Creationism in schools

No, as to the spontaneous remissions, I am not aware of technology doing anything. I said that spontaneous remission of cancer has at this point no proven cause. I suspect with the recent discoveries about the behaviour of T-Cells and the receptivity to modification might lead the way to an explanation. Regardless, lack of knowledge does not equate to miracle.

Ever heard of an earthquake? seems there's been quite a few in the region over time. I bet 2 or 3K years ago an earthquake was an "act of god" and not a naturally occurring event due to the siesmic activity of plate tectonics.

I agree Quantum mechanics does not explain the big bang. It merely describes the spontaneous creation of particles from nothing. This is an observed prediction of the theory. It also proves that first cause is not necessary for creation.

Well, as masters of energy and matter, there would be no hunger. there would be no wars. there would be no deprivation. It would transform our entire economic foundation. It would change the way we build, communicate, travel. It would open up space for exploration and exploitation. It would change everything.

First lets get on the same page about the definition of morality.

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

As I mentioned earlier, human behaviour in large part is dictated by human nature. As a gregarious and social animal humans have developed a code of conduct that reduces frictions and promotes co-operation. Belief in the "golden rule" is not exclusive to the religious.

The various codes of conduct that have come into being have been all been developed by humans, not delivered by God. If you examine animist tribes in africa or the pagan societies of Egypt, China, Rome, Greece, they all had codes of conduct or morals.

No, I do not think of this as an "American concept". I stated that the individual's purpose is in living his life. He makes conscious choice of what he believes and doesn't. If he has a healthy life then it is full of relationships and love and children, family. He strives to make his life and those he loves a bit better, and to protect them from harm. He attempts to share his knowledge and wisdom with others. He works for the benefit of all. He expresses his creativity, shares his perspectives, stands up for principle, earns respect.

Living a healthy life is an individual's purpose

Acquisition of knowledge shapes some of it. For instance what an individual beleives. How he might raise and educate his children. how he communicates with others, how he works, how he expresses his creativity, how he provides for his family and what he might provide. How he eats, uses medical services, how he travels, how he satisfies his curiousity, how he may solve problems. etc. etc.

The individual is the beneficiary of the advancement and the application of human knowledge.

You confuse the individual with the species. They are living their lives to the best of their ability and therefore are fulfilling their purpose.

I totally agree that knowledge unto itself is not wisdom and wisdom is necessary. I would reword "one of the purposes of knowledge is to gain wisdom".

I do not think that we need be particularly wise to understand the importance of family or friends or the need for morals and ethics. If an individual cannot appreciate and understand these basics of human behaviour/nature then he is either a sociopath or a psychopath.

We certainly don't need wisdom to exploit a host of applications of human knowledge.

Yep they are in control. The fact that they have built technologies to exploit a particular time sensitive and complex application far faster and more efficiently and accurately than a human is testament to knowledge. If there is a flaw in the programming, humans address it. If there is a flaw in the mechanics of the stock market, humans can address it. If programs actually interact in unpredictable ways, humans fix it. Each incident of unpredicted behaviour is addressed in programing and in business rules in an attempt to ensure predictablity of results. Humans control all of that and as I say, they can pull the plug.

You asked how much could one individual impact on society. I responded with a few names off the top.

fortunately for us, there seem to be a few handfulls every generation that substantively impact our civilization. The vast majority of people in the world cannot as individuals impact our civilization. however they do have a collective strength that can every bit as much or more as those rare few in a billion.

There is no quicker way for gaining consensus of the masses. Small groups sure, but we are talking about millions of people at a minimum. As an example, fear brought America Homeland Security, body pat downs at airports, the patriot act with its "legal" suspension of civil liberties, the Iraq war, just to name a few things that gained a rapid national concensus.

don't disagree. Interestingly apart from approach, if you look at Christianity and Islam they share way more values than not.

A challenge for us all to figure out. You do realize we are all making it up as we go along.

I can not argue with a belief in the supernatural, as absolutely no proof has ever been obtained to prove its existence in any form. So it must be taken on faith. Ergo, no argument to the contrary is effective.

My beliefs are predicated on reality only. Proof of existence is required for me to believe in the supernatural. Ergo, no argument to the contrary is effective.

 

Really? You suspect?

So, tell me, when a person prays, and the next day they are healed there is absolutely no linkage, because 'someday', we'll figure out what the hell happened?

THat is an act of faith, pure and simple.

The problem is, God claims miracles, he doesn't claim a specific methodology for enacting miracles, but, if you are suffering from advanced cancer, and all modern medicine is telling you to prepare for the inevitability of death .... and you are cured - that IS a miracle.

The proof is in claim fulfilled.

As a military planner by trade, what do you think my superiors would say if I came up with a plan to sieze a rodoubt held by the Taliban that reied on very well timed earth quakes?

If I told them that no breaching assets were required?

Well, the Israelites were desperate to return to their homes - and there was a small manner of a wall in the way ...

Unfortunately, that is not what the big bang explains is it? The substance at the center of he universe was not particles - it was pure energy. And the inly place we know of that produces pure energy is through a nuclear reaction - in the center of stars that do not yet exist.

We mastered nuclear energy, is there still war? hunger? eneregy shortages? devestation?

We would still be humans. Powerful and as unwise as ever.

First lets get on the same page about the definition of morality.

Yep, there are indeed certain bounds of morality that we now consier to be unalienable rights - and the world, quite obviously, did not always think that way.

Not all people are gregarious, social creatures are they? The fact that we have war, strife, and even tea party death party talk is indicative that we are no longer constrained by pre-civilized morality best demonstrated by monkeys - which by the way, have behavior that we would consider to be morally reprehensible.

The golden rule, BTW, is slightly modified in religion. It is not just do onto others as they do onto you, it is do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

A slight, subtle, and terribly important modification of the Golden Rule.

OK, prove that Christian and Muslim concepts were shaped by humans and not God?

Explain to me how an illiterate man finds a way to write down Koran? How the Koran can contain such strikingly similar teachings to the other Abrahamic faiths when the dominate religion of the area was Paganism?

You faith that humans created it is just that.

I am telling you that many societies on earth do not agree with you. The purpose of life is family, tribe, etc. If the purpose in living your life is living YOUR life, then family and tribe, etc. are additions of you - you are not part of them. Much of the independance of Americans in particular shocks the rest of teh world, where they could never imagine leaving their tribe or family to go strike it rich 'out west'.

Your view is not 'worse' its merely different. And for people lacking family and belonging - the middle eastern way is very appealing. Your way, to those who feel sufocated by the dictates of tribal honor, etc. has great appeal. Which is right?

Wisdom.

As for sharing wisdom, atheists are almost famously against sharing knowledge considering prosthelytizing. Would not your sharing of your ides with us be a similiar thing?

The point of this isn't to rubbish what you say, you are not wrong. It is, in such an inconclusive basis, a lack of finite exactness in humanity, to be open and accepting of MANY points of view and to be willing to explore them in an open fashion. That means both skepticism and affirmation.

well, then the dietary guidelines found in the Bible ARE correct?

All of those are indeed accurate, Christians call all of these 'witnessing'. But what is lacking is the message. A lazy man educates his chidlren every bit as much as a hard working man.

One advantage that religion has, is that the concepts to be witnessed are spelled out, even as they introduce the context of ... context, in the application of rules. It allows the 'community' of Christians to hold one another accountable.

Atheists are not devoid of accountable, but it is harder in the atheist community when atheism both does and does not have a moral perscriptions. Not, obviously, a killer of atheism, but something to be aware of.

Everything, society, communities, individuals, etc. bears the conseuqnce of human advancement.

Families were important, are important, and will be important - no matter how much knoweldge we gain, raising a family is no easier today than it was millenia ago.

 

Not everyone is. Think a drug user, a criminal on one had. On the other, a man like Saint Kolbe who is driven to sacrifice himself in a display of pureity that is nothing short of awe inspiring.

I am quite aware of the difference between an individual and a species, and I am aware that we must have a balance between our individual and collective duties. Governance is one example of a collective duty.

Then you agree with the Bible. And in the Bible, this is paramount - one of the 'truths' that caused me to examine what it said was wisdom.

"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding." (Proverbs 4:7)

We've had that knowledge for millenia.

I certainly do. In our modern times, divorce is a plague on families, and we devote more and more of our time to jobs, and play time. Very few organizations out there really support families. Yet, much of 'church' is focused on, in my case, being a good man, a good husband, a good father, a good son, a good friend.

It really is an oasis, and a place of comfort away from the 'office' a place to return to the center, to align yourself and principles - and to affirm your commitment and priority to them.

It is very easy to get trapped by bills, etc. and lose sight of familes.

Yes, we do.

Sceince is knoweldge. It is best when it is totally objective and free of moral principles. Wisdom, indeed morality, comes from the application of the OBJECTIVE date.

Its easy when the data comes back and says something like, "that will result in 10,000 additional death per year." No brainer there.

But what about policy? When the data comes back and says that changes to infracstructure to reinvigorate the middle states will come at a cost to cities with ports? To we follow the path the spread or concentrates wealth?

Science can help us predict and anticipate (and this reduce) negative consequences, it cannot tell us whether or not that consequence is worth the cost. Only wisdom can.

It cahnges nothing with the reality that the stock market is supposed to reflect the fundamental health of the coporations that they make up. Instead, they are tied to news stories. And what is really happening, rather than the primary purpose of raising money for corporations and allowing them to expand economically, there is now a series of businesses whose sole purpose is to make money off the fluctuations we now know are tied to the news and not the reality of corporate products. Its a slot machine for all intents and purposes, but people are making money ... so.

Humans are not in control - greed is.

Not quite accurate, I asked you about those of us who are not destined to be great individuals, which is most of us. What is our purpose?

And, what about the billions of others who are not this handful? Are their lives devoid of purpose and fulfillment if they are not one of these handfuls?

And fear of our firepower brought us to the brink of defeat in Afghanstan and Iraq.

the terror scares initial brought compliance, but then angry acrimony. If we were not fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda now, who insist on releasing silly ass videos, the scare would have past - discrediting the policies of those who advocated them completely.

PNAC and neo-conservatism are dead as a result.

It is one of the reasons that, when you read the Bible, you rarely even see Hell mentioned.

Agreed. Same goes for most atheists and the actual values of Christianity.

When I am stuck, I know where to go. I am not the first to stumble through this existence.

Ergo, tolerance, not derision is the hallmark of the day. I think people are pretty astute in the agregate at knowing BS when they see it.

You have certainty without evidence though don't you? You believe there is nothing there, that there is no miracle. Why?

You conlcusions are faith. Just like mine. Why are your better?

Again, to be clear, atheism is not wrong - or even bad. It is a different point of view that can, indeed should, allow us to look at problems from a different point of view. However, when atheism transfers over toward rejection of religion, rather than respectful disagreement, its no longer atheism - and crosses a intellectual veil that puts it on the wrong side of evidence.

I disgree become YOU are definitely wrong - and the evidence base? Its still inconclusive. That kind of atheism is simply unsupportable.

 

No linkage at all. I do agree that to a believer praying is an important emotional crutch in times of crisis.

Seems you are using this as some sort of proof. Wonder how many prayers god answers? I'd be willing to be its a pretty small percentage that would fall well within the odds of random chance.

I beleive that as knowledge advances we will cure cancer, even perhaps be able to innoculate people against it. That is not faith, that is an expectation based on the massive investments being made in money and intellect.

Not a student of cultural anthropology I see. "pre-civilized morality best demonstrated by monkeys?" please please tell me you're not serious about that outlandish statement.

Bully.

Well considering that Mo had been exposed to both christianity and the jews it ain't that hard to understand how he cherry picked concepts to incorporate into his holy book. Particularly in light of his deep understanding of arab paganism. His whole thing came down to control of the hajj to mecca, which he had, lost and had to go to medina and then came back triumphant.

Oh, btw the illiterate man dictated the quran to a group of scribes that followed him around since he returned from the desert spouting bits and pieces of the Quran. You do realize it took quite some time to put the whole thing together. He didn't come out of the desert with the thing complete.

You faith that humans created it is just that.

You still don't get it. You make choices when living your life. You choose what to beleive. If tribe is important to you, thats your decision and I imagine would colour many of your future decisions. You decide what is important to you. It isn't given to you nor are you born with it.

Again, you are talking about the feelings of people who by living their lives have made choices. Feeling suffocated? Get out or be miserable - your choice. Don't feel like you belong anywhere - see a shrink.

Huh? Sorry, atheists have trouble with prosthelytizing because of the content and their contention that the "knowledge" is specious. Me, I don't mind and I beleive that sharing knowledge and wisdom are critical to advancing civilization and realizing maximum human potential.

There is not single message that a man teaches his children. There are many and those messages including morals, attitudes, ethics, determination, how to learn, etc etc. etc. are not the exclusive domain of religion and much of lifes lessons don't touch on religion at all.

Yes, its all spelled out. Nice and neat, not thinking required, just faith.

I beg to differ. atheism does not mean devoid of morals or ethics. If anything, atheism makes those morals and ethics more human because they are developed by humans with no input from god.

Atheists are as accountable to their individual communities as any other citizen.

WAY WAY EASIER. Physically, emotional, economically, educationally, medically way easier. The challenge of parenting is and has always been to produce a good and decent human being. We got it easy compared to parents in the 1100.s

 

And when people with cancer pray to their Gods and instead of a remission they die, that must be a miracle too, amirite?!

 

A drug user or a criminal is living their lives. They may or may not be living them to the best of their abilities. If not they are not fulfilling their individual purpose. Oh well.

As for Saint Kolbe, a truly noble gesture. I know that if I had been in Auschwitz for 7 months, it wouldn't take much to volunteer to die. He was obviously moved by the lamentation of one of the 10 selected, and let's face it in that hellhole many just gave up and died.

I'm an atheist and have carrying on a mad and passionate affair with a woman for 38 years, I'm lucky the woman is my wife.

If church is an oasis for you and centres you, then more power to you. There's a great saying in french "chacun son gout" - roughly translates as to each his own taste.

I am unaware of any legitimate science that isn't free of moral principle.

I stated that there is a very large amount of knowledge that does not require any wisdom to reap the benefits of its application. I did not say all knowledge and I agree with your example.

sound very profound until you consider that greed is a human trait and cannot stand alone.

To live the best life you are capable of. That is the purpose. Now each individual can determine what that best life consists of. Fulfillment comes from achieving the goals one sets for that best life. For instance, my son decided that having a family was important to him, and viola I'm a grandpa, my middle daughter on the other hand wants nothing to do with children, but wants a lifemate.

Personally, I don't need my purpose to be defined by anyone or anything else.

Usually so do I and if I don't know, I have a large enough support network to find the assistance I may need. Everyone stumbles through life.

The exact opposite. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have certainty. I do not beleive in miracles because I see no evidence of them existing. I do accept that some events and phenomena are as yet unexplainable, I do not accept that the explanation for the unexplainable is a supernatural agent as I see that as mere speculation or simply an expression of another's faith.

atheists reject religion and especially religious dogma. Some atheists are disrespectful of people of faith, others are not. In many cases it is not the faith that is the object of disrespect, its the dogma attached to that faith. And certainly, disrespectful or respectful disagreement does not effect evidence.

You insist I provide proof of the non-existence of god. Now objectively, one sets out to prove that something exists. If asked to provide proof for non-existence I submit to you that it is simply the wrong question to be asking.

I ask you for proof that god exists. you can only provide articles of your faith as proof of that existence. Therefore, in the absence of any proof beyond faith/belief, I conclude that there is no god. You otoh, have faith that god exists. You think I'm wrong, okay. I respect the fact that other's have faith that I do not have.

 

and it is a myth to think that religious belief makes you less likely to divorce:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

and there are plenty of believers who don't even know the meaning of the word respect, if their attitudes to not only non believers, but those of other faiths or who interpret theoir own faith differently, are anything to go by.

which of course can be neither proven, nor disproven .... so it is ridiculous to insist on this.

seriously though ... some people are obsessive about those who don't agree with them. it isn't healthy.

 

I implore those who insist on arguing the position of God to look up the definition of Falsifiability.

 

That is true but when we see that religions that Christians unquestionably state were "created by man" such as the ancient religions of Egypt, the Greeks, the Romans or from Mesopotamia where the Epic of Gilgamesh originated that all share many identical mythological stories that are also found in the Hebrew scriptures is hard not to make the connection. It is like comparing Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" with H.P Lovecraft's "Re-animator" and not seeing the connection between the two. H.P. Lovecraft even admitted that Re-animator was a parody of Frankenstein but then Lovecraft was not inventing a religion where a foundation for god was being established.

What isn't surprising is that literally hundreds of religions have been invented my mankind and each has put forward the dogmatic position that it was the only true religion and all others were frauds and yet they share the same teachings. For example Christians believe that god impregnated Mary but isn't this taken from Greek mythology where the gods impregnated mortal women creating demigods. Isn't Jesus nothing more than a demigod for Christians? The son of god and a mortal woman with powers greater than those of mortal man.

This is false as acheology has shown that the ancients were far more traveled than many believed. The trade routes traversed virtually all of Asia, Europe and Africa. The above proposition merely seeks to rationalize a belief that was long held which has since been proven to be false just like the sun orbiting the Earth, a long held Hebrew and Christian belief, had to be rationalized when science proved it false.

There is speculation that Jesus could very well have traveled to India between the ages of 12-30 and that his teachings were founded upon Buddhism that he learned during that time period. The teachings share so much commonality that it is hard to ignore the possible connection. Of course this is not proven because Jesus left no written words, not even a grocery list (leaving the question of whether the "son of god" was illiterate?), and the information related to him wasn't even created until decades after is death. There is no contemporary evidence of anything that Jesus might have said or done as it was all recounted much later by those with a religious agenda.

The problem with the Bible is that it lacks credibility because there are enough false statements in it. There wasn't a global flood, Jonah was not swollowed by a big fish, the sun did not stop in the sky, and the horns of Joshua did not bring down the walls of Jericho (excavations indicate an earthquake and fire).

At every turn when science disproves statements in the Bible those that believe in it rationalize the Bible trying to cover up the errors in it. Creationism was a myth created by religions long before the Hebrew teachings and writings. We know that to be true so why do some people insist on believing in myths?

 

Criminals are not fulfilling any purpose, nor are they expanding the basis of human knowledge are they? They are living lives that are sometimes the result of a lack of opportunity, but usually the result of immorality.

So, why didn't more do what Saint Kolbe did?

And, if you read up on Saint Kolbe, he did not just give up and die did he? We also know, from the survivors, that he was anything but a broken man when he volunteered to take that mans place. He remained unbroken in spirit.

Why do we need to change facts to downplay the power of faith? Again, nothing wrong with disagreement on faith choices, but when we start dengrating things or always seeing other faiths in a bad light .... its time to examine ourselves - not others. (That goes for both theists and atheists).

YOu are indeed. It is a blessing, one of the greatest you will ever find. Knwledge is not what brought you to her, nor she to you. You love her because she is good and honorable, and I suspect the same feelings flow in reverse.

Enjoy it! Its one of the very best things that can happen to you, and I for one am glad you found it. You deserve it!

It is to each his own, but the church is merey and extension of the teachings. I take them with me wherever I go, and many of the places I go are not nice places. Yet, the wisdom in the Bible (or Koran/Torah) works. I check the Bible first when stuck, and then the sources of other religions to 'sell' solutions.

You would be amazed at how many times I have worked on projects in places like Iraq, and been able to generate solutions to deep disputes by applying principles found in the Bible/Koran. And when it all comes together, when you generate the needed consensus to move on, no one is shocked at a reminder that principles of the settlement are in the Koran. You do get curious looks as a Westerner, first for even knowing the Koran - but mostly because you show respect for the people and their faith.

The proof of the Bible Wisdom is really in pudding.

Then it is not science.

Does evolution 'care' whether entire species are wipped out? Does a crash test care whether one car turns out to worse protected then another? Does a physics equation care whether the force required is within our limits? Does the statistical probability care whether something dangerous is more or less likely to happen?

In fact, if you do care, and want your project to have less risk ... then there is a distinct possibility that you may scew the numbers as a result. Science has very deliberate controls to minimize this.

As soon as you induce subjective principles to science, its no longer science. There are no moral principles of evolution or the big bang. General Relativity has no moral code. Etc. Seeing morality in science is nothing more than anthropomorphism.

It's also why I reject Dawkins BTW, not because he is wrong on evolution, but because he crossed the veil of logic to make a claim that morality has a genetic basis - based on anthropomorphic observation - not based on hard genetics. He is in error as result.

Good claim, now show me examples.

Greed can indeed stand alone. Indeed it is. Not every human is driven by greed, and someone who is addicted? Who is in control, the person or the addiction?

So what does that mean?

Then I guess you are not a social creature interested in sharing knowledge?

You have to understand, you are treading into some very difficult places, into places where science does NOT have answers. Being able to speak in a manner that is cogent in such a gray area is difficult. Being able to speak in a way that is exact, beyond question, mathematical? Its simply not possible.

The key in this area is tolerance of legitimate options, and rejection of those that clearly fall beyond the pale.

And we are not the first, nor the last, and much has come before us. The same questions you ask? All the answers you give are there in history. All of them.

Wisdom is supreme, for example, has been a principle of this Earth sinc ethe first Jewish tribes began to defin themselves. If we accept that it is true now, are we expanding the knowledge of humanity ... or merely accepting it?

Advances in science and technology have simply not changed many aspects of humanity. THe things that ailed us thousands of years ago are found today, pride, greed, gluttony, etc. They will be here so long as we are humans ... greater knolwedge will not change that.

In the adscence of evidence, if science is your guide, you should have agnosticism. Caution. Sceince does not eliminate possibilities until there is hard evidence until they can testably confirm another source as the reason (which eliminates other hypothesis) or can test to eliminate a specific hypothesis in a narrowing practice.

And yet, without evidence, you are certain?

That is faith.

Well, that is pretty genaric. We could say the same thing about your dogmatic approach to knowledge and the human condition coudl we not?

I have always had a problem with that kind of generalizing, because it is emotional - not logical. There are churches that do things wrong all the time, and are deserving of criticism. So too do atheist organizations, Islamic organizations, etc. That does not invalidate the faiths of any of them.

For example, as graced this very forum, a few weeks back some atheists were up in arms because some pilots refused to fly some banners basically shoving atheism down people's throats. Not only were they reminded about their own long term admonitions against proselytizing, they were reminded that no one can be forced to practice the faith of another - in this country.

Even atheists are prone to emotionalism. But dismissing others as dogmatic alone?

Trust me. I have been through this many times.

The evidence for God is inconclusive. The miracles I sight you will dismiss, and neither can confirm or deny the source of a miracle. Etc.

Sceince alone leads straight to agnosticism, the rest is faith. Faith that is driven by an examination of what IS possible out there, and then examining all those areas that sceince does not have answers to. The center of God is not proof, its a relationship. Take a look at your wife, and all those reasons you love her and she loves you? That is the reality of a relationship with God.

I can look at the evidential record and see how, logically and objectively you can disgree and respect it as a legitimate choice. Bt when YOU look at that same record and refuse to acknowledge any other possibilities but your own ...

.... lets just say you have no business at that point about chastizing others for beng dogmatic or closed minded.

Atheism, real atheism, is about concluding there is no God. Its not about rejecting or belittling everyone else's faith choice.

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

Again, strong preponderance of teh evidence cases can be made to support God. Rarely will atheists do the opposite in reverse, instead often adopting a position that invalidates evidence toward their faith at all ... moving it beyond the intellectual pale.

There are of course exceptions.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9n...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

And the problem with those, as I write above, is that the science that is outlaid, like Dawkins, has factual errors or interpretations that are quite different than the norm as published. Even without those, however, they make strong preponderance of the evidence cases.

Atheism is not illogical. Neither is faith. Science cannot answer the God question at this point, and whether you are atheist or theist - that final leap in an act of faith.

I am familiar with both sides of the aruguement. I know the evidence for both sides in terms of science, and, quite frankly, I understand faith 0 real faith - and, simply put, most atheists do not.

That is really the only difference.

 

The answers are not strong with this one.

 

A couple of things:

#1 - Are you not saying that all others are wrong and that you are right? How is your opinion any different than any of the other ones you reject?

#2 - What does the evidence for all those other religions have to do with Christianity? Or any of the Abahamic faiths that you have singled out for 'wrongness'? The challenge was simple, show how they are 'wrong'.

Examining a bunch of other religions is not going to invalidate these religions. Its no different than comparing our faith to magic plates of spaghetti.

The Apostles were, as were traders, but the vast majority or humans never left their villages. If you want a modern example, see Afghanistan. Marco Polo was famous for a reason, and it was not because his journey - hundreds of years after the birth of Christianity - was common.

No, the person who travelled to India was the apostle Thomas. In fact, the Christians there trace their origins back to his visitation and Esuebius himself talks of subsequent missionaries visiting India and returning with a Bible said to be from Saint Thomas himself. There is nothing in the Bible that claims Jesus ever visited India - there is plenty of historical documentation about his Aspotles visiting India.

Once again, you are applying a literal approach where none is intended. A fllod CAN BE literal enough that it wipes out what appears to be a local villagers entire world. In fact, we know that floods of that magnitude happen all the time in history.

Jonah fell over board and lived.

If the sun stopped, how would you know now?

Jericho fell to a people with no siege or tunneling equipment needed to breach a wall. The wall was breached nevertheless. And as I have said many times, if I told my boss that my plan to attack the Taliban required a well timed earth quake? I'd be laughed at. Yet its falseifibale because we now the method????

This is all also old testament, the recording of a long oral tradition and generally veiewed by moderate Christians as parable - with a truth behind the story. Like any other oral tradition in the world.

So, why do you need this one to be literal? But not others?

Religion is not science, and science is not religion. If you want the early history of teh Jewish people to become science ... well, do you want ALL history to become science? Should we treat Stephen Ambrose's D-Day as a book of sceinec that describes merely the number of bullets fired (estimates of course, and thus false no doubt) and just leave the strategy, terror, and bravery as sidelines outside the scope of science?

Men charging through minefields and arriving on the other side with enough force to break a Nazi strong point? Sounds way to miraclous to be true!

And the point being is that everything you point to Christians doing to shore up their defense is no different than what you do to deny. You will shift your arguements to deny at any cost. Both sides miss the point because both sides are applying the same standard: literal truth.

You view the Bible the same way a fundamentalist does, and both of you are stuck argueing about 'proof' and both are missing the point of the Bible.

Neither side, as I have often pointed out, are spending any time on Jesus whatsoever. Odd.

 

Neither is yours.

Nor indeed is your arguementation.

All that is strong is your need to insult someone. Common, unfortuantely, in modern atheism.

Being a jerk is just being a jerk. Deciding someone is less than you based soleley on their faith choice? Simple bigotry.

I would hope that this derisive nonesense is not the fulfllment of your purpose or an expression of enlightenment born of knoweldge?

Now, do we see why the perception of modern atheism is slipping down the old trust scale?

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

Take a good hard look at how you jumped into an ongoing debate.

 

More oppression from the religious. Good job showing it more obviously.

Also, one more thing. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the other sides argument doesn't mean it's weak. It's just being biased.

 

So, the guy not offering up anything other than personal pot shots is accusing others of being biased for not acknowledging the arguement he is not even making?

Yep, classic modern atheism.

A better question? Why should someone cleary being disrespectful be treated with respect?

 

There are a lot of people in this world that are not fulfilling their purpose. Comes with the territory.

Unbroken in spirit because perhaps as a man of faith he believed he was buying an express ticket to heaven?

If you review the testimony of survivors, you'll find that there were many, many selfless acts resulting in death and many many acts of bravery that resulted in death.

Yes, it is a compendium of human wisdom acquired from the dawn of civilization to 2,000 years ago.

Miscommunication. I violently agree with you.

Dawkins makes the claim that some elements of human morality are based "human nature" . In other words, there are elements that are not learned, but are inhierent within us.

This is certainly not a Dawkins idea. Its the on going "nurture or nature" argument about human behaviour that has been raging back and forth for decades.

Based on anthropological observation (rather different from anthropomorphic) there are some rather startling consistencies of "morals" and what we would recognize as "moral behaviour" amongst disparate human groups with no contact between them. Since these studied groups were generally pagans and animists, those common elements of morality could not have come from god, thus the hypothesis that there must be a genetic component to it, much like instinct guides lesser animals.

Examples of beneficial applied knowledge not requiring wisdom.

Nearly all mass marketed end user technology. Cell phones, lap tops, etc.
No particular wisdom is required. the only "intangible" required to invent or develop such remarkable tools is creativity. Everything else is applied knowledge.

Um, can't have greed without a human. Yes not every human is driven by greed. Comes back to living life and making choices. An addict gives up control to his addiction. No offence, but don't the pious also give up a measure of control to god?

simply that.
Not everyone has the same abilities and talents. Not everyone is smart, or athletic, or strong or creative.
Living the best life you can, means that abilities are leveraged and weaknesses are mitigated.
There's tons of words that an individual can select to define what living the best life he can: love, caring, compassion, curtesy, strength, cooperation, sharing, learning, teaching, striving, communicating, generousity, altruistic,
etc. etc. etc. etc.

absolutely none of that requires a god.

Not at all, in fact I don't understand how you could conclude that from me saying that I do not require anyone or anything to define my purpose. See above.

Wisdom is the ability to make the best use of knowledge. It was around long before the hebrews.

And yes we are expanding the knowledge of humanity at a tremendous rate. Sometimes our knowledge is greater than our wisdom and then we make even more mistakes.

Science and technology has had and will continue to have a tremendous transformative effect on humanity. Has it been able to eliminate the more negative aspects of human nature as you outlined? Not as of yet, but I do beleive that greater knowledge leads to greater wisdom and that we as humans are capable of evolving beyond what we are now.

Science does not acknowledge the supernatural as a scientific explanation, nor as a workable hypothesis. That is not faith, that is science.
You suggest that because science cannot prove your faith to be wrong (i.e. provide proof of god's non-existence) that my position is also a manifestation of faith. We will have to agree to totally disagree here.

My position is in the absence of proof of both the supernatural and god, then god does not exist.

Of course its generic, you ask open ended questions or make blanket statements about "atheists" then you complain about generic answers?

No you could not say the same thing about my position. I have no religion, therefore I am not dogmatic. I constantly challenge my beliefs, and am perfectly willing and capable of changing them based on evidence to the contrary.

Well atheists are human are they not? Atheism does not preclude emotionalism and particularly with such a personal topic as one's existence.

Dogma requires a religion, notwithstanding, I am unaware of atheist dogma. Can you give me some examples of the things that are not to be questioned by atheists?

The difference in that comparison is that she directly interacts with me. She gives me instant feedback. She also gives me orgasms.

I am open minded. Show me any plausible explanation for god that does not require belief in the supernatural and I would instantly become agnostic.

I agree. I beleive we are discussing this in a respectful fashion. I have concluded that there is no god. If I reject your faith, it does not mean I do not respect it - chacun son gout.

 

Creationism has no place in a science class. It is a childish myth that is more approriate for a World Cultures class.

 

Faith is accepting the will of God (which does not mean defining what is and what is not the will of God, as if one were God).

 

Addendum:

The "faith" to which you seem to be referring is more of an intuitive awareness of God. This "faith" is sort of like a gift for mathematics or music. Some people have an innate sense of the presence of something very huge, very omnipotent, and very ominiscient permeating throughout the world and everything in it. You cannot obtain this sort of faith through any amount of academic study, though you might obtain it through meditation.

There is also the sort of "faith" which arises from the very precarious existential condition in which we find ourselves in this life. It is a reaction to fear of the unknown and it is the most common sort of faith.

True faith, however, is accepting the will of God (which does not mean defining what is and what is not the will of God, as if one were God), even when such will is personally unacceptable.

 

Well the problem with your definition of true faith is who knows what the will of god is today? Surely not some dudes that lived 2,000 years ago.

 

You didn't read between the parentheses, did you?

It is sheer blasphemy to claim knowlege of what is and what is not the will of God. The best we can do is guess at it.

Therefore, instead of saying, "It's God's will," one should say "It may be God's will."

 

So if something happens and you interpret the will of God to mean that you must kill innocent babies while they lie in their cribs, you would blindly follow?

 

So, Saints are everywhere?

If we believe that we are going to heaven, why didn't all Christians act as Saint Kolbe did? And what about people who are brave despite not thinking they are going to heaven?

I've been shot at before, I don't care what your faith is, it scare the crap out of you. And when the chips are reallly down, when your life is really on the line (I hope Dawkins reads this) your instincts are anything but what Kolbe did. To maintain the spirit and concern for others right up to the point where he died? Men don't normally die like that - not one bit. Trust me.

Yep, but what ailed us then ailes us now - and will continue to. Adultry was a problem then, its a problem now. Lying was bad then, just as bad now, arrogance was a problem then, just as bad now. Shortsighted policy (a lack of wisdom) was a problem then, and today we have the housing market.

Our knowledge has advanced a great deal, but it seems we just keep finding news to attempt to get around old truths that come back to bite us in the butt.

But then, in a curious twist, many Christian denominations believe that is exactly why we are sent here as humans - to learn the lessons of his wisdom, to see its truth, to know its truth, and to return to him realy enlightened in his wisdom rather than just created in his wisdom.

How do you explain, with our ever expanded knoweldge, why we keep making the same mistakes?

Well, having read Dawkins, lets say I am unimpressed from a scientific standpoint.

#1 - he offers up not actual genetic proof to back up his claim that it is genetic. It is for this reason alone this his work would never pass an actual peer review process from a biology commitee.

Interesting hypothesis, but one that relies on observation and anectodal ties.

#2 - We have study after study that inidcates strong cultural links, learning, pressure, (apple not falling far from the tree syndrom), and these have a great deal of nfluence on what shapes us. This can be both good and bad.

#3 - If our morality is hardwired, then so is our ciminality. Should we not then be able to simple test this genetic gene, and indicate that the abscence of morality gene or prescence of a criminality gene will indicate law enforcement attention? Are we slaves to our DNA?

#4 - For every act of bravery there are as many acts of cowardace. That goes for gophers, monkeys, and men (women too). When we ignore the darker side of nature, the parasitic relationships even in highre mammals, the dysfuction, etc. we introduce that subjectivity I talked about earlier - at best it skews teh results, at worst ... it becomes a lie of ommission.

Dawkins hypthesis is interesting - it simply is not proven (nor do I believe it will be). His analysis about evolution is spot on. His extrapolation that evolution explains morality? That is a conclusion that is not supportable.

And how to market them? Whether to make them? Their price points? Free access to the internet? Disposal of old units? Rare earth metals? A growing information gap? Regulations that affect privacy and access to data? The infastructure to support the eneregy and distribution of data? Filters for parents? Etc.

The product was invented, but once created it effects things. We can either dump products blindly (which admittedly some do), but the wise look out for the consequences of new products and see opportunities or potential hazards ... and they get in front of them.

For example, the race for ever faster processing to achieve results? Or, invent the I-Pad? The wise saw an opportunity.

#1 - there are plenty of animals that are greedy.

#2 - There are plenty of humans both driven by greed and not driven by greed. Those who are, who are allowing the stock market to fluctuate in a manner that has nothing to do with the health of corporations listed on the market? To allow commodity prices to fluctuate in manner totally unrelated to supply and demand - disturbing the cycle of investment? I mean, when REAL demand is high, that should increase investment to increase supply. So what do you do when the financial are totally disconnected from that reality? Do you invest and hope the algorithims get the price high? Or not run the risk at all?

And you are telling me that humans are in control allowing this to happen? Allowing a system to threaten the long term viability of rea finances based on actual investment rather than a quick buck from systems manipulations?

Who is in control?

That is very simplistic. But it is open to all kind of interpretations. If the best life I can get is through criminality? Is the best life maximizing profit or money? Time with family? Freinds? Travelling? What?

What does knowledge tell us?

Except that the one thing you left off is a relationship with God. What you offer above is, as many accuse us of doing, just a bunch of pleasent sounding words. There is no reall direction or solution, its just ... go be generally good to one another and find happines is whatever makes you happy .... and if that happens to be God?

Because you claimed your purpose was knoweldge.

I am demonstrating that your contention is ... the same, scientifically, as mine. Its not falsifiable. Its not testable. It can be taken to extreme. It lacks sufficent focus. Can be mocked. etc.

Again, I have no real issues with anything you say. There is nothing in your life that you are striving for that is ingerently bad, far from it.

The only part that I disagree with is when you cross the line between respectful disagreement (as a Muslim does with a Christian or Buddhist), and it becomes YOUR way is definitely wrong!

Well, it isn't wrong, far from it.

It is experiece, knoweldge, and good judgement.

Politics is a great example. There is knowing what is right, objectively, and knowing what your constituency will buy into and when they will buy into it.

Themistocles provides one such example. After the First Persian War, he knew that the Persians would not simply retire in defeat, knew they would come back stronger than ever bent on revenge. He also knew that this threat was distant and that the Athenian Counsel would not support the building of new ships based on that looming threat - they simply disagreed. So, Themistocles lied to them. He made up a threat from the West, bent of pillaging Athenian trade, its life line, and go the Counsel to approve the funds. The result was the battle of Artemisium, where the Athenians prevent the Persians from flanking the joint Greek Armies made famous at Thermopylae.

That is wisdom. It is not simple knowledge used well.

We make teh same mistakes.