The problem isnt really the idea and principles behing Unions, it is just how Unions are run in this country. Maybe not all Unions, but a majority of them.
Another poster mentioned the Major League Baseball Union. There you have a Union that allows for pay based on market value. A star player in his third year will make more than a mediocre second string third baseman.
Unions do not have to have even pay to create a fair environment. Instead they could create a system similar to sports where the schools are required to pay a certain amount of their budget on teachers. A school with 1000 kids would need 60 teachers (based on my old high school of 984 kids->59 teachers). The total pay for this school would be set at $4.1 million (again based on my own school by looking up salaries at www.thechampion.org). Each time a new teacher is added, the amount would rise based on some agreed upon formula.
The school then decides what each individual teacher would make. The union could be consulted if the teacher feels he/she is being treated unfairly, but the union would have to drop salaries somewhere else to increase an individual teacher's pay. If the Union thinks that all the teachers are being treated unfairly, then they could strike to increase the $4.1 million in teacher pay.
This could be implented in virtually any work environment. Unions in other countries can still negotiate for an individual person's salary. Our Union system is simply broken, thats all. They are just as harmful as corporate greed, just on the other end of the spectrum.
The problem is not teacher's pay. The problem is the fact that the teachers who are actually trying dont get any additional money.
I know plenty of teachers who do just the status quo and no more. They get to school at 7:45, and leave at 3:15. They probably do about a half hour per day of work at home. They get an hour lunch break and therefore only work about 35 hours a week. Their first year or two are tough, but after that they have worked out their lesson plans and have little left to do outside of school. They get an insane amount of holidays off (such as President's Day, Memorial Day, etc.), and about 15-16 weeks of vacation counting summer/winter/spring breaks. And even if they are pursuing education during their time off, that is similar to an IT professional reading computer books throughout the year to improve their skillsets.
That comes to about 1300 hours per year of work. Many salary jobs require at least 45 hours of work per week, not 40. With 2 weeks of vacation time that comes to 2250 hours per year. A teacher with the same level of education of lets say a salaried IT worker could then be expected to make about 58% of the pay. Add that schools give just about the best benefits that exist, it could probably be lowered to close to 50%.
As I said above, that only describes poor teachers. A good teacher probably gets to school at 7am and leaves at 4pm. They also help with about 1 extra-curricular activity, plus other work at home brings in another 15 hours of work per week. That really is 55 hours of work per week. That comes to about 2000 hours per year. Still not quite as much as a 45 hour per week work load, but alot closer.
But because of teacher's unions, both teachers get paid the same. I for one resent the idea that some of my old 4th grade teachers making a high salary for only 1300 hours of work per week. But I also resent some of the good teachers throughout my life making such low salaries for their extreme devotion. I wish that a school could pay the mediocre teachers $25k/yr, and the good teachers $60k+/yr. And I dont mean making them wait 20 years (since most teachers with 20+ years experience actually do make good money), but actually start making good wages just 3-4 years into their career.
But that wont happen with those damn teacher's unions screwing up our education system.
The parent post was titled Please Check Your Definitions. I did, and they did not agree with the gp.
What the parent post was most likely commenting about was that the author should not be using the textbook definitions of the words when criticizing atheists, because the standard textbook definitions rarely capture the true meaning of the word. That is why he broke up the words into their individual parts (such as [a] {without} / [theism] {belief in a supreme being}). The purpose was to show why the standard dictionary definitions are wrong.
By saying "check your definitions" he wasnt saying to check the dictionary. He was saying to check the true meanings behind the words, not just look them up in a dictionary whose purpose is to be as brief as possible on the subject.
but to get snarky at someone for using the words in the contexts that these mainstream sources define them as is just, well, being bitchy.
I was simply trying to comment on why the grand parent post was not incorrect, which you were trying to prove. I was not any more "snarky" or "bitchy" in my post than you were:
If you are going to criticize people for not doing the research, at least have the courtesy to do it yourself.
That is a very interesting question, and it is a good thing I run my own company or else I might get in trouble for spending so much time posting on Slashdot:-). You seam to ask out of genuine curiosity and not as an attack, so I feel it is very important to respond.
First off, you should begin by asking whether religion is necessary to create a moral compass. For that to be true then our morals would be shaped by what is in the Bible. But there are plenty of versus in the Bible that have a different moral context than the current world. Most of Americans do not view homosexuality as evil. It may not be all that well accepted yet, but I do not think that your average person thinks that being a homosexual is evil. A disorder maybe, but not evil. But the New Testament (such as Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, I Timothy 1:9-10) does describe homosexuality as evil (or vile, etc. depending on translation).
How can it be that people have begun to accept homosexuality? It is because people can and do create their own moral compass. It is generally designed by the society that they live in.
Morality can't be whatever is socially acceptable because that changes from generation to generation.
Societies change over time, so why couldn't the morals of the society also change? My grandfather is much more of a bigot than my father is, but they are both equally religious. Obviously their beliefs regarding good and evil are not tied to their religious beliefs, but instead to the contexts of the society that they were raised in.
there seems to be a universally recognized definition of what is right and what is wrong, and there has been around throughout written history (regardless of whether the people of that time/place followed this moral code or not).
People tend to think that our ancestors were simply evil people, because they practiced things such as slavery when they knew it was evil. But what makes us more "good" today than our great great grandfathers? How is it that our species evolved to become more moral in a couple hundred years? The answer is that we didnt. Our ancestors were not evil, they actually did have a different definition of "good".
300 years ago our forefathers actually believed that African Americans were sub-human. Just as the Japanese thought the Chinese were subhuman in World War II. They couldnt speak our language very well, their customs seamed barbaric and heretic, and they looked so very different. That is why they were compared to monkeys, and they were only a little better than monkeys in the eyes of our forefathers.
Our ancestors were not evil, just ignorant. It took hundreds of years for the progressive people of their day to finally convince the average man that an African American was just as human as a Caucasion. There was still racism and hatred, but it only took a little over a hundred years for black men and women to gain the same rights as white men and women. There is still racism, but no one could say it is even close to what it was even 50 years ago. And it will continue to improve.
I read an article about a month ago that described a play in the 1800s were the main character said he could identify a black person by their stench. A black man could try to dress up like a white man, but could never get rid of their stench. That was considered funny to the audience of their time, but is considered in very bad taste today.
The same will probably be said about gay jokes in another 100 years. That commercial during the Superbowl where two men accidentally kissed will not be considered funny, but instead in very bad taste. Maybe it will take 200 years, or maybe only 50, but we will probably "evolve" as a society. I myself am actually a little disgusted when two men kiss; I cannot help it. I have had two close gay friends in my life but I have yet to get over it. It is most likely because of how I was
I do understand your argument, and I still maintain that it is quite silly.
Nothing about what he said is silly, it just might disagree with the God portrayed in the Bible.
Deity X (if it exists) decides what is true and what is not. So, if your logic does not agree exactly with deity X, then your logic is faulty.
No, the logic does not have to be faulty. He is just saying that he does not agree with the system of morals portrayed in the Bible. I also agree that the love for one's neighbor far outweighs the belief in any great entity, whether it be a religous figure, political figure, parent, or even diety. Someone can lead a good life and improve the world around them without the belief in a diety. But I do not believe that someone can be considered a good person if they do not care about anyone but themselves and God. This is why I find Jesus' second commandment (Matthew 22:39) to be far more important than the first (Matthew 22:37), regardless of what is written in the Bible.
You can even believe in a God but not necessarily believe everything written in a text that was scribed by men. It is also not impossible that an all powerful and all knowing being could also suffer from vises such as vanity. He is actually a prime candidate for such a problem. That is why I agree with the parent poster who believes that a God who puts worshiping himself above all else is not a God worthy of worship.
Even if that viewpoint does not agree with an omnipotent and omnicient God, I do not think that is silly. What I think is silly is the Bible's standpoint on the matter.
And what "effects" are these that you have examined so very carefully?
Well there is the fact that there are various different religions worshiped today, and in eons past. Many of them are very different, even though three of the major ones today (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have alot of similarities.
The fact that belief in a religion is very close to 100% determined on where you were raised. Belief in Christianity is no different than being a Bears fan, the only reason you are one is because you were raised to be one. The number of Christians (or die hard Bears fans) that believe out of convenience far outnumbers (probably far higher than 99%) the number who became one from unbaised internal objective reasoning.
The fact that miraculous events (such as within religious texts) only happened thousands of years ago, but no longer happen today now that we have the ability to debunk them.
The fact that religious beliefs have "evolved" along the ages from primitive belief in an anthropromorphized sun, bison, etc. to a monotheistic all powerful God. There is no evidence of a belief in the current gods before Abraham's time, because they hadnt been invented yet.
There are plenty of other aspects of religion to be examined, but I am at work and cannot take a 4 hour break to list them. Realize that NONE of these give a 100% proof that God does not exist, but they continue to bring the possibility lower and lower.
The only difference between God and Santa Claus is that 90% of Americans do not believe in Santa Claus. No one can actually point to the exact time that Santa Claus was created, just as we cannot point to the exact time that Yahweh was created. But real research into either topic can yield very good theories that are far more probable than the belief that either actually exists.
The sources that you are using are incomplete. They do not seperate anti-theism and atheism. I have looked at both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and here is no definition for anti-theism at all. That is why in their case they have just combined the two definitions into one word. This works fine because that is the definition that is more commonly used (incorrectly however) for the word atheism.
The Wikipedia passage that you quoted actually does mention the more correct defintion for the word atheism.
However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities
You can define atheist as anything you want, but I will let the atheists decide how the word is to be defined. Even if the rest of the world wants their own definition (which conveniently paints atheists in a bad light), you cannot criticize a group of people for opinions that they have never had. Keep your misconceptions, but atheism is not a belief that there is no God. It is the lack of belief in a God.
But if that's true, then why can I find a magazine devoted to Not Believing in God, but I can't find, say, a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought" or "Not Interested in Model Railroads Monthly".
Wait a minute, are saying that having a magazine about a topic makes it a religion? Is there a religion worshiping outdoor photographing or paper crafts? Because there is an "Outdoor Photographer" and a "Paper Crafts" magazine. Having a magazine about a topic does not make it like a religion.
Having a magazine just means there are enough people who are interested in the topic. Not a single atheist would give their opinions on the matter a second thought if it wasnt for all the religous people in the world. That is what makes such a magazine interesting and necessary.
I will give you an example of a society that would produce a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought". In this society they believe that everyone should collect stamps, and that no one could enjoy true happiness without collecting stamps. Only people who collect stamps will have a happy afterlife. Only people who collect stamps have any chance to win in public elections. The very act of asking someone to explain why they decided to collect a certain type of stamps is considered off limits because people are offended when you bring up the fact that they have no reasonable reason to only collect that type of stamp.
In this world there would probably be a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought", where reasonable and intelligent people can discuss why it is okay to not collect stamps. That wouldn't make Non-Philatelist thought a religion.
$1M per year is like $650K per year after taxes, and then there are significant expenses that usually come with jobs that pay so well. Even if you think you can live on ramen and catchup, you won't if you want to maintain a job with that pay level.
Who is talking about Ramen and Catchup? Thats a good point about the taxes, but then again I used a very low interest rate for money growth as well. Okay, I will use your $650k/yr figure but use a more realistic 8% yearly growth figure.
Lets say that you are trying to save as much as you can, but because your job entails alot of expenses you are living on $100k/yr (plus your spouse's income if applicable). That means after 2 years you have saved $1,144,000 in the bank. Then you get a lower paying job/hobby that you love and start living on $60k/yr for the rest of your life.
By the year you start this that $60k is more like $64k because of inflation. To keep up with inflation over 40 years you will be giving yourself about $200k/yr in 2047. But with an 8% growth rate and taking out your yearly income, you would still have over $1 million in the bank in 2047. That is with no other income at all.
Stay at work for 3 years and you can take out $90k/yr for life. $1,000,000 is still ALOT of money.
While 1 million per year MAY be so high as to produce the kinds of high-end effects you propose (early retirement, part-time work, etc.) I doubt a million dollars per year is as much money as you act like it is.
While I know that $1 million per year is just some high number you through out, I think it is odd that you do not realize how much money that really is. $1 million per year for 2 years would be more than enough for anyone to retire on if they wanted. $2 million in the bank making only 5% per year is $100k/yr. Anyone could live on that if they wanted to. Expecially if they are leaving their IT work to find a job they are passionate about, because the $100k/yr would just be supplementary. If they can live on only $40k/yr (plus their spouse's income) then their income would rise with inflation.
If $100k/yr (or $40k/yr) isnt enough, hen just work for 4 years and get double that.
Was it that customer didn't want Linux or that they were wary of buying a Wal-Mart branded computer.
Since Walmart still does sell Windows computers, there obviously is a customer base out there that is willing to buy computers at Walmart. It is just that this particular market base was not willing to buy Linux computers.
Heheh, great way to respond. "My feelings are hurt so I am just going to curse at you!"
Do you really think I am going to try and refute your strawmen if you start out with a sentence that says your flat out going to dismiss all I say because you consider me 'brainwashed'?
That is fairly funny that you call my arguments "strawmen", when your response is the one that is a textbook definition of that very technique. Instead of refuting my responses, you signal in on one fairly irrelevant statement to make it look like you have.
Why do you assume I believe those things? It is not necessary to actually believe in something to correct others' misapprehensions.
There is nothing in your comment makes it sound like you are being rhetorical. You either believe what you were saying, or at least think that the Christians who believe that stuff have a reasonable argument. While the word "brainwashed" may have overly negative connotations, I believe it is an accurate word to use on anyone who can study Christianity as much as you seam to have and have not written their beliefs off as simple rationalizations.
It is either that or you just have fun pretending to be brainwashed. --
Yes, I know that is what you said, and you are wrong. Attempts to "explain the unexplainable" with religion (i.e: God did it) are, at best, a side product of a superstitious and ignorant period of human history. Prior to Christianity, people simply referred to the unexplainable as supernatural and magical.
Prior to Christianity, people believed that Atlas held up the sky. They believed that Prometheus gave humans fire. They believed that Gaia created the world we live in. Or they believed that Re-Atum appeared from the water and created the Gods that ended up creating the world. Or they believed that Tiamat was killed by Marduk and her body was used to create the universe.
"God did it" was not a Christian creation. The first human religions were most likely little more than attempts to anthropromorphize the world around us (the Sun, the Seasons, the Cattle) so that we can attempt to control the uncontrollable. If they knew why the Sun rises, or why one growing season was more productive than another, they could control the world around them by worshoping the gods that control the world.
Even if this is not a completely accurate theory of the origin of religion, your claim that Christianity started the practice of superposing supernatural beliefs onto gods is incredibly innaccurate. You are correct however that superstition arises from ignorance, which is the same place that religion originates from.
Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is not. More importantly, science is a tool for understanding and manipulating the world around us, and religion is a social construct. Suggesting that the existence of science nullifies the need for religion is just as absurd as suggesting that visual art nullifies the need for music.
Science is the study of the world, the entire world. Science is what takes the supernatural and merges that into our understanding of the natural world. Lightning was supernatural, and science made it natural. Floods were supernatural, and science made it natural.
Even if religion is just a social construct, that is still within the realm of science. Sociology, psychology, history; all of these fields deal with social constructs. And all of these fields take observations to create hypotheses which are then further studied to create theories. Sounds alot like the scientific process to me.
Science and religion are not different things, like visual art and music. They are different ways of viewing the same world. Science does nullify any rational reason to be religious. You are correct that it doesnt nullify all irrational and ignorant reasons for religion, but I do not believe that is a strong case for the importance of religion.
And, as I said before, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God. It doesn't suggest or deny the existence of God in any way. People try to use it for this purpose, but it is logically impossible to use a scientific theory to describe a concept that has no substantive presence in the natural world.
If there was no other valid explanation for the creation of the world, animals, and humans; then being religious becomes are far more rational belief. Or at least that is how a large percentage of Christians view it. Evolution does not deny the existence of God, but it does provide a rational alternative. It is that rational alternative that they fear.
The words "prove" and "disprove" don't mean anything without a context. In the context of science, you form models to describe the natural world based on known observations. You can absolutely disprove any scientific model with the appropriate observation.
You can disprove a scientific model. But you cannot disprove a non-scientific model. The existance of the Christian God is not a scientific model. That does not mean that you cannot study a non-scientific model scientifically. Psychologists study the origins of psychotic beliefs all of the time, using psychology, neurology, etc
Wow, it must take alot of brainwashing to believe that stuff.
It was not curiosity that was the reason for the Fall. Knowledge of Good and Evil implies the capability to act on either of them. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they had gained the capability to do Evil, which is something that does not belong in Paradise, which is a realm of absolute Good.
Someone can do evil acts without knowing that it is evil. An autistic individual with no idea of life or death can still kill a hundred people. Him not knowing that it is bad to kill people does not make the act any less evil. If it did, then the very idea of good and evil looses all meaning. A society that throws disobedient children off of a cliff could not be considered evil if they think it is an acceptable way to keep people in line.
If it is basic theology to warp what is in the Bible to cover up its glaring problems then I am glad that most Christians do not study much theology.
God forbade the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge because it would disturb the balance of Paradise by introducing the knowledge of Evil.
How could you or any other theologian possible believe that you know why God does anything. If he does exist then he has a sense of judgement and morality that is far different from ours. As far as any theologian could possibly decern is that God forbid eating from the tree because Adam and Eve would surely die (Genesis 2:17).
The reason for the prohibition was promptly validated by the fact that Adam and Eve started by lying about their act, denying that they had taken from the Tree and trying to place blame on others.
Adam and Eve were already capable of disobedience and wrong doings before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because they ate the apple. They never belonged in Paradise in the first place according to your account.
Apart from whether or not you believe this, only a deliberate misreading of the text and the exegesis done on it over the centuries could lead someone to state that mere curiosity led to the Fall. It didn't. Neither did mere disobience.
If I convince a child to do something that their parents told them not to, I deserve the blame. Expecially if the child has no idea what the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
As for the resolution of this, this is why Christians believe Jesus' death leads to forgiveness for Original Sin: Jesus shows the ultimate Good, sacrificing yourself for others.
But again, that is only a human interpretation of Jesus' death. And it makes sence because it gives the creators of the Christian faith a good recruitment tool. There is no mention of "original sin" in the Bible. It is no less embarrasing than the idea of Pergatory.
The Bible was written in a time when people were not educated. It was probably not the intention of the original writers to say that knowledge is a bad thing, but that is exactly what the text implies.
There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.
Wait a minute. Are you actually comparing the U.S. to theocracies and dictatorships and saying it is a good thing that we have alot in common with them?
Wow, thanks for that terse summary. It is good to know that the entire human construct of religion, which has existed in some form in every society for thousands of years, can be summarized in one line of Western, eurocentric, pseudo-Christian philosophy
Uh, did you read the part where I said "One of the fundamental reasons"? I never said that this was the only reason religion was created. I never even said it was The major origin of religion. I just said it was one of the major reasons religion was created and has endured for so long.
Look people, the scientific Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God.
That is the reason that this whole evolution discussion is such a problem. People who do not confess that there is no seperation between science and religion. Absolutely nothing is outside of science's realm, because science can cover everything and anything that we can percieve. Just because it is not measurable yet or visible yet, doesnt mean it isnt within the realm of science.
Religous people are frightened by the Theory of Evolution because it allows for the possibility that there are no Supreme Beings. It makes it more plausable to not believe in God. That is the conflict, and it is real.
Notice how I made no mention of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
You cannot truly prove or disprove anything with 100% certainty. The last 2 weeks of your life might just be an elaborate dream, so you cannot prove that anything you have done recently actually happened. All you can do is have a certain level of certainty.
I have a 99.999999999999999999999% certainty that my hair color is red. I could be scizophrenic and just cannot accept that it is actually blonde, but I am fairly certain that I am sane and that my hair is red. Of course I am not 100% certain.
You can never be 100% certain that God does not exist. But you can use science (anthropology, psychology, etc.) to determine the likeliness that a God exists. Having a working hypothesis and then theory about how and why humans created early religions goes a long way to disproving that God exists. That is just one example, but there are many more.
If you are atheist, fine, that is your choice. Just be intelligent about it, and don't drag science into your religious or anti-religious arguments.
I am being intelligent about it. And science should be dragged into any religious argument, just as it should be dragged into just about any argument. Using the scientific method is valid in any discussion.
Yes, and we call those facts. Science is about facts. When I do this, this happens. That's a fact. Now I work towards a theory based on those facts and when I have one that seems to fit, well, we go with that. But it's based on facts, whereas faith is based on beliefs.
Those are still not facts. They are observations. Calling them facts distorts the meaning of the word within the confines of scientific literature. A lawyer can call them facts, but a scientist cannot.
No, that's not the why, it is the what. What makes the sky blue. What makes a ball fall down when you drop it. What makes the human brain blah blah blah. Why is why are these things the state of affairs? Why is THIS the way the universe turned out? That is an entirely different question.
No, it is the why. Why is simply a pro-adverb that is used in questions concerned with causality. A simple definition for the word why is simply: for what reason/cause/purpose? (Ex. Why is the sky blue? = For what reason is the sky blue?) Why and What are fundamentally the same interrogative words just said differently.
What you are trying to do is only ask questions that have not been answered yet with Why, but ask questions that have been answered with What. Why is THIS the way the universe turned out? is not an unanswerable question for science. If we ever found the building blocks of the universe then we may find out why gravity and electromagnatism, etc. work the way they do.
The same why questions you have are just as unanswerable by religion.
Why does God love us? Because we are his creations. Why does he love his creations? Because we were created in his image. Why does he love that which is created in his image? Because he does... But why does he? Because he does... But why? BECAUSE HE DOES!
Right, the *potential* for evil was there, but as far as I can tell Adam and Even were the ones to bring it into actuality. Acording the Genesis, God created the world... and it was "good." What I'm getting that a "natural" world, without good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, would appear to be the ideal situation. Why continue to encourage a world where good fights evil and everyone suffers for it?
I agree with what you are getting at, and this argument is mostly about semantics, but I think it is very important semantics.
God created evil (if you believe in God that is). If he created the world, and it has evil in it in any form, God created evil. If I create an artificially intelligent tank and give it missiles that I tell it not to use, I created the missiles. Just because I gave the tank free will doesnt mean that I still didnt give it the capacity to shoot missiles. I may not be the cause for every missile firing, just as God would not necessarily be the cause of all evil. But God would still be the one who created the capacity for evil when he created a being that was capable of evil acts.
because Science doesn't deal with the Why (which in this case also encompasses the Who,) it deals with the What, When, Where, and How.
That is rediculous. Science deals with the "Why" all of the time.
- Why is the sky blue? - Why does a ball fall down when you drop it? - Why is the human brain capable of believing in religion?
Another reason that science and religion don't actually conflict is that religion is about faith, while science is about fact.
Another incorrect statement. Science is not about fact. A simplistic view would be that science is about reproduceable and predictable phenomenons. Science is not about finding facts; it is about creating theories that allow to to produce useful knowledge about how the world works.
Most of what I have said is semantics, but it is very important semantics. VERY VERY VERY Important semantics.
The Christians that make the news (as Christians) are usually the ones that are crazy psychotics trying to enforce their own morality on other people- The Jerry Fawells, Jack Thompsons, and Clinic bombers. The Christians who don't make idiotic statements, don't try to legislate morality, understand the history of their faith, are honest about the limitations of their knowledge, and continue being Christians have my respect. Yes, they are the minority of Christians- but intelligent people are in the minority of almost any group. Even on Slashdot they are hard to find.
Ordinary Christians are still part of the problem. The may not be fanatics, but they lend credibility to the fundamentalists. In a world where the majority of people are not religious in any way, psychotic beliefs such as having a personal relationship with an omnipotent being would be treated as schizophrenia. But in our culture we give credibility to mear faith.
Faith is a good thing. If I didnt have faith that my car would start without a thorough inspection each morning I would have to get up 3 hours early for work. Without faith in my parents I wouldnt be able to take a week vacation without the kids every few years.
But faith has to be grounded in reality. My car started the last 1400 days in a row, and my parents did a good job raising me so they should be able to do the same with my kids for a week. Faith in a God that no one has ever met, and with no proof of his existance, is not grounded in reality.
But ordinary non-fundamentalist Christians make this kind of faith a virtue. That only makes the fundamentalists feel that they are the most virtuous of all Christians because they have the strongest faith.
Some things are okay in moderation. It is okay to drink every once in a while as long as you arent a drunk. But we do not give reverence to our ability to drink. People who do (such as some college students) are doing a disservice to those around them, and putting others in danger.
Being an ordinary Christian is not okay just because you are not a fundamentalist. It is still dangerous.
I gave man free will, and I'm a little upset that man has used that free will to turn away from me.
If I were even a fraction as smart as an omniscient being, I would not be surprised or upset that humans dont believe in me if I went out of my way to make sure there is no proof that I exist. In fact I would be ashamed of my creation if they still believed in those books thousands of years later with no proof. It would just mean I have to go back to the drawing board and create a more intelligent species.
s/Christians/strict creationists They're not synonymous. Though if you really think that ALL Christians are either stupid or intellectually dishonest, there's probably not much I can do to change your bigotry (and those of whoever modded you Insighful).
You are correct, he should have used the word "irrational" instead of stupid. A majority of Christians are just stupid (just as most humans are generally not that bright), but the ones who have actually thought about their faith and still believe are just irrational.
But the general meaning of what he said is the same, the words just arent as harsh and degrading.
No, God (according to Genesis) gave us a world with no good people and no bad people and no (as far as I can tell) purpose. Seems to me that *humans* were the ones who created such a world by disobeying God.
Even if humans make the choice to be evil, God created the capacity for evil (or so a non-atheist would believe). He also supposedly created the rules for what is considered good or evil.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isnt really the idea and principles behing Unions, it is just how Unions are run in this country. Maybe not all Unions, but a majority of them.
Another poster mentioned the Major League Baseball Union. There you have a Union that allows for pay based on market value. A star player in his third year will make more than a mediocre second string third baseman.
Unions do not have to have even pay to create a fair environment. Instead they could create a system similar to sports where the schools are required to pay a certain amount of their budget on teachers. A school with 1000 kids would need 60 teachers (based on my old high school of 984 kids->59 teachers). The total pay for this school would be set at $4.1 million (again based on my own school by looking up salaries at www.thechampion.org). Each time a new teacher is added, the amount would rise based on some agreed upon formula.
The school then decides what each individual teacher would make. The union could be consulted if the teacher feels he/she is being treated unfairly, but the union would have to drop salaries somewhere else to increase an individual teacher's pay. If the Union thinks that all the teachers are being treated unfairly, then they could strike to increase the $4.1 million in teacher pay.
This could be implented in virtually any work environment. Unions in other countries can still negotiate for an individual person's salary. Our Union system is simply broken, thats all. They are just as harmful as corporate greed, just on the other end of the spectrum.
--
The problem is not teacher's pay. The problem is the fact that the teachers who are actually trying dont get any additional money.
I know plenty of teachers who do just the status quo and no more. They get to school at 7:45, and leave at 3:15. They probably do about a half hour per day of work at home. They get an hour lunch break and therefore only work about 35 hours a week. Their first year or two are tough, but after that they have worked out their lesson plans and have little left to do outside of school. They get an insane amount of holidays off (such as President's Day, Memorial Day, etc.), and about 15-16 weeks of vacation counting summer/winter/spring breaks. And even if they are pursuing education during their time off, that is similar to an IT professional reading computer books throughout the year to improve their skillsets.
That comes to about 1300 hours per year of work. Many salary jobs require at least 45 hours of work per week, not 40. With 2 weeks of vacation time that comes to 2250 hours per year. A teacher with the same level of education of lets say a salaried IT worker could then be expected to make about 58% of the pay. Add that schools give just about the best benefits that exist, it could probably be lowered to close to 50%.
As I said above, that only describes poor teachers. A good teacher probably gets to school at 7am and leaves at 4pm. They also help with about 1 extra-curricular activity, plus other work at home brings in another 15 hours of work per week. That really is 55 hours of work per week. That comes to about 2000 hours per year. Still not quite as much as a 45 hour per week work load, but alot closer.
But because of teacher's unions, both teachers get paid the same. I for one resent the idea that some of my old 4th grade teachers making a high salary for only 1300 hours of work per week. But I also resent some of the good teachers throughout my life making such low salaries for their extreme devotion. I wish that a school could pay the mediocre teachers $25k/yr, and the good teachers $60k+/yr. And I dont mean making them wait 20 years (since most teachers with 20+ years experience actually do make good money), but actually start making good wages just 3-4 years into their career.
But that wont happen with those damn teacher's unions screwing up our education system.
--
Maybe he could have gotten 10% more than what he wanted.
I am so going to steal that and pretend I thought of it.
;-)
Thats okay, I dont have all that much pride. It is a sin after all
So go ahead and use it without citing any source.
--
The parent post was titled Please Check Your Definitions. I did, and they did not agree with the gp.
What the parent post was most likely commenting about was that the author should not be using the textbook definitions of the words when criticizing atheists, because the standard textbook definitions rarely capture the true meaning of the word. That is why he broke up the words into their individual parts (such as [a] {without} / [theism] {belief in a supreme being}). The purpose was to show why the standard dictionary definitions are wrong.
By saying "check your definitions" he wasnt saying to check the dictionary. He was saying to check the true meanings behind the words, not just look them up in a dictionary whose purpose is to be as brief as possible on the subject.
but to get snarky at someone for using the words in the contexts that these mainstream sources define them as is just, well, being bitchy.
I was simply trying to comment on why the grand parent post was not incorrect, which you were trying to prove. I was not any more "snarky" or "bitchy" in my post than you were:
If you are going to criticize people for not doing the research, at least have the courtesy to do it yourself.
--
So where does morality come from if not from God?
:-). You seam to ask out of genuine curiosity and not as an attack, so I feel it is very important to respond.
That is a very interesting question, and it is a good thing I run my own company or else I might get in trouble for spending so much time posting on Slashdot
First off, you should begin by asking whether religion is necessary to create a moral compass. For that to be true then our morals would be shaped by what is in the Bible. But there are plenty of versus in the Bible that have a different moral context than the current world. Most of Americans do not view homosexuality as evil. It may not be all that well accepted yet, but I do not think that your average person thinks that being a homosexual is evil. A disorder maybe, but not evil. But the New Testament (such as Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10, I Timothy 1:9-10) does describe homosexuality as evil (or vile, etc. depending on translation).
How can it be that people have begun to accept homosexuality? It is because people can and do create their own moral compass. It is generally designed by the society that they live in.
Morality can't be whatever is socially acceptable because that changes from generation to generation.
Societies change over time, so why couldn't the morals of the society also change? My grandfather is much more of a bigot than my father is, but they are both equally religious. Obviously their beliefs regarding good and evil are not tied to their religious beliefs, but instead to the contexts of the society that they were raised in.
there seems to be a universally recognized definition of what is right and what is wrong, and there has been around throughout written history (regardless of whether the people of that time/place followed this moral code or not).
People tend to think that our ancestors were simply evil people, because they practiced things such as slavery when they knew it was evil. But what makes us more "good" today than our great great grandfathers? How is it that our species evolved to become more moral in a couple hundred years? The answer is that we didnt. Our ancestors were not evil, they actually did have a different definition of "good".
300 years ago our forefathers actually believed that African Americans were sub-human. Just as the Japanese thought the Chinese were subhuman in World War II. They couldnt speak our language very well, their customs seamed barbaric and heretic, and they looked so very different. That is why they were compared to monkeys, and they were only a little better than monkeys in the eyes of our forefathers.
Our ancestors were not evil, just ignorant. It took hundreds of years for the progressive people of their day to finally convince the average man that an African American was just as human as a Caucasion. There was still racism and hatred, but it only took a little over a hundred years for black men and women to gain the same rights as white men and women. There is still racism, but no one could say it is even close to what it was even 50 years ago. And it will continue to improve.
I read an article about a month ago that described a play in the 1800s were the main character said he could identify a black person by their stench. A black man could try to dress up like a white man, but could never get rid of their stench. That was considered funny to the audience of their time, but is considered in very bad taste today.
The same will probably be said about gay jokes in another 100 years. That commercial during the Superbowl where two men accidentally kissed will not be considered funny, but instead in very bad taste. Maybe it will take 200 years, or maybe only 50, but we will probably "evolve" as a society. I myself am actually a little disgusted when two men kiss; I cannot help it. I have had two close gay friends in my life but I have yet to get over it. It is most likely because of how I was
I do understand your argument, and I still maintain that it is quite silly.
Nothing about what he said is silly, it just might disagree with the God portrayed in the Bible.
Deity X (if it exists) decides what is true and what is not. So, if your logic does not agree exactly with deity X, then your logic is faulty.
No, the logic does not have to be faulty. He is just saying that he does not agree with the system of morals portrayed in the Bible. I also agree that the love for one's neighbor far outweighs the belief in any great entity, whether it be a religous figure, political figure, parent, or even diety. Someone can lead a good life and improve the world around them without the belief in a diety. But I do not believe that someone can be considered a good person if they do not care about anyone but themselves and God. This is why I find Jesus' second commandment (Matthew 22:39) to be far more important than the first (Matthew 22:37), regardless of what is written in the Bible.
You can even believe in a God but not necessarily believe everything written in a text that was scribed by men. It is also not impossible that an all powerful and all knowing being could also suffer from vises such as vanity. He is actually a prime candidate for such a problem. That is why I agree with the parent poster who believes that a God who puts worshiping himself above all else is not a God worthy of worship.
Even if that viewpoint does not agree with an omnipotent and omnicient God, I do not think that is silly. What I think is silly is the Bible's standpoint on the matter.
--
And what "effects" are these that you have examined so very carefully?
Well there is the fact that there are various different religions worshiped today, and in eons past. Many of them are very different, even though three of the major ones today (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have alot of similarities.
The fact that belief in a religion is very close to 100% determined on where you were raised. Belief in Christianity is no different than being a Bears fan, the only reason you are one is because you were raised to be one. The number of Christians (or die hard Bears fans) that believe out of convenience far outnumbers (probably far higher than 99%) the number who became one from unbaised internal objective reasoning.
The fact that miraculous events (such as within religious texts) only happened thousands of years ago, but no longer happen today now that we have the ability to debunk them.
The fact that religious beliefs have "evolved" along the ages from primitive belief in an anthropromorphized sun, bison, etc. to a monotheistic all powerful God. There is no evidence of a belief in the current gods before Abraham's time, because they hadnt been invented yet.
There are plenty of other aspects of religion to be examined, but I am at work and cannot take a 4 hour break to list them. Realize that NONE of these give a 100% proof that God does not exist, but they continue to bring the possibility lower and lower.
The only difference between God and Santa Claus is that 90% of Americans do not believe in Santa Claus. No one can actually point to the exact time that Santa Claus was created, just as we cannot point to the exact time that Yahweh was created. But real research into either topic can yield very good theories that are far more probable than the belief that either actually exists.
--
The sources that you are using are incomplete. They do not seperate anti-theism and atheism. I have looked at both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and here is no definition for anti-theism at all. That is why in their case they have just combined the two definitions into one word. This works fine because that is the definition that is more commonly used (incorrectly however) for the word atheism.
The Wikipedia passage that you quoted actually does mention the more correct defintion for the word atheism.
However, others--including most atheistic philosophers and groups--define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities
You can define atheist as anything you want, but I will let the atheists decide how the word is to be defined. Even if the rest of the world wants their own definition (which conveniently paints atheists in a bad light), you cannot criticize a group of people for opinions that they have never had. Keep your misconceptions, but atheism is not a belief that there is no God. It is the lack of belief in a God.
--
But if that's true, then why can I find a magazine devoted to Not Believing in God, but I can't find, say, a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought" or "Not Interested in Model Railroads Monthly".
Wait a minute, are saying that having a magazine about a topic makes it a religion? Is there a religion worshiping outdoor photographing or paper crafts? Because there is an "Outdoor Photographer" and a "Paper Crafts" magazine. Having a magazine about a topic does not make it like a religion.
Having a magazine just means there are enough people who are interested in the topic. Not a single atheist would give their opinions on the matter a second thought if it wasnt for all the religous people in the world. That is what makes such a magazine interesting and necessary.
I will give you an example of a society that would produce a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought". In this society they believe that everyone should collect stamps, and that no one could enjoy true happiness without collecting stamps. Only people who collect stamps will have a happy afterlife. Only people who collect stamps have any chance to win in public elections. The very act of asking someone to explain why they decided to collect a certain type of stamps is considered off limits because people are offended when you bring up the fact that they have no reasonable reason to only collect that type of stamp.
In this world there would probably be a "Journal of Non-Philatelist Thought", where reasonable and intelligent people can discuss why it is okay to not collect stamps. That wouldn't make Non-Philatelist thought a religion.
--
$1M per year is like $650K per year after taxes, and then there are significant expenses that usually come with jobs that pay so well. Even if you think you can live on ramen and catchup, you won't if you want to maintain a job with that pay level.
Who is talking about Ramen and Catchup? Thats a good point about the taxes, but then again I used a very low interest rate for money growth as well. Okay, I will use your $650k/yr figure but use a more realistic 8% yearly growth figure.
Lets say that you are trying to save as much as you can, but because your job entails alot of expenses you are living on $100k/yr (plus your spouse's income if applicable). That means after 2 years you have saved $1,144,000 in the bank. Then you get a lower paying job/hobby that you love and start living on $60k/yr for the rest of your life.
By the year you start this that $60k is more like $64k because of inflation. To keep up with inflation over 40 years you will be giving yourself about $200k/yr in 2047. But with an 8% growth rate and taking out your yearly income, you would still have over $1 million in the bank in 2047. That is with no other income at all.
Stay at work for 3 years and you can take out $90k/yr for life. $1,000,000 is still ALOT of money.
--
While 1 million per year MAY be so high as to produce the kinds of high-end effects you propose (early retirement, part-time work, etc.) I doubt a million dollars per year is as much money as you act like it is.
While I know that $1 million per year is just some high number you through out, I think it is odd that you do not realize how much money that really is. $1 million per year for 2 years would be more than enough for anyone to retire on if they wanted. $2 million in the bank making only 5% per year is $100k/yr. Anyone could live on that if they wanted to. Expecially if they are leaving their IT work to find a job they are passionate about, because the $100k/yr would just be supplementary. If they can live on only $40k/yr (plus their spouse's income) then their income would rise with inflation.
If $100k/yr (or $40k/yr) isnt enough, hen just work for 4 years and get double that.
--
Was it that customer didn't want Linux or that they were wary of buying a Wal-Mart branded computer.
Since Walmart still does sell Windows computers, there obviously is a customer base out there that is willing to buy computers at Walmart. It is just that this particular market base was not willing to buy Linux computers.
--
Fuck off, troll.
Heheh, great way to respond. "My feelings are hurt so I am just going to curse at you!"
Do you really think I am going to try and refute your strawmen if you start out with a sentence that says your flat out going to dismiss all I say because you consider me 'brainwashed'?
That is fairly funny that you call my arguments "strawmen", when your response is the one that is a textbook definition of that very technique. Instead of refuting my responses, you signal in on one fairly irrelevant statement to make it look like you have.
Why do you assume I believe those things? It is not necessary to actually believe in something to correct others' misapprehensions.
There is nothing in your comment makes it sound like you are being rhetorical. You either believe what you were saying, or at least think that the Christians who believe that stuff have a reasonable argument. While the word "brainwashed" may have overly negative connotations, I believe it is an accurate word to use on anyone who can study Christianity as much as you seam to have and have not written their beliefs off as simple rationalizations.
It is either that or you just have fun pretending to be brainwashed.
--
Yes, I know that is what you said, and you are wrong. Attempts to "explain the unexplainable" with religion (i.e: God did it) are, at best, a side product of a superstitious and ignorant period of human history. Prior to Christianity, people simply referred to the unexplainable as supernatural and magical.
Prior to Christianity, people believed that Atlas held up the sky. They believed that Prometheus gave humans fire. They believed that Gaia created the world we live in. Or they believed that Re-Atum appeared from the water and created the Gods that ended up creating the world. Or they believed that Tiamat was killed by Marduk and her body was used to create the universe.
"God did it" was not a Christian creation. The first human religions were most likely little more than attempts to anthropromorphize the world around us (the Sun, the Seasons, the Cattle) so that we can attempt to control the uncontrollable. If they knew why the Sun rises, or why one growing season was more productive than another, they could control the world around them by worshoping the gods that control the world.
Even if this is not a completely accurate theory of the origin of religion, your claim that Christianity started the practice of superposing supernatural beliefs onto gods is incredibly innaccurate. You are correct however that superstition arises from ignorance, which is the same place that religion originates from.
Science is the study of the natural world. Religion is not. More importantly, science is a tool for understanding and manipulating the world around us, and religion is a social construct. Suggesting that the existence of science nullifies the need for religion is just as absurd as suggesting that visual art nullifies the need for music.
Science is the study of the world, the entire world. Science is what takes the supernatural and merges that into our understanding of the natural world. Lightning was supernatural, and science made it natural. Floods were supernatural, and science made it natural.
Even if religion is just a social construct, that is still within the realm of science. Sociology, psychology, history; all of these fields deal with social constructs. And all of these fields take observations to create hypotheses which are then further studied to create theories. Sounds alot like the scientific process to me.
Science and religion are not different things, like visual art and music. They are different ways of viewing the same world. Science does nullify any rational reason to be religious. You are correct that it doesnt nullify all irrational and ignorant reasons for religion, but I do not believe that is a strong case for the importance of religion.
And, as I said before, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God. It doesn't suggest or deny the existence of God in any way. People try to use it for this purpose, but it is logically impossible to use a scientific theory to describe a concept that has no substantive presence in the natural world.
If there was no other valid explanation for the creation of the world, animals, and humans; then being religious becomes are far more rational belief. Or at least that is how a large percentage of Christians view it. Evolution does not deny the existence of God, but it does provide a rational alternative. It is that rational alternative that they fear.
The words "prove" and "disprove" don't mean anything without a context. In the context of science, you form models to describe the natural world based on known observations. You can absolutely disprove any scientific model with the appropriate observation.
You can disprove a scientific model. But you cannot disprove a non-scientific model. The existance of the Christian God is not a scientific model. That does not mean that you cannot study a non-scientific model scientifically. Psychologists study the origins of psychotic beliefs all of the time, using psychology, neurology, etc
Wow, it must take alot of brainwashing to believe that stuff.
It was not curiosity that was the reason for the Fall. Knowledge of Good and Evil implies the capability to act on either of them. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they had gained the capability to do Evil, which is something that does not belong in Paradise, which is a realm of absolute Good.
Someone can do evil acts without knowing that it is evil. An autistic individual with no idea of life or death can still kill a hundred people. Him not knowing that it is bad to kill people does not make the act any less evil. If it did, then the very idea of good and evil looses all meaning. A society that throws disobedient children off of a cliff could not be considered evil if they think it is an acceptable way to keep people in line.
If it is basic theology to warp what is in the Bible to cover up its glaring problems then I am glad that most Christians do not study much theology.
God forbade the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge because it would disturb the balance of Paradise by introducing the knowledge of Evil.
How could you or any other theologian possible believe that you know why God does anything. If he does exist then he has a sense of judgement and morality that is far different from ours. As far as any theologian could possibly decern is that God forbid eating from the tree because Adam and Eve would surely die (Genesis 2:17).
The reason for the prohibition was promptly validated by the fact that Adam and Eve started by lying about their act, denying that they had taken from the Tree and trying to place blame on others.
Adam and Eve were already capable of disobedience and wrong doings before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because they ate the apple. They never belonged in Paradise in the first place according to your account.
Apart from whether or not you believe this, only a deliberate misreading of the text and the exegesis done on it over the centuries could lead someone to state that mere curiosity led to the Fall. It didn't. Neither did mere disobience.
If I convince a child to do something that their parents told them not to, I deserve the blame. Expecially if the child has no idea what the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
As for the resolution of this, this is why Christians believe Jesus' death leads to forgiveness for Original Sin: Jesus shows the ultimate Good, sacrificing yourself for others.
But again, that is only a human interpretation of Jesus' death. And it makes sence because it gives the creators of the Christian faith a good recruitment tool. There is no mention of "original sin" in the Bible. It is no less embarrasing than the idea of Pergatory.
The Bible was written in a time when people were not educated. It was probably not the intention of the original writers to say that knowledge is a bad thing, but that is exactly what the text implies.
--
There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.
Wait a minute. Are you actually comparing the U.S. to theocracies and dictatorships and saying it is a good thing that we have alot in common with them?
--
Wow, thanks for that terse summary. It is good to know that the entire human construct of religion, which has existed in some form in every society for thousands of years, can be summarized in one line of Western, eurocentric, pseudo-Christian philosophy
Uh, did you read the part where I said "One of the fundamental reasons"? I never said that this was the only reason religion was created. I never even said it was The major origin of religion. I just said it was one of the major reasons religion was created and has endured for so long.
Look people, the scientific Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God.
That is the reason that this whole evolution discussion is such a problem. People who do not confess that there is no seperation between science and religion. Absolutely nothing is outside of science's realm, because science can cover everything and anything that we can percieve. Just because it is not measurable yet or visible yet, doesnt mean it isnt within the realm of science.
Religous people are frightened by the Theory of Evolution because it allows for the possibility that there are no Supreme Beings. It makes it more plausable to not believe in God. That is the conflict, and it is real.
Notice how I made no mention of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
You cannot truly prove or disprove anything with 100% certainty. The last 2 weeks of your life might just be an elaborate dream, so you cannot prove that anything you have done recently actually happened. All you can do is have a certain level of certainty.
I have a 99.999999999999999999999% certainty that my hair color is red. I could be scizophrenic and just cannot accept that it is actually blonde, but I am fairly certain that I am sane and that my hair is red. Of course I am not 100% certain.
You can never be 100% certain that God does not exist. But you can use science (anthropology, psychology, etc.) to determine the likeliness that a God exists. Having a working hypothesis and then theory about how and why humans created early religions goes a long way to disproving that God exists. That is just one example, but there are many more.
If you are atheist, fine, that is your choice. Just be intelligent about it, and don't drag science into your religious or anti-religious arguments.
I am being intelligent about it. And science should be dragged into any religious argument, just as it should be dragged into just about any argument. Using the scientific method is valid in any discussion.
--
Yes, and we call those facts. Science is about facts. When I do this, this happens. That's a fact. Now I work towards a theory based on those facts and when I have one that seems to fit, well, we go with that. But it's based on facts, whereas faith is based on beliefs.
Those are still not facts. They are observations. Calling them facts distorts the meaning of the word within the confines of scientific literature. A lawyer can call them facts, but a scientist cannot.
No, that's not the why, it is the what. What makes the sky blue. What makes a ball fall down when you drop it. What makes the human brain blah blah blah. Why is why are these things the state of affairs? Why is THIS the way the universe turned out? That is an entirely different question.
No, it is the why. Why is simply a pro-adverb that is used in questions concerned with causality. A simple definition for the word why is simply: for what reason/cause/purpose? (Ex. Why is the sky blue? = For what reason is the sky blue?) Why and What are fundamentally the same interrogative words just said differently.
What you are trying to do is only ask questions that have not been answered yet with Why, but ask questions that have been answered with What. Why is THIS the way the universe turned out? is not an unanswerable question for science. If we ever found the building blocks of the universe then we may find out why gravity and electromagnatism, etc. work the way they do.
The same why questions you have are just as unanswerable by religion.
Why does God love us?
Because we are his creations.
Why does he love his creations?
Because we were created in his image.
Why does he love that which is created in his image?
Because he does...
But why does he?
Because he does...
But why?
BECAUSE HE DOES!
--
Right, the *potential* for evil was there, but as far as I can tell Adam and Even were the ones to bring it into actuality. Acording the Genesis, God created the world... and it was "good."
What I'm getting that a "natural" world, without good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, would appear to be the ideal situation. Why continue to encourage a world where good fights evil and everyone suffers for it?
I agree with what you are getting at, and this argument is mostly about semantics, but I think it is very important semantics.
God created evil (if you believe in God that is). If he created the world, and it has evil in it in any form, God created evil. If I create an artificially intelligent tank and give it missiles that I tell it not to use, I created the missiles. Just because I gave the tank free will doesnt mean that I still didnt give it the capacity to shoot missiles. I may not be the cause for every missile firing, just as God would not necessarily be the cause of all evil. But God would still be the one who created the capacity for evil when he created a being that was capable of evil acts.
because Science doesn't deal with the Why (which in this case also encompasses the Who,) it deals with the What, When, Where, and How.
That is rediculous. Science deals with the "Why" all of the time.
- Why is the sky blue?
- Why does a ball fall down when you drop it?
- Why is the human brain capable of believing in religion?
Another reason that science and religion don't actually conflict is that religion is about faith, while science is about fact.
Another incorrect statement. Science is not about fact. A simplistic view would be that science is about reproduceable and predictable phenomenons. Science is not about finding facts; it is about creating theories that allow to to produce useful knowledge about how the world works.
Most of what I have said is semantics, but it is very important semantics. VERY VERY VERY Important semantics.
--
The Christians that make the news (as Christians) are usually the ones that are crazy psychotics trying to enforce their own morality on other people- The Jerry Fawells, Jack Thompsons, and Clinic bombers. The Christians who don't make idiotic statements, don't try to legislate morality, understand the history of their faith, are honest about the limitations of their knowledge, and continue being Christians have my respect. Yes, they are the minority of Christians- but intelligent people are in the minority of almost any group. Even on Slashdot they are hard to find.
Ordinary Christians are still part of the problem. The may not be fanatics, but they lend credibility to the fundamentalists. In a world where the majority of people are not religious in any way, psychotic beliefs such as having a personal relationship with an omnipotent being would be treated as schizophrenia. But in our culture we give credibility to mear faith.
Faith is a good thing. If I didnt have faith that my car would start without a thorough inspection each morning I would have to get up 3 hours early for work. Without faith in my parents I wouldnt be able to take a week vacation without the kids every few years.
But faith has to be grounded in reality. My car started the last 1400 days in a row, and my parents did a good job raising me so they should be able to do the same with my kids for a week. Faith in a God that no one has ever met, and with no proof of his existance, is not grounded in reality.
But ordinary non-fundamentalist Christians make this kind of faith a virtue. That only makes the fundamentalists feel that they are the most virtuous of all Christians because they have the strongest faith.
Some things are okay in moderation. It is okay to drink every once in a while as long as you arent a drunk. But we do not give reverence to our ability to drink. People who do (such as some college students) are doing a disservice to those around them, and putting others in danger.
Being an ordinary Christian is not okay just because you are not a fundamentalist. It is still dangerous.
--
I gave man free will, and I'm a little upset that man has used that free will to turn away from me.
If I were even a fraction as smart as an omniscient being, I would not be surprised or upset that humans dont believe in me if I went out of my way to make sure there is no proof that I exist. In fact I would be ashamed of my creation if they still believed in those books thousands of years later with no proof. It would just mean I have to go back to the drawing board and create a more intelligent species.
s/Christians/strict creationists
They're not synonymous. Though if you really think that ALL Christians are either stupid or intellectually dishonest, there's probably not much I can do to change your bigotry (and those of whoever modded you Insighful).
You are correct, he should have used the word "irrational" instead of stupid. A majority of Christians are just stupid (just as most humans are generally not that bright), but the ones who have actually thought about their faith and still believe are just irrational.
But the general meaning of what he said is the same, the words just arent as harsh and degrading.
No, God (according to Genesis) gave us a world with no good people and no bad people and no (as far as I can tell) purpose. Seems to me that *humans* were the ones who created such a world by disobeying God.
Even if humans make the choice to be evil, God created the capacity for evil (or so a non-atheist would believe). He also supposedly created the rules for what is considered good or evil.