# DNA wasn't invented then



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Just when I think creationists cannot possibly utter anything more stupid than they already have, they put another marker down.

http://www.news.com.au/national/cre...-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234

I thought the explanation that "DNA wasn't invented then." was so astoundingly stupid I had to post this article.




> PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there is fossil evidence to prove it.
> Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking Religious Instruction (RI) classes in Queensland despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools.
> Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.
> Critics are calling for the RI program to be scrapped after claims emerged Christian lay people are feeding children misinformation.
> ...


----------



## Omar B (Aug 3, 2010)

Funny.  They never cease to amaze me.  But then, they deny carbon dating is accurate because they believe the world is what, 3000 years old?  How does that account for things we know predate that?  Conspiracy?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

What is taught in public schools in Australia is hardly my business.  However, my opinion is that religious instruction does not belong in public schools.

It would appear that Queensland, Australia has a different opinion.

http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/schools/scmpr021/



> *Statement of intent*
> 
> Queensland state schools embrace a multitude of cultural, religious and non-religious beliefs and encourage students to grow and develop as a whole person, in particular, in beliefs, values and attitudes. It is important to ensure that schools respect the background and beliefs of all students by not promoting, or being perceived as promoting, any particular set of beliefs in preference to another. In the case of Religious Instruction, parents are provided with the option to withdraw their child's participation in the program.
> Queensland state schools support religious diversity by allowing for three distinct programs:
> ...



It would appear on the surface that what you are objecting to is children being taught nonsense.  This I understand.  However, if it is religious nonsense, believed by those of that faith, and taught in accordance with the existing law in Queensland regarding such things, I fail to see the problem.

One recurring issue I see with atheists, agnostics, and others not of a religious persuasion, is that they want to restrict teaching based on what they see as the illogic inherent in some (or all) religions.  This will never fly.  Banning all religious content from public schools seems quite appropriate to me, but objecting to legal content on the basis that it's outrageously idiotic is not acceptable.  Legal idiocy is taught all the time.

Personally, I would be desirous of getting RI out of Queensland public schools, were I a citizen of Australia.  The content is of far less concern to me.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 3, 2010)

When I was still living in Jamaica in schools we had a class named "Religious Education" which should really have been called christian education since in no way did it cover any other faith.  But it was not taught in place of anything else, or at the expense of something else (like science) so it didn't bother me, I got to sit in the back and do my math homework before I got home.

I would sit there, not say anything, maybe chuckle a bit under my breath while the Priest taught.  It's as if he didn't realize that a good 3rd of the room were Hindu or Muslim or atheist.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 3, 2010)

Funny, that most religious people that I know would view this as nonsense also. Mainstream religion doesnt preach this stuff.

I always believed in one school system, no religious schools, and no private schools. To me having the kids learning, playing with and sitting beside those of other cultures/beliefs will help their tolerance and expand their knowledge of others as they get older. Then once a week have an ethics or religious class for an hour or two that the kids can go off to as their parents wish. But itll all never happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Funny, that most religious people that I know would view this as nonsense also. Mainstream religion doesnt preach this stuff.



Depends on your idea of 'mainstream' I guess.  Catholicism doesn't teach this, but I know plenty of fundamentalists who do believe such things.  They may not state it as oddly as "DNA wasn't invented then," but they do believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs and come with some remarkable apologetics to explain their beliefs.



> I always believed in one school system, no religious schools, and no private schools. To me having the kids learning, playing with and sitting beside those of other cultures/beliefs will help their tolerance and expand their knowledge of others as they get older. Then once a week have an ethics or religious class for an hour or two that the kids can go off to as their parents wish. But itll all never happen.



I like the public school system in general, but I do not mind private schooling as an alternative, even if it is based upon religion.  With regard to the USA, while the state has no business promulgating a state religion, they also have no business telling parents what beliefs to instill in their children or restricting education based upon religious content.

The state has a vested interest in producing citizens who are capable of assuming their adult responsibilities as law-abiding citizens, workers, producers, consumers, tax payers, and members of an informed electorate.  They not have a vested interest in inculcating either religious values or the lack of same; that domain belongs properly to parents and religious institutions, IMHO.

To that extent, I believe in standardized testing for all, private or public or even home-schooled.  I believe completion of high school should be mandatory.  I would like it if higher education was within the means of everyone who could gain admittance on grounds other than financial, perhaps by a period of national service (military or civil) to pay back the investment made in them.


----------



## Carol (Aug 3, 2010)

You folks paying attention to what is going on in *your own* districts?   

Or is it easier to point and laugh at others....and skip that whole "getting involved" thing?

How many of you folks have researched the credentials of the folks that are teaching your children math and science?  Do they actually have degrees in the field they teach instead of just degrees in education or teaching?  

The scuttlebutt here about teachers that will (in the coming school year) be teaching high school Chemistry.   None have a degree in Chemistry or a background in Chemistry.  The unspoken reason why they want the job is because the science jobs pay more.

I have no issue with paying a science teacher $70,000 per year to work 9 months out of the year.  But that science teacher damn well better have a masters or higher in the field they are teaching for that pay.

But....that won't be a story that makes the internet newswire, eh?  The unusual extremists are more newsworthy than the real problems.


----------



## teekin (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What is taught in public schools in Australia is hardly my business. However, my opinion is that religious instruction does not belong in public schools.
> 
> It would appear that Queensland, Australia has a different opinion.
> 
> ...


 
Bill, having religious studies as an _elective_ is I think a very very good idea. 
 I think there is Amazing worth in studying religion and theology. I don't think it's ever too early or too late to learn critical thinking skills. 
  I guess I still have faith that most people, given ALL the facts, will make sound rational choices. I think kids will hear the incongruent Gobble-de-Gook and be able to sort it out for themselves quite easily. They have access to too much information to be easily fooled. Exposure to this kind of thinking will make them More critical of just what they are being taught, and encourage them to question ideas. ( how can you not believe in protazoa? :drink2tha I mean,  just how much KoolAid do you need to drink?)  Mind, this is coming from a champion of the Zombie Survival classes, soooooo . . . . :lookie:


I think my new favorite phrase is "_* but the Great Flood may have skewed the data *_". That is obfusication Gold! I'm going to use it as often as possible.  Goes with the new Avatar. :uhyeah:

Lori


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It would appear on the surface that what you are objecting to is children being taught nonsense. This I understand. However, if it is religious nonsense, believed by those of that faith, and taught in accordance with the existing law in Queensland regarding such things, I fail to see the problem.


 
The problem is exactly that they are teaching kids nonsense.  They can teach kids that pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so , but then will prevent 100% of ever becoming physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians etc.

 Or worse the religious maniacs will manage to convince the academic and licensing organizations that pi equal to 3 is perfectly okay, good look flying a plane or crossing a bridge engineered by anyone using pi equal to 3.


----------



## teekin (Aug 3, 2010)

Carol said:


> You folks paying attention to what is going on in *your own* districts?
> 
> Or is it easier to point and laugh at others....and skip that whole "getting involved" thing?
> 
> ...


 
Holy crap. How can they teach what they don't understand? In high school? What happens when these kids walk into a University Chem class and 1st off the hop is getting a handle on particle/wave function math? So you can Do your 1st Lab????? Good God. That's stupid and short sighted for the country as a whole. 

Lori


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Bill, having religious studies as an _elective_ is I think a very very good idea.
> I think there is Amazing worth in studying religion and theology. I don't think it's ever too early or too late to learn critical thinking skills.
> I guess I still have faith that most people, given ALL the facts, will make sound rational choices. I think kids will hear the incongruent Gobble-de-Gook and be able to sort it out for themselves quite easily. They have access to too much information to be easily fooled. Exposure to this kind of thinking will make them More critical of just what they are being taught, and encourage them to question ideas. ( how can you not believe in protazoa? :drink2tha I mean,  just how much KoolAid do you need to drink?)  Mind, this is coming from a champion of the Zombie Survival classes, soooooo . . . . :lookie:
> 
> ...



Religious *Studies* is not the same as Religious *Instruction*.

I have no problem with classes that teach _"This is what religion X believes."_  Fine and good.  I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded classes that teach _"Here is what you believe."_

Learn about Islam?  Fine.  Learn about Christianity?  Fine.  Learn about Judaism?  Fine.  Be inculcated in those beliefs?  Not fine.  IMHO.

One of the many problems with teaching religion instruction instead of religious studies is as you just demonstrated - deciding which beliefs are OK and which ones are too weird or outlandish.  You don't believe man hunted dinosaurs for dinner?  Fine, me neither.  But that's not outlandish or strange for a person who choose to believe that.  I don't think it should be taught in schools; nor do I believe that children should be taught that Jesus died for our sins.  Leave it to religious instruction, conducted outside of public school and not on my taxpaying dime.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> The problem is exactly that they are teaching kids nonsense.  They can teach kids that pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so , but then will prevent 100% of ever becoming physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians etc.
> 
> Or worse the religious maniacs will manage to convince the academic and licensing organizations that pi equal to 3 is perfectly okay, good look flying a plane or crossing a bridge engineered by anyone using pi equal to 3.



You say it's nonsense.  Those who believe in it say it isn't.

When you get into those arguments, you cannot win.  There is no objective test that will cut cleanly enough to permit some religious instruction (on the grounds that it is not idiotic) and not others (on the grounds that it is idiotic).

I've been reminded enough times that my belief in the salvation afforded me by a crucified man is rather ludicrous too.  Perhaps no more so that a belief that man rode around on brontosauruses.

I object to religious instruction in public schools, period.  Allowing some and not others on the basis of personal beliefs in what is insane and what is reasonable belief just isn't logical.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the many problems with teaching religion instruction instead of religious studies is as you just demonstrated - deciding which beliefs are OK and which ones are too weird or outlandish.  You don't believe man hunted dinosaurs for dinner?  Fine, me neither.  But that's not outlandish or strange for a person who choose to believe that.  I don't think it should be taught in schools; nor do I believe that children should be taught that Jesus died for our sins.  Leave it to religious instruction, conducted outside of public school and not on my taxpaying dime.


 

  Now that we agree on 100%,  religious studies (not instruction) are taught at every secular university, not a problem for me for the kid who may take an interest in it and might want to study religion further in higher education.

 One can hardly eliminate the study of religion when it has had such a profound effect on all of history.

 Teaching creationism, or instruction in a public school system should like you say be banned.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've been reminded enough times that my belief in the salvation afforded me by a crucified man is rather ludicrous too.  Perhaps no more so that a belief that man rode around on brontosauruses.




  Believing in your salvation by a crucified man will not prevent you from becoming a biologist, paleontologist , genetic researcher etc....believing in the Flintstones will.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Believing in your salvation by a crucified man will not prevent you from becoming a biologist, paleontologist , genetic researcher etc....believing in the Flintstones will.



Perhaps so, but that's also none of the government's business.  The line is drawn where federal needs end and parental rights begin.

What is 'best' for the child is none of the government's business, to put it bluntly.  IMHO.

Anyway, I recall what scientific progress has been brought to us via various members of faiths I consider outlandish and possessing of weird beliefs, such as the Church of Latter Day Saints.  My opinion of the oddity of their beliefs does not seem to prevent them from producing geniuses and contributing members of society.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Perhaps so, but that's also none of the government's business.  The line is drawn where federal needs end and parental rights begin.
> 
> What is 'best' for the child is none of the government's business, to put it bluntly.  IMHO.



  Bill it is the government's and by proxy the rest of society's business.  The very fact that in every developed nation it is the law that a child needs to get a basic education means we have already given tacit approval to the government being somewhat involved in the raising of children.

  It would be both negligent and immoral for the government (and by proxy every one of us) to legislate that children need an education and then not be involved in what that education consists of.

  I don't want to get all Dawkins here but there may be an argument for child abuse with that type of indoctrination.

 Take for example (okay this is extreme) the case of Omar Khadr, indoctrinated in fundamentalist Islam by his parents and who ended up killing a US soldier in Afghanistan.

   That this whole tragedy was the result of child abuse looks to be a valid argument with me.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is no objective test that will cut cleanly enough to permit some religious instruction (on the grounds that it is not idiotic) and not others (on the grounds that it is idiotic).



There is in this case.  The teachers in question made claims that go beyond metaphysics and into the testable and known realms of science.  It doesn't matter what you believe - DNA was "invented" before the dinosaurs, and we can prove it.

You might as well say that a religious instruction claiming that the Earth was flat could not be shrugged off as nonsense.


----------



## Carol (Aug 3, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Holy crap. How can they teach what they don't understand?



In a word:  Tenure.  In a state that pays teachers very well (and rightfully so).



> In high school? What happens when these kids walk into a University Chem class and 1st off the hop is getting a handle on particle/wave function math?


Perhaps they are have already decided that the kids from that part of town -- which is more diverse and more economically challenged -- simply  won't be getting that far.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Now that we agree on 100%,  religious studies (not instruction) are taught at every secular university, not a problem for me for the kid who may take an interest in it and might want to study religion further in higher education.
> 
> One can hardly eliminate the study of religion when it has had such a profound effect on all of history.
> 
> Teaching creationism, or instruction in a public school system should like you say be banned.



Back in the 1970's, when people didn't have their panties in such a twist over it, I took a course in High School called _"World's Great Religions."_  We learned some of the core beliefs of several major religions, we visited various religious centers (church, mosque, temple, and etc) and it was fine.  No one taught religion; they taught about religion.  I see this, as you do, as a valuable and even necessary aspect of being a global citizen.

None of us kids got bent out of shape over it.  It was an elective course; no one had to take it to graduate.  If a person signed up for it and decided it was not to their liking, they could drop it.  It was a very popular course, just the same.

Kids are often not as stupid as their parents.  They can tell the difference between learning about a religion and being taught that religion.

So in this sense, we completely agree.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2010)

Learning about religions is in and of itself a good thing, just as any study provides a benefit of some kind.

When I was at school, we had a non-elective class called Religious Education and in it, over the course of three years, we not only looked into the various flavours of Christianity but also those faiths that are now causing so much trouble in the world.  We covered Buddhism too and Judaism.

It (and the teacher) taught me a lot about how to be tolerant of what might appear to be strange or 'brewed for the weak minded' views.  The best of this little trip down memory lane is that the class was taught by a man widely travelled in the various 'Holy lands' and deeply knowledgeable about the faiths he taught us about - guess what religion he was?  Aye, he was an atheist! :lol:.

It's only when religious people themselves start to exhibit some facet of "my way or the highway" intolerance that I get strongly critical of any faith.  Well that and denying scientifically grounded and developed theories by simply uncritically quoting the dogma of their religion.

Of course, I don't always hold to that moral and sometimes I stray into ridicule or dismissiveness.  I can't help that, it is an unfortunate facet of my nature that 'deliberate stupidity' gets my goat; but at least I have the decency to be embarrassed at myself afterwards .


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Bill it is the government's and by proxy the rest of society's business.  The very fact that in every developed nation it is the law that a child needs to get a basic education means we have already given tacit approval to the government being somewhat involved in the raising of children.
> 
> It would be both negligent and immoral for the government (and by proxy every one of us) to legislate that children need an education and then not be involved in what that education consists of.
> 
> ...



It is a great argument.  I disagree with it, but it's a great argument.

The problem is that it involves a balance between the needs of society and the rights of citizens, including the right to raise their children as they see fit; to include bizarre religious beliefs if they so wish.

In the USA, the government is prohibited from establishing a state religion, or from favoring one religion over another.  It is also forbidden from infringing on anyone's right to worship as they please.

While I agree with you that teaching of religion does not belong in public schools, I agree for other reasons; I don't like your reasons.

I am not concerned with 'what' in this case; I'm concerned with 'why'.  We agree what - religion should not be taught in public schools.  We disagree on why.

If the 'why' it should not be taught is that such teaching creates a potential danger to society (your current example) or such beliefs are just wrong (your first argument) or such beliefs will damage the potential future ability of the child to become, for example, a biologist (your previous example), one sets the state up as arbiter of what religion is OK to teach and what religion is NOT OK to teach.

This is dangerous for several reasons.

First, the arbiter of religion possesses enormous power to oppress any religion at the expense of any other.  It basically does set up a 'state religion' to the extent that the religion is 'state approved'.

Second, it directly leads to oppression of religion by simple extension of logic.  If it is dangerous to teach a child radical Islam in public schools, it is just as dangerous to teach it in a private school, in the home, or in the mosque.  And it is - I doubt many would disagree with your argument.

BUT - if the state has the obligation to restrict the teaching of such dangerous religious beliefs in the school, then they MUST also have the right to restrict it in the home and the mosque.

Freedom is not always conducive to an orderly society.  Rights rub up against each other and cause problems.

I come down on the side of individual rights in such cases.  Society has a say, but where it infringes on individual liberties, society must step back.

That means future Omar Khadr's will exist.  Society has the right to protect itself against such people.  That does not extend to denying Omar's parents from teaching him whatever they feel they should.

And frankly, I'm not even sure you can draw such a bright shining line anyway.  Adam Gadahn's parents did not teach him radical Islam.  David Koresh's parents did not teach him whatever it was he ended up believing.  Same for Jim Jones, etc, etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2010)

I've never understood why these people's faith isn't strong enough to accept that if G-d made us and everything he could do it anyhow he liked! The fact that there were dinosaurs, etc doesn't mean there isn't a creator. They aren't very good at the 'accepting' G-d thing are they, even he has to conform to their views! 
Everyone should be free to believe what they like but sadly these people want G-d in their image not the other way as it's supposed to be, that's why they want everyone believing as they do. It's a weird power trip.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Well that and denying scientifically grounded and developed theories by simply uncritically quoting the dogma of their religion.



There will always be those for whom the reasons the sky is blue escapes them.  However, it is blue, and if they think it is because God wants it that way, I don't have a problem with it.  I'm fond of science.  I'm not convinced that what we call _'science'_ today won't end up on the trash heap of history, along with aromatherapy and phrenology.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I've never understood why these people's faith isn't strong enough to accept that if G-d made us and everything he could do it anyhow he liked! The fact that there were dinosaurs, etc doesn't mean there isn't a creator. They aren't very good at the 'accepting' G-d thing are they, even he has to conform to their views!
> Everyone should be free to believe what they like but sadly these people want G-d in their image not the other way as it's supposed to be, that's why they want everyone believing as they do. It's a weird power trip.



I want your religion to make sense to me.  If it doesn't, it's ridiculous.  Because my logic is the only logic there is.

You exhibit the same behavior the people you describe do.  You want their religion on your terms, not theirs; just as they want their religion on their terms and not yours.

It *is* a weird power trip.


----------



## crushing (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm glad to see this discussion turn in to something much more than the generalization of "stupid" creationists based on a single comment by a single teacher.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> There is in this case.  The teachers in question made claims that go beyond metaphysics and into the testable and known realms of science.  It doesn't matter what you believe - DNA was "invented" before the dinosaurs, and we can prove it.



The world wasn't created in seven literal days and we can prove it.

So what?



> You might as well say that a religious instruction claiming that the Earth was flat could not be shrugged off as nonsense.



I don't care if it's nonsense or not. That's entirely beside the point.  Religion is based on belief.  My only point is that it doesn't belong in public schools, paid for by taxpayer dollars.  I don't really care how compatible with current scientific belief this religion or that religion happens to be.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I want your religion to make sense to me. If it doesn't, it's ridiculous. Because my logic is the only logic there is.
> 
> You exhibit the same behavior the people you describe do. You want their religion on your terms, not theirs; just as they want their religion on their terms and not yours.
> 
> It *is* a weird power trip.


 


Well thanks for the insults again, I don't want their religion to be anything in particular, I'm just going by what *they* quote, ie about G-d creating man in his own image, having total faith etc. I'm exhibiting no behaviour whatsoever other than wondering why you have decide to insult me for no reason. I don't give a monkeys what they believe, I'm just bemused as to why they constantly contradict themselves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Well thanks for the insults again, I don't want their religion to be anything in particular, I'm just going by what *they* quote, ie about G-d creating man in his own image, having total faith etc. I'm exhibiting no behaviour whatsoever other than wondering why you have decide to insult me for no reason. I don't give a monkeys what they believe, I'm just bemused as to why they constantly contradict themselves.



I did not mean to insult you.  My point was that we all do it - filter reality through our own point of reference.

When you say you will never understand why they don't just accept that X and Y and Z, it's no different from them saying they do not understand why you do not just accept that A and B and C.  We see X, Y, and Z as self-evident and not requiring any special ability to grasp; they see the same thing about A, B, and C.  From their point of view, there is no contradiction.  That you *you* (and *I*) see one isn't their problem, it's ours.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not mean to insult you.  My point was that we all do it - filter reality through our own point of reference.
> 
> When you say you will never understand why they don't just accept that X and Y and Z, it's no different from them saying they do not understand why you do not just accept that A and B and C.  We see X, Y, and Z as self-evident and not requiring any special ability to grasp; they see the same thing about A, B, and C.  From their point of view, there is no contradiction.  That you *you* (and *I*) see one isn't their problem, it's ours.



I've come to the conclusion, after years of trying, that

You can't debate faith with logic, or vice versa.  The languages used tend not to mesh.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I did not mean to insult you. My point was that we all do it - filter reality through our own point of reference.
> 
> When you say you will never understand why they don't just accept that X and Y and Z, it's no different from them saying they do not understand why you do not just accept that A and B and C. We see X, Y, and Z as self-evident and not requiring any special ability to grasp; they see the same thing about A, B, and C. From their point of view, there is no contradiction. That you *you* (and *I*) see one isn't their problem, it's ours.


 
Well actually no, I was taking their frames of reference and not understanding why they don't stick to them. I wasn't using my frames of reference, merely going by what they say they believe but they then manage to say something opposite. I don't care what they believe but constantly deviating from their 'official' views is confusing. If they believe in the literal word of the Bible as they say they do, there's no dinosaurs in it so why are they saying men and dinosaurs walking around at the same time? if they believe in the literal creation why are they tryng to explain dinosaurs and DNA? Either they believe or they don't, they can't have it all ways. They are trying to hedge their bets and be right about everything. I'd respect them more if they stuck to their guns and said totally and utterly that the Creation was it, nothing else. I wouldn't believe it but that doesn't matter, it's about having integrity. You state something you believe in, you don't compromise your integrity. There's nothing wrong with faith. If you truly believe in little green men who came and made the human race you don't compromise by saying well maybe there were purple men too, just to please someone else. Have the guts to stick with what you believe in and that's what I don't understand, this lack of faith, why aren't they sticking to what they believe? You can believe just as firmly there is no creator but you don't go adding thank god I'm an atheist do you!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Well actually no, I was taking their frames of reference and not understanding why they don't stick to them. I wasn't using my frames of reference, merely going by what they say they believe but they then manage to say something opposite. I don't care what they believe but constantly deviating from their 'official' views is confusing. If they believe in the literal word of the Bible as they say they do, there's no dinosaurs in it so why are they saying men and dinosaurs walking around at the same time? if they believe in the literal creation why are they tryng to explain dinosaurs and DNA? Either they believe or they don't, they can't have it all ways. They are trying to hedge their bets and be right about everything. I'd respect them more if they stuck to their guns and said totally and utterly that the Creation was it, nothing else. I wouldn't believe it but that doesn't matter, it's about having integrity. You state something you believe in, you don't compromise your integrity. There's nothing wrong with faith. If you truly believe in little green men who came and made the human race you don't compromise by saying well maybe there were purple men too, just to please someone else. Have the guts to stick with what you believe in and that's what I don't understand, this lack of faith, why aren't they sticking to what they believe? You can believe just as firmly there is no creator but you don't go adding thank god I'm an atheist do you!



They are sticking to what they believe from their point of view.  If what they believed was illogical to *them* they would not believe it.

You want them to be internally consistent in their logic.  They are not.  They will not be.  Life goes on.

One can say that they are in denial - the truth is obvious - they just refuse to see it.  But it is a fact that people in denial cannot see what you see.  They would say the same about you (or me).

These are difficult distinctions to understand.  I have a sister who is a literal bible-believer and I have known many others in my life.  They believe man co-existed with dinosaurs, AND they believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.  If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with that.  They do NOT have a problem with that.  And if you have the time and the patience, they will explain to you why their beliefs are entirely consistent with logic.  You won't agree with them, but that's the way it is.  I finally learned to accept that their brand of logic and my brand of logic were not the same brand of logic.  I can't use my yardstick on their reality; they can't use theirs on mine.  They may both measure, but they measure different things.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> They are sticking to what they believe from their point of view. If what they believed was illogical to *them* they would not believe it.
> 
> You want them to be internally consistent in their logic. They are not. They will not be. Life goes on.
> 
> ...


 


Nope you still haven't got what I'm saying. I'm fine with what they believe, but I think we may be talking about different things here. Perhaps our happy clappy people say different things to yours. 
What I can't agree with is them saying one thing one month then changing it the next. they either believe something or they don't, they should have the courage of their convictions, if they believe men and dinosaurs were around at the same time fine but don't say they didn't one month then the next say they did. That's the 'logic' I find confusing. It's not the subject matter more the people who keep changing their view to suit this month's thought that I find odd.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I finally learned to accept that their brand of logic and my brand of logic were not the same brand of logic.  I can't use my yardstick on their reality; they can't use theirs on mine.  They may both measure, but they measure different things.



As a way of stopping needless argument I think that is a 'golden' quote .  

I wish I could take that to heart when me and my father get into one of our 'all nighters' on the existence or otherwise of G-d :lol:.

But I can't, as his yardstick is incremented in units that have no literal existence - you can't use something that is not an empirical standard to measure anything. The best I can do is tell him that I accept that, for him, his rationales are internally consistent .

The big point of divergence is that he looks at the universe or life on Earth and says "There is your proof of the existence of God".  At which point the cogent part of his position ends.

I look at the same things and say "There is your proof of the existence of comprehensible rules of matter and energy.  Things that are not stable cease to exist until what you are left with are the self-replicating and self-sustaining structures we observe now" {with the proviso that 'stability' is a relative term and subject to fluctuation and changes of equilibrium}.

The universe is a huge place, full of possibilities.  It is not infinite {as we currently understand it}, altho' it does tend towards infinity; therefore not everything is possible.

If you look to the sky and simply accept "A. N. Other Creator-deity" made it", then you abandon the search for understanding as you have taken on board the 'simplest' answer.  To me, it it much preferable to admit "I don't know why it is the way it is ... but one day we will find out!".

In the philosophical 'globe' that is 'Mark World', the Creator route leads to stagnation and destructive conflict with those that have Faith in a different creator-deity.  The 'science' route leads to an increase in understanding and growth of capability {admittedly by the somewhat combative process of peer review aka war via data and observation }.

That's why, at the end of the day, altho I am personally unconcerned with what any individual 'believes' in the 'believer' part of their brains, I am of the opinion that 'Religion' is a disruptive and hampering aspect of the human psyche.  

At it's worst, it is likely to ensure that we do not survive as a species - the ultimate irony for the philosophy that does not believe in evolution.  At it's best, it may serve as something of a brake on the impulse to do something because we can before we have figured out if we should.  But I remain convinced that a more rational systemic environment would achieve that without the need to eradicate the 'unbeliever'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Be that as it may, I take as axiomatic that religious belief will persevere. I also note that the only cultures which attempted to eliminate religion are known as some of the most despotic known to man. I fear zealots, period.


----------



## Ramirez (Aug 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I also note that the only cultures which attempted to eliminate religion are known as some of the most despotic known to man.



  Tired argument Bill, I will just respond with the standard that no one flew into buildings on 9/11 crying "there is no God , that is great." but "God is great."


  And so on....you bring up your examples of evil atheists,  I bring up my examples of evil theists.....pointless

 As Sam Harris has pointed out, those societies were moved not from lack of faith but faith in a corrupt ideology that in fact resembled the faith in religion more so than anything else, so let's stop blaming atheism for Stalin , Pol Pot etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Tired argument Bill, I will just respond with the standard that no one flew into buildings on 9/11 crying "there is no God , that is great." but "God is great."
> 
> 
> And so on....you bring up your examples of evil atheists,  I bring up my examples of evil theists.....pointless
> ...



It's a simple statement of fact. I don't believe atheists are evil. I said that every nation that ever tried to outlaw religion has been a despotic one. True or false?

I also said that I believe it is factual that religion will always be with us. True or false?


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2010)

I believe in Triceratops and Brontosauruses.


----------



## Carol (Aug 3, 2010)

I believe in cats.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2010)

Carol said:


> I believe in cats.



Yeah but Cats exist.


----------



## teekin (Aug 4, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> The problem is exactly that they are teaching kids nonsense. They can teach kids that pi is equal to 3 because the bible says so , but then will prevent 100% of ever becoming physicists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians etc.
> 
> Or worse the religious maniacs will manage to convince the academic and licensing organizations that* pi equal to 3 is perfectly okay,* good look flying a plane or crossing a bridge engineered by anyone using pi equal to 3.


 
Wait, just wait a minute . . . you mean I wasn't suppose to round up????? :anic: Huh. That surely does explain a Lot of what happened in my labs :hmm: and Uhhhh To the Lab room. ( Do you know Formica is NOT innert?  Nope. Ohhhh Big supprise to me too.) Well, I hope they found a more stable composite this time round to replace that fume hood platform. Maybe there is a God, and her devine plan kept me from doing R&D for Monsantoe. ( and thus bringing about the  aformentioned Zombie Appocalypse)

I'm going with_ Insufficient Data (_ yet) on the whole Universal conciousness thing.

Carol and CryO, does the cat believe in you? or just the Whiskas?

Lori


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 4, 2010)

I thought the devil put all those dinosaur bones there to fool us?

Anyway electricity run on hellfire and modern medicine is witchcraft in disguise based on heretical teachings and alchemy. If you don`t want to burn in eternal hellfire you must cast off these "scientific" temptations Satan invented to turn you from the true path. There are perfectly good caves to live in and holes in the ground to stick your head if you want to embrace the God dude and his Good book.


----------

