Wow,
Ben Stein once again proves he is a genius. Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious.
The imaginary underpinnings of atheistic bias are revealed for the foolishness they are.
I just ask a simple question.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
QUOTE
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement),
It seems that it is worst then an honestly held belief. It had a foundation of fraud according to this introduction.
I. Introduction
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76).
The nonexistent monera were misrepresented as primitive missing-link single cells found in the slime at the bottom of oceans but in fact were inert precipitates of sulfate of lime (Rupke, 1971, pp. 169-183; Becker, 1999, pp. 14-18). To synthesize a monera, the Miller-Urey experiments failed remarkably and consistently (Yockey, 1992, pp. 231, 232, 234, 238 -241; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 344).
Furthermore, the simulated evolution of a small protein for a small cell yielded an improbability comparable to a successful perpetual motion machine (Yockey, 1992, p. 257). In spite of no evidence from nature or the laboratory or simulation, abiogenesis persists in current high school and university biology textbooks as “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p. 195; Miller and Levine, 2000, pp. 344, 346). To the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis, evolution concatenates the apparent impossibilities of monogenesis, the parent cell spontaneously diversifying to form all other kinds of single-cell organisms, then these in turn spontaneously complicating to all multicellular life forms.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
You're in luck, deadhead. I've got a busy weekend, so I won't be here to thrash your sorry butt once again! 
There are plenty of capable fellows still here though!
Happy clicking!
g.
There are plenty of capable fellows still here though!
Happy clicking!
g.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 05:49 AM)
I just ask a simple question.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
Your "simple question" is so full of holes that I'll just lean on it a tiny bit and sink it ....
Atheism isn't exempt from being inappropriate for academic purposes. Your question is bogus. Provide some example where academia utilizes atheism to support ANY viable point? You can't.
Down goes deadbeat's little ship of foolishness! I have more than one simple question.
Do you understand that Science can no more prove that Yahweh doesn't exist than it can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't continue to make yourself look foolish here on a near daily basis with that worthless line of arguing. If you had an inkling about Dawkins then you'd recognize that he does allow for the possibility that Jehovah exists. But go ahead and continue with your baseless strawmen assertions ... we're all pretty used to it.
It's also clear (if you'd ever read him) that Dawkin's reference to some sort of alien seeding is equivalent to the possibility that some supernatural omnipotent magician did the deed. Dawkins clearly doesn't have the answer to the original mechanism for biogenesis. Unfortunately, none of science does. Does that mean your mythological magician did it? Nope.
Lastly, Atheism and Theism have equal standing under the law. However, organized religion has the special exemption in this country. Atheists in general do not form special organizations and demand tax relief for themselves. Theists do. Why? Yahweh doesn't provide for them? They need secular society to prop them up financially? What sort of chickensh!t outfits are they running? They don't believe in their own dogma enough to stand on their own? That's some ugly hypocrisy right there. Churches across this country set up schools and call their janitorial staff "lay-preachers" in order to gain property tax exemptions for their employees. Hypocrisy? You bet your subjective arse! Seriously, WHY DONT THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN? Could it be they have ZERO real integrity? If they have so much faith then why not disassociate themselves entirely from the secular world instead of gaining so much monetarily from the freedoms they were graciously awarded when this country was founded? Could it be that most of them are really just greedy scumbags? For you to claim somehow that religion is restricted in this country is beyond ludicrous. Religionists are coddled.
Doesn't your angry petty god tell you something in all that mumbo-jumbo you call scripture something about making sure your own house is in order before attacking someone else? It would be especially appropriate in terms of your whining.
I haven't seen the movie and would assume any reasonably intelligent atheist wouldn't bother to line Ben Stein's pockets with their money. However, it's clear from reviews and commentary from some of it's participants that it is conveniently edited. That said, I think it is grand that Bill Maher's movie comes out in a couple of months. No doubt he'll supply a litany of hypocritical examples from the world of religion versus having to manipulatively edit the subjects.
Did they resolve the theft of media from Harvard that appears in the film? Or do they think that the editing they did on that portion of the film absolves them from copyright infringement?
Go away and never come back.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
Your "simple question" is so full of holes that I'll just lean on it a tiny bit and sink it ....
Atheism isn't exempt from being inappropriate for academic purposes. Your question is bogus. Provide some example where academia utilizes atheism to support ANY viable point? You can't.
Down goes deadbeat's little ship of foolishness! I have more than one simple question.
Do you understand that Science can no more prove that Yahweh doesn't exist than it can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't continue to make yourself look foolish here on a near daily basis with that worthless line of arguing. If you had an inkling about Dawkins then you'd recognize that he does allow for the possibility that Jehovah exists. But go ahead and continue with your baseless strawmen assertions ... we're all pretty used to it.
It's also clear (if you'd ever read him) that Dawkin's reference to some sort of alien seeding is equivalent to the possibility that some supernatural omnipotent magician did the deed. Dawkins clearly doesn't have the answer to the original mechanism for biogenesis. Unfortunately, none of science does. Does that mean your mythological magician did it? Nope.
Lastly, Atheism and Theism have equal standing under the law. However, organized religion has the special exemption in this country. Atheists in general do not form special organizations and demand tax relief for themselves. Theists do. Why? Yahweh doesn't provide for them? They need secular society to prop them up financially? What sort of chickensh!t outfits are they running? They don't believe in their own dogma enough to stand on their own? That's some ugly hypocrisy right there. Churches across this country set up schools and call their janitorial staff "lay-preachers" in order to gain property tax exemptions for their employees. Hypocrisy? You bet your subjective arse! Seriously, WHY DONT THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN? Could it be they have ZERO real integrity? If they have so much faith then why not disassociate themselves entirely from the secular world instead of gaining so much monetarily from the freedoms they were graciously awarded when this country was founded? Could it be that most of them are really just greedy scumbags? For you to claim somehow that religion is restricted in this country is beyond ludicrous. Religionists are coddled.
Doesn't your angry petty god tell you something in all that mumbo-jumbo you call scripture something about making sure your own house is in order before attacking someone else? It would be especially appropriate in terms of your whining.
I haven't seen the movie and would assume any reasonably intelligent atheist wouldn't bother to line Ben Stein's pockets with their money. However, it's clear from reviews and commentary from some of it's participants that it is conveniently edited. That said, I think it is grand that Bill Maher's movie comes out in a couple of months. No doubt he'll supply a litany of hypocritical examples from the world of religion versus having to manipulatively edit the subjects.
Did they resolve the theft of media from Harvard that appears in the film? Or do they think that the editing they did on that portion of the film absolves them from copyright infringement?
Go away and never come back.
QUOTE
I just ask a simple question.
Um..no I won't go there..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I just ask a simple question. |
Um..no I won't go there..
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
ID is not a 'Religion' it is a Scientific theory isn't it?
Atheism is not a Religion, that is why it is exempt.
QUOTE
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement),
The burden of proof is with the insisters. They have not come up with anything, except more insistence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), |
The burden of proof is with the insisters. They have not come up with anything, except more insistence.
why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Without proof is one thing without a shred of evidence is another.
Do you believe that Unicorns should share the same study time as Horses in Equestrian class?
QUOTE
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
oh ok i'll bite..
What restrictions do you propose?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 12:49 AM)
I just ask a simple question.
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
Where does any scientific theory claim there is no god?
Name one.
(NOTE: Scientific theory, not the personal opinion of any scientist. But an actual theory.)
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
Where does any scientific theory claim there is no god?
Name one.
(NOTE: Scientific theory, not the personal opinion of any scientist. But an actual theory.)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Getting Dawkins to admit that he thinks ALIENS seeded the earth, rather than accepting the possibility of Intelligent Design was precious.
Ahem, from the mouth (fingers really) of Richard Dawkins himself:
Ahem, from the mouth (fingers really) of Richard Dawkins himself:
QUOTE (Richard Dawkins+)
This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
Please note that the producers of this film kicked out a popularizer of atheism during a screening, and claimed he "crashed" the screening, despite the fact that tickets were available to anyone who wished to request them, and P.Z. Myers (the popularizer in question) had followed the same procedures as everyone else in aquiring them. This is an obvious and blatant lie. He did NOT crash, despite the producer's assertion to the contrary. In fact, Richard Dawkins managed to attend, noting that he was Myers' guest, and thus his name was not on the guest list.
Because Atheism doesn't require untestable assumtions. Atheism doesn't disagree with biological principles. Atheism isn't touted as a replacement for any scientific theory. You've gone BEYOND comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to M1A1 Abrams tanks.
Because Atheism doesn't require untestable assumtions. Atheism doesn't disagree with biological principles. Atheism isn't touted as a replacement for any scientific theory. You've gone BEYOND comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to M1A1 Abrams tanks.
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Because ID attempts to portray itself as science. Atheism does not.
You mean restrictions like tax exempt status?
You mean restrictions like tax exempt status?
It seems that it is worst then an honestly held belief. It had a foundation of fraud according to this introduction.
This is beyond idiotic....
First: What "controversy?" Find me an article published since 1950 in a major, peer-reviewed journal of science or biology which refutes evolution. Just one.
Second: The claim that the foundation of evolution is in abiogenesis is complete and total bullsh*t. COMPLETE. AND. TOTAL. BULLSH*T. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Only the mechanism by which life has changed over time.
In looking at that paper, I found this.
User posted image: User posted image
With the caption:
First: What "controversy?" Find me an article published since 1950 in a major, peer-reviewed journal of science or biology which refutes evolution. Just one.
Second: The claim that the foundation of evolution is in abiogenesis is complete and total bullsh*t. COMPLETE. AND. TOTAL. BULLSH*T. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Only the mechanism by which life has changed over time.
In looking at that paper, I found this.
User posted image: User posted image
With the caption:
Figure 1. If evolution were true, these would be the medically
reported genetic disorders from 1966 to 1999.
These data are actually reversed. Like these data, evolution
is false.
All by itself. No context, just a single claim.
Right below it, is this:
User posted image: User posted image
Without ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of the population increase in that time, or the increase in the efficiency with which such defects are reported. There is NO MENTION of what population this is taken from (world pop, US pop, Californian pop...)
This is not science, regardles of any claims or qualifications of the writers. Science does NOT LEAVE HUGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR ARGUMENT WHEN THE MEANS TO FILL THEM ARE READILY AVAILABLE.
I would call the authors of this paper a fraud TO THEIR FACES if I could.
Note that this paper was published in Creation Research Society Quarterly and since it attacks evolution, there is therefore no way of knowing whether or not any critical review of this paper was even undertaken, despite the claims of peer-review. An idication of the LACK of peer review can be found in the paper itself, which says at one point:
Without ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of the population increase in that time, or the increase in the efficiency with which such defects are reported. There is NO MENTION of what population this is taken from (world pop, US pop, Californian pop...)
This is not science, regardles of any claims or qualifications of the writers. Science does NOT LEAVE HUGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR ARGUMENT WHEN THE MEANS TO FILL THEM ARE READILY AVAILABLE.
I would call the authors of this paper a fraud TO THEIR FACES if I could.
Note that this paper was published in Creation Research Society Quarterly and since it attacks evolution, there is therefore no way of knowing whether or not any critical review of this paper was even undertaken, despite the claims of peer-review. An idication of the LACK of peer review can be found in the paper itself, which says at one point:
To give a language reference, let us define “zillion” as greater than 104,000,000 (1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros)
one hundred and four million is a one followed by four million zeros? Really? Well the paper was "published" in 2001, so there was no need to trascribe anything to get it on the website there... Just copy and paste...
So that error was almost certainly present in the "published" version, as well.
JUst one more quote from this article before I go...
WRONG!
UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY INCORRECT!
DEVOLUTION would mean changes in reverse along the same path as an organism took to evolve to that point. Any changes which were not reverse movement along that same path would be further evolution.
Also, the fact that a species goes exist is not evidence against evolution. Environments change, retards! The writers of this article are as dishonest as anyone I've ever met.
It seems that it is worst then an honestly held belief. It had a foundation of fraud according to this introduction.
I. Introduction
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76).
The nonexistent monera were misrepresented as primitive missing-link single cells found in the slime at the bottom of oceans but in fact were inert precipitates of sulfate of lime (Rupke, 1971, pp. 169-183; Becker, 1999, pp. 14-18). To synthesize a monera, the Miller-Urey experiments failed remarkably and consistently (Yockey, 1992, pp. 231, 232, 234, 238 -241; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 344).
Furthermore, the simulated evolution of a small protein for a small cell yielded an improbability comparable to a successful perpetual motion machine (Yockey, 1992, p. 257). In spite of no evidence from nature or the laboratory or simulation, abiogenesis persists in current high school and university biology textbooks as “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p. 195; Miller and Levine, 2000, pp. 344, 346). To the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis, evolution concatenates the apparent impossibilities of monogenesis, the parent cell spontaneously diversifying to form all other kinds of single-cell organisms, then these in turn spontaneously complicating to all multicellular life forms.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
Not sure I am understanding what you are saying Mr. B.
Let me restate once again.
I watched the movie, but really, Ben Stein falls for the same "straw man" argument, and tries to "compete" with Evolution directly with ID.
The pursuit of ID is misleading. I think for the most part, Evolution is probably and most likely more correct, but then I know very little of ID.
The problem is with the corruption of Real science with philosophical agendas, like that of Dawkins.
The secret is, you do not have to disprove or even really disagree with the science of evolution. We just need to get the focus on how the "religion" of Atheism has polluted Evolution and is being used as a SUBSTITUTE for religion (like Dawkins is constantly doing). The theory itself is arguably flawed.
The key is the word "UNDIRECTED" in the description. This is the crux, it is the Trojan Horse the Atheists use to say that Evolution is incompatible with God.
Since we do not know what life itself is, and cannot create it ourselves from a random mixing of pure chemicals, we can not even say anything about the issue other than pure supposition.
And yet, somehow, they assert unchallenged that it (Evolution) fits any number of proofs for Atheistic agenda.
SECULAR AND OBJECTIVE does not mean ATHEIST. That is the weakness, and the fact they try to hide and camoflauge.
Please note that the producers of this film kicked out a popularizer of atheism during a screening, and claimed he "crashed" the screening, despite the fact that tickets were available to anyone who wished to request them, and P.Z. Myers (the popularizer in question) had followed the same procedures as everyone else in aquiring them. This is an obvious and blatant lie. He did NOT crash, despite the producer's assertion to the contrary. In fact, Richard Dawkins managed to attend, noting that he was Myers' guest, and thus his name was not on the guest list.
QUOTE
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Because Atheism doesn't require untestable assumtions. Atheism doesn't disagree with biological principles. Atheism isn't touted as a replacement for any scientific theory. You've gone BEYOND comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to M1A1 Abrams tanks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt? |
Because Atheism doesn't require untestable assumtions. Atheism doesn't disagree with biological principles. Atheism isn't touted as a replacement for any scientific theory. You've gone BEYOND comparing apples to oranges here, you're comparing apples to M1A1 Abrams tanks.
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Because ID attempts to portray itself as science. Atheism does not.
QUOTE
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
You mean restrictions like tax exempt status?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"? |
You mean restrictions like tax exempt status?
It seems that it is worst then an honestly held belief. It had a foundation of fraud according to this introduction.
This is beyond idiotic....
QUOTE
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76).
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76).
First: What "controversy?" Find me an article published since 1950 in a major, peer-reviewed journal of science or biology which refutes evolution. Just one.
Second: The claim that the foundation of evolution is in abiogenesis is complete and total bullsh*t. COMPLETE. AND. TOTAL. BULLSH*T. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Only the mechanism by which life has changed over time.
In looking at that paper, I found this.
User posted image: User posted image
With the caption:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear. The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76). |
First: What "controversy?" Find me an article published since 1950 in a major, peer-reviewed journal of science or biology which refutes evolution. Just one.
Second: The claim that the foundation of evolution is in abiogenesis is complete and total bullsh*t. COMPLETE. AND. TOTAL. BULLSH*T. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life at all. Only the mechanism by which life has changed over time.
In looking at that paper, I found this.
User posted image: User posted image
With the caption:
Figure 1. If evolution were true, these would be the medically
reported genetic disorders from 1966 to 1999.
These data are actually reversed. Like these data, evolution
is false.
All by itself. No context, just a single claim.
Right below it, is this:
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE
Figure 2. McKusick: Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.
Without ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of the population increase in that time, or the increase in the efficiency with which such defects are reported. There is NO MENTION of what population this is taken from (world pop, US pop, Californian pop...)
This is not science, regardles of any claims or qualifications of the writers. Science does NOT LEAVE HUGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR ARGUMENT WHEN THE MEANS TO FILL THEM ARE READILY AVAILABLE.
I would call the authors of this paper a fraud TO THEIR FACES if I could.
Note that this paper was published in Creation Research Society Quarterly and since it attacks evolution, there is therefore no way of knowing whether or not any critical review of this paper was even undertaken, despite the claims of peer-review. An idication of the LACK of peer review can be found in the paper itself, which says at one point:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Figure 2. McKusick: Mendelian Inheritance in Man, Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was 1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence of devolution. |
Without ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of the population increase in that time, or the increase in the efficiency with which such defects are reported. There is NO MENTION of what population this is taken from (world pop, US pop, Californian pop...)
This is not science, regardles of any claims or qualifications of the writers. Science does NOT LEAVE HUGE GAPING HOLES IN THEIR ARGUMENT WHEN THE MEANS TO FILL THEM ARE READILY AVAILABLE.
I would call the authors of this paper a fraud TO THEIR FACES if I could.
Note that this paper was published in Creation Research Society Quarterly and since it attacks evolution, there is therefore no way of knowing whether or not any critical review of this paper was even undertaken, despite the claims of peer-review. An idication of the LACK of peer review can be found in the paper itself, which says at one point:
To give a language reference, let us define “zillion” as greater than 104,000,000 (1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros)
one hundred and four million is a one followed by four million zeros? Really? Well the paper was "published" in 2001, so there was no need to trascribe anything to get it on the website there... Just copy and paste...
So that error was almost certainly present in the "published" version, as well.
JUst one more quote from this article before I go...
QUOTE
Types of life forms as populations also regress from viable to permanent extinction. That too is devolution, not evolution.
WRONG!
UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY INCORRECT!
DEVOLUTION would mean changes in reverse along the same path as an organism took to evolve to that point. Any changes which were not reverse movement along that same path would be further evolution.
Also, the fact that a species goes exist is not evidence against evolution. Environments change, retards! The writers of this article are as dishonest as anyone I've ever met.
BigDumbWeirdo
Isn't it funny that those who claim to be the most moral, are actually the most dishonest.
User posted image: User posted image
Grumpy
QUOTE
The writers of this article are as dishonest as anyone I've ever met.
Isn't it funny that those who claim to be the most moral, are actually the most dishonest.
User posted image: User posted image
Grumpy
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 25 2008, 02:43 AM)
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century.
And look at the advances thast have been made... It looks like they may be on to something.
And look at the advances thast have been made... It looks like they may be on to something.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Apr 25 2008, 08:31 AM)
Isn't it funny that those who claim to be the most moral, are actually the most dishonest.
Indeed. In fact, it's the very definition of irony, and hypocrisy.
I can understand why this is so, however. Creationists and the religious in general have an immutable set of beliefs which they wish to justify. The fact that science has demonstrated so many aspects of these beliefs to be false using repeatable logic is an incredible thorn in their side. Not only must they then use tautological arguments to defend it, but they are understandably upset by the very fact that they need to defend it. After all, for thousands of years, religion did not need to be justified, and the institutions of religion had plenty of opportunity to get "settled in" as it were. Now, science comes along and starts disproving their claims, one by one, without any specific il intent towards them, and that is hurtful in the extreme. After all, what is more hurtful, having a loved one killed by the drug dealers with whom they engaged in shady dealings, or havign a loved one killed as an innocent bystander in a drive by perpetrated by drug dealers with whom they'd never had any interaction? It's the very fact that science is NOT trying to debunk religion that makes the offense so much worse, in their eyes.
Indeed. In fact, it's the very definition of irony, and hypocrisy.
I can understand why this is so, however. Creationists and the religious in general have an immutable set of beliefs which they wish to justify. The fact that science has demonstrated so many aspects of these beliefs to be false using repeatable logic is an incredible thorn in their side. Not only must they then use tautological arguments to defend it, but they are understandably upset by the very fact that they need to defend it. After all, for thousands of years, religion did not need to be justified, and the institutions of religion had plenty of opportunity to get "settled in" as it were. Now, science comes along and starts disproving their claims, one by one, without any specific il intent towards them, and that is hurtful in the extreme. After all, what is more hurtful, having a loved one killed by the drug dealers with whom they engaged in shady dealings, or havign a loved one killed as an innocent bystander in a drive by perpetrated by drug dealers with whom they'd never had any interaction? It's the very fact that science is NOT trying to debunk religion that makes the offense so much worse, in their eyes.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Apr 25 2008, 07:43 AM)
It seems that it is worst then an honestly held belief. It had a foundation of fraud according to this introduction.
I. Introduction
Evolution has ruled biology for more than a century. That is a remarkable achievement and the purpose of this paper is to illumine why evolution is so controversial and why it is considered here to be at the summit of criminality. The approach is to pursue the various definitions of evolution and to examine the evidence. As needed, principles from the sciences shall be brought to bear.
The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, a living cell allegedly springing to life from nonliving matter. This apparently is based on the “monera” fraud of Ernst Haeckel (Assmuth and Hull, 1915, pp. 74-76).
The nonexistent monera were misrepresented as primitive missing-link single cells found in the slime at the bottom of oceans but in fact were inert precipitates of sulfate of lime (Rupke, 1971, pp. 169-183; Becker, 1999, pp. 14-18). To synthesize a monera, the Miller-Urey experiments failed remarkably and consistently (Yockey, 1992, pp. 231, 232, 234, 238 -241; Miller and Levine, 2000, p. 344).
Furthermore, the simulated evolution of a small protein for a small cell yielded an improbability comparable to a successful perpetual motion machine (Yockey, 1992, p. 257). In spite of no evidence from nature or the laboratory or simulation, abiogenesis persists in current high school and university biology textbooks as “life arose in the ancient seas” from “that original organic soup” (Johnson, 1998, p. 195; Miller and Levine, 2000, pp. 344, 346). To the apparent impossibility of abiogenesis, evolution concatenates the apparent impossibilities of monogenesis, the parent cell spontaneously diversifying to form all other kinds of single-cell organisms, then these in turn spontaneously complicating to all multicellular life forms.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
Not sure I am understanding what you are saying Mr. B.
Let me restate once again.
I watched the movie, but really, Ben Stein falls for the same "straw man" argument, and tries to "compete" with Evolution directly with ID.
The pursuit of ID is misleading. I think for the most part, Evolution is probably and most likely more correct, but then I know very little of ID.
The problem is with the corruption of Real science with philosophical agendas, like that of Dawkins.
The secret is, you do not have to disprove or even really disagree with the science of evolution. We just need to get the focus on how the "religion" of Atheism has polluted Evolution and is being used as a SUBSTITUTE for religion (like Dawkins is constantly doing). The theory itself is arguably flawed.
The key is the word "UNDIRECTED" in the description. This is the crux, it is the Trojan Horse the Atheists use to say that Evolution is incompatible with God.
Since we do not know what life itself is, and cannot create it ourselves from a random mixing of pure chemicals, we can not even say anything about the issue other than pure supposition.
And yet, somehow, they assert unchallenged that it (Evolution) fits any number of proofs for Atheistic agenda.
SECULAR AND OBJECTIVE does not mean ATHEIST. That is the weakness, and the fact they try to hide and camoflauge.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 10:09 AM)
The key is the word "UNDIRECTED" in the description. This is the crux, it is the Trojan Horse the Atheists use to say that Evolution is incompatible with God.
Uh, excuse me... Who is it saying that evolution is incompatible with a belief in god?
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to mention ANY scientific theory that claims there is no god... If what you say is true, then it should be easy.
Uh, excuse me... Who is it saying that evolution is incompatible with a belief in god?
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to mention ANY scientific theory that claims there is no god... If what you say is true, then it should be easy.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 10:09 AM)
The problem is with the corruption of Real science with philosophical agendas, like that of Dawkins.
Such as? Please demonstrate how Dawkins has "corrupted" real science with Atheism...
You claim that evolution is "polluted" by atheism, yet you fail to show how. And Atheism is a perfectly valid substitute for religion.
Finally, you've yet to demonstrate any flaws in either idea (atheism or evolution).
You claim that evolution is "polluted" by atheism, yet you fail to show how. And Atheism is a perfectly valid substitute for religion.
Finally, you've yet to demonstrate any flaws in either idea (atheism or evolution).
The key is the word "UNDIRECTED" in the description. This is the crux, it is the Trojan Horse the Atheists use to say that Evolution is incompatible with God.
Bull. Anyone who argues that evolution disproves God is an idiot. There's a part of my backyard where the growth of vegitation is "UNDIRECTED," does that then prove that I don't exist?
Once again, evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis.... HOW MANY FRIGGAN TIMES MUST WE EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND YOUR ILK?? Evolution only happens in EXISTANT POPULATIONS! It doesn't explain the origins of life. Jesus H. Christ why can't you people get that through your heads?!?!
Once again, evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis.... HOW MANY FRIGGAN TIMES MUST WE EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND YOUR ILK?? Evolution only happens in EXISTANT POPULATIONS! It doesn't explain the origins of life. Jesus H. Christ why can't you people get that through your heads?!?!
And yet, somehow, they assert unchallenged that it (Evolution) fits any number of proofs for Atheistic agenda.
Atheism is not a scientific theory, it is a set of beliefs. It could be considered a religion, although is is technically the lack of religion. IT HAS NO PROOFS.
Ok, I see all these straw men, so I have to ask.
PLEASE quote some of these claims you're arguing against. QUOTE TO ME where atheists have claimed that evolution disproves god's existence.
This association of Atheism and the scientific methodology is not idiotic, however. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Science does not address the issue, therefore, of all the spiritual directions a person may face, atheism is the second most scientific. Note that I said the second. What would be the MOST scientific set of spiritual views? Agnosticism.
Oh, so that's why your always banging on about Objective/Subjective ethics and morals and then claim that is what 'ALL' Atheists propose.
Good luck with your mission against 'The Religion of Atheism!' guys
Your "simple question" is so full of holes that I'll just lean on it a tiny bit and sink it ....
Atheism isn't exempt from being inappropriate for academic purposes. Your question is bogus. Provide some example where academia utilizes atheism to support ANY viable point? You can't.
Really? Dawkins Fight to get ATHEISM INTO the classroom
From here you can see the famous Atheist Dawkins comingling Atheism CONSTSNTLY with Evolution and whatever else. So are you telling me Dawkins is not welcome in the class room? You telling me his anti-religion agenda is not being brought into the class rooms, HE EVEN MENTIONS DVDs and whatnot specifically produced for classes? And this is okay with you?
Down goes deadbeat's little ship of foolishness! I have more than one simple question.
Not so much
Do you understand that Science can no more prove that Yahweh doesn't exist than it can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't continue to make yourself look foolish here on a near daily basis with that worthless line of arguing. If you had an inkling about Dawkins then you'd recognize that he does allow for the possibility that Jehovah exists. But go ahead and continue with your baseless strawmen assertions ... we're all pretty used to it.
Really? No, you are completely in error. Dawkins is such an Atheist fundamental wingnut, he even resorts to calling religious indoctrination of children as child abuse. He has had MANY terrible things to say about religion, and is consistently cheer leaded by the Atheists.
It's also clear (if you'd ever read him) that Dawkin's reference to some sort of alien seeding is equivalent to the possibility that some supernatural omnipotent magician did the deed. Dawkins clearly doesn't have the answer to the original mechanism for biogenesis. Unfortunately, none of science does. Does that mean your mythological magician did it? Nope.
THAT IS HILARIOUS. You have no idea of what it is, BUT YOU SURE SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IT IS NOT don't you? Funny little hypocrisy is that not? Rather than a truly unbiased discipline, using NO unnecessary assumptions on philosophy, you turn it into a club against religion.
Lastly, Atheism and Theism have equal standing under the law. However, organized religion has the special exemption in this country. Atheists in general do not form special organizations and demand tax relief for themselves.
HAH Yes they do. You saying the ACLU is religious? They SPECIFICALLY have two seperate and well-defined entities that are the ACLU. The Tax-exempt part that takes advantage of the same constitutional protections that religion enjoys, AND a seperate arm that is not Tax exempt, so that it can pursue political participation UNRESTRICTED by consitutional restrictions on religion. And that is just the easiest example.
That statement just shows the unexamined foundation most atheists and theophobes use to argue from. It is wrong. Atheism is granted EQUIVALENCY with religion, so functionally, it can be considered a "religion" for any legal purposes in the United States. I have mad eth point that it actually is a religion, but lets not go there, that was covered (and ignored) in other threads and is really unnecessary to this argument anyway.
Theists do. Why? Yahweh doesn't provide for them? They need secular society to prop them up financially? What sort of chickensh!t outfits are they running? They don't believe in their own dogma enough to stand on their own? That's some ugly hypocrisy right there. Churches across this country set up schools and call their janitorial staff "lay-preachers" in order to gain property tax exemptions for their employees. Hypocrisy? You bet your subjective arse! Seriously, WHY DONT THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN? Could it be they have ZERO real integrity? If they have so much faith then why not disassociate themselves entirely from the secular world instead of gaining so much monetarily from the freedoms they were graciously awarded when this country was founded? Could it be that most of them are really just greedy scumbags? For you to claim somehow that religion is restricted in this country is beyond ludicrous. Religionists are coddled.
HAHA Wow, foam at the mouth much?
Exactly what are religions taking advantage of in the US that Atheist organizations cannot and have not? Go ahead, don't be afraid, I will wait.
Doesn't your angry petty god tell you something in all that mumbo-jumbo you call scripture something about making sure your own house is in order before attacking someone else? It would be especially appropriate in terms of your whining.
Wow, nothing theophobic there.
I haven't seen the movie and would assume any reasonably intelligent atheist wouldn't bother to line Ben Stein's pockets with their money. However, it's clear from reviews and commentary from some of it's participants that it is conveniently edited. That said, I think it is grand that Bill Maher's movie comes out in a couple of months. No doubt he'll supply a litany of hypocritical examples from the world of religion versus having to manipulatively edit the subjects.
Oh yes, I am sure the guy who had to apologize (if you can call it that) for his venomous attacks on religion will treat the matter in a fair and balanced way.
Did they resolve the theft of media from Harvard that appears in the film? Or do they think that the editing they did on that portion of the film absolves them from copyright infringement?
Go away and never come back.
You wish. They do not like the argument being made so they attack it tangentially. But the lawsuits will amount to nothing, because as a documentary it will be granted the same license to use "copyrighted" material as a newspaper or other media new outlet.
Get your ridiculous religion of Atheism out of my classroom, and out of my science.
Such as? Please demonstrate how Dawkins has "corrupted" real science with Atheism...
QUOTE
The secret is, you do not have to disprove or even really disagree with the science of evolution. We just need to get the focus on how the "religion" of Atheism has polluted Evolution and is being used as a SUBSTITUTE for religion (like Dawkins is constantly doing). The theory itself is arguably flawed.
You claim that evolution is "polluted" by atheism, yet you fail to show how. And Atheism is a perfectly valid substitute for religion.
Finally, you've yet to demonstrate any flaws in either idea (atheism or evolution).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The secret is, you do not have to disprove or even really disagree with the science of evolution. We just need to get the focus on how the "religion" of Atheism has polluted Evolution and is being used as a SUBSTITUTE for religion (like Dawkins is constantly doing). The theory itself is arguably flawed. |
You claim that evolution is "polluted" by atheism, yet you fail to show how. And Atheism is a perfectly valid substitute for religion.
Finally, you've yet to demonstrate any flaws in either idea (atheism or evolution).
The key is the word "UNDIRECTED" in the description. This is the crux, it is the Trojan Horse the Atheists use to say that Evolution is incompatible with God.
Bull. Anyone who argues that evolution disproves God is an idiot. There's a part of my backyard where the growth of vegitation is "UNDIRECTED," does that then prove that I don't exist?
QUOTE
Since we do not know what life itself is, and cannot create it ourselves from a random mixing of pure chemicals, we can not even say anything about the issue other than pure supposition.
Once again, evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis.... HOW MANY FRIGGAN TIMES MUST WE EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND YOUR ILK?? Evolution only happens in EXISTANT POPULATIONS! It doesn't explain the origins of life. Jesus H. Christ why can't you people get that through your heads?!?!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since we do not know what life itself is, and cannot create it ourselves from a random mixing of pure chemicals, we can not even say anything about the issue other than pure supposition. |
Once again, evolution has nothing to do with biogenesis.... HOW MANY FRIGGAN TIMES MUST WE EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND YOUR ILK?? Evolution only happens in EXISTANT POPULATIONS! It doesn't explain the origins of life. Jesus H. Christ why can't you people get that through your heads?!?!
And yet, somehow, they assert unchallenged that it (Evolution) fits any number of proofs for Atheistic agenda.
Atheism is not a scientific theory, it is a set of beliefs. It could be considered a religion, although is is technically the lack of religion. IT HAS NO PROOFS.
QUOTE
SECULAR AND OBJECTIVE does not mean ATHEIST. That is the weakness, and the fact they try to hide and camoflauge.
Ok, I see all these straw men, so I have to ask.
PLEASE quote some of these claims you're arguing against. QUOTE TO ME where atheists have claimed that evolution disproves god's existence.
This association of Atheism and the scientific methodology is not idiotic, however. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Science does not address the issue, therefore, of all the spiritual directions a person may face, atheism is the second most scientific. Note that I said the second. What would be the MOST scientific set of spiritual views? Agnosticism.
QUOTE
SECULAR AND OBJECTIVE does not mean ATHEIST. That is the weakness, and the fact they try to hide and camoflauge.
Oh, so that's why your always banging on about Objective/Subjective ethics and morals and then claim that is what 'ALL' Atheists propose.
Good luck with your mission against 'The Religion of Atheism!' guys
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 11:09 AM)
SECULAR AND OBJECTIVE does not mean ATHEIST. That is the weakness, and the fact they try to hide and camoflauge.
Odd how when I mentioned secular in the past, you have equated it with atheism. Now you declare it does not mean atheism. Such fluidity in your stance.
One could argue that science is atheistic since it is godless and takes no stand on god. I think the more popular stance is that science is agnostic.
Odd how when I mentioned secular in the past, you have equated it with atheism. Now you declare it does not mean atheism. Such fluidity in your stance.
One could argue that science is atheistic since it is godless and takes no stand on god. I think the more popular stance is that science is agnostic.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Your "simple question" is so full of holes that I'll just lean on it a tiny bit and sink it ....
Atheism isn't exempt from being inappropriate for academic purposes. Your question is bogus. Provide some example where academia utilizes atheism to support ANY viable point? You can't.
Really? Dawkins Fight to get ATHEISM INTO the classroom
From here you can see the famous Atheist Dawkins comingling Atheism CONSTSNTLY with Evolution and whatever else. So are you telling me Dawkins is not welcome in the class room? You telling me his anti-religion agenda is not being brought into the class rooms, HE EVEN MENTIONS DVDs and whatnot specifically produced for classes? And this is okay with you?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Down goes deadbeat's little ship of foolishness! I have more than one simple question.
Not so much
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Do you understand that Science can no more prove that Yahweh doesn't exist than it can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Of course you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't continue to make yourself look foolish here on a near daily basis with that worthless line of arguing. If you had an inkling about Dawkins then you'd recognize that he does allow for the possibility that Jehovah exists. But go ahead and continue with your baseless strawmen assertions ... we're all pretty used to it.
Really? No, you are completely in error. Dawkins is such an Atheist fundamental wingnut, he even resorts to calling religious indoctrination of children as child abuse. He has had MANY terrible things to say about religion, and is consistently cheer leaded by the Atheists.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
It's also clear (if you'd ever read him) that Dawkin's reference to some sort of alien seeding is equivalent to the possibility that some supernatural omnipotent magician did the deed. Dawkins clearly doesn't have the answer to the original mechanism for biogenesis. Unfortunately, none of science does. Does that mean your mythological magician did it? Nope.
THAT IS HILARIOUS. You have no idea of what it is, BUT YOU SURE SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IT IS NOT don't you? Funny little hypocrisy is that not? Rather than a truly unbiased discipline, using NO unnecessary assumptions on philosophy, you turn it into a club against religion.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Lastly, Atheism and Theism have equal standing under the law. However, organized religion has the special exemption in this country. Atheists in general do not form special organizations and demand tax relief for themselves.
HAH Yes they do. You saying the ACLU is religious? They SPECIFICALLY have two seperate and well-defined entities that are the ACLU. The Tax-exempt part that takes advantage of the same constitutional protections that religion enjoys, AND a seperate arm that is not Tax exempt, so that it can pursue political participation UNRESTRICTED by consitutional restrictions on religion. And that is just the easiest example.
That statement just shows the unexamined foundation most atheists and theophobes use to argue from. It is wrong. Atheism is granted EQUIVALENCY with religion, so functionally, it can be considered a "religion" for any legal purposes in the United States. I have mad eth point that it actually is a religion, but lets not go there, that was covered (and ignored) in other threads and is really unnecessary to this argument anyway.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Theists do. Why? Yahweh doesn't provide for them? They need secular society to prop them up financially? What sort of chickensh!t outfits are they running? They don't believe in their own dogma enough to stand on their own? That's some ugly hypocrisy right there. Churches across this country set up schools and call their janitorial staff "lay-preachers" in order to gain property tax exemptions for their employees. Hypocrisy? You bet your subjective arse! Seriously, WHY DONT THEY HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN? Could it be they have ZERO real integrity? If they have so much faith then why not disassociate themselves entirely from the secular world instead of gaining so much monetarily from the freedoms they were graciously awarded when this country was founded? Could it be that most of them are really just greedy scumbags? For you to claim somehow that religion is restricted in this country is beyond ludicrous. Religionists are coddled.
HAHA Wow, foam at the mouth much?
Exactly what are religions taking advantage of in the US that Atheist organizations cannot and have not? Go ahead, don't be afraid, I will wait.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Doesn't your angry petty god tell you something in all that mumbo-jumbo you call scripture something about making sure your own house is in order before attacking someone else? It would be especially appropriate in terms of your whining.
Wow, nothing theophobic there.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
I haven't seen the movie and would assume any reasonably intelligent atheist wouldn't bother to line Ben Stein's pockets with their money. However, it's clear from reviews and commentary from some of it's participants that it is conveniently edited. That said, I think it is grand that Bill Maher's movie comes out in a couple of months. No doubt he'll supply a litany of hypocritical examples from the world of religion versus having to manipulatively edit the subjects.
Oh yes, I am sure the guy who had to apologize (if you can call it that) for his venomous attacks on religion will treat the matter in a fair and balanced way.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM)
Did they resolve the theft of media from Harvard that appears in the film? Or do they think that the editing they did on that portion of the film absolves them from copyright infringement?
Go away and never come back.
You wish. They do not like the argument being made so they attack it tangentially. But the lawsuits will amount to nothing, because as a documentary it will be granted the same license to use "copyrighted" material as a newspaper or other media new outlet.
Get your ridiculous religion of Atheism out of my classroom, and out of my science.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
If ID is considered "religion", and is inappropriate for academic purposes, why then is "atheism" (like as professed commonly by those like Dawkins) exempt?
Is Atheism taught in schools? You seem to be confusing between objectivity and Atheism.
Is Atheism taught in schools? You seem to be confusing between objectivity and Atheism.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Since the one portrays and insists that God does NOT exist (without conclusive proof, making it a subjective judgement), why is it then not allowed to similarly insist that God COULD exist, without conclusive proof?
Oh yes, you sure can insist that god exists. But this argument wouldn't be any more valid than insisting that a unicorn exists.
Science does not take any stand on the subject of God.
Oh yes, you sure can insist that god exists. But this argument wouldn't be any more valid than insisting that a unicorn exists.
Science does not take any stand on the subject of God.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Especially in the United States, where Atheism is legally protected and EQUIVALENT TO RELIGION, and therefore should have the same RESTRICTIONS as "religion"?
See answer to the first question.
See answer to the first question.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Apr 25 2008, 03:56 PM)
Odd how when I mentioned secular in the past, you have equated it with atheism. Now you declare it does not mean atheism. Such fluidity in your stance.
One could argue that science is atheistic since it is godless and takes no stand on god. I think the more popular stance is that science is agnostic.
Beleiving THERE IS NO GOD is not taking no stand. Oh and do show where I confused Secularism and called it Atheism, that would be you not me. Do show me a QUOTE.
You have and DO argue (again just above) that Secularism is Atheism. It is a central support of most every argument you have made.
But it is IN ERROR and obviously wrong.
Atheism requires a belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
Religion of course believes in some sort of God (by your definition, not mine)
So NONE of those is truly SECULAR (removed from "religion") since all require a particular belief in the existence of God. By definition, a secular concept should be indpendent of ANY of those.
One could argue that science is atheistic since it is godless and takes no stand on god. I think the more popular stance is that science is agnostic.
Beleiving THERE IS NO GOD is not taking no stand. Oh and do show where I confused Secularism and called it Atheism, that would be you not me. Do show me a QUOTE.
You have and DO argue (again just above) that Secularism is Atheism. It is a central support of most every argument you have made.
But it is IN ERROR and obviously wrong.
Atheism requires a belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
Religion of course believes in some sort of God (by your definition, not mine)
So NONE of those is truly SECULAR (removed from "religion") since all require a particular belief in the existence of God. By definition, a secular concept should be indpendent of ANY of those.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
That is not correct.
Really? Dawkins Fight to get ATHEISM INTO the classroom
From here you can see the famous Atheist Dawkins comingling Atheism CONSTSNTLY with Evolution and whatever else. So are you telling me Dawkins is not welcome in the class room? You telling me his anti-religion agenda is not being brought into the class rooms, HE EVEN MENTIONS DVDs and whatnot specifically produced for classes? And this is okay with you?
From your link:
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
* The foundation will sponsor research into the "psychological basis of unreason" that will attempt to answer questions such as why people find astrology more appealing than astronomy, at what age young people are most vulnerable to unreason and what are the correlations between religiosity and superstition and intelligence and educational level.
* It will support rational and scientific education for all ages, and oppose the "subversion of scientific education", for example by efforts to teach creationism in science classes. It will subsidise the publication of books, DVDs and other educational materials.
* The foundation will keep a database of secular lecturers willing to address schools and colleges.
* It will keep a list of secular charities.
* Professor Dawkins wants to raise public consciousness to make it socially unacceptable to label children by the religion of their parents.
Please quote that section back to me with the portion that says "*To promote the teachings of atheist philosophies in school." or anything that means the same.
You DIRECTLY CLAIM that he's trying to get ATHEISM into school, and offer as evidence an article which claims he's trying to get RELIGION out of school. Those are two completely different things, and you know it you dishonest charlatan.
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
THAT IS HILARIOUS. You have no idea of what it is, BUT YOU SURE SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IT IS NOT don't you?
I've quoted you the passage written by Dawkins that proves uaa correct, for you to sit here and claim he has no idea what he's talking about is extremely hypocritical, considering that YOUR OWN CLAIMS about Dawkin's beliefs are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what Dawkins says.
Complete bullsh*t.
Complete bullsh*t.
Atheism is granted EQUIVALENCY with religion, so functionally, it can be considered a "religion" for any legal purposes in the United States. I have mad eth point that it actually is a religion, but lets not go there, that was covered (and ignored) in other threads and is really unnecessary to this argument anyway.
Atheism is only a religion when considered literally. Philosophically (which, considering the philosophical nature of the issue, is the most accurate way of viewing it) it is the ABSENCE of religion.
Tax exempt status.
Tax exempt status.
Oh yes, I am sure the guy who had to apologize (if you can call it that) for his venomous attacks on religion will treat the matter in a fair and balanced way.
ROFLMAO please show where Bill Maher HAD to apologize for his attacks on religion.
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
Get your ridiculous religion of Atheism out of my classroom, and out of my science.
As soon as you get your ridiculous 'scientific' theories out of my classroom, and out of my science.
And I'd appreciate it if you got your ridiculous arguments out of my physics forum.
That is not correct.
QUOTE (Dictionary.com definition of a Agnostic+)
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 10:58 AM)
Really? Dawkins Fight to get ATHEISM INTO the classroom
From here you can see the famous Atheist Dawkins comingling Atheism CONSTSNTLY with Evolution and whatever else. So are you telling me Dawkins is not welcome in the class room? You telling me his anti-religion agenda is not being brought into the class rooms, HE EVEN MENTIONS DVDs and whatnot specifically produced for classes? And this is okay with you?
From your link:
QUOTE
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs for teachers to fight the "educational scandal" that has seen the growth in popularity of "pseudo science" and "irrational" ideas.
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason will subsidise books, pamphlets and DVDs for teachers to fight the "educational scandal" that has seen the growth in popularity of "pseudo science" and "irrational" ideas. |
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
* The foundation will sponsor research into the "psychological basis of unreason" that will attempt to answer questions such as why people find astrology more appealing than astronomy, at what age young people are most vulnerable to unreason and what are the correlations between religiosity and superstition and intelligence and educational level.
* It will support rational and scientific education for all ages, and oppose the "subversion of scientific education", for example by efforts to teach creationism in science classes. It will subsidise the publication of books, DVDs and other educational materials.
* The foundation will keep a database of secular lecturers willing to address schools and colleges.
* It will keep a list of secular charities.
* Professor Dawkins wants to raise public consciousness to make it socially unacceptable to label children by the religion of their parents.
Please quote that section back to me with the portion that says "*To promote the teachings of atheist philosophies in school." or anything that means the same.
You DIRECTLY CLAIM that he's trying to get ATHEISM into school, and offer as evidence an article which claims he's trying to get RELIGION out of school. Those are two completely different things, and you know it you dishonest charlatan.
QUOTE
Really? No, you are completely in error. Dawkins is such an Atheist fundamental wingnut, he even resorts to calling religious indoctrination of children as child abuse. He has had MANY terrible things to say about religion, and is consistently cheer leaded by the Atheists.
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Really? No, you are completely in error. Dawkins is such an Atheist fundamental wingnut, he even resorts to calling religious indoctrination of children as child abuse. He has had MANY terrible things to say about religion, and is consistently cheer leaded by the Atheists. |
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
THAT IS HILARIOUS. You have no idea of what it is, BUT YOU SURE SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IT IS NOT don't you?
I've quoted you the passage written by Dawkins that proves uaa correct, for you to sit here and claim he has no idea what he's talking about is extremely hypocritical, considering that YOUR OWN CLAIMS about Dawkin's beliefs are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what Dawkins says.
QUOTE
That statement just shows the unexamined foundation most atheists and theophobes use to argue from. It is wrong.
Complete bullsh*t.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That statement just shows the unexamined foundation most atheists and theophobes use to argue from. It is wrong. |
Complete bullsh*t.
Atheism is granted EQUIVALENCY with religion, so functionally, it can be considered a "religion" for any legal purposes in the United States. I have mad eth point that it actually is a religion, but lets not go there, that was covered (and ignored) in other threads and is really unnecessary to this argument anyway.
Atheism is only a religion when considered literally. Philosophically (which, considering the philosophical nature of the issue, is the most accurate way of viewing it) it is the ABSENCE of religion.
QUOTE
Exactly what are religions taking advantage of in the US that Atheist organizations cannot and have not? Go ahead, don't be afraid, I will wait.
Tax exempt status.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Exactly what are religions taking advantage of in the US that Atheist organizations cannot and have not? Go ahead, don't be afraid, I will wait. |
Tax exempt status.
Oh yes, I am sure the guy who had to apologize (if you can call it that) for his venomous attacks on religion will treat the matter in a fair and balanced way.
ROFLMAO please show where Bill Maher HAD to apologize for his attacks on religion.
QUOTE
You wish. They do not like the argument being made so they attack it tangentially. But the lawsuits will amount to nothing, because as a documentary it will be granted the same license to use "copyrighted" material as a newspaper or other media new outlet.
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You wish. They do not like the argument being made so they attack it tangentially. But the lawsuits will amount to nothing, because as a documentary it will be granted the same license to use "copyrighted" material as a newspaper or other media new outlet. |
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
Get your ridiculous religion of Atheism out of my classroom, and out of my science.
As soon as you get your ridiculous 'scientific' theories out of my classroom, and out of my science.
And I'd appreciate it if you got your ridiculous arguments out of my physics forum.
How about the ENTIRE definition from Dictionary.com
ag·nos·tic –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: < Gk ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known (a- a-6 + gnōtós known, adj. deriv. from base of gignskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869]
—Related forms
ag·nos·ti·cal·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. See atheist.
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
a·the·ist –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
QUOTE (dictionary.com+ agnostic)
ag·nos·tic –noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: < Gk ágnōst(os), var. of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known (a- a-6 + gnōtós known, adj. deriv. from base of gignskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869]
—Related forms
ag·nos·ti·cal·ly, adverb
—Synonyms 1. See atheist.
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
QUOTE (dictionary.com+ ATHEIST)
a·the·ist –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 11:25 AM)
How about the ENTIRE definition from Dictionary.com
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
Oh how dishonest...
You give two conflicting definitions and claims they're the same thing! Let me demonstrate:
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
Oh how dishonest...
You give two conflicting definitions and claims they're the same thing! Let me demonstrate:
QUOTE (Agnosticism+)
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
QUOTE (Atheism+)
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
As to your enlarging of the synonym section, check this out:
—Synonyms 1. enervated...
Note how it doesn't say "Synonyms 1. See enervated..."
The reason being is that Enervated is a perfect synonym for Tired. Atheist is NOT a perfect synonym for Agnotic, in fact, there IS NO perfect synonym for agnostic, therefore, it directs one to the MOST SIMILAR word.
As to your enlarging of the synonym section, check this out:
QUOTE (www.dictionary.com - Tired+)
—Synonyms 1. enervated...
Note how it doesn't say "Synonyms 1. See enervated..."
The reason being is that Enervated is a perfect synonym for Tired. Atheist is NOT a perfect synonym for Agnotic, in fact, there IS NO perfect synonym for agnostic, therefore, it directs one to the MOST SIMILAR word.
Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse. You and your ilk should all be locked up. If it was up to me you would be sitting in the jails right next to the pedophiles.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Wow, nothing theophobic there.
You know, you point out all the time that atheists say insulting things about religion, but I've never seen you own up to your own claims that atheists are immoral and cowardly. Hypocrite.
Also please demonstrate how saying insutling things about religion somehow invalidates an argument. ad himonems are invalid, but they don't invalidate the rest of the argument.
I'll give you one thing:
That movie certainly revealed some hypocrisy. Just not that of the people you think...
You know, you point out all the time that atheists say insulting things about religion, but I've never seen you own up to your own claims that atheists are immoral and cowardly. Hypocrite.
Also please demonstrate how saying insutling things about religion somehow invalidates an argument. ad himonems are invalid, but they don't invalidate the rest of the argument.
I'll give you one thing:
That movie certainly revealed some hypocrisy. Just not that of the people you think...
QUOTE (DB+)
Beleiving THERE IS NO GOD is not taking no stand.
And where did I state that? I didn’t. You just had to resort to yet another strawman. I stated that science can be seen ad godless which is the root origin of what atheism means and what many atheist see themselves as.
Science operated on this matter in the same fashion. Science is godless.
Quote you so you can ignore or backpedaled your way out of it again? Okay…
Quote you so you can ignore or backpedaled your way out of it again? Okay…
ME:
You keep trying to claim that I am pushing my view onto others since I support a secular society.
Now why would someone who does not equate secular with atheistic keep bringing up the numbers of who believe in god every time the fact that we live in a secular society is mentioned?
Now why would someone who does not equate secular with atheistic keep bringing up the numbers of who believe in god every time the fact that we live in a secular society is mentioned?
ME:
My support of a secular society is not a violation of your rights, but rather a protection of them.
A secular government does not allow religious participation in that government unless of course you against think that secular equals atheism.
Like I stated, when I have mentioned that we live in a secular society, you denounce such a claim. You have also brought up the claim that the majority of Americans believe in God (note the xian god with the capital “g”) and that secular prevents religious participation in government.
You appear to be the one who equates secular with atheism, albeit selectively to suit your fancy.
A secular government does not allow religious participation in that government unless of course you against think that secular equals atheism.
Like I stated, when I have mentioned that we live in a secular society, you denounce such a claim. You have also brought up the claim that the majority of Americans believe in God (note the xian god with the capital “g”) and that secular prevents religious participation in government.
You appear to be the one who equates secular with atheism, albeit selectively to suit your fancy.
You have and DO argue (again just above) that Secularism is Atheism.
And exactly where did I state that secular equals atheism? You appear to be reading into my comment what you want to see and not what I have actually stated.
I would ask you to back that erroneous claim of yours up, but I fear all I would get is another excuse and backpedal.
My arguments regarding your desire to force others to live by your religion have been how that desire is in violation of not only our secular society but our foundational law.
I would ask you to back that erroneous claim of yours up, but I fear all I would get is another excuse and backpedal.
My arguments regarding your desire to force others to live by your religion have been how that desire is in violation of not only our secular society but our foundational law.
But it is IN ERROR and obviously wrong.
Yes, so obvious that you have yet to actually prove it is wrong. You keep parroting your talking points but provide little in the way of material support for your claims.
Again, you are incorrect. As I have cited over and over, most atheists I know operate under the root definition of the term atheist – godless. The claim that god does not exists normal comes from the strong atheists.
Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people. Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people, particularly those you seen to have a problem with or outright hate.
And again, you ignore or totally miss the reason why science can be call atheistic.
The default position of science is not to take anything as fact unless it is proven so by a litany of methods. Science also does not and cannot address the supernatural. This means that science is godless since the topic of a god or gods in the realm of the supernatural and you cannot prove or disprove god.
To seek to make science recognize god, gods or the supernatural is to adulterate science and contaminate it.
Again, you are incorrect. As I have cited over and over, most atheists I know operate under the root definition of the term atheist – godless. The claim that god does not exists normal comes from the strong atheists.
Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people. Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people, particularly those you seen to have a problem with or outright hate.
And again, you ignore or totally miss the reason why science can be call atheistic.
The default position of science is not to take anything as fact unless it is proven so by a litany of methods. Science also does not and cannot address the supernatural. This means that science is godless since the topic of a god or gods in the realm of the supernatural and you cannot prove or disprove god.
To seek to make science recognize god, gods or the supernatural is to adulterate science and contaminate it.
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
According to whom? Another one of your unique and/or selective definitions?
Agnostics general do not commit to belief or nonbeliever about god and/or that the any ultimate reality (god) is unknowable, hence the root origin form the Greek agnostos meaning unknown.
Not necessarily. There are religions that do not believe in a god, xian God or not.
Not necessarily. There are religions that do not believe in a god, xian God or not.
So NONE of those is truly SECULAR (removed from "religion") since all require a particular belief in the existence of God
From your link:
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
From my link
The foundation will also conduct research into what makes some people more susceptible to religious ideas than others and whether young people are particularly vulnerable. And it will aim to "raise public consciousness" to make it unacceptable to refer to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child"; Professor Dawkins believes that "it is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents".
and more confusing his Atheism with science
and more confusing his Atheism with science
During a recent visit to a bookshop in London, Professor Dawkins attacked what he saw as a penchant for irrational beliefs. Professor Dawkins, whose most recent book The God Delusion has become a best seller, was horrified, although not surprised, to find the shop's shelves packed with books on fairies, crystals and fortune telling - "pseudoscience" outnumbering science books by at least three to one.
The unspoken implication is that HIS book, "The God delusion" is not psuedo-science?
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
Please quote that section back to me with the portion that says "*To promote the teachings of atheist philosophies in school." or anything that means the same.
You DIRECTLY CLAIM that he's trying to get ATHEISM into school, and offer as evidence an article which claims he's trying to get RELIGION out of school. Those are two completely different things, and you know it you dishonest charlatan.
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
He keeps saying he is an ATHEIST. He therefore by definition believes God does not exist. Period. However, at the same time he is attacking religion, he claims Atheism is NOT a religion
I've quoted you the passage written by Dawkins that proves uaa correct, for you to sit here and claim he has no idea what he's talking about is extremely hypocritical, considering that YOUR OWN CLAIMS about Dawkin's beliefs are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what Dawkins says.
What particular things are you referring to? That he is an open Atheist and Theophobe? That much is painfully obvious.
Complete bullsh*t.
Not a persuasive argument of itself.
Atheism is only a religion when considered literally. Philosophically (which, considering the philosophical nature of the issue, is the most accurate way of viewing it) it is the ABSENCE of religion.
Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency. There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency. It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism.
Tax exempt status.
ACLU. Boom, there goes that example.
ROFLMAO please show where Bill Maher HAD to apologize for his attacks on religion.
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
Do show me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of where a media outlet was required (In the US) copyright royalties. I will wait. You are in for a big surprise.
As soon as you get your ridiculous 'scientific' theories out of my classroom, and out of my science.
And I'd appreciate it if you got your ridiculous arguments out of my physics forum.
Hehe not going to happen.
This is what you think is atheistic?
Dawkins argues, and rightfully so, about how we as children are all godless. We are taught the religious belief s of our parents when we may grow up to have a different view about faith or what faith to follow, if any.
Sort of like if a person was raised Protestants, I mean Baptists and converted to Roman Catholicism.
This is what you think is atheistic?
Dawkins argues, and rightfully so, about how we as children are all godless. We are taught the religious belief s of our parents when we may grow up to have a different view about faith or what faith to follow, if any.
Sort of like if a person was raised Protestants, I mean Baptists and converted to Roman Catholicism.
Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency. There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency. It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism.
Okay, What religions have no supernatural element to them?
And where did I state that? I didn’t. You just had to resort to yet another strawman. I stated that science can be seen ad godless which is the root origin of what atheism means and what many atheist see themselves as.
Science operated on this matter in the same fashion. Science is godless.
QUOTE
Oh and do show where I confused Secularism and called it Atheism, that would be you not me. Do show me a QUOTE.
Quote you so you can ignore or backpedaled your way out of it again? Okay…
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh and do show where I confused Secularism and called it Atheism, that would be you not me. Do show me a QUOTE. |
Quote you so you can ignore or backpedaled your way out of it again? Okay…
ME:
You keep trying to claim that I am pushing my view onto others since I support a secular society.
QUOTE
DB:
You keep saying "secular society". Repeating it does not make it true. Over 90% of Americans believe in God, regardless of religion or affiliation. You cheat by including Agnostics and other differently religious people into your little "Atheist" group, which is actually quite small and poorly represented, with the obvious exception of the membership of this Forum.
You keep saying "secular society". Repeating it does not make it true. Over 90% of Americans believe in God, regardless of religion or affiliation. You cheat by including Agnostics and other differently religious people into your little "Atheist" group, which is actually quite small and poorly represented, with the obvious exception of the membership of this Forum.
Now why would someone who does not equate secular with atheistic keep bringing up the numbers of who believe in god every time the fact that we live in a secular society is mentioned?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| DB: You keep saying "secular society". Repeating it does not make it true. Over 90% of Americans believe in God, regardless of religion or affiliation. You cheat by including Agnostics and other differently religious people into your little "Atheist" group, which is actually quite small and poorly represented, with the obvious exception of the membership of this Forum. |
Now why would someone who does not equate secular with atheistic keep bringing up the numbers of who believe in god every time the fact that we live in a secular society is mentioned?
ME:
My support of a secular society is not a violation of your rights, but rather a protection of them.
QUOTE
DB:
HAH that is a base lie. You forward your agenda trying to sound inclusionist, when in actuality you try at every turn to prevent any religious participation of any kind at all, even though that is obviously protected by the first amendment.
HAH that is a base lie. You forward your agenda trying to sound inclusionist, when in actuality you try at every turn to prevent any religious participation of any kind at all, even though that is obviously protected by the first amendment.
A secular government does not allow religious participation in that government unless of course you against think that secular equals atheism.
Like I stated, when I have mentioned that we live in a secular society, you denounce such a claim. You have also brought up the claim that the majority of Americans believe in God (note the xian god with the capital “g”) and that secular prevents religious participation in government.
You appear to be the one who equates secular with atheism, albeit selectively to suit your fancy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| DB: HAH that is a base lie. You forward your agenda trying to sound inclusionist, when in actuality you try at every turn to prevent any religious participation of any kind at all, even though that is obviously protected by the first amendment. |
A secular government does not allow religious participation in that government unless of course you against think that secular equals atheism.
Like I stated, when I have mentioned that we live in a secular society, you denounce such a claim. You have also brought up the claim that the majority of Americans believe in God (note the xian god with the capital “g”) and that secular prevents religious participation in government.
You appear to be the one who equates secular with atheism, albeit selectively to suit your fancy.
You have and DO argue (again just above) that Secularism is Atheism.
And exactly where did I state that secular equals atheism? You appear to be reading into my comment what you want to see and not what I have actually stated.
QUOTE
It is a central support of most every argument you have made.
I would ask you to back that erroneous claim of yours up, but I fear all I would get is another excuse and backpedal.
My arguments regarding your desire to force others to live by your religion have been how that desire is in violation of not only our secular society but our foundational law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is a central support of most every argument you have made. |
I would ask you to back that erroneous claim of yours up, but I fear all I would get is another excuse and backpedal.
My arguments regarding your desire to force others to live by your religion have been how that desire is in violation of not only our secular society but our foundational law.
But it is IN ERROR and obviously wrong.
Yes, so obvious that you have yet to actually prove it is wrong. You keep parroting your talking points but provide little in the way of material support for your claims.
QUOTE
Atheism requires a belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST
Again, you are incorrect. As I have cited over and over, most atheists I know operate under the root definition of the term atheist – godless. The claim that god does not exists normal comes from the strong atheists.
Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people. Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people, particularly those you seen to have a problem with or outright hate.
And again, you ignore or totally miss the reason why science can be call atheistic.
The default position of science is not to take anything as fact unless it is proven so by a litany of methods. Science also does not and cannot address the supernatural. This means that science is godless since the topic of a god or gods in the realm of the supernatural and you cannot prove or disprove god.
To seek to make science recognize god, gods or the supernatural is to adulterate science and contaminate it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Atheism requires a belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST |
Again, you are incorrect. As I have cited over and over, most atheists I know operate under the root definition of the term atheist – godless. The claim that god does not exists normal comes from the strong atheists.
Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people. Again you resort to rather simplistic classifications and broad summation of people, particularly those you seen to have a problem with or outright hate.
And again, you ignore or totally miss the reason why science can be call atheistic.
The default position of science is not to take anything as fact unless it is proven so by a litany of methods. Science also does not and cannot address the supernatural. This means that science is godless since the topic of a god or gods in the realm of the supernatural and you cannot prove or disprove god.
To seek to make science recognize god, gods or the supernatural is to adulterate science and contaminate it.
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
According to whom? Another one of your unique and/or selective definitions?
Agnostics general do not commit to belief or nonbeliever about god and/or that the any ultimate reality (god) is unknowable, hence the root origin form the Greek agnostos meaning unknown.
QUOTE
Religion of course believes in some sort of God (by your definition, not mine)
Not necessarily. There are religions that do not believe in a god, xian God or not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion of course believes in some sort of God (by your definition, not mine) |
Not necessarily. There are religions that do not believe in a god, xian God or not.
So NONE of those is truly SECULAR (removed from "religion") since all require a particular belief in the existence of God
.
Again, not true. You still appear to continue to view the world though your monotheism only.
Yes, and your point? You seem to be confusing the notion of personal faith with being able to pursue science.
A person can be of any faith and still be a valid researcher or scientists and not interject his or her religion into it, or in other words be secular in their work.
So according to you, everyone who is religious believes in God (xian god again), therefore they cannot be secular in their work or “truly” secular?
That seems to indicate that if you cannot be secular if you have personal faith then you could only be secular if you had no faith.
So tell me again how you do not claim that secular equals atheistic.
Again, not true. You still appear to continue to view the world though your monotheism only.
QUOTE
By definition, a secular concept should be indpendent of ANY of those.
Yes, and your point? You seem to be confusing the notion of personal faith with being able to pursue science.
A person can be of any faith and still be a valid researcher or scientists and not interject his or her religion into it, or in other words be secular in their work.
So according to you, everyone who is religious believes in God (xian god again), therefore they cannot be secular in their work or “truly” secular?
That seems to indicate that if you cannot be secular if you have personal faith then you could only be secular if you had no faith.
So tell me again how you do not claim that secular equals atheistic.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
From your link:
Where does it claim that he's advocating the teaching of atheism in schools?
From my link
QUOTE
The foundation will also conduct research into what makes some people more susceptible to religious ideas than others and whether young people are particularly vulnerable. And it will aim to "raise public consciousness" to make it unacceptable to refer to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child"; Professor Dawkins believes that "it is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents".
and more confusing his Atheism with science
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The foundation will also conduct research into what makes some people more susceptible to religious ideas than others and whether young people are particularly vulnerable. And it will aim to "raise public consciousness" to make it unacceptable to refer to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child"; Professor Dawkins believes that "it is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents". |
and more confusing his Atheism with science
During a recent visit to a bookshop in London, Professor Dawkins attacked what he saw as a penchant for irrational beliefs. Professor Dawkins, whose most recent book The God Delusion has become a best seller, was horrified, although not surprised, to find the shop's shelves packed with books on fairies, crystals and fortune telling - "pseudoscience" outnumbering science books by at least three to one.
The unspoken implication is that HIS book, "The God delusion" is not psuedo-science?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
Here, it clearly lists the aims of this foundation:
Please quote that section back to me with the portion that says "*To promote the teachings of atheist philosophies in school." or anything that means the same.
You DIRECTLY CLAIM that he's trying to get ATHEISM into school, and offer as evidence an article which claims he's trying to get RELIGION out of school. Those are two completely different things, and you know it you dishonest charlatan.
Then quote a passage from Dawkins where he claims that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. Note that a passage which claims he does not believe in God is not the same thing.
He keeps saying he is an ATHEIST. He therefore by definition believes God does not exist. Period. However, at the same time he is attacking religion, he claims Atheism is NOT a religion
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
I've quoted you the passage written by Dawkins that proves uaa correct, for you to sit here and claim he has no idea what he's talking about is extremely hypocritical, considering that YOUR OWN CLAIMS about Dawkin's beliefs are IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what Dawkins says.
What particular things are you referring to? That he is an open Atheist and Theophobe? That much is painfully obvious.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
Complete bullsh*t.
Not a persuasive argument of itself.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
Atheism is only a religion when considered literally. Philosophically (which, considering the philosophical nature of the issue, is the most accurate way of viewing it) it is the ABSENCE of religion.
Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency. There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency. It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
Tax exempt status.
ACLU. Boom, there goes that example.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
ROFLMAO please show where Bill Maher HAD to apologize for his attacks on religion.
That's right. Newspapers and other media outlets use copyrighted material extensively. However, they always portray it as copyrighted material, give credit to it's creator, and often pay royalties for the right to do so.
Do show me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of where a media outlet was required (In the US) copyright royalties. I will wait. You are in for a big surprise.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 04:22 PM)
As soon as you get your ridiculous 'scientific' theories out of my classroom, and out of my science.
And I'd appreciate it if you got your ridiculous arguments out of my physics forum.
Hehe not going to happen.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 12:25 PM)
How about the ENTIRE definition from Dictionary.com
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
Pick a more reliable source than Random House dictionaries.
Also, you are the victim once again of your simplistic polarized outlook of others. Just as the beliefs of theists and atheists run the gambit, so do the belief of agnostics.
And you keep forgetting to post source link. Please try not o be so lazy. Telling people to go "look it up" weakens your arguments further.
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
So consistency in definition is a bit difficult to arrive at.
Pick a more reliable source than Random House dictionaries.
Also, you are the victim once again of your simplistic polarized outlook of others. Just as the beliefs of theists and atheists run the gambit, so do the belief of agnostics.
And you keep forgetting to post source link. Please try not o be so lazy. Telling people to go "look it up" weakens your arguments further.
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 25 2008, 10:36 AM)
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to mention ANY scientific theory that claims there is no god... If what you say is true, then it should be easy.
Still waiting...
Still waiting...
QUOTE
The foundation will also conduct research into what makes some people more susceptible to religious ideas than others and whether young people are particularly vulnerable. And it will aim to "raise public consciousness" to make it unacceptable to refer to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child"; Professor Dawkins believes that "it is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents".
This is what you think is atheistic?
Dawkins argues, and rightfully so, about how we as children are all godless. We are taught the religious belief s of our parents when we may grow up to have a different view about faith or what faith to follow, if any.
Sort of like if a person was raised Protestants, I mean Baptists and converted to Roman Catholicism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The foundation will also conduct research into what makes some people more susceptible to religious ideas than others and whether young people are particularly vulnerable. And it will aim to "raise public consciousness" to make it unacceptable to refer to a "Catholic child" or a "Muslim child"; Professor Dawkins believes that "it is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents". |
This is what you think is atheistic?
Dawkins argues, and rightfully so, about how we as children are all godless. We are taught the religious belief s of our parents when we may grow up to have a different view about faith or what faith to follow, if any.
Sort of like if a person was raised Protestants, I mean Baptists and converted to Roman Catholicism.
Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency. There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency. It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism.
Okay, What religions have no supernatural element to them?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 12:08 PM)
From my link
Neither of those quotes contain any mention of Dawkins supporting the teaching of atheist philosophies in school. NOWHERE AT ALL DO THEY SAY THAT! How can you possibly be so dishonest as THAT? Did you actually think I would not notice that the quotes YOU CLAIM PROVE YOUR POINT FAIL TO PROVE YOUR POINT! They DISPROVE your point you lying hypocrite!
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
He keeps saying he is an ATHEIST. He therefore by definition believes God does not exist.
I think my bolding the relevant word says it all...
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
Not a persuasive argument of itself.
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. If you want an argument, then claim it is NOT a statement of fact, and offer up some evidence to support this claim, then I'll argue.
Bullsh*t.
Bullsh*t.
There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency
Name them, then. You've already FAILED to respond to this challenge, DESPITE ME GIVING YOU THE FRIGGAN ANSWER.
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
ACLU. Boom, there goes that example.
The ACLU is not a religion.
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
Hehe not going to happen.
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
Neither of those quotes contain any mention of Dawkins supporting the teaching of atheist philosophies in school. NOWHERE AT ALL DO THEY SAY THAT! How can you possibly be so dishonest as THAT? Did you actually think I would not notice that the quotes YOU CLAIM PROVE YOUR POINT FAIL TO PROVE YOUR POINT! They DISPROVE your point you lying hypocrite!
QUOTE
The unspoken implication is that HIS book, "The God delusion" is not psuedo-science?
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The unspoken implication is that HIS book, "The God delusion" is not psuedo-science? |
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
He keeps saying he is an ATHEIST. He therefore by definition believes God does not exist.
I think my bolding the relevant word says it all...
QUOTE
What particular things are you referring to? That he is an open Atheist and Theophobe?
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What particular things are you referring to? That he is an open Atheist and Theophobe? |
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
Not a persuasive argument of itself.
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. If you want an argument, then claim it is NOT a statement of fact, and offer up some evidence to support this claim, then I'll argue.
QUOTE
Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency.
Bullsh*t.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, this requires the deluded definition that religion MUST have supernatural or superhuman agency. |
Bullsh*t.
There are many religions and possible religions that DO NOT have supernatural or superhuman agency
Name them, then. You've already FAILED to respond to this challenge, DESPITE ME GIVING YOU THE FRIGGAN ANSWER.
QUOTE
. It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism.
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| . It is a false definition created just toi exclude Atheism. |
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
ACLU. Boom, there goes that example.
The ACLU is not a religion.
QUOTE
Do show me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of where a media outlet was required (In the US) copyright royalties. I will wait. You are in for a big surprise.
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do show me a SINGLE EXAMPLE of where a media outlet was required (In the US) copyright royalties. I will wait. You are in for a big surprise. |
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
Hehe not going to happen.
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Hmmm...obviously the first definition is not the only one, and Agnostic is often interchangeable with ATHEIST (its a synonym)
Exactly! Read again what you wrote originally, given below. Isn't that wrong?
Neither of those quotes contain any mention of Dawkins supporting the teaching of atheist philosophies in school. NOWHERE AT ALL DO THEY SAY THAT! How can you possibly be so dishonest as THAT? Did you actually think I would not notice that the quotes YOU CLAIM PROVE YOUR POINT FAIL TO PROVE YOUR POINT! They DISPROVE your point you lying hypocrite!
Wow, so claiming children raised with their parents ethical and moral values is only okay if it is Atheist or Agnostic, otherwise it is child abuse. Preventing any discussion of alternative ethical or moral values by any religion, although you and I both know the ethical and moral (such as it is) "secular" (actually Atheist or Agnostic) values are perfectly okay in any school setting. Any discussion of ethical and moral implication cannot be divorced from religion. From History to Government and Law, or just plain ETHICS and philosophy. Somehow you have found a unique way to sneak your own in while discriminating aginast those of religion.
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
His book supports and defends his Atheism, and his denigration and attack on religion. Unless you are going to say he somehow objectively proved there is no God, I guess you are just missing the point.
I think my bolding the relevant word says it all...
HEHE Yeah beliefs. So? He has no proof, so his philosophy is no better or superior to religion.
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
Oh damn, Hitler never admitted to being a genocidal mass murderer. I guess he was a saint then.
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. If you want an argument, then claim it is NOT a statement of fact, and offer up some evidence to support this claim, then I'll argue.
Bullsh*t.
You wouldn't know a statement of "fact" if it bit you.
Name them, then. You've already FAILED to respond to this challenge, DESPITE ME GIVING YOU THE FRIGGAN ANSWER.
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
The ACLU is not a religion.
No? Well how come they are taking advantage of exactly the same legal advantages that religion does? and had to seperate their operations into a different entity to avoid losing tax-exempt status from their political operations?
The point is, oh brilliant one, they are benefiting from exactly the same legal provisions constitutionally guaranteed for religion, and suffer the identical restrictions. So your example, as usual, is without merit and merely demonstrated my original point. When discussed in a documentary, news segment or story, no royalty ever need be paid. When reviewers write a review of a movie, need they pay royalties? When an editorial discusses or even posts quotes form a source, need they pay royalties? Nope.
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
Wow, that is just funny. I can publish a story in a Blog or Newspaper, and comment on an ad, a cartoon, or a book and never have to get either permission or pay a fee.
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
Yup, and that is why you are losing. Slowly the dawning realization is coming and it is inevitable. The Atheistic agenda to remove and destroy religion is becoming obvious, and when the smoke and mirrors is removed, they see that you are just trying to force your own little religion on every one instead.
The time is coming, and it is long overdue.
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
I got no problem with that, I just want your idiotic ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC beliefs pushed out too.
Gonna be a short education
Exactly! Read again what you wrote originally, given below. Isn't that wrong?
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist, but adheres to no particular mainstream religion
Show me a definition of Agnosticism from ANY dictionary which includes "....Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist...".
Show me a definition of Agnosticism from ANY dictionary which includes "....Agnosticism BELIEVES GOD DOES exist...".
You would have to use Agnostic Theism for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
But it can be argued that such a person is just a theist primarily and not agnostic at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
But it can be argued that such a person is just a theist primarily and not agnostic at all.
I did see the movie and there is nothing new here.
The Discovery Institute says ID is not about religion but all about the science. The Discovery Institute does no science but just runs a press and political machine. The Discovery Institute pays for a "scientific conference" of tame ID-supporting scientists to make grand speeches in favor of ID, but one (A.G.) did research and saw a beneficial mutation occur in her lab. So the Discovery Institute halted her presentation because of inconvenient facts.
The ID textbook maker had a Creation Science textbook with a good number of factual errors in it. Then a court ruling convinced them that Creation Science wasn't profitable anymore, so they cut and pasted out "divine" and put in "intelligent" and put the books out in a catalog in the "Creationism" section.
The (former) Dover school board first endorses Creationism, then covertly puts these same ID books in the school library, then tells the science teacher to point kids at the books, which the science teacher refuse to do. Then they lie to the judge about where the books came from. They also confessed that they could not define ID -- so they must have just endorsed it because they were told it was the same as some other position that they held was true.
The makers of the film Expelled never define what is the "science of ID" but cry rivers that people are being expelled and fired. And they don't interview anyone who was expelled or fired -- even if they edited their interview footage so that the uninformed viewer might reasonably think they did. They go to the Discovery Institute to find tame scientists (but not the ones that do actual experiments like that poor A.G.) to explain Evolution ID to them. One says "Evolution actually happened," but is asked no follow-up questions on the screen. The Discovery Institutes's official public position is that ID does not imply that there is a supernatural designer responsible for life on Earth, but if you talk about a natural designer responsible for life on Earth -- that is the definition of Directed Panspermia -- a scientific conjecture with no evidence for it that no-one in the film believes, but one is willing to explain it if Ben Stein would listen. But by ridiculing it, then Ben Stein is talking only about ID without natural designer -- a type of supernatural designer involved in some sort of Creation event. How shocking -- Ben Stein says ID but means Creationism -- he says Science but he means Religion.
And because they don't want to talk about ID or Evolution but just their caricatures of them, they don't interview Ken Miller, textbook author and expert witness at the Dover trial -- who is both factually aware of the evidence behind evolution and a devout Catholic.
And then Yoko Ono sues Ben Stein's new friends back to the Stone Age.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335335
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
The Discovery Institute says ID is not about religion but all about the science. The Discovery Institute does no science but just runs a press and political machine. The Discovery Institute pays for a "scientific conference" of tame ID-supporting scientists to make grand speeches in favor of ID, but one (A.G.) did research and saw a beneficial mutation occur in her lab. So the Discovery Institute halted her presentation because of inconvenient facts.
The ID textbook maker had a Creation Science textbook with a good number of factual errors in it. Then a court ruling convinced them that Creation Science wasn't profitable anymore, so they cut and pasted out "divine" and put in "intelligent" and put the books out in a catalog in the "Creationism" section.
The (former) Dover school board first endorses Creationism, then covertly puts these same ID books in the school library, then tells the science teacher to point kids at the books, which the science teacher refuse to do. Then they lie to the judge about where the books came from. They also confessed that they could not define ID -- so they must have just endorsed it because they were told it was the same as some other position that they held was true.
The makers of the film Expelled never define what is the "science of ID" but cry rivers that people are being expelled and fired. And they don't interview anyone who was expelled or fired -- even if they edited their interview footage so that the uninformed viewer might reasonably think they did. They go to the Discovery Institute to find tame scientists (but not the ones that do actual experiments like that poor A.G.) to explain Evolution ID to them. One says "Evolution actually happened," but is asked no follow-up questions on the screen. The Discovery Institutes's official public position is that ID does not imply that there is a supernatural designer responsible for life on Earth, but if you talk about a natural designer responsible for life on Earth -- that is the definition of Directed Panspermia -- a scientific conjecture with no evidence for it that no-one in the film believes, but one is willing to explain it if Ben Stein would listen. But by ridiculing it, then Ben Stein is talking only about ID without natural designer -- a type of supernatural designer involved in some sort of Creation event. How shocking -- Ben Stein says ID but means Creationism -- he says Science but he means Religion.
And because they don't want to talk about ID or Evolution but just their caricatures of them, they don't interview Ken Miller, textbook author and expert witness at the Dover trial -- who is both factually aware of the evidence behind evolution and a devout Catholic.
And then Yoko Ono sues Ben Stein's new friends back to the Stone Age.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335335
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 25 2008, 10:36 AM)
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to mention ANY scientific theory that claims there is no god... If what you say is true, then it should be easy.
Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock
What, still no evidence to support the entire basis of your rant?
Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock
What, still no evidence to support the entire basis of your rant?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 25 2008, 04:39 PM)
Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse. You and your ilk should all be locked up. If it was up to me you would be sitting in the jails right next to the pedophiles.
Wow, how does that Kool-aid taste?
Wow, how does that Kool-aid taste?
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 25 2008, 05:58 PM)
Tick
Tock
Tick
Tock
What, still no evidence to support the entire basis of your rant?
Secular Humanism, Evolutionary Psychology
Need I Go on?
Tock
Tick
Tock
What, still no evidence to support the entire basis of your rant?
Secular Humanism, Evolutionary Psychology
Need I Go on?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 05:04 PM)
Secular Humanism, Evolutionary Psychology
Need I Go on?
Where do either of these claim there is NO god?
And BTW - Secular humanism is by no means a science. It's a philosophy.
Need I Go on?
Where do either of these claim there is NO god?
And BTW - Secular humanism is by no means a science. It's a philosophy.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Neither of those quotes contain any mention of Dawkins supporting the teaching of atheist philosophies in school. NOWHERE AT ALL DO THEY SAY THAT! How can you possibly be so dishonest as THAT? Did you actually think I would not notice that the quotes YOU CLAIM PROVE YOUR POINT FAIL TO PROVE YOUR POINT! They DISPROVE your point you lying hypocrite!
Wow, so claiming children raised with their parents ethical and moral values is only okay if it is Atheist or Agnostic, otherwise it is child abuse. Preventing any discussion of alternative ethical or moral values by any religion, although you and I both know the ethical and moral (such as it is) "secular" (actually Atheist or Agnostic) values are perfectly okay in any school setting. Any discussion of ethical and moral implication cannot be divorced from religion. From History to Government and Law, or just plain ETHICS and philosophy. Somehow you have found a unique way to sneak your own in while discriminating aginast those of religion.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Yes. Please show how his book could POSSIIBLY be construed as pseudo-science, considering that it doesn't present a falsified or unfalsifiable scientific theory, it doesn't avoid scientific rigor, it doesn't use arm-waving to make it's point....
His book supports and defends his Atheism, and his denigration and attack on religion. Unless you are going to say he somehow objectively proved there is no God, I guess you are just missing the point.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
I think my bolding the relevant word says it all...
HEHE Yeah beliefs. So? He has no proof, so his philosophy is no better or superior to religion.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Quote a passage of Dawkins in which he refers to himself as a "theophobe."
Oh wait, he never has, has he? I guess that makes you A FRIGGAN LIAR!
Oh damn, Hitler never admitted to being a genocidal mass murderer. I guess he was a saint then.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. If you want an argument, then claim it is NOT a statement of fact, and offer up some evidence to support this claim, then I'll argue.
Bullsh*t.
You wouldn't know a statement of "fact" if it bit you.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Name them, then. You've already FAILED to respond to this challenge, DESPITE ME GIVING YOU THE FRIGGAN ANSWER.
ROFLMAO Prove it, liar.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
The ACLU is not a religion.
No? Well how come they are taking advantage of exactly the same legal advantages that religion does? and had to seperate their operations into a different entity to avoid losing tax-exempt status from their political operations?
The point is, oh brilliant one, they are benefiting from exactly the same legal provisions constitutionally guaranteed for religion, and suffer the identical restrictions. So your example, as usual, is without merit and merely demonstrated my original point. When discussed in a documentary, news segment or story, no royalty ever need be paid. When reviewers write a review of a movie, need they pay royalties? When an editorial discusses or even posts quotes form a source, need they pay royalties? Nope.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Tell me something. How did Charles Schultz make a living?
Here's a list of quite a few instances of newspapers paying royalties.
Wikipedia - List of Comic Strips
Look at that, they need two friggan pages to hold the list!
Wow, that is just funny. I can publish a story in a Blog or Newspaper, and comment on an ad, a cartoon, or a book and never have to get either permission or pay a fee.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
Yup, and that is why you are losing. Slowly the dawning realization is coming and it is inevitable. The Atheistic agenda to remove and destroy religion is becoming obvious, and when the smoke and mirrors is removed, they see that you are just trying to force your own little religion on every one instead.
The time is coming, and it is long overdue.
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 25 2008, 10:15 PM)
Where do either of these claim there is NO god?
And BTW - Secular humanism is by no means a science. It's a philosophy.
Wow, so PHILOSOPHY is not a science? hehe.
Yeah the entire point of BOTH of those disciplines was to invent a "scientific" replacement for religion.
It just ain't possible, anything that can perform the function of a religion, becomes a religion. For the same reason "Atheism" gets considered a religion as well. It is a competing philosophy, and not secular.
Depending on who you talk to, now Agnosticism is not believing ANYTHING, which is just deluded and insipid. It is not even possible to actually do and make the daily judegments in life required by us all every day.
Beliefs and Faith are unavoidable, unless you can know everything, which is impossible.
Just more ill-informed and poorly developed silliness.
And BTW - Secular humanism is by no means a science. It's a philosophy.
Wow, so PHILOSOPHY is not a science? hehe.
Yeah the entire point of BOTH of those disciplines was to invent a "scientific" replacement for religion.
It just ain't possible, anything that can perform the function of a religion, becomes a religion. For the same reason "Atheism" gets considered a religion as well. It is a competing philosophy, and not secular.
Depending on who you talk to, now Agnosticism is not believing ANYTHING, which is just deluded and insipid. It is not even possible to actually do and make the daily judegments in life required by us all every day.
Beliefs and Faith are unavoidable, unless you can know everything, which is impossible.
Just more ill-informed and poorly developed silliness.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Apr 25 2008, 05:35 PM)
Wow, so PHILOSOPHY is not a science? hehe.
Yeah the entire point of BOTH of those disciplines was to invent a "scientific" replacement for religion.
It just ain't possible, anything that can perform the function of a religion, becomes a religion. For the same reason "Atheism" gets considered a religion as well. It is a competing philosophy, and not secular.
Depending on who you talk to, now Agnosticism is not believing ANYTHING, which is just deluded and insipid. It is not even possible to actually do and make the daily judegments in life required by us all every day.
Beliefs and Faith are unavoidable, unless you can know everything, which is impossible.
Just more ill-informed and poorly developed silliness.
Are you really this stupid or are you faking it?
Yeah the entire point of BOTH of those disciplines was to invent a "scientific" replacement for religion.
It just ain't possible, anything that can perform the function of a religion, becomes a religion. For the same reason "Atheism" gets considered a religion as well. It is a competing philosophy, and not secular.
Depending on who you talk to, now Agnosticism is not believing ANYTHING, which is just deluded and insipid. It is not even possible to actually do and make the daily judegments in life required by us all every day.
Beliefs and Faith are unavoidable, unless you can know everything, which is impossible.
Just more ill-informed and poorly developed silliness.
Are you really this stupid or are you faking it?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Apr 25 2008, 05:28 PM)
Then us godless minions of reason will never stop pushing your idiotic beliefs out of the classroom. MUA HA HA HA HA HA !!! See, my laugh is bigger than yours
I got no problem with that, I just want your idiotic ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC beliefs pushed out too.
Gonna be a short education
QUOTE (gmilam+Apr 25 2008, 10:38 PM)
Are you really this stupid or are you faking it?
Oh do educate me.
Define what is and is not a SCIENCE. That way I will not be confused, hey maybe I will leaern something.
Philosophy is not a science?
Psychiatry is not a science?
What is and is not? How can I tell?
Oh do educate me.
Define what is and is not a SCIENCE. That way I will not be confused, hey maybe I will leaern something.
Philosophy is not a science?
Psychiatry is not a science?
What is and is not? How can I tell?
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Wow, so claiming children raised with their parents ethical and moral values is only okay if it is Atheist or Agnostic, otherwise it is child abuse. Preventing any discussion of alternative ethical or moral values by any religion, although you and I both know the ethical and moral (such as it is) "secular" (actually Atheist or Agnostic) values are perfectly okay in any school setting. Any discussion of ethical and moral implication cannot be divorced from religion. From History to Government and Law, or just plain ETHICS and philosophy. Somehow you have found a unique way to sneak your own in while discriminating aginast those of religion.
Actually Richard Dawkins is not against Parents providing teaching and guidance from their own Religion, but more that he wants to raise awareness that it is wrong to
label a child who is simply too young to know or understand the implications of a Religious belief. It is specifically the Religious labeling of such children that is abusive, before they could reasonably decide which Religion to devote their lives to. It is a very serious subject Deadbeat and you as a Father should recognize the importance of allowing Children to develop inquisitiveness about their World. Have you not seen child preachers? They exist.
Do you believe this is ethical Parenting?
Do you believe that Religious genital mutilation of children is moral?
Richard Dawkins is also in favor of Religious education, just not biased towards anyone or few ideologies. Let the children make their own minds up. Teach them what we actually know as fact and not just what we believe we know, unless stated implicitly as such.
Why are you being so dishonest or ignorant?
Actually Richard Dawkins is not against Parents providing teaching and guidance from their own Religion, but more that he wants to raise awareness that it is wrong to
label a child who is simply too young to know or understand the implications of a Religious belief. It is specifically the Religious labeling of such children that is abusive, before they could reasonably decide which Religion to devote their lives to. It is a very serious subject Deadbeat and you as a Father should recognize the importance of allowing Children to develop inquisitiveness about their World. Have you not seen child preachers? They exist.
Do you believe this is ethical Parenting?
Do you believe that Religious genital mutilation of children is moral?
Richard Dawkins is also in favor of Religious education, just not biased towards anyone or few ideologies. Let the children make their own minds up. Teach them what we actually know as fact and not just what we believe we know, unless stated implicitly as such.
Why are you being so dishonest or ignorant?