When I'm waking up? are you kidding? I'm usually annoyed that the ugly troll of a thing sleeping next to me (who was strikingly attractive last night) has the nerve to have her arm draped over me.
One of those nights where you go to bed with Bo Derek and wake up with Bo Diddley.
Yes, but within the contraints of the purpose of this brief life, the answer is "only to those who seek him." Sure he could just show himself right now to the whole world in one go, but it would be a waste of the purpose of life.
If the purpose of life were truly that trivial, empty and useless, then I would truly despair.
It seems strange to claim that millions of people are deceived on the grounds that you have no experience of what the claim to be the origin of their conviction.
It seems strange to me to claim that they aren't when the history of religion is known, the purposes to which it has almost always been put are entirely evil, and with very few exceptions it has been used as a weapon against humanity.
I insist that this is factually incorrect; I don;t know ANYONE who says or any religion that teaches that those who have not accepted god are evil, or will burn.
See Catholicism (the entirety of Christianity for most of its history as well as the majority now) as well as most fundamentalist sects.
I would agree with you there, and suggest that force is contrary to the nature of God, hence the need to seek him in this life.
Well, that's certainly refreshing. I live in a country where the most vocal Christians have as their primary stated goal the overthrow of free society in the interests of establishing a theocracy. The history of that religion in power are the darkest and most evil times in human history and I fear for my life and those of those I love if those evil people get their way.
Thanks for being civil in this discussion, I'm often afraid that my attitude is brusque and hope things don't become a flamefest.
You too. Brusque would be quite an understated description of my usual manner;-)
I respect your position and intend only to say "I don't see myself how most anti-religionists see me, and I hate the parts of so-called religion that they hate"
That's great. However I'm in the position that a huge percentage of the people in my own country would have no problem seeing me put to a brutal death merely because I don't think they have all the answers. They are eager to see the world destroyed and all of the evil ones (by which they mean anybody who chooses to think differently than them) suffer brutal tortured deaths. These are the people that I think of when I hear "Christian" because they are the ones who have stepped up to speak for all Christianity and there has been no real response from anybody on the other side of the Christian coin. Whether that's because they are just happy to see anything called Christianity ruling over others, whether it's because they figure they're still safe since at least they're not heathens or whatever other reasons they may have, by allowing it to happen; by allowing evil people to speak for them, they are giving up their right to claim to be any better.
So, I respect your right to believe as you choose. If, as you say, you're not one of those sorts, then great.
The fact remains though that whenever I hear anybody describe themselves as a Christian, my survival instinct demands that I fear them, for since their religion tells them that not only are they better than I am, but I am an agent of the supernatural incarnation of evil. People like that can not be reasoned with, since they are beyond it.
If you don't understand that Christianity has earned this reputation over the centuries, then you haven't studied its history. If you don't know that mainstream American Christianity is working hard to bring back the worst of that reputation into reality, then you haven't been paying any attention to the present.
So like I said, I fear Christians greatly, but I'm not a coward so I will continue to stand up for myself. I think we are looking at some very dark days ahead and that is almost entirely the fault (and even the stated goal) of religious fundamentalists.
No, there isn't. Not in this life. Well, unless he felt like actually showing himself to the world, instead of playing petulant games. That's assuming, of course, that he actually exists which I don't believe.
If God will manifest himself to you, then you have proof. If he does not, you still have no proof.
If he's a god, it's within his power to provide proof that will satisfy everybody.
The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived?
Yes. The vast majority never had the opportunity to make a free choice since they were told from birth that it's the absolute truth and anybody who says otherwise is evil and will burn. Very sad, but true nonetheless.
I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.
No, you happen to believe that. If it makes you happy, then more power to you. I have no problems with that whatsoever. My only problem is when people think their beliefs give them the right to force them on others. Please note that I'm not accusing you of any such thing.
You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.
I don't seek to explain the *origin* of the universe. I have no need for religion, because I don't have a problem accepting the fact that we don't know how it all started. Believing that some particular group of desert nomads figured it all out seems exceedingly silly to me though. It's possible that science will figure it out. It's possible it won't. *Shrug*
So like I said, I don't have a religion. Even by your definition.
If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.
I can't honestly tell you that. It's a pretty silly idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. It's irrelevant to me though. I still get uncomfortable if I don't eat. If I don't find some way to procure food, I don't eat. That is reality regardless of whether the world is how I perceive it or if I'm a brain in a jar. There is no need or purpose to make up beliefs about it.
Atheism isn't a religion. Yes, it is.
You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar. Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.
Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.
Nothing whatsoever in a public school interferes with you forcing your children to exercise your religion. The only cases that have ever happened in relation to that whole issue were to prevent extremist Christians from forcing their views on others.
The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.
You're partly right. Science has as an assumption that there is no need to postulate a god to explain what science explains. So far it has worked out pretty damn well. Certainly there is no need to presume existence of something unnecessary to explain what science explains. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with your religion. That's in a science class. In a science class, that is great. Outside of a science class it's a different story. I think that's your fundamental misunderstanding. It's your job to teach your children whatever the hell you want. It's a science teacher's job to teach them science.
Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.
Well, why don't you have your great charitable church use some of their vast hordes of tax free money to pay for it rather than spending it on investments and illegal political action? If it ain't important enough for you or your church to pay your own way, then you obviously aren't taking your responsibilities seriously.
Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.
Regardless of ID, Christianity has been the greatest force for evil in history. Sorry if you don't like it, but history bears that out.
I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.
I've been programming python for going on 2 days now;-) I have a safari account on oreilly.com, so I've been using "Python in a Nutshell" and it's pretty quick and to the point. If you already have programming experience I highly recommend the * in a Nutshell books.
the Learning * books are great for beginning programmers, but could be a bit slow and boring if you just want to pick up a new language.
When it comes to the question of whether ID is a science or not, we're talking about teaching it at the high school level.
There is no question at all. It isn't science. It is religion.
I contend that the "science" taught at the high school level is indeed taught as a religion- completely dogmatic and alternate explainations are not allowed.
Well, then you went to a very bizarre high school. At mine and that of everybody I know, the scientific method was taught and it was made explicitly clear that theories are the best current explanation of the available evidence but they are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. Heck, we started with that lecture in junior high and it was reinforced every year.
Just because you had shitty teachers doesn't mean the rest of us did.
You may consider that a troll- I consider it entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
No, the trolling was where you took the statement that science has never claimed to have *all* the answers to *everything*, and then said yes it does since your high school science tests were like that.
ID is an alternate explaination that fits the evidence we have so far in evolution-
No it doesn't. It's religious creationism and nothing besides. Of course it's banned by law, we believe in freedom of religion in this country. That means you don't get to shove your personal beliefs into a science class. Believe what you will, but don't make feeble dishonest attempts to shove your religion into a science class. It hurts science and it makes your god no better than a plate of pasta.
Only if you get them to concede that ID is all about teaching about God in schools. You can stamp your feet and insist that such is their "real" motivation all you like, but nobody from that camp is saying any such thing.
Really?!?!? Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you?
" We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
--Position paper CRSC.
In fact their camp has explicitly stated that as their primary motivation time and time again. They just don't state it honestly in court because they know full well that their position is illegal, dishonest, and anti-American.
To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating
Too bad, it's a little thing called freedom. If you're so infuriated by the simple fact that everybody doesn't agree with you in exact detail on everything, then why do you live here? Why haven't you moved to Iran or some other theocracy?!? If you realise how bad those kinds of places are, then why would you support having that sort of crap here?
I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat.
Well, it's good that neither I, nor anybody else is trying to do that then, isn't it?
The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion,
There you go again with your insane rantings. Atheism isn't a religion. Further atheism is in no way promoted by public education. *your* religion isn't promoted by public education and that is the entirety of your problem with it in that respect.
and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!
No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved. I'll bet that what you find "fundamentally offensive" is the same tired old lies that is the fundie's sole stock in trade. Like you said above. You're spouting insane nonsense.
Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.
You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.
You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.
What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude. Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.
If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution".
Other than demonstrating that you don't even understand what the words you're using mean, was there any point in spouting this nonsense?
There is the fact of evolution. For absolute proof, look at a dog, a seedless watermelon drug resistant bacteria. Absolute 100% positive proof that evolution happens.
There is also the Theory of Evolution which is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.
Short of magic fairys, evoltion is 100% correct. The theory of evolution isn't even complete, so it could hardly be correct. You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?
This is hardly accurate.
It is in fact entirely accurate.
This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.
In fact it really does have to be absolute. If it isn't, then which parts of it are divine and which parts are man
You've made the claim - under formal debate standards, it is now your job to uphold it. If you fail, it might seem to be implied that you can't do it.
I have asserted that it is impossible to reconcile the "facts" presented there. Were it possible, it would fall upon you to do so. It should be as easy as pie. After all, a perfect loving god put it there for you.
I'll even formalise it for you:
Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8
Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*
Sounds easy enough, after all, it's the one day upon which the entire religion completely relies.
knock yourself out, but you will fail it. utterly.
Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.
You're argument is entirely off base here.
It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?" They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats. They're the ones pissing off decent people.
If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.
The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory.
The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.
Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.
True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".
Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people.
The Popes were the leaders of the Roman empire for most of the early history of the religion, so adding that is arguable redundant, but clarification might work.
I'd also say that medieval kings *continued* to use it....Church control was continuous, regardless of the empire. kingdoms, or nations involved.
personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.
Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.
Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.
They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.
You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.
Ahhhh, no see.. I want that plastered on your church.
Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.
Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that. The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values. I have no problem with people believing whatever crazy thing their heart desires. I have an extreme problem with people trying to shove their evil, murderous (as it *always* is when given government power) faith down my throat.
Proof like all things in life requires the people doing the proving and the people having something proved to them to accept some basic foundations and assumptions. Without accepting those basic assumptions, you can not prove anything.
Fair enough. In mathematics, things are absolutely proven, but only within the framework set up for that purpose. There is no framework for religion. The assumption that there is a god is the only piece of framework, and it adds no new information to any discussion.
So, there is still no proof, because the only thing to be proven has already been assumed.
There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible.
Like I said, lay out the most important day in the entire religion without leaving out inconveninet inconsistent facts. It can't be done.
It isn't even internally consistent, let alone if you add in outside facts.
Also, don't you think that someone who devoted their life to following Christianity would know the facts of their own religion better than that of an interested bystander?
It would be great if that were true, but if Christians took an honest look at the history of their religion, there would be no more Christianity.
The history of reborn sun gods is ancient. Far older than Christianity *or* the Christian god. Those are simple basic facts that anybody with an interest in the subject would know.
Sooo, any time there is a debate on a subject then *all* arguments must be false simply because there are lots of arguments? Wow.
No, the argument works well. You've merely managed to miss the point.
A perfect all powerful, all knowing creature could easily have made his will known clearly and concisely. Had he chosen to do so, then there wouldn't be constant murder torture and evil done in his name because he's too freaking incompetent to get his point across.
That he's failed utterly to do so is entirely *his* failing. Any attempt to dispute that is to also destroy his perfection.
That makes him imperfect at the very least. Hence there is no perfect all powerful all knowing being.
Your failure to understand is demonstrated in your response by you trying to put human arguments on the same level as a perfect all powerful all knowing being.
Did you even look over what you wrote once before you hit submit?!?
However, they have a moral and a lesson to be taught. That's the important thing i believe.
The problem I have with this idea is the lessons it teaches are all completely inconsistent and all over the map.
Slavery and genocide are very strongly supported by the bible. Treating others as you would be treated, charity and generosity are as well. The most important ( in the writer's minds ) was submitting to any atrocities you had to suffer in this life since you would be rewarded in the next. It's extremely pro ruler and anti-populace moreso than anything from a moral perspective which makes perfect sense given who wrote it.
So there are good moral lessons that can be learned from it, but there are also those that all decent people have long since rejected. The problem is that there is no possible way to put one type above the other without rejecting the fundamental *religious* aspect.
(It's worth noting that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" parodies which many in the anti-ID crowd have latched on to do not, in any way, contradict or discredit Intelligent Design. ID is completely mute on the nature of the "Intelligent Designer.")
You have completely missed the point of the FSM. What that demonstrates simply and absolutely is that by trying to put ID in the science class they have made their god *indistinguishable* from the FSM. These people are so desperate for some sort of validation for their beliefs that they are willing to drag their great and glorious god down to being a plate of spaghetti and meatballs. That is why the FSM is so great. Well... apart from the pirates arrrggghh
Somehow to them their lack of belief in a God is more justified than belief in a God, and they would rather argue that their beliefs are not a religion, because they are logically justified, than admit that fundamentally, it's all based on presumptions, and assumptions.
That is an utterly insane illogical asshatted statement.
Lack of belief requires no justification whatsoever. Prove your beliefs. Then there would be something to justify believing in them. You assume there is a god. I don't make any assumptions.
That makes you religious. You have chosen to believe in something that there is no evidence for. I have not done that.
Your entire point is based on a logical fallacy. It's only if your beliefs were true that there would be any reason to accept them. Circular argument.
Here's a challenge you'll fail utterly:
Write out a chronology of the day of the resurrection using the bible and without ignoring any of the details. Make it consistent.
Sorry, Saprky, but you are religious, and I'm not. Your cowardly inability to accept that demonstrates the weakness of your position.
The point occured to me when I read this sticker... shouldn't all of science be labeled this way? And why would a scientist be upset that we're telling children to critically think about the information contained in their books?
It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.
How about this. We label your church with a big sign saying "The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people. Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories. There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."
I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.
So, if you don't support telling the facts for what they are, then what the hell are you talking about, exactly?
Science never claimed to explain everything. Never.
Is completely incorrect as far as most people are concerned. Answers on the tests in high school science class are either right or wrong, never giving points for original thought.
So your tests in high school covered everything? Dude, you're such a ridiculous troll. Questions on high school science tests that I've seen are simple enough to admit simple yes/no answers. Your response had nothing to do with the post you were responding to. I got points for original thought. I rightly didn't get points for ignorant trolls.
But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.
Sure it is. Other explanations are more than welcome. Why don't you come up with one?
Ignorant religious nonsense isn't. That's what churches are for, not science classes.
Or more accurately, we'd still be sitting in castles, and homes of wood eating food cooked over an open flame.
No, the OP had it exactly right. Just because the modern scientific method hadn't been formalized yet doesn't mean that castles used to be built by believing that the stones would magically stack themselves.
The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion,
That's barely arguable, but irrelevant. Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.
the mere belief that your perceptions are of a true reality, is a belief and a philosophical assertion.
No, the exact opposite of what you are saying is true. Arguing that nothing is real and we're all just living through a common delusion or somesuch is philsophical. Dealing with the reality we all live in as it is is realism.
I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof.
That's because it isn't proof. You chose to believe it. That's faith. If it were proof, then you could easily prove it to everybody.
If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search... it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.
You're right on that, but it goes even further than that. It's only for those who *want* it to be true. And of course, those who want to prey upon those who *want* it to be true, as is the reality of every major religion.
I mean any study of the history of the Christian religion proves absolutely that it was made up. People who want badly enough to believe will find ways to deny the basic historical facts.
The idea that there is some sort of a god is consistent with common sense. That *any* of the specifically detailed religions we've ever had got it right is utter nonsense. I'm certainly not lazy. I've gone as far as to study the real history of your religion.
Compiling a recent 2.6 series kernel and modules takes about 75 minutes, what does it take on your Gentoo box?
Damn, dude, that sounds really slow. I have a Dell Optiplex gx260 (P4 2.8, 1 Gig RAM) and it takes around 20-25 minutes. My new server at work is a dual Opteron 246, 2 Gigs of RAM and it took just over 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
When I'm waking up? are you kidding? I'm usually annoyed that the ugly troll of a thing sleeping next to me (who was strikingly attractive last night) has the nerve to have her arm draped over me.
One of those nights where you go to bed with Bo Derek and wake up with Bo Diddley.
Yes, but within the contraints of the purpose of this brief life, the answer is "only to those who seek him." Sure he could just show himself right now to the whole world in one go, but it would be a waste of the purpose of life.
;-)
If the purpose of life were truly that trivial, empty and useless, then I would truly despair.
It seems strange to claim that millions of people are deceived on the grounds that you have no experience of what the claim to be the origin of their conviction.
It seems strange to me to claim that they aren't when the history of religion is known, the purposes to which it has almost always been put are entirely evil, and with very few exceptions it has been used as a weapon against humanity.
I insist that this is factually incorrect; I don;t know ANYONE who says or any religion that teaches that those who have not accepted god are evil, or will burn.
See Catholicism (the entirety of Christianity for most of its history as well as the majority now) as well as most fundamentalist sects.
I would agree with you there, and suggest that force is contrary to the nature of God, hence the need to seek him in this life.
Well, that's certainly refreshing. I live in a country where the most vocal Christians have as their primary stated goal the overthrow of free society in the interests of establishing a theocracy. The history of that religion in power are the darkest and most evil times in human history and I fear for my life and those of those I love if those evil people get their way.
Thanks for being civil in this discussion, I'm often afraid that my attitude is brusque and hope things don't become a flamefest.
You too. Brusque would be quite an understated description of my usual manner
I respect your position and intend only to say "I don't see myself how most anti-religionists see me, and I hate the parts of so-called religion that they hate"
That's great. However I'm in the position that a huge percentage of the people in my own country would have no problem seeing me put to a brutal death merely because I don't think they have all the answers. They are eager to see the world destroyed and all of the evil ones (by which they mean anybody who chooses to think differently than them) suffer brutal tortured deaths.
These are the people that I think of when I hear "Christian" because they are the ones who have stepped up to speak for all Christianity and there has been no real response from anybody on the other side of the Christian coin. Whether that's because they are just happy to see anything called Christianity ruling over others, whether it's because they figure they're still safe since at least they're not heathens or whatever other reasons they may have, by allowing it to happen; by allowing evil people to speak for them, they are giving up their right to claim to be any better.
So, I respect your right to believe as you choose. If, as you say, you're not one of those sorts, then great.
The fact remains though that whenever I hear anybody describe themselves as a Christian, my survival instinct demands that I fear them, for since their religion tells them that not only are they better than I am, but I am an agent of the supernatural incarnation of evil. People like that can not be reasoned with, since they are beyond it.
If you don't understand that Christianity has earned this reputation over the centuries, then you haven't studied its history.
If you don't know that mainstream American Christianity is working hard to bring back the worst of that reputation into reality, then you haven't been paying any attention to the present.
So like I said, I fear Christians greatly, but I'm not a coward so I will continue to stand up for myself. I think we are looking at some very dark days ahead and that is almost entirely the fault (and even the stated goal) of religious fundamentalists.
There is a proof in God,
No, there isn't. Not in this life. Well, unless he felt like actually showing himself to the world, instead of playing petulant games. That's assuming, of course, that he actually exists which I don't believe.
If God will manifest himself to you, then you have proof. If he does not, you still have no proof.
If he's a god, it's within his power to provide proof that will satisfy everybody.
The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived?
Yes.
The vast majority never had the opportunity to make a free choice since they were told from birth that it's the absolute truth and anybody who says otherwise is evil and will burn. Very sad, but true nonetheless.
I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.
No, you happen to believe that. If it makes you happy, then more power to you. I have no problems with that whatsoever. My only problem is when people think their beliefs give them the right to force them on others. Please note that I'm not accusing you of any such thing.
You claim to lack a religion, but to me religion is any belief system that explains the creation of the world and what its nature is.
I don't seek to explain the *origin* of the universe. I have no need for religion, because I don't have a problem accepting the fact that we don't know how it all started. Believing that some particular group of desert nomads figured it all out seems exceedingly silly to me though. It's possible that science will figure it out. It's possible it won't. *Shrug*
So like I said, I don't have a religion. Even by your definition.
If you can honestly tell me that we are perceiving reality, and we are not brains in a jar being fed perceptual data, then you have a belief system defining the world.
I can't honestly tell you that. It's a pretty silly idea, but that doesn't mean it can't be true. It's irrelevant to me though. I still get uncomfortable if I don't eat. If I don't find some way to procure food, I don't eat. That is reality regardless of whether the world is how I perceive it or if I'm a brain in a jar. There is no need or purpose to make up beliefs about it.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Yes, it is.
You keep saying that and I keep proving you to be a liar. Even by your definition above it doesn't fit. If atheism is a religion, then you are a member of numerous religions. You are an anti-{every religion that's ever been with the exception of Christianity, tooth fairy, FSM etc. etc. et.c}ian. It's stupid and pointless to claim that, and it's fundamentally dishonest. *You* need religion for whatever reason. I don't. I'm not trying to claim superiority, but it is a fundamental difference between us.
Meanwhile, if I'm happy with my children being taught in a sanitized environment that infringes regularly on their free excercise of religion, then I can send them to public school.
Nothing whatsoever in a public school interferes with you forcing your children to exercise your religion.
The only cases that have ever happened in relation to that whole issue were to prevent extremist Christians from forcing their views on others.
The position presented in most science classes is that there is no need for a God, and also teaching that what we don't need to exist shouldn't be presumed to exist.
You're partly right. Science has as an assumption that there is no need to postulate a god to explain what science explains. So far it has worked out pretty damn well. Certainly there is no need to presume existence of something unnecessary to explain what science explains.
That doesn't have a damn thing to do with your religion. That's in a science class. In a science class, that is great.
Outside of a science class it's a different story.
I think that's your fundamental misunderstanding. It's your job to teach your children whatever the hell you want. It's a science teacher's job to teach them science.
Perhaps, I just feel that the state should pay for my childs education where ever that education happens to occur, so that I can send my children to a religious school without having the burden of paying for it.
Well, why don't you have your great charitable church use some of their vast hordes of tax free money to pay for it rather than spending it on investments and illegal political action? If it ain't important enough for you or your church to pay your own way, then you obviously aren't taking your responsibilities seriously.
Your position was to call my religion evil without actually evaluating any of its properties. You assume that I'm a supporter of ID, and attempt to paint my religion as evil.
Regardless of ID, Christianity has been the greatest force for evil in history. Sorry if you don't like it, but history bears that out.
I had an argument with one person about this before. He kept complaining that everyone was trying to "push their beliefs on him", while he himself was being evangelistic about his atheism.
He was attemp
I've been programming python for going on 2 days now ;-) I have a safari account on oreilly.com, so I've been using "Python in a Nutshell" and it's pretty quick and to the point. If you already have programming experience I highly recommend the * in a Nutshell books.
the Learning * books are great for beginning programmers, but could be a bit slow and boring if you just want to pick up a new language.
When it comes to the question of whether ID is a science or not, we're talking about teaching it at the high school level.
There is no question at all. It isn't science. It is religion.
I contend that the "science" taught at the high school level is indeed taught as a religion- completely dogmatic and alternate explainations are not allowed.
Well, then you went to a very bizarre high school. At mine and that of everybody I know, the scientific method was taught and it was made explicitly clear that theories are the best current explanation of the available evidence but they are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. Heck, we started with that lecture in junior high and it was reinforced every year.
Just because you had shitty teachers doesn't mean the rest of us did.
You may consider that a troll- I consider it entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.
No, the trolling was where you took the statement that science has never claimed to have *all* the answers to *everything*, and then said yes it does since your high school science tests were like that.
ID is an alternate explaination that fits the evidence we have so far in evolution-
No it doesn't. It's religious creationism and nothing besides.
Of course it's banned by law, we believe in freedom of religion in this country. That means you don't get to shove your personal beliefs into a science class. Believe what you will, but don't make feeble dishonest attempts to shove your religion into a science class. It hurts science and it makes your god no better than a plate of pasta.
Only if you get them to concede that ID is all about teaching about God in schools. You can stamp your feet and insist that such is their "real" motivation all you like, but nobody from that camp is saying any such thing.
Really?!?!?
Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you?
" We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
--Position paper CRSC.
In fact their camp has explicitly stated that as their primary motivation time and time again. They just don't state it honestly in court because they know full well that their position is illegal, dishonest, and anti-American.
Your religion offends me!
I have no religion.
To suggest that there is no God is absolutely infuriating
Too bad, it's a little thing called freedom. If you're so infuriated by the simple fact that everybody doesn't agree with you in exact detail on everything, then why do you live here? Why haven't you moved to Iran or some other theocracy?!? If you realise how bad those kinds of places are, then why would you support having that sort of crap here?
I do not want you to shove your shit down my, and my children's throat.
Well, it's good that neither I, nor anybody else is trying to do that then, isn't it?
The very nature of public education has only served to advance the Atheist religion,
There you go again with your insane rantings. Atheism isn't a religion. Further atheism is in no way promoted by public education.
*your* religion isn't promoted by public education and that is the entirety of your problem with it in that respect.
and due to law my children are being FORCED to go to that public school, and be taught things that I find fundamentally offensive!
No they aren't. Send them to a religious school. Problem solved. I'll bet that what you find "fundamentally offensive" is the same tired old lies that is the fundie's sole stock in trade. Like you said above. You're spouting insane nonsense.
Fuck you for calling me indecent. I have attempted to live my life in the strictest manner possible, avoiding all things that are indecent. Your presumption that just because I refuse to believe in the lies of evolution makes me not a part of "decent people" is offensive.
You're not indecent for not accepting the simple basic fact of evolution. You're indecent for trying to shove religious dogma into science classes. It's an insult to freedom, it's an insult to decency, and it's an insult to your own god.
You're the one attempting to establish your Athiestic religion by sugguating the public school system to pass on your evil religious motivations.
What a truly frighteningly delusional person you are. Your sole issue is that *your* religion is not being shoved down people's throats in direct violation of the founding principles of this country. You're honestly saying that searching for answers is evil?!? WTF dude.
Right, because I don't blindly accept your beliefs and promote forcing them on others, I'm an evil heretic. Your insane attittude is exactly why the seperation of church and state was enacted.
If a theory can be proven, then call it a fact. Stop calling it "the theory of evolution" and start calling it "the fact of evolution".
Other than demonstrating that you don't even understand what the words you're using mean, was there any point in spouting this nonsense?
There is the fact of evolution. For absolute proof, look at a dog, a seedless watermelon drug resistant bacteria.
Absolute 100% positive proof that evolution happens.
There is also the Theory of Evolution which is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
It's apparent that you are so certain of your belief that evolution is correct that you're willing to discount any possibility that evolution may be wrong.
Short of magic fairys, evoltion is 100% correct.
The theory of evolution isn't even complete, so it could hardly be correct.
You are more than welcome to come up with another scientific theory that explains the observed phenomena. Why is it that nobody on your side of this debate has even tried to do so?
This is hardly accurate.
It is in fact entirely accurate.
This assertion is just as ridiculous as asserting that just because scientists can't explain how bees fly, that all of science is wrong. Divine authority need not be absolute, to still be correct.
In fact it really does have to be absolute. If it isn't, then which parts of it are divine and which parts are man
The events described in those passages take place over the course of not one, but forty days.
Just the one day of the resurrection. Easter, you know.
I never said *what* lessons I took away from it. You can learn from the bad just as well as from the good. More so most times.
There are lessons to be learned everywhere you look. The bible just has some really good ones to teach.
Fair enough.
Evidence please.
The Bible.
You've made the claim - under formal debate standards, it is now your job to uphold it. If you fail, it might seem to be implied that you can't do it.
I have asserted that it is impossible to reconcile the "facts" presented there.
Were it possible, it would fall upon you to do so.
It should be as easy as pie. After all, a perfect loving god put it there for you.
I'll even formalise it for you:
Read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 I Corinthians 15:3-8
Now, write a simple, consistent, chronological narrative of that one day *without ommitting one single biblical detail*
Sounds easy enough, after all, it's the one day upon which the entire religion completely relies.
knock yourself out, but you will fail it. utterly.
Then if it's a waste of time, why fight that it's even there... This is my assertion, if the ID people were happy with that, then why not just leave it alone, why piss them off by going and insisting that they remove something that is an accurate, and nonoffensive clarrification of the contents.
You're argument is entirely off base here.
It's not "Why remove something that was placed there by people with an agenda", it's "why even put it there?"
They're the ones trying to shove their shit down everybody else's throats. They're the ones pissing off decent people.
If reality pisses them off, fuck em. They're the ones trying to waste money on a redundt statement directed against one particular field of science that they're too cowardly to deal with.
The use of "ripped off" also is inflammatory.
The entire point of their sticker is inflammatory. That's why they intentionally misuse the word "theory" That was my entire point in making up my sticker. I hope you didn't think my intent was that it shouldn't be inflammatory.
Also, The Bible has a number of stories borrowed from at the time contemporary religions. Your sticker would not indicate that.
True, but I think "ripped off" is too kind in that respect. "The promoters of those ideas were brutally murdered and their ideas stolen in order to assert control over their faithful".
Also, the pope, and medieval kings also used it to subjugate their people.
The Popes were the leaders of the Roman empire for most of the early history of the religion, so adding that is arguable redundant, but clarification might work.
I'd also say that medieval kings *continued* to use it....Church control was continuous, regardless of the empire. kingdoms, or nations involved.
personally believe that James is the worst Gospel, and its variation in the presentation of the attitude of Jesus is quite literally opposed to the one presented in the other three Gospels.
Which completely destroys any divine authority, and any reason to take it as anything besides a collection of fables.
Considering that most modern translations are from the oldest sources that we can gather, it's unlikely that modern bibles need to include this statement. More accurately would be that some books have been excluded from canon for essentially arbitrary reasons, just as well as some have been included for arbitrary reasons.
They're all arbitrary. The reasons varied, but often were a matter of one group of bishops using trivial differences as an excuse to murder their opposition. That's why it's important to note that regardless of the particular translation, the selection of entire chapters was based on evil men's desire to subjugate their fellow man.
You want that as a sticker on public Bibles, I'm fine with it.
Ahhhh, no see.. I want that plastered on your church.
Keep your church out of my state and I'll keep my state out of your church.
Please don't think I'm actually arguing for that. The entire point of the ID movement is to destroy that most fundamental of American values. I have no problem with people believing whatever crazy thing their heart desires. I have an extreme problem with people trying to shove their evil, murderous (as it *always* is when given government power) faith down my throat.
Proof like all things in life requires the people doing the proving and the people having something proved to them to accept some basic foundations and assumptions. Without accepting those basic assumptions, you can not prove anything.
Fair enough.
In mathematics, things are absolutely proven, but only within the framework set up for that purpose.
There is no framework for religion. The assumption that there is a god is the only piece of framework, and it adds no new information to any discussion.
So, there is still no proof, because the only thing to be proven has already been assumed.
There has never been anything proven incorrect about the bible.
Like I said, lay out the most important day in the entire religion without leaving out inconveninet inconsistent facts. It can't be done.
It isn't even internally consistent, let alone if you add in outside facts.
Also, don't you think that someone who devoted their life to following Christianity would know the facts of their own religion better than that of an interested bystander?
It would be great if that were true, but if Christians took an honest look at the history of their religion, there would be no more Christianity.
The history of reborn sun gods is ancient.
Far older than Christianity *or* the Christian god.
Those are simple basic facts that anybody with an interest in the subject would know.
*blink*
Sooo, any time there is a debate on a subject then *all* arguments must be false simply because there are lots of arguments? Wow.
No, the argument works well.
You've merely managed to miss the point.
A perfect all powerful, all knowing creature could easily have made his will known clearly and concisely.
Had he chosen to do so, then there wouldn't be constant murder torture and evil done in his name because he's too freaking incompetent to get his point across.
That he's failed utterly to do so is entirely *his* failing. Any attempt to dispute that is to also destroy his perfection.
That makes him imperfect at the very least.
Hence there is no perfect all powerful all knowing being.
Your failure to understand is demonstrated in your response by you trying to put human arguments on the same level as a perfect all powerful all knowing being.
Did you even look over what you wrote once before you hit submit?!?
However, they have a moral and a lesson to be taught. That's the important thing i believe.
The problem I have with this idea is the lessons it teaches are all completely inconsistent and all over the map.
Slavery and genocide are very strongly supported by the bible.
Treating others as you would be treated, charity and generosity are as well.
The most important ( in the writer's minds ) was submitting to any atrocities you had to suffer in this life since you would be rewarded in the next.
It's extremely pro ruler and anti-populace moreso than anything from a moral perspective which makes perfect sense given who wrote it.
So there are good moral lessons that can be learned from it, but there are also those that all decent people have long since rejected. The problem is that there is no possible way to put one type above the other without rejecting the fundamental *religious* aspect.
(It's worth noting that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" parodies which many in the anti-ID crowd have latched on to do not, in any way, contradict or discredit Intelligent Design. ID is completely mute on the nature of the "Intelligent Designer.")
You have completely missed the point of the FSM.
What that demonstrates simply and absolutely is that by trying to put ID in the science class they have made their god *indistinguishable* from the FSM.
These people are so desperate for some sort of validation for their beliefs that they are willing to drag their great and glorious god down to being a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.
That is why the FSM is so great. Well... apart from the pirates arrrggghh
Somehow to them their lack of belief in a God is more justified than belief in a God, and they would rather argue that their beliefs are not a religion, because they are logically justified, than admit that fundamentally, it's all based on presumptions, and assumptions.
That is an utterly insane illogical asshatted statement.
Lack of belief requires no justification whatsoever.
Prove your beliefs. Then there would be something to justify believing in them.
You assume there is a god.
I don't make any assumptions.
That makes you religious. You have chosen to believe in something that there is no evidence for. I have not done that.
Your entire point is based on a logical fallacy. It's only if your beliefs were true that there would be any reason to accept them. Circular argument.
Here's a challenge you'll fail utterly:
Write out a chronology of the day of the resurrection using the bible and without ignoring any of the details. Make it consistent.
Sorry, Saprky, but you are religious, and I'm not. Your cowardly inability to accept that demonstrates the weakness of your position.
The point occured to me when I read this sticker... shouldn't all of science be labeled this way? And why would a scientist be upset that we're telling children to critically think about the information contained in their books?
It's a waste of time to label all science that way because science is *defined* that way.
How about this. We label your church with a big sign saying "The bible is a collection of stories ripped off from earlier religions and used as a means for the leaders of the Roman empire to subjugate their people. Many different, conflicting, versions of the stories exist within the bible itself and many more stories were edited out primarily as a means to allow a few evil people to pillage and murder the supporters of the other equally valid stories. There is little, if any, evidence that there ever was a Jesus and the gospels were written long after his death by people who never met him if he ever did live."
I'm sure you are 100% in support of that. If not, then you are a hypocrite.
So, if you don't support telling the facts for what they are, then what the hell are you talking about, exactly?
Science never claimed to explain everything. Never.
Is completely incorrect as far as most people are concerned. Answers on the tests in high school science class are either right or wrong, never giving points for original thought.
So your tests in high school covered everything?
Dude, you're such a ridiculous troll. Questions on high school science tests that I've seen are simple enough to admit simple yes/no answers. Your response had nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
I got points for original thought. I rightly didn't get points for ignorant trolls.
But that's NOT the way it's presented when you go to court to exclude other explainations from the classroom.
Sure it is. Other explanations are more than welcome. Why don't you come up with one?
Ignorant religious nonsense isn't. That's what churches are for, not science classes.
Or more accurately, we'd still be sitting in castles, and homes of wood eating food cooked over an open flame.
No, the OP had it exactly right.
Just because the modern scientific method hadn't been formalized yet doesn't mean that castles used to be built by believing that the stones would magically stack themselves.
The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion,
That's barely arguable, but irrelevant.
Opting not to believe some ridiculous nonsense is not a religious belief, it's basic common sense. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god, so not believing isn't religious at all. Every single person who ever lived was born an atheist.
the mere belief that your perceptions are of a true reality, is a belief and a philosophical assertion.
No, the exact opposite of what you are saying is true. Arguing that nothing is real and we're all just living through a common delusion or somesuch is philsophical. Dealing with the reality we all live in as it is is realism.
I believe in God and have proved Him for myself. No scientific fact has affected that proof.
That's because it isn't proof. You chose to believe it. That's faith. If it were proof, then you could easily prove it to everybody.
If you really want to know for yourself, you'll have to search... it definatly isn't for those who *want* it to be false.
You're right on that, but it goes even further than that.
It's only for those who *want* it to be true. And of course, those who want to prey upon those who *want* it to be true, as is the reality of every major religion.
I mean any study of the history of the Christian religion proves absolutely that it was made up. People who want badly enough to believe will find ways to deny the basic historical facts.
The idea that there is some sort of a god is consistent with common sense.
That *any* of the specifically detailed religions we've ever had got it right is utter nonsense.
I'm certainly not lazy. I've gone as far as to study the real history of your religion.
Compiling a recent 2.6 series kernel and modules takes about 75 minutes, what does it take on your Gentoo box?
Damn, dude, that sounds really slow.
I have a Dell Optiplex gx260 (P4 2.8, 1 Gig RAM) and it takes around 20-25 minutes.
My new server at work is a dual Opteron 246, 2 Gigs of RAM and it took just over 5 minutes.
OSS innovated all of those? Funny... could have fooled me.
Well, then fooling you doesn't seem that hard to do. Those are just a few of the most obvious.
No, I'm pretty sure he and his monkey got nothing to hide.
Then why is he spanking the monkey if there's nothing to hide?