NorthPoint, You are the one that throws out sayings like "the mass and weight of all scientists believe such and such", apparently you like credentialed scientists when they align with your biases. Help me out with logic, Paul. Let's say you and another person are walking along. You see a watch on the ground. The other person says "Wow, look what God called into existence and left there on the ground." How would you explain to this naive chap that the watch was intelligently designed?
On your first paragraph (the following was directed to Lorien): I try not to stand on ceremony, anyway. I don't generally toot my horn on my academic record, nor do I dismiss folks' points of view because of the title of their major, what they do in the way of work to feed their families, or because they listened to a "righty" or "lefty" professor. I try to look at the argument itself, and would hope I would be evaluated on the same criteria. You know, in counterdistinction to thinking along the lines of... On your second paragraph, not the best example of logic you could have used to help your view - since speciation deals with organic, changing, living things, and your watch is immutable/in a state of stasis, inorganic, and non-living. Since we can easily see watches being engineered daily, with our senses, not a big leap to ascribe this hunk of metal's existence to a design, is it? On the flip side, do we now move to saying airplanes - especially those pre-Wright Brothers jobbies - are natural because they have wings that look like birds? "Design" or "Not design" has nothing to do with complexity, or specificity. It has to do with evidence. So far, a designer has been quiet on the matter. People find meaning in ascribing existence to god - and, I say, so long as they allow me to believe what I believe, godspeed, truly. But to move from this testimony of faith to averring it is science is flawed.
Hey Devil, thanks. My well-dramatized plan to leave uh, failed. Next time, I promise, a hush and the whisper of the wind, only, brother.
This is where you are wrong. I'm not fighting god (who doesn't exist), I'm fighting ignorance and the rejection of science, Something which very much, Sadly, Does exist. And not only does this ignorance and rejection of science exist, But it's trying to get it's self taught in schools as if it were true. People need to oppose this primitive nonsense for the sake of their children's intelligence and for the sake of rational thought in future society. We can't put up with this stuff any more. We need to get rid of it and start moving forward.
And I think there is a distinction here that is quite important. I agree with you that science education must strenously resist the pseudo-science endemic to "intelligent design," as it would be a travesty of a child's education. And I happen to believe the world would generally be a better place without religion. But I also stop at becoming a prophet myself - "we" don't need to get rid of it, in the sense of some imposed new religion in place of the old, and since neither you nor I can definitely prove god, in whatever form, doesn't exist any more than Tbarr and his brethren can prove "god" does, to wave the banner smacks of just a bit of hypocrisy, to me. So long as Tbarr & Company's views don't impose themselves on me or mine - say, in the way of my child's biology class next year - I say, live and let live. Stalin's atheism was a statist religion, no less than any other statist religion. Unless people are free to believe what they will, we merely have vying faiths, and the cycle continues.
I agree with you for the most part northpointaiki, if they didn't talk about it and didn't try to force it on people i wouldn't care what they thought. But the fact is they always have tried to force it on your children, they are trying to force it on your children now and they will continue to try and force it on your children. The only method to ensure they stop forcing it on your children is to eradicate the primitive notion of gods. We don't need to start locking people up or anything. We can get rid of religion the same way we reduced racism, sexism and homophobia, Make it socially unacceptable to voice these opinions. Making it socially unacceptable would remove it from schools and the political system over night. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make those who don't believe in gods realise what damage these people are inflicting on their children and I'm trying to arm those who oppose it with the information they need.
But this is what you are trying to do, "talk about it and force your view on other people." And as neither you nor I have any empirical proof god doesn't exist, I think you are doing the very thing you loathe, preaching. Beyond, I think the crux of the matter is here: And as I consider this a kind of evangelism, I won't support it. If you'll look at your post above, you have several verbs in place that make a freethinker, such as I hope I am, squirm: "eradicate," "make," "get rid." While I do think the world would be improved if religion simply went away (and a moral code endemic to Christ's message, agape, replacing it, by the way), it is entirely a matter of individual conscience, and I expressly do not compare it to the injustices inherent to sexism, racism, and homophobia - these are civil concerns, while, at least in my land, religion is a matter of individual faith. Your average methodist ice cream social, for example - is this really, by any definition of commonsense, an "evil," especially when compared to poll tax? How about an old lady, who goes to confessional once a week and simply feels better - is she engaging in a civil wrong? How about the priest? My point is that commonsense should prevail, and I find zealotry, of whatever stripe, ridiculous, or worse. The evangelism which I think is inherent to your stated goal, and the way you would like to achieve it, seems just as bad as any religion, at least to me, so let me say it plainly: As http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=505804&page=5 shows, I find your view dangerous, and you and your ilk do not need to preach to me regarding what I should or shouldn't be doing regarding my child's welfare and education. I do not consider the free practice of faith, and atheism, a dangerous civil society. Now, to the extent the attempt is made to insert ID in my son's school, I will vigorously oppose it, as I did, beginning, as I said, 20 some years ago now. Should it ever gain ground in my district, I will pull him out and educate him myself.
We can't disprove god, I accept that. But lack of evidence against isn't evidence for. Would you say the same thing to someone who opposes the idea held by million that there is a teapot orbiting mars? Like i said, What they conjure up in their minds is of no concern to me. They can believe in elves and pixies if they want, But this belief doesn't remain in their minds, it tries to make it's way in to laws and your childs education. And this is why i oppose it. What do you have against making the world a better place then? This is part of the problem. People like you, While professing to be atheist, Still put religion on a pedestal. You protect it. You stifle criticism of it. Even though you openly admit that the world would be better if it just went away. Well you sit back and just hope it disappears, I feel i have to do something to help it on it's way. Again, What they conjure up in their own minds is of no concern to me. While there is the corruption of education, suicide bombing and genital mutilations going on i feel it very much is a civil concern. And i find it hard to believe that you don't see it the same way.
I never said it was. Which is why I am an atheist. And it goes both ways, as lack of evidence for isn't evidence against. We creep along in our human, empirical world, and discover truths as they are, in the literal sense of discover, uncovered; no more. Both logics are why I equate preaching "There is an immanent God" with "There is no immanent God." I do believe in seeking a better world tomorrow than I see today. It's why I write, and why I speak my views. If others should choose to think I've got something worthwhile to say, great, I get all warm and fuzzy and if not - hey, it's a civil society. Believe what you will. Absolutely not - knock yourself out, and criticize away. I would, however, afford someone practicing it the same civil liberties I would afford anyone holding any creed, or harboring any thought (including my own atheism, for instance), in a civil society - so long as that creed does not tread upon another, live as you will. I will not seek to "make," "eradicate" or otherwise impose any restriction on private thought. Which leads to your final point, See above. Yes, condemn these, and vociferously, too, since they result in a very human wrong. I've been pretty damn vociferous on this very board, for instance, in condeming these. But a call to a sky-god, earth goddess, whatever, in a private chamber, or in a community of like folks? None of my damn business, because I a'int a preacher.
Your plan is already working in Canada and is starting to work here in the USA as well. But the plan uses evolutionary religion in replacement of another belief in the unseen. Christianity is very socially unacceptable in many places, but it is OK to be any other religion or better yet to be an evolutionist.
You seem to be saying very little with a lot of words northpointaiki. As you don't believe in god, Agree it's activities and goals are detrimental to society, Believe the world would be better if it was gone and believe their attempted corruption of education is happening, i find it hard to believe that you oppose someone who opposes it for any other reason that you like to be an argumentative pedant. Good. Glad to hear it.
You seem to have a limited ability to distinguish subleties of thought, Stox. I don't oppose your criticism of religion - I support it, as much as I support any right to private thought. I oppose your assumption of the mantle of zealot in seeking to eradicate something that is, after all, entirely a matter of private choice. You would equate preaching and praying with a poll tax, with forcefully keeping women at home, with making homosexuality illegal, and I find that ridiculous; you would declare what is or isn't best for my child, and I find that dangerous, as much as if Jerry Falwell were in charge of Biology I. To the extent any private choice of thought or action intrudes on the choice of me, mine, or another's right to same, I oppose it.
So you don't oppose it as long as they keep it to themselves? if that is the case you have been agreeing with me thise whole time.
No, you again misread. I can only repeat: religious folks can speak their peace. So can you. So can I. So long as any of us don't seek to impose our views on another, we can, all of us, all babble all we would wish.
So they can speak, As long as they don't try to impose anything on anyone else? Even though that is exactly what they are doing, Have been doing and will continue to do as long as we let them.... I don't really see your point, I sometimes get the impression you only reply because you like the look of your own words.
"As long as we let them." "As long as we let you." You and other zealots are the same - in this, I'd agree with Tbarr - you spend an inordinate amount of time railing against an empty sky, if you indeed believe the sky is empty - yet I have no compunction to disallow your right to babble on. Who established anyone has the right to "let" anyone think, or communicate for godsakes (pun intended)? Stox, I disagree with both your assessment of other folks and your misapprehension of your own manner of thoughts and action; and, as before, as I find myself talking to a brick, and you apparently feel the same, perhaps we should stop wasting each other's time?
If they just said "i believe in god" i wouldn't have any more problem with that than i would if a nutter told me he was admiral nelson. The point is that isn;t what they do. They don;t just say it, They act on it and they act in a way that tries to prevent you doing things because of their religious beliefs and it tries to get religion taught to your children under the guise of "science". it's filthy and deceptive and we need rid of it. You can disagree with that all you want.
You bet I will act on my beliefs! Such as keeping your hands and other body parts off of my children or myself. I think it is wrong and I would act if necessary. Also, you want to force your beliefs on my children to indoctrinate them into things like islam, evolution, and other unproven unscientific items, and I will NOT LET YOU. Here is a perfect quote related to the evolutionary church If it was a science it would be different, but it is a belief system using science as a disguise. Science uses facts, not fiction to base itself upon. A theory is tested not guessed upon for 100's of years. The guesses can create the theory, but should not continue to support that theory.
Evolution is a fact and it is going to be taught as such. Perhaps if you are still unable to grasp the idea you should join your children in class and get educated on the subject, You could obviously do with it. If you still don't like it take your kids out of school and let the rest of them get on with a proper education based on evidence and science.