Right, get back to me when something "happens" and a religion actually does something.
Way to misquote me. What I said was:
Just because something happens to alleviate a fear does not mean that it's some nefarious plot meant to prey on that fear.
You're twisting the meaning of my use of the word "happens". Had I said this, you would have had no opportunity for your jab:
"Just because something alleviates a fear does not mean it's some nefarious plot to prey on that fear."
In any case, I could recount for you numerous personal experiences upon which I base my belief that my religion is true. But you'll call them delusions or something along those lines, I'm sure.
People like you ask for evidence, but then refuse to accept anything remotely resembling it - and when I tell you how you can obtain said evidence for yourself, you won't even bother trying, because you can't even make yourself believe that it's possible. I could break it down into three or four simple, foolproof steps, and you'd still refuse to try.
So sure, go ahead, ask for evidence in your most sarcastic voice, but you're going to have to convince me you're genuinely interested in evidence.
But that isn't the way humans are built, it is our natural inborn instinct to dominate, indulge, and act with cruelty toward one another.
And yet the vast majority of people don't act that way. How interesting.
I think it's funny how you're taking the actions of a small subset of humans - I would venture to call them a vast minority of humans - and claiming that their behavior is innate and universal to all humans.
To the contrary, natural human instinct is to band together in groups, and support and protect the group. Cruelty has no place in that group.
we are all born with innate desires that are neither neutral nor good (particularly in light of the bible ruleset).
Please point out a desire you have that is innate - that is, a desire that is not put to you by an external influence - that is neither neutral nor good.
But it makes no sense for a benevolent deity to make evil creatures, tell them to be good, and call it free will.
God didn't make evil creatures - he made neutral creatures, and allowed us to be enticed by both good and bad choices. We are the ones who choose whether we are good or evil.
But go ahead and believe we're innately evil. Remind me not to move into your neighborhood - I don't want neighbors that are as paranoid and cynical as you.
Unless you can come up with a better system than DNA to create such a diverse set of lifeforms that's resilient to damage and adaptable to changes in environment, I submit that you're woefully unqualified to give God a grade for his designs.
Yes... I've seen that kind of spectacle. Those people are grossly misrepresenting Christianity (no offense to any of you out there).
No, the healings I'm talking about are simpler - a sprained and severely swollen ankle that heals itself in a matter of hours (rather than days) was my particular "getting healed" experience, and a bedridden woman with severe back pain suddenly able to get up and walk around with no pain at all was my "see someone else get healed" experience.
Tithing should not be used to buy the preacher a new car. Tithing should be used to build church buildings in disadvantaged areas. Offerings should be used to feed the poor, send aid to disaster areas, and so on. At least, that's what my church does. Our leaders don't get paid (other than a few who receive a small living stipend because they would otherwise be unable to feed themselves), and any luxuries they have were earned through other means (i.e. their own professional work).
I would not be so naive as to claim that nobody is taking advantage of Christian beliefs for their own personal profit - but I hope you won't blame Christianity itself for the evils of a few bad men.
You simply create people with an innate "goodness" or even with a neutral inclination and let them wander, live, learn, and grow from there.
Uh... that's what happened. You just happen to be looking at things from several thousand years down the road.
A man cannot choose unless he is enticed by one choice or the other. Both good and bad choices have their enticements. Bad choices often have better-looking enticements in the short run - and people have a tendency to not think about the long-term consequences of their actions. (That's one of the things we have to learn to do.)
You have the order wrong my friend, unless there is positive proof it does not exist. Proving the negative is not necessary.
Ah, but now you're claiming something that science dose not claim.
For example, according to your claim, dark matter does not exist, because there is no positive proof of its existence. You cannot claim that $SCIENTIST is wrong for believing in dark matter simply because he cannot prove to you that it exists.
Similarly, you cannot claim that I'm wrong for believing in God simply because I cannot prove to you that God exists.
That was my point - you can claim that you don't believe in God, and you can even claim that you think it's silly, but you cannot claim that belief in God is factually incorrect.
Evil is not required for there to be a wrong course and hardship is not required for there to be a wrong course.
How can a child learn how to properly treat other people if that child is incapable of mistreating other people?
If the child is incapable of doing something bad (i.e. punching his friend in the face), he is incapable of learning why that thing is bad (i.e. his friend's nose gets broken).
The possibility of bad consequences is, in fact, a prerequisite of learning how humans should behave toward one another (rather than merely being told how we should behave).
Let's pretend God prevents our actions from harming others. I decide to get in a car, and drive it toward a bus stop packed with children.
What is God going to do? Stop the car? Move the children? Either way, I will learn only one thing from the experience - it's ok to be reckless, because someone else will stop bad things from happening. I don't think that's what we're supposed to learn from this life.
Say I'm a farmer in Africa, providing 50% of the food for my village. Let's say I decide not to plant crops this year. What's God going to do? Force me to plant crops? Plant them himself? Magically create food for the village?
The only thing I'd learn from that experience is that it's ok to be lazy. I don't think that's what we're supposed to learn from this life.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point by now. If bad consequences were impossible, then we'd all be lazy reckless idiots.
An omnipotent deity however can always create a being that already has the wisdom innately that the deity itself has without touching hot stoves.
An omnipotent deity cannot ignore the laws of reality. God does not work in spite of the laws of physics, he works through them. God cannot merely impart wisdom - we must be taught. It turns out that the way we can be taught wisdom is personal experience.
You're going to say "Of course God could simply impart wisdom!" But now you're dictating the laws of creation - and I hardly think either of us is qualified to dictate those laws. I'll base my opinions on what I can see, but you're free to base your opinion on unsupported suppositions if you want.
That's one of the main points of Christianity - to let us know that Christ was here 2,000 years ago to fix that little 'death' snafu we've got going (among other things). Sure, it's not immediate - but then, [my particular brand of] Christianity also explains why death is a rather important part of the process.
I'm not expecting to convince you of anything, but I am expecting you to realize that Christianity itself does not prey on fear, despite the fact that some Christians do.
No, you misunderstand. I was getting at something else - that there are plenty of examples of people getting something tangible as a result of obedience to $RELIGIOUS_PRINCIPLE.
$PERSON obeys some health code (abstain from alcohol, for example), and lives a healthier, longer life.
$PERSON is sick, recieves a blessing from $CHURCH_LEADER, and is immediately healed. (I've seen this one myself, from both sides of the wound... scoff if you wish, as it's anecdotal evidence, but I can't deny what I've experienced.)
$PERSON is promised "pay tithing and you'll prosper in the land".... and it holds true. (The one time I neglected to pay tithing, I ran out of money. Seems backward, but that has been my experience.)
I don't expect you to believe any of this. You can write it off as some enormous coincidence if you wish. I'm just saying, some people have these kinds of experiences, and thus they're basing at least part of their belief in $RELIGION on those experiences.
People like you, who appear to believe $RELIGION is meaningless, want people like me to ignore these experiences. What are you offering me that is so compelling that I should ignore things I've seen with my own eyes?
Isn't "test a hypothesis and see the results" the very cornerstone of science? Why should I ignore the results I've seen?
Your God, as you all claim, could stop this, chooses not to to prove a point or some shit.
To prove a point? No. Preventing the bad consequences of our actions would prevent us from learning from our actions.
I'm sure you're about to disagree. Perhaps you could present a way we could learn from our actions despite a lack of consequences to our actions?
YOU will go to prison too.
In this case, your analogy is flawed. You see, in your analogy, the father doesn't stop the son - but the father is subject to the law of the land. Furthermore, the father didn't create the victim of the crime. Furthermore, the father can't undo the crime.
None of those hold true with God. God is not subject to man-made laws. God created both the victim and the perpetrator. God can undo the effects of the crime (that is, the victim is dead right now, but the victim will be resurrected).
I don't expect you to use a perfect analogy, of course, just don't use analogies that are fundamentally flawed.
Free will would be great if we weren't such vicious, evil bastards.
Most of us aren't vicious, evil bastards.
nowhere did I make the assertion that "If COAT gave us Free will then COAT is a psychopath because we don't have free will."
Sure you did:
Would you prefer I had used a computer-analog? Ok... so you had the ability to set the "Axe Murderer" and "rapist" flags on your kid.
All of your analogies involving our axe-murdering rapist have involved God specifically choosing to make the person an axe-murdering rapist - in other words, your whole analogy depends on God forcing the person to be an axe-murdering rapist!
But let me poke more holes in your logic:
The posited omnipotent COAT gave us the ability to fuck up our children enough to make them axe-murdering rapist.
The posited omnipotent COAT gave us the ability to choose to be axe-murdering rapists.
$OPERATING_SYSTEM gives me the ability to jack up my settings such that it becomes unbootable. Does that mean it's a bad design? No, it just means I'm being an idiot if I screw it up.
$JOB gives me the ability to screw over the company if I decide to break the terms of $CONTRACT. Does that mean the job requirements are a bad design? No, it just means I'm an honorless jerk if I do it.
$CAR gives me the ability to drive into a bus stop full of pedestrians. Does that mean the car's design is bad? No, it means I'm a stupid and/or malicious driver if I do it.
Having a child gives me the ability to sell my child into slavery on $BLACK_MARKET. Does that mean the design of the parent-child relationship is bad? No, it just means I'm a terrible person if I do it.
My point is, the fact that "bad things can happen" doesn't mean the design is inherently bad.
Your whole "the design is bad" thing is nothing more than a complaint that "If God really existed he wouldn't let $BAD_THING happen."
I posit the opposite: If God really existed, he would let us learn from our choices. That necessitates allowing our actions to have consequences - and some of those consequences will be bad.
Sure, there are religions that prey on fear of death, just as there are jobs that prey on fear of poverty.
My point is that in both cases, it's unfair to characterize all jobs (or religions) as having that nefarious intent.
If you don't see the difference between your example and a religious promise, it's going to be difficult to continue the discussion.
I assume you're getting at the idea that a job pays something tangible, while a religion's promises are intangible... that just shows that you're not thinking about it very hard;) I'll provide examples if you wish.
You're assuming that "axe-murdering rapist" is in our genes, and you're assuming that God chose every single mating that led to this hypothetical axe-murdering rapist.
You are, of course, ignoring the following abundantly clear facts:
- We can (generally) choose the people with whom we share genetic material (please, don't nitpick and point out rapists, they're not relevant here).
- The way we raise our children has a great influence on their behavior.
- If someone is an axe-murdering rapist, they chose to be an axe-murdering rapist. Nobody forced them to pick up an axe and hack someone to pieces.
In other words, your assertion goes something like this:
- If we have free will, then God must be a psychopath, because he designed axe-murdering rapists.
He could then have given those good natured creatures free will to dramatically different result.
It's not free will if you can't choose to be evil. (If you only have one choice, it's not a choice at all.)
Even we know we shouldn't have free will, that is why there aren't too many people anywhere who are proponents of true anarchy.
I would put your claim a different way: We know we shouldn't do bad things. Anarchy generally leads to bad things. Therefore, there aren't too many people who are proponents of true anarchy.
You're painting "free will" as if it were a license to do bad things. It's not. It's merely a name for reality - we can choose what we want to do.
If we're not allowed to choose, we cannot learn wisdom. For example: let's suppose we are incapable of choosing to touch a hot stove. We are suddenly incapable of learning the consequences of touching something hot. Now extend that to every single activity anyone ever engages in.
Very quickly, we become incapable of learning anything at all, and you've reduced us to nothing more than biological machines.
I move we change the topic to "methods of defense against zombies attacks", seeing as how it will be far more productive that the current topic of conversation. Can I get a second?
So, no, it's not very interesting that Intelligent Design wants to answer "why", because it's not a question that has any answer.
Your unsupported assertion is no more valid than $religion's unsupported assertion.
The fact that you don't think there's an answer doesn't mean there isn't one; the fact that someone else thinks there's an answer doesn't mean they're a nitwit.
Besides, the relative interestingness of the answer to "why" is completely irrelevant to my earlier comments. I was simply pointing out that ID and science are orthogonal concepts, and they are therefore compatible. (That is, it is not contradictory for a person to both be a scientist and believe in God.)
The purpose of medicine is to cure disease, not cure the fear of disease.
That was my point;)
The purpose of Christianity is to cure death, not cure the fear of death. (More accurately: Christianity teaches that Christ came to earth to cure death.)
Sure, historically many Christian churches have taken advantage of that, and twisted it into a "obey or BURN IN EVERLASTING HELLFIRE" sort of thing. That really wasn't very Christlike of them;)
I still feel that promising eternal life if you just do x-y-z definitely is preying on the fear of death.
What if I were to say that "promising $100k if you just show up to work, write some software, and make sure that software works is just preying on the fear of poverty"?
Just because something happens to alleviate a fear does not mean that it's some nefarious plot meant to prey on that fear.
You may as well claim that doctors prey on the fear of disease.
Sure, Christianity alleviates that fear - but that's not its purpose at all, just like "alleviating the fear of disease" is an effect, not the purpose, of medicine.
I think it's ok for him to require students to do something to evangelize their religion, given that it's a religious school, but if his intent was simply to get people to evangelize, he picked the worst possible method.
If that was his goal, he should have had his students go out into the world, in person, and talk to people. Religion is fairly easy to talk about with people, in person - I speak from experience, here. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who was converted to $religion over the internet. It works very, very rarely - and again, I speak from experience.
Intelligent Design is NOT about questioning, it's about looking at something, then saying "this is god's work" and then that's that. Intelligent Design is anathema to science.
I disagree. ID is in no way incompatible with science, unless you think ID explains the "how", in which case you're mistaken. In fact, ID doesn't make any sense at all unless it's in context of "why", rather than "how".
See, here's the interesting thing - science doesn't try to answer "why", it tries to answer "how". Religion does the opposite. They are not incompatible - they're entirely orthogonal.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, get back to me when something "happens" and a religion actually does something.
Way to misquote me. What I said was:
Just because something happens to alleviate a fear does not mean that it's some nefarious plot meant to prey on that fear.
You're twisting the meaning of my use of the word "happens". Had I said this, you would have had no opportunity for your jab:
"Just because something alleviates a fear does not mean it's some nefarious plot to prey on that fear."
In any case, I could recount for you numerous personal experiences upon which I base my belief that my religion is true. But you'll call them delusions or something along those lines, I'm sure.
People like you ask for evidence, but then refuse to accept anything remotely resembling it - and when I tell you how you can obtain said evidence for yourself, you won't even bother trying, because you can't even make yourself believe that it's possible. I could break it down into three or four simple, foolproof steps, and you'd still refuse to try.
So sure, go ahead, ask for evidence in your most sarcastic voice, but you're going to have to convince me you're genuinely interested in evidence.
But that isn't the way humans are built, it is our natural inborn instinct to dominate, indulge, and act with cruelty toward one another.
And yet the vast majority of people don't act that way. How interesting.
I think it's funny how you're taking the actions of a small subset of humans - I would venture to call them a vast minority of humans - and claiming that their behavior is innate and universal to all humans.
To the contrary, natural human instinct is to band together in groups, and support and protect the group. Cruelty has no place in that group.
we are all born with innate desires that are neither neutral nor good (particularly in light of the bible ruleset).
Please point out a desire you have that is innate - that is, a desire that is not put to you by an external influence - that is neither neutral nor good.
But it makes no sense for a benevolent deity to make evil creatures, tell them to be good, and call it free will.
God didn't make evil creatures - he made neutral creatures, and allowed us to be enticed by both good and bad choices. We are the ones who choose whether we are good or evil.
But go ahead and believe we're innately evil. Remind me not to move into your neighborhood - I don't want neighbors that are as paranoid and cynical as you.
No, I do not concede that Christian beliefs are meant to prey on fears.
I agree only that some individuals take advantage of those beliefs and twist them to prey on people's fears for their own profit.
Unless you can come up with a better system than DNA to create such a diverse set of lifeforms that's resilient to damage and adaptable to changes in environment, I submit that you're woefully unqualified to give God a grade for his designs.
Yes... I've seen that kind of spectacle. Those people are grossly misrepresenting Christianity (no offense to any of you out there).
No, the healings I'm talking about are simpler - a sprained and severely swollen ankle that heals itself in a matter of hours (rather than days) was my particular "getting healed" experience, and a bedridden woman with severe back pain suddenly able to get up and walk around with no pain at all was my "see someone else get healed" experience.
Tithing should not be used to buy the preacher a new car. Tithing should be used to build church buildings in disadvantaged areas. Offerings should be used to feed the poor, send aid to disaster areas, and so on. At least, that's what my church does. Our leaders don't get paid (other than a few who receive a small living stipend because they would otherwise be unable to feed themselves), and any luxuries they have were earned through other means (i.e. their own professional work).
I would not be so naive as to claim that nobody is taking advantage of Christian beliefs for their own personal profit - but I hope you won't blame Christianity itself for the evils of a few bad men.
You simply create people with an innate "goodness" or even with a neutral inclination and let them wander, live, learn, and grow from there.
Uh... that's what happened. You just happen to be looking at things from several thousand years down the road.
A man cannot choose unless he is enticed by one choice or the other. Both good and bad choices have their enticements. Bad choices often have better-looking enticements in the short run - and people have a tendency to not think about the long-term consequences of their actions. (That's one of the things we have to learn to do.)
You have the order wrong my friend, unless there is positive proof it does not exist. Proving the negative is not necessary.
Ah, but now you're claiming something that science dose not claim.
For example, according to your claim, dark matter does not exist, because there is no positive proof of its existence. You cannot claim that $SCIENTIST is wrong for believing in dark matter simply because he cannot prove to you that it exists.
Similarly, you cannot claim that I'm wrong for believing in God simply because I cannot prove to you that God exists.
That was my point - you can claim that you don't believe in God, and you can even claim that you think it's silly, but you cannot claim that belief in God is factually incorrect.
Evil is not required for there to be a wrong course and hardship is not required for there to be a wrong course.
How can a child learn how to properly treat other people if that child is incapable of mistreating other people?
If the child is incapable of doing something bad (i.e. punching his friend in the face), he is incapable of learning why that thing is bad (i.e. his friend's nose gets broken).
The possibility of bad consequences is, in fact, a prerequisite of learning how humans should behave toward one another (rather than merely being told how we should behave).
Let's pretend God prevents our actions from harming others. I decide to get in a car, and drive it toward a bus stop packed with children.
What is God going to do? Stop the car? Move the children? Either way, I will learn only one thing from the experience - it's ok to be reckless, because someone else will stop bad things from happening. I don't think that's what we're supposed to learn from this life.
Say I'm a farmer in Africa, providing 50% of the food for my village. Let's say I decide not to plant crops this year. What's God going to do? Force me to plant crops? Plant them himself? Magically create food for the village?
The only thing I'd learn from that experience is that it's ok to be lazy. I don't think that's what we're supposed to learn from this life.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point by now. If bad consequences were impossible, then we'd all be lazy reckless idiots.
An omnipotent deity however can always create a being that already has the wisdom innately that the deity itself has without touching hot stoves.
An omnipotent deity cannot ignore the laws of reality. God does not work in spite of the laws of physics, he works through them. God cannot merely impart wisdom - we must be taught. It turns out that the way we can be taught wisdom is personal experience.
You're going to say "Of course God could simply impart wisdom!" But now you're dictating the laws of creation - and I hardly think either of us is qualified to dictate those laws. I'll base my opinions on what I can see, but you're free to base your opinion on unsupported suppositions if you want.
That's one of the main points of Christianity - to let us know that Christ was here 2,000 years ago to fix that little 'death' snafu we've got going (among other things). Sure, it's not immediate - but then, [my particular brand of] Christianity also explains why death is a rather important part of the process.
I'm not expecting to convince you of anything, but I am expecting you to realize that Christianity itself does not prey on fear, despite the fact that some Christians do.
No, you misunderstand. I was getting at something else - that there are plenty of examples of people getting something tangible as a result of obedience to $RELIGIOUS_PRINCIPLE.
$PERSON obeys some health code (abstain from alcohol, for example), and lives a healthier, longer life.
$PERSON is sick, recieves a blessing from $CHURCH_LEADER, and is immediately healed. (I've seen this one myself, from both sides of the wound... scoff if you wish, as it's anecdotal evidence, but I can't deny what I've experienced.)
$PERSON is promised "pay tithing and you'll prosper in the land".... and it holds true. (The one time I neglected to pay tithing, I ran out of money. Seems backward, but that has been my experience.)
I don't expect you to believe any of this. You can write it off as some enormous coincidence if you wish. I'm just saying, some people have these kinds of experiences, and thus they're basing at least part of their belief in $RELIGION on those experiences.
People like you, who appear to believe $RELIGION is meaningless, want people like me to ignore these experiences. What are you offering me that is so compelling that I should ignore things I've seen with my own eyes?
Isn't "test a hypothesis and see the results" the very cornerstone of science? Why should I ignore the results I've seen?
Your God, as you all claim, could stop this, chooses not to to prove a point or some shit.
To prove a point? No. Preventing the bad consequences of our actions would prevent us from learning from our actions.
I'm sure you're about to disagree. Perhaps you could present a way we could learn from our actions despite a lack of consequences to our actions?
YOU will go to prison too.
In this case, your analogy is flawed. You see, in your analogy, the father doesn't stop the son - but the father is subject to the law of the land. Furthermore, the father didn't create the victim of the crime. Furthermore, the father can't undo the crime.
None of those hold true with God. God is not subject to man-made laws. God created both the victim and the perpetrator. God can undo the effects of the crime (that is, the victim is dead right now, but the victim will be resurrected).
I don't expect you to use a perfect analogy, of course, just don't use analogies that are fundamentally flawed.
My point was, it is not contradictory for a scientist to believe in God.
Free will would be great if we weren't such vicious, evil bastards.
Most of us aren't vicious, evil bastards.
nowhere did I make the assertion that "If COAT gave us Free will then COAT is a psychopath because we don't have free will."
Sure you did:
Would you prefer I had used a computer-analog? Ok... so you had the ability to set the "Axe Murderer" and "rapist" flags on your kid.
All of your analogies involving our axe-murdering rapist have involved God specifically choosing to make the person an axe-murdering rapist - in other words, your whole analogy depends on God forcing the person to be an axe-murdering rapist!
But let me poke more holes in your logic:
The posited omnipotent COAT gave us the ability to fuck up our children enough to make them axe-murdering rapist.
The posited omnipotent COAT gave us the ability to choose to be axe-murdering rapists.
$OPERATING_SYSTEM gives me the ability to jack up my settings such that it becomes unbootable. Does that mean it's a bad design? No, it just means I'm being an idiot if I screw it up.
$JOB gives me the ability to screw over the company if I decide to break the terms of $CONTRACT. Does that mean the job requirements are a bad design? No, it just means I'm an honorless jerk if I do it.
$CAR gives me the ability to drive into a bus stop full of pedestrians. Does that mean the car's design is bad? No, it means I'm a stupid and/or malicious driver if I do it.
Having a child gives me the ability to sell my child into slavery on $BLACK_MARKET. Does that mean the design of the parent-child relationship is bad? No, it just means I'm a terrible person if I do it.
My point is, the fact that "bad things can happen" doesn't mean the design is inherently bad.
Your whole "the design is bad" thing is nothing more than a complaint that "If God really existed he wouldn't let $BAD_THING happen."
I posit the opposite: If God really existed, he would let us learn from our choices. That necessitates allowing our actions to have consequences - and some of those consequences will be bad.
Sure, there are religions that prey on fear of death, just as there are jobs that prey on fear of poverty.
My point is that in both cases, it's unfair to characterize all jobs (or religions) as having that nefarious intent.
If you don't see the difference between your example and a religious promise, it's going to be difficult to continue the discussion.
I assume you're getting at the idea that a job pays something tangible, while a religion's promises are intangible... that just shows that you're not thinking about it very hard ;) I'll provide examples if you wish.
You're assuming that "axe-murdering rapist" is in our genes, and you're assuming that God chose every single mating that led to this hypothetical axe-murdering rapist.
You are, of course, ignoring the following abundantly clear facts:
- We can (generally) choose the people with whom we share genetic material (please, don't nitpick and point out rapists, they're not relevant here).
- The way we raise our children has a great influence on their behavior.
- If someone is an axe-murdering rapist, they chose to be an axe-murdering rapist. Nobody forced them to pick up an axe and hack someone to pieces.
In other words, your assertion goes something like this:
- If we have free will, then God must be a psychopath, because he designed axe-murdering rapists.
Put more clearly:
If A, then (B because !A).
See a problem there?
He could then have given those good natured creatures free will to dramatically different result.
It's not free will if you can't choose to be evil. (If you only have one choice, it's not a choice at all.)
Even we know we shouldn't have free will, that is why there aren't too many people anywhere who are proponents of true anarchy.
I would put your claim a different way: We know we shouldn't do bad things. Anarchy generally leads to bad things. Therefore, there aren't too many people who are proponents of true anarchy.
You're painting "free will" as if it were a license to do bad things. It's not. It's merely a name for reality - we can choose what we want to do.
If we're not allowed to choose, we cannot learn wisdom. For example: let's suppose we are incapable of choosing to touch a hot stove. We are suddenly incapable of learning the consequences of touching something hot. Now extend that to every single activity anyone ever engages in.
Very quickly, we become incapable of learning anything at all, and you've reduced us to nothing more than biological machines.
I move we change the topic to "methods of defense against zombies attacks", seeing as how it will be far more productive that the current topic of conversation. Can I get a second?
So, no, it's not very interesting that Intelligent Design wants to answer "why", because it's not a question that has any answer.
Your unsupported assertion is no more valid than $religion's unsupported assertion.
The fact that you don't think there's an answer doesn't mean there isn't one; the fact that someone else thinks there's an answer doesn't mean they're a nitwit.
Besides, the relative interestingness of the answer to "why" is completely irrelevant to my earlier comments. I was simply pointing out that ID and science are orthogonal concepts, and they are therefore compatible. (That is, it is not contradictory for a person to both be a scientist and believe in God.)
The purpose of medicine is to cure disease, not cure the fear of disease.
That was my point ;)
The purpose of Christianity is to cure death, not cure the fear of death. (More accurately: Christianity teaches that Christ came to earth to cure death.)
Sure, historically many Christian churches have taken advantage of that, and twisted it into a "obey or BURN IN EVERLASTING HELLFIRE" sort of thing. That really wasn't very Christlike of them ;)
I still feel that promising eternal life if you just do x-y-z definitely is preying on the fear of death.
What if I were to say that "promising $100k if you just show up to work, write some software, and make sure that software works is just preying on the fear of poverty"?
Just because something happens to alleviate a fear does not mean that it's some nefarious plot meant to prey on that fear.
Alright. So if I, as a father, let my son do whatever he wants, so that he learns from his mistakes, I'm incompetent, psychotic, or evil?
If you ever have any kids, let me know how it goes controlling their every move. (If you try that, your kids will be very messed up.)
(If the analogy isn't clear: God allowing us to choose is no more psychotic than me allowing my son to choose.)
Fax? I received my Bible via e-mail, directly from God! Look at the return address:
From: god@heaven.org
Wait, that proves God exists, too! Do I get bonus points?
(For the person who's about to mod me "-1 Troll": this post is what is called "sarcasm".)
What scum write something like that?
Religious people.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "idiotic people." The fact that some of those idiots are religious is merely a red herring.
I'm religious, but I wouldn't ever draw that connection, because it's pure idiocy. Don't blame religion for the claims of stupid people.
You may as well claim that doctors prey on the fear of disease.
Sure, Christianity alleviates that fear - but that's not its purpose at all, just like "alleviating the fear of disease" is an effect, not the purpose, of medicine.
I think it's ok for him to require students to do something to evangelize their religion, given that it's a religious school, but if his intent was simply to get people to evangelize, he picked the worst possible method.
If that was his goal, he should have had his students go out into the world, in person, and talk to people. Religion is fairly easy to talk about with people, in person - I speak from experience, here. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who was converted to $religion over the internet. It works very, very rarely - and again, I speak from experience.
Intelligent Design is NOT about questioning, it's about looking at something, then saying "this is god's work" and then that's that. Intelligent Design is anathema to science.
I disagree. ID is in no way incompatible with science, unless you think ID explains the "how", in which case you're mistaken. In fact, ID doesn't make any sense at all unless it's in context of "why", rather than "how".
See, here's the interesting thing - science doesn't try to answer "why", it tries to answer "how". Religion does the opposite. They are not incompatible - they're entirely orthogonal.