Creationism in schools

That would be about right. Creationism is not science.

Science can be used to probe the questions of God, but they are inconclusive, and really pretty irrelevant to any of the fields of science ... unless one of them literally stumbles onto God. And THAT would be an interetsing site to see.

 

God exists between the ears of the believer and no amount of evidence or lack thereof is going to shake that belief. God enables the individual to a) believe in a higher purpose to this life b) be comforted by the notion that an individual's existence transcends death c) be comforted by God is watching over them d) be comforted by the knowledge that God is in control e) be relieved that their transgressions can be forgiven and no matter how dispicible they behave they can be saved.

The atheist on the other hand does not beleive in the supernatural. He derives purpose for his own life by the simple act of living and the purpose human life in general from the steady advancement of knowledge. He beleives that his time on earth is "heaven", that it is all we get and that we better make the most of it. He realizes that humans are in control of human institutions and that human nature in large part dictates human behaviour. He realizes that absolution can ultimately only come from within. He doesn't need the supernatural to scare him into good behaviour rather it is either intrinsic to his world view or not.

 

Well, there are a coupe of problems here.

#1 - the idea of there not being a God is also fixed between your ears and no amount of evidence will change it. Which leads to:

#2 - you do not believe in miracles? The super natural?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

What exactly do you make of the Big Bang?

#3 - Do you realy find your purpose in knowledge? What about relationships? Children? Freindships? Wisdom? Service? Honor? Selflessness?

I know quite a bit, and there is certainly beneft in advancing knowledge, but most atheists are not exactly hovering over microscopes and beakers either?

#4 - do we control our human institutions? Tell me about the stock market? It is controlled by algorithims today that have little or no bearing on the fundamental health of the coporations whose financial health they are supposed to reflect.

How much does any one human shape the earth? Anything at all requires consensus to move forward, so how do you achieve it?

I will stop there, because the intent is not to pillar your beliefs. It's to demonstrate that simplistic lingo is not a solution to humanity. The statement you make answer some questions and raise some questions. If this is an honest belief, about the only real criticism I have would be to drop the first part entirely.

If how you define yourself is but a rebuttal to a crude outlay of religion ...

 

Right. I merely do not accept theistic claims as true. This does not mean I claim them absolutely false.

If you consider that no claim at all - thats fine by me.

Thats exactly right. A "gnostic atheist" would be someone who believes there is no god, beacause they have knowledge that there is no god.

I am not one of them. I would wager that most atheists aren't.

The lack of belief in a deity.

 

Back to the topic which is not about athiests but instead about creationism.

As has been acknowledged by most creationism is not a scientific subject as it has no foundation in science. We can exclude it from the science classrooms for that reason alone.

It has been presented that it might be a topic for a class in comparative religions but it fails there as well. Virtually all religions that have ever existed have dogma related to god creating the universe and life. Comparative religion would address the differences and not the commonality of the religions.

It could possibly be a part of cultural anthropology but it would be a waste of classroom time. Once again "creationism" is fundamentally common to all religions past and present.

It really is a subject without substance except as being a common component of ancient religious mythology.

 

It's not even a good subject of discussion because it is common to virtually all ancient religious mythology. Greek mythology, Roman mythology, and Hebrew mythology all held the belief that god or gods created the universe and life. If we were to create a list of commonality between all religions that I'm aware of they would all contain "god(s)" and "creationism" as a part of that list. All ancient religions were fundamentally unknowledgeable about biology and the cosmos created and they created myths to explain the universe and life or, more likely, adopted these myths from other earlier religions.

The myths of creationism really originated with a simple question. "Why are we here and where did the universe come from?" and the answer based upon pure ignorance of the times was, "God(s) did it." It didn't really answer the question but the people that were as ignorant as the religious leaders believed it and were satisified. Many continue to believe it today.

 

well, there is no problem really.

you can not prove god's existence anywhere BUT between your ears, however belief in God IS what gives meaning to the lives of believers above all else.

atheists, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, don't rely on that.

 

Basically this was addressed in the fictional story of "The Hitchhikders Guide to the Galaxy" where they sought the answer to "life, the universe and everything" and the great computer (religion) said the answer was 42.

Those that believe in religion accept that 42 is the answer although it answers nothing. They are satisfied with the answer and seek no further.

Those that don't believe in religion continue to search for the answer because 42 made no sense. They are not satisfied with an answer that makes no sense and seek to actual find a logical reason for "life, the universe and everything."

 

Charles Dodson (Lewis Carroll) also thought 42 was a special number ... so those who think 42 is the answer are right!

 

This thought has actually crossed my mind also. Some of the things he gets away with saying, even after being reported by multiple people, is kind of shocking. It either has to be this, or because he's a donor.

Either way, rules are not being enforced uniformly, and that's disappointing. It doesn't really bother me that much, as I have thick skin, it's just the principle.

 

Fixed that for you.

Called that one, didn't I?

As per Grasping's explanation, agnosticism and atheism are two separate things. However, they are not mutually exclusive - one can be both. The only thing I take issue with is your willful ignorance of the meaning of both. I agree with Grasping's explanation.

It always has to be about you, doesn't it?

"Me me me! Everything you say that disagrees with me is insulting. Whaaaaa!"

Boo-(*)(*)(*)(*)ing-hoo, get over yourself.

I/We have defined it quite clearly, and often. You just seem to have some inability to understand. And before you act all butt-hurt again, that's not an insult, merely an observation.

You are the source of most of my anger. You literally cannot act like an adult and engage in decent debate. Pretty much every post, you fail to actually address a single point you are replying to and resort to nothing but dodges, lies, rants, and a long list of logical fallacies.

It's also disheartening in regards to the future of the human race to see that someone can just be so utterly and absolutely wrong about everything. And it's not like you haven't had any help. You're just content to be huddled in your little "circle of wrongness", waiting for every opportunity to shout that yet another poster is a jerk and rant about how horrible atheism is, even if it has nothing to do with the subject.

And just to get this out of the way before you ask - yes, because I said so.

Still not paying attention? You are.


Let's set aside our animosity for a minute. I'll give you a piece of advice - and I mean that honestly. If you would start treating others better, they will respond in kind and treat you better. I can promise you, that if you would stop with the constant hypocrisy, lies, strawmen, ad hominems, and other fallacies, that these conversations would be much more civil and productive. Just calmly and directly address the points that people make, that's it.

You'll probably take some of that as an attack and jump right back to animosity, but I assure you, that wasn't the intent.

Do with that what you will.

 

Put him on Ignore - if you don't feed the trolls, they die off

 

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

 

While I'm quoting Douglas Adams...


There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought.

-- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

LOL, that's funny. I posted those Adams quotes before I read this.

 

No I do not believe in the super natural. I do not believe in miracles.

Unexplained remissions of disease merely means unexplained. something isn't a "miracle" because its cause is unknown, either we have insufficient information to discern its cause or its cause is simply beyond our current knowledge.

There is a well known adage from ACClarke. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

I think it is an excellent theory based on observation, limited experimentation and mathematics. It does not preclude a creator, but of course, that is is not the objective of the theory. Quantum theory proves that first cause is not necessary, but even that does not preclude a creator. Personally, since I do not beleive in the supernatural, I have very serious doubts about a being that can exist out of space and time then simply "move in" to our universe.

No, I said humans in general, I should have said humanity. The advancement of knowledge yields understanding of our universe and our existence. If that knowledge can be advanced sufficiently, we can master energy and create mass. That is "godlike" power, without a god.

And yes, living a healthy life includes relationships, children, service, honour, altruism, hopefully the acquistion of wisdom, and being productive. Those are some of the parts of an individual's purpose.

Yes, 50% of the world has below average intelligence and being an atheist is in no way indicative of a person's intelligence. However, as I corrected earlier, I beleive that the acquisition of knowledge is the purpose of humanity.

Those algorithms were written by humans. those computers were designed and built by humans. Control of all human institutions are in the hands of humans. Should that control to some extent be delegated to technology is not the same as losing control. A human can still pull the plug.

One human can have immense impact on human civilization. Jonas Salk, Albert Einstien, Von Braun, Pasteur, Hitler, Stalin, Oppenheimer.... the list is long.

As to your contention that consensus is required to move forward, history shows that there are a variety of ways to achieve that concensus. Fear of course is the easiest and speediest. Recognition of common need. Greed. Promise of power, etc. etc. etc.

We differ. I notice that you only object to "god between the ears" perspective and rebut that with "miracles and the supernatural". is my reasoning about why people embrace religion incorrect or faulty? If so, I would very much like to know.

 

The last statement is very accurate and, in fact, has been explored by archeologists related to religion. We now know many "tricks" were used in ancient times to awe people into believing in religion. Statutes that moved or "bleed" were common tricks used by religious leaders to convince followers to believe in the religion. We know how they did this today because the technology was so fundamental but it awed the ignorant masses at the time.

What we generally know about religion is that the religious leaders have never been opposed to lying and deceiving their followers. They knowingly commit fraud to promote their religion. I don't believe that any religion can state that this wasn't done as there is far to much evidence of it.

 

So, in the miracles that I linked you to, you think that it is advanced technology that lead aggressive cancer to just ... go away?

The real issue with that one is that your belief that knowledge will eventually solve all things is an act of faith. You have no way of knowing this, and I would challenge any atheist to track and account for miracles over time and demonstrate the reality of the statement.

Take for example Jericho. The walls famously come tumbling down, and we know a few things about this. One, the army that took Jericho had no seige equipment and dug no tunnels. We know how, even in period specific context, to breach walls. None of those methodologies were available to the Hebrew at Jericho and still, they managed to breach the wall and take the town.

THousands of years later, we can only speculate about the reasons, but knowledge did not solve this. The nominal deist approach, which shows up during the French Revolution, made a similar claim (exact one actually) and, quite frankly .... it failed. the simplest explanation is that not everything is understood or explainable through science.

Again, prove you love your wife or children?

Quantum Mechanics cannot explain why a ball of pure energy appeared in the middle of the non-existant universe and exploded. Quantum Mechanics may not need a beginning - but the universe does - and indeed has one.

And what do we do with it?

What is the moral truth? How does our knoweldge improve our moral understanding? The basics of morality have not changed over the millenia, and indeed, we hold certain values to be humanly unalienable and indeed, when denied, cause rebellion and strife.

Power without wisdom is not God.

There is one thing there that I must give caution to - an individual's purpose. This is not an atheist concept, it is an American concept and one that is VERY different than many of the places I have been. In many pplaces the role of the individual is subordinate to the duty to a family or tribe. Indeed, if we believe that children are important, that relationships are important, then the certain of our purpose is others.

How does the aquisition of knowledge shape this?

See above.

I don't disagree with you about education, but, as I stated, the vast majority of atheists are not scientists. They are not driven to expand the human body of knoweldge. They are teachers, factory workers, business managers, etc. Are they denying their purpose if, due to simple economics, they are not pushing the bounds of human knowledge?

And in this aspect, I see the strakest difference between the approachs. Knowledge is important, it is indeed in the Bible, but the purpose of knoweldge is gain wisdom - not more knoweldge. When we are wise, we know and understand the importance of family, of friends, of teh need forethical and moral leadership, of balance.

The algorithims may have been written by humans, but there are many firms with their own algorithims and these algorithims interact with each other is strange ways. Furthermore, once they are out, they often make independant decisions based on what they 'see'.

In some cases this leads to flash crashes when a program sees something and then dumps shares, which triggers other programs seeing the dump to do the same and suddenly people lose a lot of money, through a process with no human intervention of decisions at all.

Additionally, the nature of the stock market has changed. It is no longer corporate earning and health that cause fluctuations in the stock market. Drought in Russia, which in the aggregate has little or no impact on wheat availability, or the Lybian disruption in oil, which account for less than 2% of the oil market causing oil to shoot up to $100+ dollars a barrel. The fundamental health of the system in each case was fine, but the algorithms see the news and react accordingly - driving up prices of both commodities. Its the news, not actual commodity availability, supply and demand, that are driving the price - worse, as the price rises for artificial reasons, this creates disruptions in the actual market for commodities who see the price going crazy and have no idea how to time their products for profit.

Humans are in control?

How many of us are these people? And those of us who are not?

I strongly disagree that fear is the quickest way of getting consensus. People might think so, but fear breeds counter-reaction and what you need then, as dictators prove, is brutality. Dictatorships rarely move 'forward' either.

The greatest form of consensus, which you allude to, is shared values and desires. The need there is to have a cogent and explainable process that people voluntarily by into. In this aspect the Bible has a huge advantage, even if you reject Christianity, our society is shaped by the values inside the book - just as ME society is to a large extent shaped by the values contained in the Koran.

Time and again, at the political level, I see planning and the marketing of plan achieve political success, and, at the political level, fear (like McCarthyism) inevitably causes a policy to collapse.

So the real question is, with knowledge (and it is clearly growing), what policy do we need?

There is, using science, no way to either confirm or deny God. On an intellectual basis, we can both make cases that demonstarte positions of reasonableness in the other and silliness in the other. et me show you.





At some level these two images obviously misrepresent the reality of the other. The truth is inconclsuive, so, again, its why I asked you to simpy drop the first part of what atheists use to defin themselves, which is, almost inevitably a short brief of religion that is usually hugely misleading.

Bottom line, science does not prove everything, and if you are convinced that I am wrong based in mircales, you need to come up with something that actually proves there ARE no miracles. Your belief referrence these is merely an opinion without proof. So why are my beliefs faulty and yours not?

 

Very interesting... Is there any links or shows on the History Channel or something about this? A museaum exibit?

Wow - that's pretty far-fetched. Any Religion? All the religions outside of white people, and there is a lot, have evidence of this? The Vikings have evidence of this? American/S. American Indians? Sorry, but I just don't believe that in the slightest...

 

So, explain to me how you, through a trick, cure blindness? Leprecy? Death itself?

Is Jesus reported to have made a statue bleed?

Again, this is guilt by association. The fact that some religious people have faked miracles and other incidents does not mean that they are ALL fake. Indeed, when a man clumsily does these things, his intentions are not of God, but his own ego - and when it is revealed as such, well, it gives skeptics ammunition, but it also reinforces those who understand the faith and the need for truth.

Where is your actual evidence that Jesus was fake?

Additionally, if we read the Bible, we see that most of the miracles performed by Jesus were done to those who accepted God already. The miracles performed were NOT part of the convincing process, it is a reward for acknolwedging the truth as it was. Its the message of Jesus that convinces people, and, then as in now, the rewards of a relationship with God flow after you accept him.

 

Absolutely but I will have to find them. That might take some time as I believe it was covered by the series "What the Ancients Knew" but I'm not sure what episode. In many cases the technological developments were created by religious leaders, who happened to be the most knowledgeable people around, explicitly to deceive the followers of the religion.

I believe it is fairly well established. For example we know that there wasn't a global flood but a global flood is mentioned in the Tales of Gilgamesh, Greek and Roman mythology (which were religions), and in the Bible. Someone invented this myth to deceive people and they knew they were inventing this and they did so to attract religious followers. Of course, as I noted, some religions plagerize parts of other religions in their initial development. This appears to be the case of the Hebrew Torah which apparently adopted the story of the Noah from the Tales of Gilgamesh as well as several other stories. Did the Jewish scholars that were creating a religion intentionally lie or did the merely accept a previous myth created by someone else? We simply don't know but when two religious myths are almost identical we certainly question if there is a direct connection.

 

There are a couple of flawed assumption.

#1 - just because there are stories that are similiar in religions, does not mean that one picked up the other. I mean do all horror novels steal from Steven King?

Besides, the creation of the OT Canon is well documented, and has been for some time.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Je...&resnum=3&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hS...&resnum=5&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yH...&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false



#2 - what we consider a global flood today is not what many of the people, confined to a village or tribal area (they didn't travel much then), would need for a flood to be considered global.

Take what just happened in Pakistan, and it does not take much imagination to realize how much worse that could have been with no flood control infastructure, no roads or emergency housing, no centralized government, and we see the massive potential for death and destruction that rather routinely hit ancient socities.

The flood does not need to cover the whole world in that context, it merely has to be destructive enough to wipe out the tribe that Noah beonged to - and that is not all that hard to imagine is it?

Again the difference here is whether you take the words to be what we would consider to be 'literal' truth? We should bear in mind that these things were written thousands of years ago, and concepts of time and space have evolved considerably from that point of origin.

If we look at Naoh like Kevin Costner's water world, we will obviously never see even a glint of truth to it. If we look at it in period sepcific context? There may very well be a kernal of truth to it, much more than that.

 

Everything you atheists know is crap, cheap propaganda for individuals with minds of believers in santa claus.

Such religiuos leaders would be immidiately investigated by the Office of the Holy Inquisition and if don't repeant then burned in stake. What atheists do know about Inquisitors?

 

Gotta be a joke... I hope.

 

They say hope dies the last.