DNA wasn't invented then

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I believe in Triceratops and Brontosauruses.

 

[Carol]

I believe in cats.

 

[Cryozombie]

I believe in cats.

Yeah but Cats exist.

 

[teekin]

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