads, and they will not give it up for any man. And our men will defend them to the letter in it. Our men and our women are not divided on issues, and not because anyone follows blindly. We love each other, in a sense that truly expresses the word love. The whole men vs. women debate is for the world. There simply is no men vs. women debate in our church. There isn't even a context to put such a debate on.
But, some like to think they are "liberating" women by debating the biblical role of women to churches. Our women either find that insulting, misguided, and usually both. And, while there are people out there who do believe women are slaves, or sub-human, we certainly are not them. But don't debate me on this issue, talk to our women about that, who are nationally recognized Evangelists, Healers, Prophets, Teachers, etc., and they will surely and quickly set you straight on the issue, hehe.
I8-D
If you actually bothered reading my comment you will see that all I was saying is that neither math nor religion looks to empirical evidence for truth. It's rather hypocritical to resort to ridicule in the same post you claim religion is illogical.
You're both off your respective wagons IMHO. The Bible isn't a book. It is a compilation of relatively small documents (in most cases...can you even really call them books?) written by multiple authors, and arbitrarily chosen as canon vs non-canonical scriptures.
Reading any or all of them at face value is probably a bad idea. You're also over-intellictualizing it if you can't pick up on the basic premise that the documents attempt to convey. I often feel people attempt to belittle the bible by the arguments I hear, but over all, it is very difficult to argue the vast majority of the ideologies that the bible brings across. The problems rise when people try to read between the lines, or "proof text" in order to defend their point of view.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Granted, Occam's razor is a principle and not an axiom. Causality, however, is an axiom, much as the axiom that straight lines never meet is an axiom of Euclidean geometry. And, just as with non-Euclidean geometry there are "sciences" (I'm only using quotes here to parallelize it to "geometries") that have been explored that do away with some components of causality (just as QM does away with some components of reproducibility). I'm not actually aware of any "sciences" that do away with all components of causality (or reproducibility), however. And, just as with non-Euclidean geometry there would still be other axioms left. It's hard to describe these axioms as they are, for the most part, so much a part of the fabric of what we believe that we don't even see them.
Let's get back to "don't work". How do you define that without resorting to some sort of circular reasoning?
I'll get you started:
- something doesn't work if...
- it requires at least X failures for me to say it doesn't work because...
- after X failures I can rule out the possibility that quantum probabilities aren't at fault because...
- this is still true if I assume an infinite number of universes because...
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm definitely not claiming to have all (or necessarily any) of the answers. I'm just saying that even science requires a few axioms to break oneself out of circular arguments.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Not if one is correct and the others are wrong, since if one is correct it does not matter what all others think. Then only those that the correct faith say will go to hell will end up there.
Was his name Mr(s). Garrison?
Perhaps even more important (at least *I* think it's more important) is the fact that for any given person's beliefs in this particular regard, the majority of everybody else on the planet holds a different belief.
It is hard to be a skeptic by your definition - all those (possibly infinite) number of things to neither believe and also not believe!
Yes, that's correct. Being a skeptic means admitting when you do not know. For a true skeptic, who does not accept things without proof, it is absolutely necessary to view the center of the Earth as "possibly molten rock, possibly hot custard, possible anything else". If you think you know the center of the Earth is made of molten rock then you are no skeptic; you are merely trying to ride the coattails of a cool word.
The problem is, most people can't be skeptics because they need to believe something. They can't say "I don't know". That's the point I think you're trying to make - but it's not a logical point, it's a humanist point. You can't be the skeptic you claim, you say, because it's too difficult - look at the bizarre way you have to think about things. Well, yes, being a hardcore 100% skeptic means abandoning belief. Any level of skepticism means never quoting a belief as a fact. But it's too difficult for most people. They want certainty and the illusion of knowledge, which is why they tend to become either believers in God or atheists.
The irony is, an atheist cannot accept that he is being just as irrational as a bible-thumping neoconservative. He thinks he is being "logical" and that there is no other choice. It's nonsense. Atheism is not based in logic. It is based in belief. It is based in a human need to be certain when in fact you have absolutely no better idea now how the universe came into being than your God-fearing ancestors did 5,000 years ago. Sure, you have an opinion, and I have an opinion, and the microwave evidence backs us both up while saying nothing whatsoever on the subject of God. We are no further than before. Agnosticism is the only logically sound position, as has been argued passim by better men than us for over 200 years.
In contrast to all this, Dawkins does not say "I do not know". Dawkins believes that there is no God. He is a self-professed atheist. It has nothing to do with not knowing. It has to do with what he believes he does know. If he was agnostic he'd shut the hell up and write about what he has studied through experiment instead of attacking religion, which he has not. Computer simulations (Blind Watchmaker) are interesting (even though they have no scientific relationship to actual evolution on Earth whatsoever, and prove nothing other than that evolution is a viable theory - another fact that seems to escape Dawkins). But harping on about God and stuff just makes his later books unreadable because the content is too much agenda, not enough fact. Dawkins is absolutely not a "true" skeptic. He abandoned skepticism years ago in return for the opportunity to be a world-famous spokesman on pseudo-scientific atheist issues.
Compare his writing to Hawking's to see the difference. Hawking leaves room for God, hot custard, and flying spaghetti monsters. Dawkins says there is no room left, which is manifestly untrue, as any true skeptic is aware. Dawkins himself is emphatically not a true skeptic.
BTW, for the record, I agree with Dawkins. I believe there is no God too. But I don't parade around pretending my belief is superior to anyone who disagrees, as Dawkins does. I'm too much of the opinion that people's brains are built to believe in God to denigrate anyone for doing so.
I think that science will overtake religion as the thing that people believe in by default in our society. But I do not think it will replace "spirituality" or belief in the supernatural, because it seems to be ingrained into our psyche. And I will never try to fool myself into thinking that we are replacing primitive beliefs with "knowledge". We're not. We're replacing primitive beliefs with sophisticated beliefs, and that is all.
this stuff sounds even worst than the classic fallacies of the Christianity.
;)
Don't worry, Christianity is the True Way. When people die, good souls will join with God in Heaven and bad souls will go to Hell...
Seems that the only real difference in the afterlife is the location of the destinations
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Just for the record, I don't think that God is evil. I don't think that he is. On the other hand, if he was what he is as described in what you so accurately point out is a collection of random texts put together more for political purposes than anything else, then he'd be pure evil.
Just because I believe I have personal evidence of God in my life doesn't mean I'm wanting to foist this belief on any of you guys/gals.
I consider the testable aspect of God to be love.
And I've seriously tried NOT to believe in God, but when I do that, I feel as though my air supply has been cut off. So I've resigned myself to being a creature with a undeniable God-instinct. If that makes me inferior to the rest of you, then so be it, but I can't any more say to myself that God doesn't exist than I can deny my own existence.
Call it a "hunch", then, but I feel as though I'm not just a pattern of dominos falling. I have a feeling that I have a Will of my own that acts outside of the natural, and can be used like a knife to pierce and shape the natural. I feel that life is alien, born with the clothing of this material universe, but containing within it a spark from a totally separate plane of reality.
Yeah, I'm crazy then. But I don't care. This is who I am. Just love people is the only sermon I think anyone can preach.
Do you guys think life has a future?
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I personally believe all religions have some portion of the truth, some more than others. If you think of your soul(or 'self') on a journey in the land of creation in which there are many realms you may see my point. Which realm you land in may be due largely to what you believe in and how you act in this lifetime, jmho. The topic of creation(the universe/multi 'dimension', etc) must be an extremely complicated, and constantly evolving en masse subject. I'm no expert, but for me personally i believe the mormons(LDS) have more than most on the truth on creation and life as we know it...jmho ;)
No, it's more like my whole life story, but I don't feel like going into that. You can read my generic reply to all these comments here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208114&cid=169 75990/
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
He's saying that they feel that it's a good thing to believe in God, whether they actually believe or not.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think that is section 631. I was referring to "California Penal Code Section 632": where is says any person who, records a confidential communication, whether the parties are in the presence of each other or communicating via a device shall be punished...".
In the case of the kid recording his teacher -- it could be argued that is wasn't public since the public can't just walk into a classroom and watch. I.e.-- just because it is a public school doesn't mean that all communications that occur at the school are public.
I think people are just fooling themselves if they think they've adopted a fully objective reality, and I can't see the case for that being something to strife for. It does help mediate conflict when we all try to form rational consensus on truth using a well-defined set of rules (like science or logic), but at the same time, tolerance and love can mediate just as well, and leave us with a much more diverse and interesting planet to live on IMO. It's dangerous beauty, the irrational instinctual part of the human mind, but I feel more in touch with my nature when I believe in God: I'm happier, more creative, more at peace. Things with God make sense to me. God's just axiomatic to me.
:P
It could all be because of a gene for all I know: a God-gene. But still, this is my perception, this is me, and I feel no need to try and join the logical consensus on every major decision in my life.
I guess this is what faith feels like.
See you all -- I'm going over here to the Crazy People Tent. They serve better beer over there anyways
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
The local education authorities will surely have no choice but to dismiss any teacher making fundamentalist religious remarks in a school. Schools are for learning, not indoctrination. This is totally unprofessional and completely unethical behaviour. It should be illegal to teach children about religion, as the minds of children are not programmed to question the truth of what they are being told at young ages, and for the purposes of learning, most children will accept what they are told to be the truth. It can be very difficult for a child to recover from brainwashing at an early age. If people want to read religious fairytales, they should have to be at least 18 years old. I regard religious 'schooling' as a particularly sick and deviant form of child abuse.
We're not talking about people telling *us* that we belong in hell, we're talking about people telling this to our 8-year-old children. You think 8-year-old children don't need protection from whacko lunatics in positions of authority who try to terrify them into believing their bullshit religious propaganda? It's obvious you don't have children yourself nor have ever seen a frightened child. Maybe you should get over that before you go talking down to parents as if you knew what the fuck you were talking about.
And where did this proto-anarchist nonsense come in? Do you know anything about the system of government-run schooling in the Western world?
That's because it's not actually evidence. It's simply your beliefs.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't really want to give myself credibility to you or anyone else by using a certain word. That wasn't my intention. Personal evidence is indeed not objective evidence.
But it's evidence to me. I've chosen to value my own instinct above the rational consensus for a few things, such as God.
If you understand that I'm not an evangelistic believer, then maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. I'm of the opinion that you can't really "convince" someone to believe in God -- they were going to either believe or not believe on their own, despite any fine words I may compose. If it's not totally on their own anyways, then I cast their belief into question.
So I don't want to discredit the evidence of a well-defined system that works: science. I respect science as a tool for understanding the processes of the Universe, and agree with the article that teachers shouldn't try to "convert" *cough* coerce *cough* impressionable kids into any sort of belief system that goes down core to the worldview.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
You're just using the wrong word. Evidence is a word used in science or law. The only justification for religion (or other mystical beliefs) is experience. Otherwise known as epiphany, rebirth, conversion, enlightenment, awakening, etc. You can get this from praying, chanting, fasting, some illnesses, and various mind-altering drugs.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
You're right ... I don't have evidence that can be expressed as data that serves the purpose of proving God. Sure, I can decompose my experience into data, but none that will prove God in a scientific way.
:)
I don't think God should be taught in schools. In that context, there is no data or evidence.
Now, when I'm a grandpa here soon, I will tell my grandchildren about my life experience, and perhaps that will influence them to believe in God. But ultimately, whether they believe or not is something they totally do on their own. Predisposition to it, perhaps. Or a God-belief gene. But if there is such a thing as a God-belief gene, it would be kind of paradoxical to have one and yet not believe in God, like having code for black hair yet be born a blondy.
Heheh, hope this conversation has been interesting to you. No offense toward your way of life though. Just don't become president and take away my right to worship!
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
No it's more a violation of the First Amendment. As a public school teacher he is a government employee. According to the first amendment the government has to be religion neutral. Thus the teacher cannot preach about religion in the class room.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I guess I'm too old-fasioned, because I'm using the word "evidence" like "we hold these truths to be self-evident", you know, there's no data that proves all men are creating equal and whatnot. People back then were just more flexible with the word, and I haven't caught on yet.
Con-sarn it though, I'm not going to have you kids befuddling my verbiage. Now pop off while I go and have a gaye olde tyme with this here Java code.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I always refused to say the pledge.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
It's unfortunate though that atheists insist on maintaining the intellectual high ground when agnosticism is the most logical perspective on life.
Like those who are religious Christians, Jews, or Muslims Athiest don't let logic intefere with their belief system. Athiests are just as closed minded as some of these others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So why should I be logical and follow the consensus of rational thinkers?
:P
9 75990/
Heheh, does not doing that make me a danger to society?
Good. I'm going to go blow myself up now
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208114&cid=16
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Most christian religious folk are trying to win a battle against satan, and/or hopefully trying to help others be with God, both in this life and the afterlife...most atheist folk are not doing this, not consciously at least. There is also the added benefit of additional tidings to the church ;)
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
Just because you can remove an axiom it doesn't mean the axiom wasn't there. That was my whole point about Euclidean geometry vs. non-Euclidean geometry. Also, even in the "solutions" that _violate_ causality in General Relativity (which are not actually "solutions" in the strictest sense as they have self inconsistencies), they still _have_ causality. This was my point about removing only part of the axiom of causality, namely the "causality ordering principle" which is really more of a principle than part of the axiom of causality in the first place. (If pressed, I would state the "axiom of causality" as "all (spacetime) events have (natural) causes". The word "spacetime" is thrown in to get around the "first event" which would have been on the cusp of spacetime, if such an event exists. An alternate weaker axiom might be "most events have (natural) causes".) Also, of course, I should point out my own bias here. My Master's thesis involved "solutions" of GR that removed these violations.
Hrmm. How familiar are you with axiomatic set theory? One of the axioms of set theory is (essentially) that 1+1=2. Also, are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem? Now, I'll agree that science's "axioms" are not as precise as axiomatic set theory, but they must necessarily be there. You cannot create any logical system without axioms. Now, if you want to define science as "skepticism" and argue à la Kant that we really can't know anything, well then that's not really much of a logical system and I guess its only axiom is that we can't really know anything. I imagine you could be even more agnostic than that and do away with even that axiom, but then you're not left with anything useful.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"So, you're "agnostic" about little pink supernatural unicorns that cause earthquakes by running upside down along faultlines and crap gold deposits when stimulated with fish dildos weilded by mermaids, too?'
Splitter!
Agnosticism is not even close to being logical. It is simply a "lets get along" view point.
Agnosticism is logical. Instead of saying, er believing, a supreme diety, soul, or spirit does or doesn't exist Agnostics say they don't know, but when evidence either for or against such things are established then they will be willing to accept the existence or nonexistence of them. As for Agnostics having a "let's get along" point of view, POV, not all have the same POV. At the same tyme I was a member of a spiritual group I had debates with a friend who became a "Born Again" Christian. For instance how could she or anyone else know what Jesus, if a real person, teach with all of the editing and translations the books of the Bible went through? Take when the decision of what books would be included in the Bible at the Council of Constantinople in 353ad. Or take a book being originally written in Aramaic, then translated to Greek, then from Greek to Latin, then that to English.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's really not any different than criminal statutes on attempted murder. Unless you think I should go scott free if I walk up to you on the street and unload my pistol in the general direction of your head but missed. Yes, yes it is. One is a civil suit, and the other is a criminal action. The difference is massive. There are no "attempted crime" statutes. There is a definition of attempt, which applies generally to certain crimes. Hence, the rule for when an attempt has been effected is independent of the homicide or whatever statutes. But there's no attempt doctrine for torts. You can't attempt to batter someone -- you either do or you don't. Similarly, you can't attempt to intentionally inflict emotional distress, or attempt to violate the Establishment Clause. Suing before such a tort has occurred means that a suit is not timely filed, and a judge should dismiss it.
IAALS.
I'd be willing to wager a great deal of money that this so-called "history teacher" has never read Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Johann Huizinga nor any other true historians of a high caliber. Probably has only one or two Classic Comics under his belt - or panties.....
"All of which basically comes down to "I don't believe the Bible really happened because it's unlikely"."
I never said one way or another whether I believe in the bible, but I have said that the stories in the bible are insufficient proof to entail belief of certain claims in the bible.
"but you decide that it must not be true solely because it's unlikely."
No, I decide that there is insufficient reason to believe based on the strength of the evidence versus the extreme nature of the claims.
"You claim the Bible is fictional, with no real evidence."
I don't need to claim the bible is fictional, the bible needs to prove it is true. The bible doesn't get a presumption of truth just because it is old or because it has some historical facts in it. I'm not the one making the claim. The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
"The other gospels all purport to be eye-witness accounts. Whether you believe them or not is up to you."
That we can agree on.
"So, after all this, what we've come to is that the events in the Bible are highly unlikely, that they make extrordinary claims, and that they have no ironclad evidence to support them. That doesn't make belief in the Bible irrational or anti-scientific, it just means that some people are more willing to trust the evidence than you."
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened. Religion isn't about rationality.
As a side note, if you are thrown into a Buddhist hell, according to Buddhist pantheon seems like a far worse place to be than the Christian Hell. But in Buddhist hell you can be reborn into another realm by doing virtuous deeds and saving and helping any sentient being.
But in the Christian hell you stay there for eternity, so the Buddhist hell has to be better since you can escape it even if it is worse while you are there.
Atheist: without belief in a god or gods. You're one or the other, this agnosticism is a copout, plain and simple.
No, atheism is the belief that a god does not exist. That's not the same as being without belief in a god. One says god does not exist while the other says there is no belief whether god exist or doesn't. Big difference.
Either you believe, or you don't. So declare yourself and stop this silly pretending to be above such a simple question.
I along with other agnostics have declared we don't believe, but we are willing to believe or disbelieve when we are given proof, or at least strong evidence either way.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I believe wood is a reincarnation of my cat fluffy, this is just as true a belief as any belief you have. I don't believe you really believe that.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Tip: As soon as you mis-characterize the atheist position as "believing there is no god" then you're off in never-never land. Atheists are without belief.
Wrong, you've mixed up Atheists and Agnostics:
FalconAtheism is the disbelief in the existence of God and other deities. According to dictionary.com an Atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.. So the belief of Atheists is that there is no god, therefore they do have a belief.
It's Agnostics that have no belief in the existence of or nonexistence of a god. Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Should there be a Law?
God is evident to me and to other people.
I guess I should learn then to distinguish between things that are evident and the formal use of the word "evidence". I didn't mean to offend any discipline, such as science, that uses this word in its terminology. I can see now that I'm using it in a context that doesn't fit in with the rest of the dicussion.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Well, did we fire any teapots towards Earth and Mars?
Someone could have done, perhaps doing secretly whilst on another mission in space. Or perhaps aliens put it there, or God did it, or maybe it was the Flying Spagetti Monster. It is unlikely, but is possible.
Of course the new Pope may very well change that.
That is extremely unlikely. The ones who disregard evolution theory tend to be those too ignorant to understand biology. The new Pope is an exceedingly learned man and probably knows more about biology (and history, and philosophy, and theology, and a dozen other fields) than most of us. I.e. he can be counted on to understand how evolution makes sense. I'd trust him with that way more than I'd trust the average Protestant minister (or Buddhist, or Hindu, for that matter).
blow your mind already
No, it mocks people who believe in invisible things for which there is absolutely no evidence
:p
You mean, like the Higgs Boson, or Graviton?
In fact the whole wave function is on pretty shaky ground as far as actually, you know, existing goes. Which means the very fabric of reality is wide open to interpretation. Many Worlds, Copenhagen, take your pick.
It doesn't matter as far as actual science is concerned. You perform the same integrals no matter what interpretation you believe in. Quantum computers will still work even if Many Worlds is wrong. But few scientists are agnostic as to which interpretation they prefer. None of them have a shred of evidence. And few say that the matter of interpretation is irrelevant. Some pitched battles have been fought. How is all this different to flying spaghetti monsters, really?
I find it intensely ironic that the interpretation favoured by most books (Copenhagen) contains a profoundly mystical element and places mankind at the center of the universe again. In fact, it goes further, and makes man a deus ex machina. It's fantastic how closely this parallels certain religious beliefs.
And if you don't like that you're forced to believe that universes multiply billions of times per nanosecond in gross contravention of all common sense about the conservation of energy.
God forbid you might even believe in hidden variables.
But somehow the idea of a mystical being that we cannot view but which interacts with physical matter is ridiculous at our level of knowledge.
Precisely how to apply Occam's razor in this case is a matter of opinion.
Quantum mechanics is strange and mystical and no-one who studies it can possibly have a completely closed mind about how the universe works. That's why you get biologists like Dawkins banging the atheistic drum rather than quantum physicists like Feynman or Hawking. Working with QM is like viewing the Earth from space - profound, mystical, and life-changing.
And the amazing thing is, it's science!
So, the way the GP was using these words is consistent with 1b for both definitions. It's how a lot of people use these words. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
Now, I actually find the distinction between "not knowing" and "not believing" to be a whole lot harder to pin down than the distinction between "not believing there's a god" and "believing there's no god", but maybe that's just me. As for the latter, there are plenty of people who DO believe there's no god, so what do you call them if not atheist? I understand your etymology argument, but similar reasoning might lead to the idea that "inflammable" means "not flammable" (yes, I know that it comes from "inflame"), and although I'm no wordsmith, I'm sure there are dozens of examples in the English language where what the word means does not agree with its etymology.
Now if you're looking for another distinction that's not captured by these words - and perhaps this is what you're getting at - there are at least two types of agnostics: those who aren't sure whether there's no God, and those who aren't sure whether there are any gods. I.e., you can be agnostic and still think, "Well if there is a God, it's (probably) the Christian God." Such people might describe themselves as being "Christian agnostic". (I added the word "probably" because I think even self-described "Christian agnostics" might be willing to entertain the idea that it's a single God, but not necessarilyl the God of the Old and/or New Testaments.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Link to Mormons(LDS) http://www.mormon.org/
b le.asp
Buddhist Bible, by Dwight Goddard http://hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/buddhist_bi
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
Now if you're looking for another distinction that's not captured by these words - and perhaps this is what you're getting at - there are at least two types of agnostics: those who aren't sure whether there's no God, and those who aren't sure whether there are any gods. I.e., you can be agnostic and still think, "Well if there is a God, it's (probably) the Christian God." Such people might describe themselves as being "Christian agnostic". (I added the word "probably" because I think even self-described "Christian agnostics" might be willing to entertain the idea that it's a single God, but not necessarilyl the God of the Old and/or New Testaments.
Yea, a few weeks ago I read a good book on this, The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, which she starts with the Nag Hammadi or Gospel of Thomas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think people are just fooling themselves if they think they've adopted a fully objective reality, and I can't see the case for that being something to strife for. It does help mediate conflict when we all try to form rational consensus on truth using a well-defined set of rules (like science or logic), but at the same time, tolerance and love can mediate just as well, and leave us with a much more diverse and interesting planet to live on IMO. It's dangerous beauty, the irrational instinctual part of the human mind, but I feel more in touch with my nature when I believe in God: I'm happier, more creative, more at peace. Things with God make sense to me. God's just axiomatic to me.
More accurately, the scientific method leads to asymptotically objective reality. That means that over time it gets more objective, but there could be setbacks along the way.
I don't see the point of forcing people into a certain belief framework. It may turn out that a completely objective and consistent system of belief and knowledge is uninteresting or counterproductive. Even if objective belief systems turn out to be the way to go, there may be many interesting approaches that yield distinct end results. In which case, fostering more belief systems now will help find some of those.
However, I do see problems with using subjective belief systems to make claims about reality. Physical existence is to my knowledge an objective problem. It doesn't really matter what the point of view is. How much better I feel because I believe in existence of something isn't evidence of existence.Not what I hear. To Christians, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the other two aspects of God. In other words, the Son of God is God in another form.
I don't believe any Objectivist is going to expect any form of Divine Intervention from the departed spirit of Ayn Rand.
This thread began with a plea to differentiate Christians from "stupid" people. But the problem is that the anti-science agenda pushed by these "stupid" people is self-identified as a Christian agenda. And when politicians look at demographics and decide not to piss off Christians, they conflate all Christians together. And that includes moderates who don't support that agenda.
Absolutely, when I am overseas, if someone says "Americans do this or that", I point out that the government is different than the people, and that not all the people support everything that the government or individuals do. But I understand that to the rest of the world I am part of a monolithic group. Luckily for me, the founding principles of the country (Constitution, rule of law, etc) are ones I can embrace without a ton of exegetical effort to figure out what they mean. If I had a problem with that stuff (like the cranks who insist that the federal tax system is unconstitutional), I suppose I would move to a different country.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
A little nonsense, now and then
is relished by the wisest men.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
The bible and its adherents are and, thus, have the burden of proof. If I claim something that is physically impossible, say, "Smurfs are Real," I have the burden of proof. If you claim the earth stood still for a day, you have the burden of proof.
Yes, but just because something is not proven does not make belief in it irrational. If something is disproven, then belief in it is irrational.
There we disagree. The bible is anti-scientific. It describes things that are scientifically impossible. It is irrational to presume the scientifically impossible events actually happened.
No, it describes things that are scientifically unlikely. Science cannot disprove an omnipotent God. If an omnipotent God exists, nothing described in the Bible is impossible. Therefore belief in the Bible is not irrational.
Religion isn't about rationality.
That I'd agree with; religion is about faith. But just because it's primarily concerned with faith doesn't mean it's necessarily irrational.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The part which I've never understood is... why would you want to ? Why would anyone want to be absorbed into this Cosmic Buddha ?
Not really surprising. Communities which don't outlaw murder won't last long.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You're taking my remark out of context, for one thing. By "If that makes me naive", I'm indicating my general agnosticism, towards everything. That makes me somewhat more than an atheist. For instance:
To me, those aren't fundamentally different than questions of whether I actually exist, whether this keyboard is real, and which OS is best. The only real difference is that I have chosen to assume that the keyboard is real, whereas I have not chosen to assume that a God is real.
That the keyboard is a scientific fact is actually irrelevant to this discussion. Certainly, in my daily life, I hold scientific truths to be more valuable than religious truths. But ultimately, science is based on observation and logic, which are things we have no more evidence for than the existance of a god -- after all, who is to say that our very logic is not a delusion? What if P really does equal NP?
This doesn't keep me up at night -- in fact, I sleep very well. But it's important to keep in mind when we're trying to talk about so-called "absolute truth".
We'd have to get very specific to talk about that. It's certainly possible that any number of variations of that could exist. However, the ones most consistent with the Bible and with faith are a kind of God I'd never worship. Genocidal bastard.
Yet, most sane Christians -- or at least, the Christians who are mostly sane -- do not beileve the Bible should be read literally. Thus, it's certainly possible to imagine another interpretation that would be everything we look for in a God. But, most variations you come up with will be impossible to prove or disprove. The traditional atheist holds that God does not exist, but if there was some proof, they might believe. The agnostic holds that not only do we not know if God exists, but we can never know, miracles or not.
Anyway, you've just made my point -- potaytoh, potahto. You call me an atheist, I call myself an agnostic, these are just words. I don't think we really disagree... except, perhaps, on one point:
I suspect that such a child would hear about Jesus in other ways. The parents have to say something, even if they say it's a fairy tale, or the child will be an easy convert. They'd be an atheist for about 10 minutes of Kindergarten, then someone would have to explain the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Or has that been removed yet?)
No, you'd need the whole society to be atheist before children could be raised without having to consider the question of God.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm another absolutely non-depressive atheist. I tend to feel there are definitely some internal physical/chemical reasons for general temperament and tendencies to depression... it's not that I'm never unhappy, I have just found that when I wake up in the morning things settle back into perspective, I make a plan to deal with whatever was making me unhappy, and life goes on.
So sometimes just walking outside and feeling the sun on my face can make my happy -- but I'm also damned sure that none of the natural beauty I see in the world came from a supernatural being that sits around wanting our praise and considering our prayers.
Personally, I'm glad to live in a world where, when shitty things happen, we don't have to pray for some insight into why God wanted little Bobby to be hit by the truck, or why God lets really nasty birth defects happen, etc. etc.. If I'm grieving over something, I don't want to have to also wrap my head around the idea that "it's all in God's plan" to get any solace. That wouldn't help me. I don't want to pray for little Bobby's soul, I want to put up a fence, get the speed limit lowered, get speed bumps installed... actually *do* something instead of waiting for the "lesson" to sink in, whatever that hell that would be (maybe Bobby didn't confess about hitting his sister last week? Or... God just wanted him back home? Yeah, that's it.).
If there's nothing that can be done, then I want to understand more about what actually happened; how some birth defects are inevitable because of the mutant sludge left over in our genes during our evolution, how this pain is actually carried through my nerves and what it's doing in my brain, what researchers are experimenting with nowadays that might save someone else with my disease in 60 years.
And more -- life is an amazing and awesome, sometimes terrifying process; feeding off itself and being reborn in all its myriad forms. All this on our own little planet hurtling through spaces we can hardly grasp; and there are so many depths we have yet to explore.
My personal smallness doesn't freak me out -- it kind of comforts me. We all choose our frame of reference, all the time -- if I achieve something, I can be glad of the very real sphere in which it makes a difference, take pride in a little appreciation and earned respect. If I screw something up... well, in the larger scheme of things, it's an awfully tiny thing, isn't it?
Sorry for the rambling. I just agree pretty strongly with the idea that the real world is so much richer and meaningful than the blinkered religious interpretation.
Dawkins does indeed talk about science-accepting Christians. He feels they are *still* damaging their children by teaching them to respect and honor faith as something valuable, as something that's a source of wisdom.
Most of these Christians also tell their kids that Grandma is in heaven with Grandpa now, and she's happy. They tell their kids that God is watching and he'll know when they do something bad. They take their kids to church, where the kids are told (and made to recite) that God art in heaven and is the creator of heaven and earth, Jesus is his only son (and is also God), Mary was a virgin who gave birth, and various miracles actually happened.
I didn't grow up in a fundamentalist family by any stretch of the imagination (just fairly standard suburban Roman Catholic), but I was fed all of this stuff as a kid, and it took a long time to go back and really "clean house" in my brain to toss out all of that.
At some point standing in church reciting lines with the crowd like "it is right to give Him thanks and praise", and stuff like the Nicene Creed every week started to creep me out. But most people go on saying we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth... his only son born of the Virgin Mary, etc. on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures, he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, etc. etc.., every week.
And think about how children are inculcated with such a sense that religion is an inarguable source of "right/wrong" information that many of those children are thus far easier to be manipulated later. Is a politician religious? Then he'll probably know right from wrong, won't he? Of course you've noticed how politicians attack this angle for all their worth.
Dawkins also talks about (and actively debates with) scientists and others who argue that religion and science occupy different magisteria -- the idea that they answer different kinds of questions, and thus they don't conflict because they don't overlap. His argument is that of *course* they overlap. If science came up with DNA evidence that Jesus really was born somehow outside of the bounds of normal human sexual reproduction, he guarantees you wouldn't hear religious leaders saying "nope; doesn't count -- science is a separate realm from religion". Instead, religion purports to answer questions that either are impossible to answer (like "why are we here" and "what's our purpose in life") or questions that science has no solid answers for currently (like "how the the universe begin"). His response is basically: some questions are simply invalid questions, and some science cannot yet answer... but why in the world would our own invented mythology have a better chance somehow at answering these problems? We might as well use explanations based on the ancient Greek pantheon... it's the same thing.
It seems unlikely that a big ball of fire (i.e., the Great Bang) would just appear in space and start a universe
The problem is that it's even less likely that an intelligent all-powerful being would just appear out of nowhere, and then start a universe. Bringing in God doesn't answer any questions, it just raises more.
Let's try another analogy:
If a person wants to construct a mighty building, he first of all sets the foundations in a wise and regular fashion, and plans them in a way suitable to their future purpose and results. Then he skillfully divides them into sections and apartments. Next, he orders and arranges the apartments, and decorates them with tapestries, then illuminates them with electric lights. Then, in order to renew his ingenious works in that magnificent place, he makes fresh creations and new changes and transformations in every level of it.
Now, think of a creature whose life begins in the middle of the last step of this construction, same as his ancestors' lives. This creature observes his surroundings, what is happening around. He realizes that even if everything seems happening by itself, there are some laws ruling !inside!. For example, according to a formula, he can calculate at what time all lights will turn on/off tomorrow, or twenty days later. In his laboratory, he can duplicate some of the events/results with conforming to the related formulas/laws.
After his observations, if this creature says that it is the law who does everything in the entire building, is this a right claim? If something happens in accordance to a law, to describe how it happened, is it sufficient to prove the law's existence or event's conformance to the law? Can somebody claim that all people are slaves of traffic rules and traffic rules directs everybody to obey themselves? Or, does it mean that there is "some kind of" ruler who firstly sets those rules and then, manages things according to that rules?
As all of us know, there is relation between DNA and beings' attribute changes. Let's try to describe this relation:
1) Does it mean that it is the DNA who does these changes?
The US has a constitution which is even written in some books. Can we say that this "law set" manages every event related with it, penalizes who does not obey to it, rewards who obeys to it?
2) Or, is it the proteins or mitochondrion or ribosome who "knows to read" DNA and "understands" it and acts in compliance to what is written?
First, let me salute you for at least trying to read the Bible. Many never even get that far and start forming conclusions based on their own preconceived notions, rather than keeping an open mind. I went through my own personal journey including the "Koran phase", the Jesus was a mad man phase, and even the "I can't stand organized religion" phase. I had a general distaste for preachers and "Bible thumpers".
Let me also acknowledge that "Religion" is dangerous if used improperly. It can result in corruption, twisting of the message, fanatical killings, hate crusades, suicide bombers, worship of inanimate objects, and the list goes on. I promise you that this is not the message of Jesus nor the Bible.
The message is that of a transformation that occurs in your life once you truly believe and accept his influence in your life. Yes there will be make mistakes (no doubt in my own testimony), but all the good that results from a true Christian will defy logic. What do I stand to gain from responding other than public ridicule from you and many others. I'm not asking for money, nor do I have anything to gain by a reply in this forum, but here I am.
the Bible never contradicts itself once the context is understood.
This is patently false, and rubbish to boot. The bible is riddled with contradictory statements. If you take The Old Testament (OT) into consideration, there is hardly a book in the bible that doesn't have some text that doesn't contradict some other part of the bible. There are passages where two books describe the same events, but quite differently. How can both be true at the same time?
Nice response, but I never said there weren't contradictory statements. The key word is context. On the surface it would certainly seem that there are many contradictions and I once shared this opinion with you. My initial studies of the Bible were only a cursory review. In effect, I was "strip mining" the various passages, the result of which was utter bewilderment at how millions of people believe this stuff given all the apparent contradictions. I even cooked up some elaborate conspiracy story in mind about all of this stuff being "made up" by some well meaning, but misguided leaders of the ancient world.
My opinion has since changed. The thing reads like a life manual and battle plan at the same time. I believe that once you really delve into it, "the math" checks out.
The really weird thing is all the prophecy stuff (e.g., Daniel 10-12) as it relates to the restoration of that nation of "sheep herders" as you call it. Some much more astute scholars than myself have even matched up the prophecy in Daniel to the restoration of that nation of sheep herders and shown that it occurred as was predicted thousands of years ago. It is a wonder that the nation of sheep herders wasn't wiped out during the Holocaust.
Start by explaining Genesis. There are, as you probably are aware of, two stories about how God created the world. These stories vary quite significantly, and can not both be true at the same time.
I'll take a stab at your Genesis inquiry, but you may not like it. As I understand it, quite simply the first story is a broad overview whilst the second contains the detail so not necessarily contradictory.
I also shared the questions of the person with the original reply to my first post at one point in my life.
How do we know which path or religion is right?
It is ultimate question. The intent of my first post was that it would be sad to be in possession of intellectual abilities shared by you and no doubt many other readers of this forum and to not seek out the answer for ourselves prior to death. It seems that you have at least began to perform proper research for yourself since you are no longer ignorant of the intricacies of the Big Bang theory and have looked into these "far older stories".
rather small book written by the intellectual midgets of their time i
I'd say bringing the rotation of the earth to a dead stop for a day is scientifically impossible. Your syllogism, however, is invalid. I'll set up one version of your argument:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including creating real Smurfs as described in "The Smurfs and the Magic Flute"
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe in real Smurfs.
Invoking miracles takes you completely out of the realm of science because.
My "malice" involves saving human lives by not allowing irrational religious people to run our nuclear programs.
Now "aggressive", I'll take fully. I think human life is an issue to be aggressive about.
I'm not being arrogant either, I hardly would state that *i* am the type of person to be in charge of nuclear weaponry, either. I do think though that rational humanists would be a better pick than religious types, and I do fit in that category.
Now, if you had used the term vitriolic, derogatory, or perhaps even offensive, or overly discrediting... Those would have been debatable. Malice however was simply not involved.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
+1, Prescient. Not surprised at all that your fear came true.
If you don't believe in the existence of a soul, I guess there isn't much point continuing as I find it relevant in answering my sort of questions.
When I approach the big bang from an academic standpoint it doesn't seem plausible, or at best an extreme long shot. Concerning emotion - you don't ever get a feeling in your gut when something doesn't sound quite right? Its why I left the church in my youth (Sunday school, because the stories are simplified for young children they become fairy tale like - even as a young child I wanted something more rational).
About life on this planet - you think it was a matter of odds that made it happen? That its all utterly pointless? Why do you get up in the morning?
Actually it was an NPR story, they may have twisted that report but it was a genome scientist that made the statement.
On evolution, I understand that, but if man evolved from ape, why is there nothing in between? Other then some drawings, what evidence is there?
Actually, the divinity of Christ is a key doctrine in Christianity. He alludes to it himself several times in the gospels, the writers of the epistles refer to him as God and it is an essential requirement for the forgiveness of sin.
Just noticed I spelled prophet as 'profit' in my last post. Doh. Kudos for not feeling a spelling/grammar nazi in a frequently volatile subject!
Here is the relevant etymology:
Theism: Belief in a god or gods. Theist: Person holding belief in a god or gods.
The root "a": Without.
A-theism: without belief in a god or gods. A-theism: Person without belief in a god or gods.
And before some wag tries to misconstrue the etymology as "without god" as in "a-theos", let me remind them that the word is not a-theos, it is a-theist or a-theism.
Atheism is not definitive of "disbelief." Disbelief is a additional stance taken over basic atheism (after all, you have to be without belief in god or gods to go the next step and declare your faith that there is no such thing.) This latter stance is called "hard atheism" while the former is "soft atheism." This is so well established, and has been for so long, you should be absolutely mortified that you are unaware of it, yet are trying to take part in a discussion about the issues. Go educate yourself.
The common person's misunderstanding of the atheist position is is why the wikipedia entry for atheist has been closed so often, by the way, atheists trying to get the definition for what they stand for corrected, and non-artheists repeatedly mis-characterizing their stance.
I don't need to defend this position extensively, it is a done deal in the atheist community. I'm just letting you, and others who are similarly confused, know what the actual situation is. You can check it out -- actually do some research -- and learn something, or you can continue on in ignorance. Your call.
With regard to the claim for agnostics; this is not relevant, except in that it puts agnostics out. Agnostics talk about knowledge, when asked about belief (the atheist/theist question.) These are two completely different cognitive domains. It is similar to asking if water is cold, and being given the response "I wonder if it is wet?"
Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. You can call it whatever you want, riding your confusion off into the sunset for all I care, but there are still only two positions. If your answer is that you hold such a belief, then you are a theist. If you do not hold such a belief, you are an atheist. With regard to knowledge, no one asked you what you knew, or why you take the stance you take: The question is simply, and always has been, do you believe? The only answers are yes, or no.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't believe you really believe that. :)
I think that science will overtake religion as the thing that people believe in by default in our society. But I do not think it will replace "spirituality" or belief in the supernatural, because it seems to be ingrained into our psyche. And I will never try to fool myself into thinking that we are replacing primitive beliefs with "knowledge". We're not. We're replacing primitive beliefs with sophisticated beliefs, and that is all.
I have rarely read such a load of nonsense in a single post. You really haven't thought any of this through, and haven't even the slightest understanding of the philosophical implications of what you are saying, and most of what has been discovered and debated over the past millenium seems to have passed you by, if you really think that we aren't replacing primitive beliefs with knowledge.
If you really, truly, believe that, I suggest you avoid using any modern machinery. I suggest you avoid driving or flying. Because, guess what? They work because we replaced primitive beliefs with knowledge about mechanics. Or do you think that planes don't really fly - we only believe they do?
Dawkins believes that there is no God. He is a self-professed atheist. It has nothing to do with not knowing. It has to do with what he believes he does know. If he was agnostic he'd shut the hell up and write about what he has studied through experiment instead of attacking religion,
You also haven't even the slightest idea of what Richard Dawkins is trying to say. Dawkins has always said "I don't know" - he even says that about God. He is saying some very simple and clear things, and it is bizarre that so few people seem able to understand:
(1) Why should a belief or uncertainty in a God be given priority over a belief or uncertainly in any other thing (such as, for example, the existence of dragons)? Why do we give priority and run our society on such forms of mystical belief?
(2) A belief in God, as most people have, shuts people out from a deeper understanding of things. For example, religious belief for many people stops them having a true understanding of the wonder of evolution.
These should not be fundamentalist or controversial ideas.
He does not shut up because religion IS imposing on what he DOES know - evolution (his area of great expertise) is under daily attack in a country that is the worlds only superpower.
But harping on about God and stuff just makes his later books unreadable because the content is too much agenda, not enough fact.
Utter nonsense. His books are packed with facts. Facts about the age of the Earth, about evidence of evolution, about the nature of the fossil record. Unfortunately for some they are also packed tightly with facts about how religious belief denies such evidence, and is wildly contradictory.
I admire his bravery and courage, especially where there are so many people like you who are working so hard to misunderstand what he is saying.
His descriptions of moderates are consistently descriptions of apathetic fundamentalists; they do not represent any of the other views and models found within Christianity. His whole argument for liberals as "enablers" of fundamentalists depends on the assumption that liberals are just fundamentalists with less conviction.
No, this is not what he says at all. He certainly does not describe moderates as apathetic fundamentalists. To give an example, fundamentalists may have trouble believing in evolution, but moderates don't. Dawkins has never said that moderate are simply apathetic disbelievers in evolution!
If you are going to disagree with a writer, you really should make an effort to understand what he is saying.
I stand corrected. Jesus is another aspect of God in Christianity. I believe that's the main difference that made people branch out and form Islam. Probably much like how people branched out and created Christianity because of their belief in Jesus.
Per Christian teaching, the consequences of not having the proper faith is eternal damnation (I'm basically agreeing with you here). So, what is the consequences of not having the proper "faith" in the sciences? Well, you will occaisonally come to the wrong conclusions. Since that doesn't happen very often, we say our "faith" is good. One problem is that we've been talking about "science" as a monolithic whole, when I'm not sure if that's really accurate. For example, the QM faith and GR faith are mutually incompatible at their basic level. Of course, this is an example of what you were saying about it not really being the same thing, because any QM or GR scientist will readily admit that their axioms are not valid in certain domains (the very massive for QM and the very small for GR). One solution is the "unitarian" approach that is common in physics, where a common set of axioms or theories is search for that fits all fields. Some people think "string theory" will end up being that "faith", but I'm very much unconvinced. Other similarities are the fact that science does, in fact, have its annointed. Now, this is different from Christianity, of course, but you have to trust most of what other scientists tell you if you want to make any progress in science. It's an unfortunate fact of life that no one can do all of the experiments required to verify all of science.
So, what really are the differences? Well, here's a couple that I can think of:
- Science makes predictions about future events that are almost always correct.
- Science expects its "faith" to change.
I stress "expects" on that latter point, because a lot of religious faiths evolve as well, but that's not something they're usually proud of (Martin Luther's theses notwithstanding). I almost added that science does not have inquisitions, but then I remembered my Ph.D. comprehensive exams.Also, it should be pointed out that not all religious faiths have that much in common with Christianity, e.g., Buddhism .
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Here it is in all its karma whoring glory:
http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
There are very few people of religious faith that never question their beliefs and I do not know of any that do not believe they have evidence - it's just a matter of how one interprets that evidence. Also, observe that not only does an individual's religious faith evolve, so too have most religions themselves evolved. However, I agree that faith is something more than a mere "general feeling that something is right". I believe it's somewhere between the two "options" that you presented. Even in religious faiths, or maybe especially in religious faiths, there are a lot of things that are admittedly unknown. (Why did God let this happen? What is His "master plan"?) Even on the "core issues", I'm sure you'll find a lot more uncertainty than you might expect.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You, like many atheists, seem to be missing the point. The issue is talking about god, with a lower case g, not a God with a capital G. god, lack of capitalization intentional, is the idea behind a deity, one who is able to control the rules of the universe. The nature and plausibility of any particular god, such as the Christian God, or FSM, is subject to a debate of the evidence one way or the other. Dawkins, and other fundamentalist atheists, refuse to recognize this big difference. Is the christian God likely? Probably not. Is the concept of a god plausible, that god being a being able to design a universe and manage it? The jury remains out on that.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Now that's a tricky bit, isn't it?
For language to have meaning, people need to agree on the meanings of words, which has led to the argument that how people use a language defines that language. An argument that supports your position, but not that of the parent. However, this in turn leads to terms being muddled to the point where the sum of expressible concepts are folded into the number of words supported by the minds of the lowest common denominator (about 500-1000, I'd guess). Which lowers the net utility of the language, and leads to "hacker" becoming synonymous with "cracker", a pet peeve of many Slashdotters and carefully chosen to hopefully make someone care about this point. From this, we can again derive the argument that words do have defined meanings that shouldn't change so whimsically. Which supports the position of the parent.
Religion is a system of irrationality which praises blind faith over reason. It is designed to stay stagnant and never change no matter what we learn.
I believe you are confusing religions with religious organizations. Religions, by their very nature, do not make for good mass faith. People generally want stagnancy, to stick with their preconceptions, to not have to change, and not have to learn. Religious organizations capitalize on this, and build their power from pandering to this desire by simplifying the message.
Christianity was a mystery cult and food for thought, the religous part, bundled together with a lot of admonitions to the general public, the "masses" part. The religious part is, and has always been, a personal thing, and I doubt you'll ever see anyone succeed at bringing it to a mass audience. The churches build on the parts that are for the masses, mistaking the toppings for the cake itself, sometimes even in good faith. Then people seize on some of these toppings, and decide they're the only toppings anyone should have, and that they should die if they don't eat it, never mind allergies.
As for stagnancy, I'd like to make a point adressed on a Jewish page. The bible admonishes us to be kind to our slaves, etc.. However, the point that's really being made here, is that there is something wrong with slavery. It's just being wrapped up in a way that can do the most good at the time it is being said. If you went all out back then, and said people weren't supposed to have slaves at all, your message wouldn't get out, and you'd have done no good at all. However, if you say they should be nicer to their slaves, you'd start a change for the better, do a lot of good, and you hope they'll get the rest of that message on their own, given time. That's not stagnancy, that's an awareness of how people think and work, coupled with amazing foresight.
People, however, with their desire for stagnancy and strong laws writ in stone, their strong (I hope the Buddhists will for give me for this one) Sheep natures, hold on to what was once written for an older culture, and completely fail to grasp the deeper meaning. They try to practice the literal version, which by definition is stagnant as it has been taken out of the context of time, and discard the advances in the understanding of meaning that have happened since then. Then they disregard whatever is inconvenient to their incomplete understanding at the moment.
Religion demonstrably isn't for everyone, though an argument might be made that some of the messages sent by people who get religion are, if only as a seed to spark development in a certain direction.
Zen is not koans. Koans are a tool that some people can use to achieve Zen.
If I haven't gotten my point over by now, I will not get it over in a longer post, so I'll stop now.
Declaration of bias: I'm something along the lines of a personal Christian/Gnostic reincarnation guy, and make some sense of the crap in the world by assuming this is purgatory, and therefore only occupied by fucked-up souls that need a few more incarnations of purification before they "get" it; probably put here for touting their bibles in the educational facilities of some "higher" plane. ;)
> What is your view of recording all classroom discussion for review by parents?
I think that all classroom discussions should be recorded for review by _students_. I suppose that parents could listen to the recordings as well.
I think that whatever the other curriculum, kids in public schools should also be learning study skills. Those rare kids entering college with good study skills have an immense advantage.
One of those study skills should involve writing a class-outline to study from. Listening to the recording from a given day's class is particularly helpful in making outlines. And it certainly would help those kids who have an occasional absence.
I thought the FSM was a god, so what is the philosophical difference?
"Have evidence" and "able to show evidence to others" aren't the same thing. For example, if you see someone do a crime, you have good reasons to believe he is guilty of a crime, but that doesn't mean that you could prove it to anyone else.
This distinction seems to be a source of much confusion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your argument is nonspecific and untestable. You can use it to argue the rationality of believing literally anything, therefore your argument is useless. Let's see what else your argument proves:
Firstly, I wasn't attempting to prove the truth of the Bible with my argument. I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational. And yes, assuming the existance of an omnipotent God opens up a whole ton of possibilities, some of which (like smurfs) are fairly ridiculous. Which is why you go and look at the evidence for those things. On the side of the smurfs we have a television show created to entertain children. On the side of Jesus, we have written records from people who claim to be eye-witnesses of what is claimed to be actual historical events. On the balance of evidence, I'd say that while the existence of Jesus and smurfs are both possible, there is more reliable evidence for Jesus than there are for smurfs. That doesn't prove that Jesus existed, it justs demonstrates that it was possible Jesus existed (and did what he claimed to do) and that there is some evidence that he did. Not proved, but still rational. Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God.
God's existance is untestable, which makes it a useless scientific claim. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, it just means that science can't be used to determine whether the claim is true or false. The same could be true of many other pieces of knowledge - say, the existance of Julius Caesar. The claim "Julius Caesar existed" cannot be tested - science cannot state one way or the other whether Julius Caesar existed. What science can do is verify the historical evidence - we dated this letter, and demonstrated that it was written at the time Julius Caesar is claimed to have lived, we've found coins bearing his face in archealogical strata that date to the time he is claimed to have lived, etc. But just because a claim is untestable, and therefore, unscientific, doesn't mean it's irrational.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Time to dig up the word definition, eh?
It seems like "belief" is actually a word more appropriate to science than it is to religion. "Faith" is a better word for religious tenets.
From m-w.com (emphasis mine):
Belief:
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer "my belief that I had caught all the errors". FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof "an unshakable faith in God". CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof "gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness".
Faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs "the Protestant faith"
Certainly we "believe" in the results of well-designed scientific experiments, well-supported theories, etc., because there are solid reasons to believe in them. We don't have "faith" that science has all the answers, or is always right -- that would be a religious-style mistake. Some people have faith that science will eventually answer X or Y, but again, that's not science itself; it's wishful thinking.
And yes, there is proof for a God. I'm not using my existence or what I believe as an attempted proof as you assert; that would be downright silly.
Maybe you mentioned it in another post I haven't read, but could you perhaps provide some info on this "proof for a God"? If it's explained online, provide a link... if its your own invention, hey, put it online and provide a link. Or link your post.
There are plenty of people who will be happy to explain the problems to you. It's not as if no one has tried to build a proof for God. It's a problem that's extremely well understood by now, and if you believe in God, that's called "faith", because there's no evidence supporting it.
So how many sects of people who don't believe in Santa Claus?
...but people seem to think that implies a definitive proof.
That's the problem, isn't it? I can take a concept that's impossible according to natural law (i.e., magic required), and just state that I see utterly no reason to believe in it. What do I call myself? Neither choice is good.
If I said I was an asantist all of the Santa-believers would say "ah, but then you have to PROVE that Santa doesn't exist before you can say that... otherwise you're just another blind believer like us!"
Well, because Santa uses magic, perhaps he is actually personally providing children presents, but magically inserting memories into the parents' minds, making them think *they* bought the presents. And the poor kids who got no presents just all happened to be bad at some point during the year. Can I actively *disprove* that?
But I'll be damned if I say I'm santagnostic. If I do the Santaists will say, "ah hah -- even YOU admit that Santa may exist! Look, everyone -- even hard-core science people believe that Santa may exist!".
Same thing with God. I'm not "agnostic" -- we have plenty of knowledge about many of the things people say God did, and none of that knowledge actually supports the God suggestion. Of course I can't prove that God *doesn't* exist because you can't prove the non-existence of anything, but science is about levels of certainty based on evidence, and that level is plenty high in the "sorry but there's no God" camp to say "atheist".
Is atheism a sect? Of course not, any more than there's a "sect" of people who did well in biology class in high school. It's just a question of "do you consider the evidence" or "do you ignore it".
I'm the sort of asantist who, if suddenly there *were* a ton of valid evidence that appeared, directly supporting the existence of Santa, would update my viewpoint. Same thing with atheism, though in both cases it's extraordinarily unlikely to happen. This is NOT like theism, where in fact there already IS a ton of evidence contradicting their faith, yet they persist.
Oddly enough, I've had the sense of "awe" and all the other things people associate with visions of "god", yet I am an atheist. The imagery associated with it is different. I didn't see "god", I saw a series of images, symbols, and objects drawn largely (looking back on it with that 20/20 hindsight) from various recesses of my memory and imagination. It was like a massive sudden flood of intuition into what was going on around me that hit me all at once and completely overwhelmed me, rendering itself to all 5 senses at the same time.
But that is the point - so many who label themselves as religious really aren't.And what exactly is "being religious"? By my definition is to believe, have faith in something that can't be proved, or without knowing your self the proof.
It is interesting to see that this definition would turn science into a religion to most people, but I do think that most people see science as a religion. Only a few people in the world has the curiosity to study and care about knowing exactly why those scientist think there is a big bang, and take the proper care to read and understand what "survival of the fittest" really mean. So it's no wonder that so many people get really mad about "this science trying to step on their religions' feet", because for them science fits the same spot in their heads.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
Read the post you're replying to, given that the GP said "And if the standards are to teach that humans come from storks and that pigs fly, the instructors should teach this or go to a different state/private school." it is clear that he would. If you know what the teachers will be teaching and you don't like it, you could either prepare your child for it and explain why you believe it is wrong or you can send them somewhere else that teaches in line with what you believe. However if the teachers teach what they want rather than what they are supposed to, you can't be sure what your child will be taught.
Sure.
1. Find yourself a bible-based church and attend it regularly. Go to every service and help out where you can. There aren't as many bible-based churches as you think. In fact, there are probably more churches devoted to mocking them. If you actually plan to attempt this, I would be happy to provide more details on this. You can see my website's About page for how to contact me.
2. Simultaneously, pick up a manual. You can find it at any bookstore. You can also find study guides at bookstores in nearly every city in the world. I'd strongly recommend an appropriate study guide. Read Luke 4:18-19 and remember that everything else you read must be filtered through it. Read what you want. If you go into the OT, remember that you are in a different era. There's tons of good stuff in the OT, but a small but significant percentage of it doesn't apply once you're in the new covenant. Read a couple hours a day. I'd suggest the books of John, Luke to get a background, and then Acts.
Acts was what changed my life; I realized that if it were true, it would apply to the current era. And if it applied to the current era, it ought to be testable. And so I set out to test it.
"Oh, that won't work." That's because you haven't actually tried it starting with the belief that it might. You can approach this with skepticism -- indeed, I'd strongly encourage it. God wants to prove himself, he doesn't want you to just think "well, maybe." But you can't approach it with certainty that it will fail.
Send someone through this process, and they will hear God. Like I said elsewhere, it's a lot of work. I'd expect at least 1,000 hours (100 hours in services, and another 900 reading). But it's a big thing to prove to yourself. And it does work.
That may very well be the funniest thing I have ever read on ./, thank you.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
I don't need to defend this position extensively, it is a done deal in the atheist community. I'm just letting you, and others who are similarly confused, know what the actual situation is. You can check it out -- actually do some research -- and learn something, or you can continue on in ignorance. Your call.
The wiki article has been closed because it is filled with misinformation? How about some dictionary definitions then:
That was but three definitions I provided that use the root or stem "believe" in the definition of "atheist", here's a list of definitions from 16 other dictionaries. Now where's your research? No, you don't need to provide it, but if you want to correct or convince me I am wrong then I need to see it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This isn't just Christians. It's part of our modern (or rather, post-modern) culture. Just watch Oprah's popular show. She loves religiosity, but the moment someone who actually believes something, and has the slightest bit of conviction in anything but magical poop, she gets very awkward. Once she invited Billy Graham to the show and the the result was hilarious when he started evangilizing to her (well Oprah didn't think so).
This is not to be confused with religious tolerance. Tolerance is accepting people in spite of their belief. Popular culture wants to accept people and say that their beliefs don't matter (which I find rather offesive. If I didn't think my believes mattered I wouldn't be believing in the first place). Unfortunatly, many Christians have tried to synthesize Christian Theology with popular philosophy. It's been done many time in history, and has never done any good. Gnostisim was what happend when they merged with Hellenic phylosophy, Divine Right came from feudalism, Deism came from the enlightement and rationalism, the Roman Catholic animism that exists in many ex-European colonies, and that weird "God made black people our slaves" thing that came out of the Southern United States.
I think the real difference in our opinions here is the rough threshold we set for believing in unproven, unlikely things that we say is rational. My default position, and that of science in general, is to disbelieve things that contradict our current understanding of science unless they can be proven to exist and thus brought into our understanding of science. We don't have to understand **how** something works to believe in it. Science has plenty of room for "we don't know how that works" and feels no need to try and answer lack of understanding with a rush to say, "We don't know so it must be god!" We don't know != god. And it specifically does not entail the god of your choice. That there could be any number of invisible omnipotent beings doesn't entail that any one of them is remotely like the the one in the Bible. To assume that out of infinite possibilities of possible gods that may or may not exist to believe that only yours exists--with out any actual proof of this mighty being--is sheer arrogance backed by incalculable innumeracy.
"I was attempting to prove that belief in the accuracy of the Bible is not irrational."
I saw that. I believe that it is but my definition of irrational may be different than yours. I mean it in the "not logical" sense. You can and do argue that is reasonable, but our standards of reasonableness are different so it is unlikely that we are going to ever be able to convince the other. If I have a ticket for a lottery with 10 Trillion to 1 odds against winning, is it rational for me to declare with certainty that I will win; after all, it is possible that I could win. Yet, even though it is possible that I **could** win it is not rational to say that I **will** win. It is only rational to say that it is possible. The same goes for your claims that it is rational to believe in the bible. Just because there **could** exist a supernatural, invisible, all-powerfull being doesn't mean that the one the Bible claims to exist is real or rational to believe in. There is just as much evidence to believe in Zeus as there is to believe in the god of Abraham, but you easily dismiss the latter in favor of the former because of your personal prejudice towards considering the Bible proof of its own claims. Both the god of Abraham and Zeus are impossible to disprove as possible entities and both are so nearly infinitely unlikely that to believe in either is irrational.
"Each claim follows logically from the initial assumption; if you want to dispute the claims, then you have to dispute the initial assumption - the existance of a God."
You are referring to your syllogism, which I have approximated here:
"Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
An omnipotent god could do anything, including the miracles in the Bible
Therefore, an omnipotent god could exist so it is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
Unfortunately your syllogism is logically invalid. Let me tortuously reshape it to make it more obvious:
"The miracles in the Bible are the work of an omnipotent god.
Science can't disprove an omnipotent god.
The Bible is could be true.
If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true.
It is rational to believe that the Bible is true."
First, your premise presumes that the miracles did happen is based on flimsy evidence, but, ok, I'll stipulate to that for the moment. The real failing is "If something could be true it is rational to believe that it is true." Just because something could be true it does not follow that belief in that thing is rational. This is the point where you and I stick over and over. You, either for devil's advocacy or personal belief, won't budge from this position. There is no need to disprove your posited miracle that "god could exist" because it does nothing to prove that the miracles actually did happen or are even remotely **likely** to have happened. There are an infinite number of possibilities in this world and you can't say it is rational to believe in all of them just becaus
Stop doing your research in Christian publications (yes, most dictionaries meet that standard... especially English dictionaries.) Do your research in the atheist community. The definitions of Christians applied to atheists are inherently invalid and biased.
Now, instead of the little "sound bites" you get from these dictionaries, do some real work: A good starting point would be if you read George H. Smith's scholarly "Atheism - The case against God", 340 plus-pages of actual research, exposition and background. And of course, this work includes the correct definition of atheism (on page 7.)
Or here, or here, or here (though as usual, in Wikipedia, this article is badly tainted by the opinions and errors of non-atheists... it still lays out the idea and a close approximation of the boundaries), or here, or here, or here, or here, or here. And in tons more, just go google it. On the one hand, you will find the atheist community, repeatedly explaining what the situation actually is. On the other, you will find religionists (and many agnostics), trying to apply a set of outlooks to a set of people who do not agree that they hold said outlook.
You'll note that these sources pretty much all treat the subject in some detail, explaining not only what is, but why. These sources come from the atheist community, and when an atheist tells you what they stand for, you're a lot better off taking them at their word and intent than you are trying to fit some religionist's preconceptions on top of what they actually think. But it is, after all, your call. You certainly won't be alone; religionists (and again, many "agnostics") try really hard to misconstrue the atheist position. it is pretty obvious why they do so. In the case of the religionists, they want to apply the idea of faith to the entire set of atheists, when this only applies to the hard atheist subset. They do this in order to try and demonstrate that "faith" is "required" to take the atheist view, when the actual situation is that this argument only applies to the hard athiests — of whom, by the way, I have met very few. In the case of agnostics, they do this so as to try to stake out an imaginary middle ground between belief and lack of belief. There is no such middle ground, and agnostics are upset by this idea because, I think, they're trying to avoid the issue. This can always be resolved by a simple question: Do you believe in a god or gods, or not? The answer is "I do" or "I don't", and the answer clearly defines one who embraces theism (theist) and one who does not embrace theism (atheist.)
I am atheist. I hold absolutely no belief in a god or gods, nor do I ever expect to, nor do I ever expect to run into any evidence to the contrary that would cause me to embrace the idea that the idea of a god or gods rises above the standard of any other fairy tale. Given the complete and utter lack of evidence made available to me to date, my confidence that the idea of a god or gods is a completely human construct is extremely high. None of this is disbelief. It is lack of belief. I find the cup of evidence to be empty. Like any assertion for which no evidence can be found, asking for belief is asking far too much. Is the idea interesting? Certainly. Is it entertaining? Yes, that too. Is it woven throughout history? Yes. Has it affected the course of human lives? Sure. Should I therefore pay attention to it? Indubitably. Might it affect my own life? Yes indeed. Does any of this make t
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How, when, and where does the "atheist community" meet? I'm guessing they meet on Monday evenings in either an "achurch", an "atemple", or an "amosque", and that a newsletter is the "how". But how does one subscribe and is there a secret handshake? ;)
OK, seriously, I actually do know of an "atheist community" here at UVA (it's a student club), and one of my friends is an officer in it. It never even occurred to me to ask them how they define "atheist" vs. "agnostic" as I naturally assumed they used the "standard" definitions (i.e., American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc.). You might have a point about going to the group, however, because I left off the 2nd defintion for atheism: "2. Godlessness; immorality." (I kid you not.) Agnosticism also has a 2nd definition, but it's one that I have no problem with: "2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."
Your distinction between hard and soft atheism is adequate, but them I'm guessing "soft atheism" is synonymous with "agnosticim", no? If not, how are they different? (And don't try defining "agnosticism" as not knowing what you believe, because unless you can show me an "agnostic community" that professes such beliefs, I'm not buying it.
As for people who say they "don't know" what they believe, I'm guessing the majority of the time they're really trying to politely say that it's none of your business. (And as I say this as someone who is more likely to offend than to be offended in this regard.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
From the first link you provided:
Bring it all together, and you get "atheism" - without belief in god(s).
The suffix "-ist" means one who is or does. So, an atheist is one who is without belief in god(s). Atheists don't believe in god(s).
And the second:
So, literally, atheism means "without belief in a god or gods."
Depending on how it is looked at "don't believe in god(s)" and "believe there is no god(s)" may be the same, and the definitions I provided basically used the second or "does not exist". I however admit they are not the same as one says "do not believe in god(s)" and the other says "believes there is no god(s)". One is open ended and the other is definite.
In the case of agnostics, they do this so as to try to stake out an imaginary middle ground between belief and lack of belief. There is no such middle ground, and agnostics are upset by this idea because, I think, they're trying to avoid the issue.
Now you're doing what yopu accuse me of doing, there is a middle ground and not all agnostics seek to avoid the issue. I along with other agnostics seek to confront the issue, we don't hide from or avoid the issue. Along with others I seek to gain the knowledge of whether there is or is not a supreme diety, soul, or spirit. I have studied religions both on my own and in college and very much want to know if they exist, but since I don't I call myself agnostic, without knowledge, or faith. I used to believe but I lost those beliefs are I survived an accident when it would of been better if I hadn't. Know how you hear about those who've had NDEs, Near Death Experiences, say in a coma and/or after an accident? Yet, like I said above I used to have spiritual beliefs but then I had an accident which put me in a coma and I had none of those experiences. While in the coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, if I could talk to them now I'd give them an earful of how it hasn't been any miracle, that in fact it's been the opposite. I can only think if I still had faith it'd be so much easier, that it was part of some plan, instead I'm thinking maybe I was delusion before.
FalconShould there be a Law?
- its premise is possible (if not proven)
- its claims follow logically from its premise
That's enough for me to consider it rational. It's not enough for me to believe it, but its enough for me to consider it rational. I believe it due to other factors, such as personal spiritual experience, which aren't scientific or empirical, and don't have any place in an arguement about rationality. Those factors are why I believe in Jesus and not, say Zeus. I didn't come to faith by logically looking at the facts, considering the evidence, and deciding that the Bible was likely true, I came to faith because of my experiences. Then when I looked at the Bible, I found its arguments logical because I had already accepted its premise, and its descriptions and theology meshed with my experiences (whereas the legends of Zeus didn't).As I said, I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is true, or even likely. I'm not trying to demonstrate that my belief is correct, or that there is sufficient evidence to justify my belief. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"I'm simply trying to demonstrate that Christian's aren't necessarily raving loonies who cover their ears ears and chant "I'm not listening" whenever the subject of science comes up."
Clearly not. You, for example, are not, from my limited experience, a raving loony. There is probably some equivocation over the word "rational." I"m using it in the scientific sense of "logical" and I don't mean that "irrational" belief is crazy or insane belief.
It now seems that our primary dividing line is one one from positing a thesis to belief of that thesis. I can pose a claim that is logically possible and say I think this could be true. But, I can't make the leap to assuming that it is true. It is rational to believe that it is possible and that it could be true, but to presume that it is true is a leap of faith rather than one of logic. There is a vast difference from claims that follow and claims that are entailed. And I dispute even that your claims actually follow your premise, let alone are entailed by it.
I think what I'm trying to note is that many smart people look at the world through the scientific method, until the subject comes to their religion to which they grant an exemption from rational inquiry. You seem reasonable but I think you are, to a certain extent, doing the same thing. "I believe because it is possible." Although there is no test that can prove an unrestricted negative, such as proving an invisible all-powerful god doesn't exist, we can prove that certain events are scientifically impossible. You would, I think, respond with god, nothing is impossible. I could say that my invisible, all-powerful god says you are wrong. At that point the whole argument becomes pointless. Once you invoke the unlimited supernatural exemption to rational inquiry, all discussion becomes meaningless. Anything "becomes" equally possible or impossible because the rules of the universe no longer apply and there is no reason to assume that anything, including the Bible, is real or false. In fact, invoking a supernatural exemption doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it because under it **anything** is possible and the Bible becomes merely a tiny mote in the infinite unimaginable possibilities.
Could your religion be right? I couldn't say for certain, but there isn't sufficient scientific evidence for me to believe in any one religion let alone Christianity over all other religions. Pascal proposed that given the possible benefits of belief in Christianity (eternal life in Heaven) vs the cost (believing and practicing Christianity) that the potential payoff was so great versus the cost that one should bet on the truth of god regardless of how slight the chance is. The fatal flaw with Pascal's Wager is that it demands belief in any claim with a high pay out and small buy in. It doesn't differentiate between the validity of any of the claims. If Christianity promises eternal life, my religion can promise eternal life plus 72 virgins so you should believe that instead. Pascal's Wager can't validate Christianity anymore than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, the promise of an incredible (I mean that in the literal sense) pay off for a seemingly small investment is the hallmark of many fraudulent schemes right here on earth. Pascal's Wager when applied here on earth would demand investment in virtually every fraud and con there is, and I contend that the same is true when it is applied to religion. So, even great men can fall prey to irrationality when they compartmentalize religion from rational scrutiny.
It is not that I say you shouldn't believe in god, but that you can't claim such a belief is scientific, nor, to a lesser extent, rational.
You aren't using the same definition of "proof" as I am.
You're talking about a process that a person might go through to try to convince *themselves* (but no one else) of God's existence.
More on this in the other thread.
I'm talking about proof using logic, the scientific method, repeatable observations, etc. etc.. You're just talking about how a person might convince *themself* of God's existence. I believe you, though I don't agree it would "work" on everyone... but people who really *want* to believe, absolutely. Does this have anything to do with the reality of God? No.
Your proof can be an interesting exploration of the operation of the human mind, but we know something about that already. That's why the strict rules of the scientific method exists -- because if scientific conclusions were based on a bunch of scientists saying "sounds good to me!" as opposed to "your methods were valid and we successfully reproduced your results!" we'd still be back in the middle ages.
Stockholm syndrome is one obvious example of people learning to believe unexpected things -- not the same thing, of course, but hopefully it makes the point that saying "X process will make person Y believe Z" is very, very far from proving that Z exists.
That God exists, in comparison, is *not* such a big thing to prove to yourself. There are lots of things that happen in the world that most people don't understand (even if they are explained in a library somewhere!), and supernatural causes are an easy answer. Far less an easy answer than 2000 years ago, when people had no reason to *disbelieve* supernatural explanations, but still easy. Acts was what changed my life; I realized that if it were true, it would apply to the current era. And if it applied to the current era, it ought to be testable. And so I set out to test it.Sure; the holy books of various religions actually *do* have content other than "worship this God(s) in this way at these times". They generally have plenty of advice on more everyday things, like how to interact with other people, how to deal with conflict and difficulty. Humankind hasn't advanced greatly in our moral sense over the past few thousand years, so some of this is still quite relevant. These religious texts also try to answer the questions that people ask in difficult times, like seeking comfort when a loved one has died, or when chance happenings in the world seem particularly unfair and cruel, or when seeking direction in life.
Does any of this support God's existence? No, of course not -- it shows that *people* were grappling with these same questions when they wrote the texts in the first place. The same issues (and many of the same conclusions) are also in far earlier philosophic works in Greece, China, etc.. Just because you can follow some of Confucius's precepts and find that they still apply to people today doesn't mean Confucius was God.
I'm not sure why some people seem to think the Bible is either all factually true or it's just gibberish. Both of those options seem pretty ridiculous to me. It's an interesting collection of historical documents, documenting beliefs of the time as well as a considerable amount of moral philosophy.
If you read some of the ancient Chinese philosophy you can find plenty of cryptic alchemical formulas for turning various things into gold, creating a potion of eternal life, etc.. You also find some really incisive insights into human nature. Would the testable quality of those insights convince you that the alchemy part was true?
It's troubling when a New Jersey public school classroom is turned into a tax-payer supported madrassa for a Baptist mullah. No child there should be subjected to this bad teacher's radical sectarian beliefs.
If the Jeffersonian Wall hadn't been pulled down by villagers with pitchforks, we'd be better able to keep anti-science pastors in their churches, where their separatist ideology is voluntarily sought. But the Wall can be rebuilt. And culturally, our slide into medievalism can be reversed--before more kids are taught rubbish, more books banned, more research harmed.
This won't happen by showing tolerance to primitives. Just as in the Muslim world, our choice in the west is between modernity or antiquity.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
Sure, I'll take the karma hit.
There are those of us who have felt Him in our lives and thus have found evidence of his existence but lack that evidence for your dragon. Of course it could be merely a hallucination, but to me it makes more logical sense to believe it was God rather than a hallucination. Here are two arguments why one may choose the way I did, for those who care to read of them. The second argument was the important one for me, but I include both for the sake of completeness:
1. Argument by Fear: If I choose to interpret the sensation I had as a hallucination and choose to not believe in God, and I am wrong, then I may go to Hell (note that I said "may"). However, if I believe it was God and thus follow His will, I merely miss out on a few of the more "sinful" aspects of life (because in my brand of Christianity, science is not negated by my religious beliefs, so I don't miss out on science and rational thought). Taking either of these outcomes to be of any probability where an existence in God is even remotely, an eternity of torment is far worse than a lifetime of going to church (which, assuming the worst, would merely be 80-100 years of torment). This can be demonstrated by probability theory:
2. Argument by Trust: If I choose that I was merely hallucinating, then how can I assume anything I experience is real? I'd prefer that I assume as much of my experiences are real as is possible without encountering contradictory truths as opposed to believing my entire life to be a grand illusion. As I said in argument #1, I sure haven't encountered contradictory truths because of my belief in God, so choosing to believe in God has presented no problems in my life that not believing in God would not have (aside from debates with non-Christians, which doesn't really upset me at all).
I reject argument #1 because it gives me no reason to choose my religion over Islam or FSM worship.
Dawkins may ask me why I discount the flying spaghetti monster, and my answer is simple: I have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and thus there is less evidence for his existence in my mind than God's existence. While I believe evolution is the true explanation for what has happened on Earth, it has not been proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt (as most scientific theories never are). It is merely what most scientists believe to be true (perhaps 99% proven or whatnot -- I have a math degree, not a biology degree). Thus, Dawkins' acceptance of evolution is parallel to my acceptance of God. We both have strong evidence to support our choices.
It's just that darn second argument for me.
Interesting post, but you're wrong about P=NP. Here is a quick overview.
Basically, P is one set of problems and NP is another set of problems. It is "hard" to say if the two sets of problems are equally complex.
Man, you really need that seminar!
1) absence of evidence != evidence of absence
2) Strong atheism makes a claim that no god(s) exist. Theistic religions make the claim that a god(s) exist. While only one of these claims can be true, both are falsifiable (you can't tell between a godded and a godless universe based on physical measurements), the default is not atheism but lack of knowledge (because if measurements can't see god(s), absence of data doesn't mean anything w/r/t the hypotheses).
Strong atheism and theism make competing claims - because of the limitations of knowledge, lack of proof of one doesn't constitute proof of the other. They have to be proven on their own. Because of this, strong atheism has a bigger logical problem than strong theism because it is based on an assertion which can't be proven even if a measurement to determine the presence of a god(s) is available. I believe that this is why Dawkins et al. are dissmissive of the "weak theism" argment (the presence of god(s) can't be disproven) and place the burden of proof upon theists - they do not want too much attention paid to the unprovability of their own hypotheses.
Atheism asserts that there is no god/gods - a doubly unprovable assumption because of the inability of physical evidence to distinguish between atheist and theist theories of the universe, and the logical incapacity to prove a negative (by disproving an infinite number of theist theories). Atheism thus dependes strongly on faith, because its tenets can't be proven - to hold onto them thus requires something other than physical evidence. Naturalism has a similar problem with provability.
Rationalism would probably be the lack of belief, not either theism or atheism.
"Why not fire the stupid jackass and get someone who can actually teach in the class."
There's a certain reality called "the teachers' union" that turns your demand for compentant educators into a pipe dream. Puff puff.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Competent teachers are just as supportive of the teacher's union as incompetent ones. Everyone wants job security. Competent teachers probably want it more so than incompetent ones, because they don't want asses like the one in TFA to be able to teach in the first place. If you want competent teachers, pay them what they deserve AND support the teacher's union. Sure, it will take a little while to weed out the morons that should never have been teachers anyway. The point of the matter is that competent teachers choose to go into other fields, or choose to hold out for more prestigious positions in universities, etc., because public school teachers simply don't get paid enough.
No president, atheist or fundamentalist Christian, would ever take away your right to worship.
What I dream for is a country in which our government enforces my right to NOT worship!
Religious leaders have been very successful in manipulating politicians into blurring the boundary between religion and science, and ironically, it does as much harm to religion as it does to science.
Dawkins, myself, and I dare say most other atheists see the point exactly. The point, if you had ever actually read the introductory chapter of any Dawkins writings on religion, is that there is no difference between the hypothesis of God and the hypothesis of 'god'. The scientific and logical argument against either is exactly the same, and will always be so until actual scientific evidence of god or God is presented in a verifiable and repeatable experiment.
There is no debate, because there are ZERO arguments for the existence of God or god that have any kind of scientific data to back them up. Dawkins himself has stopped debating publicly with fundamentalist Christians because they disgrace the concept of logical argument. You can't argue with someone who fully accepts the inherent hypocrisy of their point of view. The debate is over before it even starts.
Just so you know how stupid you sound.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Every time some natural phenomenon is described accurately by science, we notice that is governed by laws that work alwys. No god needed.
That is why religious folk fear so much evolution by natural selection: it is a mechanism that requires no maker to work.
We keep discovering things, and the more we discover, the more apparent it is that there is no creator or divinity, because if there was one, we would have no rules in the universe, things could appear or disappear out of nowhere, the speed of light could be variable or have no limit. In synthesis science would be useless because the deity would be changing the rules all the time for impenetrable reasons.
The problem for religious people is that thes rules do not change. If the deity in question has decided to take itself out of th epicture, then for all intents and purposes it is irrelevant anyway. Deities are cornered to be non relevant or non existent.
Nowadays religious folk trying to reconcile the universe we see and measure with their beliefs are cornered to the moment just before the big-bang. It is the last infinitesimal moment in which a deity, chosing the values of the different constants governing how the Unvierse works, would have any relevance left.
One day we may very well discover why an electron has the amount of electrical charge it has, and why the speed of light is the number it is, but for all intents and purposes deities have been confined by science and observation out of the observable universe, and thus outside of any influence on how the Universe works.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Something you can measure and describe. Look at a dictionary man, it could not be simpler.
If you tell me god talks to you or to any others, sorry, but I did not hear it, do not ask me to take such thing as evidence.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I guess I hadn't made my position clear - I am a self-professed agnostic. I guess if pressed, I'd define "hard agnosticism" as the belief that one cannot know if there is a god or gods, and "soft agnosticism" (AKA "my position") simply that I do not know if there is a god or gods. So, presumably, you and I share the same belief, but I refer to it as agnosticism. I'm sure part of my reason for using that title is that I have friends who are quite certain there is no god, where I am merely agnostic on the issue. (Mind you, agnostic, with a tendency to think they are more likely to be right than other camps.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"If you want competent teachers, pay them what they deserve AND support the teacher's union"
That's contradictory: the unions generally oppose merit pay for good teachers while supporting tenure for the incompetant ones.
Where were you when the voynix came?
When you say balance, do you mean 50/50? Because very few self-described agnostics would hold that belief. If, however, you merely mean that we think that God is more likely than IPUs, then I'll accept that distinction. Of course, I will admit to believing quite strongly that there are no IPUs, whereas perhaps you won't? (Notice the distinction, again, between not believing in IPUs and believing in the absence of IPUs.) As for the evidence comment, I'll point out that many people DO have "evidence" of God. It's just not scientific evidence in the sense of being reproducible. I, personally, have felt a profound "connection" with God that I'm now willing to admit was most likely my imagination. Then, of course, there's the fact that one-in-a-million events happen all the time - but for those to which these events happen, they seem like good evidence for the existence of God (or Satan, depending on the nature of the one-in-a-million event, I suppose).
Btw, I also feel obligated to point out that my .sig comes from "Mere Christianity" - a book I recommend you read as it's much easier than the Bible, and you might find it illuminating. Then again, you might just find it nauseating. :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, then, let's begin to see where in that middle ground you want to make the case for your stand.
First, do you hold any fraction of a belief that there is a god, or gods? In other words, do you believe there is a deity or deities, anywhere, of any type, regardless of how closely they might or might not cleave to the various religious ideas prevalent today or in the past?
Second, as (presently, it appears to me) you seek to hold onto the central position between there might be a god or gods, and there might not be a god or gods, can you tell me why you find the odds for the two cases to be relatively balanced? I have found no evidence for a god or gods, just as I have found no evidence for invisible pink unicorns, and have come to the same conclusion about both, which is that sans any evidence (which would, I readily admit, be a huge surprise to me) they're both of the same order of likelihood, that is to say, not very likely at all. You, however, apparently have found balance between the two cases, and (as I posted at the beginning of the thread) can give me the reason(s) that you think it is essentially, equally likely that there is, or is not, a god or gods, that in turn showing how the comparison to the invisible pink unicorn presumably fails.
My interpretation of the agnostic position is always open to input from declared agnostics. It's just where I start from. I've not found anyone (yet) to really step outside of it, but I am certainly ready and willing to the day someone makes a decent case to me. Also, I've really not encountered very many agnostics who are open to discussion; that does tend to get them thrown into my prefab "agnostics are copouts" box, but in those cases, I don't feel very apologetic about it... they just feel like people who have taken politically correct behavior to an intellectually dishonest extreme to me.
You seem to be willing to discuss this, so by all means, please do.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Screw you. I get up in the morning because I enjoy life. The chemical reactions in my brain and body have evolved to make sure that I enjoyed life, otherwise, our ancestors would have killed themselves long ago.
So far, the only people throughout history that I've seen bent on self-destruction are those that think their religious views make them more important than everyone else.
When it comes to free will, what is your opinion? Would you consider yourself a "believer" in free will, agnostic, or, um, awillist?
If anything other than "awillist", do you understand the similarities to believing in God or being agnostic wrt same?
Personally, despite all common sense, I believe in free will in a personal sense, but in a scientific sense I act as if it is utter nonsense. Otherwise, my brain research wouldn't be able to get very far. :) If you're "awillist", than don't even try to argue with me, because I'd only have to agree with all of your statements and still say I believe in free will, and that might just drive you insane...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I never made the distinction of being paid by merit. I want ALL teachers to get paid more, so that there is more competition to become a teacher. We wont get rid of the bad teachers immediately, but they will be much easier to recognize.
South Park:
Deists were of the belief that there was a creator and were men of science. This is not a new position. Why do atheists seem to think that the presence of God necessarily implies that God is forever mucking about in the universe*? Wouldn't it have been an equally great feat to create the universe with a single explosion and let it go from there, like a great domino artist? You're getting too caught up in the specific Judeo-Christian beliefs, and while it takes faith to believe that a man came back from the dead, and while that can be a topic for later discussion, the existence of a creator or higher power doesn't rest on the stories people tell about that creator.
*See "The Baroque Cycle" for an interesting discussion of this.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
First, do you hold any fraction of a belief that there is a god, or gods? In other words, do you believe there is a deity or deities, anywhere, of any type, regardless of how closely they might or might not cleave to the various religious ideas prevalent today or in the past?
No I do not believe there is any supreme diety. Nor do I believe one does not exist. I have no belief one way or the other, though I would like to know.
Second, as (presently, it appears to me) you seek to hold onto the central position between there might be a god or gods, and there might not be a god or gods, can you tell me why you find the odds for the two cases to be relatively balanced?
I don't seek to maintain this central position you describe, as I've stated before I want to know if a supreme diety exists or do not exist. Nor do I find the odds of one existing or not to be balanced. Actually if I had to choice either way with the I have I'd have to say one does not exist as I sense no evidence one does exist. I won't even use Pascal's Wager to say a supreme diety exists. What was left out is what version of one or more exists. There's a multitude of different gods each with different characteristics so how can a person decide which one to believe in? And remember some of them are jealous and don't want any other diety worshipped. So you're up shit creek if you pick the wrong one. Actually as far as I'm concerned any "God" or gods that requires faith to be "saved" isn't worth being worshipped much less respected.
can give me the reason(s) that you think it is essentially, equally likely that there is, or is not, a god or gods, that in turn showing how the comparison to the invisible pink unicorn presumably fails.
Can you show me where I make this comparison?
I've really not encountered very many agnostics who are open to discussion; that does tend to get them thrown into my prefab "agnostics are copouts" box, but in those cases, I don't feel very apologetic about it... they just feel like people who have taken politically correct behavior to an intellectually dishonest extreme to me.
Maybe it will be easier to understand my position by knowing where I come from. Though my mom was and is Roman Catholic and we went to church at least some when I was little, I don't recall how much though, I considered myself myself as having converted to Buddhism before entering my teen years. I continued studying not just Buddhism but most other major religions including comparitive religous classes in college, even though my major was Computer Engineering. Eventually I came up with my own beliefs made up of Buddhism, Christianity, and Wicca along with other Pagan beliefs. However a little over ten years ago I had a serious accident in which I wasn't expected to live but ended up surviving a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. Afterwards, though I still recall what they were I no longer believe in the beliefs I had prior to the accident. And because spirituality was important to me I've been seeking to learn if there is anything there, metaphysically. I even kept up going to a spiritual groups I was a member of before the accident which was located at a small metaphysical bookstore. And I was most comfortable or at ease there than in many other places, the only place I was as comfortable if not more was where I was getting therapy in a neuropsycologist's office.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Use the money wisely: pay the good ones more if it means retaining them. Offer higher pay for new ones only if it will attract a better cut. Don't spend extra money just for the hell of it.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I've been reading this and I am sorry to jump in.
I can honestly say I do not know. I was raised in religion, but have seen things across the world that make me (for the last 10 years or so) dislike all organized religion. I do not believe in any particular religion or god or higher power. I just dont know, and have not been able to decide what I think. I have thought about this many time, and have always come back to "I just do not know". It's a weird feeling and frankly if I could just be done with it and state (with any real conviction) that there is no god or that there is god/gods, life would be much easier.
Maybe more agnostics would be more willing to talk with you if you didnt start out insulting them saying they are lazy and intellectually dishonest.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Did you see any horse racing or was your view blocked by a bunch of poker chips?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Due to a recent /. link I seem to be thinking it's time to update some older documents. All men are created only 90% equal.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
I wish more people would show up at churches to give news, rather then waste money by tithing ;-)
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
By all means, no need to apologize.
Ok, you don't know... what? You don't know if you believe or not, or you don't know if there is a god or gods?
If you don't know if you believe, then it is time for more contemplation. I don't believe because I only believe things that I can find evidence to support. Perhaps the question to ask in this case is, what is required for you to enter into the state of belief?
If you don't know if there is a god, well, you're in the same position as everyone else. No one knows, because there is no evidence. Theists don't know -- they can claim they do, but what they have is belief god exists, not knowledge, unless they can prove otherwise, and of course, they can't. Hard atheists don't know god or gods do not exist -- they can claim they do, but what they have again is belief, not knowledge. There is no knowledge of this issue, either way. That doesn't mean we can't reach some very firm conclusions about what we should believe (more on that below) but it does mean no one can definitively know the answer to the question.
The question of belief stands apart from knowledge. I can give you an example to prove the case. For instance, children believe in Santa and the easter bunny. They do this not because they have knowledge, but because they have been lied to; in fact, they believe because they do not know the facts. This (rather sad) example shows how belief is about an inner position that may be taken on no more than opinion or trust in someone else's opinion. Of course, one could believe in Santa after having met the man, which would be a case of justified belief, however, again, this makes my point -- belief can exist with or without knowledge, it is not really connected to the idea of knowledge.
But... if you want to talk about knowledge, consider how humans usually figure things out:
List A:
A List of proofs that Santa exists:
[empty list]
List B:
A List of proofs that Santa does not exist:
1) See List A
In other words, when we can't find anything to support an idea, we don't tend to grace it with belief, even if, as is the case with Santa, it would be nice if it were true. Those precise same two lists apply to god or gods.
Revisiting why one would give credence to the empty list for proof of belief in god or gods is worth doing for anyone. Sure, socially, atheism is poison. Is that a good reason to believe? Sure, it's fun to have a community, as in church on Sunday... Is that a good reason to believe? Sure, it's nice to have a set of canned morals and ethics laid out for you so you don't have to work at figuring out what is right and how, or if, context is important... is that a good reason to believe? I don't buy any of those, myself.
The question of theism is delineated by faith, by belief. "Theist: One who believes in a god or gods." It isn't "One who knows there is a god or gods", which would be something else entirely. The polar opposite is one who does not believe in a god or gods, the prefix "a" meaning without, and "theism" meaning belief in a god or gods. Often, people misread (and misapply) the word atheism to mean "disbelieves in god or gods" but this is neither a sensible etymology for the word, nor consistent with similar words (a:moral = without morals, a:gnostic=without knowledge, a:theism, without belief in god or gods.)
Atheists will accept you as one of them if you say that you do not believe in a god or gods. It is not required to either disbelieve, or to profess knowledge.
Theists will accept you if you say that you believe in (their particular version of) god or gods. It is not required to profess knowledge.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So which is it? Are you a liar or will you present the evidence?
Clever signature text goes here.
I find this hard to explain. I also find it quite personal and rather dark. I don't like where it leads and maybe thats why I don't go further then I don't know. Contemplation can be a powerful thing. Maybe I am not a point where I am ready to look that hard at that, or as you said maybe I'm lazy and intellectually dishonest, but I can think of few people who would readily admit that to themselves.
/.). It isn't because I have a belief in god, afterlife, or hell that I don't do that now.
I know I do not believe/have faith. What I have seen in several organized religions has caused that. I shun organized religion because for the good they do far too much harm is done and they will never catch up. It's an inherent feature of any organized anything (even school boards or local book clubs) to become corrupt and hurt people, because thats the easy thing to do. I also do not have my own singular hodgepodge system (I used to a long time ago).
It may be that because I was raised in/around many religions (minor christianity through my grand parents, hinduism through my parents, read up on buddhism and taoism myself, saw a lot of new age types around me doing their thing) that I do not say there is no god, and find myself getting by with I don't know.
I'd say I want to believe something, (cue X-Files music) but I don't even know if thats what I want any more. Ferreting out an answer right now seems to be too much work and far to painful a process to be worth the answer. That I guess makes me lazy and intellectually dishonest if I get what you are saying correctly.
There is a spark of something I feel, but I cant seem to connect it to anything any more. I call it hope. It isn't hope that I believe, or that there is a god. It may just be some echo from the past, a brief fluttering of feeling, of happiness from before reality/the world made thing clear to me how they worked. The ghost (sorry for using that word) of those childhood feelings you mention in your post maybe?
Because the way it feels to me is that if/when that last bit of me dies (good going humanity) I will probably give up... (or spend all my time posting to
God or the non existence of god seems to have no place in my life. Maybe one day it will or continue not to. I think that I am content with I don't know because I feel it does not matter.
Probably, as you said, we are using the word agnostic wrong. To me it seems to be the proper thing to describe how I feel since people seem to understand a little of my feeling from that. I don't use atheist because it does not seem to convey what I want to the person I am talking to.
Combating superstition is fine, but do you stand outside schools screaming kids who are won't step on a crack? I am both perfectly at home and terrified for my life in the dark. I can move and operate quite well. My problem is that some part of my irrational mind starts to murmur, most of the time I am able to ignore it, other times (quite rare) I am flooded with panic and terror. I can still operate and perform tasks with the same clarity as before because I know it is an irrational fear but it takes some effort to control the flight instinct. Superstition is powerful at times and humanity will never be completely rid of it. This does not me we let it rule our lives just like I do not let it drive me out of the dark.
I do know that I have a different view of religion then you. I don't see it as a poison if people are not doing harm. This would appear to me to place me as your enemy (because I fail to combat superstition). I agree with your view that letting it rule us is bad. The examples you give are bad and pushing religion is whats behind them. I don't know if your level of militancy (what I get from your tone, I may be reading to much into it) will help or hinder.
The problem I think is this is a complex subject touching on many aspects of who we are, how we are, and what we are. There are so many things caught up, intertwined, and cross connected in all of this i
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Hold on a second: I think you've misconstrued my position a bit.
I don't advocate forcing people down any particular path. I just tell them what I think instead of keeping silent and actually, that is the most basic founding principle of the country. Free speech. You can say what you want, and I support that, but so can I, even if I disagree with you. I just won't shut up when the public's perception is that silence is the "appropriate" response to a declaration of superstition rules the cosmos, or the more passive, but still harmful, "superstition is ok." I don't think it is ok, and I reserve the right to say so. Not to tell you what to do, but to disagree firmly and vocally.
I am very serious about this. I mean, I would go so far as to say exposing a child to religion as if it was part of reality is flat out child abuse, just as lying to them about Santa and the Easter bunny is — only worse. But I also feel that it is the parent's child and if that's how they want to raise them, then I think that should be their choice. If for no other reason than to protect my ability to teach my child about all the lies and deceptions in the world. I am no fan on any level of "mommy" government mechanisms.
No. I don't interfere with how other people raise their children at the level of the individual child. I try to only have discourse with adults. I tell children to talk to their parents if I get cornered on an issue like this. My position on public schools is that superstition has no place in them, pro or con. I confess to an urge to "load the deck" by encouraging teaching critical thinking skills in junior high school, but the odds of that actually happening are about zero, so... :)
Yes. Phelps is a poster child for all manner of sickness, extending far beyond superstition. I don't think he needs killing — I prefer that my enemies be allowed to speak at length, loud and long, so I know exactly who they are. There will always be homophobes (and every other kind of -phobe) until or unless we are able to actually engineer the flaws out of the human mind. Better to know who the dangerous ones are by letting them say what they will and attract like-minded sycophants, rather than to attempt to silence them. He's really not much of a threat; so far out in the extremes that not even religious Americans pay much attention to him. The more dangerous types are apparent moderates who can manage to get their agendas enacted into law. Homosexuality is slowly becoming more accepted, as well it should be, and will likely be followed by other alternative lifestyles such as polygamy and its brethren. Arizona, for instance, has recently taken a huge step forward; I take that as a very good sign.
By the way, should any god or gods exist that care about humanity on any level whatsoever, I have to think that they would hate Fred Phelps with a passion. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.