# Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

In our PC society, we often find that certain religious people, be they muslim, buddhist, hindu, jewish or christian, hide behind the fact that their views on reality are religious and thus they are immune from criticism.  

For example, if you are a 6 day, 6000 year Fundamentalist Christian creationist and you find that your beliefs are assailed by the scientific community, one can seek refuge in the fact that you are being "persecuted" for your beliefs.

Or

If someone presents an argument regarding the historicity of an actual physical Jesus, this argument can be summarily ignored because it is perceived as an attack on religious belief.  

With that in mind, should we, as a society, insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism?  If so, why?  If not, why not?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

The same question can be applied to any faith.

Should women have to be forced to wear burkhas?

Is dying in the service of Allah the highest form of good?


----------



## Kacey (Dec 8, 2006)

The primary difficulty involved in religious debate - critical or otherwise - is that many of the tenets of most, if not all religions, are based on faith, unprovable through any application of the scientific method.  

This tends to make for circular arguments - for example:  "I believe X because my primary religious text tells me to do so; I know this because it was written by [supreme deity]; I know that this is so because it says so in my primary religious text".  This is often exacerbated because, while most people know the primary tenets and beliefs of their faith, few are truly knowledgeable about the details of their own religion.

The above circular logic often leaves many people unwilling to engage in debate on their religious beliefs because such debates devolve into the above circular logic - it is much easier to claim persecution and refuse to debate the issue at all than to take the time to acquire the necessary knowledge, and also because arguments based on faith quickly reach the "because I said so" level of logic, which is both unrefutable and frustrating.

Added to this is the frequency of persecution based on religious belief (or lack thereof), the source of the laws and PC viewpoints leading to the attitude you describe.

To return to your question, _should we, as a society, insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism?  If so, why?  If not, why not?_  I don't believe we, as a *society*, should insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism - however, this is complicated by the fact that, in polite society, we as *individuals* should not deride the beliefs of others, religious or otherwise, solely because one holds a different opinion.  Discussing differences and rationales requires walking a very fine line that varies in location from religion to religion, and from person to person - often from day to day even for a particular person - and it is, in many cases, easier (if not better) to avoid discussing such issues at all than to risk being caught up in the almost inevitably emotionally charged debate that ensues.


----------



## Darksoul (Dec 8, 2006)

-Not sure if there is a way to insulate religious beliefs from criticism. No one should be questioned or what have you for their beliefs but on their actions to others and the world around them. Each religion has basic principles that are accepted across the board, for the most part. Unfortunately, some people are determined to focus only on what makes us different as human beings, people who often are in control of religious groups, politicians, televangelists and so forth. And there is nothing wrong with the differences these people raged against, its their emphasis that because its different, its wrong or evil that causes so much grief and conflict. I cannot imagine all humans being the same in terms of religious views or any other criteria. Boring! People should be called on, exposed, whatever when their actions negatively affect the quality of life of others. Yet its the beliefs that often spur these actions. I guess I cannot stress enough the importance of education.

Good topic!!

A--->


----------



## Ray (Dec 8, 2006)

Kacey said:


> The primary difficulty involved in religious debate - critical or otherwise - is that many of the tenets of most, if not all religions, are based on faith, unprovable through any application of the scientific method.


I don't think that religious beliefs should be immune from "criticism" (immune from tarring and feathering, immune from discrimination, yes). 

I believe that debate, conversation and arguement about religious belief ought not to be immune from criticism as it would be a stifling of freedom of speech.

I don't think the difficulty involved in religious debate is because they are unprovable through the scientific method. The difficulty is that people want to argue and demean each other for holding different viewpoints.



Kacey said:


> This tends to make for circular arguments - for example: "I believe X because my primary religious text tells me to do so; I know this because it was written by [supreme deity]; I know that this is so because it says so in my primary religious text".


I'm a "believer" and none of the above is why I believe what I believe. But it is among the first things out of people's mouth when they want to demonstrate how foolish I am for being a believer.


Kacey said:


> This is often exacerbated because, while most people know the primary tenets and beliefs of their faith, few are truly knowledgeable about the details of their own religion.


And you have the numbers to support that conclusion.


Kacey said:


> The above circular logic often leaves many people unwilling to engage in debate on their religious beliefs because such debates devolve into the above circular logic - it is much easier to claim persecution and refuse to debate the issue at all than to take the time to acquire the necessary knowledge, and also because arguments based on faith quickly reach the "because I said so" level of logic, which is both unrefutable and frustrating.


What? Religion is an "issue" that needs to be debated so that the poor, misled believer can be set straight?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Kacey said:


> The primary difficulty involved in religious debate - critical or otherwise - is that many of the tenets of most, if not all religions, are based on faith, unprovable through any application of the scientific method.


 
I would argue that this is false.  If a particular religious belief makes any claim on reality, then it is subject to the scientific method and the weight of evidence.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 8, 2006)

Ray - your response is - despite your protestations otherwise - an example of what I was trying to say.  You did not support your perspective in any fashion except to state that I am wrong, solely because you believe otherwise - but the nature of that belief was not stated.  As for my own post, I very deliberately avoided specifics in an attempt to avoid having this thread - which I think poses a very interesting and important question - from devolving into a debate over the supremacy of particular beliefs.

To answer your question _What? Religion is an "issue" that needs to be debated so that the poor, misled believer can be set straight?_  Not at all - but as a member of a minority religion (I am Jewish) I have often been told that I need to change my beliefs, that I am damned to eternal perdition for not believing Jesus was the Messiah - often by people who know less about Judaism than I do about their religion.  Yes, there are people out there who are knowledgeable about their own religion - but there are also quite a few people like my friend Angelica, who was raised Catholic in a parish where questioning the priest was strictly forbidden, no matter the question, and who therefore asked me about Catholocism, because I knew quite a deal more about it than she did.

Religion is an issue than needs to be aired and discussed - not debated - so that more people have information about the religions of those whose religion is different from their own, because only through knowlege can understanding truly be gained - not so that "unbelievers" can be turned to the "one true faith", but so that people will see that there are many more similarities between belief systems than differences, and so that people can learn to let others have their own beliefs.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I would argue that this is false.  If a particular religious belief makes any claim on reality, then it is subject to the scientific method and the weight of evidence.



An example of what I am talking about:  many religions claim "God exists".  This is a statement based on faith.  How do you prove, or disprove, the existence of God, an unseen, immaterial, unknowable entity?  Positive proofs (in the scientific sense of proof) are beyond the current state of the art, and negative proofs are effective only in eliminating impossibilities.

Another example:  many religions claim to represent the "one truth".  This is a subjective statement based on faith and opinion, and therefore the acceptance of any particular religion as the "one truth" will vary from individual to individual, based on that person's experiences throughout life.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 8, 2006)

i think science is humanity's weak grasp on the fundmental gears that drive the universe and this somehow gives us some kind of mental haughtiness to poo poo the ideals of religion.
On a grand scale we don't know squat; but you'd think by now we would at least have learned how to put our religious differences aside and treat each other with the love, respect and tolerance that our religions teach us.
that being said, IMO, only a fool believes 100% of what they are told as the truth.
A line was crossed a long time ago and people started accepting the lessons as reality......those people oppressed (or slaughtered) the one's that didnt see things the way they did and so a new belief system is born.
If you believe something, have the cajones to back up your beliefs and dont hide behind the argument that religion has no business being scrutinized by a scientific eye. the religious eye has no problem scrutinizing scientific discoveries that threaten the basis of faith, or coming up with some new explanation that justifies a discovery by putting a religious spin on it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Kacey said:


> An example of what I am talking about: many religions claim "God exists". This is a statement based on faith. How do you prove, or disprove, the existence of God, an unseen, immaterial, unknowable entity? Positive proofs (in the scientific sense of proof) are beyond the current state of the art, and negative proofs are effective only in eliminating impossibilities.
> 
> Another example: many religions claim to represent the "one truth". This is a subjective statement based on faith and opinion, and therefore the acceptance of any particular religion as the "one truth" will vary from individual to individual, based on that person's experiences throughout life.


 
The claim that one cannot disprove that God exists is much like attempting to provive that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.  Both beliefs are wildly improbable, but not not disprovable.

However, this thread isn't neccesarilly about the existence of god or god-like beings (which I personally wouldn't deny).  This thread is about particular religious beliefs that are assaulted and destroyed by the power of reason yet they are still embraced because they happen to be "religious".  

I, personally, find this phenomenon maladaptive.  Especially when it drives our ego to overwhelm our drive to protect our progeny...

"The Rapture is not an exit strategy, Mr. President."


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> i think science is humanity's weak grasp on the fundmental gears that drive the universe and this somehow gives us some kind of mental haughtiness to poo poo the ideals of religion.


 
Weak as that grasp may be, it is far better then any religion has offered to date.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> . . . should we, as a society, insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism? If so, why? If not, why not?



No.

Because everything should be up for discussion, or absolutes will become accepted. With these absolutes, will be peopel killing in the name of their religion and or hurting minors or the sick or innocent people who only have teh crime of being not of their faith.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 8, 2006)

There is a fine line between persecution and criticism.  And people have the same right to criticize beliefs and they do to hold beliefs of their own.

The danger is that in the PC society, it is wrong to criticize other people's beliefs because it might hurt their feelings.  Or cause them to think for themselves without retreating to their religious text.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Weak as that grasp may be, it is far better then any religion has offered to date.


 
im not knocking science.
but, when was the last time science taught you a moral lesson?
now you could argue that it is up to a parent to teach a moral lesson.
who teaches the societal moral lesson.....usually the clergy.
science and religion perform 2 different functions......people shouldnt confuse that.......


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> im not knocking science.
> but, when was the last time science taught you a moral lesson?


 
Since when has Religion offered YOU a moral lesson...



> The third spurious explanation is that religion is the source of our higher ethical yearnings. Those of you who read the book _Rock of Ages_ by Steven Jay Gould, who argued that religion and science could co-exist comfortably, are familiar with his argument: since science can't tell us what our moral values should be, that's what religion is for, and each magisterium should respect the other. A big problem for this hypothesis is apparent to anyone who has read the Bible, which is a manual for rape and genocide and destruction. God tells the Israelites invading all Midianite villages, Kill all the men, kill all the kids, kill all the old women. The young women that you find attractive, bring them back to your compound, lock them up, shave their heads, lock them in a room for 30 days till they stop crying their eyes out because you've killed their mom and dad, and then take her as a second or third or fourth or fifth wife." So the Bible, contrary to what a majority of Americans apparently believe, is far from a source of higher moral values. *Religions have given us stonings, witch-burnings, crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay-bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happily be united in heaven*.


 
Perhaps a better explanation as to why we have morals lies in the totality of this explanation which is partially summed up here...



> To answer the why is _Homo sapiens _so prone to religious belief? you first have to distinguish between traits that are _adaptations_, that is, products of Darwinian natural selection, and traits that are _byproducts _of adaptations, also called spandrels or exaptations. An example: Why is our blood red? Is there some adaptive advantage to having red blood, maybe as camouflage against autumn leaves? Well, thats unlikely, and we don't need any other adaptive explanation, either. The explanation for why our blood is red is that it is adaptive to have a molecule that can carry oxygen, mainly hemoglobin. Hemoglobin happens to be red when it's oxygenated, so the redness of our blood is a byproduct of the chemistry of carrying oxygen. The color per se was not selected for. Another non-adaptive explanation for a biological trait is genetic drift. Random stuff happens in evolution. Certain traits can become fixed through sheer luck of the draw.
> 
> To distinguish an adaptation from a byproduct, first of all you have to establish that the trait is in some sense innate, for example, that it develops reliably across a range of environments and is universal across the species. That helps rule out reading, for example, as a biological adaptation. Kids don't spontaneously read unless they are taught,  as opposed to spoken language, which _is _a plausible adaptation, because it does emerge spontaneously in all normal children in all societies.
> 
> ...


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 8, 2006)

Science is the pursuit to acquire knowledge....but I'm not too sure about the purpose of religion being to instill a moral code.  Granted, at the base of most religions lies a very well thought out and beneficial set of rules which suggest and govern good behavior....but lets not forget that more people have been killed in the name of religions than any other cause.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 8, 2006)

Why dont you just come out and say that your "god" is science? Its been obvious to me for a while. As a nation, government, or publicly funded researcher of course the answer to your question is no. But as to individual beliefs and the freedom to protest, vote, and SPEND based on those beliefs than what is it you propose? If enough people complain, vote and send their children to Parochial schools because they dont like the athiest lean in todays education system than more power to them. I seem to remember a group of people who landed on this continent persuing the freedom to practice their religion and their expression of is as they saw fit.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 8, 2006)

> This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues&#8212;existential, hermeneutical or linguistic&#8212;which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being's great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled.





> In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature and even over the human being.
> 
> As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made, because everything is fleeting and provisional.



-John Paul II


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why dont you just come out and say that your "god" is science. Its been obvious to me for a while.


 
Because this postulation misunderstands what science actually is...

Scientia = knowledge.

This is something that constantly changes as we learn more information.

God never changes...thus it goes extinct.

In fact, I would postulate that all human gods do not represent anything supernatural and are, infact, natural representations of what is expressed in our biology.

Thus any religious position is open to criticism...from creationism to burkhas.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> -John Paul II


 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689&q=The+God+Delusion&hl=en


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 8, 2006)

The Virus of Faith


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 8, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Why dont you just come out and say that your "god" is science. Its been obvious to me for a while.


 
Sir, please reference the beginning of the thread.  I don't believe that anyone's personal beliefs are in question.  

There is also a big difference between criticizing a person and their beliefs.  Attacking the person is bordering persecution for their beliefs.  

Also, as UpNorth stated, Science is not a belief, it is the _objective _pursuit of knowledge, based on the scientific process.  Many prominent scientists in fact are very religious people....the two can exist harmoniously if allowed to.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 9, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> *i think science is humanity's weak grasp on the fundmental gears that drive the universe and this somehow gives us some kind of mental haughtiness to poo poo the ideals of religion*.
> On a grand scale we don't know squat; *but you'd think by now we would at least have learned how to put our religious differences aside and treat each other with the love, respect and tolerance that our religions teach us.*
> that being said, IMO, only a fool believes 100% of what they are told as the truth.
> A line was crossed a long time ago and people started accepting the lessons as reality......*those people oppressed (or slaughtered) the one's that didnt see things the way they did* and so a new belief system is born.
> If you believe something, have the cajones to back up your beliefs and dont hide behind the argument that religion has no business being scrutinized by a scientific eye. the religious eye has no problem scrutinizing scientific discoveries that threaten the basis of faith, or coming up with some new explanation that justifies a discovery by putting a religious spin on it.


 
As you can see, I never stated religion was perfect. Yeah, the bible is full of bloodshed, and so is our history......look at how many scientific dollars are dedicated to inventing newer, faster and more horrific ways of killing each other, and george bush has the stones to bring god into the equation....lol



upnorthkyosa said:


> Weak as that grasp may be, it is far better then any religion has offered to date.


 
_Sometimes_ ignorance is bliss.......give someone a little bit of knowledge and they think they know everything. This attitude will infect their everyday life and might even cause someone to think they were better than someone else.



BlackCatBonz said:


> im not knocking science.
> but, when was the last time science taught you a moral lesson?
> now you could argue that it is up to a parent to teach a moral lesson.
> who teaches the societal moral lesson.....usually the clergy.
> science and religion perform 2 different functions......people shouldnt confuse that.......


 
No one ever said what the clergy taught was correct......but it was correct for their people. it unifies and gives a sense of belonging. It also gives people the strength to overcome hardship and strife.
Science doesnt tell you to stand up for yourself under the threat of oppresion.
People do not shout "praise Hydrogen" or "bless the Kreb's cycle" as they rush into battle to protect your rights and freedoms.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Since when has Religion offered YOU a moral lesson...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps a better explanation as to why we have morals lies in the totality of this explanation which is partially summed up here...


 
That is an interesting paper.....but it doesn't answer any question succinctly......it's just more words and speculation. 
He could've said, "I don't know why we do it, heck, it sure is weird."

Simply put, religion acted as science and provided answers in the days when we didnt have answers for the things we couldnt explain. As answers were discovered and removed from the religious tome of explanation, we are left with precious little to believe in and give us the strength to do the things that we may not ordinarily do in times that test our will.

Humans have this need to believe in something else other than themselves because it's easier to think we derive our power from something greater than ourselves, rather than believing we are completely responsible for our every move, every impossible deed, miraculous victories and healings.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 9, 2006)

Good points on all sides.  However, we're getting a little off track.  Lets focus on a particular religious belief...the muslim teaching that a woman needs to wear a burkha in order to hide her femininity...for example.  Should our culture insulate this belief from criticism because it is part of a religion, or should we be open about what we think and say what we mean?

I guess the same would question could be applied to publishing pictures of Mohammed...


----------



## donald (Dec 9, 2006)

No they should not be. We, by GOD's grace live in a free society, and therfore must accept criticism as gracefully as possible. I would also like to add. That we do not have to accept a rude, or unkind attitude. If someone wants to get loud, or abusive in any respect . I believe we have the right to dismiss them. I think that sometimes those who say they want to have a debate on one subject, or another. Be it regarding Christianity etc.. When their point is'nt being accepted. Even calmly disproved. Get loud, and/or abusive in their attitude. I think in the end. All they were looking to do was argue. 

1stJohn1:9


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 9, 2006)

I really try to stay out of religious discussions but I just had to respond to this. 



upnorthkyosa said:


> ....should we, as a society, insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism? If so, why? If not, why not?


 
Only if you don't mind things like the Inquisition or the Crusades.

So I guess I vote No.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Dec 9, 2006)

Yes it should


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 10, 2006)

In the old days, people turned to ancient texts to explain what science at the time could not.

I still think these texts have value today.


*Acts 13:41*
" 'Look, you *scoffers*, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.' "
Acts 13:40-42 (in Context) Acts 13 (Whole Chapter) 
*2 Peter 3:3*
First of all, you must understand that in the last days *scoffers* will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
2 Peter 3:2-4 (in Context) 2 Peter 3 (Whole Chapter) 
*Jude 1:18*
They said to you, "In the last times there will be *scoffers* who will follow their own ungodly desires."
Jude 1:17-19 (in Context) Jude 1 (Whole Chapter)
Have a nice day


----------



## Ray (Dec 10, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Ray - your response is - despite your protestations otherwise - an example of what I was trying to say. You did not support your perspective in any fashion except to state that I am wrong, solely because you believe otherwise - but the nature of that belief was not stated. As for my own post, I very deliberately avoided specifics in an attempt to avoid having this thread - which I think poses a very interesting and important question - from devolving into a debate over the supremacy of particular beliefs.


I didn't say that you are wrong because I believe differently, I said you generalized the responses of all believers in very specific language. I said that your generalization of why believers believe didn't describe my reasons for being a beliver. The words you chose were very specific. I have probably misunderstood the intent of your words, though.

I did answer the question of the thread. 


Kacey said:


> To answer your question _What? Religion is an "issue" that needs to be debated so that the poor, misled believer can be set straight?_ Not at all - but as a member of a minority religion (I am Jewish) I have often been told that I need to change my beliefs, that I am damned to eternal perdition for not believing Jesus was the Messiah - often by people who know less about Judaism than I do about their religion.


Although I am not Jewish, I am sometimes the recipient of such "suggestions" by others who believe differently. It is not my place to tell others what they should believe, or to tell them that they are wrong, or that I am right. It is my place to respect the beliefs of others, to not demean them and to treat everyone with brotherly love (I'm still working on that).


Kacey said:


> Religion is an issue than needs to be aired and discussed - not debated - so that more people have information about the religions of those whose religion is different from their own, because only through knowlege can understanding truly be gained - not so that "unbelievers" can be turned to the "one true faith", but so that people will see that there are many more similarities between belief systems than differences, and so that people can learn to let others have their own beliefs.


I am in complete agreement that we should let learn to let others have their own beliefs. It's not my practice to debate or discuss religion--those that know me know that I am religious, and sometimes they ask questions. I answer their questions in the best way I can; usually in private, friendly conversation


----------



## Kacey (Dec 10, 2006)

I think the key is that religious beliefs should not be immune from criticism, but neither should they be specifically targeted because the person voicing the criticism has a different belief system.  It is, I think the difference between open discussion and closed diatribe.  Too often, I have been asked to explain my views, and then told why I was wrong, because the other person's faith has a different viewpoint, interpretation, emphasis, relies on a different holy text or a different section of a common text, etc.

Are there religious beliefs and practices I disagree with?  Certainly.  But I respect others' rights to _choose_ those beliefs and practices.  It is when the right to choose it denied that I have problems.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

I think we need to separate what are religious beliefs and what are culteral or man (and I use this word advisedly) made and imposed rules. I'm pretty sure the Koran doesn't require any more than the Bible does that women have to be covered from head to toe, they are advised to dress and behave modestly.Therefore it is not a religious belief. Female circumsion is not a religious belief. Females not being priests/disciples/vicars/ bishops etc is not a religious belief but a cultural one.
Frankly I don't care what anyone else religious beliefs are! I am interested in whar they are though and to be honest I wouldn't criticise those beliefs unless they impinged on me or put someones life at danger. Like Kacey I have had many people impinge on me, I've been extolled to find Jesus (which sadly I've answered sarcastically, is he lost then?), that I am doomed to go to hell for my sins ( to which I've also answered I'd better do some good sinning them to make it worthwhile) and told so many times Jesus saves (the answer to that is 'with the Woolwich' - a savings group/bank in the UK) Ok sarky and flip answers but I am so tired of people trying to convert me! Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims,Pagans, Confucians, agnostics and atheists all discuss with me their faiths and mine without any rancour, we find more in common than we have apart so why do some Christians have to be so strident in their wish to convert us? BTW I do like the Pagans (it's not black magic and devil worship! they are nice gentle people) If I were ever to convert which is highly unlikely the only ones I'd go to are the Quakers, I have a huge admiration for them.  Why not accept the different faiths and get on with the important things in life, like making sure there is a future for our children?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 11, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> im not knocking science.
> but, when was the last time science taught you a moral lesson?
> now you could argue that it is up to a parent to teach a moral lesson.
> who teaches the societal moral lesson.....usually the clergy.
> science and religion perform 2 different functions......people shouldnt confuse that.......



This sort of idea seems to suggest that you believe atheists lack morallity.

How about this then 

In order to live in a group, moraillty is required.  Therefore as the benefits of living in a group are high, morallity will work its way in through Darwininian like social evolution.  As the group grows, a method of standardizing and teaching morallity must come into it, so Darwinism leads to Religion 

Anyways, morallity is not dependant on religion, religion can even be used to corrupt morallity and get people to do things there "natural" sense of morallity would probably prevent them from doing.  (ex. Inquisition, Crusades, crashing planes into buildings, etc.)


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 11, 2006)

Well it seems to me that most religions are immune to criticism other than Christianity.
The Jews made up a word for it. If you say something about a Muslim look out cause we have been told all Muslims are not bad.
But day in day out we see stuff on TV how Christians are ruining the world and what not. 
Its funny how Mel can get beat up for the entire Jew bashing thing but its ok to beat on Christians day in and day out.
Maybe as Christians we need to make up a tag word for being bashed, something like anti-Christ. 
But in todays anti-Christian society that would be cool and all so maybe not.


----------



## Ray (Dec 11, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> In order to live in a group, moraillty is required.  Therefore as the benefits of living in a group are high, morallity will work its way in through Darwininian like social evolution.  As the group grows, a method of standardizing and teaching morallity must come into it, so Darwinism leads to Religion
> 
> Anyways, morallity is not dependant on religion, religion can even be used to corrupt morallity and get people to do things there "natural" sense of morallity would probably prevent them from doing.  (ex. Inquisition, Crusades, crashing planes into buildings, etc.)


Living in a group does not promote morality...it promotes adherence to the rules and mores of the group (maybe that's the definition of morality?).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 11, 2006)

We made a word up for _it_? do you mean anti Semitism? I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. See what Semite means too.
I don't think religion should be immune from criticism but why would people want to criticise it? I would no more criticise someone's beliefs than I would criticise their eye colour, taste in clothes or cars. Why would I want to? You can come across and worship the Loch Ness monster for all I care, I might ask you why (because I'm curious) but I wouldn't criticise you for it. You can dance around the woods naked at night and all I'd think probably is that it's a cold night to be out. Why criticise? 
If you want to believe there is no God, fine. If you want to believe there is, fine. My car is green, yours is blue.... and? If you believe in God and don't like people saying we are  descended from apes why worry? Who do you think made the apes then? there is a lot to be said for that modern word -CHILL!
I wasn't bashing Christians, I was bashing people who don't respect me, these happened to be Christians who were doing a grand job of trying to bash me.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 11, 2006)

I agree leave it open to Criticism, but let all be open to it. Like you I could care less. But lets be fair. I see more anti Christian than anything else. We can't have Christmas now because fear of someone being offended. But Chanuka is ok, you will see a happy Chanuka and Kwansa spots on TV here in Chicagoland but all Christmas referances are always happy hollidays,why? 
I feel i lead the topic away from the original post so I will drop out of the thread.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

jetboatdeath said:


> Well it seems to me that most religions are immune to criticism other than Christianity.
> The Jews made up a word for it. If you say something about a Muslim look out cause we have been told all Muslims are not bad.
> But day in day out we see stuff on TV how Christians are ruining the world and what not.
> Its funny how Mel can get beat up for the entire Jew bashing thing but its ok to beat on Christians day in and day out.
> ...



I think this is a little bit misleading.

On the whole, it is not "ok" too attack Christians.  It is also not really done, especially in America.  Name one US President that did not claim to be a Christian...

Certain Christian beliefs are knocked because they are silly, ex. Creationism.  Certain groups are cristisized because they are insane, but that goes for all religions.  In general, fundamentalist views, be they Christian or otherwise, are going to clash with logic and science.  

Fundamentalist groups, generally tend to impose there beliefs on everyone else and show a complete blindspot to other viewpoints.

But Christianity is not the thing getting critisized, some interpretations of it are.  Same as with other religions.

Most Critisim of a religion as a whole does not come from secular sources, it comes from people of other religions.  Usually, those pesky fundamentalists again...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

I must admit I find some of the 'crazier' ones amusing, I saw a programme ages ago where somewhere in America ( sorry this is vague it was a while ago) they handle live rattlesnakes in there church as part of their worship. thought that was weird but whatever floats your boat! 
The people I'm most wary of is people who convert! I have a Catholic friend who feels exactly the same way, I have only met one jewish convert and she drove us mad. She insists on everything being exact and lectured us endlessly. We took to avoiding her in the end which is a bit shameful really as she meant well. There is a Catholic Bishop in England who was Jewish and converted, not content to be just a Catholic he had to go for promotion. I think the fundamentalists are like this, As I said I don't think Darwin should give them any problems, God still created the world ( if you don't want to believe that it's not a problem is it?) and I think in a cleverer way than just going poof bang there you are. Simplistic? Maybe but it works for me. I really believe living a good life and being kind to people is more important ( and I like to think to God too) than how we actually came into being. It's interesting from a scientific view but not essential for our everyday lives.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

Which I think is another point against Christianity being exempt in America.

Suppose someone where to start working to "Spread the word", in a non-offensive way.  Simple advertising, delivering leaflets, etc.

Generally seen as acceptable right?

Now suppose this person was doing so for Islam, or Pagan religions? or even Atheism? I think they'd get a lot more hate mail then if they where spreading Christianity.

Christian beliefs, on this continent, are just more common. They get more of everything.  Other religions are more likely to "stay out of the way"


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 12, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Certain Christian beliefs are knocked because they are silly, ex. Creationism.



While I wont get into this as a seperate argument... what sounds sillier...

About a Billion Distinct lifeforms were placed here by someone or somthing, 

Or 

A Billion Distinct Lifeforms formed out of mutations created "scientifically" by lightning hitting primordial goo, both of which formed "scientifically" when "nothing" exploded and turned into _everything._


----------



## Ray (Dec 12, 2006)

Okay, after more thought I've decided that my religious beliefs should be immune from criticism and everyone else's shouldn't.  (not really).


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 12, 2006)

it's very hard to discuss relgion rationally, mostly because religion is irrational.

then again, so is love, appreciation of art, self-sacrifice, the willingness to go to karate and get pounded for an hour and come out smiling.

some irrational things are beautiful and important.  religion is one of them.

but it does really annoy rationalists who try and discuss relgion with the religious.  "I believe in God because I see His face in every sunrise"  is beautiful, stirring and sufficient for beleivers. 

which makes some folks get irrational about religion and the religious.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 12, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> While I wont get into this as a seperate argument... what sounds sillier...
> 
> About a Billion Distinct lifeforms were placed here by someone or somthing,
> 
> ...


 
Depends on which side is for or against abortion, gay marriage or birth control.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 12, 2006)

blotan hunka is raising the real meat of the issue, i think.

personal belief is your own business.  i have my relationship with God.  it's probably different from yours.  but that's okay, it's personal.

but if my personal belief says i should kill somebody over my interpretation of a millenia-old, five times translated, politically compromised document ---  that's taking things a bit far, neh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> A Billion Distinct Lifeforms formed out of mutations created "scientifically" by lightning hitting primordial goo, both of which formed "scientifically" when "nothing" exploded and turned into _everything._


 
You won't be thinking its so silly when scientists actually _create_ a life form.  See this book.  Researchers are closer then you think.

Also, theories of abiogenesis are FAR more complex then what you described.

PS - note how the creationists have vandalized the Wiki article and then check the works cited pages below.

Anyway, in regards to criticizing religious beliefs, this is what I'm talking about.  Except I don't think it should just be limited to Christian beliefs.  If we are going to debunk one, then they all are fair game.  Another point I think is provacative regards the fact that sometimes criticisms of various religious beliefs are labled as bigoted and that sometimes they are not and that it all depends on the religion.  Is this fair?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Seems I inadvertently caused a bit of amusement when I said I would be a Quaker if Christian lol! If I said the Society of Friends does that make more sense? I've always found them to be good people, pacifists who work as medics in times of war, they aren't strident about their beliefs and don't criticise other religions. there's is the only religious service I feel I can go to and feel comfortable. It is quiet communication with God and trying to find your inner light. It's not a new age religion far from it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

It's also a matter of combiining what we see and observe with what we believe about it.  When everything science tells us about the earth tells us it is Billions of years old, with life going back a very long time with different species emerging and becoming extinct, the theory of a 6000 year old universe in which life was created in pretty much its current form "should" IMO go right out the window.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

The question basically was should we criticise religious beliefs and there's many posts saying some should be because they are silly beliefs or mistaken or just not scientific enough. I'm not sure anyone deserves being criticised really unless they are a danger to anyone.
 I have a friend, she's much the same age as me (over 40ish) she wears clothes far too young for her, skirts too short. In her head she's 18! Of course it's _silly_ of her and _scientifically_ you know she can never look like an 18 yr old but she's happy, she believes she looks good, she doesn't harm anyone why would I want to criticise her and cause hurt when there is no need to. You could say it's for her own good but is it really or would it be because we feel she should conform? Tolerance is such a nice word! even better when practiced!


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

To some extent yes, you are right, people are free to believe whatever they like.

However I think we would be failing our duty as a society to educate our young if we allowed some of these beliefs to be taught as part of there education.

All beliefs should be open to critisism, and different sides should be presented if they hold equal merit.  But some thing, like a 6000 year old universe or the earth as the center of it, have been disproven and should no longer be taught as "factual."


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

To be honest I think perhaps the Creationist argument is not one we have very often here,at least the teaching of it.The National Curriculum in our schools means that the Creationist idea of how the Earth started is not taught. It's mentioned in Religious education classes where other religions are also examined but not in the science classes. If parents and religious teachers choose to teach it, it's up to them but we are all given the two _views_ if you like.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

Nor here, but the battle does happen in some places, and it shouldn't happen anywhere.  It is a extreme example IMO, but the basic point is that religious ideas, and all other ideas need to be critisized.  We should not be teaching any belief that cannot stand up to critisism with more of a case then "faith" pass off as factual or education.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2006)

Do you think we should change the word criticise to examine? Criticism seems to imply that we have already made our minds up that something is bad while examining beliefs is something a reasonable questioning person would do? It may be semantics but criticism has a tendancy to put peoples backs up immediately.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 12, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> 1.This sort of idea seems to suggest that you believe atheists lack morallity.
> 
> How about this then
> 
> ...


 
1. nope 
2.indeed


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 12, 2006)

> &#8220;And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.&#8221;


-George Washington


If man may manufacture his own moral standard, then &#8220;anything goes&#8221;&#8212;and no one can say otherwise.


----------



## Carol (Dec 12, 2006)

Immune is a very strong word.

So no, I don't think religious beliefs should necessarily be immune from criticism.

However, I don't think "criticizing beliefs" is a one-size-fits all statement.  

How religion affects a national of China (being a Communist state) is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of India, a democracy whose constitution offers rights based on what religion one practices.  And this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of a Muslim state.

All of this is likely to be very different than how religion affects a national of an English-speaking Western country, where I hear religious wars dismissed as "people fighting over a book."

It's not that simple.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> -George Washington



Washington died before Darwin was even born.  Prior to the theory of evolution it would have been very hard to justify not believing in a religion, immoral perhaps by the standards of the time.

I would submit that the quote has no relevance as the person that made it had a different understanding of reality then we do nowadays.



Blotan Hunka said:


> If man may manufacture his own moral standard, then anything goesand no one can say otherwise.



And yet every society on the planet has moral standards, I'd even say it is a prerequisite for having a society.  I'd even suggest that many animals have, at least in some sense, morallity.

Morality is a evolved trait, something that we require in order to function as part of a group.  I'd almost find it insulting to think that without a God humans are incapable of developing a sense of morallity.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 12, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> -George Washington
> 
> 
> If man may manufacture his own moral standard, then anything goesand no one can say otherwise.


 
Man did.....it's called religion.


----------



## Ray (Dec 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Morality is a evolved trait, something that we require in order to function as part of a group.


The Manson family was a "group."


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 13, 2006)

Ray said:


> The Manson family was a "group."



And his group was religious and he thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.  So as an example I'd say this goes against religion being used as the basis for morality...


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> You won't be thinking its so silly when scientists actually _create_ a life form.  See this book.  Researchers are closer then you think.



No... you are wrong... when I wont think its silly is when scientists can take an empty vaccum, make it explode, use what is formed in the explosion to make life out of nothing THEN turn it into a billion or so complex lifeforms.

Taking what we already have and making a protein chain?  please.

A scientist calls out to god one day and says "hey god, I created life, mankind doesnt need you anymore"
God, curious, answers the scientists and says "really?  ok, show me!"
So the scientist, smug says "Ok, well first I take this mud from the ground"
and god interupts him and says "no, no no, use your OWN dirt."


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 13, 2006)

cryo, that's a hilarious story.

but still, with  creationism vs. evolution

evolution is supported by physical evidence, observable phenomena and experiment.

creationism is supported by a poem.  for that matter, a poem that's been translated/interpreted four or five times depending on your version.  further, it's a poem that's been politically compromised for at least a thousand years.

personally, i figure in a hundred years they'll find most of our scientific 'truths' quaint.  but 'the bible tells me so' is not sufficient evidence to support a theory.


----------



## Ray (Dec 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> And his group was religious and he thought he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.  So as an example I'd say this goes against religion being used as the basis for morality...


No, this is a counter-example to your claim that humans create morality to be able to live in a group.  Your claim is that all groups live together and create morality.  Therefore, the manson family, as a counter example suffices to demonstrate that you are incorrect.

(example:  If I have a fine mathematical/scientific model (say, the pythagorum theorum) and find a single right-triangle that does not conform to this then: that one single counter example proves the model is incorrect).


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

Cryozombie said:
			
		

> No... you are wrong... when I wont think its silly is when scientists can take an empty vaccum, make it explode, use what is formed in the explosion to make life out of nothing THEN turn it into a billion or so complex lifeforms.



Right. 

If you took a watch completely apart and put it in a shoebox and shook that shoebox perhaps for billions of years, perhaps forever, what are the odds all the pieces would eventually fall into perfect place and the watch keep perfect time? 

Or how about this...

Look at everything that surrounds you, your home, your lawn, your car, your body. The natural order of things is to fall into disorder without maintainence. You must maintain your home, if you don't it will eventually fall into disarray. You must maintain your car to keep it running. You must cut your lawn or it will be overcome with growth and weeds. How much time do we spend every weekend taking care of our properties? If you don't take care of your body you will most likely suffer an early death. We have street sweepers and house cleaners. Forest rangers and enviromentalists. 

Basically, if we don't maintain what we have it becomes disordered. So, if the natural order of things is disorder, how does something as complex as our world, our universe, fall _into _order?


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:
			
		

> evolution is supported by physical evidence, observable phenomena and experiment.



Well, that's not exactly true. There is micro evolution and macro evolution. There is no physical evidence of macro evolution.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 13, 2006)

Ray said:


> No, this is a counter-example to your claim that humans create morality to be able to live in a group.  Your claim is that all groups live together and create morality.  Therefore, the manson family, as a counter example suffices to demonstrate that you are incorrect.



There was a sense of morallity within that group, just not one we agree with.  But without it there would have been no group.

It also fits just fine into evolutionary like theory.  Random mutations, the beneficial ones survive, the non-beneficial ones don't.  Belonging to a smaller group, like the family, that is not able to exist peacefully with the larger group is not a beneficial deviation, and it didn't survive.

It just happens that the basis of the family's sense of morallity was based on / justified by religion.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 13, 2006)

there is significantly more evidence supporting macro evolution than creationism.

but you're right, the evidence of macro evolution is _supportive_, not _conclusive_.  evolution is just the best theory folks have come up with so far to interpret the evidence.

but again, Genesis was a poem. literature, however compelling, is neither supportive nor conclusive evidence of a theory.  see also don quixote.

faith is wonderful.  my faith supports me daily and pushes me to be a better person and to improve my world.  my faith does not push me to dig my heels in and deny the opinions of professionals.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> faith is wonderful.  my faith supports me daily and pushes me to be a better person and to improve my world.  my faith does not push me to dig my heels in and deny the opinions of professionals.



Good point. And since there are professionals on both sides of the coin we come down to the basic question of Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism? 



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> Do you think we should change the word criticise to examine? Criticism seems to imply that we have already made our minds up that something is bad while examining beliefs is something a reasonable questioning person would do? It may be semantics but criticism has a tendancy to put peoples backs up immediately.



I agree with this. I think we have the right to _examine_ belief's and form our own opinion based on our findings. How we feel personally about a religion should not give us the right to criticize how another person feels about the same religion. We can and should be able to exchange ideas and debate ideas but going into "critical mode" because we disagree is pointless. People don't convert to anothers opinion because they were criticized. If someone converts at all it is after investigating and forming a new opinion based upon gathered information.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 13, 2006)

Hey, Jade, thanks for getting us back on track.

Religious beliefs should by no means be immune from criticism, nor any kind of belief.

If your beliefs can't stand under criticism, it's time to re-examine your beliefs.

If your belief is strong, well reasoned and empowering, then criticism won't bother you.


----------



## Ray (Dec 13, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> There was a sense of morallity within that group, just not one we agree with.  But without it there would have been no group.
> 
> It also fits just fine into evolutionary like theory.  Random mutations, the beneficial ones survive, the non-beneficial ones don't.  Belonging to a smaller group, like the family, that is not able to exist peacefully with the larger group is not a beneficial deviation, and it didn't survive.
> 
> It just happens that the basis of the family's sense of morallity was based on / justified by religion.


Contriving all things to fit into your particular referential frame rather than thinking beyond what we assume (or are taught) to be true must also be a trait that evolution brought about.  And using your reasoning: some work and some don't.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 13, 2006)

bushidomartialarts;681271]there is significantly more evidence supporting macro evolution than creationism.



			
				but you're right said:
			
		

> supportive[/I], not _conclusive_. evolution is just the best theory folks have come up with so far to interpret the evidence.


 
See that is the problem with science. We are supposed to take best guesses as truth?
Maybe that&#8217;s been my problem I have been wasting to much time waiting for facts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Taking what we already have and making a protein chain? please.


 
It's a tad more complex then that and this book is only the tip of abiogenesis iceberg.  I predict that in my lifetime scientists will create a living organism from inorganic material.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Right.
> 
> If you took a watch completely apart and put it in a shoebox and shook that shoebox perhaps for billions of years, perhaps forever, what are the odds all the pieces would eventually fall into perfect place and the watch keep perfect time?
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 13, 2006)

jetboatdeath said:


> See that is the problem with science. We are supposed to take best guesses as truth?
> Maybe thats been my problem I have been wasting to much time waiting for facts.



No, that is its strength.  It does not define things as "absolute" as religion does.  Of course it is only each persons "best guess" as too which religion is correct.

Science makes observations, creates theories to explain those observations, and tests predictions based on those theories.

A "theory" is a guess that has stood up to critisizm, had others try to prove it wrong, and made verifiable predictions about what would happen in certain situations.

Religion is based on ancient traditions with no "hard evidence"


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> If your beliefs can't stand under criticism, it's time to re-examine your beliefs.
> 
> If your belief is strong, well reasoned and empowering, then criticism won't bother you.




These are _excellent_ points, I think we're getting caught up on semantics.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Who says that life is ordered?



It's a fact. _Anything _if not maintained falls into disorder. Do you think we have to maintain such simple things as our lawns and homes yet something as complex as our universe needs nothing to bring it to order? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is this knowledge itself criticism of their beliefs?



No, I don't think so. Not anymore than acknowledging the opposite would be critical of those beliefs. Again, it's semantics. An examination of evidence does not equate criticism of a belief.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 13, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> These are _excellent_ points, I think we're getting caught up on semantics.


 
isnt religion all about semantics?
(2. *study of symbols: *the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent

3. *study of logic: *the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic)


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 13, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> isnt religion all about semantics?
> (2. *study of symbols: *the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent
> 
> 3. *study of logic: *the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic)





> *se·man·tics*  - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form



I was referring to the words criticize and examine. We are again getting off-topic.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 13, 2006)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

The topic is religious beliefs, not the study of symbols or the fallacy of logic.  Keep to topic or take the sidebars to another thread.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Assistant Administrator


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2006)

One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken.  Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten.  Look at all of the scientific truths that have been believed as fact, disproved and completely dismissed.  Science has a way of evolved based on criticism and testing.

But when you criticise or examine a religion, it is much less likely to change to adapt.  It is all based on the assmuption that the words in the bible are all truth.  How much has religion evolved, adapted and changed in the past 50 years?  Or 100 years....or 1000 years for that matter?  

The point here is that it is MUCH easier to change someone's mind about science.  Beliefs and ideas....not so simple.  So when we do criticise religion, science, whatever....the most important thing is not whether we have the right to make the criticism, but if the person whose beliefs are being criticised has an open mind enough to listen and understand what is being said.  I find that when you do criticise, the fault is more often in the receiving person jumping to the defensive and not listening to a word that is said.  Of course, that depends a GREAT DEAL on how the criticism is given in the first place, there is constructive and destructive.....one can get results, the other just makes enemies.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 13, 2006)

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism.  Constructive criticism can be use to compare and contrast, to find similarities and differences, and I have no problem with constructive criticism being applied to religion.  Only by learning how similar other religions are to one's own can one learn to coexist peacefully.  Constructive criticism, and its relative discussion (as opposed to diatribe) as key to understanding those whose beliefs differ from your own on any issue - religion often being a very misunderstood and emotionally charged issue that many people have difficulty discussing rationally - but I have no problem with constructive criticism of the nature I have described.

Destructive criticism, however, is based on telling another person why, _in your opinion_, their choices/actions/beliefs/etc. are wrong.  I dislike destructive criticism in any setting, and find it to be even less acceptable in such emotionally laden topics as religion.  Like mothers who see their child as always being the cutest, smartest, generally best child on the planet, or artists who see their own art as the best, most innovative, most appealing example of the genre, many people see their own religion as the best one of the many available.  Given that religion is based largely on faith, the belief in unproveable tenets, destructive criticism is pointless; it often devolves into a meaningless argument based on "I'm right because my religion says..." sent back and forth between participants in an increasingly heated fashion.  In addition, many people base a great deal of their self-concept on their beliefs, and deriding those beliefs derides the person as well.  I see no purpose in such negative methods.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Given that religion is based largely on faith, the belief in unproveable tenets, destructive criticism is pointless; it often devolves into a meaningless argument based on "I'm right because my religion says..." sent back and forth between participants in an increasingly heated fashion. In addition, many people base a great deal of their self-concept on their beliefs, and deriding those beliefs derides the person as well.


 
And is this is the biggest reason why criticism of religions is so taboo.  Partly because of how it is being given and partly because of how it is being received...and in either case, it is usually because the people are too emotionally involved to have an open mind.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 13, 2006)

Kacey, that last post was so off base I can't even begin to count the ways it makes you seem foolish.  (sorry  couldn't resist).

Really, Kacey, you make an excellent point.

I think the context of religion almost demands destructive criticism.  In a context where saying the majority is wrong means you get labelled as a heretic, there is no room for true constructive criticism.

It's not like you can say 'gee, whiz, father.  why couldn't we believe in evolution?  i mean, sheesh, genesis was a poem.  aren't poems supposed to be metaphorical?' and then have that thought examined on its actual merits.


----------



## Ray (Dec 13, 2006)

MBuzzy said:


> One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken. Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten. Look at all of the scientific truths that have been believed as fact, disproved and completely dismissed. Science has a way of evolved based on criticism and testing.


Science is a tool to help us understand the universe. It's just a tool, nothing more.


MBuzzy said:


> But when you criticise or examine a religion, it is much less likely to change to adapt. It is all based on the assmuption that the words in the bible are all truth.


Do you think that "love your neighbor" should be changed? How about "do not steal?" Maybe "do not murder?" Or is it the part about a God or gods that should be changed in religion? Or perhaps some of the "histories" in scriptures?


MBuzzy said:


> How much has religion evolved, adapted and changed in the past 50 years? Or 100 years....or 1000 years for that matter?


Mine still says "love thy neighbor as thy self." So I don't suppose it's changed much.


MBuzzy said:


> ...but if the person whose beliefs are being criticised has an open mind enough to listen and understand what is being said. I find that when you do criticise, the fault is more often in the receiving person jumping to the defensive and not listening to a word that is said.


Maybe you're right. Maybe I should open my mind and consider the possibility that my neighbor should not be given compassion; that everyone and everthing in this world should be for my benefit; that I should create the greatest number of possible offspring and destroy the offspring of those who would compete for resources with my offspring. In this way, I can ensure that the strong who survive to evole are inheritors of my dna. That would be darwinism at its best.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 13, 2006)

ray, with all respect you're going a long way to prove buzzy's point.

instead of offering rational debate, you're reacting emotionally and not really addressing the issue.

_of course_ nobody wants to evolve past 'don't steal, don't kill and fer cryin out loud be nice to each other'.  well, from time to time in history people have.  can't help but notice most often those people have done so in the name of their god.

but there are many other facets of religion that should be debated rationally.  taboos against premarital sex, homosexuality, wearing clothing of mixed fibers, eating pork (all forbidden in epistles) should be examined and subject to informed debate.  the idea that murder gets you into heaven (as believed by some muslims) or that one should stand by and watch a child drown (as believed by some buddhists) should all be approached with rational consideration.

dogged emotionality doesn't prove your point.  it simply alienates people who might have agreed with you moments ago.

speaking as a man of faith, please stop helping the other side.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> It's a fact. _Anything _if not maintained falls into disorder. Do you think we have to maintain such simple things as our lawns and homes yet something as complex as our universe needs nothing to bring it to order?


 
The answer is complex, but I would say that a creator does not have to exist in order to bring our universe into order.  The current state of physics pretty much shows that it happens all by itself.  Here is a good book on the matter...

The Fabric of Space and Time by Brian Greene.



> No, I don't think so. Not anymore than acknowledging the opposite would be critical of those beliefs. Again, it's semantics. An examination of evidence does not equate criticism of a belief.


 
What if the results happened to contradict something you believed in very strongly?  What if the results were so clear that people would think that you were a fool for continuing to believe in whatever you believed?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 13, 2006)

I think you put far too much "faith" in science.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think you put far too much "faith" in science.


 
The same can be said for other people's beliefs in religions.  But I believe this is a debate on the issues, not on any one person's beliefs.  

We are in fact arguing the point that it is acceptable to criticise other people's beliefs.....not their right to have them.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2006)

Ray,

As stated, this is a very emotionally charged subject.  But please don't believe that I - or anyone else is advocating for eliminating morality.  Morality can come from a number of sources, religion, the law, personal beliefs, experience....all over.  In fact, every religion on the planet has some basis of religion.  Although each of them believes they are the most correct.

As Bushido stated, this is not a debate on morality or the rules governing morality put forth by religions.  It is a debate on whether it is acceptable to question someone's beliefs.  We all have an equal right to HAVE beliefs, but should be ready to defend them.

There are some things in many religious text that were put there to protect people from themselves that have no religious basis and there are also things put there to help explain the nature of the universe.  Science is simply another possible explanation of the nature of things.  Science just seeks to put concrete data behind them and doesn't rely on faith.  

Science does NOT delve into morality....and you shouldn't look to science to give you a moral compass.  That is instilled by your parents, society, your church, or by no one.  I grew up in a Methodist church and between them and my parents, I was given a very strong sense of morality and right and wrong.  But I am also an engineer - which means my analytical mind looks for the explanation with the most credibility and proof.

I strongly believe that science and religion can peacefully co-exist...with a few obvious "disagreements," they both give people different things.  Although both sides should strive to have as much understanding as they can for the other....

P.S.  Just throwing this out there...My comments are all from an objective point of view.  I have tried very hard to not include my own opinions.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 13, 2006)

MBuzzy said:


> One of the biggest differences between science and religion is the criticism....or examination and how it is taken.  Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten.



I almost agree with this, because in theory its correct.  But lets not forget that in science, a lot of science "fact" is really "science opinion" or "science theory" that is simply accepted by a group of the scientists peers.  (whats the Sun made of?  The theory is Hydrogen and Helium, right?  But can we PROVE that? Or is it taken as fact, because its the best answer we can come up with based on current technology?  I'd say the latter... no one can actually gather a sample and TEST the sun's makeup... yet science has PROVEN its makeup...)

Also, often certain things are proven or disproven, only to have the approval/disproval thrown away because they are unpopular or contradict someone of stature, or you run into cases where two scientists come up with opposing data, and you need to decide which camp you are in... in those cases science is hardly exact and therefore things "dissmissed or forgotten," it becomes a matter of FAITH in the scientific methods the guy you believe is right used.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2006)

That is completely correct, there is a point when you have to have faith in the scientific method.  And there are many things that we take as truth that are still just theories.  But there are also theories that have a lot of evidence behind them...we just don't have conclusive evidence.  But we do label them as theories and you can choose to believe or dismiss them.  

The beauty of the scientific method is that if something is disproven, it is eliminated....now if the masses choose to not believe it...like the shape of the earth or the theory of gravity......that is just a failing of society.  

I will submit that science is not without its faults.  It is easy to fake tests, jump to conclusions, perform tests only to back up your theories and dismiss contradictory evidence, the list goes on of the flaws....but religions do have their own list of flaws.  

That is why each person must make their own decision based on the evidence given to them as to what they should and should not believe.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Which is why there is the need for verification, one scientist making a claim means nothing, it needs to be tested and verified by others. 

Religion can not make the same sort of claim... although I would find it amusing for Christians to seek verification of the trinity through Islam and Buhdist doctorine  (or any other groups)

I really must be missing something here, but I can't for the life of me see how "science is not absolute, it changes and evolves and no one can be sure of any of its claims" is a fault compared to "religion is absolute, God does not go 'oops, made a booboo, need to update that bible'"

Allowing for progress in our understanding of the universe is something I would consider a big plus, not a negaitve...

Everyone "places faith" in science.  Science is what makes our current life possible.  We depend on vehicles to get to work, electricity to power our homes, and the internet right now to make posts.  Yes, I have faith that science got electricity more or less right, and can do useful things with it.  Show me the same level of evidence for God?  Show me any evidence?  Show me one practical, useful thing that can be done with it?

High level science is, yes, a lot of speculation.  Theories about what might happen if...? or how did that happen...? and there are differeing opinions on a lot of things, and yes, there are conflicts.  And if you look at science 200 years ago it was no different, there where opposing views, different hypothesis, and experiments showing evidence towards conflicting theories.  SInce then, a lot of those conflicts have been resolved, in another 200 years I imagine most of the current ones will have been resolved, and others will come up.

Science does not claim to have the truth, it claims to try and figure it out.

Religion claims to have the truth, based on ancient scriptures.

This is a big difference, and one that people trying to discredit science tend to blur, and like to claim that science is falliable, therefore it requires faith, therefore it is a religion.

This is nonsense.  

I believe the sun will rise... well the earth will spin, revolve, etc and the sun will appear to rise, tomorrow, and the next day.  Is this "faith"?  In a sense I suppose it is, I have no absolute proof for this, merely inductive logic that it has always done so in the past.  But what justifies my belief that inductive logic will continue to work in the future?  

So because I believe the sun will rise, I have faith, therefore I am religious in my beliefs about Ra?  umm... I mean the sun...  yeah, not Ra, the sun 

Sorry, but science is faith in the same way as religion is a very poor argument.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> What if the results happened to contradict something you believed in very strongly?  What if the results were so clear that people would think that you were a fool for continuing to believe in whatever you believed?



I ask you that same question.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 14, 2006)

Given that they leave us alone ie don't force their views on us, don't cause wars etc why would we actually care what others believe?


----------



## Ray (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Everyone "places faith" in science.  Science is what makes our current life possible.  We depend on vehicles to get to work, electricity to power our homes, and the internet right now to make posts.


With the possible exception of the internet, those items are not the result of science.  They are the result of cold-hearted businessmen.  We know all about Edison's approach to science, he had only one true, pure scientific discovery (the edison effect, the glow that allows TV screens to work--he logged it and saw no way to make $$ from it so forgot all about it).  

These guys weren't trying to describe or learn more about the universe.  They had a vision and molded the resources to fit their vision.

Pure science is pure discovery, learning and understanding.


Andrew Green said:


> Show me the same level of evidence for God?  Show me any evidence?


Many things in my life are subject to the scientific method.  The "if and then" and reasoning to solve problems, etc.


Andrew Green said:


> I believe the sun will rise... well the earth will spin, revolve, etc and the sun will appear to rise, tomorrow, and the next day.  Is this "faith"?  In a sense I suppose it is, I have no absolute proof for this, merely inductive logic that it has always done so in the past.  But what justifies my belief that inductive logic will continue to work in the future?


It is nice to know that the earth spins and moves around the sun.  It is nice to know that the sun moves around the center of our galaxy.  We learn these things because someone tells us (like teachers and parents) and we believe them; not all of us have the opportunity nor the desire to prove those facts as scientific truths.  

Why?  Because it doesn't make a difference in most of our lives.  The most part of my life would be the same whether we believed the world was flat, or round -- except for satellite TV and other communications.  

If I believed that bad spirits (unseen living things) made people ill and that certain chemicals could kill the bad spirits OR if I believed that germs (unseen living things) made people ill and that certain chemicals could kill the germs then I am still left with a medicine man to give me chemicals (and/or other treatments).  If the medicine man cannot make me well and I die, then it is either "God's will" or it is "there was nothing we could do to save him"  and there is little difference to me.

I adore science and believe the scientific method is a great tool.  I wish I had more time to explore, as I did when I was younger.

My religiousity came later in my life and it provides a different set of tools than science does.  It has a different purpose.  Science tells me about the world I live in; religion tells me how to live in the world.

Yes, we should question and critique our religious beliefs; and our scientific beliefs and our "where the heck did you get that idea" beliefs.  "The unexamined life is not worth living."


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Sorry, but science is faith in the same way as religion is a very poor argument.



SAndrew, that wasn't the point of my post... I was referring to this which I quoted in it:



> Based on the scientific theory, if you disprove something, it is dismissed and forgotten.



And saying BECAUSE a lot of what is taken as fact in the scientific community isnt fact you get camps that cant always agree therefore often "disproving" things don't make them go away... just that you have to choose sides.  Hell, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> And saying BECAUSE a lot of what is taken as fact in the scientific community isnt fact you get camps that cant always agree therefore often "disproving" things don't make them go away... just that you have to choose sides.  Hell, there are STILL people who believe the earth is flat.





Historically no one believed the earth is flat.  Visibily it is not.  Ships dissapear over the horizon, the horizon is curved.  By Antiquity it was pretty much common knowledge of educated people that the world was a sphere.

Ptolmeny & Aristotle, the two most popular models of the universe from that time both but the earth as a sphere in the center of the universe.  That it was believed to be flat before Columbus is a myth, and anyone that believes that now is dellusional.

However, that things are disagreed upon in science was exactly what I said, disagreement occurs, overtime it is resolved.  When Coppernicus put the earth orbitting the sun, there was disagreement, and there was really good evidence to support both sides.

Now, all the evidence to support the earth in the middle has been refuted due to better observational techniques (more powerful telescopes did it).

That is the general process of science.  Todays disagreements will most likely be resolved and consensus reached.  New ones will come up.  Things that are disagreed upon, and not just by a handful of conspiracy theorists that are not real scientists, are not considered facts.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. 
-Immanuel Kant

Man for a lot of lip service on how its "OK to be religious" a lot of people are pretty transparent on their real opinion on the subject. Thats why I have very little trust in people who "say" they aren't striving to remove every semblance of religion from public life.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Religion, or lack there of, should be personal choice, not public policy.

Whenever policy is written based on religious reasons I would call that a problem.


----------



## Ray (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Religion, or lack there of, should be personal choice, not public policy.
> 
> Whenever policy is written based on religious reasons I would call that a problem.


If you and another person agreed on a public policy, and you do not know the reason for that person's agreement then how much does it matter?


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

The reason for the policy does matter, and if there is no reason for it then religious ones, is the policy fair to those who do not have those religious views?

Majority rules is not a good way to do this, as, well, majority rules.  Let's say 80% of a country is Atheist, and they decide, and vote to ban the Christian bible as it is a source of violence and obstacle to science.  Are they right in doing so?  Vote is 80% to 20% mind you.

I find it odd that one of the things the US seems to object to in the middle east is the law system in some areas, being based on Islam (religion).  There is agreement there on the system, does that make it right too...   Let's say, Stone a woman to death for commiting adultery?  (BTW, stoning for adultery and other crimes is instructed in the Old testement as well)

Blasphemy has been good cause for excecution for a good chunk of Christian history as well.

Are these laws "right"?  They where agreed upon, but is that enough?


----------



## Ray (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> The reason for the policy does matter, and if there is no reason for it then religious ones, is the policy fair to those who do not have those religious views?


You're saying that if you agree with the policy, then you must know the reasons for the policy to be the way it is before you'll accept it?


Andrew Green said:


> Majority rules is not a good way to do this, as, well, majority rules.  Let's say 80% of a country is Atheist, and they decide, and vote to ban the Christian bible as it is a source of violence and obstacle to science.  Are they right in doing so?  Vote is 80% to 20% mind you.


You're right in that majority rules is not a good way to rule.  Democracies are too darned slow and inefficient.  Make me king and it'll be the way I want it, and I'll be happy (until everyone revolts).


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Ray said:


> You're saying that if you agree with the policy, then you must know the reasons for the policy to be the way it is before you'll accept it?



Not neccessarily.

Say you want a rule, "no murdering", I go "Ok, sounds like a good idea"

I justified it on what I considered common sense, you on biblical doctorine.  We agree on the rule, just not the reasoning.

I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis.  We can agree on rules, but not reasons.  So if we must also agree on reasons, there will be no rules as there will be no agreement.


----------



## Ray (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Not neccessarily.
> 
> Say you want a rule, "no murdering", I go "Ok, sounds like a good idea"


You have come full circle.


Andrew Green said:


> I justified it on what I considered common sense, you on biblical doctorine.


That's a false statment.  I do not, nor have I said I, believe that public policy and laws should be based upon biblical doctrine. 

I will live my life and make personal decisions based upon what I believe (as does everyone, regardless of where their beliefs originate) - and I, like everyone else, will either live within the established law or suffer the consequences.


Andrew Green said:


> I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis.  We can agree on rules, but not reasons.


You may be surprised, we may agree on the rules and the reasons, sometimes and sometimes not.  You seem to have stereotypical view of believers.


Andrew Green said:


> So if we must also agree on reasons, there will be no rules as there will be no agreement.


Now you're learning.  We, hopefully, can agree on rules and abide by them as a peaceful society.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

meant to include a little "*" in there, the "you" was a rhetorical one, not you in particular


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 14, 2006)

public policy should never be the result of religious doctrine.

take two cases:

1.  murder is illegal.  just about everybody, regardless of faith, thinks killing when not in personal, life-threatening danger is bad.  the 1% who think otherwise are decidedly crazy.  also, the you can look at societies where that taboo broke down and see very clearly that it's bad for the society as a whole.  

so, yeah, making murder illegal is a good move.  it's not religiously motivated and is has been shown to be good for societies who embrace it as a law.

2.  contraceptive education.  the christians and the muslims historically come down against this.  atheist/agnostics tend to be pro.  so far, (us) public policy is decidedly anti.  all the evidence in countries where contraceptive education is embraced, and in studies regarding contraceptive eductation, show that it's unmitigatedly positive to educate teens about the proper use of contraceptives, especially condoms.  far lower pregnancy, lower STD rate, and -- perhaps counterintuitively -- a higher rate of abstinence among teens who receive contraceptive education.

in this case, public policy against contraceptive education is a bad idea.  it's been demonstrated to have a good effect where it's embraced, but religious beliefs prevent it from coming into force.  

now, if your religion forbids teaching contraception, you should absolutely have the right to ask that your child go read c.s. lewis in the library during that class.  but you should never, ever have any say over whether or not somebody else's child has access to the information.

see also abortion, gay marriage and buying alcohol on sunday.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think any rules should be based around religion, you think that is the only basis.



Nor should policy be made that is restrictive of religion because you disagree with that religion, but that gets done all the time, by both religious and anti-religous groups.  Whether its no displaying "Insert religious symbol here" because its not _everyones symbol_ to "your religious doctorine is not in line with our morals so you cannot worship your way" (such as mormons and multiple wives)

But, again, it happens.  *shrug*


----------



## Ray (Dec 14, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> public policy should never be the result of religious doctrine.
> 
> take two cases:
> 
> 1.  murder is illegal.


Yes, It is but you don't know my reasoning for wanting it illegal.  You only know that we both think it should be illegal and that's enough.  


bushidomartialarts said:


> now, if your religion forbids teaching contraception, you should absolutely have the right to ask that your child go read c.s. lewis in the library during that class.  but you should never, ever have any say over whether or not somebody else's child has access to the information.


I don't believe that my (youngest and last) child should be exempt from attending the class about contraception even if my religion was [hypothetically] against it.  I hope that I teach my children correct principles and that they can govern themselves in a variety of circumstances.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 14, 2006)

Ahhh yea totally different topic but I dont think its a teachers job to teach birth control in public schools. That seems like a parents job or a hooker at least.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

If I buy, vote and make decisions based on my religious beliefs and the majority of my country does the same, thats just tough for you, thats the way our system works. Now punishing or restricting the constitutionally protected rights of someone of different beliefs is wrong, but you will NEVER take the majorities religious beliefs out of American politics/gvt. Its a gvt of, by and for the people and that includes their religious beliefs...much to the atheists chagrin it appears.

A gvt. making "policy" based on religion is wrong and thats what the whole "separation of Church and state" is about. What it isnt about is removing any and all religious expression from public life, which is what it looks like some people want. Showing the 10 commandments in a court building isnt "public policy". A christmas tree in town hall isnt "public policy".

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.



> "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."


-John Quincy Adams


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If I buy, vote and make decisions based on my religious beliefs and the majority of my country does the same, thats just tough for you, thats the way our system works. Now punishing or restricting the constitutionally protected rights of someone of different beliefs is wrong, but you will NEVER take the majorities religious beliefs out of American politics/gvt. Its a gvt of, by and for the people and that includes their religious beliefs...much to the atheists chagrin it appears.




Ok, so suppose the situation reversed, and suddenly the gov't was influenced by the principles of some other religion, or even atheism.  Rules and laws where brought into play that conflicted with your beliefs as a Christian.  Would you feel the same if your beliefs stopped being the ones of the majority?  

Are totalitarian religous governments ok because they reflect the views and religion of the majority and there are no constitiutional protections in place on those matters?

"Majority wins" is a very poor policy as it fials to protect the views, be they religious or otherwise, of the minorities.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

http://www.justafreak.com/christianenemy/christquiz.html


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Ok, so suppose the situation reversed, and suddenly the gov't was influenced by the principles of some other religion, or even atheism. Rules and laws where brought into play that conflicted with your beliefs as a Christian. Would you feel the same if your beliefs stopped being the ones of the majority?
> 
> Are totalitarian religous governments ok because they reflect the views and religion of the majority and there are no constitiutional protections in place on those matters?
> 
> "Majority wins" is a very poor policy as it fials to protect the views, be they religious or otherwise, of the minorities.


 
What do you recommend? That a gvt. ignore the beliefs and desires of the people? In a democratic system, the people vote in people who believe what they believe. Thats the way it is dude. Thats how majority does rule. At least here in the USA. As long as its within the limits of our constitution.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> What do you recommend? That a gvt. ignore the beliefs and desires of the people? In a democratic system, the people vote in people who believe what they believe. Thats the way it is dude. Thats how majority does rule.


 
Which always makes me glad I live in a constitutonal republic that's been built from the ground up to hold the gibbering masses at bay.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2006)

True, we vote for people who believe what we believe and then trust them to make the right decisions so that our government does the right things....But if people are choosing a candidate based on their religion....well, that is just no way to choose a candidate.  

The "masses" tend to vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues.  I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian."  and THAT is what the separation between church and state is.....Granted, those candidate's moral views are probably based on some religious background, but they make decisions to please their party....not their priest.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2006)

I was under the impression George W. Bush's Christian stance on many things got him a number of votes.  The kids in that Jesus Camp movie where even waving there arms and blessing his cardboard cut out...

I also could be wrong, but I am under the impression there has not been a single US President that did not claim Christianity, and very few, if any high ranking politicians.  Especially in the conservative states.

I'm also under the impression that claiming anything but Christianity would, in many states, be political suicide for a candidate.

Am I wrong?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 14, 2006)

Ray said:


> I don't believe that my (youngest and last) child should be exempt from attending the class about contraception even if my religion was [hypothetically] against it.  I hope that I teach my children correct principles and that they can govern themselves in a variety of circumstances.



glad to hear it, but we both know that's not the only attitude floating around.

also, the way textbook publishing works in this country, for the most part you don't get to make that decision.  what gets published and incorporated into curriculum is decided economically, and fairly heavily censored.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 14, 2006)

MBuzzy said:


> T
> The "masses" tend to vote for candidates based on their stance on the issues.  I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian."  and THAT is what the separation between church and state is.....Granted, those candidate's moral views are probably based on some religious background, but they make decisions to please their party....not their priest.



my goodness, but you're optimistic, Buzzy.

if you listen between the lines, a great many of the political ads are saying just that.  especially in '04.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2006)

That is completely right....I am sure that if a presidential candidate were not Christian, it would destroy them....in fact, they would probably never even make it to the race.

I know that I'm just idealistic to think that people vote based purely on the issues....but at least that is how the system is INTENDED to work.  Obviously moral character counts too and having a strong religious background is a moral indicator that people TRUST.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2006)

I know...sometimes too optimistic for my own good...


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

MBuzzy said:


> I've never heard a politcal advertisement say "Vote for me because I'm Christian." and THAT is what the separation between church and state is......


 
No it really isnt. There is nothing at all preventing a candidate from saying "vote for me Im Christian".

Separation means that the civil authority cannot dictate to or control organized religious bodies. The state cannot tell religious bodies what to preach, how to preach or when to preach. Civil authority must exercise a "hands off" approach, neither helping nor hindering religion in society. This is a key issue to understand, because any time the state assumes the power to either help or hinder, the state also acquires the power to do the other. 

 Separation of church and state is a two-way street, however. It isn't just about restricting what the government can do with religion, but also what religious bodies can do with the government. As a consequence, religious groups cannot dictate to or control the government. They cannot cause the government to adopt their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, they cannot cause the government to restrict other groups, etc. 

Note it says "religious bodies" i.e. "The Church" it doesnt mean that each and every one of us as a free citizen cant vote for someone who shares our beliefs. It also doesnt mean that there can be no public expression of religion, only that no civil or legislative process can be made regarding it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Note it says "religious bodies" i.e. "The Church" it doesnt mean that each and every one of us as a free citizen cant vote for someone who shares our beliefs.



The Bill of Rights does function to protect the minority from a situation where free citizens vote their beliefs to the restriction of others.  The Supreme Court  has, does and will strike down state and local laws that seem too religiously derived, or limit freedoms because of a religious belief.

The First Amendment was written by a society founded by people in the religious minority.  Our society has careful safeguards built in to protect folks from 'the tyrrany of the majority'.  

It's only recently that enough citizens of this country don't buy wholesale into the majority christian ethos that some of our long-standing First Amendment violations are being questioned.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

> The Bill of Rights does function to protect the minority from a situation where free citizens vote their beliefs to the restriction of others. The Supreme Court has, does and will strike down state and local laws that seem too religiously derived, or limit freedoms because of a religious belief.



In what way? How can anybody be prevented from voting for a candidate who is Christian, "pro-life" and "anti gay marriage"? Or voting out one that is not? Ultimately any of thoes points, even though they are part of many religious doctrines, can also be argued in a secular manner as well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> I ask you that same question.


 
I'm pretty much skeptical of everything.  I "believe" in nothing.  Thus it is easy to change my opinions on matters.  If someone presents a convincing argument and the evidence is clear that I'm wrong, my ego isn't so large that it prevents me from accepting this.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 14, 2006)

I was actually referring to laws passed by those candidates, or through referral and referendum-type movements.  We all have the right to vote for whomever we like, but once elected they don't get to pass just any old law.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I was actually referring to laws passed by those candidates, or through referral and referendum-type movements. We all have the right to vote for whomever we like, but once elected they don't get to pass just any old law.


 
Of course not, but in general they will support the the causes I believe in. 

That seems to be the biggest beef with some folks. They cant pass a gay marriage bill, for example, because those "dumb red neck evangelicals" keep on voting in people who wont pass one. Well boo hoo, thats just how the system was meant to work. Our "representatives" represent our beliefs, opinions and causes. That was the basic idea in Athens that has survived to this day.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> No it really isnt. There is nothing at all preventing a candidate from saying "vote for me Im Christian".


 
That was Katherine Harris' sole platform come to think of it...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 14, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Of course not, but in general they will support the the causes I believe in.
> 
> That seems to be the biggest beef with some folks. They cant pass a gay marriage bill, for example, because those "dumb red neck evangelicals" keep on voting in people who wont pass one. Well boo hoo, thats just how the system was meant to work. Our "representatives" represent our beliefs, opinions and causes. That was the basic idea in Athens that has survived to this day.


 
Beliefs regarding homosexuality are another religious belief that cannot withstand rational criticism and often Christians find themselves hiding with the "persecution" defense when they discover this.  

Also, our constitution was designed to protect minority groups...which includes people who believe in unpopular things.

This was designed because the founding fathers realized that overiding the will of the masses was sometimes neccesary.

upnorthkyosa

ps - next time sign it...:whip:


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Beliefs regarding homosexuality are another religious belief that cannot withstand rational criticism



Dude... if all it took for it to be ok for someone to believe somthing was that it were RATIONAL, 90% of your conspiracy theory ******** about gasoline, and water burning cars, and all that illuminati nonsense would be laughable.

People believe things because its how they_ feel_, and _feelings_ and _emotions_ are RARLEY rational.  I'd bet 90% of people who are against homosexuality and same sex marriage are against it because to them its just... ooky... and they cant put a "rationale" to that so they hide behind religion as an excuse.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

There are plenty of people who are non religious that are "pro-life", anti gay marriage etc. Its just a lib tactic to lump it all as religious belief.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 14, 2006)

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 1st amendment and more at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt1.html



> The concept of neutrality itself is ``a coat of many colors,''\19\ and
> three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as
> tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were
> part of the same formulation. ``The test may be stated as follows: what
> ...





> In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971), Chief
> Justice Burger remarked that *``the line of separation, far from being a
> `wall,' is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all
> the circumstances of a particular relationship.''* Similar observations
> ...





> ``The course of constitutional
> neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity
> could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to
> insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and
> ...



The first amendment does not mean that religious beliefs cannot enter into our political decision making, only that said laws dont establish one religion over another.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Dude... if all it took for it to be ok for someone to believe somthing was that it were RATIONAL, 90% of your conspiracy theory ******** about gasoline, and water burning cars, and all that illuminati nonsense would be laughable.


 
Um, I've never ever ever said that I believed in any illuminati nonsense.  That kind of shading is very dishonest disreputable.  And everything that I've argued has stood up to the laws of science in which I am aware.  If someone can show me how burning kerosene can weaken or even melt steel in 45 to 90 minutes without the heat being wicked away by conduction and without the temperature even rising to a point where it can melt or even weaken steel, then I'm all ears.

My first assumption is that anything I believe could be wrong.



> People believe things because its how they_ feel_, and _feelings_ and _emotions_ are RARLEY rational. I'd bet 90% of people who are against homosexuality and same sex marriage are against it because to them its just... ooky... and they cant put a "rationale" to that so they hide behind religion as an excuse.


 
And I bet 90% of the people who are against homosexuality feel "ooky" because they were taught to do so.  Someone, who should have known better and thought about the matter, didn't.

Do you feel "ooky" regarding homosexuals?  Why or why not?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> There are plenty of people who are non religious that are "pro-life", anti gay marriage etc. Its just a lib tactic to lump it all as religious belief.


 
I don't doubt that there are a few, but have you bothered to ask them why?  

The majority of people who hold those beliefs are religious, thus it is no stretch to label those beliefs as religious.

It isn't some liberal conspiracy, man...


----------



## Ray (Dec 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Also, our constitution was designed to protect minority groups...which includes people who believe in unpopular things.


Yes, it was instrumental in protecting Native Americans and Blacks who lived in the US during our early years as a nation.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm pretty much skeptical of everything.  I "believe" in nothing.  Thus it is easy to change my opinions on matters.  If someone presents a convincing argument and the evidence is clear that I'm wrong, my ego isn't so large that it prevents me from accepting this.



Well we're very similar then. Though I wouldn't say I'm skeptical of _everything_ or that I believe in _nothing_. But I do have a very open mind and I easily change my opinion on matters. I also don't have a large ego and have no problem admitting my faults or when I'm wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers or get lofty over others I believe are *less educated*, or who hold opinions I consider *stupid*, as many egotistical people tend to do.


----------



## Ray (Dec 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The majority of people who hold those beliefs are religious, thus it is no stretch to label those beliefs as religious.


When I was young, before I had children, I had liberal ideas on the items you mention (abortion,  homosexuality) as well as recreational drug use and death penalty, etc.

After I got a older, having children and grandchildren my views on those items changed to a more conservative position...not because I was religious - I wasn't at that time, I was an atheist;

Only a few years ago I got religion.

However, I did notice that no one really desires to have an abortion and docs don't run specials/sales on them;  No one really desires that their children/grandchildren become homosexual;  and so on.  We do love our children and grandchildren regardless of the choices they make.  And some of us even let others make up their own minds with regard to what they do and how they live their lives.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Do you feel "ooky" regarding homosexuals?  Why or why not?



Nah, I support gay marriage, but only if both chicks are hot.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Dec 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Um, I've never ever ever said that I believed in any illuminati nonsense. That kind of shading is very dishonest disreputable. And everything that I've argued has stood up to the laws of science in which I am aware. If someone can show me how burning kerosene can weaken or even melt steel in 45 to 90 minutes without the heat being wicked away by conduction and without the temperature even rising to a point where it can melt or even weaken steel, then I'm all ears.
> 
> My first assumption is that anything I believe could be wrong.
> 
> ...


 

Well i assume you are speaking of 9/11. Jet planes don't burn kerosean they burn jet a-1 fuel. Burning temp is 980c or 1796 degrees. Steel melts at about 2800 degrees MELTS as in being able to pour it. You know what it is pointless to even try to explain things to you 9/11 Bush did it type. You claim science is the rule but when science disproves one of you theroys you come up with some other excuse. Please........


----------



## Marginal (Dec 15, 2006)

Off topic (unless Bush rigging the towers is taken on faith I suppose) but Popular Science took the time to debunk each conspiracy theory one by one. 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/

Ideally that effort would be worth recognizing and this argument can cease being an undercurrent in every Study thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

Marginal said:


> Off topic (unless Bush rigging the towers is taken on faith I suppose) but Popular Science took the time to debunk each conspiracy theory one by one.
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
> 
> Ideally that effort would be worth recognizing and this argument can cease being an undercurrent in every Study thread.


 
Off topic I know but just about every forum  I've seen, martial arts included seems to carry this kerosene argument along with the Americans causing 9/11. I wonder is it a very widespread belief or just a few fervent supporters posting it everywhere? It seems to cause as many arguments as the conventional religion v science subject. Some of it gets very heated.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2006)

The temperature of the fires has been delt with extensively in other threads.  Look them up.  The bottom line is that FEMA tested the actual steel that was present at the fire site.  They showed that the fire was oxygen deprived and that it was no higher then 500 degrees.  The NIST reports corroborate this...However, they go on to burn jet fuel (which is similar to Kerosene btw) in an air injected furnace in order to show that you can get higher temperatures.  In the end, the 1200 degree mark was used in their report despite the contradiction in the actual test results.

Even this intellectual dishonesty wasn't enough to actually weaken the steel however.  NIST performed tests which showed that after six hours they could only acheive a sag of 1-2 inches in the steel beams.  Thus they modeled the collapse on the computer and artificially inserted a 47 inch sag into the model.  This finally caused the brackets that held the beams in place to give way.

The next line in the NIST report is interesting.  "Global collapse ensued."

Really?  Why?  How?  One would think that there would be quite a bit of resistance if all of the floors were pancaking ontop of one another?  In fact, one would think that it would be impossible for the fall the buildings to fall down in 10 seconds?

It is impossible.  The NIST report does nothing to explain how the buildings went down.  

Does this mean that Bush rigged them to blow in order to finally acheive his illuminati dream of world domination?  Of course not.  It only means that we really don't know what happened yet.  And it is really important that we understand this.  How would you like to be the firefighter that goes into the next steel building that starts burning and not have some assurance that this thing is somehow going to give away?  

Hopefully, fire engineers would be able to look at a well done report so that they could look for signs of this happening again?

All of this leads me to draw a parellel with the topic in this thread.  The NIST reports asks people to believe in impossible things.  Other government reports do similar things.  For instance, the Warren Commission would have you believe that a bullet can make a 90 and 158 degree turn in midair and proceed to cause seven wounds on two different people.  Again, equally impossible.

If you look at what the apologists are saying in regards to both of these events, you'll note they use the word "unprecedented" alot.  In their lexicon, what they really mean to say is miracle.  Violating the laws of physics isn't just unprecedented, it is miraculous.  People, in this country in particular, are taught to believe in miracles from a young age.  Thus, I would say it is easy to understand why so many people would insist on believing in these impossible things.

Thus we come to point of this thread.  What happens when science shows your miracles to be impossible?  What happens when science gives the real explanation for the phenomenon?  What happens when this explanation contradicts what the majority of people believe?  And finally, do you think it is good for a society to have a majority of people so willing to believe in impossible things?

upnorthkyosa

ps - if anyone wishes to debate the facts of 9/11, dig up a thread and read it, then post your stuff if you have anything to add, and if I have time we can discuss it there.  We've already had one warning to stay on topic in this one...


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Off topic I know but just about every forum I've seen, martial arts included seems to carry this kerosene argument along with the Americans causing 9/11. I wonder is it a very widespread belief or just a few fervent supporters posting it everywhere? It seems to cause as many arguments as the conventional religion v science subject. Some of it gets very heated.


 
One of the things that I've noticed is that people in other countries seem to have less of a problem accepting that the governments explanation for 911 is impossible.  And I often wonder if it is the prevelence of religiosity in this country that makes it easier for people to believe in explanations that defy the laws of physics.  I have also contemplated the connection between nationalism and religion.  In our country, patriotism = nationalism and people who identify themselves at patriots, often have an easier time accepting impossible explanations from the government.  Just as someone who identifies themselves as religious would accept the Church's explanation that this or that event is a miracle.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

I've never joined in any of the debates over the conspiracy theories on 9/11, lack of scientific knowledge!  I am curious though over what people believe and why. 
In this country disbelieving _anything_ the government says is mandatory and criticising all people in authority/power is a national pastime. That goes for lay and religious leaders both. I've found Americans though aren't nearly as cynical and jaded as us Europeans (which is a good thing!) We've had the burning of Jews then Protestants then Catholics depending on who was in power and we've had the Crusades, Inquisition and the Pogroms so on the whole religious acceptance (or perhaps it's ennui ) is not such an issue over here any more.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 16, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> In this country disbelieving _anything_ the government says is mandatory and criticising all people in authority/power is a national pastime. That goes for lay and religious leaders both. I've found Americans though aren't nearly as cynical and jaded as us Europeans (which is a good thing!) We've had the burning of Jews then Protestants then Catholics depending on who was in power and we've had the Crusades, Inquisition and the Pogroms so on the whole religious acceptance (or perhaps it's ennui ) is not such an issue over here any more.


 
I wish it were that way over here.  We've had pogroms, genocide, concentration camps, out right lies that have led us into wars, false flag operations, government sponsored torture programs for the purpose of studying mind control, intentional poisoning of people via radiation just to see what would happen, all sorts of terrible things...

And some people STILL buy whatever our government says as gospel truth.  I think we need to be FAR more skeptical of what our public officials tell us and we need to be FAR more critical of their explanations.

That we are not is very interesting...and I'm inclined to attribute it to religiosity because of its encouragement to believe in impossible things.

Like I said before, in all of my travels and in all of my discussions with people from other countries, America is unique in that we are so uncritical.  No wonder the rest of the civilized world charicatures us as doltish, cowboy hat wearing, gun-toting, rednecks.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm not sure what makes Americans seem more "religiously" inclined than other people! I would have associated a belief in miracles with the more Catholic countries in Europe rather than Americans. The arguments you have on abortion, gay marriage etc do seem to be more religion based rather than on human rights and non-religious morals though. The evangelising type of religion seems very popular and to carry a lot of influence, does this carry over to politics? 
I wonder if European governments bear in mind their history and how easy it is to get rid of them more then American governments? It's maybe too that the head of most countries is not the government. Blair is not the head of our country, the Queen is and she does have the power in an emergency to dissolve parliament and call a general election. It was done I believe in Australia a while back. Very few, if any, of our politicians here campaign on any religious platform, religion is regarded very much as a private individual thing. Perhaps that's why we are more cynical? The Muslim faith has come under a bit of flak since the bombs in London but on the whole politics and religion are keep miles apart.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 16, 2006)

THREAD HIJACK.

Must be a conspiracy.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> THREAD HIJACK.
> 
> Must be a conspiracy.


 
Absolutely! We are planning on converting you all to the English religion.... cricket! Funnily enough you can criticise an Englishman's religious beliefs all you like, they don't mind in the least but please don't mention Test matches, Australia and the Ashes it makes them go apolectic with emotion!


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Absolutely! We are planning on converting you all to the English religion.... cricket! !


 
Oh, yeah, like *that* will ever happen.....:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Oh, yeah, like *that* will ever happen.....:lfao:


Don't mock what you don't understand! LOL! it has all the trappings of a religion you know! Mysterious rites, places of worship meticulously looked after by acolytes, hushed voices, singing and many many prayers (mostly for rain!)! We could do worse though, for years English people have been more influenced by cricket rules than any religion. Until recently when it became a professional game it was the epitome of 'fair play' and 'playing the game' and "doing the right thing". The game as played on village greens by amateurs in countless villages across England still has the old fashioned values and while fiercely played is a place where fair play and equality still rule!


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Don't mock what you don't understand! LOL! it has all the trappings of a religion you know! Mysterious rites, places of worship meticulously looked after by acolytes, hushed voices, singing and many many prayers (mostly for rain!)! We could do worse though, for years English people have been more influenced by cricket rules than any religion. Until recently when it became a professional game it was the epitome of 'fair play' and 'playing the game' and "doing the right thing". The game as played on village greens by amateurs in countless villages across England still has the old fashioned values and while fiercely played is a place where fair play and equality still rule!


 

Yeah, but we have baseball-something truly sacred.....and wholly immune from your criticism....


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2006)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, but we have baseball-something truly sacred.....and wholly immune from your criticism....


 
In that case I won't say anything about rounders! 
If people think we've gone off topic, sorry but do think how sport and the supporting of it has taken over in a lot of cases from organised religion. Over here, the Catholic v Protestant argument was always taken to the football terraces in Glasgow when Celtic and Rangers were playing! alot of times you can question a man's beliefs but never the team he supports!


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 18, 2006)

Unsurprisingly, this thread has gone completely off topic.  

It seems to me that there are a great number of people for whom the quest for knowledge and understanding is the underlying foundation of their ongoing pursuits; a great many people are compelled to satisfy their curiosities. 

Our beliefs about who we are, how we fit in, and why we're here are usually quite central to how we derive meaning from what may otherwise be a largely uninteresting and unsatisfying existence. Accepting the foundational importance of these beliefs, it becomes almost certain that our curiosity about these "meaningful truths" will compel us to investigate, debate, and discuss them.

In that regard, I believe that it not only our responsibility as intelligent creatures to debate religious ideas, but, in fact, our very nature.

To suggest that people are "entitled" to their beliefs without criticism would be, to me, quite equivalent to enabling others to live in ignorance. Am I my brother's keeper? No. However, can I feel comfortable allowing my brother to live in ignorance? No. That wouldn't be very responsible now, would it? So, if I believe that what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander, it seems to me that, if I feel it's appropriate to engage others in debate, I too should be prepared to have others assist me in examining my own beliefs. 

With that said, I don't think that it's conducive to social tranquility to run around kamikazi'ing others of different ideas with abusive rhetoric. Respect and tact ought not be forgotten. I believe that those who are genuinely interested in better understanding their reality will, in fact, seek out others to challenge their ideas. Other types of folks will be more interested in wearing the perpetual blinders of quiet acceptance.

I think that the person unafraid of scrutiny is the one with nothing to hide.

So, to more specific opinions, then:

Should we have the right to criticize?  Absolutely.  

Should we criticize?  If asked to do so.

Should we engage others in debate?  As often as possible.

Can any good come from unrequested criticism?  Not likely.  A cup filled up can hold no more.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2006)

As I said before the word 'criticism' is the main barrier to people sharing or examining beliefs.I have my beliefs, I am more than happy to share with anyone interested in them and I do examine what I believe in. The word criticism means to non academics that you intend to basically rip their beliefs apart and ridicule them. Most people will get defensive about things if they feel they are under attack. I prefered Flatlanders words of investigate,debate,discuss and examining. To criticise also comes from the premise that  'you are right and they are wrong' whuch will set peoples backs up immediately. Should people be protected from uninvited criticism of their beliefs, yes but they should feel able to discuss and debate why they have those beliefs.


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 19, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> As I said before the word 'criticism' is the main barrier to people sharing or examining beliefs.I have my beliefs, I am more than happy to share with anyone interested in them and I do examine what I believe in. The word criticism means to non academics that you intend to basically rip their beliefs apart and ridicule them. Most people will get defensive about things if they feel they are under attack. I prefered Flatlanders words of investigate,debate,discuss and examining. To criticise also comes from the premise that 'you are right and they are wrong' whuch will set peoples backs up immediately. Should people be protected from uninvited criticism of their beliefs, yes but they should feel able to discuss and debate why they have those beliefs.


 
All good points Tez. Criticism is what results from a critique, but in order to do this, there must be some baseline to compare religion to. Is there some sort of standard set of morals we should base this from? Usually morals come from some sort of religion or societal values, even though there is quite a bit of overlap between them all.

It still comes down to what's good for me may not be good for you. No-one is ever going to agree on one standard.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 19, 2006)

it's hard to accept criticism for something like religion, a sports team, or your choice of martial arts.  for example, what happens when you ask a certain person one of the following:

"is evolution real, or is creationism right?"
"could the niners beat the raiders this year?"
"can a traditional martial artist win a real fight against a mixed martial artist?"

these are usually choices based on something emotional, which means they won't hold up in actual, informed debate.  anything we can't defend rationally tends to get our hackles up.  we get defensive, the person critiquiing us gets frustrated, the whole conversation is a) no fun and b) not interesting.

now, these choices, as irrational and emotional as they are, still lead to a lot of good.  faith, team spirit and martial training help us all live more joyful lives.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In our PC society, we often find that certain religious people, be they muslim, buddhist, hindu, jewish or christian, hide behind the fact that their views on reality are religious and thus they are immune from criticism.
> 
> For example, if you are a 6 day, 6000 year Fundamentalist Christian creationist and you find that your beliefs are assailed by the scientific community, one can seek refuge in the fact that you are being "persecuted" for your beliefs.
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely not. I hold that people get upset when their beliefs are questioned because they lack the amount of faith they profess to have in the first place. Those secure in thier beliefs are not so easily upset by someone questioning them. They instead view it as an opportunity to educate the masses!


----------



## Arizona Angel (Dec 19, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:


> Absolutely not. I hold that people get upset when their beliefs are questioned because they lack the amount of faith they profess to have in the first place. Those secure in thier beliefs are not so easily upset by someone questioning them. They instead view it as an opportunity to educate the masses!


lol, I am very comfortable with the "I'm not sure" answer.  I believe what I believe because I "feel" it's right, at least for me.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2006)

I don't mind debating my religion with anyone just please don't tell me you want to convert! Actually a long time ago I was told that if you live your life in a good way that will say more than anything about your faith. You don't have to preach or claim you are right, just live in a way that shows you try to do right by people and treat them as you want to be treated. when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter how you think the world was made, after all it's history now! It matters more, and if you believe in a God I'm sure you'll think he'll agree, how we behave _now_! I can't think God thinks arguing how he made the world whether in a flash bang of creationist smoke or by the slower evolved method actually matters when there are starving people to be feed or wars to end. If you believe God made the world - he made the world, it's a world we are rapidly destroying however it was made and I think He'd much rather we fixed it than spend time pointlessly arguing.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 19, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:


> I hold that people get upset when their beliefs are questioned because they lack the amount of faith they profess to have in the first place. Those secure in thier beliefs are not so easily upset by someone questioning them. They instead view it as an opportunity to educate the masses!



I disagree. I have no problem with questions, I don't expect everyone to agree with me nor do I claim to have all the answers.  What I have a problem with is when people become so arrogant in there _own_ beliefs that they call anyone who doesn't agree with _them _*stupid* *foolish* etc. No one should presume that I have come to a conclusion on any belief I hold because I am *too stupid* to see it _their_ way. Because of course, _they_ have _all_ the answers and anyone who can't see it is an imbicile compared to the ultimate wisdom they possess.  There are highly intelligent people in _both_ camps. 



> Actually a long time ago I was told that if you live your life in a good way that will say more than anything about your faith. You don't have to preach or claim you are right, just live in a way that shows you try to do right by people and treat them as you want to be treated. when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter how you think the world was made, after all it's history now! It matters more, and if you believe in a God I'm sure you'll think he'll agree, how we behave _now_! I can't think God thinks arguing how he made the world whether in a flash bang of creationist smoke or by the slower evolved method actually matters when there are starving people to be feed or wars to end. If you believe God made the world - he made the world, it's a world we are rapidly destroying however it was made and I think He'd much rather we fixed it than spend time pointlessly arguing.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> What I have a problem with is when people become so arrogant in there _own_ beliefs that they call anyone who doesn't agree with _them _*stupid* *foolish* etc.



You beat me to this... this is what is passed off as "Criticism" nowadays.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 19, 2006)

to be fair, i think some (not all) of that is .... self-inflicted isn't the right word.

i know a lot of folks who are simply curious how creationists can hold to their beliefs given the mountain of contrary evidence.  there's not really judgment there.

and yet, when they ask as politely as possible, the Christian in question has gotten so used to being called 'stupid' or 'gullible', that they hear those words in the honest question as well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 19, 2006)

When does holding a belief that is contradicted by a mountain of evidence cross the line and become foolish?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> i know a lot of folks who are simply curious how creationists can hold to their beliefs given the mountain of contrary evidence.  there's not really judgment there.



Show me some of the "Evidence"... Show me evidnce that "Nothing" turned inexplicably into SOMTHING thru science.

There is a lot of theory, and "We _believe_ that this is happening therefore, we _assume this must have_" blah blah, but no real hard factual proof... yet creationists are the only ones who are deluded.  Yeah ok.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> When does holding a belief that is contradicted by a mountain of evidence cross the line and become foolish?



When actual factual evidence exists to prove it and not conjecture and theory maybe...

Its foolish to believe the earth is not round.

Its not so foolish to belive that ghosts exist, despite the fact some folk will try and tell you it is, because of some science.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2006)

It may be foolish to believe that the world was created in days but does it really matter that people believe this? It may frustrate the scientifically minded that people don't believe the evidence but I can't see how it matters. I'm sure we all have foibles and traits that annoy other people (just ask spouses and partners!) but when push comes to shove does it matter? The main thing is that we tolerate each other, not push our views on others and behave decently towards each other. There's too much to do in this world, too much too worry about without fussing over someone elses beliefs! 
In the last census in the UK we were required to state our religion, thousands put Jedi down! Foolish or a way of telling the government to mind their own business?


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 20, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Show me some of the "Evidence"... Show me evidnce that "Nothing" turned inexplicably into SOMTHING thru science.
> 
> There is a lot of theory, and "We _believe_ that this is happening therefore, we _assume this must have_" blah blah, but no real hard factual proof... yet creationists are the only ones who are deluded. Yeah ok.


 
They cant.

To explain the unexplainable, they say well, it must have taken millions upon millions of years for this to have occurred, that's why you don't see it today...


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> It may be foolish to believe that the world was created in days...


Is that any more foolish than to believe the universe (albeit a small one) and the physical laws of nature were created in seconds and minutes?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2006)

Ray said:


> Is that any more foolish than to believe the universe (albeit a small one) and the physical laws of nature were created in seconds and minutes?


 
To be honest I don't actually care how the universe was created! Oh I know that's not intellectually and academically correct thinking! I do like the mysteries of life though! I don't want everything explained away either by science or religion. I don't want 'love' to be explained as just hormones and such or that the sun rising in the morning is caused by the moving of the earth or whatever. I like to look at the dawn and just go 'wow', watch a baby sleeping and go "aww'. I'm easily pleased I guess!


----------



## bydand (Dec 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I don't actually care how the universe was created! Oh I know that's not intellectually and academically correct thinking! I do like the mysteries of life though! I don't want everything explained away either by science or religion. I don't want 'love' to be explained as just hormones and such or that the sun rising in the morning is caused by the moving of the earth or whatever. I like to look at the dawn and just go 'wow', watch a baby sleeping and go "aww'. I'm easily pleased I guess!



Tez, i wish I could give you some reppy points for this post, but it says I have to spread it around some more first.  This is a great post!

Sometimes you need to just have moments like these to keep life interesting and not just an academic endeavor.  (I know I spelled it wrong, I guess I should have spent more time in my academic studies . )


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 20, 2006)

Cheers Bydand! I was brought up to revere education, my brother and I went to private schools and on to university.I had a good career in the RAF as an Intell officer. I got married and had a son who was going to do much the same. Then my brother who at the time was 20 got very ill with liver problems, he took six horrible years to die, he died a couple of days before my daughter was born, that was 21 years ago. Since then my outlook on life has been completely different. Neither of my children went to uni, both are healthy and happy doing what they do. My daughter lives with her wonderful boyfriend (who's not Jewish, who cares? she's happy!) they're out in Dubai working at the moment. My son's 30 and not married, who cares?
We want to take the wonder out of everything, make everything mundane and explainable. Put things in their place neat and tidy. Life isn't like that though, we need to experience life not examine it away! Which is more fun staring up at the stars in wonder and admiration (preferably with a loved one) or keeping your head down and thinking it's all down to the Big Bang? 
Ladies and gentlemen, you can criticise anything anytime but do make sure you have some fun too! Just my tuppenceworth.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> We want to take the wonder out of everything, make everything mundane and explainable. Put things in their place neat and tidy. Life isn't like that though, we need to experience life not examine it away! Which is more fun staring up at the stars in wonder and admiration (preferably with a loved one) or keeping your head down and thinking it's all down to the Big Bang?


 
One of the best statements in this thread.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 20, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Show me some of the "Evidence"... Show me evidnce that "Nothing" turned inexplicably into SOMTHING thru science.
> 
> There is a lot of theory, and "We _believe_ that this is happening therefore, we _assume this must have_" blah blah, but no real hard factual proof... yet creationists are the only ones who are deluded.  Yeah ok.



seriously, cryo.  this is the sort of thing i'm talking about.

we'll gloss over the defensive, confrontational tone part.  you've spent much of this thread feeling/being attacked.  

evidence in favor of evolution:  fossil record, observable evolution in living species under both natural and experimental conditions, creation of amino acids in replicable experiments using only electricity and simple carbon chains.  it's not conclusive, but it's certainly suggestive.

evidence in favor of creationism:  a poem.

i'm not trying to knock faith.  my faith is a strong force in my life.  but being dismissive of the science is not the way to win this debate.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2006)

I dont think thats Cryo's argument (as I read it). I read it as people who place all their "faith" in science need to realize that science doesnt contain all the answers. And as history has shown many of the "laws" of science have been proven to be wrong too. Just as science is showing that there are the possibilities of many dimensions and "realities" other than ours, the possibility of the "spiritual" existing as well as the "material" is not too large a step.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 20, 2006)

i agree completely with that point.  in a hundred years, they'll find our scientific 'truths' as quaint as people today consider some things we thought were true back in 1906.  probably moreso.

but to make the statement that there's more evidence of creationism than evolution is to show a willful blindness to the available information.

genesis was a poem, fer cryin out loud.  a poem.  next, people will be telling me there are no atoms because they read 'horton hears a who' and The Book says that the universe is built of tiny little fractal whovilles.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2006)

I think that people are confusing the words faith and guess.  Science isn't faith based.  It's guessing and then attempting to see if your guess happens to be right.  

Faith isn't guessing.  People don't believe in God because its best guess they have based on the relevant evidence.  They simply believe that he or she or it exists.

Science isn't like this.  It's not done like this.  And people who are "doing" science don't think like this (and if they do, they are doing bad science).

The bottom line is that if it were all just a matter of faith, then there would be no discussion here.  Scientific principles would carry no more weight then any faith based principles because there would be no logical way to discern between the two.

The reality is that science always trumps faith.  It does this because it is based on the relevant evidence that is known at the time.  Thus, science is humanities only path to glimpse the reality that surrounds us.  Francis Bacon knew this when he designed the scientific method.  And it was this insight that led to the existential mythos and Friedrich Neitzche's proclamation.

"God is Dead."

Believe in God all you want.  However, IMHO, the realization that this belief will tell you more about yourself and less (probably nothing) about the universe is very important.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> "God is Dead."


 
What this statement fails to realize is that God is still important for a great many people.  This concept can be a powerful tool to learn about oneself...and that is always important.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 20, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> evidence in favor of evolution:  fossil record, observable evolution in living species under both natural and experimental conditions, creation of amino acids in replicable experiments using only electricity and simple carbon chains.  it's not conclusive, but it's certainly suggestive.



 Ya know Bushido, for my part... no where in here have I stated "God did it, it says so in the Bible so you are all wrong" I have simply said show me some proof that The Big Bang is real... so don't talk to me about "My source" being a poem.  I simply find the idea that SOMTHING (and you will notice I said SOMTHING before, not "GOD") put everything here far more plausable than the idea that "Nothing" made EVERYTHING.

Yeah, so, onto your "proof": You have a small amount of evidence to prove adaptation, but nothing proving speices have ever made that jump from one to another... and again, "creation of amino acids in replicable experiments using only electricity and simple carbon chains." is still using _somthing_ to create _somthing_...  If you wanna make that leap, ok... It doesn't fly in my book.  My point is, as BH stated, that Science has no actual proof just theorys and ideas packaged as "Fact" to those that want to believe that science knows best, but really, you are just taking the popular scientists word as your faith, and trying to disguse it as somthing other than faith because you believe you have evidence *that doesn't exist*.  I can demonstrate non-sequiter proof of events from the bible, but it doesn't make the writings in there any more factual than the non-sequiter proof of events that science claims to have prove the big bang happened, or that my ancestors were a carbon chain that turned into an amoeba, that turned into a monkey...

Here is my challenge to all of you...

Show me undeniable *PROOF* that God Created the Universe.
or
Show me undeniable *PROOF* that Nothing suddenly Exploded and became everything.

I Bet a weeks pay neither side can come forward on that with anything real...

But at least *I* take it on faith and admit it, I'm not arrogant enough to claim FACT where there is none.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2006)

I could come up with some pretty good evidence that it is 13+ billion years old, and that it is expanding, and that it is cooling down.  I imagine someone with actual study done in that area could do substantially better.  Yet no one will get you back to the big bang, just a short time after it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2006)

Nicely put Cryo. It seems that anybody with any sort of belief in God gets lumped in as a Bible totin, Darwin hatin, close minded, neo-con evangelical Christian. Just because I believe in God and dont believe that Science will ever have "all the answers" doesnt make me an uneducated luddite. 

I find many of the "science worshipers" I come across very arrogant and condescending in their belief that "they" are the enlightened amongst all us savage "religious types".


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 21, 2006)

Just for some clarification...The theories that are being talked about here do not include anything about "something" from "nothing."  In fact, quite the opposite, the theory and observations to support that theory actually include ideas about what exactly the universe came from.

"In physical cosmology, the *Big Bang* is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony)." ~ Wikipedia (Granted, a user based source, but this is consistent with theory and each of these references can be found outside of that source as well, please feel free to continue researching)

The explanation that was given to me was that of a balloon - only in this case, a super compressed molecule of extremely high temperature, pressure and density.  The Balloon popped (more accurately expanded...we don't think it was an explosion, just an expansion) and everything escaped and began expanding and has been ever since.  A very elementary analogy, but it works.  An argument that I have heard is that "Balloons don't pop themselves" meaning something had to cause that molecule to begin expanding....that is definately an argument for the existance of God - the one that put it all into motion. 

But the bottom line is that there is evidence that the universe is still expanding.  

Another point of clarification - no one ever suggested that any species "jumped" from one to another.  The evolutionary theory suggests that these changes took place very very gradually over the period of thousands of years.  I remember growing up that everyone was looking for the "missing link."  But now I wonder what they are talking about....the fossil record shows an obvious progression, the fact that we don't know at what point Cro-Magnon man achieved self awareness and the other traits that make us human doesn't mean that it didn't happen gradually.  By gradually, I mean over thousands of years.  Now, on this point, I have also heard the argument that something distinguished humans from "apes" or our evolutionary ancestors and that God must have given them that "spark" of consciousness at some point and I can see that as a perfectly viable argument for the existance of God and _to me_ (for what that's worth!) seems much more likely than *Poof* there's a guy there now.  oh yeah *poof* now there's a woman.  

If you are missing one piece of a puzzle - you still know what the picture is.  

If any of this is in error, please correct me.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2006)

"In physical cosmology, the *Big Bang* is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle."

Ok so who made the tremendously hot and dense state and the Big Bang then? Own up now!
Go back as far as you like, something started it all, why not God?
My beliefs don't bother anyone, well at least no one recently has called me names for being Jewish and I actually have no problem with the science, if God is all powerful it's likely that a bit of chemistry and such is not beyond him is it?

I don't know if you can get hold of them, I think they are worldwide now but there are two sets of DVDs, Blue Planet and the Living Planet by David Attenborough you should watch. They are actually nature/wildlife films put out by the BBC?discovery channel. They contain the most breath taking and stunning pictures you will ever see, watch them with your children because some of those plants and animals may never be seen again. While we sit here at our keyboards arguing over who started the world *WE *are destroying it. Watch these films, get some wonder back in your lives! Trust me you'll love it then we can get together to save what we have left without bitter arguments about science v faith. Both will be needed if we aren't to destroy what is a very beautiful world.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 21, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Ya know Bushido, for my part... no where in here have I stated "God did it, it says so in the Bible so you are all wrong" I have simply said show me some proof that The Big Bang is real... so don't talk to me about "My source" being a poem. I simply find the idea that SOMTHING (and you will notice I said SOMTHING before, not "GOD") put everything here far more plausable than the idea that "Nothing" made EVERYTHING.



This line of reasoning makes the same _a priori_ assumption that Thomas Aquinas made. Namely, that an infinite chain of causation is impossible, that there had to be a "beginning" at some point. The only reason given for this?? Just because.



Cryozombie said:


> Yeah, so, onto your "proof": You have a small amount of evidence to prove adaptation, but nothing proving speices have ever made that jump from one to another...



If one completely ignores the fossil record, perhaps. This gives a good overview of some of the pertinent data. 



Cryozombie said:


> ....and again, "creation of amino acids in replicable experiments using only electricity and simple carbon chains." is still using _somthing_ to create _somthing_...



The Miller-Urey experiments simulated the hypothetical conditions in which life began on Earth. The success of such experiments have simply demonstrated that the proposed conditions of abiotic Earth were more than sufficient to initiate chemical evolution.



Cryozombie said:


> ....If you wanna make that leap, ok... It doesn't fly in my book. My point is, as BH stated, that Science has no actual proof just theorys and ideas packaged as "Fact" to those that want to believe that science knows best, but really, you are just taking the popular scientists word as your faith, and trying to disguse it as somthing other than faith because you believe you have evidence *that doesn't exist*. I can demonstrate non-sequiter proof of events from the bible, but it doesn't make the writings in there any more factual than the non-sequiter proof of events that science claims to have prove the big bang happened, or that my ancestors were a carbon chain that turned into an amoeba, that turned into a monkey...



With all due respect, Cryozombie, it is readily evident you do not possess a science education. Most of the misnomers you are arguing are addressed in the first day of a Biology 101 class. 

Laterz.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2006)

That last line is a very good one, *Tez* :tup:.

... whoops, there was an intervening post whilst I was typing ... I was referring to *this* line:

"Both will be needed if we aren't to destroy what is a very beautiful world."

I am an agnostic and so have yet to cast my vote on the 'God' issue as I'm still collating data (as they would say on Star Trek ).  

However, I too have noted that these days Science (deliberate capitalisation) has started to show a disturbing trend towards dogmatism that is every bit the equal to the 'closed-book' appraoch of some Religions.

Peer Review is supposed to be the method by which ideas and theories are winnowed out so that only the 'probable' survive.  However, it seems now that if a scientist does not toe the 'party line' then he/she has very little chance of getting any money to do any of that research we *really* need to expand the frontiers of knowledge (because if we don't get a better technology paradigm than the one we have then we're not going to make it).


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 21, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Nicely put Cryo. It seems that anybody with any sort of belief in God gets lumped in as a Bible totin, Darwin hatin, close minded, neo-con evangelical Christian. Just because I believe in God and dont believe that Science will ever have "all the answers" doesnt make me an uneducated luddite.


 
An interesting historical phenomenon is that the hypothetical "answers" science will "never" have access to keep getting smaller and smaller with each passing generation. People used to make the same accusations in regards to the weather, physical illness, space travel, and a dozen other things.

Of course, the only reason given for this assumption? Just because.



Cryozombie said:


> ....I find many of the "science worshipers" I come across very arrogant and condescending in their belief that "they" are the enlightened amongst all us savage "religious types".


 
To be fair, it isn't the "science worshipers" (whatever that means) that maintain everybody that disagrees with them are going to be tortured in a fiery pit for eternity.

Laterz.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 21, 2006)

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your position *Heretic* and can understand (if you work in the field of the Sciences) why you would get agitated by what you might perceive as deliberate 'fact blindness' but it should be borne in mind that a number of salient 'truths' in Evolutionary Theory are actually assumptions and suppositions.

The oft quoted example of the vacuum flask experiments is, to me, proof of nothing other than under certain proscribed conditions you can get certain amino acids to form.  It is not, for me, proof that if those conditions exist then some mysterious anti-entropic force will cause 'life' to spontaneously erupt from these simple chemicals if you wait long enough (the simplest of organic structures being unbelievably more complicated chemically than an amino acid).

There is a good deal of observational data that species develop _once_ they exist but there is none that I am aware of that shows a transition from one form to another.  The 'chain of man' is a construct of the imagination of some scientific thinkers and is not convincing if you don't start with the mind set that 'that looks similar to that so it must be related biologically'.  I've seen the supposed development of homo sapiens mapped through various hominids and, absent genetic proof, it is a theory based almost solely on visual similarity - to me that is not sufficient.

On the other hand, there is convincing genetic research that shows that all of us came from a single pair of individuals, with their origins being on the African sub-continent.  To me that was a shock when it was posited but it made compelling viewing when I watched a documentary on the subject.  It was particularly interesting that there was a point in the chain when the numbers of 'us' that there were dropped to a very low level - which rang bells with all the 'catastrophism' legends in religions and myths.

Anyhow, my point is, I suppose that there is no solid proof for anyone to say with absolute confidence whether there is a God or whether we (and the Universe) are the product of a fortuitous coincidence of statistical anomalies.

When that proof emerges, I'll no longer be an agnostic but until then, well, this fence I'm sitting on is quite comfortable .

__________________

Just as a post script, to properly lay my cards on the table so to speak; if I was a betting man, I do have to admit that I'd be less likely to put my money on there being a God and more likely to back the Science 'horse' .


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 21, 2006)

It's rare I get exasperated by arguments, I'm female, Scorpio and stroppy at times and like a good debate but I'm afraid this one is making me more and more frustrated. the question started out as 'should religions be immune from criticism,' fairly easy that... yes or no. A lot of people gave their opinions, all perfectly valid I believe even if I don't agree with some of them. Now we are down to one argument - science v faith. How did the world start? Well excuse my language ( and I believe it goes along with the thread going off topic) but who the hell cares how the world started when we are facing killing it off! 
 I personally won't criticise any belief, scientific or not, if someone is happy with it and _it doesn't effect anyone else_.I may be amused, bemused or even irritated by some beliefs but criticising it is rather like saying I don't like the colour of someones eyes. I don't feel pity for anyone who doesn't believe in God nor feel superior to anyone who takes things literally from the Bible or other book in the face of scientific proof that it couldn't have happened. Jewish saying "Everything is foretold *but freewill is given*" 
Freewill.... believe what you want as long as you harm no one.


----------



## Ray (Dec 21, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> An interesting historical phenomenon is that the hypothetical "answers" science will "never" have access to keep getting smaller and smaller with each passing generation. People used to make the same accusations in regards to the weather, physical illness, space travel, and a dozen other things.


It's probably not that the number of answers science has is growing.  It's more likely that the new answers are becoming more correct over time.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 21, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> genesis was a poem, fer cryin out loud.  a poem.



Where did you hear this? I never heard anyone call the book of Genesis a poem before. The Psalms, yes. But not Genesis. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> People don't believe in God because its best guess they have based on the relevant evidence. They simply believe that he or she or it exists.



That's not true. Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming. It takes more faith to believe something came into existence without a creator than it does to believe something was created. The evidence for evolution is not that surmountable. We have evidence only of microevolution. There are no fossils of *link* species. We have not been able to recreate the evolution of one species into an _entirely _different species. 

There is a former Chicago Tribune Journalist named Lee Strobel. He was an atheist to the core. He thought the idea of God and creation was silly and  decided to use his investigative skills to prove it. He ended his investigation as a believer. This was not his intent. The fact of the matter is that the evidence FOR the truths presented in the Bible are overwhelming and modern science continually ends up with evidence to support it. Macroevolution and the big bang are nothing more than theories. 

Many intelligent people who have *faith* have come to their conclusion not because it's "their best guess" but because they have taken a long hard look at both sides of the fence and made their decision based on real evidence. 

I wonder how many atheists and/or agnostics have truly, _truly, _investigated the evidence FOR God and creation as much as they put blind faith in the big bang and the theory of evolution? Lee Strobel, who was a harded journalist out to get to the truth of all matters with hard core facts, meant to DISPROVE it, and he couldn't. All he could do was find evidence FOR it. 

Anyone who is not too close-minded to give both sides of the fence an honest look can find the book here. But somehow I think most won't want to do that. There's just something about it they don't want to know and it's _easier_ to not have to confront that within themselves. 

Don't presume, once again, that people who have *faith* make that decision blindly. It is stupid to believe something "just because". Many who believe do so because of the overwhelming evidence to support their decision and have given _both_ sides of the fence a thorough examination.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 21, 2006)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with some of your position *Heretic* and can understand (if you work in the field of the Sciences) why you would get agitated by what you might perceive as deliberate 'fact blindness' but it should be borne in mind that a number of salient 'truths' in Evolutionary Theory are actually assumptions and suppositions.


 
Correction. Those with a superficial understanding of the field posit they are assumptions and suppositions. This does not mean there actually are.



Sukerkin said:


> The oft quoted example of the vacuum flask experiments is, to me, proof of nothing other than under certain proscribed conditions you can get certain amino acids to form. It is not, for me, proof that if those conditions exist then some mysterious anti-entropic force will cause 'life' to spontaneously erupt from these simple chemicals if you wait long enough (the simplest of organic structures being unbelievably more complicated chemically than an amino acid).



The Miller-Urey experiments (which are not actually part of evolutionary theory at all) successfully demonstrate that the conditions believed to have existed on abiotic Earth can naturally produce the "building blocks" of life (i.e., amino acids). Also, regarding your query, the article I cited does provide some information concerning recent research:

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one (Brooks et al. 2002).​


Sukerkin said:


> There is a good deal of observational data that species develop _once_ they exist but there is none that I am aware of that shows a transition from one form to another.



Once again, please reference this site.



Sukerkin said:


> The 'chain of man' is a construct of the imagination of some scientific thinkers and is not convincing if you don't start with the mind set that 'that looks similar to that so it must be related biologically'. I've seen the supposed development of homo sapiens mapped through various hominids and, absent genetic proof, it is a theory based almost solely on visual similarity - to me that is not sufficient.



Chronological morphological adaptations may not be sufficient for you, but then again your claim that the "chain of man" is a "construct of the imagination" in itself speaks volumes of your own understanding of the subject matter. Or rather, lack thereof.

But, you know what? You're right. I mean, it's just as likely that as Austrolepethicus was walking the earth some few million years ago, he was just magically "blinked" out of existence within the span of a few thousand years and the morphologically similar Homo Habilis was magically "blinked" into existence at roughly the same time in exactly the same geographical locales. Furthermore, a few epochs later, the same things happened when Homo Habilitis was magically "blinked" out of existence and replaced by the morphologically similar Homo Erectus that magically "blinked" into existence at around the same time frame in the same areas of the world.

Furthermore, we see a similar trend of magical "blinking" with just about every fossil species we have evidence of. That's it! The theory of magical blinking replaces the theory of evolution!! Why didn't I see it before?!

Ninja, please.....


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 21, 2006)

Ray said:


> It's probably not that the number of answers science has is growing. It's more likely that the new answers are becoming more correct over time.


 
I would argue it is a both/and scenario, not an either/or scenario.

It is true that our existing methodologies become more efficient and fine-tuned with the passage of time and peer review. But, it is also true that new methodologies are periodically developed (what Kuhn called "revolutions" in science) and this brings about entirely new bodies of data that were previously inaccessible.


----------



## Cirdan (Dec 21, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming.


 
You might find this interesting...
http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 21, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> You might find this interesting...
> http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html




I'm not surprised really, I separate *religion* from evidence for the existence of a Creator. I am not a religious person at all. I do believe in the existence of God. Religion is a set of rules you follow for some "benefit". You put your forehead on the ground facing east and pray to Allah at 12 noon everyday. You go to confession and cross yourself at mass every week. You baptize your babies so they won't go to hell. You blow yourself up in the name of Allah so you can go to heaven. You shoot the abortion doctor in the name of Jesus.

Those practices which are harmful to nobody are pointless to me, and the ones that are harmful to anybody are just plain stupid. What intelligent person would blow themselves up or kill another person in the name of God, or waste their time with any pointless ritual. For the less intelligent it is their *ticket* to heaven. That has nothing to do with evidence supporting a Creator. Also note this quote concerning the *data*:



> Remember my missive about correlation vs. causality? We're not entitled to conclude causality from these data, but there are three possibilities:
> 
> 1. Considering religion important lowers measured IQ (unlikely, since IQ is substantially genetic whereas belief is not).
> 2. The causality is via other factors not considered, such as socio-economic conditions, cultural history, or physical environment (definitely possible).
> ...


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 21, 2006)

boy, i missed some exciting action while i was away.  teach me to go enjoy a few hours in a soft bed with a good book.  

first, cryo, if i've offended you i apologize.  i enjoy informed debate, but certainly didn't mean for this to become personal.  there have been some personal attacks on your intelligence and education, and i think that's out of line.

and yes, you're right:  there is no conclusive evidence for either evolution or creationism.

but riddle me this, for the sake of informed debate.

there is a whole pile of suggestive evidence, interpreted by keen and fairly objective minds, that points to evolution as the best understanding of the evidence at hand.

you clearly support a contrary stand, and can deliver some interesting points against the majority interpretation of the opinion.  what evidence do you have in favor of creationism?  this is not meant sarcastically, i'm keen to see it.

for my money, argument is a waste of time.  you'll never change my mind and i'll never change yours.  but i like to boil it down to the roots:  what hair is splitting that leads to our differing opinions?  that's always interesting and worthwhile.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 21, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> but riddle me this, for the sake of informed debate.
> 
> there is a whole pile of suggestive evidence, interpreted by keen and fairly objective minds, that points to evolution as the best understanding of the evidence at hand.
> 
> you clearly support a contrary stand, and can deliver some interesting points against the majority interpretation of the opinion.  what evidence do you have in favor of creationism?  this is not meant sarcastically, i'm keen to see it.



Nope, as I stated above, there is no proof either way... Just as you say, with science that there is "Suggestive Evidence" but that doesnt *prove* anything, and by the same token, there is *no proof that my beliefs are correct either*... the only thing that gets my undies in a bundle is people who try and present what science _*THINKS*_ as FACT and therefore everyone else is stupid... Im not offended by you or your stand, but certain other folk, moreso.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 21, 2006)

that's an interesting stance.  what 'suggestive evidence' leads you to support what could be termed a compromised source?


----------



## mantis (Dec 21, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In our PC society, we often find that certain religious people, be they muslim, buddhist, hindu, jewish or christian, hide behind the fact that their views on reality are religious and thus they are immune from criticism.
> 
> For example, if you are a 6 day, 6000 year Fundamentalist Christian creationist and you find that your beliefs are assailed by the scientific community, one can seek refuge in the fact that you are being "persecuted" for your beliefs.
> 
> ...


i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin.  I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism.  The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others".  so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 21, 2006)

Oh, Jade....



Jade Tigress said:


> Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming.


 
"Evidence" that cannot be independently replicated and subjected to public fallibilism is not "evidence" in the scientific sense of the word. At present, there is no way to hypothetically falsify the existence of a personal deity and therefore the issue remains agnostic as far as science is concerned.

I find your Anonymous Appeal to Authority ("lots of smart guys say X") rather interesting, though. The statistical data I have come across indicate that belief in a personal deity is not strongly correlated with either IQ or educational level. From religiosity and intelligence:

In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[3] A recent study in 2005 by Rice university professor has shone considerable light on scientists religious beliefs. The study concluded that 38% of natural scientists, 24% of doctors, and 31% of social scientists said they do not believe in God. The study consisted of 1,646 faculty at elite-research universities.[4]

A 1998 survey[5] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study[6] which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba[7]. These studies have been somewhat criticized by a number of different groups, not necessarily religious. This is as a result of the fact that the study was by mail and received a return rate of 50%.​ 


Jade Tigress said:


> It takes more faith to believe something came into existence without a creator than it does to believe something was created.



As I stated beforehand, it is an _a priori_ assumption to suggest a "creation" or "beginning" is necessary to begin with. We have no good reason to believe that an infinite chain of causation is impossible, as Thomas Aquinas mistakenly believed.



Jade Tigress said:


> The evidence for evolution is not that surmountable. We have evidence only of microevolution. There are no fossils of *link* species.



This claim is demonstrably untrue. Please see CC200: Transitional fossils and CC050: Hominid transition.



Jade Tigress said:


> We have not been able to recreate the evolution of one species into an _entirely _different species.



The reason for this is twofold. One, we do not know what conditions are necessary for macroevolution to occur. Two, if fossil records are any indication, the process of macroevolution should take hundreds, perhaps thousands, of generations to take place.



Jade Tigress said:


> There is a former Chicago Tribune Journalist named Lee Strobel. He was an atheist to the core. He thought the idea of God and creation was silly and decided to use his investigative skills to prove it. He ended his investigation as a believer. This was not his intent.



I'm not sure what it is about journalism training that you think grants one an expert understanding of natural science, philosophy, history, and archaeology, but I have read Strobel's _The Case for Christ_. His arguments are easily refuted by any first-year undergraduate history major and were expertly debunked in Earl Doherty's _Examining the Verdict_.



Jade Tigress said:


> The fact of the matter is that the evidence FOR the truths presented in the Bible are overwhelming and modern science continually ends up with evidence to support it.



And what "truths" would that be?? The creation of the world six millenia ago in the span of a week? A world flood some four and a half millenia ago? A mass enslavement of "the Jews" in Egypt followed by a subsequent mass "exodus"? A vast Davidic "empire" that encompassed entire regions??

There is no "evidence" for any of these events. Furthermore, the Old Testament (or Torah) itself was not even written down until near the close of the Babylonian Captivity, which is why many Jewish religious motifs bear resemblence to Babylonian mythology and philosophy.

The New Testament fares just as poorly, such as maintaining the census of Quirinus and the reign of Herod took place during the same time, that the first century Jews required their people to wash their hands before eating, or that the Jews had an annual custom of releasing criminals on Passover. And let's not even get into the nonsense that gets passed for Judean geography!!

That literalist apologists claim there is "overwhelming evidence" does not mean such evidence actually exists. However, I am genuinely curious as to where you are getting your information about some of your "science" claims, because it is certainly at odds with majority scholarship in the relevant fields.



Jade Tigress said:


> Macroevolution and the big bang are nothing more than theories.



I am honestly surprised you would resort to such an obviously contrived and nonsensical line of argumentation. A "theory" is a big deal in science and does not mean at all what it does in popular vernacular.

However, if you want to go that route, I could just as easily argue that Biblical tales (including the belief in God) are "nothing more" than Bronze Age folk stories. 



Jade Tigress said:


> Many intelligent people who have *faith* have come to their conclusion not because it's "their best guess" but because they have taken a long hard look at both sides of the fence and made their decision based on real evidence.



Such "evidence" has never been submitted for public scrutiny and therefore is not genuine "evidence". 



Jade Tigress said:


> I wonder how many atheists and/or agnostics have truly, _truly, _investigated the evidence FOR God and creation as much as they put blind faith in the big bang and the theory of evolution? Lee Strobel, who was a harded journalist out to get to the truth of all matters with hard core facts, meant to DISPROVE it, and he couldn't. All he could do was find evidence FOR it.



Having read _The Case for Christ_, I can honestly say that having Strobel on one's side isn't exactly an award-winning endorsement. 



Jade Tigress said:


> Anyone who is not too close-minded to give both sides of the fence an honest look can find the book here. But somehow I think most won't want to do that. There's just something about it they don't want to know and it's _easier_ to not have to confront that within themselves.



Been there, done that. Not impressed.

Laterz.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 21, 2006)

mantis said:


> i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin.  I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism.  The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others".  so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.



my goodness, that was helpful.


----------



## bydand (Dec 21, 2006)

I wasn't going to post in this thread because my belief is a personal thing and I don't care what others may think, but decided I should, just because I should be willing to state my position.  Personally, someone can come up with the most convincing argument against God or any other higher power and it still wouldn't hold water with me.  Call me weak minded, stupid, gulliable, or whatever; really don't care (and I'll put my IQ up against 96.7% of the population any day of the week, at last testing anyway.)  Belief is something that cannot be quantified, or measured with any accuracy, and that is the portion that is missing with the scientific argument.

Simply put, in the eyes of the world, I'd rather be a stupid believer and be wrong in the end, than be a noted scholar who doesn't believe and be wrong at the end.  End of argument for me.  Any reply about how dim I probably am because I can cast out the ideas of simple men compared to the one I believe in; just makes me smile and think about sending the person a bag of marshmallows for their afterlife as I believe it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 21, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> that's an interesting stance.  what 'suggestive evidence' leads you to support what could be termed a compromised source?



As I said I have none... I'm gonna dumb me feelings on this down a bit... this isnt the best example, but I'm gonna run with it.

Joe Science Guy says "See that light in the sky, its an ailen spacecraft"
I say "Huh?  How do you know that?"
Joe Science Guy "Its brighter than a typical plane, and it moved in an unusal pattern, I've never learned of anything else that moves that way, and is so bright, but Bob Science Guy once theorized that alien Craft would be capable of that, therefore it must be true, it's an alien craft."
I say "Uh, how do you know it cant be somthing heretofore undiscovered?"
Joe Science Guy says: "Wow you are uneducated, look at the facts I laid out, that is the answer, period.  You have no evidence its anything else, and I have evidence it is."

No proof its an ailen craft, but Suggestive Evidence that it MAY be.  Doesn't make it true tho. You just need to decide who you wanna believe.

Oversimplified, and dumbed down, sure.  But really... I don't think any of us, in our lifetimes, or our fathers lifeimes, or their fathers lifetimes, or their fathers lifetimes, etc etc etc... even saw somthing create itself from nothing.  Call me Uneducated or Stupid, but I cannot, cannot, cannot wrap my head around the fact that everything just made itself out of nothing...

Then, even if you look at the fossil record, science says "well, even tho there is no evidence, we believe this step and this step and this step exisisted, therefore it must have, and we have unrefutable proof of evolution." again with no proof... or that a Single celled organism can become somthing so compiclated and unlikley to survive a mutation, let alone rise to domanance in the animal kingdom  as a creature that required 2 seperate sexes to propagate... 

The idea of it is, to me, if nothing else, mindblowing... that everything, against the odds happened... by chance and on its own... and it all started because in nothing, a ball of fire started burning  nothing, and exploded into everything.  In my mind there is no way, and until "God Science" can replicate it, starting with Vaccum, Turning Vaccum into flame without intoducing anything into the vaccum, and then having the flame explode into billions of stars, hunks of rock, and billions of lifeforms... I still cant wrap my mind around the impossibility of it all, just to write it out.

The only "Scientific" answer that would make any sense to ME, but its not what science is even proposing... is that everything simply always was.  The planets and stars have existed since the beginning of... well, ever... and then other stuff happened... but that throws science theory out the window too, since thats not thier claim.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 21, 2006)

mantis said:


> i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin. I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism. The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others". so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.


 
Ahh yes the "westerners are soooo bad" argument. Lets all just shut up and go flog ourselves.

Why are the arts so full of Asiophiles that hate their own culture? If you read about the eastern culture you will see its as full of human frailty, war, waste, hate, xenophobia and religious persecution as any other. So spare us all the "westerners" are arrogant crap.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Dec 21, 2006)

fair enough, cryo.  that's a well-put together argument.

i feel much the same way about string theory.  sometime in my twenties, physics became a subject for which i need a willing suspension of disbelief.

as far as 'well, shoot, it's always been this way', that makes as much sense as what i figure:  cyclical big bangs and big crunches.  

the questions that keeps me up at night is, if we do have cyclical big bangs and big crunches, does history repeat itself every time?  do souls get recycled just the once, and we live our lives again and again?  or do we keep on getting reincarnated throughout the process?

and that still doesn't leave room for a prime mover.  but heck, no prime mover makes a lot more sense than strings.


----------



## Ray (Dec 21, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> I would argue it is a both/and scenario, not an either/or scenario.
> 
> It is true that our existing methodologies become more efficient and fine-tuned with the passage of time and peer review. But, it is also true that new methodologies are periodically developed (what Kuhn called "revolutions" in science) and this brings about entirely new bodies of data that were previously inaccessible.


I'm not sure that "bodies of data" and "new methodologies" catch the flavor.  Methodology is "how" you do something, not necessarily how you do something new.  Data is information, and just like manufacturing execution software which has been "improving" all these years, the trick is "what do we do with the data."

Once upon a time stripping the bark of a tree and eating it was cutting edge medical science. Punch cards, 9" floppies, etc.  And still there is fundmentally nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2006)

bushidomartialarts said:


> i feel much the same way about string theory. sometime in my twenties, physics became a subject for which i need a willing suspension of disbelief.


 
Heck, I felt this way when I began to study quantum mechanics.  How can something be there and not there at the very same time?  How can all possible paths, traveled by a photon, be traversed at the very same time?  How in the heck can an object "tunnel" through another solid object *faster* then the speed of light?

A professor of me once told me, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."  All of this is very hard to wrap our minds around...and I totally understand Cryo's point, how can we ask someone to believe in these "impossible" things and not believe in other "impossible" things?

The difference is that, when it comes to quantum mechanics, _there has never been an experiment performed which has contradicted the predictions of this theory_.

Sometimes, things that humans would consider to be *impossible*, really do happen.

Does this mean that all impossible things are fair game?  Does this mean that the impossible things described by religion hold the same weight as the "impossible" things described by science.

No.

You can "see" quantum mechanics with your own eyes.  You can perform any of these experiments and recreate the results...exactly.  You don't have to "believe" in quantum mechanics at all, but these "impossible" things described will still happen.  Your belief is irrelevent.

"God" exists in our minds and in our hearts...and universe expands completely oblivious to that belief.  In other words, "she bangs all by herself, baby."


----------



## Brother John (Dec 22, 2006)

This is sort of a sticky issue, but it's interesting.

I don't think that religious thought or rationale should be immune to criticism.
Neither to I think it should be at the mercy of it either. Logic can be applied to most religious thought and I think it should be, but it's only one way of thinking and it doesn't explain everything...it doesn't always hold the answers.
There's a great deal of mystery in life and most religions address this. Trying to apply logic or reason to "mystery"....and you'll soon arrive at an impasse.

Your Brother
John


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 22, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> Nope, as I stated above, there is no proof either way... Just as you say, with science that there is "Suggestive Evidence" but that doesnt *prove* anything, and by the same token, there is *no proof that my beliefs are correct either*... the only thing that gets my undies in a bundle is people who try and present what science _*THINKS*_ as FACT and therefore everyone else is stupid... Im not offended by you or your stand, but certain other folk, moreso.


 
With all due respect, Cryozombie, this is utilizing semantic quibbling to completely obfuscate the discussion.

One of the more alarming aspects of assertions such as these is an apparent ignorance of the _fundamental terminology_ used in the sciences. Science has "methodology", "data", "hypotheses", "theories", and "laws". They don't have "proofs", that is the sole province of mathematics. To claim that science asserts any given explanation is "proven" or is "fact" demonstrates a considerable lack of relevant science education.

Your assertions sound to me as if you have gotten all your "science" information from drunken undergrad students berrating you at a bar around midnight. If you actually spend some time perusing academic journals or academic textbooks, it will become readily evident that the line of argumentation and terminology you attribute to "scientists" is, in fact, almost never used in academia.

As with Jade Tigress' claims about "science", I have to really question _where_ you're getting your information from. It certainly isn't from a science classroom nor a scientific journal.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 22, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> As I said I have none... I'm gonna dumb me feelings on this down a bit... this isnt the best example, but I'm gonna run with it.
> 
> Joe Science Guy says "See that light in the sky, its an ailen spacecraft"
> I say "Huh? How do you know that?"
> ...


 
As I stated beforehand, this line of argumentation does not take place in academia. Wherever you are getting your information from, it is not from academic sources.

Also, "suggestive evidence" is a nonsensical term in science. Either data supports a given hypothesis or it does not. It doesn't "suggest" anything.



Cryozombie said:


> Oversimplified, and dumbed down, sure. But really... I don't think any of us, in our lifetimes, or our fathers lifeimes, or their fathers lifetimes, or their fathers lifetimes, etc etc etc... even saw somthing create itself from nothing. Call me Uneducated or Stupid, but I cannot, cannot, cannot wrap my head around the fact that everything just made itself out of nothing...



Who, exactly, maintains the universe "created" itself from "nothing"??



Cryozombie said:


> Then, even if you look at the fossil record, science says "well, even tho there is no evidence, we believe this step and this step and this step exisisted, therefore it must have, and we have unrefutable proof of evolution." again with no proof...



Having some familiarity with the hominid fossil record, I have to conclude this line of reasoning is based on a fundamental ignorance of such a record. More than one person has claimed on this thread that there are no "transitional" fossil forms. This is demonstrably incorrect and I have more than once posted links that refute such claims.

That being said, the whole "missing link" line of argument is rather intriguing nonetheless. It is basically saying that because some numbers are missing from a number line, that therefore the number line doesn't exist.



Cryozombie said:


> The idea of it is, to me, if nothing else, mindblowing... that everything, against the odds happened... by chance and on its own...



This is a Straw Man. This proposition is not maintained in contemporary science.



Cryozombie said:


> The only "Scientific" answer that would make any sense to ME, but its not what science is even proposing... is that everything simply always was. The planets and stars have existed since the beginning of... well, ever... and then other stuff happened... but that throws science theory out the window too, since thats not thier claim.



Probably because it is not supported by evidence. The thing about science is that it is evidence based, not based on what "sounds good".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 22, 2006)

Ray said:


> I'm not sure that "bodies of data" and "new methodologies" catch the flavor. Methodology is "how" you do something, not necessarily how you do something new. Data is information, and just like manufacturing execution software which has been "improving" all these years, the trick is "what do we do with the data."


 
Nah. Any data is only as good as the methodology that produces it.

And that's really the point, there. Data doesn't just sit "out there", waiting for all and sundry to just walk by and pick it up. Data is _created_ by utilizing specific methodologies. That is why data is only as good as its methodology.

To answer your query, new methodologies are developed periodically in the sciences. Prior to Sigmund Freud, for example, there was absolutely nothing like free association and that methodology has provided a body of data that far surpasses Freud's rather unsupported ideas about development.

Laterz.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 22, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Your assertions sound to me as if you have gotten all your "science" information from drunken undergrad students berrating you at a bar around midnight.



Well, you and John.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 22, 2006)

*Admin note:  Thread closed.

My previous warning was to take sidebar conversations in to separate threads - that would include debates on creationism, the creation of evidential data, scientia vs. religion as a general topic, etcetera.

This thread has gone on long enough - the original topic has been long since lost and now this thread seems more about people taking potshots at each other's belief systems and ideations on the faith postulate.

I invite everyone to breathe, meditate, pray, stare at Scientific American or a petrie dish, whatever floats your boat, finish your shopping and entertain more polite, focused threads later.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator
*


----------

