Well, I see no issue with teaching people about what is known within science: the knowledge of problems with a theory is within the domain of science. It is in fact an essential part of peer review and falsifiability to be very critical of claims. However, if problems with a theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that there MUST be a creator and that this creator MUST have created things in a way that "coincides" with the genesis story in the bible, then that's when people are trying to transform schools into churches. A school should advocate neither an existentialist nor a deity-based set of beliefs. Since "creation science" depends very heavily on religious scripture, it would be reasonable to argue that the major motivation is in pushing a specific religion. This is probably why we don't see many creationists arguing in favour of UFO aliens creating us from monkeys, but they mostly "happen" to be bible followers.
As for trusting the word of man: the argument that religious people often make is "I don't say that I'm right... God says that I'm right" (which is often followed by a "that was done to TEST us" argument). This kind of reasoning comes down to "I don't say that I'm right, but I say that I can't help it that I happen to be right". It comes down to the same thing: those who speak on behalf of a deity cannot prove nor disprove that they talk about anything more than a figment of their collective imagination.
Ah, you make a common mistake: you state that "either you trust God... or you trust man". This comes down to exactly the same thing: for those who do not believe in a "god", the bible IS the word of man. It comes down to believing the word of man who is making claims about a supernatural entity or the words of man who engage in research that is falsifiable.
Comparing schools to churches is a little far-fetched. It would be more beneficial to teach what is known about evolution (e.g. why do we have wisdom teeth, why do viruses get resistant to medicine, etc) and ALSO its problems than to push in religion as if it were science.
To a large extent, science is about being able to quantify and (thus) measure things. By being able to put things in numbers, you gain a level of accuracy that can help you make computer chips, keep planes in the air, etc. It is a tool to help achieve goals. It is not a goal in itself.
I'm not religious at all, yet your view on religion appears to not be fundamentally different from mine. I am in favour of a clearly secular government that considers all citizens equal, regardless of their beliefs. This is something that pres. Bush does not appear to represent. I feel that a line is crossed there.
If people gain some insights/wisdom/strength/etc from following a set of beliefs.... good for them! However, it should be in the privacy of their own lives and communities without pushing those views onto others as the One True Truth.
Don't forget the eternal "that was done to TEST us". One religious nut recently even told me that she believed that the contradictions in the bible were put there on purpose to separate the good from the bad. Since she also claimed that some faith healers are helped by Satan and that Satan also had healing powers, I argued: "aha, but wouldn't it be more logical than according to you that Jesus is the son of Satan"? She said she had all sorts of scientific information, but didn't appear to have heard of an important concept like falsifiability.
I do have to say that I sort of have an appreciation for the creative ways in which people try to bend their mythology into fact.
How come creationist "science" almost always seems to be supported by people who have clear religious connections? Even IF one can prove the existence of a "creator", who is to say that this creator's name is not Allah? In fact, who is to say that this creator did not send aliens to genetically modify the apes to create us humans?
But no.... every argument "fast-forwards" from a scientific/rational domain directly into a "but then the bible must be true!" emotional/religious argument, skipping over the vast number of alternatives in the hope that the audience will not ask questions. Of course for those already indoctrinated in a certain religion, such arguments are totally convincing.
Oh, btw... any "teaching" that requires rituals such as weekly visits to a place where one recites and sings passages over and over (usually administered from the start of a child's life) IS indoctrination. I challenge those who disagree to tell me where I can find an Evolution Temple where people pray to Darwin.
More likely, Mary just got pregnant with some other guy and since having a bastard kid probably wasn't so great at that time, they made up a nice story where an "angel" told them it wasn't another guy, but in fact a god who impregnated her. Of course the prophecy that Joseph needed to be in Jesus' lineage is also smashed this way. Angels seemed to be quite commonplace apparently, since their presence or absense seems to be a minor detail during resurrection (see different stories at the tomb).
Oh, you're certainly not the only one. It's just that people who don't believe in *organized* evangelical religion tend to be a) not be well-organized (duh), b) not so pushy with their views and c) offer no comforting alternative for an "afterlife":-) It's sort of an inherent thing, I suppose. You can be quite sure that when you post intelligent and rational argumentations on forums, someone is going to notice and think about them. Maybe they'll use your arguments to bug other people elsewhere. It's a ripple-effect as Dan Barker would say.
I've gotten supportive comments more than once when I've spoken up against religious reasoning. It's easy to show that even IF Creationism were true, it STILL would not rule out genetic modification by aliens. Furthermore, at some point, they always shift from scientific/rational arguments back to religious/emotional ones... that is apparently a blind spot that wishful thinkers tend to happily "miss". My challenges to exchange reciprocal links with atheist websites have often gone unmet, which is strange for people who claim to have the strongest arguments.
Ah well... I like good debates with firm arguments... I'd just say: keep doing whatever you're doing, you're not the only one:-) It's good to see more and more organized work (annotated bible, infidels, ffrf.org, etc) being done.
So in your view, people shouldn't have fun doing "useless" stuff until problems are solved that lie way out of their field of expertise? Perhaps you will suggest that people should stop watching TV and stop participating in sports until cancer is cured. Heck, why not give the example by pledging to stop posting on this site until a cure for all forms of cancer is found?
I'd say that PC gaming offers various advantages including better screens, more flexibility in terms of choice of hardware, more flexibility in application (not just gaming, but also e.g. word processing), storage of games (harddisk), etc.
One could argue that consoles could be gearing towards the above-mentioned advantages too, but wouldn't they inherently be turning into PCs then?
Kind of funny when people have a major discussion on history where they personalize the complicated actions of groups comprising millions of people into simple "us" and "you" terms. Even more amusing when both sides try to convince eachother that the other is wrong, even though they each cannot change the historical facts. Looking at those facts though, neither side is that innocent anyway.
Even if so-and-so did something really wrong decades ago, how does that apply to any of us living today anyway? Most Americans disagree on tons of issues... and the same applies to Europeans. Generalizing the will of either "side" into what dumb politicians say is unfair to both.
How about we just talk about our common interests like computers instead of showing too much misplaced nationalistic pride?
How about we just get rid of people who need to bash others so much and cite silly historical issues that no one is really in a position to change anymore?
No one is coming to YOU personally for help for anything. You have no power. Your "don't come to us" really means "don't come to the powerful folks in my country's government who probably won't even talk to me if they saw me in the street".
Kind of silly how the other replies to torpor's post are Anonymous Cowards. People are usually more outspoken and "brave" when anonymous than even semi-anonymous with an account.
Well, if someone advertises something as "unlimited", then it doesn't look so good when "unlimited" doesn't mean "unlimited". When an ISP tells its customers and others that it fights against spam and it then actually fights spams, then they are doing as promised.
I pretty much agree that if someone took the route (willingly or not) to be a serious threat to other people, then the only person to blame for that person's demise it the person him/herself.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I see no issue with teaching people about what is known within science: the knowledge of problems with a theory is within the domain of science. It is in fact an essential part of peer review and falsifiability to be very critical of claims. However, if problems with a theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that there MUST be a creator and that this creator MUST have created things in a way that "coincides" with the genesis story in the bible, then that's when people are trying to transform schools into churches. A school should advocate neither an existentialist nor a deity-based set of beliefs. Since "creation science" depends very heavily on religious scripture, it would be reasonable to argue that the major motivation is in pushing a specific religion. This is probably why we don't see many creationists arguing in favour of UFO aliens creating us from monkeys, but they mostly "happen" to be bible followers.
As for trusting the word of man: the argument that religious people often make is "I don't say that I'm right... God says that I'm right" (which is often followed by a "that was done to TEST us" argument). This kind of reasoning comes down to "I don't say that I'm right, but I say that I can't help it that I happen to be right". It comes down to the same thing: those who speak on behalf of a deity cannot prove nor disprove that they talk about anything more than a figment of their collective imagination.
Ah, you make a common mistake: you state that "either you trust God ... or you trust man". This comes down to exactly the same thing: for those who do not believe in a "god", the bible IS the word of man. It comes down to believing the word of man who is making claims about a supernatural entity or the words of man who engage in research that is falsifiable.
Comparing schools to churches is a little far-fetched. It would be more beneficial to teach what is known about evolution (e.g. why do we have wisdom teeth, why do viruses get resistant to medicine, etc) and ALSO its problems than to push in religion as if it were science.
To a large extent, science is about being able to quantify and (thus) measure things. By being able to put things in numbers, you gain a level of accuracy that can help you make computer chips, keep planes in the air, etc. It is a tool to help achieve goals. It is not a goal in itself.
I'm not religious at all, yet your view on religion appears to not be fundamentally different from mine. I am in favour of a clearly secular government that considers all citizens equal, regardless of their beliefs. This is something that pres. Bush does not appear to represent. I feel that a line is crossed there.
If people gain some insights/wisdom/strength/etc from following a set of beliefs.... good for them! However, it should be in the privacy of their own lives and communities without pushing those views onto others as the One True Truth.
Don't forget the eternal "that was done to TEST us". One religious nut recently even told me that she believed that the contradictions in the bible were put there on purpose to separate the good from the bad. Since she also claimed that some faith healers are helped by Satan and that Satan also had healing powers, I argued: "aha, but wouldn't it be more logical than according to you that Jesus is the son of Satan"? She said she had all sorts of scientific information, but didn't appear to have heard of an important concept like falsifiability.
I do have to say that I sort of have an appreciation for the creative ways in which people try to bend their mythology into fact.
How come creationist "science" almost always seems to be supported by people who have clear religious connections? Even IF one can prove the existence of a "creator", who is to say that this creator's name is not Allah? In fact, who is to say that this creator did not send aliens to genetically modify the apes to create us humans?
But no.... every argument "fast-forwards" from a scientific/rational domain directly into a "but then the bible must be true!" emotional/religious argument, skipping over the vast number of alternatives in the hope that the audience will not ask questions. Of course for those already indoctrinated in a certain religion, such arguments are totally convincing.
Oh, btw... any "teaching" that requires rituals such as weekly visits to a place where one recites and sings passages over and over (usually administered from the start of a child's life) IS indoctrination. I challenge those who disagree to tell me where I can find an Evolution Temple where people pray to Darwin.
So your point is that the more outrageous the claim is, the more likely you will believe it?
More likely, Mary just got pregnant with some other guy and since having a bastard kid probably wasn't so great at that time, they made up a nice story where an "angel" told them it wasn't another guy, but in fact a god who impregnated her. Of course the prophecy that Joseph needed to be in Jesus' lineage is also smashed this way. Angels seemed to be quite commonplace apparently, since their presence or absense seems to be a minor detail during resurrection (see different stories at the tomb).
Oh, you're certainly not the only one. It's just that people who don't believe in *organized* evangelical religion tend to be a) not be well-organized (duh), b) not so pushy with their views and c) offer no comforting alternative for an "afterlife" :-) It's sort of an inherent thing, I suppose. You can be quite sure that when you post intelligent and rational argumentations on forums, someone is going to notice and think about them. Maybe they'll use your arguments to bug other people elsewhere. It's a ripple-effect as Dan Barker would say.
:-) It's good to see more and more organized work (annotated bible, infidels, ffrf.org, etc) being done.
I've gotten supportive comments more than once when I've spoken up against religious reasoning. It's easy to show that even IF Creationism were true, it STILL would not rule out genetic modification by aliens. Furthermore, at some point, they always shift from scientific/rational arguments back to religious/emotional ones... that is apparently a blind spot that wishful thinkers tend to happily "miss". My challenges to exchange reciprocal links with atheist websites have often gone unmet, which is strange for people who claim to have the strongest arguments.
Ah well... I like good debates with firm arguments... I'd just say: keep doing whatever you're doing, you're not the only one
I've read your comments on this issue, bamberg. Thanks for giving me some hope in the existence of some rational human beings :-)
You might enjoy this link:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
It contains many many contradictions and atrocities in the bible that religionists often overlook.
They are infringing on the idea of using wildcards.
Certainly it's possible to find prior use of the asterisk symbol for denoting wildcards, especially in filenames?
So in your view, people shouldn't have fun doing "useless" stuff until problems are solved that lie way out of their field of expertise? Perhaps you will suggest that people should stop watching TV and stop participating in sports until cancer is cured. Heck, why not give the example by pledging to stop posting on this site until a cure for all forms of cancer is found?
Plus: don't SUE your customers either!
Judge: "ok, show your console"
Infinium: "we can't do that as it would expose our business secrets"
Judge: "so you have no console?"
Infinium: "that IS the secret"
I'd say that PC gaming offers various advantages including better screens, more flexibility in terms of choice of hardware, more flexibility in application (not just gaming, but also e.g. word processing), storage of games (harddisk), etc.
One could argue that consoles could be gearing towards the above-mentioned advantages too, but wouldn't they inherently be turning into PCs then?
Well, in this "search engine war", they will have much stronger (actual) competition than in the browser war.
Kind of funny when people have a major discussion on history where they personalize the complicated actions of groups comprising millions of people into simple "us" and "you" terms. Even more amusing when both sides try to convince eachother that the other is wrong, even though they each cannot change the historical facts. Looking at those facts though, neither side is that innocent anyway.
Even if so-and-so did something really wrong decades ago, how does that apply to any of us living today anyway? Most Americans disagree on tons of issues... and the same applies to Europeans. Generalizing the will of either "side" into what dumb politicians say is unfair to both.
How about we just talk about our common interests like computers instead of showing too much misplaced nationalistic pride?
How about we just get rid of people who need to bash others so much and cite silly historical issues that no one is really in a position to change anymore?
No one is coming to YOU personally for help for anything. You have no power. Your "don't come to us" really means "don't come to the powerful folks in my country's government who probably won't even talk to me if they saw me in the street".
Please go back to your troll-cave.
Thanks.
Bye bye.
Kind of silly how the other replies to torpor's post are Anonymous Cowards. People are usually more outspoken and "brave" when anonymous than even semi-anonymous with an account.
Somebody appears to be a little bitter.......
Looks like we found at least one area where going the Open Source route is bad :-)
Actually, weirdly enough... my unfiltered spams/day count has dropped noticeably.
Well, if someone advertises something as "unlimited", then it doesn't look so good when "unlimited" doesn't mean "unlimited". When an ISP tells its customers and others that it fights against spam and it then actually fights spams, then they are doing as promised.
I pretty much agree that if someone took the route (willingly or not) to be a serious threat to other people, then the only person to blame for that person's demise it the person him/herself.