Might add some balance to this forum.
And humor, obviously. Can anyone name an unbiased creationist moderator? From what I have seen the only thing that would convince them that evolution is possible are events that would disprove evolution as we now know it. There are plenty of evolutionists who can name a reasonable test that would make them believe evolution was in error.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 22 2011, 01:55 AM)
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
What controversy? If creationists had a good argument you might have a point. They don't. They rely waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on old worn out debunked claims.
What controversy? If creationists had a good argument you might have a point. They don't. They rely waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on old worn out debunked claims.
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Mar 22 2011, 02:20 AM)
What controversy? If creationists had a good argument you might have a point. They don't. They rely waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much on old worn out debunked claims.
Hey,
I'll stay off "the airplane that can't fly because I say so" section and you stay off the religious section.
Hey,
I'll stay off "the airplane that can't fly because I say so" section and you stay off the religious section.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 22 2011, 05:08 AM)
Hey,
I'll stay off "the airplane that can't fly because I say so" section and you stay off the religious section.
You want to keep a geologist off of a site that debates evolution versus creationism?
I'll stay off "the airplane that can't fly because I say so" section and you stay off the religious section.
You want to keep a geologist off of a site that debates evolution versus creationism?
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Mar 22 2011, 05:29 AM)
You want to keep a geologist off of a site that debates evolution versus creationism?
That is my offer.
That is my offer.
Subduction Zone,
I was joking. You can still post here.
I was joking. You can still post here.
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 12:25 AM)
Might add some balance to this forum.
Seems like a contradiction in terms. A moderator by definition should be an unbiased individual who does not dictate any particular theory, but governs how we conduct ourselves on this particular scientific forum.
Appointing a creationist moderator seems unneccesary, but finding an impartial moderator who takes NO side, is far more constructive.
The problem , is that the moderator on this forum has been openly identified, and as is his right, he too posts under his own name, and is very clear on his own beliefs. That makes others feel he is not impartial ,although I think he does a pucker job more than most of the time.
The trick is to learn to wear different hats (in a legal argument sense not a hat wearing sense). My ME hat, and my moderator hat. I think it would have been wiser if the moderators identity had not been revealed, but then again, that may be counter productive to the concept of transparnency.
Specifically appointing a creationist moderator, defeats the very purpose of a moderator, who needs to be impartial on all subjects and only needs to focus on how we conduct ourselves on this forum......IMO.
Seems like a contradiction in terms. A moderator by definition should be an unbiased individual who does not dictate any particular theory, but governs how we conduct ourselves on this particular scientific forum.
Appointing a creationist moderator seems unneccesary, but finding an impartial moderator who takes NO side, is far more constructive.
The problem , is that the moderator on this forum has been openly identified, and as is his right, he too posts under his own name, and is very clear on his own beliefs. That makes others feel he is not impartial ,although I think he does a pucker job more than most of the time.
The trick is to learn to wear different hats (in a legal argument sense not a hat wearing sense). My ME hat, and my moderator hat. I think it would have been wiser if the moderators identity had not been revealed, but then again, that may be counter productive to the concept of transparnency.
Specifically appointing a creationist moderator, defeats the very purpose of a moderator, who needs to be impartial on all subjects and only needs to focus on how we conduct ourselves on this forum......IMO.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 22 2011, 02:00 AM)
Seems like a contradiction in terms. A moderator by definition should be an unbiased individual who does not dictate any particular theory, but governs how we conduct ourselves on this particular scientific forum.
This is a science forum, ergo the moderator should moderate on the basis of scientific ethical principles. Creationism is not logically or ethically sound, so it has no place on this forum, except to be debunked and its supporters lambasted.
This is a science forum, ergo the moderator should moderate on the basis of scientific ethical principles. Creationism is not logically or ethically sound, so it has no place on this forum, except to be debunked and its supporters lambasted.
That is what I feel about Creationism.
Compare the "logic" used by Tom Ritter in his claim (indeed, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of his forum -- he just expresses his outrage in form of naked assertions):
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscour...d.83740.4.0.pdf
To the logic and evidence of the magistrate judge looking to see if the Defendant need be bothered:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscour...d.83740.6.0.pdf
Interestingly enough, it was the Creationist Moderators that wanted to shut him up:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1772816207.html
Compare the "logic" used by Tom Ritter in his claim (indeed, he doesn't seem to have any understanding of his forum -- he just expresses his outrage in form of naked assertions):
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscour...d.83740.4.0.pdf
To the logic and evidence of the magistrate judge looking to see if the Defendant need be bothered:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscour...d.83740.6.0.pdf
Interestingly enough, it was the Creationist Moderators that wanted to shut him up:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1772816207.html
If you can't rotate between evolutionist and creationist moderators (or at least have a neutral moderator) then it seems logical to me to shut this forum down as it is intrinsically unfair.
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 04:54 PM)
If you can't rotate between evolutionist and creationist moderators (or at least have a neutral moderator) then it seems logical to me to shut this forum down as it is intrinsically unfair.
The problem is that you cannot name a unbiased creationist moderator. You have to be able to pass this simple test to at least try to be a fair moderator. You need to name some sort of reasonable evidence that would cause you to change your mind about your own beliefs. The only evidence I have ever seen a creationist offer is unreasonable evidence that would convince them.
What evidence would convince you no1nose?
The problem is that you cannot name a unbiased creationist moderator. You have to be able to pass this simple test to at least try to be a fair moderator. You need to name some sort of reasonable evidence that would cause you to change your mind about your own beliefs. The only evidence I have ever seen a creationist offer is unreasonable evidence that would convince them.
What evidence would convince you no1nose?
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 04:54 PM)
If you can't rotate between evolutionist and creationist moderators (or at least have a neutral moderator) then it seems logical to me to shut this forum down as it is intrinsically unfair.
I thought our moderator was a creationist. rpenner are you a creationist?
I thought our moderator was a creationist. rpenner are you a creationist?
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 11:54 AM)
If you can't rotate between evolutionist and creationist moderators (or at least have a neutral moderator) then it seems logical to me to shut this forum down as it is intrinsically unfair.
Creationism is unfair.
It unfairly ignores evidence.
It unfairly assumes that everyone belongs to one specific religion.
It unfairly refuses to acknowledge the rules of logic.
It unfairly smears the work of thousands of scientists around the globe and throughout history.
Creationism can GTFO.
Creationism is unfair.
It unfairly ignores evidence.
It unfairly assumes that everyone belongs to one specific religion.
It unfairly refuses to acknowledge the rules of logic.
It unfairly smears the work of thousands of scientists around the globe and throughout history.
Creationism can GTFO.
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Mar 22 2011, 05:12 PM)
The problem is that you cannot name a unbiased creationist moderator. You have to be able to pass this simple test to at least try to be a fair moderator. You need to name some sort of reasonable evidence that would cause you to change your mind about your own beliefs. The only evidence I have ever seen a creationist offer is unreasonable evidence that would convince them.
What evidence would convince you no1nose?
If what you say is true then why have a forum in the first place? To have a "Creation / Evolution" forum implies there are valid points on each side.
What evidence would convince you no1nose?
If what you say is true then why have a forum in the first place? To have a "Creation / Evolution" forum implies there are valid points on each side.
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 01:01 PM)
If what you say is true then why have a forum in the first place? To have a "Creation / Evolution" forum implies there are valid points on each side.
Or it could be described as bait to keep the idiots out of the rest of the forum.
Or it could be described as bait to keep the idiots out of the rest of the forum.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 22 2011, 01:21 PM)
This is a science forum, ergo the moderator should moderate on the basis of scientific ethical principles.
And I think he does a pretty good job of doing that.
And I think he does a pretty good job of doing that.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 22 2011, 01:13 PM)
And I think he does a pretty good job of doing that.
I concur.
I concur.
It seems that no1nose can't refute my fairness test. In other words he seems to be happy with the concept of alternating between a fair minded evolutionist and a biased creationist. 
I guess if truth and science isn't on your side you can use every bit of help that you can get.
I guess if truth and science isn't on your side you can use every bit of help that you can get.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 22 2011, 05:55 PM)
I thought our moderator was a creationist. rpenner are you a creationist?
Where is there evidence to support that point of view? The question seems to lack foundation because you don't know me.
Where is there evidence to support that point of view? The question seems to lack foundation because you don't know me.
QUOTE (no1nose+ Mar 22 2011, 06:01 PM)
To have a "Creation / Evolution" forum implies there are valid points on each side.
That does not follow, even if I allow you one of your hidden assumptions that the reason of Man is complete and perfect. Even if those long-gone architects of the forum were here, we cannot assume that they saw two sides with equal evidenciary support.
But the reason of Man is not perfect, so at best the evidence we have today is what those who created and labeled the forum thought and not necessarily what was true.
And their motives in 2005 left few traces today. Indeed they did not describe the purpose of the forum other than repeating the title of the forum. Is it a dumping place for off-topic threads? Is it a big red sign to draw hits? Was it copied off some template without discussion or thought?
There aren't even two sides, there is a wide range of thought encompassed under both the Creation and Evolution banners -- even if the biologists (and geologists and cosmologists, etc) have very tiny differences of opinion between themselves compared to the Creationsts who differ grossly in what the age of the Earth is, who created the Universe and what that creator's role and motives were in (if any) in developing humankind.
All it implies is that when the forum was created, the people who created the forum thought it was a good idea. Neither the authors of that hypothesis nor the metric by which they measured good is available to the moderator today, so it remains as a historical curiosity.
Those that continue to run this website, regardless of what their connection is to the original 2005 era crew, have placed all moderation responsibility into my hands. It is my policy to use this unpaid position to support fact-based reasoning over alternatives. I believe that is consistent with the goals of the current maintainers (mostly unseen) and the expressed Terms of Service. Accordingly, more often than not, if I call you on a serious paucity of facts and/or reason, it is to your benefit to make sure I understand your point of view.
But the reason of Man is not perfect, so at best the evidence we have today is what those who created and labeled the forum thought and not necessarily what was true.
And their motives in 2005 left few traces today. Indeed they did not describe the purpose of the forum other than repeating the title of the forum. Is it a dumping place for off-topic threads? Is it a big red sign to draw hits? Was it copied off some template without discussion or thought?
There aren't even two sides, there is a wide range of thought encompassed under both the Creation and Evolution banners -- even if the biologists (and geologists and cosmologists, etc) have very tiny differences of opinion between themselves compared to the Creationsts who differ grossly in what the age of the Earth is, who created the Universe and what that creator's role and motives were in (if any) in developing humankind.
All it implies is that when the forum was created, the people who created the forum thought it was a good idea. Neither the authors of that hypothesis nor the metric by which they measured good is available to the moderator today, so it remains as a historical curiosity.
Those that continue to run this website, regardless of what their connection is to the original 2005 era crew, have placed all moderation responsibility into my hands. It is my policy to use this unpaid position to support fact-based reasoning over alternatives. I believe that is consistent with the goals of the current maintainers (mostly unseen) and the expressed Terms of Service. Accordingly, more often than not, if I call you on a serious paucity of facts and/or reason, it is to your benefit to make sure I understand your point of view.
Any true agnostic should make for a fair moderator. The criteria is pretty simple,IMO. Creationists cannot rely solely upon subjective experience to refute substantiated science, nor can evolutionists rely sole on science to refute subjective experience. These can be debated with some leniency in moderation, as they reside in differing domains. I would, personally, consider each to show equal bias according to the degree they stray from their own domain. Refuting evolution to support creation, is no more biased than refuting god with science. Wrong domain of applicability.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 22 2011, 01:55 PM)
IMO. Creationists cannot rely solely upon subjective experience to refute substantiated science, nor can evolutionists rely sole on science to refute subjective experience.
What subjective experience do Creationists bring to the table that supposedly "refutes" Evolution? "God told me so?"
You can't debate opinions.
You can't debate opinions.
Refuting evolution to support creation, is no more biased than refuting god with science. Wrong domain of applicability.
I agree that there are different areas of applicability, but Creationism is a violation of that separation. Creationism is a religious opinion that its supporters think should be taught alongside scientific fact in public schools. That is bullsh1t.
What subjective experience do Creationists bring to the table that supposedly "refutes" Evolution? "God told me so?"
QUOTE
These can be debated with some leniency in moderation, as they reside in differing domains.
You can't debate opinions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These can be debated with some leniency in moderation, as they reside in differing domains. |
You can't debate opinions.
Refuting evolution to support creation, is no more biased than refuting god with science. Wrong domain of applicability.
I agree that there are different areas of applicability, but Creationism is a violation of that separation. Creationism is a religious opinion that its supporters think should be taught alongside scientific fact in public schools. That is bullsh1t.
Get with it. It’s no longer called creationism. Creationism lost. “Non-Evolution” , it sounds more official, doesn’t it?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/stephen-wise-non-evolution-schools_n_837130.html
www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/stephen-wise-non-evolution-schools_n_837130.html
QUOTE (L.W.+Mar 22 2011, 02:56 PM)
Get with it. It’s no longer called creationism. Creationism lost. “Non-Evolution” , it sounds more official, doesn’t it?
Did "Intelligent Design" finally bite the dust?
Maybe they'll call their next theory "Anything but Evilution."
Did "Intelligent Design" finally bite the dust?
Maybe they'll call their next theory "Anything but Evilution."
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 22 2011, 04:54 PM)
If you can't [appease me] then it seems logical to me to shut this forum down as it is intrinsically unfair [to me].
Ah. no1nose is upset than when he lied, I called him a liar and gave him a time out. So is he making threats which smack of extortion or just being unclear in his writing?
Back in Math Logic Disproves Evolution no1nose manages to upload a self-made video, for which he should be applauded for mastery of the technical, and scorned for his inability to grasp mathematics of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, if not more.
no1nose (writing as William Givens) filled pages with his strong claims and vitriol and untruths and complete absence of support in terms of a rational argument. On Jan 7, the moderator has enough of his Gish Gallop and took the red pen of justice to the outrageous ill-argued outrage. no1nose defied the moderator's authority and had a sockpuppet condemned to oblivion. (This goes against the famous teachings of Jesus to render unto the moderator what is the moderator's and the historical position of the Christian Church that all temporal authority proceeds from God.)
On Jan 30 we have a reprise with no1nose reviving a thread from 2008 claiming there is no math in evolutionary biology, but then he has never demonstrated that he had expert knowledge of either. Since this was untrue, I used my authority (c.f. Genesis 3:15, Luke 10:19, John 8:44).
Several forum members familiar with your subject matter found your presentation grossly wrong. Indeed the You Tube video linked in the OP of "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" doesn't allow comments so this is the only forum where your ideas get an airing and a critique. Naturally we expect you to improve with continued criticism, but this seems to not be taken as the learning opportunity it could be.
Ah. no1nose is upset than when he lied, I called him a liar and gave him a time out. So is he making threats which smack of extortion or just being unclear in his writing?
Back in Math Logic Disproves Evolution no1nose manages to upload a self-made video, for which he should be applauded for mastery of the technical, and scorned for his inability to grasp mathematics of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, if not more.
no1nose (writing as William Givens) filled pages with his strong claims and vitriol and untruths and complete absence of support in terms of a rational argument. On Jan 7, the moderator has enough of his Gish Gallop and took the red pen of justice to the outrageous ill-argued outrage. no1nose defied the moderator's authority and had a sockpuppet condemned to oblivion. (This goes against the famous teachings of Jesus to render unto the moderator what is the moderator's and the historical position of the Christian Church that all temporal authority proceeds from God.)
On Jan 30 we have a reprise with no1nose reviving a thread from 2008 claiming there is no math in evolutionary biology, but then he has never demonstrated that he had expert knowledge of either. Since this was untrue, I used my authority (c.f. Genesis 3:15, Luke 10:19, John 8:44).
Several forum members familiar with your subject matter found your presentation grossly wrong. Indeed the You Tube video linked in the OP of "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" doesn't allow comments so this is the only forum where your ideas get an airing and a critique. Naturally we expect you to improve with continued criticism, but this seems to not be taken as the learning opportunity it could be.
Thanks for the link L.W.. Of course they repeated this old lie
The simple answer is "nonevolution" is not a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is. If they go to all of the work and provide a proper scientific theory I have no problem with "both" being taught. What creationists don't realize is part of the process of becoming a theory is to provide a method of falsifiability and testing of the proposed theory with that falsifiability. I don't think that you could have a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism at the same time, one would tend to falsify the other.
QUOTE
Why would you not teach both theories at the same time?
The simple answer is "nonevolution" is not a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is. If they go to all of the work and provide a proper scientific theory I have no problem with "both" being taught. What creationists don't realize is part of the process of becoming a theory is to provide a method of falsifiability and testing of the proposed theory with that falsifiability. I don't think that you could have a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism at the same time, one would tend to falsify the other.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 22 2011, 08:06 PM)
Ah. no1nose is upset than when he lied, I called him a liar and gave him a time out. So is he making threats which smack of extortion or just being unclear in his writing?
I was wondering about that. For a second I assumed he was the ...... plug puller.
I was wondering about that. For a second I assumed he was the ...... plug puller.
I'm actually disappointed by the lack of devotion displayed by our crop of Creationists. It's almost like they know they are destined to lose any argument.
QUOTE (Subduction Zone+Mar 22 2011, 08:37 PM)
The simple answer is "nonevolution" is not a scientific theory. The theory of evolution is.
Correct, and science should be taught in a science classroom, and religeon (which people should be allowed to practice) should be taught in a religeous arena.
Why these crazy creationists cannot comprehend that simple argument is beyond me.
The problem is, that science is so compelling in its evidence and empirical nature, that creationists are trying everything they can to try stop science being taught. The irony, is that the scientists are not running to the religous arenas, to try and stop them from preaching their doctrine. This clearly shows who is the more insecure about their beliefs.
If you want to call it science, it must comply with scientific rules. Creationism/non evolution, does not comply, and until it does it must never be considered science.
Correct, and science should be taught in a science classroom, and religeon (which people should be allowed to practice) should be taught in a religeous arena.
Why these crazy creationists cannot comprehend that simple argument is beyond me.
The problem is, that science is so compelling in its evidence and empirical nature, that creationists are trying everything they can to try stop science being taught. The irony, is that the scientists are not running to the religous arenas, to try and stop them from preaching their doctrine. This clearly shows who is the more insecure about their beliefs.
If you want to call it science, it must comply with scientific rules. Creationism/non evolution, does not comply, and until it does it must never be considered science.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 22 2011, 01:17 PM)
I agree that there are different areas of applicability, but Creationism is a violation of that separation. Creationism is a religious opinion that its supporters think should be taught alongside scientific fact in public schools. That is bullsh1t.
That's not the matter I was addressing, although I'm happy to.
IMO, creationists just lack the tact to accomplish the gist of their goal, and have framed the debate very poorly. Creation versus evolution is supposedly the debate over where man came from. Personally, each in their own domains, I don't see these two as being in the same position of causation toward that end. Creationists try to draw a demarcation between species, which puts them pretty far down the evolution causation. A very poorly chosen legitimization of the god or no god debate. Atheism is not a required part of evolution, so I don't see why people would want to bring evolution into that debate.
Actually, the emphasis of an inherent relationship between evolution and atheism only teaches children that they are entwined, and unjustifiably adds to scientific weight of one to the other. Very counter-productive.
If they sought to align themselves with science, as religions such as Buddhism seem to do well enough, they could remove the debate from the scientific arena all together. It's simple enough to do so with the Bible. Paraphrasing, "one day to God is as many years to man". So in God's frame, seven days of evolution could be plenty.
The main problem is that creationists are trying to get God back into schools. IMO, this is a response to atheists who first sought to remove harmless things such as prayer, or "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Personally, I think it is just as fair to tell atheists to teach their values outside of the school. The thing is, atheists don't espouse clearly defined values.
That's probably enough riling of both side for the moment.
That's not the matter I was addressing, although I'm happy to.
IMO, creationists just lack the tact to accomplish the gist of their goal, and have framed the debate very poorly. Creation versus evolution is supposedly the debate over where man came from. Personally, each in their own domains, I don't see these two as being in the same position of causation toward that end. Creationists try to draw a demarcation between species, which puts them pretty far down the evolution causation. A very poorly chosen legitimization of the god or no god debate. Atheism is not a required part of evolution, so I don't see why people would want to bring evolution into that debate.
Actually, the emphasis of an inherent relationship between evolution and atheism only teaches children that they are entwined, and unjustifiably adds to scientific weight of one to the other. Very counter-productive.
If they sought to align themselves with science, as religions such as Buddhism seem to do well enough, they could remove the debate from the scientific arena all together. It's simple enough to do so with the Bible. Paraphrasing, "one day to God is as many years to man". So in God's frame, seven days of evolution could be plenty.
The main problem is that creationists are trying to get God back into schools. IMO, this is a response to atheists who first sought to remove harmless things such as prayer, or "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Personally, I think it is just as fair to tell atheists to teach their values outside of the school. The thing is, atheists don't espouse clearly defined values.
That's probably enough riling of both side for the moment.
Government Endorsed Prayer is not harmless when
1) The Government-sanctioned prayer corrodes the values taught in the home.
2) The Government established itself as a holy authority, not subject to rational debate on policy
3) The Government-sanctioned prayer confirms the prejudices of the majority to treat minorities as persons not of the first class.
4) The Government-sanctioned prayer is corrosive to the Government's own stated policies, procedures, regulations and statutes.
First Amendment, B*tches!
1) The Government-sanctioned prayer corrodes the values taught in the home.
2) The Government established itself as a holy authority, not subject to rational debate on policy
3) The Government-sanctioned prayer confirms the prejudices of the majority to treat minorities as persons not of the first class.
4) The Government-sanctioned prayer is corrosive to the Government's own stated policies, procedures, regulations and statutes.
First Amendment, B*tches!
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 22 2011, 06:07 PM)
If they sought to align themselves with science, as religions such as Buddhism seem to do well enough, they could remove the debate from the scientific arena all together. It's simple enough to do so with the Bible. Paraphrasing, "one day to God is as many years to man". So in God's frame, seven days of evolution could be plenty.
What purpose does this serve? It only aids the false notion that science and religion can have a dialogue. Religion as an institution is anti-scientific. The last thing we need is faith leaking into science.
School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional.
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional.
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Personally, I think it is just as fair to tell atheists to teach their values outside of the school. The thing is, atheists don't espouse clearly defined values.
How are atheists teaching their values in schools? Are you referring to reason and logic? Should those be taught outside of schools?
What purpose does this serve? It only aids the false notion that science and religion can have a dialogue. Religion as an institution is anti-scientific. The last thing we need is faith leaking into science.
QUOTE
The main problem is that creationists are trying to get God back into schools. IMO, this is a response to atheists who first sought to remove harmless things such as prayer, or "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional.
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main problem is that creationists are trying to get God back into schools. IMO, this is a response to atheists who first sought to remove harmless things such as prayer, or "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. |
School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional.
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Personally, I think it is just as fair to tell atheists to teach their values outside of the school. The thing is, atheists don't espouse clearly defined values.
How are atheists teaching their values in schools? Are you referring to reason and logic? Should those be taught outside of schools?
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 22 2011, 05:22 PM)
Government Endorsed Prayer is not harmless when
1) The Government-sanctioned prayer corrodes the values taught in the home.
2) The Government established itself as a holy authority, not subject to rational debate on policy
3) The Government-sanctioned prayer confirms the prejudices of the majority to treat minorities as persons not of the first class.
4) The Government-sanctioned prayer is corrosive to the Government's own stated policies, procedures, regulations and statutes.
First Amendment, B*tches!
First, let me clarify that am not a creationist. I have no stake in the matter, either way. That said, I think it is silly to put such weight on something of as little consequence as prayer. There's a very large gap between government sanctioned and initiated by an authority figure to children.
1) Just as the creationists are responsible for instilling their values into their children despite other influence, so it is with atheists as well. Peers and media tend to be much greater influences then teachers could ever hope to be.
2) An extremely paranoid notion, not likely to happen here.
3) Do most atheists feel persecuted? They tend to act as if they do. I live in the middle of the Bible belt, and have no qualms with whatever anyone may say about my opinions in the matter. Doesn't have any effect on me. I have no stake in whether they chose to believe in any kind of god or not.
4) Whoa! Behold, the power of prayer. Personally, I don't see it. Those same influences shape our society regardless of whether we allow them to be displayed, or initiated by government employees, or not.
I'd actually tend to think that making such things an issue lends them more power, at least in public awareness, then they would have had otherwise. Referred to as galvanizing, I believe.
1) The Government-sanctioned prayer corrodes the values taught in the home.
2) The Government established itself as a holy authority, not subject to rational debate on policy
3) The Government-sanctioned prayer confirms the prejudices of the majority to treat minorities as persons not of the first class.
4) The Government-sanctioned prayer is corrosive to the Government's own stated policies, procedures, regulations and statutes.
First Amendment, B*tches!
First, let me clarify that am not a creationist. I have no stake in the matter, either way. That said, I think it is silly to put such weight on something of as little consequence as prayer. There's a very large gap between government sanctioned and initiated by an authority figure to children.
1) Just as the creationists are responsible for instilling their values into their children despite other influence, so it is with atheists as well. Peers and media tend to be much greater influences then teachers could ever hope to be.
2) An extremely paranoid notion, not likely to happen here.
3) Do most atheists feel persecuted? They tend to act as if they do. I live in the middle of the Bible belt, and have no qualms with whatever anyone may say about my opinions in the matter. Doesn't have any effect on me. I have no stake in whether they chose to believe in any kind of god or not.
4) Whoa! Behold, the power of prayer. Personally, I don't see it. Those same influences shape our society regardless of whether we allow them to be displayed, or initiated by government employees, or not.
I'd actually tend to think that making such things an issue lends them more power, at least in public awareness, then they would have had otherwise. Referred to as galvanizing, I believe.
QUOTE (FBM+)
What purpose does this serve? It only aids the false notion that science and religion can have a dialogue. Religion as an institution is anti-scientific. The last thing we need is faith leaking into science.
I agree, religion is anti-scientific. But they do reside in the same world though, so dialog is not out of the question. And you have that backwards, that would actually be science leaking into religion rather than vice versa.
Being forced to follow, or not, any particular belief is discrimination. I don't see that happening. School officials would only carry the kind of weight you imply in the lack of any family support and isolation from peers (basic brain-washing scenario). Takes very little to overcome that. The only thing sanctioned, officially, has been a moment of silence, which can be just as easily applied to a secular meditation.
Personally, I don't think children should be making pledges of allegiance to anything at all. So I think the addition of god into such things is just a secondary propaganda. Once again, nothing parents shouldn't be able to instill against.
Being forced to follow, or not, any particular belief is discrimination. I don't see that happening. School officials would only carry the kind of weight you imply in the lack of any family support and isolation from peers (basic brain-washing scenario). Takes very little to overcome that. The only thing sanctioned, officially, has been a moment of silence, which can be just as easily applied to a secular meditation.
Personally, I don't think children should be making pledges of allegiance to anything at all. So I think the addition of god into such things is just a secondary propaganda. Once again, nothing parents shouldn't be able to instill against.
How are atheists teaching their values in schools? Are you referring to reason and logic? Should those be taught outside of schools?
I didn't say they were. The only clear values of atheism is the denial of any god. Reason and logic are scientific, not atheistic.
I would advocate some ethics teaching in primary education.
-----------------------------------------
Both extremes seem just that, extreme. Where does religion no longer encroach on anyone's "rights", or science hinder the values some wish to instill? I don't see it, either way I look at it.
I expect to deal with religion, as it is a part of our world. I don't feel that it curtails me in any way, and between my influence and that of increasingly accessible information, I expect any children of mine would have all the tools necessary in making a decision for themselves.
I agree, religion is anti-scientific. But they do reside in the same world though, so dialog is not out of the question. And you have that backwards, that would actually be science leaking into religion rather than vice versa.
QUOTE
School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional.
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Being forced to follow, or not, any particular belief is discrimination. I don't see that happening. School officials would only carry the kind of weight you imply in the lack of any family support and isolation from peers (basic brain-washing scenario). Takes very little to overcome that. The only thing sanctioned, officially, has been a moment of silence, which can be just as easily applied to a secular meditation.
Personally, I don't think children should be making pledges of allegiance to anything at all. So I think the addition of god into such things is just a secondary propaganda. Once again, nothing parents shouldn't be able to instill against.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| School-sanctioned prayer is not harmless. It is religious discrimination. People who advocate religious activities in school are ignoring everyone who does not share their religion. School officials are authority figures to children, and their opinions carry a lot of weight. The United States Constitution guarantees that the government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. School-sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional. As for "In God We Trust" and "Under God," let's take a look how these phrases were added to the Pledge and our currency in the first place. These were added in 1956 as a response to what Americans perceived as "Godless Communists." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust |
Being forced to follow, or not, any particular belief is discrimination. I don't see that happening. School officials would only carry the kind of weight you imply in the lack of any family support and isolation from peers (basic brain-washing scenario). Takes very little to overcome that. The only thing sanctioned, officially, has been a moment of silence, which can be just as easily applied to a secular meditation.
Personally, I don't think children should be making pledges of allegiance to anything at all. So I think the addition of god into such things is just a secondary propaganda. Once again, nothing parents shouldn't be able to instill against.
How are atheists teaching their values in schools? Are you referring to reason and logic? Should those be taught outside of schools?
I didn't say they were. The only clear values of atheism is the denial of any god. Reason and logic are scientific, not atheistic.
I would advocate some ethics teaching in primary education.
-----------------------------------------
Both extremes seem just that, extreme. Where does religion no longer encroach on anyone's "rights", or science hinder the values some wish to instill? I don't see it, either way I look at it.
I expect to deal with religion, as it is a part of our world. I don't feel that it curtails me in any way, and between my influence and that of increasingly accessible information, I expect any children of mine would have all the tools necessary in making a decision for themselves.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 22 2011, 09:39 PM)
Both extremes seem just that, extreme. Where does religion no longer encroach on anyone's "rights", or science hinder the values some wish to instill? I don't see it, either way I look at it.
I don't think religion should be inhibited, but I will resist with extreme prejudice any attempt to use government institutions as a method of supporting or spreading religion.
For example: GOP House Judiciary Committee Votes to Put ‘In God We Trust’ on All 9,000 Federal Buildings
It's not like religion has been solely responsible for the downfall of a scientific civilization, right?
Naming Rights - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I don't think religion should be inhibited, but I will resist with extreme prejudice any attempt to use government institutions as a method of supporting or spreading religion.
For example: GOP House Judiciary Committee Votes to Put ‘In God We Trust’ on All 9,000 Federal Buildings
QUOTE
I expect to deal with religion, as it is a part of our world. I don't feel that it curtails me in any way, and between my influence and that of increasingly accessible information, I expect any children of mine would have all the tools necessary in making a decision for themselves.
It's not like religion has been solely responsible for the downfall of a scientific civilization, right?
Naming Rights - Neil deGrasse Tyson
You shouldn't be over-zealous in fighting religion from being taught in school. It just make creationist believe science has something to hide. In other countries they are taught side by side without any problem. Enters a science teacher, exits a religious education teachers. It gives the science teacher the opportunity to undo all the harm the religious teacher has done. In most cases the religious teachers are atheist anyway. That puts them at par with history teachers teaching ancient greek mythology. It is not entrenched in their psyches.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 02:39 AM)
There's a very large gap between government sanctioned and initiated by an authority figure to children.
And for the most part you are right. However, I can assure you that not all people act in good faith. So if you allow the voluntary participation of school children to pray in the homeroom, sure enough, there will be a teacher who will belittles or intimidates non-participants. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens. All citizens. We are not a majority ruled society. We are a constitutionally ruled society.
And for the most part you are right. However, I can assure you that not all people act in good faith. So if you allow the voluntary participation of school children to pray in the homeroom, sure enough, there will be a teacher who will belittles or intimidates non-participants. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens. All citizens. We are not a majority ruled society. We are a constitutionally ruled society.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 22 2011, 06:44 PM)
...it is to your benefit to make sure I understand your point of view.
That sounds a little bit like a threat. As a drill instructor once told me: "It is really not important that we understand each other. What is important is that you understand me."
(By the way, I didn't actually believe you were a creationist. Just checking to see if you have a sense of humor. You don't.)
That sounds a little bit like a threat. As a drill instructor once told me: "It is really not important that we understand each other. What is important is that you understand me."
(By the way, I didn't actually believe you were a creationist. Just checking to see if you have a sense of humor. You don't.)
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 22 2011, 06:44 PM)
It is my policy to use this unpaid position to support fact-based reasoning over alternatives. ... Accordingly, more often than not, if I call you on a serious paucity of facts and/or reason, it is to your benefit to make sure I understand your point of view.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 23 2011, 05:53 AM)
That sounds a little bit like a threat.
Ah, but as I am only threatening the dishonest, no worthy person would think I'm threatening them.
Ah, but as I am only threatening the dishonest, no worthy person would think I'm threatening them.
My point exactly, Boit.
@Derek
Belittling or intimidation is something any minority should be proofed against by family support, as all minorities are likely to find some resistant elements in any society. But really, how much harm can this really do? I mean aside from our ever more sensitive definition of harm. I'd suspect peer bullying to be a much greater threat to school children, harm-wise.
@FBM
The thing about otherwise modern societies that have fallen prey to religious fundamentalism is that they were primed to do so. IOW, the people of those societies were dissatisfied in such a way that made the prospect appealing. Much like the pressures that have led to the rise of several non-religious fundamentalists to power.
Now I don't think this likely in the US, but if it were to happen, most likely it would be by a serious galvanization of the religious majority due to an increasing resistance to a ever more vocal and active minority (or a collection of such).
I say let sleeping dogs lie. Give them their little dumb-show symbols. All it takes is a little pacifying at no real cost other than our self-righteous ideals. The only true erosion will happen when such people finally feel backed into a corner.
Is the stand worth the fall, or can a compromise be had?
@Derek
Belittling or intimidation is something any minority should be proofed against by family support, as all minorities are likely to find some resistant elements in any society. But really, how much harm can this really do? I mean aside from our ever more sensitive definition of harm. I'd suspect peer bullying to be a much greater threat to school children, harm-wise.
@FBM
The thing about otherwise modern societies that have fallen prey to religious fundamentalism is that they were primed to do so. IOW, the people of those societies were dissatisfied in such a way that made the prospect appealing. Much like the pressures that have led to the rise of several non-religious fundamentalists to power.
Now I don't think this likely in the US, but if it were to happen, most likely it would be by a serious galvanization of the religious majority due to an increasing resistance to a ever more vocal and active minority (or a collection of such).
I say let sleeping dogs lie. Give them their little dumb-show symbols. All it takes is a little pacifying at no real cost other than our self-righteous ideals. The only true erosion will happen when such people finally feel backed into a corner.
Is the stand worth the fall, or can a compromise be had?
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 22 2011, 11:07 PM)
The main problem is that creationists are trying to get God back into schools. IMO, this is a response to atheists who first sought to remove harmless things such as prayer, or "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Personally, I think it is just as fair to tell atheists to teach their values outside of the school. The thing is, atheists don't espouse clearly defined values.
I agree that this is ONE of the reasons god folk have lashed out, but they are as erroneous as you are being right now.
Atheism and science are two distinct entities. Science has nothing to do with atheism. The fact that so much of what science has proven, seems to ally with atheism is coincidence. Atheists did not found science, they have just become attracted to it, because it supports their philisophical belief.
The problem is that from both sides of the fighting camps (atheists and god folk) has come a desire to own science. Scientists should be demanding that neither of these factions be allowed to hijack the scientific process. Even if a scientist is an atheist, they should not be smudging the line of scientific theory and philisophical theory. Both are at fault in my opinion.
The victim in all of this WILL be science if this does not stop.
I disagree with you that it was wrong to remove god references (prayer etc) from government bodies. There must be a division between the two. If I do not believe in god (as an agnostic, not an atheist) then I do not believe I should be forced to swear before such a non existing god, that I will tell the truth the whole truth "so help me god" when I do not believe in such a god. Governments must be secular and not religeos or atheist.
I agree with you that atheism should not be taught in schools, but I have no evidence anywhere, that that is what atheists want. All they want , is references to god, to be removed from schools. This is not forcing an atheist agenda, it is correcting a mistake that was made in the first place by stupidly enforcing god doctrine into schools and government in the first place.
I agree that this is ONE of the reasons god folk have lashed out, but they are as erroneous as you are being right now.
Atheism and science are two distinct entities. Science has nothing to do with atheism. The fact that so much of what science has proven, seems to ally with atheism is coincidence. Atheists did not found science, they have just become attracted to it, because it supports their philisophical belief.
The problem is that from both sides of the fighting camps (atheists and god folk) has come a desire to own science. Scientists should be demanding that neither of these factions be allowed to hijack the scientific process. Even if a scientist is an atheist, they should not be smudging the line of scientific theory and philisophical theory. Both are at fault in my opinion.
The victim in all of this WILL be science if this does not stop.
I disagree with you that it was wrong to remove god references (prayer etc) from government bodies. There must be a division between the two. If I do not believe in god (as an agnostic, not an atheist) then I do not believe I should be forced to swear before such a non existing god, that I will tell the truth the whole truth "so help me god" when I do not believe in such a god. Governments must be secular and not religeos or atheist.
I agree with you that atheism should not be taught in schools, but I have no evidence anywhere, that that is what atheists want. All they want , is references to god, to be removed from schools. This is not forcing an atheist agenda, it is correcting a mistake that was made in the first place by stupidly enforcing god doctrine into schools and government in the first place.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 06:23 AM)
@Derek
Belittling or intimidation is something any minority should be proofed against by family support, as all minorities are likely to find some resistant elements in any society. But really, how much harm can this really do? I mean aside from our ever more sensitive definition of harm. I'd suspect peer bullying to be a much greater threat to school children, harm-wise.
Of course, that is easy to say if you are in the majority. And it is not your child that is being abused. (By the way, that is what it is called depending on the level of intimidation involved. And any contact involved might even be called assault.)
The laws prohibiting forced religious participation were not enacted by atheists and satan worshippers To the contrary, in many cases the authors were Christians. As rpenner (so eloquently put it): the First Amendment is pretty clear.
Belittling or intimidation is something any minority should be proofed against by family support, as all minorities are likely to find some resistant elements in any society. But really, how much harm can this really do? I mean aside from our ever more sensitive definition of harm. I'd suspect peer bullying to be a much greater threat to school children, harm-wise.
Of course, that is easy to say if you are in the majority. And it is not your child that is being abused. (By the way, that is what it is called depending on the level of intimidation involved. And any contact involved might even be called assault.)
The laws prohibiting forced religious participation were not enacted by atheists and satan worshippers To the contrary, in many cases the authors were Christians. As rpenner (so eloquently put it): the First Amendment is pretty clear.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 23 2011, 03:02 AM)
I don't think religion should be inhibited, but I will resist with extreme prejudice any attempt to use government institutions as a method of supporting or spreading religion.
For example: GOP House Judiciary Committee Votes to Put ‘In God We Trust’ on All 9,000 Federal Buildings
I agree that governments should be impartial on the issue of religeon/philosophy. In the US with its version of democracy, they have declared that everyone is equal under the law. Governments (especially democratic) have taken on the role of representing all the people.
Of course democracy is not a system of absolute equality, it is a system of the majority in reality. Herein lies the problem. Those that do not believe in specifically the christian god, are rising in numbers, and because they have been the minority in the past, their voices are filled with vim and vigour. As a result, their numbers are increasing to the point where they will become the majority in the near future.
The money hungry politicians are running in fear. In effect, the god/bible thumping politicians are trying to dictate to the growing majority of non christian god believers, that they MUST believe in god (by trying to include "In god we trust" on federal buildings for example). In effect (like a dictatorship) the growing god believeing minority want to impose a specific belief on the majority. This is not what the founding fathers of the US had in mind (IMO).
The political system in the US was specifically trying to move away from this practice, by saying that EVERYONE is equal under the law and has equal protection under the law. In a way, this is a utopian belief to try level the playing ground, when in fact the practice of such has proven to be almost impossible. It is a system of representation, and in that system, the majority rules.....and when money and corruption = power, comes into the equation (common human weakness), then you end up with what now exists in the US. A mess!
I do believe that everyone in the US is technically equal under the law, but the problem is that if the majority vote a law into existance that forces part of the population to accept a god they do not believe in, then it has failed in its purpose, which is why god and religeon should be taken out of government in the first place.
For example: GOP House Judiciary Committee Votes to Put ‘In God We Trust’ on All 9,000 Federal Buildings
I agree that governments should be impartial on the issue of religeon/philosophy. In the US with its version of democracy, they have declared that everyone is equal under the law. Governments (especially democratic) have taken on the role of representing all the people.
Of course democracy is not a system of absolute equality, it is a system of the majority in reality. Herein lies the problem. Those that do not believe in specifically the christian god, are rising in numbers, and because they have been the minority in the past, their voices are filled with vim and vigour. As a result, their numbers are increasing to the point where they will become the majority in the near future.
The money hungry politicians are running in fear. In effect, the god/bible thumping politicians are trying to dictate to the growing majority of non christian god believers, that they MUST believe in god (by trying to include "In god we trust" on federal buildings for example). In effect (like a dictatorship) the growing god believeing minority want to impose a specific belief on the majority. This is not what the founding fathers of the US had in mind (IMO).
The political system in the US was specifically trying to move away from this practice, by saying that EVERYONE is equal under the law and has equal protection under the law. In a way, this is a utopian belief to try level the playing ground, when in fact the practice of such has proven to be almost impossible. It is a system of representation, and in that system, the majority rules.....and when money and corruption = power, comes into the equation (common human weakness), then you end up with what now exists in the US. A mess!
I do believe that everyone in the US is technically equal under the law, but the problem is that if the majority vote a law into existance that forces part of the population to accept a god they do not believe in, then it has failed in its purpose, which is why god and religeon should be taken out of government in the first place.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 06:23 AM)
Is the stand worth the fall, or can a compromise be had?
I believe the compromise is possible and extremely neccesary. I think we both agree, that fundamentalism on either side is dangerous.
The compromise requires both sides to participate. This is proving to be very difficult, because there are other agendas at hand. One such agenda is money. By maintaining control and keeping power, enables you to ride the money wave. I truly believe this is one of the strongest driving forces behind the scenes.
I believe that religeous folk should be entitled to practice their belief in their arena, where it should not force those who do not wish to participate to do so.
Removing religeon from government is a correction of an error (they would disagree I know) made by religeous folk. The original system of democracy, which was not invented by the US, was created to allow every citizen to participate in the system of government. In the US, the majority at some point decided to include god into their system. This is how representative democracy works.
The problem now, is that the growing minority (fast becoming a majority) want god removed from the government system, and those that previously used the system to their advantage to introduce god, dont like this. They now fear falling from power (driven by a greedy desire to maintain control) they are trying all kinds of things to remove the power from the masses. This is a systematic and slow process. What they fail to understand, is that the will of the majority will always overcome. The only issue is, will it be peaceful or bloody.
It seems to me, that good god fearing citizens in the US, are all too happy to let their leaders enact laws that in effect remove them from the equation and political process, as long as those politicians are promoting so called "godly" values. What they need to remember, is that those corrupt politicians who are using this agenda to self empower themselves, will turn on them in an instant, and when that happens, the laws they helped enact, will have removed the power from them.
People have become lazy and complacent, and are all to happy to allow politicians to unilaterally make decisions for them, as long as they can spend more money and buy more cars. Crunch time is coming! This is not what democracy is supposed to be. The people MUST be involved and MUST take responsibility.
The systematic process of the erosion of people power is far too clear to many of us. Fear mongering is one of the latest tools of these oligarchs. It is a slow process of telling citizens that they cannot make decisions for themselves and big brother must act in citizens best interests. Of course there are many who do this because they truly believe they are acting in citizens best interests, and I commend them, but the same system is being used by those who are only interested in their own money driven agenda.
So to answer the question, can a compromise be had? I doubt it. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac and drug. It is very hard to give up. Those that have tasted power and construed to obtain it, will not hand it over so easy, and if it does pass to another sector, there is no guarantee that the new power players will not do the same. If democracy is truly maintained, then the people will always have the power, but the people need to get off their asses and participate in the process (aka Wisconsin recently), and those that do not participate, must not sit there whining about their INEVITABLE loss.
I believe the compromise is possible and extremely neccesary. I think we both agree, that fundamentalism on either side is dangerous.
The compromise requires both sides to participate. This is proving to be very difficult, because there are other agendas at hand. One such agenda is money. By maintaining control and keeping power, enables you to ride the money wave. I truly believe this is one of the strongest driving forces behind the scenes.
I believe that religeous folk should be entitled to practice their belief in their arena, where it should not force those who do not wish to participate to do so.
Removing religeon from government is a correction of an error (they would disagree I know) made by religeous folk. The original system of democracy, which was not invented by the US, was created to allow every citizen to participate in the system of government. In the US, the majority at some point decided to include god into their system. This is how representative democracy works.
The problem now, is that the growing minority (fast becoming a majority) want god removed from the government system, and those that previously used the system to their advantage to introduce god, dont like this. They now fear falling from power (driven by a greedy desire to maintain control) they are trying all kinds of things to remove the power from the masses. This is a systematic and slow process. What they fail to understand, is that the will of the majority will always overcome. The only issue is, will it be peaceful or bloody.
It seems to me, that good god fearing citizens in the US, are all too happy to let their leaders enact laws that in effect remove them from the equation and political process, as long as those politicians are promoting so called "godly" values. What they need to remember, is that those corrupt politicians who are using this agenda to self empower themselves, will turn on them in an instant, and when that happens, the laws they helped enact, will have removed the power from them.
People have become lazy and complacent, and are all to happy to allow politicians to unilaterally make decisions for them, as long as they can spend more money and buy more cars. Crunch time is coming! This is not what democracy is supposed to be. The people MUST be involved and MUST take responsibility.
The systematic process of the erosion of people power is far too clear to many of us. Fear mongering is one of the latest tools of these oligarchs. It is a slow process of telling citizens that they cannot make decisions for themselves and big brother must act in citizens best interests. Of course there are many who do this because they truly believe they are acting in citizens best interests, and I commend them, but the same system is being used by those who are only interested in their own money driven agenda.
So to answer the question, can a compromise be had? I doubt it. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac and drug. It is very hard to give up. Those that have tasted power and construed to obtain it, will not hand it over so easy, and if it does pass to another sector, there is no guarantee that the new power players will not do the same. If democracy is truly maintained, then the people will always have the power, but the people need to get off their asses and participate in the process (aka Wisconsin recently), and those that do not participate, must not sit there whining about their INEVITABLE loss.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 01:23 AM)
The thing about otherwise modern societies that have fallen prey to religious fundamentalism is that they were primed to do so. IOW, the people of those societies were dissatisfied in such a way that made the prospect appealing. Much like the pressures that have led to the rise of several non-religious fundamentalists to power.
What exactly is a non-religious fundamentalist? Do you have any examples?
Luckily, the Christian church is so fragmented that no one group or person can get the whole of Christianity to think or believe in a certain way. A few centuries ago, the papacy had that power and abused it. The fracturing of the Christian church is probably one of the greatest events in European history. Islam was pro-science until one guy proclaimed science to be evil. So yes, it is unlikely to happen in the United States, but only because of a very specific reason.
Luckily, the Christian church is so fragmented that no one group or person can get the whole of Christianity to think or believe in a certain way. A few centuries ago, the papacy had that power and abused it. The fracturing of the Christian church is probably one of the greatest events in European history. Islam was pro-science until one guy proclaimed science to be evil. So yes, it is unlikely to happen in the United States, but only because of a very specific reason.
I say let sleeping dogs lie. Give them their little dumb-show symbols. All it takes is a little pacifying at no real cost other than our self-righteous ideals. The only true erosion will happen when such people finally feel backed into a corner.
Is the stand worth the fall, or can a compromise be had?
The United States was founded as a secular nation. Allowing religious symbols to be displayed by the government goes against the constitution and is dangerous. We already have a dangerously strong connection between a political party and a religious group (GOP <3 Evangelicals), we certainly don't need any endorsements going the other way as well.
What exactly is a non-religious fundamentalist? Do you have any examples?
QUOTE
Now I don't think this likely in the US, but if it were to happen, most likely it would be by a serious galvanization of the religious majority due to an increasing resistance to a ever more vocal and active minority (or a collection of such).
Luckily, the Christian church is so fragmented that no one group or person can get the whole of Christianity to think or believe in a certain way. A few centuries ago, the papacy had that power and abused it. The fracturing of the Christian church is probably one of the greatest events in European history. Islam was pro-science until one guy proclaimed science to be evil. So yes, it is unlikely to happen in the United States, but only because of a very specific reason.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now I don't think this likely in the US, but if it were to happen, most likely it would be by a serious galvanization of the religious majority due to an increasing resistance to a ever more vocal and active minority (or a collection of such). |
Luckily, the Christian church is so fragmented that no one group or person can get the whole of Christianity to think or believe in a certain way. A few centuries ago, the papacy had that power and abused it. The fracturing of the Christian church is probably one of the greatest events in European history. Islam was pro-science until one guy proclaimed science to be evil. So yes, it is unlikely to happen in the United States, but only because of a very specific reason.
I say let sleeping dogs lie. Give them their little dumb-show symbols. All it takes is a little pacifying at no real cost other than our self-righteous ideals. The only true erosion will happen when such people finally feel backed into a corner.
Is the stand worth the fall, or can a compromise be had?
The United States was founded as a secular nation. Allowing religious symbols to be displayed by the government goes against the constitution and is dangerous. We already have a dangerously strong connection between a political party and a religious group (GOP <3 Evangelicals), we certainly don't need any endorsements going the other way as well.
boit:
Beg to differ. Christianity is not taught in school as mythology; it is taught as Reality. Reality that can't be reasonably proven. What's more, the mere teaching of something that is 1)deemed true, and 2)requires faith not fact, subtly also teaches the impressionable children - who look literally up to their teachers as icons of trust - teaches them the larger message that things other than facts are acceptable criteria for proof in general.
While there is a growing number of people who are 'softly Deist', but strongly not theist, the numbers of organized religion are fragmenting and re-polarizing in radical forms: signs that attrition of religious mystery in the face of growing science is disrupting the house of cards. The best way to counter that is to get to the young children in hopes of keeping the religion alive at least somewhere in the mind, so that tactic is being pushed.
As an agnostic, I don't have an issue with the more expansive, kinder, gentler Deist faiths like the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, who don't at all espouse traditional fear aspects of Biblical fare, and who also don't require official membership; whether you are of a denomination or atheist, you remain that in their church. It's amazing the difference between those of 'new age' (read 'non-hell/damnation') faiths and the traditional ones that require specialness and promises of irreversible almighty hate which must be the chief belief in order to establish the voluntary compliance required. Faiths like U/U particularly espouse tenets like the Golden Rule and the working toward the Buddhist 'disinterested love' (love not just directed to certain ones, but rather as a general state of mind). Of course, teaching this sort of thing in school as 'religion' will never happen, only the brutal twisted psychology of religious fiction will.
QUOTE
You shouldn't be over-zealous in fighting religion from being taught in school.
Beg to differ. Christianity is not taught in school as mythology; it is taught as Reality. Reality that can't be reasonably proven. What's more, the mere teaching of something that is 1)deemed true, and 2)requires faith not fact, subtly also teaches the impressionable children - who look literally up to their teachers as icons of trust - teaches them the larger message that things other than facts are acceptable criteria for proof in general.
While there is a growing number of people who are 'softly Deist', but strongly not theist, the numbers of organized religion are fragmenting and re-polarizing in radical forms: signs that attrition of religious mystery in the face of growing science is disrupting the house of cards. The best way to counter that is to get to the young children in hopes of keeping the religion alive at least somewhere in the mind, so that tactic is being pushed.
As an agnostic, I don't have an issue with the more expansive, kinder, gentler Deist faiths like the Unitarian/Universalist congregation, who don't at all espouse traditional fear aspects of Biblical fare, and who also don't require official membership; whether you are of a denomination or atheist, you remain that in their church. It's amazing the difference between those of 'new age' (read 'non-hell/damnation') faiths and the traditional ones that require specialness and promises of irreversible almighty hate which must be the chief belief in order to establish the voluntary compliance required. Faiths like U/U particularly espouse tenets like the Golden Rule and the working toward the Buddhist 'disinterested love' (love not just directed to certain ones, but rather as a general state of mind). Of course, teaching this sort of thing in school as 'religion' will never happen, only the brutal twisted psychology of religious fiction will.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 23 2011, 12:54 AM)
Atheism and science are two distinct entities. Science has nothing to do with atheism. The fact that so much of what science has proven, seems to ally with atheism is coincidence. Atheists did not found science, they have just become attracted to it, because it supports their philisophical belief.
QUOTE (Me+)
Atheism is not a required part of evolution
We agree on that.
I didn't necessarily say it was wrong, only that it provoked a response that may have exacerbated the intent. What role could such preemptive moves, on the part of a minority before it has actually become the majority, play in the galvanization of their opposition? Seems like there's a direct causation there, at least among all of the various minorities making a concerted effort to claim the rights of the majority before their time. Minorities are guaranteed freedom from persecution, not carte blanche.
I didn't necessarily say it was wrong, only that it provoked a response that may have exacerbated the intent. What role could such preemptive moves, on the part of a minority before it has actually become the majority, play in the galvanization of their opposition? Seems like there's a direct causation there, at least among all of the various minorities making a concerted effort to claim the rights of the majority before their time. Minorities are guaranteed freedom from persecution, not carte blanche.
What exactly is a non-religious fundamentalist? Do you have any examples?
We agree on that.
QUOTE
I disagree with you that it was wrong to remove god references (prayer etc) from government bodies.
I didn't necessarily say it was wrong, only that it provoked a response that may have exacerbated the intent. What role could such preemptive moves, on the part of a minority before it has actually become the majority, play in the galvanization of their opposition? Seems like there's a direct causation there, at least among all of the various minorities making a concerted effort to claim the rights of the majority before their time. Minorities are guaranteed freedom from persecution, not carte blanche.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I disagree with you that it was wrong to remove god references (prayer etc) from government bodies. |
I didn't necessarily say it was wrong, only that it provoked a response that may have exacerbated the intent. What role could such preemptive moves, on the part of a minority before it has actually become the majority, play in the galvanization of their opposition? Seems like there's a direct causation there, at least among all of the various minorities making a concerted effort to claim the rights of the majority before their time. Minorities are guaranteed freedom from persecution, not carte blanche.
What exactly is a non-religious fundamentalist? Do you have any examples?
QUOTE (wiki on fundamentalism+)
The term has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity (see Establishment), but has by and large retained religious connotations. Historically, for some constituencies fundamentalism connotes an attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.
Many dictators of various ideologies fall under this heading.
Many dictators of various ideologies fall under this heading.
QUOTE (Derek+)
Of course, that is easy to say if you are in the majority. And it is not your child that is being abused.
I'm not sure what majority you may be implying I'm in, as I've already said I'm no creationist. Abuse? Really?
Sorry guys, I just can't see the harm in anyone, child or adult, playing along with or having some much touted tolerance for such displays. Talk about giving a symbol power. In many countries, religion is prevalent and is just a part of the culture. It's like any other cultural tradition. Should all cultures be completely homogeneous?
In a representative government, majority does rule. Culture, morals, and laws are formed as a generalized consensus of the majority. Seeking to overrule the existing majority is against the constitution, as it denies the rule by the people. Yes, there is a separation of church and state, but not of culture and state, and where culture intersects religion should not necessarily be denied. Many of the most rich cultures in the world are highly influenced by religion. Regardless of these displays and wordings, religion only influences through the vote in this country. Any other assumption is paranoid.
I may not totally agree with some things, but until the majority changes, I don't think it should be usurped.
I'm not sure what majority you may be implying I'm in, as I've already said I'm no creationist. Abuse? Really?
Sorry guys, I just can't see the harm in anyone, child or adult, playing along with or having some much touted tolerance for such displays. Talk about giving a symbol power. In many countries, religion is prevalent and is just a part of the culture. It's like any other cultural tradition. Should all cultures be completely homogeneous?
In a representative government, majority does rule. Culture, morals, and laws are formed as a generalized consensus of the majority. Seeking to overrule the existing majority is against the constitution, as it denies the rule by the people. Yes, there is a separation of church and state, but not of culture and state, and where culture intersects religion should not necessarily be denied. Many of the most rich cultures in the world are highly influenced by religion. Regardless of these displays and wordings, religion only influences through the vote in this country. Any other assumption is paranoid.
I may not totally agree with some things, but until the majority changes, I don't think it should be usurped.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 12:12 PM)
Many dictators of various ideologies fall under this heading.
There is a difference between a dictatorship and a theocracy. Dictators usually don't defend any set of principles except strict loyalty to the state. A Theocracy is a dictatorship with a religious foundation that dictates numerous other principles.
That aside, we were not talking about forms of government. By the definition you chose, atheism could not be considered fundamentalism as atheists have no core set of beliefs. They are often unpopular because they don't share the beliefs of the majority, not because they believe anything in particular. The only thing truly common among atheists is the belief that god's existence is unlikely at best.
Please show me an example of atheist fundamentalism.
There is a difference between a dictatorship and a theocracy. Dictators usually don't defend any set of principles except strict loyalty to the state. A Theocracy is a dictatorship with a religious foundation that dictates numerous other principles.
That aside, we were not talking about forms of government. By the definition you chose, atheism could not be considered fundamentalism as atheists have no core set of beliefs. They are often unpopular because they don't share the beliefs of the majority, not because they believe anything in particular. The only thing truly common among atheists is the belief that god's existence is unlikely at best.
Please show me an example of atheist fundamentalism.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 23 2011, 11:32 AM)
There is a difference between a dictatorship and a theocracy. Dictators usually don't defend any set of principles except strict loyalty to the state. A Theocracy is a dictatorship with a religious foundation that dictates numerous other principles.
That aside, we were not talking about forms of government. By the definition you chose, atheism could not be considered fundamentalism as atheists have no core set of beliefs.
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion.
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion. If this bill passes would you allow him to be a moderator for a day?
That aside, we were not talking about forms of government. By the definition you chose, atheism could not be considered fundamentalism as atheists have no core set of beliefs.
QUOTE (wiki+)
Historically, for some constituencies fundamentalism connotes an attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.
These would include an extreme ideology of nationalism. Fundamentalism is not strictly theocratic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
I didn't say atheists were fundamentalists, but that they can be an extreme in this debate. Don't twist what I say unless you can quote me on it.
But it is rarely argued that way, is it? "Unlikely" as a qualifier seems to quickly drop out of the debate for the more extreme atheists. Denying such a qualifier puts it on equal ground as the opposition.
These would include an extreme ideology of nationalism. Fundamentalism is not strictly theocratic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
I didn't say atheists were fundamentalists, but that they can be an extreme in this debate. Don't twist what I say unless you can quote me on it.
QUOTE
The only thing truly common among atheists is the belief that god's existence is unlikely at best.
But it is rarely argued that way, is it? "Unlikely" as a qualifier seems to quickly drop out of the debate for the more extreme atheists. Denying such a qualifier puts it on equal ground as the opposition.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 05:12 PM)
I may not totally agree with some things, but until the majority changes, I don't think it should be usurped.
Occasionally the way "the majority" opinion is changed is by invasion from other countries. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany. Look at the Khmer Rouge. Do you believe majority relates in some way to morality. The majority of the people at a lynching, believe in lynching.
Occasionally the way "the majority" opinion is changed is by invasion from other countries. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany. Look at the Khmer Rouge. Do you believe majority relates in some way to morality. The majority of the people at a lynching, believe in lynching.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 23 2011, 12:07 PM)
Occasionally the way "the majority" opinion is changed is by invasion from other countries. Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany. Look at the Khmer Rouge. Do you believe majority relates in some way to morality. The majority of the people at a lynching, believe in lynching.
There's already a thread discussing morality. It's off-topic in this one. There is nothing ambiguous about what constitutes a majority.
There's already a thread discussing morality. It's off-topic in this one. There is nothing ambiguous about what constitutes a majority.
What are you people afraid of?
Having a creationist moderator would boost interest in this forum and would lead to more interesting threads.
What you have here now is a dictatorship with only one view allowed. True? Yes
Having a creationist moderator would boost interest in this forum and would lead to more interesting threads.
What you have here now is a dictatorship with only one view allowed. True? Yes
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 12:59 PM)
But it is rarely argued that way, is it? "Unlikely" as a qualifier seems to quickly drop out of the debate for the more extreme atheists. Denying such a qualifier puts it on equal ground as the opposition.
It depends on which god you are talking about. In general, "god" is an extremely vague concept with almost no definition. On this very forum, we had an obnoxious user who repeatedly claimed that god is an extraterrestrial.
Specific gods often have characteristics assigned to them by their believers. We know that omniscience is impossible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example. Any god which is said to be omniscient does not exist.
You can't really prove or disprove anything that doesn't have a solid definition.
It depends on which god you are talking about. In general, "god" is an extremely vague concept with almost no definition. On this very forum, we had an obnoxious user who repeatedly claimed that god is an extraterrestrial.
Specific gods often have characteristics assigned to them by their believers. We know that omniscience is impossible due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example. Any god which is said to be omniscient does not exist.
You can't really prove or disprove anything that doesn't have a solid definition.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 23 2011, 12:55 PM)
You can't really prove or disprove anything that doesn't have a solid definition.
Exactly why I say those who try to on either side are equally untenable.
Exactly why I say those who try to on either side are equally untenable.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 23 2011, 02:21 PM)
Exactly why I say those who try to on either side are equally untenable.
What position do you find to be defensible?
What position do you find to be defensible?
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 23 2011, 06:54 PM)
Having a creationist moderator would boost interest in this forum and would lead to more interesting threads.
But it would not necessarily result in less punitive actions taken toward unpleasant creationist posters who toss logic and evidence out while claiming they are the only ones addressing facts and logic.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...lled_ha_haa.php
But it would not necessarily result in less punitive actions taken toward unpleasant creationist posters who toss logic and evidence out while claiming they are the only ones addressing facts and logic.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...lled_ha_haa.php
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 23 2011, 01:34 PM)
What position do you find to be defensible?
Validated science is easily defensible. As long as people are smarter than to cross that line, anything else is up for debate, including atheism. Pretty simple.
Validated science is easily defensible. As long as people are smarter than to cross that line, anything else is up for debate, including atheism. Pretty simple.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 23 2011, 10:30 PM)
But it would not necessarily result in less punitive actions taken toward unpleasant creationist posters who toss logic and evidence out while claiming they are the only ones addressing facts and logic.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...lled_ha_haa.php
네, 사실 수 있습니다. 그런데 당신의 견해를 표현할 수있는 더 많은 자유를했을
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...lled_ha_haa.php
네, 사실 수 있습니다. 그런데 당신의 견해를 표현할 수있는 더 많은 자유를했을
Is that Koren? I thought rpenner studied Japanese.
BTW, you may not be able to comment on his "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" video, but you can comment on his channel...
http://www.youtube.com/user/williamgivens
BTW, you may not be able to comment on his "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" video, but you can comment on his channel...
http://www.youtube.com/user/williamgivens
QUOTE (no1nose+Mar 23 2011, 08:07 PM)
네, 사실 수 있습니다. 그런데 당신의 견해를 표현할 수있는 더 많은 자유를했을
This google translates to:
Uhhh, ok.
This google translates to:
QUOTE
Yes, it can be. But you can express your views have more freedom
Uhhh, ok.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Mar 24 2011, 01:15 AM)
Is that Koren? I thought rpenner studied Japanese.
BTW, you may not be able to comment on his "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" video, but you can comment on his channel...
http://www.youtube.com/user/williamgivens
So its no more 'no1nose" BUT RATHER "every1nose"
Thanks for da link.
BTW, you may not be able to comment on his "Math Logic Disproves Evolution" video, but you can comment on his channel...
http://www.youtube.com/user/williamgivens
So its no more 'no1nose" BUT RATHER "every1nose"
Thanks for da link.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 24 2011, 01:41 AM)
This google translates to:
After a detailed study, it looks like he is acknowledging that even Christian Creationist Moderators can be fully capable of exercising punitive measures against Christian Creationist viewpoints, but that he would like more freedom to express his opinions.
no1nose is free to post on Korean Christian Creationist forums if he likes, and they will deal with him as they see fit.
If no1nose wants to post here, for starters he has to learn the difference between fact and opinion, he has to learn why mere assertion is no argument, and he must demonstrate this knowledge and awareness of other posters.
그는 사실과 의견의 차이를 배울 필요합니다. 그는 논리적인 논쟁과 단순한 주장의 차이를 배울 필요합니다. 그는 이 지식을 입증 해야합니다. 그는 다른 인간의 인식한다는 것을 보여.
You are free to express opinions, but empirical facts belong to the universe and should not be falsified on a science forum.
당신의 의견을 표현하는 자유를했습니다. 그러나 경험적 사실을 우주 모든 가 소유 하고 있습니다. 과학을하는 동안, 절대 거짓말을 말해.
(Google-assisted Korean is still pretty difficult.)
After a detailed study, it looks like he is acknowledging that even Christian Creationist Moderators can be fully capable of exercising punitive measures against Christian Creationist viewpoints, but that he would like more freedom to express his opinions.
no1nose is free to post on Korean Christian Creationist forums if he likes, and they will deal with him as they see fit.
If no1nose wants to post here, for starters he has to learn the difference between fact and opinion, he has to learn why mere assertion is no argument, and he must demonstrate this knowledge and awareness of other posters.
그는 사실과 의견의 차이를 배울 필요합니다. 그는 논리적인 논쟁과 단순한 주장의 차이를 배울 필요합니다. 그는 이 지식을 입증 해야합니다. 그는 다른 인간의 인식한다는 것을 보여.
You are free to express opinions, but empirical facts belong to the universe and should not be falsified on a science forum.
당신의 의견을 표현하는 자유를했습니다. 그러나 경험적 사실을 우주 모든 가 소유 하고 있습니다. 과학을하는 동안, 절대 거짓말을 말해.
(Google-assisted Korean is still pretty difficult.)
You don't want to be accused of discriminating against creationists, do you?
Why not give him hope. If this bill passes would you allow him to be a moderator for a day?
Prohibiting discrimination against intelligent design
Why not give him hope. If this bill passes would you allow him to be a moderator for a day?
Prohibiting discrimination against intelligent design
QUOTE
he has to learn the difference between fact and opinion
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| he has to learn the difference between fact and opinion |
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion. If this bill passes would you allow him to be a moderator for a day?
If you are going to have a creationist/religious forum, you'll have to allow for religious fact and opinion.
So why not just drop the other shoe and make newguy the full time moderator of the creationist/religious forum? Give that puppy a sail and let the winds blow! I'll even leave him alone, and not intrude.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
So why not just drop the other shoe and make newguy the full time moderator of the creationist/religious forum? Give that puppy a sail and let the winds blow! I'll even leave him alone, and not intrude.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
QUOTE (L.W.+Mar 24 2011, 04:52 PM)
If this bill passes would you allow him to be a moderator for a day?
Prohibiting discrimination against intelligent design
Well this forum is not connected with any entity in Texas, so far as I am aware. But even so, what a stupid (proposed) law!
As phrased, this law would let me eat live babies without fear of academic reprisal so long as I claimed I was taste-testing them to find evidence that in the development of human children there was a statistically significant true peak of flavor a la Swift's thesis "A Modest Proposal."
Just what Texas wants, its prisons filled with crazies who would be technically still on tenure track.
And as moderator, it is beyond the delegated powers I am granted by this software installation on behalf of the forum owners to loan or transfer any of my powers. In no1nose's freedom of opinion, he is welcome to explain what specific actions he would take if given my powers, but I am of the instant opinion that he is unable to support any such opinions with a rational argument from the viewpoint of utility to the forum.
As phrased, this law would let me eat live babies without fear of academic reprisal so long as I claimed I was taste-testing them to find evidence that in the development of human children there was a statistically significant true peak of flavor a la Swift's thesis "A Modest Proposal."
Just what Texas wants, its prisons filled with crazies who would be technically still on tenure track.
And as moderator, it is beyond the delegated powers I am granted by this software installation on behalf of the forum owners to loan or transfer any of my powers. In no1nose's freedom of opinion, he is welcome to explain what specific actions he would take if given my powers, but I am of the instant opinion that he is unable to support any such opinions with a rational argument from the viewpoint of utility to the forum.
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion. If you are going to have a creationist/religious forum, you'll have to allow for religious fact and opinion.
Such a curious qualification of "fact" you have made when clearly the truth status assigned to such a "religious fact" clearly depends on one's religion. I think you mean "religious opinion endorsed by a large authoritarian body" instead of any type of "fact". If I am wrong, please explain how Mormon, Baptist, Shinto, Buddhist and Shia Muslim "religious facts" about the nature of who is rewarded in the afterlife co-exist.
In the alternative, if you are proposing that there is but One True Religion, then clearly your "religious facts" are facts but not ones revealed through empirical evidence and reason, and your "religious opinions" are just lies made up by people unblessed with divine revelation. This is an uninteresting point of view since there is no way to test which set of beliefs is factual, per se. (It is curious that belief in any such One True Religion does not confer any statistically meaningful benefits while publicly displaying observation of the practices of the local government endorsed religion definitely confers relative benefits.)
Prohibiting discrimination against intelligent design
Well this forum is not connected with any entity in Texas, so far as I am aware. But even so, what a stupid (proposed) law!
QUOTE
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
As phrased, this law would let me eat live babies without fear of academic reprisal so long as I claimed I was taste-testing them to find evidence that in the development of human children there was a statistically significant true peak of flavor a la Swift's thesis "A Modest Proposal."
Just what Texas wants, its prisons filled with crazies who would be technically still on tenure track.
And as moderator, it is beyond the delegated powers I am granted by this software installation on behalf of the forum owners to loan or transfer any of my powers. In no1nose's freedom of opinion, he is welcome to explain what specific actions he would take if given my powers, but I am of the instant opinion that he is unable to support any such opinions with a rational argument from the viewpoint of utility to the forum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms. |
As phrased, this law would let me eat live babies without fear of academic reprisal so long as I claimed I was taste-testing them to find evidence that in the development of human children there was a statistically significant true peak of flavor a la Swift's thesis "A Modest Proposal."
Just what Texas wants, its prisons filled with crazies who would be technically still on tenure track.
And as moderator, it is beyond the delegated powers I am granted by this software installation on behalf of the forum owners to loan or transfer any of my powers. In no1nose's freedom of opinion, he is welcome to explain what specific actions he would take if given my powers, but I am of the instant opinion that he is unable to support any such opinions with a rational argument from the viewpoint of utility to the forum.
Among theists, there is also religious fact and opinion. If you are going to have a creationist/religious forum, you'll have to allow for religious fact and opinion.
Such a curious qualification of "fact" you have made when clearly the truth status assigned to such a "religious fact" clearly depends on one's religion. I think you mean "religious opinion endorsed by a large authoritarian body" instead of any type of "fact". If I am wrong, please explain how Mormon, Baptist, Shinto, Buddhist and Shia Muslim "religious facts" about the nature of who is rewarded in the afterlife co-exist.
In the alternative, if you are proposing that there is but One True Religion, then clearly your "religious facts" are facts but not ones revealed through empirical evidence and reason, and your "religious opinions" are just lies made up by people unblessed with divine revelation. This is an uninteresting point of view since there is no way to test which set of beliefs is factual, per se. (It is curious that belief in any such One True Religion does not confer any statistically meaningful benefits while publicly displaying observation of the practices of the local government endorsed religion definitely confers relative benefits.)
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 24 2011, 05:10 PM)
So why not just drop the other shoe and make newguy the full time moderator of the creationist/religious forum? Give that puppy a sail and let the winds blow! I'll even leave him alone, and not intrude.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
He is welcome to find or author a forum where he makes the rules. But I hazard a guess that it will never be this one. The label is "Creation / Evolution" in a broader context of "Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums" so at a minimum, creationist statements ought to be supported by facts and reason just like the other scientific discussions (like gravity or electromagnetism) are. To prevail over evolution, they have to explain everything that evolution does with mathematical precision better than evolution. And when exposed to facts, even creationists concede that they cannot do this because evolution is demonstrated in the laboratory. So it's not even Creation versus Evolution (false dilemma), but down to specific evidence that creation explains some aspects of the universe of evidence better than evolution. For that you need a specific model of creation. That is what newguy and no1nose don't bring to the table.
Ken Ham brought such a model, and then said any one who didn't fully and without reservation endorse his and only his model was No True Christian, and for that he was expelled from an assembly of Christian Creationists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...rty_hippies.php
Since the purpose of this forum is science and not name-calling (sorry, Trout and Ham, you two delicious meats) I think we can eschew plebeian squabbles and East Ender's-level drama for a discussion of facts and reason. I'm sorry if you find that boring, perhaps you are constitutionally unsuited for science discussion.
Ken Ham brought such a model, and then said any one who didn't fully and without reservation endorse his and only his model was No True Christian, and for that he was expelled from an assembly of Christian Creationists.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03...rty_hippies.php
Since the purpose of this forum is science and not name-calling (sorry, Trout and Ham, you two delicious meats) I think we can eschew plebeian squabbles and East Ender's-level drama for a discussion of facts and reason. I'm sorry if you find that boring, perhaps you are constitutionally unsuited for science discussion.
My post was a joking one as I didn't view this thread seriously. I'll answer the claims though.
QUOTE
I think you mean "religious opinion endorsed by a large authoritarian body" instead of any type of "fact".
Precisely what I mean. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you mean "religious opinion endorsed by a large authoritarian body" instead of any type of "fact". |
Precisely what I mean.
if you are proposing that there is but One True Religion
"One True Religion" is an absolute. I am agnostic.
if you are proposing that there is but One True Religion
"One True Religion" is an absolute. I am agnostic.
QUOTE
creationist statements ought to be supported by facts and reason just like the other scientific discussions (like gravity or electromagnetism) are. To prevail over evolution, they have to explain everything that evolution does with mathematical precision better than evolution.
I agree.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| creationist statements ought to be supported by facts and reason just like the other scientific discussions (like gravity or electromagnetism) are. To prevail over evolution, they have to explain everything that evolution does with mathematical precision better than evolution. |
I agree.
Since the purpose of this forum is science and not name-calling (sorry, Trout and Ham, you two delicious meats) I think we can eschew plebeian squabbles and East Ender's-level drama for a discussion of facts and reason.
Since the purpose of this forum is science and not name-calling (sorry, Trout and Ham, you two delicious meats) I think we can eschew plebeian squabbles and East Ender's-level drama for a discussion of facts and reason.
Do you think this forum eschews such? I'm referring to the Creation forum.
QUOTE
I'm sorry if you find that boring, perhaps you are constitutionally unsuited for science discussion.
I have advertised here what in science I am constitutionally unsuited for discussing, and I don't pretend. But I do joke around.
Twice this week, I have been accused of having an insufficient sense of the humor of others. I suggest that it may be that the humor of others is insufficiently differentiated from the sincere ramblings of the unreasonable.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
The only one that Poe’s law applies to in here is the popo.
If rpenner didn’t have a "little" sense of humor, he would have quit long ago.
But I'm funnier!!!
If rpenner didn’t have a "little" sense of humor, he would have quit long ago.
But I'm funnier!!!
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 24 2011, 04:40 PM)
Twice this week, I have been accused of having an insufficient sense of the humor of others. I suggest that it may be that the humor of others is insufficiently differentiated from the sincere ramblings of the unreasonable.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Well, since you are the subject in this instance, insufficiently differentiated by you?
but really, if it was an especially dry martini and I missed it I'll not in the future
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Well, since you are the subject in this instance, insufficiently differentiated by you?
but really, if it was an especially dry martini and I missed it I'll not in the future
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 24 2011, 08:40 PM)
Twice this week, I have been accused of having an insufficient sense of the humor of others. I suggest that it may be that the humor of others is insufficiently differentiated from the sincere ramblings of the unreasonable.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
I suppose a lot this would have to do with how one defines humor.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
I suppose a lot this would have to do with how one defines humor.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
If you are going to have a creationist/religious forum, you'll have to allow for religious fact and opinion.
So why not just drop the other shoe and make newguy the full time moderator of the creationist/religious forum? Give that puppy a sail and let the winds blow! I'll even leave him alone, and not intrude.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
I recognize that you were joking when you said this, but I'm definitely not the guy for the job. I've recently spent some time on a well known "Christian forum". In about a two month span, I received 4 warnings, two infractions and a 30 day ban that just ended last Saturday. Seems that modern day "Christians" don't particularly fancy the words of Jesus Christ. I cannot honestly say that I'm surprised.
Take care.
So why not just drop the other shoe and make newguy the full time moderator of the creationist/religious forum? Give that puppy a sail and let the winds blow! I'll even leave him alone, and not intrude.
It will not be boring.
That's what I'd do.
I recognize that you were joking when you said this, but I'm definitely not the guy for the job. I've recently spent some time on a well known "Christian forum". In about a two month span, I received 4 warnings, two infractions and a 30 day ban that just ended last Saturday. Seems that modern day "Christians" don't particularly fancy the words of Jesus Christ. I cannot honestly say that I'm surprised.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 25 2011, 02:06 AM)
I recognize that you were joking when you said this, but I'm definitely not the guy for the job. I've recently spent some time on a well known "Christian forum". In about a two month span, I received 4 warnings, two infractions and a 30 day ban that just ended last Saturday. Seems that modern day "Christians" don't particularly fancy the words of Jesus Christ. I cannot honestly say that I'm surprised.
My guess is that the fastest way to get banned from a Christian forum is to exclusively quote Leviticus. Or you could just go for Ezekiel 23:20
My guess is that the fastest way to get banned from a Christian forum is to exclusively quote Leviticus. Or you could just go for Ezekiel 23:20
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 25 2011, 02:13 PM)
My guess is that the fastest way to get banned from a Christian forum is to exclusively quote Leviticus. Or you could just go for Ezekiel 23:20
The bible is trully a library. If it was a local library in town, that book will be in the pornography section. Keep out of reach of children warning should be on the cover. Or add keep out of ladies and gentlemen reach too. The shelf should not be less than seven feet high. Anyway christianity is the new testament. Keep old out of everyone's reach.
The bible is trully a library. If it was a local library in town, that book will be in the pornography section. Keep out of reach of children warning should be on the cover. Or add keep out of ladies and gentlemen reach too. The shelf should not be less than seven feet high. Anyway christianity is the new testament. Keep old out of everyone's reach.
QUOTE (boit+Mar 25 2011, 10:14 AM)
Anyway christianity is the new testament. Keep old out of everyone's reach.
The New Testament doesn't get off so easily though. Paul was quite a woman hater:
I Timothy 2:11-14
Ephesians 5:22-24
I Corinthians 11:8-9
I Corinthians 11:3
I Corinthians 14:34-35
The New Testament doesn't get off so easily though. Paul was quite a woman hater:
I Timothy 2:11-14
Ephesians 5:22-24
I Corinthians 11:8-9
I Corinthians 11:3
I Corinthians 14:34-35
Difficult times saint Paul lived in. He really had to perform a delicate balancing act to avoid any confrontation with doctors of religious laws of his time while propagating his new tolerant faith. Not unlike Christianity in Africa where missionaries have learnt to tolerate polygamy. Jesus Christ never seemed to fear confrontation. I'll rather deal with the modern Christian. 
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 24 2011, 08:40 PM)
Twice this week, I have been accused of having an insufficient sense of the humor of others. I suggest that it may be that the humor of others is insufficiently differentiated from the sincere ramblings of the unreasonable.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Hey, I only accused you of drowning kittens.
This forum makes much more sense intoxicated.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
Hey, I only accused you of drowning kittens.
This forum makes much more sense intoxicated.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.