What is your religion?

[Bannister]

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

Bannister

PS. If you have something to say, feel free to use big boy letters.

[theats]

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

Bannister

PS. If you have something to say, feel free to use big boy letters.


Are you suggesting that CS lewis is less of a man than mark twain?[/quote]

[Bannister]

No, only that his words are equally interesting.

Bannister

[Revdyer]

There is a wonderful story of the Mulla Nazrudin, in the Sufi tradition, about this.

One day some boys were throwing rocks at the Mulla and making fun of him. In order to stop them from doing that, he said, "Boys, you'd better run off to the Imer's house, for I hear that he is giving a free banquet for all." Well, the boys immediately turned and ran down the street toward the Imer's house. Nazrudin watched them go for a few seconds and then he tucked up his robe and headed off after them, saying to himself, "Well, I'd better go too, for it might be true!"

The story, of course, can be understood or apprecited on a number of levels.

[Chimpy]

Rev, is that from the Gulistan? We have just stared reading it in World Lit, and I find it a fascinating set of moral tales. I have been looking for a good translation that covers more than the basic quotes given in our World Lit. book, so I am quite interested in where you found it.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

Bannister

PS. If you have something to say, feel free to use big boy letters.


Are you suggesting that CS lewis is less of a man than mark twain?

No, only that his words are equally interesting.
I am certain in my heart that Mark Twain could kick CS Lewis a ss, bigtime.

[theats]

I am certain in my heart that Mark Twain could kick CS Lewis a ss, bigtime.

Samuel Clemons would not hold a match to C.S. Lewis. At Least Lewis was open about his faith, and used his own name when writing.

[Chimpy]

That is because C. S. Lewis had a much cooler sounding name. Mark Twain was not hiding when he came up with Mark Twain- he was just trying to appeal to his market a bit better.

P.S. Threats, adding C. S. Lewis to the discussion helps no one, least of all him. By using him and his quotes in such a careless manner, he loses credulence with every one in the thread.

[Revdyer]

Rev, is that from the Gulistan? We have just stared reading it in World Lit, and I find it a fascinating set of moral tales. I have been looking for a good translation that covers more than the basic quotes given in our World Lit. book, so I am quite interested in where you found it.
That was my memory of a story in Shah, Idries. The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nazrudin. London: The Octagon Press, 1983. So, it is not from the Gulistan literature per se, but from the same world culture.

[Onion Knight]

I am certain in my heart that Mark Twain could kick CS Lewis a ss, bigtime.

I wonder who would be more likely to turn the other cheek.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about the "trilemma" Lewis puts forth in Mere Christianity.

From Wiki...
In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a great moral teacher:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, p. 43)
Lewis, who did not invent this argument but did much to popularise it, argues that Jesus made many claims to divinity, either explicitly or implicitly. As a result, he said, there are only three possible options:
Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.

[HSisforcoolkids]

I do think Jesus had/has divinity in him, but I don't think he ever claimed to be God.

John 8:54-"Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me."

I think that (along with other verses) shows Jesus believed that there was a clear separation between himself and God. IMHO, when we talk about Jesus and God being the same, we should focus on the fact that God and Jesus had the same basic will for humanity, and that Jesus obeyed God in everything.

[Bannister]

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It is called "Christ"ianity after all. It is through faith in the teachings of Christ that you will find salvation. If I told you I believed in the God of the bible but not that Jesus was his son, would you still consider me worthy of everlasting life? No, you would probably consider me Jewish.

It doesn't really matter if you believe Jesus to be an extension of god, one with god or the same as god. You have to believe that he is divine in some way to call yourself a Christian.

The Christian religion was founded by believers in Christ. The new testament grew mostly from the teachings of Christ.

Bannister

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

I am certain in my heart that Mark Twain could kick CS Lewis a ss, bigtime.

I wonder who would be more likely to turn the other cheek.
LOL - no one will ever know I suppose. My comment was a joke in any case. :D

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about the "trilemma" Lewis puts forth in Mere Christianity.

From Wiki...
In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a great moral teacher:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, p. 43)
Lewis, who did not invent this argument but did much to popularise it, argues that Jesus made many claims to divinity, either explicitly or implicitly. As a result, he said, there are only three possible options:
Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.

This seems silly to me.
Of course he could be a nutjob (thinking he was the son of god/god himself) and still have the ability to be a great teacher. One does not logically preclude the other.
Furthermore this arguement rests precariously on the shaky premise that we can be certain Jesus actually said all the things he is purported to have said.
Even further still, to imagine that these three options are the only options available is misleading. Jesus could easily have believed he was divine and still have been able to say wonderful things like "Love your neighbor as yourself." How exactly would the goodness of this teaching be somehow less true or good if Jesus was a nutter who believed falsely that he was divine?

[HSisforcoolkids]

Furthermore this arguement rests precariously on the shaky premise that we can be certain Jesus actually said all the things he is purported to have said.

I agree that there are more than those three options listed by CS Lewis. I think that oversimplified.

But I do think there is pretty good reason to believe that Jesus said the things he is purported to have said. The Gospels were written within a relatively short time of Jesus' death:
Matthew-before 70 CE
Mark-between 55-70 CE
Luke-Maybe as early as 62 CE
John-80's-90's CE
(These dates are all certainly debatable.)

That means that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which focus more on events that actually happened (as opposed to John which seems to be more of a theological work), were written 30-40 years after Christ died. Other history from anitquity was written hundreds of years after events passed, but are still trusted as accurate history.

Another reason to believe that the events and words written actually happened is the fact that Matthew was an eye witness to Christ and Mark and Luke were in the company of eyewitnesses. Some say that the people who wrote these works were not actually who they say they were, but consider this: Matthew was a tax collector (a hated profession) and Mark and Luke were not even eyewitnesses. If I were an annonymous writer at this time, writing about the life of Jesus, I would not use those three names in an attempt to get readership or to be believed.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

Furthermore this arguement rests precariously on the shaky premise that we can be certain Jesus actually said all the things he is purported to have said.

I agree that there are more than those three options listed by CS Lewis. I think that oversimplified.

But I do think there is pretty good reason to believe that Jesus said the things he is purported to have said. The Gospels were written within a relatively short time of Jesus' death:
Matthew-before 70 CE
Mark-between 55-70 CE
Luke-Maybe as early as 62 CE
John-80's-90's CE
(These dates are all certainly debatable.)
Its been a long time since I looked at the authorship of the Gospels. I remember it is supposed that the first three synoptic gospels are so similar it is highly likely they were adapted from at least one other currently unavailable writing.

Another reason to believe that the events and words written actually happened is the fact that Matthew was an eye witness to Christ and Mark and Luke were in the company of eyewitnesses. Some say that the people who wrote these works were not actually who they say they were, but consider this: Matthew was a tax collector (a hated profession) and Mark and Luke were not even eyewitnesses. If I were an annonymous writer at this time, writing about the life of Jesus, I would not use those three names in an attempt to get readership or to be believed.
Regardless of unknowable motivations - the authorship of Matthew as an eyewitness is hardly certain. It could as easily be that the Gospel was named for Matthew because he is listed as a disciple and thereby carry more weight with followers.

[Revdyer]

I think, for the Christian, the idea that Jesus was God-like is secondary to the much more interesting revelation that God is Jesus-like.

[Bannister]

I think, for the Christian, the idea that Jesus was God-like is secondary to the much more interesting revelation that God is Jesus-like.

Is God Jesus-like? Where can we find that?


Bannister

[Revdyer]

I think, for the Christian, the idea that Jesus was God-like is secondary to the much more interesting revelation that God is Jesus-like.

Is God Jesus-like? Where can we find that?


BannisterI think that the folks who insist that Jesus claimed divinity (a claim that does have difficulties from a historical-critical perspective) have missed the point of the connection between God and Jesus. As to the phrase itself, I fear that I have to take the blame myself for that. It may be heresy, but if so, it is heuristic heresy.

[Onion Knight]

Of course he could be a nutjob (thinking he was the son of god/god himself) and still have the ability to be a great teacher. One does not logically preclude the other.
No, but Lewis's argument is that Jesus would not have gone down as one of the most influential people to have ever lived had he been a loon.

Furthermore this arguement rests precariously on the shaky premise that we can be certain Jesus actually said all the things he is purported to have said.

It's true that we can't know for sure. I guess it depends on how much authority one gives the Gospels.
As far as Jesus's divinity. Mark 14:60-62. (There are many other verses.)

Even further still, to imagine that these three options are the only options available is misleading. Jesus could easily have believed he was divine and still have been able to say wonderful things like "Love your neighbor as yourself." How exactly would the goodness of this teaching be somehow less true or good if Jesus was a nutter who believed falsely that he was divine?

The most important teaching of Jesus, IMO, was John 3:16. It's why he came here. The "Love your neighbor" type teachings had been around in various forms. We didn't need Jesus for those teachings. We needed him to live a sinless life, die on the cross, and ressurect. It is an incredibly beautiful way for all of us to be made right with God.

That is why this discussion is so important to so many Christians. To hear people talk about our savior as some Jim Jones, David Koresh type of everyday messiah that came from a remote area of the Middle East and just so happened to impact all of mankind simply because we are all too stupid to know that "the powers that be" have, generation after generation, manipulated his ministry solely to meet their own ends is both maddening and at the same time sad.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Can Christians accept Buddha as a great moral teacher? Muhammad? Without believing in their divinity?

[Onion Knight]

Can Christians accept Buddha as a great moral teacher? Muhammad? Without believing in their divinity?

They did not claim divinity. That is, claim to be the Messiah.

But, IMO, sure they could. Buddha, Muhammad, Confucious, RevDyer... great.

Just not in areas where their teachings conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

[Dictatorbilbo]

Eh... That didn't come out the way I wanted... Hmm...

[Revdyer]

And, of course, Christians do recognize great moral teachers, no matter their faith, when they see them (sometimes we don't see them for our cultural blinders).

One thing that Onion Knight mentioned, though...there has been/is great debate on whether the Messiah is a divine figure...some would say the Messiah is called/commissioned/empowered by God; the Christian orthodox position is that the Messiah is a person of the Trinity and therefore God. It took the Church about three hundred years to come to that conclusion, though. So it is not an easy question. (The fact that the prophet Isaiah calls Cyrus a Messiah is a case in point.) In ancient Jewish belief it is possible to speak of a Messiah, while Christians tend to speak of the Messiah. Which Jesus would have said is debatable.

[Onion Knight]

If I told you I believed in the God of the bible but not that Jesus was his son, would you still consider me worthy of everlasting life? No, you would probably consider me Jewish.

It doesn't really matter if you believe Jesus to be an extension of god, one with god or the same as god. You have to believe that he is divine in some way to call yourself a Christian.


According to my understanding of the bible, no one is worthy. What matters, is if you accept Jesus's sinless life, death, and ressurection. God gave us Jesus as a way out. So IMO, to God, it would matter very much.

[Bannister]

If I told you I believed in the God of the bible but not that Jesus was his son, would you still consider me worthy of everlasting life? No, you would probably consider me Jewish.

It doesn't really matter if you believe Jesus to be an extension of god, one with god or the same as god. You have to believe that he is divine in some way to call yourself a Christian.


According to my understanding of the bible, no one is worthy. What matters, is if you accept Jesus's sinless life, death, and ressurection. God gave us Jesus as a way out. So IMO, to God, it would matter very much.

I am not sure I understand what it is you are saying.

What would matter very much to God?

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

I am not sure I understand what it is you are saying.

What would matter very much to God?

Bannister
Sorry.
When you were commenting on what it takes to be considered Christian, you mentioned...
It doesn't really matter if you believe Jesus to be an extension of god, one with god or the same as god. You have to believe that he is divine in some way to call yourself a Christian.
This, culturally I guess, is true. My opinion, based on my understanding of scripture, is that whether or not you view Jesus as...
"an extension of God" (which one could argue that we all are)
or "one with God"
or "the same as God"
or simply as a Prophet sent by God (which, btw, could also be considered as "divine")
or the God in the flesh
...does matter to God, since it was him that paid for our sins through death, burial, and ressurection.

(I don't know if I even clarified anything. That is the worst writing I've ever read.)

[robopesant]

The way to be a Christian is, You have to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and repent (Try not to sin).

[Onion Knight]

Which Jesus would have said is debatable.
Scripturally, we have what Jesus said.

Jesus claimed "I AM."
Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the prophecies (of the messiah.)
Jesus claimed to be the Christ to Peter as well as the Jewish court.

300 years to come to that conclusion? The gospel was written a few decades after Jesus's ressurection.

I realize that messiah simply means "annointed one" but what am I missing Rev? Especially considering that those Jewish prophesies were about the Messiah.

[Revdyer]

Which Jesus would have said is debatable.
Scripturally, we have what Jesus said.

Jesus claimed "I AM."
Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the prophecies (of the messiah.)
Jesus claimed to be the Christ to Peter as well as the Jewish court.

300 years to come to that conclusion? The gospel was written a few decades after Jesus's ressurection.

I realize that messiah simply means "annointed one" but what am I missing Rev? Especially considering that those Jewish prophesies were about the Messiah.First, not all Jewish readers of the Hebrew Scriptures would agree with you that there can be only one Messiah. As I mentioned, Cyrus is called Messiah, so if there is only one, he'd be it. (Not that anyone ever seriously said that.) But many Jews, ancient and modern, see the possibility of God sending a Messiah in every crisis. That is one of the things that set the early Christians apart from the other people in their synagogues and eventually (with several other factors) got them kicked out of the synagogues.

Even more, not everyone in the early Christian communities agreed about what it meant to call Jesus the Messiah, and they certainly did not agree that the prophesies in the Hebrew Scriptures ever said the Messiah was God. Those questions were not settled until the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople and Chalecedon. The difficulty is that when most Christians today read the Greek Scriptures of the New Testament, they read the later decisions about the divinity of Christ back into them. Perhaps they (we) do so correctly, but we, at least, ought to be aware that Biblical interpretation is always colored by theology and never purely objective, simply because it is, in fact, interpretation.

[Agent Minivann]

I think the messiah thing is a messiah/Messiah thing(wow, that was redundant). There are messiahs, but only one Messiah. Moses would be a messiah, but Christ would be the Messiah.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

That is why this discussion is so important to so many Christians. To hear people talk about our savior as some Jim Jones, David Koresh type of everyday messiah that came from a remote area of the Middle East and just so happened to impact all of mankind simply because we are all too stupid to know that "the powers that be" have, generation after generation, manipulated his ministry solely to meet their own ends is both maddening and at the same time sad.
No need to get all defensive - hell, I thought we were talking about CS Lewis!

If it makes you feel better about the world and life and your chances after your death, by all means, go ahead and believe, I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you.

[Jotun]

, I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you.

That's where we differ. Long live rationally supported points of view.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

, I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you.

That's where we differ. Long live rationally supported points of view.
I'm all for promoting a rational POV as well. But mostly my goal is live and let live and a secular and impartial a government as possible. If we can keep religion out of any part of government then I am happy to have anyone believe anything they like.

[theats]

, I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you.

That's where we differ. Long live rationally supported points of view.

*cough* iconoclast *cough*

[Onion Knight]

That is why this discussion is so important to so many Christians. To hear people talk about our savior as some Jim Jones, David Koresh type of everyday messiah that came from a remote area of the Middle East and just so happened to impact all of mankind simply because we are all too stupid to know that "the powers that be" have, generation after generation, manipulated his ministry solely to meet their own ends is both maddening and at the same time sad.
No need to get all defensive - hell, I thought we were talking about CS Lewis!

If it makes you feel better about the world and life and your chances after your death, by all means, go ahead and believe, I wouldn't dream of taking that away from you.

I just wanted to see how long of a sentance I could write. :wink:

[HSisforcoolkids]

I think, for the Christian, the idea that Jesus was God-like is secondary to the much more interesting revelation that God is Jesus-like.

I realize this is way late, but I can't agree more with this statement. We can understand God through Christ, and we can finally understand what it means to be created in God's image.

[Onion Knight]

Which Jesus would have said is debatable.
Scripturally, we have what Jesus said.

Jesus claimed "I AM."
Jesus claimed to be fulfilling the prophecies (of the messiah.)
Jesus claimed to be the Christ to Peter as well as the Jewish court.

300 years to come to that conclusion? The gospel was written a few decades after Jesus's ressurection.

I realize that messiah simply means "annointed one" but what am I missing Rev? Especially considering that those Jewish prophesies were about the Messiah.First, not all Jewish readers of the Hebrew Scriptures would agree with you that there can be only one Messiah. As I mentioned, Cyrus is called Messiah, so if there is only one, he'd be it. (Not that anyone ever seriously said that.) But many Jews, ancient and modern, see the possibility of God sending a Messiah in every crisis. That is one of the things that set the early Christians apart from the other people in their synagogues and eventually (with several other factors) got them kicked out of the synagogues.

Even more, not everyone in the early Christian communities agreed about what it meant to call Jesus the Messiah, and they certainly did not agree that the prophesies in the Hebrew Scriptures ever said the Messiah was God. Those questions were not settled until the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople and Chalecedon. The difficulty is that when most Christians today read the Greek Scriptures of the New Testament, they read the later decisions about the divinity of Christ back into them. Perhaps they (we) do so correctly, but we, at least, ought to be aware that Biblical interpretation is always colored by theology and never purely objective, simply because it is, in fact, interpretation.

I think that I see what you are saying Rev. I'm not sure if I agree with the Council of Nicea thing, but I have to defer momentarily till I do some more reading. (I'm loving this discussion. :D)
Rev and HS...
I listed a few verses that I believe represent Jesus's claim of divinity. How do you read those? Do you believe he claimed divinity? Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God (that is, God incarnate) who lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and rose from the grave?
To you, who is Jesus?

DMG, sorry if I was defensive. The fact that I'm viewed as an uneducated idiot for believing in God grates on me sometimes.

Jotun, your just as bad as any "religious fanatic" whom you loathe.

[Revdyer]

Onion Knight, I mean this in the most sincere way possible. I have been asking the question, "To you, who is Jesus?" for over fifty years. I have studied the question in school and in life. I'm not done asking it, and the answer, for me, at this point, in my teaching and preaching, is, literally, some four thousand pages long. I don't think I can condense that into anything appropriate for this forum other than the classical affirmation, "Jesus is Lord."

[Onion Knight]

I hope I'm not being offensive to anyone.

[Jotun]

Jotun, your just as bad as any "religious fanatic" whom you loathe.

You're probably right.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

[quote="Onion Knight"]DMG, sorry if I was defensive. The fact that I'm viewed as an uneducated idiot for believing in God grates on me sometimes. [quote]No apology necessary. I'm not sure where you got the idea anyone thought you were an uneducated idiot.

[Bannister]

DMG, sorry if I was defensive. The fact that I'm viewed as an uneducated idiot for believing in God grates on me sometimes. No apology necessary. I'm not sure where you got the idea anyone thought you were an uneducated idiot.

Yeah, I never said you were uneducated.

j/k


I hope I'm not being offensive to anyone.

You offend me. But mostly just when I chop you up and the noxious fumes make me tear up.

:rofl:

Whew! That was fun.

Bannister

PS. No Onions where harmed in the making of this post.

[Revdyer]

You never offended me, Onion Knight.

[Jotun]

I watched a fascinating debate between Christopher Hitchens and Allistair McGrath. Link here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1752,Debate-between-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Alister-McGrath,Christopher-Hitchens-Alister-McGrath). If you can only watch part, then make sure you see Hitchens' opening statement. I've transcribed part of it, which is a little awkward because unlike McGrath (who I actually like), Hitchens is much less rehearsed. I've seen McGrath give the same intro a couple times before.

Warning! Christopher Hitchens is not nice, so if you are sensitive about your faith, please just ignore this big wall of text.

His closing remarks:
Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins say that homo sapiens have been on the planet at most but not more than 250,000 years but not less than 100,000. That is the lowest I’ve heard. In fact, I only need 100,000 years. For 100,000 years homo sapiens was born, very often killing the mother in the process. Life expectancy probably not much more 20-25 years. Dying probably of the teeth. Agonizing, as near as to the brain as they are. Or of hunger or of microorganisms that they did not know existed, or of events such as volcanic or tsunami or earthquake-types that would have been wholly terrifying as well. As well as turf wars over women, land, food, property. Imagine it for yourself what the first few tens of thousands of years were like. And we like to think, learning a little in the process, and certainly having Gods all the way. Worshiping bears early on and even humans. Exponentially perhaps improving. Though in some areas of the world very nearly or completely dying out.

According to the Christian faith Heaven watches this with folded arms for 98,000 years. Then decides it’s time to intervene, and the best way of doing that is by human sacrifice in primitive Palestine where the news would take so long to spread that it still hasn’t penetrated very large parts of the world. And that would be our redemption of the human species. Now I submit to you ladies and gentlemen that that which you must believe to believe the Christian revelation is not possible to believe, as well as not decent to believe. Why? Because a virgin birth is more likely than that. A resurrection is more possible than that.

If it was true it would have two implications: It would have to mean that the designer of this plan was unbelievable lazy and inept or unbelievably callous and cruel and indifferent and capricious. And that is the case with every argument for design and every argument for revelation and intervention that has ever been made, but it is now conclusively so because of the superior knowledge that we’ve won for ourselves by an endless struggle to assert our reason, our science, our humanity, our extension of knowledge against the priests and the rabbis and the mullahs who have always wanted us to consider ourselves made from dust or a clot of blood.

The final insult that religion delivers to us. The final poison that religion injects into our system. It appeals both to our meanness, our self-centeredness. In other words it’s sado-masochistic. I’ll put it like this. You’re a clot of blood. You’re a piece of mud. You’re lucky to be alive. God fashioned you for his convenience even though you were born in filth and sin. And even though every religion that’s ever been been is distinguished principally by the idea that we should be disgusted by our own sexuality. Name me a religion that does not play upon that fact. So you’re lucky to be here, originally sinful and covered in shame and filth as you are. You’re a wretched creature. But take heart, the universe is designed with you in mind! And Heaven has a plan for you!

Ladies and gentlemen, I close by saying, I can’t believe that there is a thinking person here who does not realize that our human species would not begin to grow to something like its full height if it left this childishness behind, if it emancipated itself from this sinister, childish nonsense.

[theats]

And my response to the above statement is thus:

There is no infallible proof that the earth is any more than 6000 years old, let alone the human species. This theory relies solely on the premise that one BELIEVES that the current methods of time measurements are accurate. For a Christian, or a Muslim or Israelite for that matter, it is a simple as exclaiming that the lord creating it. Such a claim i snot so much preposterous of that as the claim that states that all diverse life originated from DNA and RNA molecules. People of the Faith have written record, including ages of death and of birth all of the way until King David, and in the New Testament, All of the way until Jesus himself. You will not find any written evidence of the sagas of mankind from a single molecule to 7 billion people, and claiming that some dirt, or some air bubbles trapped in ice are a window into the past are as far from believable as Virgin Birth and Divine Creation.

[Bannister]

Appearance of age claims that God created a world with a false history. Such a claim is directly refuted by the Bible, which claims that God's creation declares His glory and righteousness. Nowhere does any biblical author make the claim that God's word contradicts any historical facts. Ultimately, the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible. A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me as a senior in high school. Assuming he was correct, I rejected the "God of the Bible" as being unworthy of my worship. It wasn't until many years later that I read the Bible for myself and came to faith in Jesus Christ - the God who is the truth - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God?

Bannister

[Chimpy]

And my response to the above statement is thus:
There is no infallible proof that the earth is any more than 6000 years old, let alone the human species. This theory relies solely on the premise that one BELIEVES that the current methods of time measurements are accurate. For a Christian, or a Muslim or Israelite for that matter, it is a simple as exclaiming that the lord creating it. Such a claim i snot so much preposterous of that as the claim that states that all diverse life originated from DNA and RNA molecules. People of the Faith have written record, including ages of death and of birth all of the way until King David, and in the New Testament, All of the way until Jesus himself. You will not find any written evidence of the sagas of mankind from a single molecule to 7 billion people, and claiming that some dirt, or some air bubbles trapped in ice are a window into the past are as far from believable as Virgin Birth and Divine Creation.


First off, I will say that I respectively disagree with Mr. Hitchens. However, none of the case quoted works. The fact of the matter is, there is tons of evidence that points towards an Earth 6,000 years or older. The studies and sciences of biology, archeology, history, linguistics, geology, astronomy, and anthropology agree on this. Further more, we can watch all of the scientific principles in which these sciences are based off of first hand in the world today. Precept upon precept the evidence mounts until you have a near unbreakable system for understanding our world. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of observing and calculating the processes of our world.

You mention DNA. Lets talk about that. We have observed that DNA and RNA causes life now. We have not observed God directly "making" life. You mention genealogy and written records. Well, written records can be tampered with, can they not? It is a bit harder to tamper with DNA. Furthermore, DNA has provided evidence of the great human sagas of the world. Just as we can tell (through DNA analysis) if you are your father's son, or grandfather's grandchild, we can tell where your descendants came from, and who they are, thousands of years in the past. I will also remind you that such DNA evidence is accepted in the United States Judicial system. This is not just some leftist professors junk.

In conclusion, these theories rest entirely on the EVIDENCE and OBSERVATIONS that man has conducted and seen throughout our history. Any attempt to say otherwise is laughable.

[theats]

True, we may be able to see that DNA and RNA make babies, but What I was getting at is that Understandable records are a bit better than extrapolating on the prehistoric existence of such. My opinion, though it may seem contrary to my previously stated argument, is that Human beings Stemmed from two Humans, created directly by the hands of God, originated aproximately 6,000 years ago. The sandbox that we live in however, is debatable about when it was created. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know for a 100% fact, and I don't know of anyone else that was there, saw it with there own eyes, and wrote it down. I just have to go with I have, and believe, though not blindly, that it is true.

[Sci-fi Messiah]

Well, I'm definitely not Christian or any form of religion that exists. I believe and God and the scriptures, but I refuse to believe the one set path to God. There are many religions and many ways, so I focus on seeing where all of those religions meet.

I used to be an atheist, so I know what it's like to not believe in anything. It would be so much easier to just say "**** religion, **** God, he doesn't exist, he's not real.", but alas I cannot do so.

[Chimpy]

True, we may be able to see that DNA and RNA make babies, but What I was getting at is that Understandable records are a bit better than extrapolating on the prehistoric existence of such. My opinion, though it may seem contrary to my previously stated argument, is that Human beings Stemmed from two Humans, created directly by the hands of God, originated aproximately 6,000 years ago. The sandbox that we live in however, is debatable about when it was created. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know for a 100% fact, and I don't know of anyone else that was there, saw it with there own eyes, and wrote it down. I just have to go with I have, and believe, though not blindly, that it is true.

How are understandable records better? You do realize that one can make up what one wants and pass it for an understable record right? That is why your line of logic will fail at convincing any doubter to your side.

[jaques]

Well, I'm definitely not Christian or any form of religion that exists. I believe and God and the scriptures, but I refuse to believe the one set path to God. There are many religions and many ways, so I focus on seeing where all of those religions meet.

I used to be an atheist, so I know what it's like to not believe in anything. It would be so much easier to just say "**** religion, **** God, he doesn't exist, he's not real.", but alas I cannot do so.

Maybe you're a Unitarian Universalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism)and just don't know it?

[Sci-fi Messiah]

Well, I'm definitely not Christian or any form of religion that exists. I believe and God and the scriptures, but I refuse to believe the one set path to God. There are many religions and many ways, so I focus on seeing where all of those religions meet.

I used to be an atheist, so I know what it's like to not believe in anything. It would be so much easier to just say "**** religion, **** God, he doesn't exist, he's not real.", but alas I cannot do so.

Maybe you're a Unitarian Universalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism)and just don't know it?

Yes, you're right, I suppose I am. I'd never even heard of that before. Thanks very much for the link!

[Jotun]

True, we may be able to see that DNA and RNA make babies, but What I was getting at is that Understandable records are a bit better than extrapolating on the prehistoric existence of such. My opinion, though it may seem contrary to my previously stated argument, is that Human beings Stemmed from two Humans, created directly by the hands of God, originated aproximately 6,000 years ago. The sandbox that we live in however, is debatable about when it was created. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know for a 100% fact, and I don't know of anyone else that was there, saw it with there own eyes, and wrote it down. I just have to go with I have, and believe, though not blindly, that it is true.

Please do not fool yourself into believing that there is ANY debate about the age of the Earth. I can at least respect the folks that believe the Bible hands down despite it's conflict with evidence. From my point of view, if you believe something, you should not be asked to compromise that to fit with what is popularly held to be true.

The Universe is ~14 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Sorry, there is no debate. You either believe it because of the massive amount of evidence or you say that your belief in the Bible demands that you believe the 6,000 year old idea.

The end.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

... is that Human beings Stemmed from two Humans, created directly by the hands of God, originated aproximately 6,000 years ago. The sandbox that we live in however, is debatable about when it was created. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know for a 100% fact, and I don't know of anyone else that was there, saw it with there own eyes, and wrote it down. I just have to go with I have, and believe, though not blindly, that it is true.
If you believe this, it is by no other means than "blindly"

[theats]

The Universe is ~14 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Sorry, there is no debate. You either believe it because of the massive amount of evidence or you say that your belief in the Bible demands that you believe the 6,000 year old idea.

The end.

It is THEORIZED that the universe it 14 billion years old. It is THEORIZED that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was THEORIZED that the earth was flat. You cannot take theorize and say that they are 100% fact. That passage in genisis, as my preacher, Dr. James Emory White of Mecklenburg community church (he has a wiki) puts it. I am saying that the Human race is 6,000 years old. I do know that It could have been pulled out of the air to suit someones burning question. My argument is that HUMAN beings are 6,000 years old, and were PLACED on the earth as they are today. I do not follow blindly because I have weighed the support for scientific theory and the Bible, and I would rather endure the Derider of a gaming community and a group of scientist than to give up my faith.

[Onion Knight]

The Universe is ~14 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Sorry, there is no debate. You either believe it because of the massive amount of evidence or you say that your belief in the Bible demands that you believe the 6,000 year old idea.

The end.

It is THEORIZED that the universe it 14 billion years old. It is THEORIZED that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was THEORIZED that the earth was flat. You cannot take theorize and say that they are 100% fact. That passage in genisis, as my preacher, Dr. James Emory White of Mecklenburg community church (he has a wiki) puts it. I am saying that the Human race is 6,000 years old. I do know that It could have been pulled out of the air to suit someones burning question. My argument is that HUMAN beings are 6,000 years old, and were PLACED on the earth as they are today. I do not follow blindly because I have weighed the support for scientific theory and the Bible, and I would rather endure the Derider of a gaming community and a group of scientist than to give up my faith.

You do not need to give up your faith to believe in an old earth.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

It is THEORIZED that the universe it 14 billion years old. It is THEORIZED that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was THEORIZED that the earth was flat. You cannot take theorize and say that they are 100% fact. That passage in genisis, as my preacher, Dr. James Emory White of Mecklenburg community church (he has a wiki) puts it. I am saying that the Human race is 6,000 years old. I do know that It could have been pulled out of the air to suit someones burning question. My argument is that HUMAN beings are 6,000 years old, and were PLACED on the earth as they are today. I do not follow blindly because I have weighed the support for scientific theory and the Bible, and I would rather endure the Derider of a gaming community and a group of scientist than to give up my faith.I would rather take a solid theory as fact than a dusty 2000+ yr old book written by ignorant goatherders - and no I dont mean they were stupid people - but they were wholely ignorant of any sort of truths regarding the way the world works scientifically - its no wonder they said such crazy stuff. Cryminisakes - they thought you could breed striped goats by having normal goats look at a striped pole while gettin' it on! These are the people you want to learn truth from???

[Snotwalker 8000]

True, we may be able to see that DNA and RNA make babies, but What I was getting at is that Understandable records are a bit better than extrapolating on the prehistoric existence of such. My opinion, though it may seem contrary to my previously stated argument, is that Human beings Stemmed from two Humans, created directly by the hands of God, originated aproximately 6,000 years ago. The sandbox that we live in however, is debatable about when it was created. I wasn't alive then, so I don't know for a 100% fact, and I don't know of anyone else that was there, saw it with there own eyes, and wrote it down. I just have to go with I have, and believe, though not blindly, that it is true.

Please do not fool yourself into believing that there is ANY debate about the age of the Earth. I can at least respect the folks that believe the Bible hands down despite it's conflict with evidence. From my point of view, if you believe something, you should not be asked to compromise that to fit with what is popularly held to be true.

The Universe is ~14 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Sorry, there is no debate. You either believe it because of the massive amount of evidence or you say that your belief in the Bible demands that you believe the 6,000 year old idea.

The end.

So you're saying that scientists should stop studying and theorizing about the age of the earth now? That doesn't sound like good science either.

Not too long ago, scientists believed that the earth was 75,000 years old, and then several million years old, and then up to a couple billion years old, and now it's up to around 4.55 billion years old... and you believe they absolutely need to STOP right there? No more research? No more debate?

What if scientists come out next month and say that they were wrong about the 4.55 billion year old theory, and that NOW they believe it's around 10 billion years old... OR they now believe it's around 1 billion years old... (vastly different from ~4.55) would you believe them, or would you be mad because someone obviously debated the dogmatic belief in 4.55 billion years and dared to keep debating, studying, and analyzing the data?

Scientific debate, in my opinion, is a good thing, particularly in areas where one can't prove a theory in a lab through repetitive testing. Our scientific knowledge grows every day BECAUSE of debate, differing views, and differing hypotheses.

I suppose you also believe that we shouldn't be debating global warming either? Is that too a closed book where any dissenting scientist needs to be ostracized by the politically correct crowd?

Sorry if I sound harsh on this, but it's a bit odd to hear someone say "NO DEBATE! NO DEBATE!" in a thread on religious discussions... I believe much of what's discussed here is perfect for debate. We're not debating that 1+1=2. We're not debating that gravity works. But debating the age of the earth, (which can only be "scientifically guessed at" since we don't know the starting conditions, the beginning isotope ratios, any influencing factors which might speed things up/slow things down, contamination factors, external factors from the solar system affecting conditions on the planet, etc, etc,) is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

OK, I'm done. ;) Carry on.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I believe what he was saying was that there is no debate on the notion that the earth is about 6000 years old.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Before I post this link, I would like to say that I do believe in an Old Earth. But here is a link a friend gave me when we were discussing the age of the earth (he is New Earth). Even though I am Old Earth, I found this article interesting. It is posted on a website that tries to prove a New Earth. It doesn't prove anything except that it is possible for scientists to make mistakes in aging the earth (if everything in the artilce is true). It is interesting to me none the less.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

[Jotun]

So you're saying that scientists should stop studying and theorizing about the age of the earth now? That doesn't sound like good science either.

Not too long ago, scientists believed that the earth was 75,000 years old, and then several million years old, and then up to a couple billion years old, and now it's up to around 4.55 billion years old... and you believe they absolutely need to STOP right there? No more research? No more debate?

What if scientists come out next month and say that they were wrong about the 4.55 billion year old theory, and that NOW they believe it's around 10 billion years old... OR they now believe it's around 1 billion years old... (vastly different from ~4.55) would you believe them, or would you be mad because someone obviously debated the dogmatic belief in 4.55 billion years and dared to keep debating, studying, and analyzing the data?

Scientific debate, in my opinion, is a good thing, particularly in areas where one can't prove a theory in a lab through repetitive testing. Our scientific knowledge grows every day BECAUSE of debate, differing views, and differing hypotheses.

I suppose you also believe that we shouldn't be debating global warming either? Is that too a closed book where any dissenting scientist needs to be ostracized by the politically correct crowd?

Sorry if I sound harsh on this, but it's a bit odd to hear someone say "NO DEBATE! NO DEBATE!" in a thread on religious discussions... I believe much of what's discussed here is perfect for debate. We're not debating that 1+1=2. We're not debating that gravity works. But debating the age of the earth, (which can only be "scientifically guessed at" since we don't know the starting conditions, the beginning isotope ratios, any influencing factors which might speed things up/slow things down, contamination factors, external factors from the solar system affecting conditions on the planet, etc, etc,) is to be encouraged, not discouraged.

OK, I'm done. ;) Carry on.

As DictatorBilbo pointed out, I was saying that there is no debate about whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion. There may be debate about whether the Earth is 4.5 billion or 5.5 billion (I don't know that there is), but not 6,000. I'm trying to find a place where we can agree on facts for a discussion. Maybe we can't agree that global warming is taking place because of human causes. However, the majority of scientists believe this. Evolution, much less of a debate to such a degree that scientists have begun referring to it as the Fact of Evolution since religious people are so quick to jump to the non-point that evolution is a "theory." But there is still that 5% of scientists who don't believe in evolution. So I'll give some credit and say the book is not closed. With the age of the Earth, anyone saying that the Earth is 6000 years old has to turn their back on the world, and join their medieval peers, and just say, "I believe the Bible no matter what, and I cannot be persuaded otherwise."

Answers in Genesis...if there is a Hell surely those people are headed there for all the mistruths they spew forth to confuse otherwise smart people.

INFO ABOUT THE AGE OF THE EARTH (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm)as presented by evidence.

[Deathclaw767]

I don't like having my head chewed off for being a skeptic of all things, even those I witness, but I just wanted to throw this out there. This has probably been put up somewhere else, but I won't search through all 120 pages to find it. Anyway, any documentation that you have not personally witnessed what you beleive to be proof of, (and this includes death and birth certificates, the bible, written 'history' records, and what have you) You can't be 100% certain that it wasn't just written down for someone's simple amusement. I'd really like to see definitive proof that the Bible wasn't jsut a bunch of stories and such written down purely for entertainment.
Just my little opinion

(P.S. If got doesn't like me for not really liking him, let him feel free smite me from the face of the earth, THEN Ill believe in him)

[theats]

THEN Ill believe in him)
I can't quote from where it says it, but one day every knee will bow, and every eye will see, and all will know that Jesus is Lord.

[Bannister]

THEN Ill believe in him)
I can't quote from where it says it, but one day every knee will bow, and every eye will see, and all will know that Jesus is Lord.

Then again, maybe we won't.

Bannister

[Onion Knight]

THEN Ill believe in him)
I can't quote from where it says it, but one day every knee will bow, and every eye will see, and all will know that Jesus is Lord.

Philippians 2:9-11 (New International Version)

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

[Revdyer]

That "every" part is interesting...it doesn't sound like anyone gets left out at the end.

[Penitus]

That "every" part is interesting...it doesn't sound like anyone gets left out at the end.

And no one will.

[Tiberius]

If nothing else, it will be recognized in judgement.

[brickman1444]

I would rather take a solid theory as fact than a dusty 2000+ yr old book written by ignorant goatherders - and no I dont mean they were stupid people - but they were wholely ignorant of any sort of truths regarding the way the world works scientifically - its no wonder they said such crazy stuff. Cryminisakes - they thought you could breed striped goats by having normal goats look at a striped pole while gettin' it on! These are the people you want to learn truth from???

My thology teacher once told us in class, and I've done follow-up research, that NASA has to calculate for times in the Bible where time stood still before they can launch any space shuttle. You see, when NASA was first making there program that tracks the cosmos, they had equations running to calculate where the Earth was and found that some time was missing. Once they entered in the times in the Bible, it worked perfectly.

If you believe that some ignorant goatherders can calculate for programs that would run thousands of years after they died, I can't help you.

[johnny139]

I would rather take a solid theory as fact than a dusty 2000+ yr old book written by ignorant goatherders - and no I dont mean they were stupid people - but they were wholely ignorant of any sort of truths regarding the way the world works scientifically - its no wonder they said such crazy stuff. Cryminisakes - they thought you could breed striped goats by having normal goats look at a striped pole while gettin' it on! These are the people you want to learn truth from???

My thology teacher once told us in class, and I've done follow-up research, that NASA has to calculate for times in the Bible where time stood still before they can launch any space shuttle. You see, when NASA was first making there program that tracks the cosmos, they had equations running to calculate where the Earth was and found that some time was missing. Once they entered in the times in the Bible, it worked perfectly.

No. There's no missing time. That's an urban legend. Well, according to snopes... but they're as reliable as any site.

[brickman1444]

No. There's no missing time. That's an urban legend. Well, according to snopes... but they're as reliable as any site.

http://xkcd.com/250/

[Cavalier]

NASA Has Found a "Missing Day" on the Calendar, Explained Only by the Bible-Fiction! (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/joshuaday.htm)
One problem is that apart from Harold Hill, there is no known source for the NASA story.
For many years, whenever anyone wrote to him about it, he sent a form letter which said he had misplaced the source of the information, but would send everybody a copy when he found it.
The source never materialized. In his subsequent book, Hill dismissed all skepticism about the story and said that no substantiation was needed.
His attitude was that if people believed it and it drew them to spiritual things, it was justified.

[brickman1444]

NASA Has Found a "Missing Day" on the Calendar, Explained Only by the Bible-Fiction! (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/joshuaday.htm)
One problem is that apart from Harold Hill, there is no known source for the NASA story.
For many years, whenever anyone wrote to him about it, he sent a form letter which said he had misplaced the source of the information, but would send everybody a copy when he found it.
The source never materialized. In his subsequent book, Hill dismissed all skepticism about the story and said that no substantiation was needed.
His attitude was that if people believed it and it drew them to spiritual things, it was justified.

Yeah, my theology teacher wasn't the most reliable person around.

[DrinkMoreGuinness]

My thology teacher once told us in class, and I've done follow-up research, that NASA has to calculate for times in the Bible where time stood still before they can launch any space shuttle. You see, when NASA was first making there program that tracks the cosmos, they had equations running to calculate where the Earth was and found that some time was missing. Once they entered in the times in the Bible, it worked perfectly.

If you believe that some ignorant goatherders can calculate for programs that would run thousands of years after they died, I can't help you.
and then..

Yeah, my theology teacher wasn't the most reliable person around.
LOL - so was that a joke or did you really believe that?

[brickman1444]

My thology teacher once told us in class, and I've done follow-up research, that NASA has to calculate for times in the Bible where time stood still before they can launch any space shuttle. You see, when NASA was first making there program that tracks the cosmos, they had equations running to calculate where the Earth was and found that some time was missing. Once they entered in the times in the Bible, it worked perfectly.

If you believe that some ignorant goatherders can calculate for programs that would run thousands of years after they died, I can't help you.
and then..

Yeah, my theology teacher wasn't the most reliable person around.
LOL - so was that a joke or did you really believe that?

I believed it at the time, now, not so much. But I have a whole pamphlet from the same teacher proving the bible is true logically. Let me see if I can find it.

[theats]

Do atheist dictate a difference between divine intervention and a random appearance of a probabilistic outcome, ESP. if the desired outcome has been asked to be granted to a certain deity?


Like, lets say I pray for a combonation of events: ABCDEFG
Lets say that the events occur in that same order that I prayed for. Is it that I just blundered upon a 1 in 80318176 chance? And if a second desired outcome (prayer), is asked upon the deity(God), and it is granted, is it a 1 in 16063620352 chance? The divine intervention of the events, however, could be the influence on ones thoughts, such as a consciousness, that dictates our actions by telling us what is the right thing to do. For instance, a standard infantry soldier in WWII serving in Germany might have gotten the urge to diverge from his luncheon early, and go wandering about (A). The man then randomly walks through the ruins of the city, wandering off on to random streets(BCDE). He hears a noise. His group is about to break meal and move out. For some reason, he has the urge to open a wooden hatch at the side of a building, and inside, there is a family of starving jews(E).

Alright, so that is a completely fictional story that I came up with, but I don't doubt that something similar didn't happen in the entire continent of Europe.

[Dictatorbilbo]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand...

[Jotun]

Do atheist dictate a difference between divine intervention and a random appearance of a probabilistic outcome, ESP. if the desired outcome has been asked to be granted to a certain deity?


Like, lets say I pray for a combonation of events: ABCDEFG
Lets say that the events occur in that same order that I prayed for. Is it that I just blundered upon a 1 in 80318176 chance? And if a second desired outcome (prayer), is asked upon the deity(God), and it is granted, is it a 1 in 16063620352 chance? The divine intervention of the events, however, could be the influence on ones thoughts, such as a consciousness, that dictates our actions by telling us what is the right thing to do. For instance, a standard infantry soldier in WWII serving in Germany might have gotten the urge to diverge from his luncheon early, and go wandering about (A). The man then randomly walks through the ruins of the city, wandering off on to random streets(BCDE). He hears a noise. His group is about to break meal and move out. For some reason, he has the urge to open a wooden hatch at the side of a building, and inside, there is a family of starving jews(E).

Alright, so that is a completely fictional story that I came up with, but I don't doubt that something similar didn't happen in the entire continent of Europe.

If you put a 10 million soldiers in a city and it's filled with 500 hiding families, the odds that some weird scenario occurs is not a strange idea. The idea that someone goes wandering off is such a non-event that placing special significance on it is only something you do in hindsight. You could probably pull the scope back from there. Maybe a bridge was blown up or a river flooded and the unit ended up in the ruined city 100 miles from its original destination. If that bridge wasn't blown, A would never happen. You're placing special significance on interesting but unimportant events because you want it to support your theory.

I doubt the families prayed, "Please let a bridge be blown up so that an army unit comes to this city and takes a break near the old school house. And then let one of the soldiers wander off and be nearby during one of the many occasional sounds that we make despite our best efforts. And then let that soldier be brave enough to investigate the sound without going back to his unit to get permission or backup. And then let him find us."

[theats]

No, but they could of prayed "God, let SOMEBODY help us." and that is just the way it happened.

[jaques]

No, but they could of prayed "God, let SOMEBODY help us." and that is just the way it happened.

I'm sorry, theats, but the Holocaust provides tens of millions of examples of people who undoubtedly prayed for help and received none. They may have received none as part of some grand master plan, but the fact that they were allowed by any supposed deity to suffer as they did stands as a stark contrast to your hypothetical family that was saved through the power of their prayers.

I used to play D&D with a guy who was the unluckiest roller I've ever met. Then one day, on a whim, he picked up his percentile dice and said, "Watch this. Double zero."

He rolled the dice, and they came up double zero. He kept rolling them, and not 6 or 8 rolls later, they came up double zero again.

Now, I can tell myself this is evidence that my friend was being watched over by God, or I can tell myself it's evidence that he was subconsciously using the Force, or I can tell myself any number of other things.

Instead, I choose to look at all the other times when absolutely nothing happened when I and my fellow D&D players have tried to "call" die rolls by yelling out "Natural Twenty!" as we rolled, or "Fumble!" when the DM rolled, or "Double zero!" as my friend did.

We all experience bizarre coincidences in our lives. Are they Fate? God's will? Gremlins and poltergeists?

Maybe. Or maybe they're just coincidences.

[Jotun]

For those who would like to hear scientists and authors of well researched books be interviewed about many of the things that were discussed here, visit MeaningofLife.tv (http://www.meaningoflife.tv/).

The Daniel Dennett interview is pretty mind blowing. And Robert Wright as the interviewer does not dumb down the conversation for anyone.

[Velenne]

I'm just here to note my complete and utter shock at the fact that this thread is still open, 123 pages later. Bravo, folks, bravo.

[Kikidmakak]

I am atheist.

[HSisforcoolkids]

I am atheist.

"Only one human has survived. With a gun, rippling abs, and experience staring in similarly-styled action movies, Will Smith stars in

I AM ATHEIST."

[theats]

I am atheist.

"Only one human has survived. With a gun, rippling abs, and experience staring in similarly-styled action movies, Will Smith stars in

I AM ATHEIST."

Are you saying atheists are living legends?

[Chimpy]

I am atheist.

"Only one human has survived. With a gun, rippling abs, and experience staring in similarly-styled action movies, Will Smith stars in

I AM ATHEIST."

Are you saying atheists are living legends?

Threats, I think you read way to much into things.

Especially jokes.

[countblah]

Especially since that joke was actually quite funny.

[GaryLASQ]

I watched a fascinating debate between Christopher Hitchens and Allistair McGrath. Link here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1752,Debate-between-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Alister-McGrath,Christopher-Hitchens-Alister-McGrath). If you can only watch part, then make sure you see Hitchens' opening statement. I've transcribed part of it, which is a little awkward because unlike McGrath (who I actually like), Hitchens is much less rehearsed. I've seen McGrath give the same intro a couple times before.

Thanks for the link Jotun. I enjoyed watching that debate. I've never heard Christopher Hitchens speak before (or read anything he's written) but now that I have I'm interested in hearing more from him. He emphasizes a couple of things I also feel strongly about. 1) Humans are animals. 2) Humans need to "free" themselves from religion in order to progress as a species.

[theats]

2) Humans need to "free" themselves from religion in order to progress as a species.

So is the argument that civilization cannot advance without religion?

If it weren't for religion, great wonders like the central American pyramids would have never been built. Rome wouldn't have been near as organized, Greek culture and architecture wouldn't have evolved. Were it not for Guetenburg's desire to mass produce bibles, the movable type printing press would have never come into existence, and with it, the spread of reconnaissance ideas. If certain denominations of Christianity had not felt oppressed, America may never had been settled. Bear in mind that it was after the terrible holocaust that the nations of the world could unite, for the most part. America was founded on Christianity. Society, through the ages, has been held together by faith and religion, though it would seem that every civilization without Christians beliefs has toppled: Babylon(does anyone mind telling me where that name came from?), Syrians, Aryans, Persians, Creeks, Egyptians, Nubian, Western African cultures as a whole, The Romans, , and i know, the byzantine were Christians, but they held out a full milinia, and the culture didn't fall due to unorganization, the lack of prosperity, but to invaders, the moors fell, all American civilizations fell, both north and south, and the eastern civilizations fell as well. In fact, since we can be considered a decendant of the british empire, wich has yet to fall, we have been a civilization that has lasted centuries, and I beleive that it is due to the fact that we have kept god first.

It is written that "blessed is the nation who's lord is God". I would say that with the going of God from our governmental buildings, our money, and our everyday talk, along with it goes our blessing of posterity, and i believe that a new reign of terror will be ushered in once that happens.

[Jotun]

2) Humans need to "free" themselves from religion in order to progress as a species. In fact, since we can be considered a decendant of the british empire, wich has yet to fall, we have been a civilization that has lasted centuries, and I beleive that it is due to the fact that we have kept god first.

It is written that "blessed is the nation who's lord is God". I would say that with the going of God from our governmental buildings, our money, and our everyday talk, along with it goes our blessing of posterity, and i believe that a new reign of terror will be ushered in once that happens.

Can you think of any other reasons why we have been successful as a nation that don't involve magic?

Many nations have had God on their side. Many times God was on both sides of the war. Of course the people who win the war say that God was really only on their side of the war. This is just nonsense. There's WAY more involved than which country had God's blessing, especially a country like USA whose founders specifically wanted to have nothing to do with God.

[Uprising]

EDIT: Never mind. I don't even want to get sucked into this thread.

[Chimpy]

There's WAY more involved than which country had God's blessing, especially a country like USA whose founders specifically wanted to have nothing to do with God.

That is not true. There is a reason our coins say "In God we Trust." There is a reason the Declaration of Independence quotes the Bible. There is a reason the Capitol Building was used for Sunday Services before DC had a church.

Anyways, I thought a few of you might be interested in this article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)in City Journal. Written by an Aethist, it directly takes on the claims by Hitchens (and others) that the removing religion from civilization would make the world a better place.



EDIT:

EDIT: However much I don't like Jotun's ideas on this matter. I can't let Threats get away with the large historically inaccurate statement he gave two or three more posts up. I will go ahead and dissect it to show where history is being stretched:



If it weren't for religion, great wonders like the central American pyramids would have never been built. Rome wouldn't have been near as organized, Greek culture and architecture wouldn't have evolved. Were it not for Gutenberg’s desire to mass produce bibles, the movable type printing press would have never come into existence, and with it, the spread of reconnaissance ideas.

OK, I agree with most of this. Religion has created many more wonders than it has destroyed. It is one of the largest driving forces of civilization- one could almost say that religion is civilization.


If certain denominations of Christianity had not felt oppressed, America may never had been settled. That is not why Virginia was settled. Really, beyond the Pilgrims and Puritans, religion was a small reason for English immigration to the New World. (And I am quite sure America- or some country like it- would have been formed if we did not have the Providence or Penn colonies.)

Bear in mind that it was after the terrible holocaust that the nations of the world could unite, for the most part. Did you miss the Cold War?


America was founded on Christianity.
Society, through the ages, has been held together by faith and religion, This is one of the last true statements you make....

though it would seem that every civilization without Christians beliefs has toppled: Babylon(does anyone mind telling me where that name came from?), Syrians, Aryans, Persians, Creeks, Egyptians, Nubian, Western African cultures as a whole.... the moors fell, all American civilizations fell, both north and south, and the eastern civilizations fell as well.

Wow. I didn’t expect that one coming. I think it would be wise to point out that most of these nations existed longer than we have. Take Egypt, for example. It was at the top of the world for a good 1,000 years, and was a great power for another 400 after that.

The Persians were big players for the better part of 300 years, also longer than us.

Spain was ruled by Moors for over 800 years (although not by one particular Moorish faction for more than 200), the Turks has a Middle Eastern empire that lasted for more than 600 years, and numerous Arab caliphates held power for some 300 years in different parts of the Muslim world. Those were all around longer than America.

The Han dynasty lasted for some 400 years, and the Tang lasted for some 300. I think that is a bit longer than America.

Meanwhile, the Indian Gupta, and Pala empires both ruled the subcontinent for more than 250 years. Both of them lasted longer than America too.

Already (without considering the fact that America has only been a big world player for the last hundred or so years) your theory isn’t holding up. Let us see what else you had to say:




The Romans, , and i know, the byzantine were Christians, but they held out a full milinia, and the culture didn't fall due to unorganization, the lack of prosperity, but to invaders,

Have you studied Roman history? The Roman Empire collapsed because it was highly unorganized (and spilt in two), inefficient, and too poor to fund its own armies. All the invaders did was put stress on an already broken system. The Byzantines collapsed because they had no money, no people, and no land. Well, the fact that Muslims had guns and the Christians did not might have had something to do with it as well.


(Plus, your explanation does not take into account the fact that the Romans had the largest gains in prosperity while they were Pagan, not Christian.)

. In fact, since we can be considered a decendant of the british empire, wich has yet to fall, we have been a civilization that has lasted centuries, and I beleive that it is due to the fact that we have kept god first.



The British Empire has fallen. The British Empire collapsed at the end of WWII. It is one of many Christian empires to fall over history. Some of the more notable ones include: The empires of Spain, Tsarist Russia, Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, the Carolingans, and France, the kingdoms of Sweden, Poland, Prussia, the Visigoths, Burgundy, Scotland, and Keivan Rus, the federations of Germany, Lombardy, the Teutons, and the Holy Roman Empire, and the city states of Venice, Genoa, and Naples. All of them were Christian. And they all fell, sometime or another.

It seems being Christian did not help these guys out much either.

[Onion Knight]

There's WAY more involved than which country had God's blessing, especially a country like USA whose founders specifically wanted to have nothing to do with God.

That is not true. There is a reason our coins say "In God we Trust." There is a reason the Declaration of Independence quotes the Bible. There is a reason the Capitol Building was used for Sunday Services before DC had a church.

Anyways, I thought a few of you might be interested in this article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)in City Journal. Written by an Aethist, it directly takes on the claims by Hitchens (and others) that the removing religion from civilization would make the world a better place.

Thanks Chimpy, that was a great article.

[Jotun]

There's WAY more involved than which country had God's blessing, especially a country like USA whose founders specifically wanted to have nothing to do with God.

That is not true. There is a reason our coins say "In God we Trust." There is a reason the Declaration of Independence quotes the Bible. There is a reason the Capitol Building was used for Sunday Services before DC had a church.

Anyways, I thought a few of you might be interested in this article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)in City Journal. Written by an Aethist, it directly takes on the claims by Hitchens (and others) that the removing religion from civilization would make the world a better place.

For anyone who hasn't read the Declaration of Independence in a while, I encourage you to do what I just did and read it for the first time since high school. Aside from the part about killing the savage indians, it gives you pause to imagine the group of people drafting it. It does not quote the Bible. It mentions the Creator and "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." It does not refer to a Christian god. Creator and Providence were very general terms that Deists used in those days. Deists meaning that there was some Thing out there, but we did not have a personal relationship with it. The power to govern was not granted by that God either, but rather from the people.

Furthermore, just like today, if Christians thought for one second that you said anything in the world was possible without God, then they would raise their hackles. That's why the second edition of Darwin's Origin of Species mentions a Creator. How offensive. Possible the most important book ever written, a book that finally explained where everything alive came from without using magic, was made to insert a nod to the Creator because of pressure on the publishers. On his deathbed Darwin said he regretted making that concession.

[Jotun]

That is an interesting article Chimpy. I don't agree with it in lots of places but it would be something interesting for us to discuss in this thread.

Just an example of where it is wrong is Sam Harris. Quoting Harris "We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” The author starts judging Harris without even understanding the sentence. Harris' point, if said about racism, would be that we should hope that gradually, generation by generation, racism will be viewed as such a baseless idea that if you hear someone say something racist, you will hope they are joking. I don't think anyone here would disagree with a statement such as "Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting than a future without racism." And we have made great strides in that direction.

He's very dismissive of Sam Harris for some reason. Perhaps because Harris is relatively young. But of all the "new Atheists" Sam Harris is my favorites because his ideas are so solidly based in not being overly emotional as Hitchens or Dawkins tend to be. Sam Harris is one of the more interesting speakers in that field. Watch Sam go! (http://richarddawkins.net/)

[Onion Knight]

It mentions the Creator and "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." It does not refer to a Christian god. Creator and Providence were very general terms that Deists used in those days. Deists meaning that there was some Thing out there, but we did not have a personal relationship with it.

It's true they don't endorse Christianity, but they definitley were not simply Deists. "Divine providence" and "endowed by their creator" puts them out of that category and firmly in agnosticism, and that, not because they were agnostic, but because they were including all beliefs with Christianity.

[theats]

especially a country like USA whose founders specifically wanted to have nothing to do with God. I don't beleive that this is true.

[GaryLASQ]

2) Humans need to "free" themselves from religion in order to progress as a species.

So is the argument that civilization cannot advance without religion?

If it weren't for religion, great wonders like the central American pyramids would have never been built. Rome wouldn't have been near as organized, Greek culture and architecture wouldn't have evolved. Were it not for Guetenburg's desire to mass produce bibles, the movable type printing press would have never come into existence, and with it, the spread of reconnaissance ideas. If certain denominations of Christianity had not felt oppressed, America may never had been settled. Bear in mind that it was after the terrible holocaust that the nations of the world could unite, for the most part. America was founded on Christianity. Society, through the ages, has been held together by faith and religion, though it would seem that every civilization without Christians beliefs has toppled: Babylon(does anyone mind telling me where that name came from?), Syrians, Aryans, Persians, Creeks, Egyptians, Nubian, Western African cultures as a whole, The Romans, , and i know, the byzantine were Christians, but they held out a full milinia, and the culture didn't fall due to unorganization, the lack of prosperity, but to invaders, the moors fell, all American civilizations fell, both north and south, and the eastern civilizations fell as well. In fact, since we can be considered a decendant of the british empire, wich has yet to fall, we have been a civilization that has lasted centuries, and I beleive that it is due to the fact that we have kept god first.
Certainly, religion has had a cause-and-effect in a huge way in many cultures throughout human history. There is no denying this. Sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse (just like everything else, like our many different languages for example). I'm simply saying that I agree with Christopher Hitchens that religion is something the human species needs to emancipate itself from, as part of our "growing up". Theats, if you haven't already, watch the entire debate (It was too short though to really be called a debate, I thought.)

It is written that "blessed is the nation who's lord is God". I would say that with the going of God from our governmental buildings, our money, and our everyday talk, along with it goes our blessing of posterity, and i believe that a new reign of terror will be ushered in once that happens.
I don't believe that anything supernatural is real and worth taking seriously (other than the influence that supernatural ideas have on real people who do take them seriously), including gods, so this statement went in my left ear and out the right ear without stopping.

[jaques]

Religion has created many more wonders than it has destroyed. It is one of the largest driving forces of civilization- one could almost say that religion is civilization.


Thanks for taking on Theats' historical innacuracies, Chimpy, but I have to disagree with you on the statement above.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm

It's easy for us to forget that at one point the Taliban were "just" a bunch of religious extremists in charge of a small country. But they were an excellent example of what theocracy is. And it's definitely not good.

OTOH, I'm going to disagree with the line of reasoning that says we must free ourselves from religion to advance as a species.

Putting aside the fact that I care about human beings as individuals, not as a species, this is just really weak thinking, and shows a sad lack of imagination, as well as a lack of respect for all the religious people who manage to be creatures of reason while retaining faith.

If reason is, truly, such a wonderful tool for interacting with the universe, it should be more than capable of coexisting with religion. Not necessarily with dogmatic religion, but certainly with those forms of religion that focus on a sense of wonder at the unknown and a faith that something larger and positive dwells within that unknown.

The notion that religion equals dogma, and is therefore the anathema of reason, is itself a piece of dogma.

[soberman]

OTOH, I'm going to disagree with the line of reasoning that says we must free ourselves from religion to advance as a species.
.....
The notion that religion equals dogma, and is therefore the anathema of reason, is itself a piece of dogma.

Well, I haven't been participating in this discourse since someone prominent within this thread responded to something I wrote with a non-sequitor that indicated either that he was likely very prejudiced to the point of being a possible bigot, and therefore a waste of my time to try and engage in any form of dialogue, or not paying attention to anything I was saying. Or both.

But I have to pop back in and pat you on the back Jacques. This level of open-mindedness that you've exhibited here is just something that deserves to be applauded. You must be what Maslow deemed as "self-actualized" to be so readily able to acknowledge other's point of view despite it's disparity with your own. Your sense of self has to be both crystalized and internalized. Anyhow, you give me hope for humanity.

As for Gary...I wish he would stop posting his "anti-dogma dogma" here and make more cool asymmetrical maps! :wink: The world needs them, man! (Though not as much as it needs a saviour.)
_____________
now playing: Lee Hazelwood Back On The Streets Again

[GaryLASQ]

OTOH, I'm going to disagree with the line of reasoning that says we must free ourselves from religion to advance as a species.

Putting aside the fact that I care about human beings as individuals, not as a species, this is just really weak thinking, and shows a sad lack of imagination, as well as a lack of respect for all the religious people who manage to be creatures of reason while retaining faith.

If reason is, truly, such a wonderful tool for interacting with the universe, it should be more than capable of coexisting with religion. Not necessarily with dogmatic religion, but certainly with those forms of religion that focus on a sense of wonder at the unknown and a faith that something larger and positive dwells within that unknown.

The notion that religion equals dogma, and is therefore the anathema of reason, is itself a piece of dogma.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I didn't say I didn't care about individuals either. I'm not even saying that reason and religion can't coexist. They have coexisted for a long time, clashing violently from time to time, but still coexisting.

Let me try again. Rather than saying I think the human species needs to get rid of religion in order to progress, I'll put it this way. I predict the human species will, if it survives long enough, shed its need for religion (belief in the supernatural). This wouldn't kill our imagination, just change it. Certain words like spirit, soul, God, etc will fall away. Now it's me with the overactive imagination, yes? It's fun to imagine all kinds of crazy things, isn't it.

Here's my deal about the unknown... it's OK to say "I don't know". And I mean really say "I don't know" without the "but I trust that [insert monotheistic deity] does know everything". To say "dwells within that unknown" might not be dogmatic but I feel it's still the same general idea. What bothers me is when we sooth our insecurities, our worries, about not fully understanding something we feel is important, by creating a supernatural extension of ourselves. A supernatural extension that has all the answers and will reveal all the answers in an afterlife. I see this as delusional, not wonderment.

As for Gary...I wish he would stop posting his "anti-dogma dogma" here and make more cool asymmetrical maps! :wink: The world needs them, man! (Though not as much as it needs a saviour.)
You got it. I was looking for the doorway anyhow before I get tossed out the window.
Edit: That was an awefully paranoid thing for me say. *shrug*

[countblah]

It is sure to be a very lonely universe if we are alone in it.

[davidlhsl]

OTOH, I'm going to disagree with the line of reasoning that says we must free ourselves from religion to advance as a species.

Putting aside the fact that I care about human beings as individuals, not as a species, this is just really weak thinking, and shows a sad lack of imagination, as well as a lack of respect for all the religious people who manage to be creatures of reason while retaining faith.

If reason is, truly, such a wonderful tool for interacting with the universe, it should be more than capable of coexisting with religion. Not necessarily with dogmatic religion, but certainly with those forms of religion that focus on a sense of wonder at the unknown and a faith that something larger and positive dwells within that unknown.

The notion that religion equals dogma, and is therefore the anathema of reason, is itself a piece of dogma.

This is a beautiful sentiment. As someone who believes that Conceptual Reality is as valid as Material Reality; and who believes in the importance of fantasy, spirituality, and reason; I'll add the following:

I would love to see religion adopt the humility to realize that it can never attain true knowledge of the hereafter and focus more on the general and abstract than the specifics. I would love to see religion come to the realization that it evangelizes best when it ministers to the needs of others and demonstrates its faith through the examples of their own lives than by telemarketing-style psycological intimidation and obsession with how other people are living rather than focusing on their own. Perhaps then religion would adopt the tolerance for others.

I embrace fantasy, spirituality, and science. If I want to go to Tatooine, I'll turn to fantasy. If I want to go to Heaven, I'll turn to religion. If I want to go to the moon, I'll turn to science.

-David

[jaques]

Let me try again. Rather than saying I think the human species needs to get rid of religion in order to progress, I'll put it this way. I predict the human species will, if it survives long enough, shed its need for religion (belief in the supernatural). This wouldn't kill our imagination, just change it. Certain words like spirit, soul, God, etc will fall away. Now it's me with the overactive imagination, yes? It's fun to imagine all kinds of crazy things, isn't it.


I can fully support this as a speculation about the future. It is far more reasonable to say, "As we progress, we will likely shed more and more of our need for religion," than to say that religion is an inalterable impediment to progress. To some extent, you see a degree of this "falling away" of religion in Europe, where fewer people are overtly religious, and many of those who do profess faith are tolerant of different perspectives and willing to admit uncertainty.

I hope you don't abandon the thread entirely, Gary LASQ. I believe your perspective is interesting and worthwhile -- I just found it to be expressed in more of a closed-minded fashion than I would expect of a strong proponent of reason. Your revision is a lot better suited to dialog with people of faith, because doesn't so much attack their beliefs (religion is necessary for morality) as it expresses a conviction of your own (reason is sufficient and will eventually supplant religion).

Soberman and davidlhsl, thanks for the kind words. It's nice to know that at least some of my thoughts are worthwhile, and it's always nice to hear Maslow brought up. :)

[GaryLASQ]

I hope you don't abandon the thread entirely, Gary LASQ. I believe your perspective is interesting and worthwhile -- I just found it to be expressed in more of a closed-minded fashion than I would expect of a strong proponent of reason. Your revision is a lot better suited to dialog with people of faith, because doesn't so much attack their beliefs (religion is necessary for morality) as it expresses a conviction of your own (reason is sufficient and will eventually supplant religion).
I won't leave completely. These are not my first posts in this thread and probably won't be my last. It was the link Jotun posted to the debate between Hitchens and McGrath that got me thinking about some of my own opinions on religions. Everything Hitchens said was so inline with how I feel about religion as a whole. As he mentioned, morality is not dependent on religion. I agree with this.

And rather than using the word "religion", I think I'll start with the word "afterlife". I think human societies/cultures would mature if they gave up the notion of an afterlife. This would change (or eliminate) our ideas about a soul. If people want to believe there is something inside them that is more than the sum of their parts (which I don't believe), then fine. Just stop believing it can separate itself from and survive outside it's physical "container". This in my opinion would be a good first step.

[jaques]

Except that it's entirely plausible that our consciousness results not just from the biochemistry of our brains, but from quantum resonances of that biochemistry in extradimensional spaces that science has not yet discovered. Those resonances could theoretically perpetuate themselves even after the initiating source had gone. So even from a hard science basis, the notion of an afterlife is not necessarily poppycock.

More useful than asking everyone to discard the afterlife, I think, would be to note the extremely positive effects upon health, both mental and physical, that come when you focus on constructive thinking, rather than on negativism. These effects are of benefit whether one believes in an afterlife or not, and should give nonbelievers and people of faith a common goal as we work together in society.

[Jotun]

Well, I haven't been participating in this discourse since someone prominent within this thread responded to something I wrote with a non-sequitor that indicated either that he was likely very prejudiced to the point of being a possible bigot, and therefore a waste of my time to try and engage in any form of dialogue, or not paying attention to anything I was saying. Or both.

That was probably me. I believe the last response I could find to one of your posts was to say how fortunate you were to grow up in Pittsburgh where the truth about the universe has finally been discovered.

That was a response to a couple of attempts to get you or someone else to respond to the fact that if you were born in a different part of the world you would most likely not be a Christian. You would perhaps be a Muslim and you would feel just as strongly that your religion was the true religion.

I apologize if I offended you or if I did not correctly understand one of your points. If you like, I will refrain from responding to your future posts if that would make you feel more welcome here again.

[GaryLASQ]

Except that it's entirely plausible that our consciousness results not just from the biochemistry of our brains, but from quantum resonances of that biochemistry in extradimensional spaces that science has not yet discovered. Those resonances could theoretically perpetuate themselves even after the initiating source had gone. So even from a hard science basis, the notion of an afterlife is not necessarily poppycock.
Don't know much about Quantum Resonance Theory, but at first glance it looks more like soft science than hard science. For me to say that all things are the sum of their parts, or that all living things are just biochemical machines would be over-simplifying. I'll admit this. Our language is too limited for explaining everything anyone could sense or feel, so I shouldn't expect it to in the first place. I imagine human languages first developed for practical reasons centered around the survival of the species. And then later grew in complexity, increasing our ability to think abstractly and come up with Quantum Resonance, String Theory or Singularity.

More useful than asking everyone to discard the afterlife, I think, would be to note the extremely positive effects upon health, both mental and physical, that come when you focus on constructive thinking, rather than on negativism. These effects are of benefit whether one believes in an afterlife or not, and should give nonbelievers and people of faith a common goal as we work together in society.
Good thoughts. Ideally we should all focus on the positive and work together regardless of our beliefs and the labels we put on ourselves and each other. I'll have to come back later with a list of positive things that can occur when we don't believe in an afterlife. Although I wonder how many of these positives will just be about negative things that can be avoided.

[jaques]

Except that it's entirely plausible that our consciousness results not just from the biochemistry of our brains, but from quantum resonances of that biochemistry in extradimensional spaces that science has not yet discovered. Those resonances could theoretically perpetuate themselves even after the initiating source had gone. So even from a hard science basis, the notion of an afterlife is not necessarily poppycock.
Don't know much about Quantum Resonance Theory, but at first glance it looks more like soft science than hard science.

I shouldn't have used "hard science" there, since it erroneously implied that I meant hard science had been done on this subject. What I meant was that there are hard science concepts that can be used to speculate on the nature of consciousness, and that it's plausible that hard science could one day examine these ideas. (That's why I said "is not necessarily poppycock" instead of saying "is clearly supportable.")

I'll have to come back later with a list of positive things that can occur when we don't believe in an afterlife. Although I wonder how many of these positives will just be about negative things that can be avoided.

I'll be interested to see how that turns out.

[Onion Knight]

Everything Hitchens said was so inline with how I feel about religion as a whole. As he mentioned, morality is not dependent on religion. I agree with this.

This is a great debate that Jotun sent me. It's Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I feel that D'Souza did a much better job against Hitchens. I think everyone who has enjoyed mixing it up in this thread will appreciate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M05P9gO5Hkg

[Chimpy]

OK, there is a lot to respond to, and perhaps when I have a bit more time I will expound of the other topics brought up recently, but I would like to focus on one thing in particular:


The author starts judging Harris without even understanding the sentence. Harris' point, if said about racism, would be that we should hope that gradually, generation by generation, racism will be viewed as such a baseless idea that if you hear someone say something racist, you will hope they are joking. I don't think anyone here would disagree with a statement such as "Given the present state of the world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting than a future without racism." And we have made great strides in that direction.

But that only works if you equate religion with racism. Unlike Hitchens, Harris and other "new" atheists, I don't think religion "spoils" much at all. From a secular point of view, I think the net influence of religion is firmly positive.

Off the top of my head I can think of several things which benefit greatly from religion.

The Mayo Clinic, the reason my hometown is on the map, is a good example. It exists because a group of nuns paired up with a pair of doctors to relieve tornado victims in 1883. Now it is a world renown "medical practice integrated with hospital facilities and a medical school." (The two hospitals, by the way, are called Methodist and Saint Mary's.) The clinic is the training grounds for thousands of doctors. It is the site of enormous amounts of medical research, and the doctors here have saved an even larger amount of lives.

Man, religion really spoiled that, didn't it?

Religious wars and conflict are another oft-cited cause of religion's bad effects. Well, for every war or conflict that is justified (remember that big long speech I gave quite a while a go about how wars actually caused by religion are quite rare) I will bet there was a leader who decided not to go to war, not to torture, not to do the wrong thing because of his religious feelings. (Of course, you would never hear about such things because who reports why people did not go to war. Most leaders don't even want to admit that they thought about it.)

The list really does go on and on. As threats pointed out earlier, the Bible is the reason the printing press was invented. The great monuments of the world are testaments of faith. Explorers, inventors, and scientists have all made great triumphs because they were inspired by religion. Some of the largest aid organizations in the world- the ones that save lives by the millions- are religious. In short, the words, "Religion spoils everything" are some of the most ludicrous I have ever heard.

Of course, the atheist response is that yes, religion has helped here and there, but if we didn't have religion all that stuff could have happened anyway. Well, there is one thing atheism can never provide: spirituality.

Now, I am looking at this from an entirely secular stance. It is well known that many people gain much personal enjoyment from their spirituality. Indeed, I know a man who has nothing but religion to find joy in a life with no family, a broken body, and shattered dreams. Interestingly, studies have found that religion makes people happier. Further studies have shown that when people have spiritual experiences, the brain changes chemically- just as it does when any other hormone is released into our systems. If spirituality is truly just a bunch of chemicals in your brains that make you happier, I am forced to ask this question:

What is the difference between the devout Catholic who says, "Illicit sex is wrong! You are just succumbing to your carnal desires!" and the atheist who says, "Don't believe in God! You are just succumbing to a bunch of chemicals in your brain!" when both are more or less the exact same thing?





He's very dismissive of Sam Harris for some reason. Perhaps because Harris is relatively young. But of all the "new Atheists" Sam Harris is my favorites because his ideas are so solidly based in not being overly emotional as Hitchens or Dawkins tend to be. Sam Harris is one of the more interesting speakers in that field.


I think he fights against Harris more than the others because he is the truly rational one of the bunch. Unlike Hitchens does not fall to hatred, he is not boring, like Darcett is, and he certainly has the class not to go and insult the people he is trying to convince like Dawkins does. As you said yourself, you like him best.

[jaques]

Chimpy, the positive impacts of religion throughout history have little bearing on whether we should retain religion today.

Copernicus developed a model of the solar system known as the Heliocentric Model. It showed mathematically how the planets orbited the sun, instead of the sun and all planets orbiting Earth.

But the Copernican model is grievously flawed. No one uses it today.

Would we be better off if there had never been a Copernicus? Clearly, the scientific answer is "no." But just as clearly, science would laugh someone out of the building if he or she presented an astronomy paper based directly on the Corpenican model.

Human knowledge and culture evolve. The current worth of any given piece of knowledge or philosophy must be measured against its current utility, not its past utility.

(Note: I'm not arguing that religion has no utility now -- only that its historical importance should not lock us out of reevaluating its utility on a regular basis.)

[Jotun]

But that only works if you equate religion with racism. Unlike Hitchens, Harris and other "new" atheists, I don't think religion "spoils" much at all. From a secular point of view, I think the net influence of religion is firmly positive.

His point is not to compare religion with racism as something bad compared to something else equally bad, but rather to to say that believing something without evidence is not a virtue. Obviously racism is worse than being religious, but both are ideas that require the reader to already have a goal in mind that he would like supported. If you are racist, then you may look at the news and say, "There's my evidence." Again, if an adult told you that he truly believed in Santa Claus, then you would politely remove yourself from the conversation. Every December, that holiday music puts you in a good mood. The fireplace and hot cocoa warm your pants and your spirits. You give away some Creamed Beets from the back of the pantry, and it's all because of some ancient pagan tradition. Either way, even as an atheist, I can't avoid the good feelings, unless I'm at the mall. But that doesn't mean that any of it is true. Believing something without evidence is not a virtue, and that is Sam Harris' point.


Off the top of my head I can think of several things which benefit greatly from religion.

The Mayo Clinic, the reason my hometown is on the map, is a good example. It exists because a group of nuns paired up with a pair of doctors to relieve tornado victims in 1883. Now it is a world renown "medical practice integrated with hospital facilities and a medical school." (The two hospitals, by the way, are called Methodist and Saint Mary's.) The clinic is the training grounds for thousands of doctors. It is the site of enormous amounts of medical research, and the doctors here have saved an even larger amount of lives.

Man, religion really spoiled that, didn't it?

Hamas is a religious group that does some amazing things. They build free homes for refugees, take care of the poor and about 90% of everything the group does is good social work. Did religion spoil that? Oh yeah, there's that other 10%. The 10% that includes suicide bombings and teaching children that killing Jews is a virtuous thing. But forget that, right? Just think of the good stuff that religious group does.

Just because a religious group or a religious person does something virtuous, that doesn't at all verify any of the religious claims.


The list really does go on and on. As threats pointed out earlier, the Bible is the reason the printing press was invented.
The Bible was the first book printed on the printing press, but I'm not sure that Gutenberg invented the Bible just so that other people could read it. In fact, if he did, it backfired. For the first time people were able to read the Bible for themselves and not have to rely on religious leaders to tell them what to do.


The great monuments of the world are testaments of faith. Explorers, inventors, and scientists have all made great triumphs because they were inspired by religion. Some of the largest aid organizations in the world- the ones that save lives by the millions- are religious. In short, the words, "Religion spoils everything" are some of the most ludicrous I have ever heard.

The Dark Ages is the name for the point one of the lowest points in intellectual history. It's also the point where religion had the most control. Go figure.

Once again, being inspired by religion doesn't add validity to its claims. That is not your point, I know. Religion also inspired a group of men to insert the separation of church and state into one of the most important documents every written. "Religion spoils everything" is an exaggeration. As far as scientists, Galileo, Einstein, and Darwin might disagree, while of course Newton wouldn't. I think your statement as to the motivations of the some of history's great figures might be a bit of a generalization. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Church. For all we know, and someone here may know more, he was inspired not by religion but by the thought of making a living doing art. Of course the same Vatican that hired him later went back and painted over the genitals. Was the man hired to censor Michelangelo also inspired by religion?


Of course, the atheist response is that yes, religion has helped here and there, but if we didn't have religion all that stuff could have happened anyway. Well, there is one thing atheism can never provide: spirituality.

Now, I am looking at this from an entirely secular stance.

I doubt that. :lol:


It is well known that many people gain much personal enjoyment from their spirituality.

Good for them. The tooth fairy used to make me feel better about the pain of losing a tooth. Sam Harris is more passive about what we should do about religion. We know it's completely unverifiable, but

I gain personal enjoyment by trying to understand science so that I can have a belief system that is based on evidence. The universe does not owe you happiness and a warm feeling when you think about death. Knowing that when your father or wife dies that you will never see them again, that you will never be reunited in a bonus round, then maybe it will cause you to treat them differently now. What if Bush knew that the soldiers he has sent to die are just dead? Not in Heaven. They were lucky to be the fastest sperms of the hundred of millions. The product of billions of years of evolution. And suddenly they are dead because Bush thought that if they died, then they would at least be in Heaven.


If spirituality is truly just a bunch of chemicals in your brains that make you happier, I am forced to ask this question:

What is the difference between the devout Catholic who says, "Illicit sex is wrong! You are just succumbing to your carnal desires!" and the atheist who says, "Don't believe in God! You are just succumbing to a bunch of chemicals in your brain!" when both are more or less the exact same thing?

The first one is passing a moral judgment. The worst the second one can be accused of is just being a tad rude by telling a harsh truth. The Church is saying, "Freely having sex with a variety of people goes against what the majority currently considers to be against the morals of 2007." The second half of the Church's point says, "And if that wasn't a good enough reason, then don't do it because your brain is operating."

The atheists rephrased would be, "Don't believe in a mythological figure for which there is no verifiable evidence. You are just believing in that figure because there is a part of your brain that causes you to believe some experiences to be more profound than others. Furthermore, we have evidence of this brain activity."

How are those two the same?


I think he fights against Harris more than the others because he is the truly rational one of the bunch. Unlike Hitchens does not fall to hatred, he is not boring, like Darcett is, and he certainly has the class not to go and insult the people he is trying to convince like Dawkins does. As you said yourself, you like him best.

Dawkins asks people to defend their views and find a higher standard of evidence. I'm sorry but if someone believes the universe is 6000 years old, then maybe they need a little insult to open their eyes. Hitchens is...Hitchens. Darcett. You probably mean Dennett. He's a philosopher. Boring at times, but can be extremely interesting, like when he discusses consciousness (http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?topic=conscious&speaker=dennett).

[theats]

Jotun, Gutenburg did not invent the bible. Also, could you please find me a document, "one of the most important ever written", where the words "seperation of church and state" can be found? thank you.

[Chimpy]

Jotun, Gutenburg did not invent the bible. Also, could you please find me a document, "one of the most important ever written", where the words "seperation of church and state" can be found? thank you.

It was in a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to a church who requested something or another from the government. Not an official government document, but the courts have since ruled the concept into American law.

P.S. Later today I will come back and respond to the points brought up by Jotun and Jaques. Right now I would just like to point out that my point was never to say "History shows religion is good, thus we should not get rid of it" rather, I was trying to refute the claim religion is bad for society, thus we must remove it.

[jaques]

Jotun, Gutenburg did not invent the bible. Also, could you please find me a document, "one of the most important ever written", where the words "seperation of church and state" can be found? thank you.

This is a silly post, theats. Clearly, Jotun made a simple typing error when he wrote about Gutenberg inventing the Bible. And just as clearly, Jotun did not claim that those five words appear in the Constitution.

Personally, I'm really, really sick of Christians claiming that the founders intended the U.S. to be an overtly Christian nation. If you understand anything about the nature of religion in Western civilization at the time, it is clear that they took extraordinary steps to distance the U.S. government from religion.

The Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator, but not the Christian God. That is extraordinary for its time.

Thirteen years later, the Constitution was written without any reference even to a Creator.

Explicitly in the First Amendment, the founders ruled out any congressional imposition of any sort of religion whatsoever. (This prohibition was later extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Examined in the context of their history (in which nations and political leaders almost uniformly claimed a mandate from the Christian God), and in the context of their times (when the overwhelming majority of Americans were Christians), these actions irrefutably establish the founders as men making a deliberate statement that government and religion should not be intertwined.

[theats]

The first amendment was meant so that no one relegion was forced on any person. That should not, however, prohibit me from saying "under god" when I pledge to the flag (who came up with that?), or prohibit me from praying in school, or bless the food for that matter. I mean, is our nations motto not "In god we trust"? Since July 30, 1956 it is, thats FIFTY YEARS.
I am positive that 1/3(Christians) of the world's population is not going to drop their faith because some scientific bigots who do not undoubtedly know everything about this earth and its creation. My stance is that the human race has existed for 6 millenniums. The dinosaurs could have been God's creations that he didn't like, or, they could have been placed there specificaly to test the faith of twentieth and twenty first century people so that he would know exactly who was or wasn't truly believing what he inspired people to right.

[jaques]

The first amendment was meant so that no one relegion was forced on any person. That should not, however, prohibit me from saying "under god" when I pledge to the flag (who came up with that?), or prohibit me from praying in school, or bless the food for that matter. I mean, is our nations motto not "In god we trust"? Since July 30, 1956 it is, thats FIFTY YEARS.
I am positive that 1/3(Christians) of the world's population is not going to drop their faith because some scientific bigots who do not undoubtedly know everything about this earth and its creation. My stance is that the human race has existed for 6 millenniums. The dinosaurs could have been God's creations that he didn't like, or, they could have been placed there specificaly to test the faith of twentieth and twenty first century people so that he would know exactly who was or wasn't truly believing what he inspired people to right.

Theats, would you like it if the Pledge of Allegiance said, "One nation denying the existence of God"?

Why can you not see that forcing an atheist to say "One nation under God" is just as offensive?

Do unto others, my friend, or you're just spewing hot air when you say you believe in Christ's teachings.

[Onion Knight]

:headshake:

[jaques]

:headshake:

Did I have that wrong? Was "do unto others" not one of Jesus'?

[Onion Knight]

:headshake:

Did I have that wrong? Was "do unto others" not one of Jesus'?

Sorry, Jaques. That emoticon was directed at Theats' dinosaurs. I thought I had gotten it posted right after his.

But, in response to your post, I don't think that "do unto others" applies in this particular argument because I'm confident that Jesus would support Christian views expressed in our government. :D

Did you happen to watch the Dinesh D'Souza, Hitchens debate that I posted earlier, yet? I'd be interested in your thoughts.



(I...just...can't...stay... out of... this... thread...)

[jaques]

:headshake:

Did I have that wrong? Was "do unto others" not one of Jesus'?

Sorry, Jaques. That emoticon was directed at Theats' dinosaurs. I thought I had gotten it posted right after his.

But, in response to your post, I don't think that "do unto others" applies in this particular argument because I'm confident that Jesus would support Christian views expressed in our government. :D

Did you happen to watch the Dinesh D'Souza, Hitchens debate that I posted earlier yet? I'd be interested in your thoughts.



(I...just...can't...stay... out of... this... thread...)

I'm afraid I haven't had time to click through any of the recent links. I'm trying to make progress on a novel, and I actually feel guilty even reading and responding to posts here.

Additionally, I don't like debates between militant religionists and militant atheists. I just end up getting mad at the religionists for being so irrational, and mad at the atheists for making us freethinkers look like intolerant jerks.

[Revdyer]

I don't like debates between militant religionists and militant atheists. I just end up getting mad at the religionists for being so irrational, and mad at the atheists for making us freethinkers look like intolerant jerks.I have the same problem, but from the other side. (As you well know.)

[Jotun]

This is not a facetious comment. What is someone supposed to do when they hear someone say the world is 6,000 years old? Keep in mind that I don't go out of my way usually to press someone on the validity of a religious belief until it's been established that we can converse freely.

Onion Knight and I played Heroscape together twice this week and we often discuss these topics and this thread. He's a believer and I'm not, and the conversations wouldn't be interesting if we agreed on everything.

If you believe something, like the world is 6000 years old, then believe it in the face of opposition because it's not a big secret that there's going to be a lot of opposition to that idea. If someone said that they were convinced that the world is flat, then wouldn't it be a little disingenuous to shyly pretend like they weren't completely crazy in the context of a debate? I'm even willing to concede that the idea of a 6000 year old universe is not as absurd as a flat Earth. And disbelieving in evolution is not as far from science as a 6000 y.o. universe.

We can actually look at the Earth from above and see it is round. A universe more than 6000 years, though, requires that you have even a minor trust in science and a tiny bit of trust in the value of interpreting a religious text. Evolution requires that you trust in a natural process that is observable on the small scale but not the large scale because we just don't live long enough.

[jaques]

I don't like debates between militant religionists and militant atheists. I just end up getting mad at the religionists for being so irrational, and mad at the atheists for making us freethinkers look like intolerant jerks.I have the same problem, but from the other side. (As you well know.)

You mean you end up being happy with the religionists for being irrational and delighted at the atheists for looking like irrational jerks? :wink:

Jotun, I agree that young earthers present a special challenge, since they believe something that every single branch of science tells us is incorrect by a factor of at least two million.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone said, "I believe this, regardless of what science suggests. The scientists are trying to frame the world in a way that reduces it to data and equations, so God has played a nice joke on them that keeps them running in circles, completely on the wrong track. A data-based, analysis-based method that relies on direct observations and the limited reasoning of human beings will never grasp the nature of the universe."

The aggravating thing is that they usually make a completely different claim -- that science is fully capable of understanding the universe, and that the evidence has already been shown to support their 6,000-year age for the world.

The first view is a philosophical one that I believe can be sustained without guaranteeing that the person is self-deluded.

But the second view is absolutely on the same level as believing in a flat Earth. (After all, if you haven't been up in space yourself, you have to have faith in the science of optics to tell you that the pictures of a round Earth aren't just a trick of some "vapor shield" bending the light in a way that makes it appear Earth is round.)

[GaryLASQ]

I don't like debates between militant religionists and militant atheists. I just end up getting mad at the religionists for being so irrational, and mad at the atheists for making us freethinkers look like intolerant jerks.I have the same problem, but from the other side. (As you well know.)
Militant shmilitant. It was a well-spirited debate. At no point was either of them being a jerk. Hitchens could use some debate-coaching however. He has a tendancy to ramble on without getting to the point quick enough. This obviously irritated D'Souza not surprisingly. (It bugged me also.) Is it possible to even have a debate without appearing "militant" or intolerant? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm curious if there are different styles of debating in which one style does not come across with the same kind of friction.

And before I come across sounding like an intolerant jerk ... I know religion has done and continues doing many wonderful things. I'm not ready to call it poison or "the problem". (I don't particularly like the titles of either of these debates, btw.) And I understand that Jesus introduced some new and important ideas into morality and we are better for it.

I do plan to do a little digging on Hitchens' background/biography before getting all gung-ho anytime he writes a book or participates in a debate. But from what I've heard in these two debates, I very much like what I'm hearing from him. He obviously was working off the same material since he greatly repeated himself in both debates. Would have been nice to see him adapt better to these two guys debating against him, by being a little more spontaneous and original.

Everything Hitchens said was so inline with how I feel about religion as a whole. As he mentioned, morality is not dependent on religion. I agree with this.
This is a great debate that Jotun sent me. It's Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I feel that D'Souza did a much better job against Hitchens. I think everyone who has enjoyed mixing it up in this thread will appreciate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M05P9gO5Hkg
Yes, D'Souza did a much better job debating with Hitchens than McGrath did. Thanks for the link Onion King and Jotun.

[soberman]

jaques wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone said, "I believe this, regardless of what science suggests. The scientists are trying to frame the world in a way that reduces it to data and equations, so God has played a nice joke on them that keeps them running in circles, completely on the wrong track. A data-based, analysis-based method that relies on direct observations and the limited reasoning of human beings will never grasp the nature of the universe."

The aggravating thing is that they usually make a completely different claim -- that science is fully capable of understanding the universe, and that the evidence has already been shown to support their 6,000-year age for the world.

Not that I think I was put on this Earth to be your cheerleader, but that is EXACTLY the way I have felt for years. You go Jacques!

I think the notion that our nation was founded as a Christian nation, despite the all-inclusiveness of the government that was being established, stems from the private writings of the founding fathers, in which they clearly express Christian views, coupled with the desire that they wanted to establish a "freedom of religion" in the "new world". In other words, the nation was mostly Christian, and, while officially open to other religions, was established to ensure the free practice of Christianity in particular. This seems like a minor technical point to me. If Christians founded the nation, and established laws guided by christian principles, why wouldn't or couldn't it have been founded as a Christian nation? Does being officially, or even unofficially, Christian preclude being open to other belief systems?

Officially, there is an American town somewhere near the border of Texas, El Cenzio, where Spanish is the official language. The town founders were clearly hispanics, but English has been the official language there until recently. Does it offend anyone that this US town has adopted a foreign tongue? Doesn't it make sense, considering that the majority of the population is hispanic, and the majority of spoken language there is, accordingly, Spanish? Of course, as a part of the all-inclusive government that Tommy J et al. established during our nation's nascent days, this town has not banned English. Do you see where this is headed...? In a nutshell, if it bothers you that this nation is widely regarded as being founded as an (official or not) christian one, it should also bother you that this town has become officially Spanish, shouldn't it? If not, why not? And notice...nobody is being forced to speak Spanish there.

Ah sweet liberalism, that vanguard of progress!
_________________
now playing: Midnight Oil Breathe (a band with a christian singer, christian subtexts, a few overt references, and a liberal fanbase that vehemently rejects that they are in any way connected to "christian rock")

P.S. Gary, where's Betalund? :wink:

[jaques]

Officially, there is an American town somewhere near the border of Texas, El Cenzio, where Spanish is the official language. The town founders were clearly hispanics, but English has been the official language there until recently. Does it offend anyone that this US town has adopted a foreign tongue? Doesn't it make sense, considering that the majority of the population is hispanic, and the majority of spoken language there is, accordingly, Spanish? Of course, as a part of the all-inclusive government that Tommy J et al. established during our nation's nascent days, this town has not banned English. Do you see where this is headed...? In a nutshell, if it bothers you that this nation is widely regarded as being founded as an (official or not) christian one, it should also bother you that this town has become officially Spanish, shouldn't it? If not, why not? And notice...nobody is being forced to speak Spanish there.

It certainly would bother me if the town insisted that the Pledge of Allegiance only be spoken in Spanish. That would be exclusionary and bigoted.

And that is exactly what the presence of "under God" in the Pledge does -- it excludes nonbelievers from an important symbolic act of patriotism.

I'll go a step further and say I dislike the town's declaration of an official language. I'm not in favor of official languages -- they suggest that it is society's duty to maintain a specific culture in a specific static form. Anyone who knows anything about culture understands that to be both foolish and short-sighted.

The nature of these declarations is to swell the breasts of one group with pride at the expense of all others. I'm not sure why anyone sees that as positive.

[Jotun]

I think the notion that our nation was founded as a Christian nation, despite the all-inclusiveness of the government that was being established, stems from the private writings of the founding fathers, in which they clearly express Christian views, coupled with the desire that they wanted to establish a "freedom of religion" in the "new world". In other words, the nation was mostly Christian, and, while officially open to other religions, was established to ensure the free practice of Christianity in particular. This seems like a minor technical point to me. If Christians founded the nation, and established laws guided by christian principles, why wouldn't or couldn't it have been founded as a Christian nation? Does being officially, or even unofficially, Christian preclude being open to other belief systems?


At the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin proposed that the Founding Fathers start each day with a prayer to get Heaven's assistance to guide them in the construction of the Constitution. The delegates would not even vote on the idea. It was abandoned and forgotten. When they did write the Constitution the closest they came to mentioning God or Christianity is when they wrote that there should be no "religious tests" to attain office. One delegate denounced the Constitution as a "godless document" -- which seems an odd comment to occur if they were trying to start a Christian Nation.

The first line of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli drafted in 1797 states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." President John Adams sent it to Congress. It was read aloud, ratified, printed in major newspapers, and there's no record of any public outcry.

America is not a Christian Nation that is being undermined by liberals. It is a secular nation with a fundamentalist Christian insurgency that would prefer it resembles something more like the Middle East.

[jaques]

America is not a Christian Nation that is being undermined by liberals. It is a secular nation with a Christian insurgency that would prefer it resembles something more like the Middle East.

Regardless of whether this is true, Jotun, you're not going to convince anyone by casting the situation in such terms.

For one thing, what you brand as a "Christian insurgency" is actually a disparate collection of viewpoints that share certain common threads, but have no common leadership and not even any truly common dogma.

If you sit down with people who fit into the category you're talking about, you come away with the sense that they want to live in some dream version of the 1950s, where no one swears, goes to topless bars, or engages in premarital intercourse. I don't think you'll find very many of them interested in beheading adulterers or chopping off the hands of petty thieves.

I'd recommend you tone your rhetoric down, because the true "insurgents" get most of their support from genuinely nice people, and the way to win this particular battle is to make those nice people realize that nonbelievers are not a threat to them, whereas a theocracy is a threat to all of us.

Many very good people might dream of living in an ideal theocracy -- but the kind of people who like to run theocracies are pretty much never good people.

[Jotun]

America is not a Christian Nation that is being undermined by liberals. It is a secular nation with a Christian insurgency that would prefer it resembles something more like the Middle East.

Regardless of whether this is true, Jotun, you're not going to convince anyone by casting the situation in such terms.

For one thing, what you brand as a "Christian insurgency" is actually a disparate collection of viewpoints that share certain common threads, but have no common leadership and not even any truly common dogma.

Once again timing is a bit of a bear in this one. Within two minutes of writing that post I went back and added "fundamentalist" before Christian insurgency. Your quote shows that you arrived in that two minute window which doesn't take anything away from my reading of your post. It just means that I should have gotten it right the first time. In this case I wrote it and realized that I was generalizing too much (Quel surprise!), but at least I caught myself. Baby steps, Bob. Baby steps.

I will stick behind my terminology of fundamentalist Christian insurgency at the moment. I understand that the literal interpretation of insurgency involves weapons and such. I don't think I am out of line to take a wide view of what weapons are. The fundamentalists plague their churches with misinformation and motivation to act on such information by trying to make the rest of the country dumber.

The regular majority of the Christians should address these people, and probably is quietly doing this on some level. Just like in the Muslim world where we need the brave moderate heroes of the Muslim faith to come out and face the extremists and demand that they stop hijacking their religion, Christians here should do the same. The stakes are not as high at the moment. The fundamentalists are at the moment not actively killing people, but these people are a threat to this country, and they do have a national leader (Bush) and they have powerful community leaders. I believe these people have a right to their opinion and a right to political participation, which is something that they likely wouldn't grant to me if it was up to them. Unfortunately those fundamentalists claim to be the most patriotic, which is odd because they are at great odds with the patriots who started this country wanted.

As far as speaking to these people to change their minds. They don't even think I should be allowed to vote. Something tells me that no matter what I said, I am not going to get a word in. The changing of minds will have to be done by other Christians, and if my point was to get people to take action, those other Christians would be the people I would have been addressing. However, you are right that until I distinguish the two separate groups then the conversation is going to go nowhere.

[Revdyer]

Jotun, there are those of us, non-fundamentalist Christians, who believe in rational discourse, scholarly Biblical study, centrist politics, and a secular government; along with what we hope is a deep and profound faith. We stand appalled at the commercialization, politicizing, and anti-intellectualism of so much of modern American "Christianity." (quotation marks intended) It is not an easy struggle, but necessary lest the churches destroy themselves by turning into mere power or money centers. It is a struggle as old as religion itself. But do try to remember that not all Christians are greedy or power hungry or idiotic.

[Jotun]

Jotun, there are those of us, non-fundamentalist Christians, who believe in rational discourse, scholarly Biblical study, centrist politics, and a secular government; along with what we hope is a deep and profound faith. We stand appalled at the commercialization, politicizing, and anti-intellectualism of so much of modern American "Christianity." (quotation marks intended) It is not an easy struggle, but necessary lest the churches destroy themselves by turning into mere power or money centers. It is a struggle as old as religion itself. But do try to remember that not all Christians are greedy or power hungry or idiotic.

I assume this was written before my last post in response to Jacques in which I stated just such an idea. Time just isn't on my side at the moment.

[Jotun]

By the way, my style of discourse comes from my old punk rock days: 1) Scream the lyrics, 2) Explain the lyrics in the liner notes.

[HSisforcoolkids]

But do try to remember that not all Christians are greedy or power hungry or idiotic.

In my experience I find that most Christians are not greedy, power hungry, or idiotic. The word "lazy" comes to mind (myself included oftentimes), but these other descriptions do not generally come to mind when I think about American Christians.

There are a few in the public eye that stand out as power hungry, greedy, autocratic, but I just have to remember that the media generally only portrays the extremes---usually ultra-conservative fundamentalists or far left leaning liberal scholars in the case of Christians. The media generally doesn't allude to the fact that most Christians fall somewhere in between those extremes.

[Revdyer]

But do try to remember that not all Christians are greedy or power hungry or idiotic.

In my experience I find that most Christians are not greedy, power hungry, or idiotic. The word "lazy" comes to mind (myself included oftentimes), but these other descriptions do not generally come to mind when I think about American Christians.

There are a few in the public eye that stand out as power hungry, greedy, autocratic, but I just have to remember that the media generally only portrays the extremes---usually ultra-conservative fundamentalists or far left leaning liberal scholars in the case of Christians. The media generally doesn't allude to the fact that most Christians fall somewhere in between those extremes.Oh, I'd agree, HSisforcoolkids. I suppose I was speaking from the leadership circles I have to travel in. The "lazy" part may be true, especially in terms of not doing our intellectual homework, though. The lack of basic historical knowledge, for example (such as the fact that the Roman Empire was officially Christian when it fell), is an indictment of our lack of careful thought or sufficient study.

Jotun, I was, actually, responding to your post to Jacques, in agreement with you.

[Jotun]

Jotun, I was, actually, responding to your post to Jacques, in agreement with you.

Ahh, sorry about that. The bold Jotun made me think I had brought down the Rev Wrath upon myself. I don't think I have enough defense dice to make it through that fight without a wound.

[Revdyer]

Jotun, I was, actually, responding to your post to Jacques, in agreement with you.

Ahh, sorry about that. The bold Jotun made me think I had brought down the Rev Wrath upon myself. I don't think I have enough defense dice to make it through that fight without a wound.Sure you do. <smile>

[davidlhsl]

Jotun, I was, actually, responding to your post to Jacques, in agreement with you.

Ahh, sorry about that. The bold Jotun made me think I had brought down the Rev Wrath upon myself. I don't think I have enough defense dice to make it through that fight without a wound.

Jotun, I've noticed that Revdyer puts people's names in boldface when addressing them. Since people have a variety of user name types than occasionally include complete sentences, Revdyer's style choice makes it clear when he's referring to a name rather than simply proclaiming, for example, that HS is for cool kids (even though it is). It also allows a person skimming a thread to catch when Revdyer is addressing them.

Nevertheless, you're still a bad kitty! Squirts Jotun in the face with a spray bottle. Bad kitty! No Little Friskies for you! Bad! squirt... squirt... squirt... ;)

Oh, and I really enjoyed the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I watched it this past weekend when I had to run month end reports at work. It really made the day fly by.

-David

[Revdyer]

That's exactly right, David. It's probably a habit from church newsletter writing, where we always bold people's names, because that's mostly what people look for anyway in them. <grin>

[jbbnbsmith]

The fundamentalists plague their churches with misinformation and motivation to act on such information by trying to make the rest of the country dumber.

The regular majority of the Christians should address these people, and probably is quietly doing this on some level. Just like in the Muslim world where we need the brave moderate heroes of the Muslim faith to come out and face the extremists and demand that they stop hijacking their religion, Christians here should do the same. The stakes are not as high at the moment. The fundamentalists are at the moment not actively killing people, but these people are a threat to this country, and they do have a national leader (Bush) and they have powerful community leaders. I believe these people have a right to their opinion and a right to political participation, which is something that they likely wouldn't grant to me if it was up to them. Unfortunately those fundamentalists claim to be the most patriotic, which is odd because they are at great odds with the patriots who started this country wanted.

As far as speaking to these people to change their minds. They don't even think I should be allowed to vote. Something tells me that no matter what I said, I am not going to get a word in. The changing of minds will have to be done by other Christians, and if my point was to get people to take action, those other Christians would be the people I would have been addressing. However, you are right that until I distinguish the two separate groups then the conversation is going to go nowhere.

Labels can be tricky things. By a strict definition, a fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to these doctrinal positions:

1. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God (there is much discussion as to the meaning of inerrant)
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. A premillenial return of Christ (some substitute here the historocity of the miracles of Christ)

I happen to hold to these doctrinal positions, though there is certainly room for debate in terms of shades of meaning, regarding the timing of Christ's return, and the definition of inerrancy. Nevertheless, by strict definition, I am a fundamentalist Christian.

So according to you, I:

1. Plague my church with misinformation
2. Desire to make the world "dumber"
3. Am in the minority among those who consider themselves to be Christians.
4. Am hijacking the Christian faith
5. Am a threat to the United States of America
6. Wish to take away your freedoms and your right to vote

While that is a highly insulting and offensive list of accusations to bring to bear on someone you do not even know, I have no desire to respond in kind.

However, for the sake of not wanting to "make the world dumber", I must inform you that you are dead wrong on all counts.

1. I take great care in my preaching to research and double check facts. While I am sure I have made some mistakes along the way, I challenge you to go to our church's web site (see my sig), listen to my sermons, and find this "plague of misinformation" of which you speak. While I doubt you will agree with my conclusions, that alone does not constitute a plague of misinformation.

2. I am a fairly intelligent person. For what it's worth, my IQ is 140. I have a masters degree in Chemical & Biochemical engineering. I continue to teach Chemical Engineering at the University of Maryland. I try to stay up to date on what is happening in the world. I highly value education. Even on this site I have been one of the "grammar police" from time to time. I enjoy helping others learn, and the last thing I want to do is make the world "dumber". While you may believe that faith in a deity in inherently dumb, there are many people far more intelligent than I who would strongly disagree with you.

3. The fact is that the doctrinal positions that define fundamentalism are held by the majority of Christians in the Unites States. A New York Times article stated that 83% of all americans believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html
This is just one example. If you do the research you will find similar results for the other doctrines, taking into account my remarks above concerning inerrancy and the timing of the return of Christ. The fact is that the majority of Christians hold to most, if not all, of these doctrinal positions.

4. Since these doctrinal positions define the majority (or at the very least a significant portion) of Christianity not only today, but throughout history (read the various creeds), I fail to see how I am hijacking Christianity.

5. This is obviously subjective. Though I may be viewed as a threat to some (not sure exactly why), I certainly do not believe that I will be the cause of the demise of the United States. At least, that certainly is not my intention! I love this country and strive to be a good citizen.

6. While I do wish you would stop making these outlandish accusations, I have no desire to limit your freedom to do so, nor deny you the right to vote based upon your religious beliefs. Clearly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect everyone equally regardless of religion. Per #5, I support that as well.

In my opinion, the portion of your post that I quoted is nothing but pure hate speech toward the proverbial straw man. Ironically, this is the very thing many atheists accuse Christians of doing.

I suggest you take a closer look at the make up of the Christian community and choose a more appropriate label before slinging another round of mud. I for one did not feel that I deserved the venom of your post.

[jaques]

The fundamentalists plague their churches with misinformation and motivation to act on such information by trying to make the rest of the country dumber.

The regular majority of the Christians should address these people, and probably is quietly doing this on some level. Just like in the Muslim world where we need the brave moderate heroes of the Muslim faith to come out and face the extremists and demand that they stop hijacking their religion, Christians here should do the same. The stakes are not as high at the moment. The fundamentalists are at the moment not actively killing people, but these people are a threat to this country, and they do have a national leader (Bush) and they have powerful community leaders. I believe these people have a right to their opinion and a right to political participation, which is something that they likely wouldn't grant to me if it was up to them. Unfortunately those fundamentalists claim to be the most patriotic, which is odd because they are at great odds with the patriots who started this country wanted.

As far as speaking to these people to change their minds. They don't even think I should be allowed to vote. Something tells me that no matter what I said, I am not going to get a word in. The changing of minds will have to be done by other Christians, and if my point was to get people to take action, those other Christians would be the people I would have been addressing. However, you are right that until I distinguish the two separate groups then the conversation is going to go nowhere.

[snip]

In my opinion, the portion of your post that I quoted is nothing but pure hate speech toward the proverbial straw man. Ironically, this is the very thing many atheists accuse Christians of doing.

I suggest you take a closer look at the make up of the Christian community and choose a more appropriate label before slinging another round of mud. I for one did not feel that I deserved the venom of your post.

jbbnbsmith, I don't think it's Jotun's fault that you decided to adhere to a strict technical definition in order to group yourself in with the people he's criticizing. Even a cursory examination of the modern usage of "fundamentalist" makes it clear that the term has broadened to include and even predominantly refer to people who are intolerant of theologies other than their own and who vehemently oppose secularism.

While I think Jotun is often over the top in his rhetoric, his postings are hate speech only in this sense: there are, undeniably, prominent fundamentalist Christians in this country who deserve to be hated (or at least disapproved of) by any decent-hearted person. They are people who are themselves hateful, bigoted and, most importantly, dangerous. These people want to destroy my way of thought and the American way of life, replacing it with a dogmatic acceptance of their own extremely narrow views.

Are they the majority of Christians? Absolutely not. Are they even the majority of fundamentalist Christians? No. But they're out there, and they're given far more media time than anyone who is advocating atheism or agnosticism. Jotun is right to be worried about them, even if he's sloppy in the terms he uses to categorize them.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd suggest that the next time you perceive a slap, you might want to make sure whether the person is actually slapping at you. And even if so ... aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek?

[Onion Knight]

Labels can be tricky things. By a strict definition, a fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to these doctrinal positions:

1. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God (there is much discussion as to the meaning of inerrant)
2. The virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ
5. A premillenial return of Christ (some substitute here the historocity of the miracles of Christ)

I happen to hold to these doctrinal positions, though there is certainly room for debate in terms of shades of meaning, regarding the timing of Christ's return, and the definition of inerrancy. Nevertheless, by strict definition, I am a fundamentalist Christian.

So according to you, I:

1. Plague my church with misinformation
2. Desire to make the world "dumber"
3. Am in the minority among those who consider themselves to be Christians.
4. Am hijacking the Christian faith
5. Am a threat to the United States of America
6. Wish to take away your freedoms and your right to vote

While that is a highly insulting and offensive list of accusations to bring to bear on someone you do not even know, I have no desire to respond in kind.

However, for the sake of not wanting to "make the world dumber", I must inform you that you are dead wrong on all counts.

1. I take great care in my preaching to research and double check facts. While I am sure I have made some mistakes along the way, I challenge you to go to our church's web site (see my sig), listen to my sermons, and find this "plague of misinformation" of which you speak. While I doubt you will agree with my conclusions, that alone does not constitute a plague of misinformation.

2. I am a fairly intelligent person. For what it's worth, my IQ is 140. I have a masters degree in Chemical & Biochemical engineering. I continue to teach Chemical Engineering at the University of Maryland. I try to stay up to date on what is happening in the world. I highly value education. Even on this site I have been one of the "grammar police" from time to time. I enjoy helping others learn, and the last thing I want to do is make the world "dumber". While you may believe that faith in a deity in inherently dumb, there are many people far more intelligent than I who would strongly disagree with you.

3. The fact is that the doctrinal positions that define fundamentalism are held by the majority of Christians in the Unites States. A New York Times article stated that 83% of all americans believe in the virgin birth of Christ.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html
This is just one example. If you do the research you will find similar results for the other doctrines, taking into account my remarks above concerning inerrancy and the timing of the return of Christ. The fact is that the majority of Christians hold to most, if not all, of these doctrinal positions.

4. Since these doctrinal positions define the majority (or at the very least a significant portion) of Christianity not only today, but throughout history (read the various creeds), I fail to see how I am hijacking Christianity.

5. This is obviously subjective. Though I may be viewed as a threat to some (not sure exactly why), I certainly do not believe that I will be the cause of the demise of the United States. At least, that certainly is not my intention! I love this country and strive to be a good citizen.

6. While I do wish you would stop making these outlandish accusations, I have no desire to limit your freedom to do so, nor deny you the right to vote based upon your religious beliefs. Clearly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect everyone equally regardless of religion. Per #5, I support that as well.

In my opinion, the portion of your post that I quoted is nothing but pure hate speech toward the proverbial straw man. Ironically, this is the very thing many atheists accuse Christians of doing.

I suggest you take a closer look at the make up of the Christian community and choose a more appropriate label before slinging another round of mud. I for one did not feel that I deserved the venom of your post.

Well said, Jbbnbsmith.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Turn the other cheek doesn't mean "bend over". ;)

I for one, who would also acknowledge to being a fundamentalist Christian (meaning I'm a Bible-believing follower of Christ), fail to see how promoting pro-family, pro-life, small government, religious-freedom, and basic decency in our society is a threat to anyone.

[Jotun]

jbbnbsmith, the fundamentalism that I was referring to is the very conservative Christian community with people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as their leaders, for example. The people that believe:

1. this country needs literal and conservative interpretations of the Bible to be used as a basis for legislation.
2. that creationism/intelligent design should not be taught in school instead of evolution.
3. that abstinence programs are better than sex education.
4. that we should have prayer in public schools.
5. that same-sex couples should not even be given an option to have a marriage-like contract even if it is not called "marriage".
6. that we should not have birth control and that pharmacists should be allowed not to give the morning after pill.
7. that there should be no separation of church and state.

If I lumped you in with a group of people that you disagree with, then I apologize for the circumstances of the general public discourse regarding religion. According to Wikipedia, since the 1980s "Christian fundamentalism has been used as a pejorative by some opponents of conservative Christianity." That is the fairly widely used label that I was applying to that group of people above.

If you believe a certain interpretation of the Bible, that's fine and dandy with me, and my intention was not to address those ideas since I neither know much about them or have much interest in the history of religion. You are clearly intelligent. Unfortunately your personal religious label has been co-opted by our culture to have two meanings, and as any witch will tell you, it will be a tough battle to retrieve it from the clutches of time.

If, however, someone believes that kids should not be taught sex education or evolution, then they are actively trying to make our children dumber by world standards and reason. Maybe I should rephrase that to "not as well informed."

Abstinence programs and opposition to birth control are irresponsible and dangerous. AIDS and STDs are spreading. Children are being left to fend for themselves as they grow up and become sexual adults. Abstinence programs are less successful than wishes on falling meteors. At least when your wish fails to work a 14-year-old doesn't get the clap or pregnant. Suddenly you need more wishes.

The other items on the list involve the Christian Right's desire to make this country less free just for an arbitrary reason. If you oppose same-sex marriage because it's going to give people an unfair tax break, then that is a valid stance to have until the laws will adjust for that and make it fair again. If you oppose it because it's against the Bible, then maybe you would prefer the antiquated laws of the Middle East. It's just one group claiming that they deserve more rights than another.

George HW Bush, while running for president said this:
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

This is not a Christian country. It is a society with lots of Christians. As I supported earlier, the founders had no intention of this country being a Christian Nation. But still as an atheist I am not even considered a citizen? Clearly most people, even conservative Christians, would not agree, but it underscores the negative sentiment against atheists in this country for reasons that are supported by neither history, the Constitution or sharable evidence.

[jbbnbsmith]

[jbbnbsmith, I don't think it's Jotun's fault that you decided to adhere to a strict technical definition in order to group yourself in with the people he's criticizing. Even a cursory examination of the modern usage of "fundamentalist" makes it clear that the term has broadened to include and even predominantly refer to people who are intolerant of theologies other than their own and who vehemently oppose secularism.

One of the points I had hoped to make was that the very term "fundamentalist Christian" has been bastardized to the point where it is reduced to an insult. You speak of "modern usage", but that modern usage is the usage of the secular media and those opposed to faith. It is NOT the modern usage of those who define religious sects or of Christians who consider themselves "funadamentalists."

Would you appreciate it if someone implied that the "modern usage" of the term "atheist" was one who is intolerant of any opinion other than their own and who vehemently oppose morality? That, by the way, is how some do indeed use that term.

While I think Jotun is often over the top in his rhetoric, his postings are hate speech only in this sense: there are, undeniably, prominent fundamentalist Christians in this country who deserve to be hated (or at least disapproved of) by any decent-hearted person. They are people who are themselves hateful, bigoted and, most importantly, dangerous. These people want to destroy my way of thought and the American way of life, replacing it with a dogmatic acceptance of their own extremely narrow views. There are Christians who disgust me as well. The first example that comes to mind are those who demonstrate at the funerals of dead servicemen. But in addressing my disdain over this activity I am careful to refer to that group by name, not simply use the term "baptist", which they technically are.

Are they the majority of Christians? Absolutely not. Are they even the majority of fundamentalist Christians? No. But they're out there, and they're given far more media time than anyone who is advocating atheism or agnosticism. Jotun is right to be worried about them, even if he's sloppy in the terms he uses to categorize them.
Not sure I would agree that "they" are receiving more media time. And still there is this vagueness common to hate speech. I'm still waiting for a real definition of who these "dangerous" people are, since I'm still not sure if I am one of them or not.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd suggest that the next time you perceive a slap, you might want to make sure whether the person is actually slapping at you. And even if so ... aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek?
My point was to inform the poster that he was indeed not only slapping at me, but many others who are members of this community. I thought that was valuable information since I hoped it was not his intention.

But if it was, then my other three cheeks stand ready and waiting.

[Snotwalker 8000]

jbbnbsmith, the fundamentalism that I was referring to is the very conservative Christian community with people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as their leaders, for example.

Personally don't know much about Falwell or Robertson... and I don't really see either as really being any sort of true "Christian leader" in this country... I think the media likes to hold them up as such just because they tend to create drama (entertainment factor for the news)... James Dobson and/or Billy Graham would be closer to that role, I would think... But Christians don't really follow "followers", because we're all flawed... we follow Christ.

The people that believe:

1. this country needs literal and conservative interpretations of the Bible to be used as a basis for legislation.

We believe that our first laws and the Constitution derived heavily from Biblical influence, and this is, in fact, a nation founded by Christians, but NOT soley for Christians... It's our Christian heritage that gives us the freedom to worship as we desire (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc...) I don't know of any current law being pushed through that comes soley from conservative Biblical interpretation.

2. that creationism/intelligent design should not be taught in school instead of evolution.

I think MacroEvolution is a farce, but I'm fine with the theories being taught... but I do think that Intelligent Design should also be taught alongside Evolution, and let the students view each side on it's meritt. If Macro Evolution and the "everything from nothing" theory is valid, it shouldn't be afraid of alternate beliefs and scientific interpretations being presented. Instead, we have non-Christians forcing their secular humanist views on our students, while removing the freedom of educators to present alternative theories.

3. that abstinence programs are better than sex education.

Why should schools be afraid to teach and promote abstinence alongside "safe" sex ed? If you want to be 100% safe from STDs and/or unwanted pregnancy, abstain! Instead, our schools and our society are pratically encouraging young kids to engage in sex. Why is promoting waiting until marriage a BAD thing?...

4. that we should have prayer in public schools.

We simply want the freedom to pray, without the government or ACLU saying "stop that!". Why can't my son pray in school where other students can see and/or hear? Why can't he bring a Bible to school? Why can't a validictorian, of his or her own free choosing, say a brief prayer or mention God in his/her address? We don't want to mandate prayer, or force others to pray, but as free American citizens, we shouldn't be denied the right to pray to God in public.

5. that same-sex couples should not even be given an option to have a marriage-like contract even if it is not called "marriage".

I personally don't know anyone who is fighting against same-sex unions. I don't care if two gay people want to live together and have a relationship. I won't try to make a law to stop them. But I don't approve of it, because I believe it's sinful (like any sex outside of marriage is, or adultery, or lying, or taking God's name in vain, etc...) However, I don't think that it should be called marriage, and I don't want it to be tax supported and encouraged by the government.


6. that we should not have birth control and that pharmacists should be allowed not to give the morning after pill.

Catholic teaching is against all birth control measures, true, but that's not the case with "Christian/Protestants". There's nothing wrong with condoms, IMO. But I believe that there needs to be more education on how the pill and morning after pill works. The pill doesn't always prevent conception... it prevents implantation of the embryo. So someone on the pill could conceive a child, but then that child dies because the pill prevents implantation in the uterus. I believe that life starts at conception, so obviously the pill causes countless deaths of human lives, as would the morning after pill, which also doesn't prevent conception, but instead ensures death to any embryo conceived...

7. that there should be no separation of church and state.


Separation between church and state isn't in the Constitution, to start with, and the original intent of this statement in a letter was to assuage the concerns of government interfering in religious matters, NOT the church becoming involved in government. Look at prayer in Congress.... look at the use of the Bible in courts and when our president is sworn into office.... Look at our currency.... etc etc... If you truly believe in the misinterpretted concept of Separation of Church and State, then you shouldn't support laws preventing prayer in public schools... correct? Because that is a terrible abuse of government power repressing an individuals right of religious freedom to choose to pray.

A public school shouldn't mandate to it's students "OK, now everyone has to pray at 10am and 2pm today..." But it also shouldn't prevent students or parents from choosing to pray and individually initiating prayer at various events. Bible-banning is not my idea of religious freedom. (Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion).

My :2cents:

[soberman]

Would you appreciate it if someone implied that the "modern usage" of the term "atheist" was one who is intolerant of any opinion other than their own and who vehemently oppose morality? That, by the way, is how some do indeed use that term.

I think he would, because he's working hard to ensure people, in fact, do feel that way.

Jotun, it took 120 or so pages, but the cracks in your disguise become more apparent the more you reveal of your innermost thoughts. (Actually, they've been apparent for some time now, but you've turned a corner this week.)
______________________
now playing: Leonard Cohen Cohen Live

[jbbnbsmith]

If I lumped you in with a group of people that you disagree with, then I apologize for the circumstances of the general public discourse regarding religion. According to Wikipedia, since the 1980s "Christian fundamentalism has been used as a pejorative by some opponents of conservative Christianity." That is the fairly widely used label that I was applying to that group of people above.

I appreciate the apologize and offer my own if my tone was too harsh.
The Wiki you quoted sums up my frustration. The term "fundamentalism" has been used as a pejorative by those who oppose Christianity. It is not accidental, it is very intentional. For what it's worth, I don't go around calling myself a "fundamentalist". I don't use those sorts of labels.

George HW Bush, while running for president said this:
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

This is not a Christian country. It is a society with lots of Christians. As I supported earlier, the founders had no intention of this country being a Christian Nation. But still as an atheist I am not even considered a citizen? Clearly most people, even conservative Christians, would not agree, but it underscores the negative sentiment against atheists in this country for reasons that are supported by neither history, the Constitution or sharable evidence.

While I suspect there is much that we would disagree about, I agree with you here!

[jaques]

Jotun, it took 120 or so pages, but the cracks in your disguise become more apparent the more you reveal of your innermost thoughts. (Actually, they've been apparent for some time now, but you've turned a corner this week.)


Soberman, this insult to Jotun's sincerity is beneath you. I strongly disagree with some of Jotun's posting, but he has been very forthright in everything I've seen him write. To accuse him of keeping a "disguise" for 120 pages is low. Furthermore, he's made it clear that he does not dislike all Christians, only a specific type of aggressive Christians. Those aggressive Christians may be far less numerous than Jotun perceives, but if you're honest, you have to admit that they're presented with extreme prominence in the media, and they do exist in everyday life as well.

To anyone who knows of a school where students are forbidden from praying, or bringing a Bible to school, contact the ACLU. They will help you. A school policy prohibiting prayer is an open defiance of the first amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that valedictorians and other student speakers do have the right to include religious speech in their addresses to their fellow students.

The propaganda that the courts and ACLU try to prevent student exercise of religion is false. The ACLU tries to halt religious observances in school only when those observances are institutionalized and therefore intrusive upon people who follow different beliefs.

[jaques]

The term "fundamentalism" has been used as a pejorative by those who oppose Christianity. It is not accidental, it is very intentional. For what it's worth, I don't go around calling myself a "fundamentalist". I don't use those sorts of labels.


Now I think it's your turn to generalize excessively, jbbnbsmith. You wrote not long ago about how overwhelmingly the American people believe in fundamentalist theology, but now you suggest that the most commonly understood usage of the term "fundamentalist" is the result of a conspiracy of nonbelievers.

The fact is, most Christians aren't very well versed in the specific definitions of theological terms, and "fundamentalist" is used to mean "Bible-thumping whackos" by atheists and by mainstream Christians alike. Your suggestion that it has been bastardized by a conspiratorial secular media carries an implication of bigotry against nonbelievers in general, and stereotypes the hardworking (if often incompetent) people in the media as non-Christians, when in fact I'm sure that a substantial majority of them are just as Christian as you are.

[Onion Knight]

you have to admit that they're presented with extreme prominence in the media, and they do exist in everyday life as well.

You mentioned this before, Jaques. Can you cite some examples of what you mean?

[jaques]

you have to admit that they're presented with extreme prominence in the media, and they do exist in everyday life as well.

You mentioned this before, Jaques. Can you cite some examples of what you mean?

Falwell and Robertson are the first who come to mind. (Remember when they said 9/11 happened because God withdrew his "protection" from the U.S. for its allowance of homosexuality?) Dobson is pretty bad too. Here in Texas we've got some guys who undid the governor's attempt to make HPV vaccination mandatory for girls. The logic seemed to be that having girls receive a shot to protect them from cervical cancer would also turn them all into sex maniacs.

[Jotun]

Personally don't know much about Falwell or Robertson... and I don't really see either as really being any sort of true "Christian leader" in this country... I think the media likes to hold them up as such just because they tend to create drama (entertainment factor for the news)... James Dobson and/or Billy Graham would be closer to that role, I would think... But Christians don't really follow "followers", because we're all flawed... we follow Christ.

The Bush administration has 150 graduates of Regent University working in influential posts. Regent Univ is Pat Robertson's barely accredited law school. It is one of the lowest rated law schools in the country. This was highlighted during the US attorney firing scandal. As Bill Maher said, "What kid wouldn't want to attend Regent University? It's three years and you only have to read one book. It's not a hard school to get into. You just have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook."


We believe that our first laws and the Constitution derived heavily from Biblical influence, and this is, in fact, a nation founded by Christians.


Thomas Jefferson and many other were not Christians. Yes, there were some, probably a lot, in there, but luckily they were intelligent and patriotic enough to keep their religion to themselves and not write it into the Constitution. Many of the laws that Christians claim to be Christian laws were common sense laws that existed before we ever considered writing up legally binding documents. Don't kill each other. Pretty easy. My cats don't kill each other, and they're only halfway through their second year at Regent University. As far as Bible-based laws being pushed, banning gay marriage on the basis of it violating the Bible's teachings was a huge part of the last presidential election year. Many states were battling over whether or not a law should be enacted to protect marriage so that only straight people could eventually get divorced.



I think MacroEvolution is a farce, but I'm fine with the theories being taught... but I do think that Intelligent Design should also be taught alongside Evolution, and let the students view each side on it's meritt. If Macro Evolution and the "everything from nothing" theory is valid, it shouldn't be afraid of alternate beliefs and scientific interpretations being presented. Instead, we have non-Christians forcing their secular humanist views on our students, while removing the freedom of educators to present alternative theories.

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact. Intelligent Design is an idea that has no peer-reviewed research papers to support it. Maybe schools should also teach that the world rests on the back of a stack of turtles. If creationists believed in science, then they would also believe in the scientific method.


Why should schools be afraid to teach and promote abstinence alongside "safe" sex ed? If you want to be 100% safe from STDs and/or unwanted pregnancy, abstain! Instead, our schools and our society are pratically encouraging young kids to engage in sex. Why is promoting waiting until marriage a BAD thing?...


In my sex ed classes we were taught mostly the truth about sex, and then the teacher would say, "Of course the best way to avoid getting pregnant is to avoid sex." That's not an abstinence program. No kid is going to have sex just because 58 year-old Beatrice Finglesnoot told them about sex. Their upbringing is going to be a large determining factor. Abstinence programs have been shown time and time again that they make the problem worse by giving misleading information, avoiding the tough issues, and not advocating that if you MUST have sex, then please use protection.


We simply want the freedom to pray, without the government or ACLU saying "stop that!". Why can't my son pray in school where other students can see and/or hear? Why can't he bring a Bible to school? Why can't a validictorian, of his or her own free choosing, say a brief prayer or mention God in his/her address? We don't want to mandate prayer, or force others to pray, but as free American citizens, we shouldn't be denied the right to pray to God in public.

I'm not aware of any school that does not allow you to carry a Bible. Mentioning God isn't a problem either. If a child wants to pray to himself before lunch, no big deal. If the teacher leads the class in a prayer though, then there's a problem. Another problem occurs when you divide the school into the believers and non-believers. Maybe it could be a lesson on what is one of the sources of world conflict.

School is not a public square. It is funded by tax dollars. This isn't even addressing the problem that encouraging children that a supernatural being is going to give them favors if they mumble his name. School should be about facts. Like evolution.



I personally don't know anyone who is fighting against same-sex unions.


I think we almost agree on this one except for what I've quoted. As I've already mentioned, the 2004 presidential election.

6. that we should not have birth control and that pharmacists should be allowed not to give the morning after pill.


Catholic teaching is against all birth control measures, true, but that's not the case with "Christian/Protestants". There's nothing wrong with condoms, IMO. But I believe that there needs to be more education on how the pill and morning after pill works. The pill doesn't always prevent conception... it prevents implantation of the embryo. So someone on the pill could conceive a child, but then that child dies because the pill prevents implantation in the uterus. I believe that life starts at conception, so obviously the pill causes countless deaths of human lives, as would the morning after pill, which also doesn't prevent conception, but instead ensures death to any embryo conceived...


If I was a sniper with a perfect shot at Osama Bin Laden, but then I decided that Thou Shalt Not Kill applied even to my enemies, that might make for an awkward conversation with my commanding officer. A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions. If the doctor doesn't want to recommend it because of his religious reasons, that is slightly different, and it would at least require the patient to find a doctor that they trusted to have their interests in mind.


Separation between church and state isn't in the Constitution

From the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Not the 18th or the 25th. The very first line of the first time that the Constitution was amended because the Founders had not taken something into consideration. This was only four years after the Constitution had been written, and likely many of the original founders were involved.

[jaques]

Another dangerous Christian: Pastor John Hagee (http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-09-07&storyID=28434).

Hagee’s organization—active in all 50 states—is currently pressuring Congress to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon, increase aid to Israel and toughen sanctions on Iran, although the Texas minister himself doesn’t think Teheran will respond to anything but war: “It is time for America to adopt Senator Lieberman’s words and consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran.” Hagee also advocates attacking Syria and the Palestinians.

I'll also throw Ralph Reed's name into the "aggressive Christian" camp.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact.

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.


Separation between church and state isn't in the Constitution

From the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Not the 18th or the 25th. The very first line of the first time that the Constitution was amended because the Founders had not taken something into consideration. This was only four years after the Constitution had been written, and likely many of the original founders were involved.

There is a BIG distinction between government "ESTABLISHING" a religion, like England did with the "Church of England", and with the concept of separation of church and state. The founders wanted to put aside fears of there one day being a dominating "Church of America", established by our government... Not establishing an official national religion through law is vastly different from the twisted view of one line in a letter concerning a "wall of separation".

Again, my :2cents:

Have a great weekend!!

[Jotun]

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact.

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

Once we get a handle on this whole aging process then maybe we'll live long enough to find out. :) Even if we lived to be 200 years old, fruit flies are probably still going to look something like fruit flies even though they will be 199 years and many months away from the last time they could reproduce with a fruit fly of the original species. Even if we lived 10,000 years, they would probably still look like fruit flies. We're dealing with a time scale that is hard for humans to wrap their minds around.

Besides, I'd be happy for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. All it has to do is follow the scientific method. Unfortunately those people can't seem to get even a single paper published.

[countblah]

jbbnsmith = awesome. As usual.

[Onion Knight]

you have to admit that they're presented with extreme prominence in the media, and they do exist in everyday life as well.

You mentioned this before, Jaques. Can you cite some examples of what you mean?

Falwell and Robertson are the first who come to mind. (Remember when they said 9/11 happened because God withdrew his "protection" from the U.S. for its allowance of homosexuality?) Dobson is pretty bad too. Here in Texas we've got some guys who undid the governor's attempt to make HPV vaccination mandatory for girls. The logic seemed to be that having girls receive a shot to protect them from cervical cancer would also turn them all into sex maniacs.
I guess I have to take issue with the "extrerme prominence" comment. Are you implying that the voices of those few Christian leaders are
influencing our culture more than the secular movement?

[jaques]

I guess I have to take issue with the "extrerme prominence" comment. Are you implying that the voices of those few Christian leaders are
influencing our culture more than the secular movement?
Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Reed, Gary Bauer -- not to mention George W. Bush ... can you name even one atheist or agnostic whose support of or participation in a political party has been prominent in a recent election?

And honestly, there is no "secular movement." There are people who believe government should keep its nose out of our religious business, and then there are people who are working to inject more religion (and specifically, Christianity) into government. Aside from that, you have only a few scattered obnoxious types who want to bring lawsuits over nativity scenes.

Sometimes the law sides with those obnoxious types, because legally and logically, they're right (though obnoxious). But often (as in the case of the Pledge of Allegiance guy) they get smacked down (even though he was right).

When you're told about this "secular movement" by loudmouths like Bill O'Reilly, or by well-meaning parishoners in your church, you're being misled.

[Onion Knight]

can you name even one atheist or agnostic whose support of or participation in a political party has been prominent in a recent election?
I thought we were talking about extreme prominence in the media.

Honestly, if I have to cite examples of secularism in the media, or anything that is on television and radio, or in magazines, movies, and the rest of American culture, then there is no point in pursuing this discourse. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually don't think there is a secular movement.
And personally, I don't need Bill O'reilly or my minister to point out what is evident.

[jaques]

can you name even one atheist or agnostic whose support of or participation in a political party has been prominent in a recent election?
I thought we were talking about extreme prominence in the media.

Honestly, if I have to cite examples of secularism in the media, or anything that is on television and radio, or in magazines, movies, and the rest of American culture, then there is no point in pursuing this discourse. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually don't think there is a secular movement.
And personally, I don't need Bill O'reilly or my minister to point out what is evident.

Everything I've tried to write in response to this has come out bitter and vicious, Onion Knight, so I apologize, but I'm just not able to reply.

It makes me deeply sad that Christians like you can't bother to imagine what it feels like to be a religious minority in this country.

[Onion Knight]

can you name even one atheist or agnostic whose support of or participation in a political party has been prominent in a recent election?
I thought we were talking about extreme prominence in the media.

Honestly, if I have to cite examples of secularism in the media, or anything that is on television and radio, or in magazines, movies, and the rest of American culture, then there is no point in pursuing this discourse. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually don't think there is a secular movement.
And personally, I don't need Bill O'reilly or my minister to point out what is evident.

Everything I've tried to write in response to this has come out bitter and vicious, Onion Knight, so I apologize, but I'm just not able to reply.

It makes me deeply sad that Christians like you can't bother to imagine what it feels like to be a religious minority in this country.

You are entiltled to feel bitter and I don't think that you've been vicious. I truly am sorry that there have been Christians you have come across that have treated you poorly. If I have been one, the I ask for your forgiveness. Insulting you certainly is not my intent. As far as a reply, no apology necessary.

It's not that I don't "bother" to imagine what it feels like to be a religious minority, it's that I like to think that I make an effort to respect people that have other points of view. That sentiment isn't always returned, especially by those who equate my faith with a belief in "the flying spagetti monster" or Santa Clause (a sentiment that has been broadly thrown about on this thread) as if I am too ignorant and shallow to think through my beliefs. Continual references to Christians being represented by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell followed by the "but not necessarily you guys" comment, can be frustrating. AND the "fundamentalist" term as mentioned by Jbbnbsmith, being used to mean, "if you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that stuff, then you must be a kook." Perhaps that is a little of what you feel as a religious minority. I wish you didn't.
As was mentioned before, Jotun is actually a close friend of mine and I would never want to make him feel like he was less of a person because he doesn't share my views. I know that I don't regard him as such.

[jaques]

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7303/texas-official-says-unitarian-church-not-a-tax-exempt-religion
This is the kind of thing that makes me baffled that you think there's some kind of grand secular movement threatening Christianity in this country, whereas atheists and agnostics should just calmly accept whatever religious trappings the majority wants to force upon them.

I appreciate the fact that you took the step of apologizing for any grief you may have caused me, Onion Knight. But it really doesn't do any good if you don't take the additional step of saying, "You know, we Christians ought to let government be religion-neutral and allow people of other religions to feel comfortable and secure that this nation is not going to restrict their faiths."

[Onion Knight]

This is the kind of thing that makes me baffled that you think there's some kind of grand secular movement threatening Christianity in this country, whereas atheists and agnostics should just calmly accept whatever religious trappings the majority wants to force upon them.
I agree that what was done to the Unitarian Church in that article was wrong.
I'm sorry, but to use that situation as a means to prove that there is no secular movement threatening religion is an utter breach of logic.
I am not saying that the secular movement is conspiratorial, at least not in the same way that you are saying about Christianity. I'm not even saying that secularism is organized.
If you want to bask in some secularized culture, turn on MTV, maybe you'll feel better. A week or so ago, the Bravo channel aired Eddie Murphy Raw on a Sunday at noon. That would never have been able to happen a few years ago. Its not just cable it's all over the place. Our culture is infested with decadence of all types, and I support the right of people to indulge in such behaviors as the law permits. But I oppose the tearing down of religious traditions in efforts to make everyone "feel" a particular way. You are free to revel in any non-religious activity that you want, and you know it. You are not oppressed.

I appreciate the fact that you took the step of apologizing for any grief you may have caused me, Onion Knight. But it really doesn't do any good if you don't take the additional step of saying, "You know, we Christians ought to let government be religion-neutral and allow people of other religions to feel comfortable and secure that this nation is not going to restrict their faiths."
I doubt that any significant number of people of other religions feel uncomfortable and insecure that their faith is going to be restricted. I support religion-neutral government. Apology retracted.

[jaques]

If you want to bask in some secularized culture, turn on MTV, maybe you'll feel better. A week or so ago, the Bravo channel aired Eddie Murphy Raw on a Sunday at noon. That would never have been able to happen a few years ago. Its not just cable it's all over the place. Our culture is infested with decadence of all types, and I support the right of people to indulge in such behaviors as the law permits. But I oppose the tearing down of religious traditions in efforts to make everyone "feel" a particular way. You are free to revel in any non-religious activity that you want, and you know it. You are not oppressed.

Are you somehow equating decadence and secularism? That's a total redefinition of terms. Decadence is decadence, and if you want to talk about it as a topic, great. But it's not secularism.

Meanwhile, the fact that I'm not actively being oppressed is little reassurance against the possibility that I might be oppressed in the future, which is where the road to increased theocratic influence in our government could certainly lead.


I doubt that any significant number of people of other religions feel uncomfortable and insecure that their faith is going to be restricted. I support religion-neutral government. Apology retracted.

I feel threatened with the possibility of such restrictions in the future. Jotun, a friend of yours, clearly feels threatened as well. Perhaps you need to talk to more religious minorities instead of just making such a sweeping statement.

Could you explain why you retracted your apology? It's kind of a rude thing to do, especially since I said I appreciated the gesture.

[Onion Knight]

Are you somehow equating decadence and secularism? That's a total redefinition of terms. Decadence is decadence, and if you want to talk about it as a topic, great. But it's not secularism.
No, I'm citing decadence as an example of our secularist culture. (Which you deny.) I doubt you'll see Shot at Love With Tila Tequila on TBN.
And, no, secularism is not decadence.

Meanwhile, the fact that I'm not actively being oppressed is little reassurance against the possibility that I might be oppressed in the future, which is where the road to increased theocratic influence in our government could certainly lead.
I know absolutely no one who advocates theocracy. Theocracy is overly dramatic, IMO.

I feel threatened with the possibility of such restrictions in the future. Jotun, a friend of yours, clearly feels threatened as well. Perhaps you need to talk to more religious minorities instead of just making such a sweeping statement.

You can trust me when I tell you that, in the circles which I travel, I am the religious minority.
Also, reread my statement.

I doubt that any significant number of people of other religions feel uncomfortable and insecure that their faith is going to be restricted. I support religion-neutral government. Apology retracted.

Could you explain why you retracted your apology? It's kind of a rude thing to do, especially since I said I appreciated the gesture.
I appreciate the fact that you took the step of apologizing for any grief you may have caused me, Onion Knight. But it really doesn't do any good if you don't take the additional step of saying, "You know, we Christians ought to let government be religion-neutral and allow people of other religions to feel comfortable and secure that this nation is not going to restrict their faiths."

You didn't accept my apology.
I take that as rude, but your perrogative.

[jaques]

No, I'm citing decadence as an example of our secularist culture. (Which you deny.) I doubt you'll see Shot at Love With Tila Tequila on TBN.
And, no, secularism is not decadence.

The definition of secular is "that which is not of the church." So you could cite the proliferation of automobiles on U.S. highways as being an example of our "secularist culture" with just as much logic as citing decadence on TV.

TV decadence and the American love of the automobile are secular culture, but they are not secularist culture.


I know absolutely no one who advocates theocracy. Theocracy is overly dramatic, IMO.

I said "theocratic" not "theocracy." The distinction is just as important as that between "secular" and "secularist."

The following is a theocratic statement: "The United States was founded on Christian principles." A speaker can make such a statement without actively advocating theocracy, but it remains a theocratic statement.

You can trust me when I tell you that, in the circles which I travel, I am the religious minority.

Well, if you know a lot of religious minorities and they've all told you they're fine with the insertion of Christian prayers into schools, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., then it would have been clearer for you to say that instead of saying, "I doubt that any significant number of people of other religions feel uncomfortable and insecure that their faith is going to be restricted."


You didn't accept my apology.
I take that as rude, but your perrogative.
There's a difference between not accepting an apology and believing that the apology is not enough. I accepted your apology when I said that I appreciated it. I went on to explain why it was not enough.

If someone is break-dancing, and knocks over your prized flower vase, destroying it and ruining the flower arrangement, then saying, "I'm sorry" is not necessarily enough -- especially if the person goes right back to break-dancing near your breakable possessions.

To retract an apology because someone felt it was not enough suggests that the apology wasn't very deep in the first place, because it shows you taking an unnecessarily spiteful action toward someone whose feelings you claim you want to salve.
<Edited -- I missed a "not" in my initial post.>

[Onion Knight]

you could cite the proliferation of automobiles on U.S. highways as being an example of our "secularist culture" with just as much logic as citing decadence on TV.
The proliferation of automobiles is not evidence of secularist culture, decadence is.

I said "theocratic" not "theocracy." The distinction is just as important as that between "secular" and "secularist."
You can play "semantics" all you like.

This was you two pages ago, to Jotun...
I'd recommend you tone your rhetoric down, because the true "insurgents" get most of their support from genuinely nice people, and the way to win this particular battle is to make those nice people realize that nonbelievers are not a threat to them, whereas a theocracy is a threat to all of us.
Many very good people might dream of living in an ideal theocracy -- but the kind of people who like to run theocracies are pretty much never good people.
Then you mentioned "theocratic" again to me.
I'll restate. The implication that Christians in America would want a theocracy is overly dramatic and ridiculous.

Well, if you know a lot of religious minorities and they've all told you they're fine with the insertion of Christian prayers into schools, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., then it would have been clearer for you to say that instead of saying, "I doubt that any significant number of people of other religions feel uncomfortable and insecure that their faith is going to be restricted."
Liking or disliking prayer in schools or the Pledge is a far cry from having faith restricted. (Again, you brought up the whole "faith restriction" idea, which also goes back to your "theocratic" implication.)

If someone is break-dancing, and knocks over your prized flower vase, destroying it and ruining the flower arrangement, then saying, "I'm sorry" is not necessarily enough -- especially if the person goes right back to break-dancing near your breakable possessions.
What would one expect when "break" dancing.:lol:

To retract an apology because someone felt it was not enough suggests that the apology wasn't very deep in the first place, because it shows you taking an unnecessarily spiteful action toward someone whose feelings you claim you want to salve.
I had already stated that I support religion-neutral government with respect to existing religious cultural traditions. (i.e.- nativity scenes, menoras, etc.)

[jaques]

Onion Knight, it's become clear to me that your primary effort is aimed at finding words and phrases in my posts to score rhetorical points against, not at genuinely understanding or conversing about my views. I see nothing constructive in engaging you in that style of debate, and it seems that continuing further will likely just result in my getting madder and madder and eventually (if I haven't already) posting something vindictive and mean-spirited.

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; just that the interaction of our communication styles is getting us nowhere. If you have found this dialogue engaging and entertaining, I apologize for cutting it short. But the experience is doing me harm, and I need to end it.

[Taeblewalker]

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact.

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

Several examples, besides fruit flies:

An amoeba species (anaerobic, without mitochondira, and a relatively rare thing these days) was in a culture that was infected by an aerobic bacterium. After just a short time, the bacteria had permanently taken up residence in the amoeba cells and functioned as mitochondria. Neither species could live alone; the bacteria had evolve into organelles while the ameoba had evolved into an aerobic species.

The hybrid offspring of the radish and cabbage cannot reproduce with radishes and cabbages, but they can reproduce with other "cabish" hybrids.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact.

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

Several examples, besides fruit flies:


Besides fruit flies? Fruit fly studies show micro evolution, sure... changes within a species... Which none of us Christians argue against.... but they were still fruit flies!! ;)

I'm interested in looking at the study you mentioned... Could you site it please? thanks!

SW8K

[Onion Knight]

Onion Knight, it's become clear to me that your primary effort is aimed at finding words and phrases in my posts to score rhetorical points against, not at genuinely understanding or conversing about my views. I see nothing constructive in engaging you in that style of debate, and it seems that continuing further will likely just result in my getting madder and madder and eventually (if I haven't already) posting something vindictive and mean-spirited.

I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; just that the interaction of our communication styles is getting us nowhere. If you have found this dialogue engaging and entertaining, I apologize for cutting it short. But the experience is doing me harm, and I need to end it.


Just to clarify, I thought that we were conversing and understanding each others views. You claimed that "aggressive Christians" were given "extreme prominence" in the media. I claimed that the effects of secularism are more prominent in the media.

I certainly don't wish our dialogue to do you harm.

Have a good night.

[jaques]

Just to clarify, I thought that we were conversing and understanding each others views. You claimed that "aggressive Christians" were given "extreme prominence" in the media. I claimed that the effects of secularism are more prominent in the media.

I certainly don't wish our dialogue to do you harm.

Have a good night.

Well, we're on totally different wavelengths, then. You didn't understand what I was trying to say, and I didn't (and still don't) get what you were trying to say. We should probably just leave it.

[tyguy94920]

Just to clarify, I thought that we were conversing and understanding each others views. You claimed that "aggressive Christians" were given "extreme prominence" in the media. I claimed that the effects of secularism are more prominent in the media.

I certainly don't wish our dialogue to do you harm.

Have a good night.

Well, we're on totally different wavelengths, then. You didn't understand what I was trying to say, and I didn't (and still don't) get what you were trying to say. We should probably just leave it.

And I have to say I didn't understand anything EITHER of you said :roll:

[Taeblewalker]

Evolution is a fact to the same degree or very near that the Theory of Gravity is a fact.

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

Several examples, besides fruit flies:


Besides fruit flies? Fruit fly studies show micro evolution, sure... changes within a species... Which none of us Christians argue against.... but they were still fruit flies!! ;)

Picky, picky! However, while they were still "fruit flies," and had much the same appearance, understand that most changes that really matter in evolution are not always evident in the outward appearance of an organism. The inner workings, including the biochemistry, are more important.

That said, you would like an example with more of a spectacularly obvious result, which I understand.

I'm interested in looking at the study you mentioned... Could you site it please? thanks!

SW8K

The following from the Journal of Cell Science, which admittedly has a lot of techincal jargon:

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/117/4/535


If you follow the link below and look at point 9., you will see the statement about endosymbiosis, with a link the article above.
http://endosymbionts.blogspot.com/2006/12/evidence-for-endosymbiosis.html[/url]

[Jotun]

The following from the Journal of Cell Science, which admittedly has a lot of techincal jargon:

http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/117/4/535


If you follow the link below and look at point 9., you will see the statement about endosymbiosis, with a link the article above.
http://endosymbionts.blogspot.com/2006/12/evidence-for-endosymbiosis.html[/url]

Wow, Taeblewalker. My brain just exploded trying to understand that, and I already believe in evolution. The article is Evidence for Endosymbiosis. I've grabbed some stuff from wikipedia to help explain what endosymbiosis is while I was trying to understand it myself. I've posted it here for others.

Simply stated (http://www.mrs.umn.edu/~goochv/CellBio/lectures/endo/endo.html), the theory of endosymbiosis is the concept that mitochondria and chloroplasts are the result of years of evolution initiated by the endocytosis of bacteria and blue-green algae which, instead of becoming digested, became symbiotic.

Evidence

Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows:

* Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular and in its size).
* They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
* New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
* Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
* DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from the plastid.
* Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
* Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain. Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
* Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
* These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
* Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.

Secondary Endosymbiosis

Primary endosymbiosis involves the engulfment of a bacterium by another free living organism. Secondary endosymbiosis occurs when the product of primary endosymbiosis is itself engulfed and retained by another free living eukaryote. Secondary endosymbiosis has occurred several times and has given rise to extremely diverse groups of algae and other eukaryotes. Some organisms can take opportunistic advantage of a similar process, where they engulf an alga and use the products of its photosynthesis, but once the prey item dies (or is lost) the host returns to a free living state. Obligate secondary endosymbionts become dependent on their organelles and are unable to survive in their absence (for a review see McFadden 2001[6]).

One possible secondary endosymbiosis in process has been observed by Okamoto & Inouye (2005). The heterotrophic protist Hatena behaves like a predator until it ingests a green algae, which loses its flagella and cytoskeleton, while Hatena, now a host, switches to photosynthetic nutrition, gains the ability to move towards light and loses its feeding apparatus.

Problems

* Neither mitochondria nor plastids can survive in oxygen or outside the cell, having lost many essential genes required for survival. This objection is easily accounted for by simply considering the large timespan that the mitochondria/plastids have co-existed with their hosts; genes and systems which were no longer necessary were simply deleted, or in many cases, transferred into the host genome instead. (In fact these transfers constitute an important way for the host cell to regulate plastid or mitochondrial activity.)

[jbbnbsmith]

The term "fundamentalism" has been used as a pejorative by those who oppose Christianity. It is not accidental, it is very intentional. For what it's worth, I don't go around calling myself a "fundamentalist". I don't use those sorts of labels.


Now I think it's your turn to generalize excessively, jbbnbsmith. You wrote not long ago about how overwhelmingly the American people believe in fundamentalist theology, but now you suggest that the most commonly understood usage of the term "fundamentalist" is the result of a conspiracy of nonbelievers.

The fact is, most Christians aren't very well versed in the specific definitions of theological terms, and "fundamentalist" is used to mean "Bible-thumping whackos" by atheists and by mainstream Christians alike. Your suggestion that it has been bastardized by a conspiratorial secular media carries an implication of bigotry against nonbelievers in general, and stereotypes the hardworking (if often incompetent) people in the media as non-Christians, when in fact I'm sure that a substantial majority of them are just as Christian as you are.
Um, if you go back and reread my post you will see that I am quoting what was quoted to me from Wiki. I simply added a few editorial comments of my own.

Conservatives have done, or attempted to do, the same sort of thing to the term "Liberal." And liberals have done the same with the term "right wing."

It is a very common tactic in propaganda wars to take a label and turn it into an insult. I stand by my assertion that most do this intentionally. For those who do it in ignorance, well, that's what my original post was all about; to attempt to educate as to the meaning of the term "fundamentalist Christian." As you state, many people who may use the term in a derogatory manner are actually "fundamentalists" by definition.

As much as I appreciate this discussion, I'm afraid I cannot continue in it. While the dialogue here is far more engaging than the endless polls about which expansion someone should buy next, I simply do not have the time to keep up. I need to get back to my job of destroying America by spreading the evils of Christianity. :lol:

Blessings to you all, and try to remain civil! So far, so good.

[guido]

I'm a Zen Baptist.

[Jotun]

This is the original paragraph from which I originally quoted from Wikipedia in the Perceptions of Fundamentalist Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity#Perceptions_of_the_term_.22fundamentalism. 22) section.

Various perceptions of the term "fundamentalism" have been colored by shifts in meaning on two different fronts since the 1980s. When a number of Americans were held hostage by extremists in Lebanon, some people began referring to the Islamic Hezbollah captors as "Islamic fundamentalists." Subsequently, the term "Christian fundamentalism" has been used as a pejorative by some opponents of conservative Christianity.

[Jotun]

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

I was wondering SW8K. You believe in microevolution. How many years do you believe microevolution has been going on? Scientists believe 3.5 billion years. Do you think fruit flies were created and then placed on the world 3.5 billion years ago and then they've just been microevolving, sort of tinkering with themselves, since?

This info might be helpful just so we know if we're on the same page. I'm looking for a number of years in your reply.

[NecroBlade]

Haven't you guys figured out the mysteries of life yet?

[Jotun]

Haven't you guys figured out the mysteries of life yet?

We have one or two more points to iron out, and then we think we can agree that the world would be a much better place if we spent as much time playing Heroscape as we do disagreeing over religion and science. :D

[Ugly-Caco]

I'm a Zen Baptist.
What's a Zen Baptist? It sounds cool! 8)

[Snotwalker 8000]

Really? I didn't know that Macro Evolution could be successfully repeated in a laboratory setting and confirmed through repetitious observation.... hmmmm. :) that would be news to me.

I was wondering SW8K. You believe in microevolution. How many years do you believe microevolution has been going on? Scientists believe 3.5 billion years. Do you think fruit flies were created and then placed on the world 3.5 billion years ago and then they've just been microevolving, sort of tinkering with themselves, since?

This info might be helpful just so we know if we're on the same page. I'm looking for a number of years in your reply.


To start with, micro evolution accounts for the wonderful variety we see within a species, like the dog. Whether it's a tiny chihuahua or a great dane, a dog is a dog is a dog. Varieties of flies? Sure. Varieties of birds? Absolutely. But even if you throw in billions of years, dogs beget dogs, and birds beget birds, and flies beget flies. I personally believe in a young earth (probably less than 10,000yrs), but even if we have billions of years, common sense still dictates that dogs will still be giving birth to dogs many many many years from now. New varieties of dog? yeah. But still dogs.

But back to the main reason of my previous post, I simply find it illogical for anyone to equate the theories of an extrapolated historical science like MacroEvolution with something like Gravity. I'm fine with ongoing studies on evolution. I'm always for searching for more info on the wonders of life! But by no means is Darwin as "proven" as Gravity. Statements like that don't encourage ongoing research for truth. They tend to simply try to silence any alternative thoughts or theories which don't follow the dogma of Darwin.

That being said, I really do like the MicroEvolution we've seen in Drake and Raelin recently. Their "evolved" states are quite impressive. :D

[Euryon]

I can't/won't catch up on 129 pages... but SW8k...

You believe in a young earth less than 10,000 years old, right? Is this to do with Intelligent Design and so on?

(If yes...)
Do you dispute the fossil record?
How long have you had this particular opinion/belief?
Were you taught it in school?
Did you attend a religious or secular school?
Were you taught it by people outside school and were they religious or secular people?
Have you heard of Richard Dawkins or Jonathan Miller?

(If no...)
If not to do with ID, then what accredited evidence is there to support a young earth? I know it is legal to be taught in US schools in science lessons, and even in Britain we seem to be caving in, but that doesn't make it true (imo).
I guess my refusal to catch up on so many pages may cause you to repeat yourself, to which I apologise. I just read this page and was interested.

[Jotun]

To start with, micro evolution accounts for the wonderful variety we see within a species, like the dog. Whether it's a tiny chihuahua or a great dane, a dog is a dog is a dog. Varieties of flies? Sure. Varieties of birds? Absolutely. But even if you throw in billions of years, dogs beget dogs, and birds beget birds, and flies beget flies. I personally believe in a young earth (probably less than 10,000yrs), but even if we have billions of years, common sense still dictates that dogs will still be giving birth to dogs many many many years from now. New varieties of dog? yeah. But still dogs.

But back to the main reason of my previous post, I simply find it illogical for anyone to equate the theories of an extrapolated historical science like MacroEvolution with something like Gravity. I'm fine with ongoing studies on evolution. I'm always for searching for more info on the wonders of life! But by no means is Darwin as "proven" as Gravity. Statements like that don't encourage ongoing research for truth. They tend to simply try to silence any alternative thoughts or theories which don't follow the dogma of Darwin.

That being said, I really do like the MicroEvolution we've seen in Drake and Raelin recently. Their "evolved" states are quite impressive. :D

Gravity is described using the Theory of General Relativity, but you never hear a creationist say, "It's a theory, not a fact." But then when they hear the Theory of Evolution, it hits them a little closer to home so that start getting defensive. But they are both scientific theories which have met the same standards. Standards that Intelligent Design can get nowhere close to. That's why ID is still just an "assertion."

So equating evolution and gravity is an accurate description. Both theories stand up to the scrutiny of the multitude of religious and non-religious members of the scientific community. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of people who don't trust scientists.

This is not meant to be offensive at all. I'm actually curious as to how you reconcile your beliefs with, basically, the world as described by the scientific community.

I'll quote Jaques from earlier in the thread, since he is much better at not being offensive:


Jotun, I agree that young Earthers present a special challenge, since they believe something that every single branch of science tells us is incorrect by a factor of at least two million.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if someone said, "I believe this, regardless of what science suggests. The scientists are trying to frame the world in a way that reduces it to data and equations, so God has played a nice joke on them that keeps them running in circles, completely on the wrong track. A data-based, analysis-based method that relies on direct observations and the limited reasoning of human beings will never grasp the nature of the universe."

The aggravating thing is that they usually make a completely different claim -- that science is fully capable of understanding the universe, and that the evidence has already been shown to support their 6,000-year age for the world.

The first view is a philosophical one that I believe can be sustained without guaranteeing that the person is self-deluded.

But the second view is absolutely on the same level as believing in a flat Earth. (After all, if you haven't been up in space yourself, you have to have faith in the science of optics to tell you that the pictures of a round Earth aren't just a trick of some "vapor shield" bending the light in a way that makes it appear Earth is round.)

Do you take the first view?

[Aldin]

Just because I see some confusion in the issue - there is Historical Science(HS... not to be confused with a certain board game :D ) and Operational Science(OS). OS is the stuff that is testable and repeatable - gravity, microwaves, jet flight, microevolution(adaptation), etc. HS is the stuff that seeks to explain what happened in the past but cannot be reproduced in a lab today, formation of galaxies, beginning of life, macroevolution, etc. I think the difference bewtween the two is where some of the conversation is floundering.

~Aldin, returning to his observational platform

[Snotwalker 8000]

I don't want to rehash all of the previous conversations on this site, but I'll quickly try to respond in short to the last 2 posters.

1) There's a big difference between science that is based off of repeated controlled experiments of "A+B=C", where we always get "C", and sciencitific theories based off of assumptions of uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism, assumptions on starting conditions, assumptions on external influences (or lack thereof), assumptions on sample contamination (ie: introduction of water), etc. etc. etc...

2) I'm a huge fan of science, but scientists aren't infallible. Scienctific beliefs are always changing... We used to believe that making sick people bleed large quantities of blood was good for them... We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.... Back in the 1980's there was the big "Global Cooling" scare from the scientific community, and now a mere handful of years later we have a "Global Warming" scare going on..... Just because you have a majority vote from the scientific community at this specific time doesn't make it fact. Science shouldn't be based off of a consensus vote.

I say thank goodness that we have scientists who aren't afraid to question the "popular views of the day" so that we continue to search for truth, and not rotely defend scientific dogma. There are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design and are conducting studies to better understand the vast complexities of life, which are proving to be more and more amazing with every new discovery. There are young earth scientists who are studying the age of the earth via Catastrophism, instead of assumed uniformitarianism, and I say more power to 'em. If scientists never question, or never doubt, currently proposed theories, and if they are criticized by fellow scientists for not "toeing the popular line", then we aren't truly engaged in a pursuit of truth... we're engaged in a pursuit of defending the status quo.

I guess I just don't understand the vitriolic hatred and disgust that some people have for scientists who are studying Intelligent Design, or young earth theories, or anything that they personally disagree with. The biggest reason I hear of for dismissing ID or Young Earth research is that it simply doesn't agree with Darwin or Old Earth beliefs.

3) I believe in God and the Bible as His Word of Truth. I see creation and have no problems reconciling the world around me with the Biblical records. You see layers of earth and see billions of years... I see layers of earth and see the result of a global flood. You see a mountain or canyon and see millions/billions of uniform years... I see a mountain or canyon and see a result of catastrophism. We have occurrances like the Parícutin Volcano that rose from a flat field to 424meters high in a handful of years, and the Providence Canyon in Georgia that formed just recently in the 1850's to depths of 150ft from flooding and poor farming practices... Now if we didn't have eyewitness accounts seeing this impressive canyon form from catostrophic flooding circumstances, there's a good chance an old earth scientist would look at it and say it took thousands or millions of years to form.

4) Both Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism are valid views, each of which can explain, scientifically, geologic formations. I'm sure it's a combo of both in many situations... uniform erosion, for example, punctuated by catastrophic events. Uniformitarianism essentially HAS to be enthusiastically embraced and placed on a pedestal by many scientists because without the view of Uniformitarianism, all of their dating methods at trying to age the earth are invalid. (for example, a catastrophic global flood would cause all radiometric dating to yield older dates than what's truly the case)...

OK, so keeping this short isn't easy... good thing I type fast. :)

But essentially, I have no problem with you believing the view of uniformitarianism, while I view the dominanitating influence of Catastrophism, in our views of the world. I say we keep studying the earth with our eyes open to both influences. To say "Uniformitarianism or Nothing" (ie: 3.5billion yr old earth is on par with theory of Gravity - don't you dare question it) is just bad science ruled by presuppositions, agendas, and human biases.

My :2cents:

Happy to share my views and to hear those of others... :grouphug:

Have a great one guys!! :toast:

SW8K

[Jotun]

Thanks, SW8K. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views even if I disagree with them.

Scientists do not have a problem with people reexamining evolution or the age of the Earth. Once they prove something using the scientific method, they move on. The problem is that creationists are usually looking for evidence of a flood. So they find a few things that would be evidence of a flood and they say "eureka!" However, they don't take the next step which would be to try to find evidence that disprove their discovery. That is one of the areas where the problem occurs. They want their forced discoveries to be accepted without going the disproving stage.

Things like evolution and the age of the Earth have been proven in thousands of different and unrelated ways. Science has to build on the work of other scientists otherwise they would never get anywhere. I would submit to you that your examples, leechings and the Sun moving around the Earth, actually support my side more than yours. The people who believed those things were not scientists. They also believed that the universe was less than 10,000 years old and that God dropped bears and dogs on the planet at the same time, and that it was just a strange coincidence that they shared a lot of very similar features.

Some stars are millions of light-years away. The light we see has traveled millions of years just to be visible by us. I would recommend watching Cosmos by Carl Sagan. He spent a great amount of time and energy in his life discussing the relation between religion and science, and how a religious person reconcile the two to form a modern religious world view.

You seem like an intelligent guy who is interested in science. I'm not trying to get you to stop being a Christian (at least not in this paragraph). Searching for evidence of Truth is different than searching for truth. Answers in Genesis is searching for possible exceptions to the rules that may remotely support their preconceived "scientific" destination. That's not science. That's Biblical literalism that wants to reconcile the observable world with ancient world views.

This is also the same way that people come up with conspiracy theories. They search for evidence that supports their idea and whenever evidence is presented that contradicts their theory, they just think it's a deeper conspiracy.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Thanks, SW8K. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views even if I disagree with them.

No problem. I enjoy a good civil discussion. :)

Scientists do not have a problem with people reexamining evolution or the age of the Earth. Once they prove something using the scientific method, they move on. The problem is that creationists are usually looking for evidence of a flood. So they find a few things that would be evidence of a flood and they say "eureka!" However, they don't take the next step which would be to try to find evidence that disprove their discovery. That is one of the areas where the problem occurs. They want their forced discoveries to be accepted without going the disproving stage.

I think both sides should be critically examining all current theories. I'm with you there. And I think that our schools should do a better job of providing students info on both arguments FOR and arguments AGAINST Darwinian Evolution. I'm a strong proponent of making our students think, and that should involve pros and cons of both ID and Darwin. If MacroEvolution is so factual, then proponents of it shouldn't be worried about critical examinations of it taught in schools. Same with ID. Neither view should be given a "pass" in this respect.

Things like evolution and the age of the Earth have been proven in thousands of different and unrelated ways.

This is the big area where we disagree. To say the age of the Earth is "proven", in other words known beyond a shadow of a doubt, is to deny the existance of catastrophic geologic events in history, ignores the fact that we don't know the "starting conditions", the initial "ratios", the consistency (or lack thereof) of rate changes, contamination effects, etc. Operational Science can be proven. Historical science based on extrapolation, assumptions, and essentially "best guesses" can never be "proven". Don't you agree that we don't know all the variables throughout the history of the earth? If so, then the age of the earth can't be proven, and in fact, can be grossly misrepresented by faulty data based on incorrect assumptions. It can only be scientifically guessed at. (ie: radiometric dating depends on many as-of-yet unknown variables... so it isn't "rock solid" (pun intended) proof.)

Science has to build on the work of other scientists otherwise they would never get anywhere. I would submit to you that your examples, leechings and the Sun moving around the Earth, actually support my side more than yours. The people who believed those things were not scientists...

Leeching was taught in Medical Schools by the medical "experts" of the day. (scientists). And those who studied the stars and planets who created models of the sun moving around the earth were also scientists of their day... those who studied alternative beliefs that weren't popularly taught brought us to the truth. This is the beauty of science. We build on accumulated knowledge, without allowing previous conclusions to paint us into a corner.

Jotun, do you believe that the age of the earth has truly been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that we should no longer question it? Given all of the unknowns previously mentioned, that just doesn't seem logical. I'm all for historical science, mind you. It's a fascinating study and one worthy of pursuing. But to ever say "Case Closed" when there are so many remaining unknowns, any one of which could completely derail current interpretations, is a bit baffling.

To avoid another long post, I'll wrap up here. I'm not trying to convince you that the earth is thousands of years old... just pointing out that it's not unreasonable to question the assertion that we KNOW the age of the earth is 3.5billion yrs old. Without having access to the starting rates, ratios, conditions, events, etc., the age can't be proven to such a definitive statement. That's all.

As for conspiracy theories, I think Craig & Co. have plans to take over the world utilizing a devious combination of unwanted Nakita packages clogging up the retail system and game-crazed HS fans clammoring for consumer justice.... Just you wait and see......
:popcorn:

[Nwojedi]

anyone else see that exploring the oceans thing on discovery channel.


I'm not a believer in a god or gods
But i'm not a total believer in full evolution either

but They were going down to depths never before seen. There were fish down there that were half fish and half lizard. Running around on the ocean floor, yet had the taills and bodies of fish and could swim like fish. Seeing stuff like that, makes you really reconsider evolution.

[Jotun]

Science has to build on the work of others. otherwise they would never get anywhere. I would submit to you that your examples, leechings and the Sun moving around the Earth, actually support my side more than yours. The people who believed those things were not scientists...

Leeching was taught in Medical Schools by the medical "experts" of the day. (scientists). And those who studied the stars and planets who created models of the sun moving around the earth were also scientists of their day... those who studied alternative beliefs that weren't popularly taught brought us to the truth. This is the beauty of science. We build on accumulated knowledge, without allowing previous conclusions to paint us into a corner.

Jotun, do you believe that the age of the earth has truly been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that we should no longer question it? Given all of the unknowns previously mentioned, that just doesn't seem logical. I'm all for historical science, mind you. It's a fascinating study and one worthy of pursuing. But to ever say "Case Closed" when there are so many remaining unknowns, any one of which could completely derail current interpretations, is a bit baffling.

To avoid another long post, I'll wrap up here. I'm not trying to convince you that the earth is thousands of years old... just pointing out that it's not unreasonable to question the assertion that we KNOW the age of the earth is 3.5billion yrs old. Without having access to the starting rates, ratios, conditions, events, etc., the age can't be proven to such a definitive statement. That's all.

As for conspiracy theories, I think Craig & Co. have plans to take over the world utilizing a devious combination of unwanted Nakita packages clogging up the retail system and game-crazed HS fans clammoring for consumer justice.... Just you wait and see......
:popcorn:

Medieval scientists can't be compared to modern day scientists who use the scientific method to make discoveries. If I poke a stick at a dead body, that doesn't make me a doctor. But in a world without doctors, poking a stick to determine life status could be considered a "science."

Should biology classes also present the concept that humans came from a clot of blood in some diety's side (or whatever the Islamic creation myth is)? Humans do get blood clots. Maybe there's something there.

As I've said before, as soon as any young Earth creationists can get a single peer-reviewed paper into an academic journal, then we can talk about what should or should not be taught in school. What should be the cut off point where we decide to trust the scientific community? Should there be a petition? If over 95% of scientists believe something to be true, is it really a good use of time to address what a handful of dissenters believe when there is only a limited amount of time. What are the criteria for determining when we should give the minority a voice? ID proponents are not able to prove or predict anything. Prediction is an important part.

Is there a group of scientists standing with arms crossed who aren't even willing to hear what young earthers have to say? At most there is a community of scientists that are tired of people bringing bad science to the table. It's wasting their time. Let's assume that young earthers really have a valid scientific discovery. First they write a paper about it. They will have to find someone who isn't burned out by their previous bad attempts. They may have to petition that person to review their findings. It would perhaps go through a trial peer-review by people who are not young earthers to begin with. They fix a few things and resubmit it. Their friend would help them go the legitimate route by trying to get their finding published in a journal. I'm not in the science field, and I may have made some big errors in how the process actually works.

The 9-11 conspiracy theorists can't get anyone other than Rosie and Charlie Sheen to support their beliefs. Yes there is a group of scientists that believe that inside job assertion, but when you can't even get Noam Chomsky on board, maybe there's a reason. The evidence just can't pass the test necessary for it to become something serious considered. My friend believes this 9-11 conspiracy version and he says there are academic papers, evidence and long lists of scientists who support it, but is the case really that strong? At the moment, no. And until they can prove otherwise then we have to go with what the majority of the evidence supports: a tragic combination of bad religious ideas, poor airport screening and two fuel-filled airplanes.

This is not to equate you with conspiracy theorists. Just saying the young earthers are not the only people having trouble getting their ideas to be accepted by the larger scientific community.

[davidlhsl]

Here's a really interesting video that I caught this morning dealing with the fascinating topic of generative systems:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UqzVSvqXJYg

This is where the full video can be located/downloaded:

http://www.fora.tv/2006/06/26/Will_Wright_and_Brian_Eno

Generative systems basically describes a way to create music, images, etc. by stating an initial condition, establishing some simple rules, and then putting the process into motion. Those who have seen the computer "game" called Life will be familiar with this.

A topic I find really interesting that I thought I'd share.

-David

I hope I'll be forgiven for posting this again (originally posted to Other Media -> Youtube). However, as I'm listening to it, I think it has a strong philosophical relevance to this topic. It may be of interest to some of you.

-David

[Taeblewalker]

To start with, micro evolution accounts for the wonderful variety we see within a species, like the dog. Whether it's a tiny chihuahua or a great dane, a dog is a dog is a dog. Varieties of flies? Sure. Varieties of birds? Absolutely. But even if you throw in billions of years, dogs beget dogs, and birds beget birds, and flies beget flies. I personally believe in a young earth (probably less than 10,000yrs), but even if we have billions of years, common sense still dictates that dogs will still be giving birth to dogs many many many years from now. New varieties of dog? yeah. But still dogs.

Beware "common" sense! It rarely serves us in science. Otherwise, we wouldn't understand the particle/wave duality of both energy and matter.

Organisms don't live in some static state of constant interacton with all other members of their species. Sometimes, a group gets isolated. Isolation of a population from the main population causes "genetic drift," which is when the isolated population has so many genetic differences (due to a lack of inter-mixing with the main population) that when the two populations meet again, they are unable to reproduce. This puts them into competition, which often causes each group to specialize in a particular lifestyle. This leads to even bigger differences as competition drives them apart, genetically. After enough of these changes, dogs will not beget dogs. They will beget something else. What that something is depends on what genetic changes take place.

When you say, "Varieties of birds? Absolutey.", realize that "birds" includes many individual species. The category is not on the same level of specificity as "dogs." Same with "flies," though in this case I think you meant fruit flies of a particular species.

Once you realize the concept of populations becoming genetically isolated from each other, you already have the concept of what it takes to make a new species. Organisms with a "generalist" makeup can diversify into many new forms, while specialists might not be able to turn into too many different species (they would go extinct instead, unable to muster enough new solutions to environmental challenges, including competition with other species). Rats are just the sort of organisms that would probably diversify, given a chance, into forms like many of the predators that exist today (cat-like, dog-like, weasel-like, etc.).

[Ugly-Caco]

There is a God! I rolled 11 skulls (for defense...old story)!

[Snotwalker 8000]

Leeching was taught in Medical Schools by the medical "experts" of the day. (scientists). And those who studied the stars and planets who created models of the sun moving around the earth were also scientists of their day... Back in the 1980's there was the big "Global Cooling" scare from the scientific community, and now a mere handful of years later we have a "Global Warming" scare going on

Medieval scientists can't be compared to modern day scientists who use the scientific method to make discoveries. If I poke a stick at a dead body, that doesn't make me a doctor. But in a world without doctors, poking a stick to determine life status could be considered a "science."


I provided examples of scientific belief from the middle ages (astronomy), from the past couple hundred years (medical science), and from the past couple decades (global cooling), to give a broad historical context of how science is always changing and learning, not ever stuck in a rut with no room for throwing out old theories for new... I don't imagine that you believe that scientists from just 20 or so years ago were no better than someone poking a dead body with a stick. :) But the scientific community supported the concept of global cooling... we can see how that has changed recently.

But again, I understand you dismiss all scientists who study the world via catastrophism and who see design in the vast complexity of life. That's not what I'm arguing. The only point I wanted to make, and I'll state it one last time, is that there can be no certainty, there can be no "closed door", on determining the age of the earth. We simply can't know the starting conditions, ratios, rate changes, external influences, catastrophic events, etc etc once again. Radiometric dating, ie, is DEPENDENT on unknown assumptions on these very variables.

Until both sides of this discussion admit that the age of the earth isn't a KNOWN FACT, one way or the other, than any other discussion of evolution or ID is moot... and it's not a huge concession here either... it's simple scientific logic.

Jotun, all I'm asking for is your thoughts on what I'm mentioning about the vast unknown variables and assumptions that must be made about uniformitarianism, ratios, etc., in order for scientists to even start to guess at the age of anything. We may have radiometric tests, sure, but without those key variables, any interpretation of the findings isn't based on rock solid scientific fact... it's based on unknown assumptions.

That's all. Again, I'm a huge science fan. But I see this fact of weakness in historical science as something to acknowledge, not ignore.

Carry on... :up:

[Jotun]

Jotun, all I'm asking for is your thoughts on what I'm mentioning about the vast unknown variables and assumptions that must be made about uniformitarianism, ratios, etc., in order for scientists to even start to guess at the age of anything. We may have radiometric tests, sure, but without those key variables, any interpretation of the findings isn't based on rock solid scientific fact... it's based on unknown assumptions.

That's all. Again, I'm a huge science fan. But I see this fact of weakness in historical science as something to acknowledge, not ignore.

Carry on... :up:

If you honestly are concerned with the truth and you are a fan of science to the degree that you believe what is supported with cited scientific papers, then you will find that Talk Origins will help explain why evolution is real and the age of the Earth is literally over a million times older than you believe.
How Old is the Earth: Some Creationist Ages of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html)

Here's a link to An Index to Creationist Claims. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html)

For example, in response to the creationist claim that evolution has not been proven:

Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.

Response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
* All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
* Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
* Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
* Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
* The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
* Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
* Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
* Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
* The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
* Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
* The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
* When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
* The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
* Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
* Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
* Speciation has been observed.
* The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

[end of quote]

The global cooling scare in the 70s is a myth. Scientists were saying that within the next 10,000 to 20,000 years there may be a cooling trend where temperatures lower by 8-10 degrees. They were not worried about it. In fact they were worried about what was going to happen before that, human-caused global warming. In the 70s Carl Sagan was already warning about the effects of global warming. His predictions 30 years later appear to be true. There is debate still on the topic, but the idea that scientists in the 70s unilaterally agreed that everyone should bundle up for an ice age is a myth that has been pulled and stretched and distorted just as it was when it first popped up then. Read more (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

When you say you are a fan of science, do you mean creationist science as seen on Answers in Genesis.org? Talk Origins.org is widely respected within the science community. It addresses catastrophism as well. Read Talk Origins and then go to Answers in Genesis because I'm sure they have some response where they muddy the waters. Then they will probably quote some paper, but be sure to follow the link and do research on who they are quoting. Are they quoting from another creation scientist? Or are they quoting from peer-reviewed academic journals like Nature or Science, for example?

The difference between thinking that the world is 10,000 years old versus 4.5 billion years off so much as to believe that the distance from New York City to Los Angeles is only 27 feet. Dawkins always points this out.

Furthermore, you just can't consider scientific beliefs from the 12th century to be on par with modern scientific methods. The investigative methods and standards for evidence have been drastically improved. Is it possible that 5,000 years from now we might find out that the Sun actually does move around the Earth? It's extremely unlikely, but we can't rule it out. Is there a possibility that we will find out the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Sure. We might find that almost every field of science was wrong about their independent conclusions of the Earth's age, but I'm willing to bet you my 25 master sets that the answer is no. Deal? :D

[Revdyer]

One of the questions that I frequently ask of people who knock on my door and want to talk about their religious perspectives is: "Is there anything I might say that could ever, possibly, change your mind?" If the answer is, "No, of course not." I try to politely end the conversation. Once in a while I will continue to converse because I want to learn more about their particular organization, theology, or world-view. But most of the time I find it unfruitful to simply exchange mutually exclusive positions when neither side is willing to bend, compromise, admit defeat, or learn.

Sometimes, in this tread, we reach such a point. Then it is time to move on to another discussion.

Are we at that point with the science/revealed truth discussion? Is there anyone out there who has not yet made up her or his mind on this? If there is, then, please, debate on! If not...maybe there are more fertile grounds for discussion.

[Jotun]

Rev,

I have known since the beginning of this recent conversation that I wasn't going to be able to change SW8K's mind. I enjoy the back and forth. The next time I run into someone that thinks the world happened after the agricultural revolution I will know in advance that they already have chosen which side they choose to get their science facts from and where they place their skepticism. It also helps me to form my arguments. I'm reading a Carl Sagan book where he does a question and answer session with religious believers. He responds with great respect, but doesn't back down when they make an assertion like God is Love. (if anyone would like to hear his response, I'll be happy to type it out.) Clearly I've been accused of being disrespectful at times. I don't personally consider my comments to be overly disrespectful. I surely don't sugar coat my comments, and this Sagan book has shown me that sometimes in the face of absurd statements you gain more ground by asking people to ask questions that will allow them to solve the puzzle on their own. People like to feel like they've figured it out.

Besides, no one else is bringing up topics for discussion at the moment. So what's wrong with a little :deadhorse: ?

[Taeblewalker]

Rev, I have to agree with Jotun. Snotwalker is making his case politely, though I think not very well, but with great sincerity and respect for the other people on this site. I, like Jotun, feel there is misinformation out there about science and about the debate regarding Earth's age and evolution in particular. I am a science teacher, and I welcome people like Snotwalker to air their views and make their cases. Those views, in my opinion, need to be met with information of the sort we have been providing, but they should be heard. Where I draw the line is in a science classroom, where the extreme minority of scientists' views about a young Earth are not solid science, as they seem to be based on the belief that Genesis has to be true because if not, the Ressurection would not make any sense.

Snotwalker, while I feel you are mistaken in certain things, I agree with most of what you say about how science is always changing and needs to remain flexible. What ID/Creationism does not do is allow for that flexibility, for the simple fact that it also gets caught up in the moral issue of choosing Christ as one's personal Savior. It's hard to debate biology when the bedrock argument is "He died for our sins, so therefore Genesis has to be literally true."

That said, if you feel that the ID side of things is unfairly characterized by what I just said, please tell me so. Anything I have read, by Ken Ham, Duane T. Gish, Henry Morris, etc., all return to that argument, which isn't a scientific line of reasoning. Please tell me if there are ID/Creationists who are willing to dispense with the moral/cosmological assumption of original sin and salvation as the "ace in the hole" argument against an old Earth.

[Snotwalker 8000]

I don't think many of us have any delusions of "changing someone's mind" on such huge issues as Faith in this thread. :wink:

But on the flip side, I'd hope that everyone who pops in this thread from time to time is always open to gaining a better understanding of why the "other side" believes what they do. We aren't striving for agreement as much as we're striving for clarity. At least that's my perspective.

The one point of clarity I was trying to bring to the table was the reasonableness of questioning the statement that scientists can know, as 100% fact, that the earth is 3.5b yrs old, given the unknown variables and pure assumptions that must be made to even begin to formulate such an hypothesis. (staring conditions, ratios, rates of change, contamination, events,.....)

So, focusing like a laserbeam on that one point (not Creationism/ID/YoungEarth/etc.), is it reasonable to argue that it really isn't logical and scientific to say that we KNOW the earth is 3.5b yrs old? That unknown variables do exist that can, and most likely do, greatly impact the data? That is the only point I wanted to make in response to those saying 3.5b yrs is FACT. Saying there's "high confidence" is fine... that's radically different from saying "it's fact".

Fair enough?

On an unrelated note, (to get this back to some more basic theological/spiritual discussions), I'm curious how many agnostics/atheists ever find themselves silently "praying" to God... Kind of a "God, if you do exist, please help with..." when a loved one is sick, or a dangerous situation arises, or you're rolling the 20D with DeadEyeDan trying to smite Q9 to win the game? (ok, so maybe not so much that last one... ;) )

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:

[jbbnbsmith]

On an unrelated note, (to get this back to some more basic theological/spiritual discussions), I'm curious how many agnostics/atheists ever find themselves silently "praying" to God... Kind of a "God, if you do exist, please help with..." when a loved one is sick, or a dangerous situation arises, or you're rolling the 20D with DeadEyeDan trying to smite Q9 to win the game? (ok, so maybe not so much that last one... ;) )

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:
That's a very interesting question. I think most people who hold to a faith in God (theists) have times of doubt. Do atheists ever have similar doubts, however fleeting? Or would admitting such a thing get you kicked out of the club? :lol:

[Taeblewalker]

I don't think many of us have any delusions of "changing someone's mind" on such huge issues as Faith in this thread. :wink:

But on the flip side, I'd hope that everyone who pops in this thread from time to time is always open to gaining a better understanding of why the "other side" believes what they do. We aren't striving for agreement as much as we're striving for clarity. At least that's my perspective.

The one point of clarity I was trying to bring to the table was the reasonableness of questioning the statement that scientists can know, as 100% fact, that the earth is 3.5b yrs old, given the unknown variables and pure assumptions that must be made to even begin to formulate such an hypothesis. (staring conditions, ratios, rates of change, contamination, events,.....)

So, focusing like a laserbeam on that one point (not Creationism/ID/YoungEarth/etc.), is it reasonable to argue that it really isn't logical and scientific to say that we KNOW the earth is 3.5b yrs old? That unknown variables do exist that can, and most likely do, greatly impact the data? That is the only point I wanted to make in response to those saying 3.5b yrs is FACT. Saying there's "high confidence" is fine... that's radically different from saying "it's fact".

Fair enough?


Okay. But then I have to say that the 4.6 billion year number (not 3.5b), while accepted, could be off by a few hundred million years either way. That does nothing to affect the discussion of evolution. It is an estimate, but the kind of estimate like, "There were about 50,000 people at Yankee Stadium last night." It might have been 46,000. But it wasn't 15.


On an unrelated note, (to get this back to some more basic theological/spiritual discussions), I'm curious how many agnostics/atheists ever find themselves silently "praying" to God... Kind of a "God, if you do exist, please help with..." when a loved one is sick, or a dangerous situation arises, or you're rolling the 20D with DeadEyeDan trying to smite Q9 to win the game? (ok, so maybe not so much that last one... ;) )

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:

No. And there are atheists in foxholes. Check out: http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

However, I do like to think that in some alternate universe magic exists. Or something like it. I don't think it's highly likely, mind you, but it could be true. Probably as a different set of laws of physics that allow things differently. In fact, most technology today is "magical" to people of the past. Insert quote by Clarke here.

[Revdyer]

Rev,

I have known since the beginning of this recent conversation that I wasn't going to be able to change SW8K's mind. I enjoy the back and forth. The next time I run into someone that thinks the world happened after the agricultural revolution I will know in advance that they already have chosen which side they choose to get their science facts from and where they place their skepticism. It also helps me to form my arguments. I'm reading a Carl Sagan book where he does a question and answer session with religious believers. He responds with great respect, but doesn't back down when they make an assertion like God is Love. (if anyone would like to hear his response, I'll be happy to type it out.) Clearly I've been accused of being disrespectful at times. I don't personally consider my comments to be overly disrespectful. I surely don't sugar coat my comments, and this Sagan book has shown me that sometimes in the face of absurd statements you gain more ground by asking people to ask questions that will allow them to solve the puzzle on their own. People like to feel like they've figured it out.

Besides, no one else is bringing up topics for discussion at the moment. So what's wrong with a little :deadhorse: ?Jotun, I certainly would not accuse you (or anyone else at this point) of disrespect. I guess I was just a bit tired of seeing the poor horse get beaten, even though he doesn't feel a thing.

[Onion Knight]

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:

No. And there are atheists in foxholes. Check out: http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Really? Never?

[Jotun]

The one point of clarity I was trying to bring to the table was the reasonableness of questioning the statement that scientists can know, as 100% fact, that the earth is 3.5b yrs old, given the unknown variables and pure assumptions that must be made to even begin to formulate such an hypothesis. (staring conditions, ratios, rates of change, contamination, events,.....)

So, focusing like a laserbeam on that one point (not Creationism/ID/YoungEarth/etc.), is it reasonable to argue that it really isn't logical and scientific to say that we KNOW the earth is 3.5b yrs old? That unknown variables do exist that can, and most likely do, greatly impact the data? That is the only point I wanted to make in response to those saying 3.5b yrs is FACT. Saying there's "high confidence" is fine... that's radically different from saying "it's fact".

Fair enough?

On an unrelated note, (to get this back to some more basic theological/spiritual discussions), I'm curious how many agnostics/atheists ever find themselves silently "praying" to God... Kind of a "God, if you do exist, please help with..." when a loved one is sick, or a dangerous situation arises, or you're rolling the 20D with DeadEyeDan trying to smite Q9 to win the game? (ok, so maybe not so much that last one... ;) )

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:

Part of being a scientist is being open to changing your mind if new information arrives. Trying getting a creation scientist to say that and mean it.

As far as praying, I'm beyond that stage. I'm not superstitious. There isn't a hole in my heart where he used to be. On the other hand, there is a clarity of reasoning that I've found. And the world is much more impressive without a god.

I'm quite confident that if God does exist that he certainly isn't anything like what almost every religion says. He's not knowable. You can't have a conversation with him, and he doesn't know what I'm thinking. And he didn't write a bestseller. If He does exist, then he can find me on Myspace like all the other people from my past.

Your question reminds me of the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." James Morrow said it best: "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes."

Yesterday the governor of Georgia led the state in a prayer for rain to save the state from the awful drought going on down there. No rain came. Not a cloud in the sky by afternoon. You gotta wonder if the governor looked at the weather last week and saw that there was a 20% chance of rain. Seems like a good day to choose to make a pretend miracle happen. That sounds like something you'd hear Aztec rulers doing.

[Jotun]

In fact, most technology today is "magical" to people of the past. Insert quote by Clarke here:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

[GaryLASQ]

Do you ever "sense" that there is a higher power in existance? Do you ever find yourself asking "God" to show Himself to you? Have you, in the last year or so, found yourself praying "just in case..."?

Anyway, just curious.

Cheers! :drunk:
I do have a "moment" once in a while where a prayer starts to develop in my head but that is only because of the 20 years of conditioning it went through during my formative years. It's a hard habit to break...

No. And there are atheists in foxholes. Check out: http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/There are people from Alabama serving in the military who are atheists? No way. I simply don't believe it.

[Taeblewalker]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

Thanks.

No. And there are atheists in foxholes. Check out: http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/There are people from Alabama serving in the military who are atheists? No way. I simply don't believe it.

I admit, it's hard to believe.


Really? Never?

Really! Although I sometimes wish I had a guardian angel or something like that, but then there's the whole peeping Tom thing to consider. :wink:

[jaques]

Your question reminds me of the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." James Morrow said it best: "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes."


James Morrow is brilliant. It's a shame his books are so dreary and depressing.

On the "praying atheists" question, I'm agnostic, so my response is perhaps not going to be particularly illuminating. Having been raised Christian, it's not uncommon for me to react to an ambulance siren or the sight of a car accident with a sort of generalized mental request for those involved to be okay. It's not aimed at any particular deity or metaphysical phenomenon, but just sort of arises as a charitable hedge -- in case there's something out there, and in case my well-wishes have any contribution to the metaphysical state of the world, I figure there's no harm done and some small chance of good, so why not? If nothing else, it helps me feel like I care about other people, which is a good thing.

On the other hand, I absolutely never ask for anything for myself. This is motivated by a pretty simple notion: if God's out there, there's every possibility that the Devil's out there too. Given the fact that ordinary bad human beings have completely fooled me into thinking that they were nice people, I have to presume that a powerful spiritual being could do so even better, and that it's therefore idiotic for me to engage in anything that might be perceived as metaphysical bargaining. Also, I think it would be the height of rudeness to request something of a being to whom I haven't extended the courtesy of belief.

[Revdyer]

OK, guys, I confess to having become exhausted with the narrow "Science/revelation" debate, especially as it refers to evolution. I just don't think there are any new ideas among us right now.

So, I propose another avenue of discussion:

What is good? How do you know what is good? How do you know what you are supposed to do (if there is anything you are supposed to do)? How do you decide?

[Taeblewalker]

OK, guys, I confess to having become exhausted with the narrow "Science/revelation" debate, especially as it refers to evolution. I just don't think there are any new ideas among us right now.

So, I propose another avenue of discussion:

What is good? How do you know what is good? How do you know what you are supposed to do (if there is anything you are supposed to do)? How do you decide?

Subtle hint, Rev. :wink: That's OK. I'll bite.

Robert Pirsig's point at the end of Lila was "Good as a noun." It sounded profound when he said it, though I haven't read the book in years. Nonetheless, my insight is that it takes into account empathy. If you can form a conscious emulation of another's mental state (put yourself in their place), you have empathy. If you have empathy, you can feel their pain. That ability is essential to "good." The details can get messy, but I think that's good (no pun intended) starting point.

[Revdyer]

Taeblewalker, that is close to Hillel's defintion of the Torah to the the young man who asked to have it expounded while standing on one foot, not to do to the other what you would not want have done to you. But why? Why is the "Golden Rule" golden? Why is it better than the Lex Talonis? Is empathy somehow better than disinterest toward the other or victory over him or her? Why?

[Onion Knight]

I think this may be pertinent to your premise, Rev. That is, if you are establishing one. :D
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.ghinn/lawof.htm

[Revdyer]

I think this may be pertinent to your premise, Rev. That is, if you are establishing one. :D
http://www.btinternet.com/~a.ghinn/lawof.htmA nice piece from Dr. Lewis. I'm not trying to establish any premise, though. I am, seriously, asking the question as to what, if anything, leads us to the desire to be good, do good, establish the good...one could expand the discussion to the true, the beautiful, the right. Are these values real in any sense or just mere words?

[Taeblewalker]

Taeblewalker, that is close to Hillel's defintion of the Torah to the the young man who asked to have it expounded while standing on one foot, not to do to the other what you would not want have done to you. But why? Why is the "Golden Rule" golden? Why is it better than the Lex Talonis? Is empathy somehow better than disinterest toward the other or victory over him or her? Why?

Why indeed? Another author, Stephen Baxter, tackled this in his novel Evolution. The novel traces the evolutionary path of humans from a rat-like ancestor to the modern day and beyond into a possible future (highly speculative, of course, but it's a good yarn).

I know that this definition has something to do with evolution, and I'm not trying to beat the previous horse, so bear with me.

Somewhere around the time of a monkey-like ancestor, one of the primate species found itself with increased need for social interaction. Individuals that could understand the mental state of their peers had a better shot at surviving, because they were better predictors of behavior. This led to a strengthening of the ability to model another's mental state.

Let me say up front that I find the idea compelling, though the characters are fictional and the manner of the evolution of morality is far from certain. The first take-home point is that social interaction created the evolutionary need to better understand the other. Social insects work it out with a different strategy, but humans try to understand what the other person in thinking. The second point is that this actually created sef-awareness. The idea here is that by modeling another's mindset so well, we began to get a real sense of the distinction between "self" and "other."

If this idea is true, then empathy is something required before self-awareness can exist. I know I haven't quite offered an answer to what good is, but I don't really have an answer at this point. I do like Clark's essay, though.

[jaques]

Personally, I think there are most likely a number of different kinds of goodness.

At a minimum, there is inherent goodness, and there is socialized goodness.

Inherent goodness is the extent to which we as individuals are unable to help empathizing with others. Socialized goodness is the extent to which we as members of society have internalized the mores taught to us.

Because socialized goodness is culture-dependent, it is possible for it to result in acts by one person which are perceived as non-good by another from a different background.

But inherent goodness is recognized by anyone you might encounter (other than a sociopath). Inherent goodness is what causes you to feel happy and to smile back when a complete stranger smiles at you or does something spontaneously charitable for you.

One of the problems that we face in today's world is that C.S. Lewis has been proven wrong -- in our society today, selfishness is often presented as a virtue, confusing the effectiveness of socialized goodness and confounding inherent goodness on a regular basis.

[countblah]

But how do we know inherent good? How do we all manage to recognize it?

[jaques]

But how do we know inherent good? How do we all manage to recognize it?

From my perspective (and this shouldn't surprise anyone), the jury is still out on that.

It may be that inherent goodness is the genetic result of selection pressures, as has been posited elsewhere in this thread. Having a heavy dose of empathy and cooperation in your genetic makeup would certainly be of benefit to your pack or tribe. The ability to recognize it would definitely be an adaptive trait, since it would enable those with strong inherent goodness to find one another and work together, while enabling those with less inherent goodness to exploit the goodness of those around them.

Or it may be that inherent goodness represents the soul or atman or whatever you want to call the bit of divinity that has been placed within each person by the powers that be.

[countblah]

I like that second one better.

[jaques]

I like that second one better.

I know that the second one correlates more directly with what you believe to be true, but do you actually like it better?

If inherent goodness exists, I don't see how it matters what the source is.

To rephrase my question: supposing, hypothetically, that man's morality originates from biological necessity in a violent world where species adapt to avoid extinction, does that fact somehow lessen the worth of man's morality?

[Taeblewalker]

I like that second one better.

I know that the second one correlates more directly with what you believe to be true, but do you actually like it better?

If inherent goodness exists, I don't see how it matters what the source is.

To rephrase my question: supposing, hypothetically, that man's morality originates from biological necessity in a violent world where species adapt to avoid extinction, does that fact somehow lessen the worth of man's morality?

I like to see consciousness as an emergent phenomenon; one that is not written into the rules of how the brain is put together, but that works all the same. It's like the way the termites can be so stupid and yet build incredible architecture. As for morality, if true self-awareness does require the ability to understand how another feels, then self-awareness is founded upon what we generally consider "good." At least, this is true as far as we are either good, or, as Clark explained in that link, we feel guilt when we are not.

[soberman]

But inherent goodness is recognized by anyone you might encounter (other than a sociopath). Inherent goodness is what causes you to feel happy and to smile back when a complete stranger smiles at you or does something spontaneously charitable for you.

One of the problems that we face in today's world is that C.S. Lewis has been proven wrong -- in our society today, selfishness is often presented as a virtue, confusing the effectiveness of socialized goodness and confounding inherent goodness on a regular basis.

Right, I haven't been paying much attention, but, since you mention the sociopath personality, jacques, it begs the question: Are you suggesting that Lewis is wrong as a direct result of the subtle, unreported rise of said disorder aming the populace? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that lewis got it right and society is going wrong? Are social mores the final word in determining truth?
______________
now playing: The World Cafe' on 91.3 FM WYEP Pittsburgh http://www.wyep.org

[jaques]

Lewis made a claim of empirical observation: that no society has ever portrayed selfishness as a good. I think this statement is in the process of being proven wrong by our society, in which selfishness is portrayed as model behavior in a variety of areas. (Business is the one that comes to mind most easily.)

My personal belief is that this is moving us toward a dysfunctional society, in which the "socialized goodness" I mentioned before becomes weaker and weaker. The results, I think, are likely to be profoundly negative.

I did not in any way mean to imply that our society is successfully transforming selfishness into an actual good; I only meant that Lewis was incorrect in saying selfishness is never espoused as a good.

[Cavalier]

Lewis made a claim of empirical observation: that no society has ever portrayed selfishness as a good. I think this statement is in the process of being proven wrong by our society, in which selfishness is portrayed as model behavior in a variety of areas. (Business is the one that comes to mind most easily.)

My personal belief is that this is moving us toward a dysfunctional society, in which the "socialized goodness" I mentioned before becomes weaker and weaker. The results, I think, are likely to be profoundly negative.

I did not in any way mean to imply that our society is successfully transforming selfishness into an actual good; I only meant that Lewis was incorrect in saying selfishness is never espoused as a good.
But he had not seen our society nor had it existed up to the point when he made his observation. :wink:

[jaques]

I did not in any way mean to imply that our society is successfully transforming selfishness into an actual good; I only meant that Lewis was incorrect in saying selfishness is never espoused as a good.
But he had not seen our society nor had it existed up to the point when he made his observation. :wink:[/quote]

Lewis made his observation as a fundamental element in support of his "Law of Nature." His observation has been contraindicated since then, ergo, he was wrong. :P

[Onion Knight]

Here is the rest of his argument for anyone interested.
Scroll down to Chapters 2 and 3.

http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

[jaques]

Here is the rest of his argument for anyone interested.
Scroll down to Chapters 2 and 3.

http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

I'm afraid I found much of it to be a bit facile. His argument against the guilt impulse being an instinct is kind of silly, because it assumes that for any given situation, there should be only one controlling instinct, and furthermore, that instincts should follow a logical pattern. But of course, the whole idea behind evolution is that biological mechanisms follow workable patterns, not necessarily logical patterns.

On the other hand, I did like the part in Chapter 4 where he constructs a strong logical argument about why science can never be used to prove the existence of God. :)

[Snotwalker 8000]

Lewis made a claim of empirical observation: that no society has ever portrayed selfishness as a good. I think this statement is in the process of being proven wrong by our society, in which selfishness is portrayed as model behavior in a variety of areas. (Business is the one that comes to mind most easily.)

My personal belief is that this is moving us toward a dysfunctional society, in which the "socialized goodness" I mentioned before becomes weaker and weaker. The results, I think, are likely to be profoundly negative.

I did not in any way mean to imply that our society is successfully transforming selfishness into an actual good; I only meant that Lewis was incorrect in saying selfishness is never espoused as a good.

I have to disagree here. Lewis' point seems to be encompassing a societal value... not a specific situational one. In gangs, ruthlessness is a "model behavior" of value for gang members. In prostitution circles, sexual predation is a valued trait. But just because they are seen as "good", or a trait lending to success, in those specific "groups" doesn't mean that they are becoming societally accepted as "good".

I believe that selfishness is just as societally frowned upon as it ever was. For example, do you know anyone who would want to purposefully seek out and marry a selfish spouse? Would you want your kids to grow up to be selfish individuals? Would you enjoy others describing you as selfish?

Just because there may be a rise in bad morals and bad behavior, and just because some "circles" tolerate it more than others, doesn't mean that it's now societally accepted. I think Lewis' argument still stands. For another example, "courage" is universally valued by societies, whereas "cowardice" is universally shunned. I don't see that changing.

My :2cents:

[jaques]

SW8k, I wasn't referring to gangs or prostitution. I was referring to Wall Street.

There is a religion of capitalism in this country, just as surely as there is a religion of Christianity. In my lifetime, I have seen the credo of that religion shift in emphasis. It used to be, "Work hard, and you'll get ahead." Now it's more like, "If you have money, you deserve to have more money."

We're told that it's evil to tax the capital gains on the sale of stocks. We're told that it's wrong to tax wealth that is passed from one generation to the next to the next, without any constructive contribution to society by the subsequent generations of inheritors.

CEOs now move from company to company, earning higher salaries with every move and given contracts that ensure they will come out much richer even if they worsen the company's performance. Today's CEOs get more money for being fired than most people get for decades of hard work.

The single consistent policy of the modern Republican Party is "Lower taxes. Lower taxes. Lower taxes." And it's the people who have the most that they want to lower them the most for.

If this is not presenting selfishness as a virtue, I don't know what is.

[soberman]

jacques wrote:
I did not in any way mean to imply that our society is successfully transforming selfishness into an actual good; I only meant that Lewis was incorrect in saying selfishness is never espoused as a good.

Thanks for the clarification. As I said, I haven't been paying much attention. While I still am not sure that the whole of society overall is actually gone so far as to declare "selfish" as the new "good", your use of the word "never" in the above sentence renders that a moot concern.

Snotwalker wrote:
I have to disagree here. Lewis' point seems to be encompassing a societal value... not a specific situational one. In gangs, ruthlessness is a "model behavior" of value for gang members. In prostitution circles, sexual predation is a valued trait. But just because they are seen as "good", or a trait lending to success, in those specific "groups" doesn't mean that they are becoming societally accepted as "good".

Actually, they sometimes are. Again, not overall, or by the society at large, but not just in situational circumstances, either. For instance, look at sexual mores- they have deteriorated almost totally across the board. It could easily be argued that sex outside of a committed relationship entails using another person for your own selfish gain. This is very commonplace and widely accepted these days, as you know.

I believe that selfishness is just as societally frowned upon as it ever was.

If you watch reality TV, which I hate, the lesson many of these shows impart is that being ruthless and lying and manipulative to win a competition is, while unpleasant, frequently necesssary for success. For example, that Donald Trump show essentially taught people that looking out for number one at all costs, while stepping on others during your ascent, is vital to make it in the world of big business. I'm not sure, but I don't think the winner was universally reviled.

Of course, there's always the antithesis- shows like "Who Want's To Be A Superhero?".

Just because there may be a rise in bad morals and bad behavior, and just because some "circles" tolerate it more than others, doesn't mean that it's now societally accepted. I think Lewis' argument still stands. For another example, "courage" is universally valued by societies, whereas "cowardice" is universally shunned. I don't see that changing.

I agree with you, really. What I guess I'm saying here is that you should never underestimate the detrimental effect that the underlying rise in the prevalence of sociopathy is having on all of us. Even if we don't publically declare "bad" behavior as "good", it is, at the least, still becoming unofficially viewed as being "necessary evil". That is what worries me.

But no, Lewis hasn't been proven wrong...yet.

EDIT: Great point Jacques about the shift from "work hard and you'll get ahead" to "work hard and you'll get more". I actually have grown sick of this within the church. God wants us all to be successful, which is measured as being rich, apparently, yet it is easier for a "camel to pass through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

[Onion Knight]

SW8k, I wasn't referring to gangs or prostitution. I was referring to Wall Street.

There is a religion of capitalism in this country, just as surely as there is a religion of Christianity. In my lifetime, I have seen the credo of that religion shift in emphasis. It used to be, "Work hard, and you'll get ahead." Now it's more like, "If you have money, you deserve to have more money."

We're told that it's evil to tax the capital gains on the sale of stocks. We're told that it's wrong to tax wealth that is passed from one generation to the next to the next, without any constructive contribution to society by the subsequent generations of inheritors.

CEOs now move from company to company, earning higher salaries with every move and given contracts that ensure they will come out much richer even if they worsen the company's performance. Today's CEOs get more money for being fired than most people get for decades of hard work.

The single consistent policy of the modern Republican Party is "Lower taxes. Lower taxes. Lower taxes." And it's the people who have the most that they want to lower them the most for.

If this is not presenting selfishness as a virtue, I don't know what is.

I certainly agree with you about our culture of greed.
Though, I don't think that selfishness is currently, or will be in the future, something that society as a whole will admire. I think that people simply find ways to justify their various "sins" in ways that make them comfortable with committing them. (Lewis, points this out well in the first chapter.)
As we see the rise of moral relativism in our culture, so shall we also see a rise in the acceptance of these various behaviors.

We're told that it's evil to tax the capital gains on the sale of stocks. We're told that it's wrong to tax wealth that is passed from one generation to the next to the next, without any constructive contribution to society by the subsequent generations of inheritors.

Capitalism, while not perfect, is the one of most beautiful and empowering aspects of modern society. The capital gains tax is ridiculous. How many middle class Americans do you think own stocks these days? Or perhaps invest in real estate?
Who should have the right to a deem that you do anything "constructive" with what your parents spent their whole life building?
If anything limits freedom, it is certainly taxation.

[jaques]

Actually, they sometimes are. Again, not overall, or by the society at large, but not just in situational circumstances, either. For instance, look at sexual mores- they have deteriorated almost totally across the board. It could easily be argued that sex outside of a committed relationship entails using another person for your own selfish gain. This is very commonplace and widely accepted these days, as you know.


Be careful here. It could just as easily be argued that talking to someone of the opposite sex, outside of a committeed relationship, is using that person for your own selfish gain. Sex is exactly like conversation in that it can be either a mutual activity in which both participants work toward mutual satisfaction, or a selfish activity in which one or both participants think only of what they individually want to get out of it. And this is true regardless of whether the participants in sex or conversation share a committed relationship.

If you've been in a committed relationship and had to listen to your partner go on and on and on about a topic of absolutely no interest to you, you ought to recognize this fact to be true.

As we see the rise of moral relativism in our culture, so shall we also see a rise in the acceptance of these various behaviors. ]

"Moral relativism" is just a bogeyman code word meant to scare people away from rationally analyzing societal mores. If you think that the individual should not be free to evaluate whether the prevailing values of his society are correct, please watch "Schindler's List" and tell me that Schindler really ought to have gone along with what his society was doing.

Capitalism, while not perfect, is the one of most beautiful and empowering aspects of modern society. The capital gains tax is ridiculous. How many middle class Americans do you think own stocks these days? Or perhaps invest in real estate?
Who should have the right to a deem that you do anything "constructive" with what your parents spent their whole life building?
If anything limits freedom, it is certainly taxation.

If you're bashing all taxation, there's nothing to talk about, because if we're going to have government, we must have taxation, and any blanket argument against taxation is therefore an argument for anarchy.

On the other hand, if you're suggesting that the capital gains and gift/inheritance taxes are particularly tyrannical kinds of taxes, then I have to disagree.

Income taxes tax the results of work. People put in significant effort to earn their wages, and then the results of that effort are partly taken from them. Capital gains and inheritance taxes, in contrast, tax the results of non-work. Most investors put relatively little effort into their investment decisions, as compared to the effort put in by wage-earners at their jobs. Inheritors, of course, put in exactly zero effort in gaining their inheritances.

So when complaints are raised specifically about the capital gains and inheritance taxes, those complaints are basically saying that there ought to be "free money" for those who already have more money than they can spend.

In my view, that's extraordinarily selfish.

A rational society would scale capital gains taxes to the duration of the investment, with the tax percentage falling for each year the investment is held. This would encourage long-term investment, which is good for the economy, and discourage speculation. (Speculation inherently drives short-term and often short-sighted decision-making by corporations, which is harmful to the economy.)

[countblah]

Right, right, right. All this makes sense up to a point. But selfishness is not really a value of our society, not really. And the way that you can tell (and this was part of Lewis' observations) was that no matter how great a gang thinks that ruthlesness is when they are involved in it, they think that it's not cool when someone else does it to them. It's the same with theft. They think that it's fine to steal as long as they get the stolen goods, but cry foul when someone steals their stuff. It isn't a case where they say "oh, well, you got me good." Nah. It's instant revenge stuff.

It's the same with selfisheness. Although the culture may promote this particular attribute, the individuals do not. Nobody thinks another person they know is great because he is selfish towards them. It isn't admirable when on an individual basis, and likely never will be. You don't get praise for managing to get out of a burning building while leaving a whole bunch of people behind, no matter how great your escape. That's not seen as being noble. If selfishness was really admired in wall street, and was encouraged and seen as a positive attribute, then there would be a lot of unemployed lawyers. But there aren't.

[jaques]

Right, right, right. All this makes sense up to a point. But selfishness is not really a value of our society, not really. And the way that you can tell (and this was part of Lewis' observations) was that no matter how great a gang thinks that ruthlesness is when they are involved in it, they think that it's not cool when someone else does it to them. It's the same with theft. They think that it's fine to steal as long as they get the stolen goods, but cry foul when someone steals their stuff. It isn't a case where they say "oh, well, you got me good." Nah. It's instant revenge stuff.

It's the same with selfisheness. Although the culture may promote this particular attribute, the individuals do not. Nobody thinks another person they know is great because he is selfish towards them. It isn't admirable when on an individual basis, and likely never will be. You don't get praise for managing to get out of a burning building while leaving a whole bunch of people behind, no matter how great your escape. That's not seen as being noble. If selfishness was really admired in wall street, and was encouraged and seen as a positive attribute, then there would be a lot of unemployed lawyers. But there aren't.

I'm sorry, Count, but I don't understand why the lawyers would be unemployed. Not trying to be mean -- I think I just need a more detailed explanation.

I agree that unfettered selfishness is not broadly accepted or promoted at this point. But there's a whole generation (or more) that has been affected by the seductive lure of Ayn Rand's "enlightened self-interest" and then fails to apply the "enlightened" part. (I don't mean that everyone has read Ayn Rand, just that her ideas have propagated thoroughly.)

Sticking to Wall Street, let's examine the phenomenon of day trading. This activity has absolutely no value to society. (If it does, please, someone inform me of it.) Unlike long-term investment, or even short-term investment, day trading does not provide companies with the capital they need to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Worse yet, in making their trades, the day traders have an impact on stock prices that tends to exaggerate up or down trends in those prices, which muddies the available information for other investors and can panic corporate boards into making decisions based on stock price movement instead of on the actual market conditions of their businesses.

The only purpose of day trading is to allow day traders the chance to rapidly increase their personal wealth, potentially at the expense of actual market efficiency.

But do you ever hear day traders being criticized in the way that, say, lawyers are?

No, because the mantra of our modern society is, "Investment is good." There is a dogma that says that anyone who engages in investment should be viewed as an entrepreneur and if not actively praised, then at least relieved of the onerous burden of having to pay taxes on the proceeds of that investment.

In this specific way (among others), we are putting a particular type of selfishness on a pedestal, and I fear that the trend is going to bring us woe.

[Jotun]

Sex is exactly like conversation in that it can be either a mutual activity in which both participants work toward mutual satisfaction, or a selfish activity in which one or both participants think only of what they individually want to get out of it.

Ahhh! That's what I was doing wrong. :duh:

[countblah]

Exactly. Selfishness on a pedastal is never good, and, deep down, we know it. Property only comes at the expense of someone else, and unbridled selfisheness is rarely viewed positively.

Bill Gates and Bono have a tonne of cash, and few people applaud them for being rich. They applaud them for setting up foundations, and for doing good in the world. Good things are generally done for other people.

[Jotun]

The only purpose of day trading is to allow day traders the chance to rapidly increase their personal wealth, potentially at the expense of actual market efficiency.

But do you ever hear day traders being criticized in the way that, say, lawyers are?

No, because the mantra of our modern society is, "Investment is good." There is a dogma that says that anyone who engages in investment should be viewed as an entrepreneur and if not actively praised, then at least relieved of the onerous burden of having to pay taxes on the proceeds of that investment.


I agree with most of what you are saying, but I wonder if the day trading example might be too broad. When people talk about the benefits of investors, I'm not sure that they are also including day traders. Are day traders only technically involved in the investment field but not actually when you lower the magnifying glass? I teach at a medical school, but I'm not a "teacher". A couple times a month I teach medical and nursing students how to do physical exams, but if I call myself a teacher I am misleading people because I know that the would think that I am probably a doctor when I literally needed no education experience at all to get my job.

I'd be interested in hearing what someone in the investment field would say. When investors talk do they view day traders as leeches, a necessary evil or would they have a better view within a certain context?

[Metaknight]

Good things are generally done for other people.

Very good things are usually done by people with, a lot of cash... :wink:

[countblah]

Good things are generally done for other people.

Very good things are usually done by people with, a lot of cash... :wink:

Yeh. The more resources a person has, the better they can be with them. The less a person has, the less he can do with it, either good or bad. The more you have, the more is expected of you.

[Onion Knight]

"Moral relativism" is just a bogeyman code word meant to scare people away from rationally analyzing societal mores. If you think that the individual should not be free to evaluate whether the prevailing values of his society are correct, please watch "Schindler's List" and tell me that Schindler really ought to have gone along with what his society was doing.
Of course I believe that individuals should be free to evaluate whether the prevailing values of their society are correct. I think that I am failing to see how that, along with recognizing moral relativism prohibits us from rationally analyzing societal mores. Please explain.

If you're bashing all taxation, there's nothing to talk about, because if we're going to have government, we must have taxation, and any blanket argument against taxation is therefore an argument for anarchy.
Certainly we need taxes. I'm not silly.

On the other hand, if you're suggesting that the capital gains and gift/inheritance taxes are particularly tyrannical kinds of taxes, then I have to disagree.
Fair enough.

Income taxes tax the results of work. People put in significant effort to earn their wages, and then the results of that effort are partly taken from them. Capital gains and inheritance taxes, in contrast, tax the results of non-work. Most investors put relatively little effort into their investment decisions, as compared to the effort put in by wage-earners at their jobs. Inheritors, of course, put in exactly zero effort in gaining their inheritances.
Capital gains taxes non-work?
I have a fireman friend who borrowed money against his home to buy an investment property to fix up and sell. After 6 months of busting his rump he sold the house and made a good profit. Keep in mind the risk he took and that when he purchased the home, sold the home, and purchased labor and materials to refurbish the home he was paying for all kinds of taxes, permits, and other bureaucratic BS fees. Then, he got to turn around and give 28% of his profit to the government! PLEASE!

Most people put little effort into their investment decisions? You have to be kidding me! And what does that even matter?
Zero effort in gaining their inheritances? You call spending another Thanksgiving with my family zero effort! (Okay, that is a joke.)
Look, I don't care how much money anyone has, if they earned it, then the government doesn't have any right to it.

So when complaints are raised specifically about the capital gains and inheritance taxes, those complaints are basically saying that there ought to be "free money" for those who already have more money than they can spend.

In my view, that's extraordinarily selfish.

A rational society would scale capital gains taxes to the duration of the investment, with the tax percentage falling for each year the investment is held. This would encourage long-term investment, which is good for the economy, and discourage speculation. (Speculation inherently drives short-term and often short-sighted decision-making by corporations, which is harmful to the economy.)
"Free money" for those who already have more money than they can spend? So if someone doesn't earn money the way you think they should, it should be taken away from them and given to the government? Is this what you are saying? (And I'm not trying to be a jerk.)
The only thing that truly has a track record of being harmful to the economy is overreaching interference by the government.

BTW, it isn't only rich people who pay the inheritance tax(not that that should even matter.) Ask Joe Six Pack what happens when his mommy and dear old daddy, who worked on the line at Ford his whole life, kicks the ol' cracker barrel in his mid sixties. You know, when his pop's retirement money gets passed on and his house is sold.
Capital gains and inheritance taxes affect MOST PEOPLE, not just the rich.

Are you a socialist? I'm asking because you seem to be a strong advocate of redistributing wealth.

Okay, I'm through with this hijacking. Sorry, everyone.

[jaques]

You're simply wrong about the inheritance tax affecting most people. It doesn't even kick in until an estate reaches a very significant amount -- a half million or full million, I can't recall which.

And no, I'm not a socialist. I just think that we shouldn't go around exempting those earnings that take the least effort while taxing those earnings that take the most effort.

Kudos to your firefighter friend for all his hard efforts, but I'm not going to cry over the government taking 28% of his profits. He worked hard to earn the money, but so does Joe Sixpack working at the auto plant. Is 28% a little too high for some investment situations, or maybe a little too low for others? We could quibble over that, but it really doesn't matter -- that rate is totally in line with the taxes on wages, when you add income tax and social security/FISA taxes together.

I'm sick to death of people thinking they ought to get special tax treatment just because the source of their money is not a daily job. It's irrational and utterly selfish.

As for government interference damaging the economy, I guess that was proven when FDR made the depression so much worse with all his New Deal disasters.

[Onion Knight]

You're simply wrong about the inheritance tax affecting most people.
You are right. I was lumping capital gains tax in with it incorrectly. However, capital gains does affect more than "the rich."
AND the inheritance tax still sucks, so poo-poo-pee-doo.

I'm not going to cry over the government taking 28% of his profits.
That's because you didn't take the risk or do the work. :wink:

As for government interference damaging the economy, I guess that was proven when FDR made the depression so much worse with all his New Deal disasters.
Uh, WWII got us out of the depression.

OKAY! I'm done hijacking, really!

[soberman]

jaques wrote:

Actually, they sometimes are. Again, not overall, or by the society at large, but not just in situational circumstances, either. For instance, look at sexual mores- they have deteriorated almost totally across the board. It could easily be argued that sex outside of a committed relationship entails using another person for your own selfish gain. This is very commonplace and widely accepted these days, as you know.


Be careful here. It could just as easily be argued that talking to someone of the opposite sex, outside of a committeed relationship, is using that person for your own selfish gain. Sex is exactly like conversation in that it can be either a mutual activity in which both participants work toward mutual satisfaction, or a selfish activity in which one or both participants think only of what they individually want to get out of it. And this is true regardless of whether the participants in sex or conversation share a committed relationship.

The level of committment required to engage in a conversation is in no way comprable to the level of committment required to have a mutual sexual relationship. Do you think it is more or less likely to engage in a conversation for the purposes of mutual sharing share vs. having a one night stand? I firmly believe that sex outside of a committment necessarily entails using another person, otherwise why not make the committment? Really, a conversation is a mutual activity that requires no deep committment to avoid descending into the level of exploitation.

If you've been in a committed relationship and had to listen to your partner go on and on and on about a topic of absolutely no interest to you, you ought to recognize this fact to be true.

Yes, well, the conversation at that point did not require me to be an active participant, only a passive listener. Sex is not a passive activity.

As we see the rise of moral relativism in our culture, so shall we also see a rise in the acceptance of these various behaviors. ]

Jacques said:
"Moral relativism" is just a bogeyman code word meant to scare people away from rationally analyzing societal mores.

The problem with arguing this with a believer is that we hold God as the source of absolute truth, and that he does not change, regardless of how society may change. Schindler upheld the truth over his society's relative truth. I do not see how this undermines the concept of moral relativism at all.

[Jotun]

I firmly believe that sex outside of a committment necessarily entails using another person, otherwise why not make the committment?

Because sometimes you just want to be the animal that we all are. Girls aren't stupid. They probably know that you are just a fling, and they are happy about it. You and her learn stuff about yourselves, and it all builds the foundation that you will eventually use to form the bond between yourself and the person you decide to "spend your life with." This reminds me of the straight-edge argument against drinking/drugs/and sex without commitment. Sounds great on paper, but it turns out that it doesn't have anything to do with reality. And I'm saying this as someone who was straight-edge.

[Onion Knight]

Every time I try to post an answer to the Rev's question, I lose the ability to form my thoughts. The question is incredibly difficult. Personally, I agree with Lewis, but he never really sufficiently addresses how we KNOW what good is. I do believe in a God given conscience and, IMO, he supports that argument well by recognizing that even across cultures we see amazing similarities in how our consciences make us behave.

So, Rev, why do you believe we try to do right? And, to you, how do we know what "good" is? Whaddaya got?

[jaques]

I'm not going to cry over the government taking 28% of his profits.
That's because you didn't take the risk or do the work. :wink:

If you're going to cry over what a risk you took, don't take the risk. If you want sympathy because you voluntarily knocked yourself out doing a bunch of extra work, maybe you shouldn't have chosen to do that work.

If you undertook an investment activity without being educated as to the tax consequences, maybe you should have done your research better.

The objections to capital gains and inheritance taxes are the cry of a two-year old: "Mine! Mine! Mine!" They are not founded in any rational analysis of the societal function of taxes.

As for government interference damaging the economy, I guess that was proven when FDR made the depression so much worse with all his New Deal disasters.
Uh, WWII got us out of the depression.


:roll: Yeah, thank heavens for all that private-sector activity of WWII, funded by nongovernmental sources. And good thing everyone just voluntarily started imposing upon themselves things like price controls and rationing, without the government telling them to do so. That really proves how government is the problem, not the solution.


The level of committment required to engage in a conversation is in no way comprable to the level of committment required to have a mutual sexual relationship. Do you think it is more or less likely to engage in a conversation for the purposes of mutual sharing share vs. having a one night stand? I firmly believe that sex outside of a committment necessarily entails using another person, otherwise why not make the committment? Really, a conversation is a mutual activity that requires no deep committment to avoid descending into the level of exploitation.

Most human interactions involve using another person. If I go up to the counter at Burger King and order a Whopper, I am using the cashier to further my own purposes. It's a totally one-sided interaction, initiated by me, for my own satisfaction.

If I go to a coworker's cubical to talk about Monday night's episode of Heroes, I'm going because I want to talk about Monday night's episode of Heroes, and I know I'll enjoy a conversation with this particular coworker on the subject. I also know that my coworker will enjoy it, but that fact is secondary to me. I will make an effort to make the conversation fun and entertaining for two reasons: first, because I will enjoy it more if it is fun and entertaining, and second, because I enjoy seeing people like my coworker laugh and be entertained. All of this I do because I enjoy it. If I missed Monday night's episode of Heroes, and still have it on my DVR, I will not go to my coworker's cube. He would still enjoy talking about Heroes, and would be happy to fill me in on what I missed, but I do not like to have things spoiled before I've seen them, and my desire to watch Heroes untainted takes precedence over my coworker's conversational entertainment. Clearly, I am using him.

I defy you to tell me what it is about sex that makes casual sex different from casual conversation, in terms of the participants "using" each other.

There are many arguments against casual sex: risk of disease, risk of unwanted pregnancy, the dangers of jealousy (one of the most powerful human emotions), etc.

But to say that sex "requires" a commitment in order to avoid "using" another person does not fit with the facts. It's just something that is told to young people to build a mystique about sex and encourage them to avoid having sex until they're ready (which for some people means until they're married).

Jacques said:
"Moral relativism" is just a bogeyman code word meant to scare people away from rationally analyzing societal mores.

The problem with arguing this with a believer is that we hold God as the source of absolute truth, and that he does not change, regardless of how society may change. Schindler upheld the truth over his society's relative truth. I do not see how this undermines the concept of moral relativism at all.

No, the problem with arguing this with certain believers is that they believe themselves to be in full possession of absolute truth, and feel that their personal set of beliefs constitute absolute truth, while all other people's beliefs constitute moral relativism.

[davidlhsl]

I've avoided jumping in on the tax debate, because it is off-topic other than as an example used to demonstrate selfishness extolled as a virtue. However, I think the taxation issue isn't purely based on selfish motives, as has been suggested.

The I.R.S. is the closest thing we have to a police state. If the fact that the I.R.S. was the only institution to nail Al Capone doesn't put a brown stain in your Fruit-of-the-Looms, then nothing will.

There is simply no justification for the extremely convoluted tax code we currently have. A flat-rate tax, scaled based on level of income, is the fairest solution. It simplifies auditing and doesn't require seeking assistance from "experts" who skim their take from what is, essentially, our money. You could probably cite examples that would demonstrate that it isn't the perfect solution, but I seriously doubt that you can demonstrate that it isn't a better solution.

As to sex and conversation as one party using another, it is true that we use other people routinely for our own benefit. However, we must distinguish between the uses that actually benefit both parties in a transaction, and those uses that benefits one party to the detriment of the other.

With sexual contact, there is generally an emotional commitment by one party that is generally harmed when the other party doesn't share the same commitment. I don't have any research to back this up, but I wonder whether two people just diving in with "let's screw" represents the majority. Also, the risks cited indicate that there are responsibilities involved.

-David

[jaques]

I've avoided jumping in on the tax debate, because it is off-topic other than as an example used to demonstrate selfishness extolled as a virtue. However, I think the taxation issue isn't purely based on selfish motives, as has been suggested.

The I.R.S. is the closest thing we have to a police state. If the fact that the I.R.S. was the only institution to nail Al Capone doesn't put a brown stain in your Fruit-of-the-Looms, then nothing will.

There is simply no justification for the extremely convoluted tax code we currently have. A flat-rate tax, scaled based on level of income, is the fairest solution. It simplifies auditing and doesn't require seeking assistance from "experts" who skim their take from what is, essentially, our money. You could probably cite examples that would demonstrate that it isn't the perfect solution, but I seriously doubt that you can demonstrate that it isn't a better solution.

I totally agree that we could design a more rational, fair and simple tax code. Let's both agree to vote for politicians who propose that.

On the other hand, it's silly to say it's "our" money. Money is an invention of society, and has no function whatsoever except in the context of society. The fact that we have uniform currency of systematic value results from our cooperation in the larger society, and we should keep that in mind whenever we complain that the larger society might have an interest in what happens with the money that it has created.

As to sex and conversation as one party using another, it is true that we use other people routinely for our own benefit. However, we must distinguish between the uses that actually benefit both parties in a transaction, and those uses that benefits one party to the detriment of the other.

With sexual contact, there is generally an emotional commitment by one party that is generally harmed when the other party doesn't share the same commitment. I don't have any research to back this up, but I wonder whether two people just diving in with "let's screw" represents the majority. Also, the risks cited indicate that there are responsibilities involved.

-David

I would not begin to defend sexual selfishness any more than monetary selfishness. I certainly agree that your point is an argument against premarital sex within the context of a relationship. However, it is not an argument against casual one-night stands between people who have no intention of forming a relationship, or between friends who are open and honest with one another that they have no intention of moving beyond friendship. One must find other arguments against those situations.