The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[RoadRash 0]

Well, thanks to a BIBLICAL LITERATURE CLASS that I took in HIGH SCHOOL...I will put in bold the creation stories/theories that I learned...

Quote

Quote

Creation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school.

Which theory of creation should be taught in schools?

Asatru
Baha'i
Buddhism
Caodaism
Celtic Druidism
Chewa religion
Christianism
Confucianism
Deism
Druzes
Efrain Society E. Link
Falun Dafa
Islam
Ijaw and Ibo
Ifa
Hinduism
Hoodoo E. Link
Jainism
Judaism
Kemetic
Kongo religion
Luminism
Maasai religion
Norse
Nuer religion
Oromo religion
Rastafarian
Romuva
Sabaean Mandeans
Santeria
Shona
Sikhism
Shintoism
Taoism
Tswana religion
Yezidism
Yoruba
Voodoo
Zoroastrianism

And those are just a few that I remember...


Some of those listed above are redundant...but I put them in bold anyway...My teacher treated the Bible like any other piece of literature...it just so happens that the Bible is the most widespread influential piece of literature written. What I want to know, is of the people who criticize it vehemently, how many of them have read it and/or studied it. I decided a long time ago that if I wanted to dispute a belief, I sure as hell better know what I am talking about, and not just discussed it with someone or read one little passage from it.


~R+R...$0.02...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[billvon 2,998]

>We know evolution exists. Anyone who breds dogs will tell you that, but to
> say that we are the product of natural selection that stated with a few
>chain of proteins requires the faith of Job.

Faith is a belief in something you can never prove. Science requires a belief in the principles of theorizing and experimentation to prove those theories. It's sort of the opposite of religion. Religion interprets the world to fit the "word of god" - science fits theories to the real world. The measure of the validity of a belief is how it makes you feel, or whether a pope approves of it. The measure of validity in science is - does the theory work in the real world?

>That makes Darwinism a religion.

No more so than particle physics, astronomy, paleontology or geology. No one has ever seen the center of the earth, or a black hole, or a Triceratops, or a Higgs boson. Yet we can infer their existence by their effects and traces they leave behind, and create experiments to measure the effects they produce. Hence they belong in the realm of science.

>Science and God are not mutually exclusive of each other.

I agree there, but one can never be _subsituted_ for the other. One is a faith, one is a science. Claiming that you should look for scientific truth in the bible is like trying to learn morality from a book on differential equations.

>Science does not know even if basic life can be created out of dead
>matter . . .

Viruses have been created out of dead matter. DNA has been sequenced out of basic building blocks, inserted in otherwise dead cells, and has taken control of cells. We've come to realize that life is just a superbly ordered and sequenced arrangement of basic elements, an arrangement that can defy entropy for a short time.

> Athiests like to look at the parable of 'the seven days' and 'great flood
> as proof that the bible is full of shit.

I think they're wrong; the bible is not a literal description of how the world came to be and should not be read as such. It is a moral guide to living a life in the way the writers of the bible thought was good.

>The big bang is beyond even our best scientists.

300 years ago, germs were beyond our best scientists. 150 years ago, so was powered flight. We will eventually understand a great deal more than we do now about the big bang, and about the fate of the universe.

>The bible; which is compilation of ancient writings, is crammed full of
> wisdom that is very pertinant today.

I agree.

>There are mysteries we don't even know we don't know. When you
>expain 'Where did i come' from to your child, do you explain X&Y
>chromosones or do you use an analogy that he will understand?

I will use a description of how he came to be that is simple enough to understand. He was created by a union of his parents, and shares traits from both of them. I'll tell him the details as he can understand them.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

The difference between the two in each case is that the more-scientifically-accepted theory doesn't require that one postulate a creator.

No, you're right! It requires that you postulate a random force that appeared out of nothing to start a process that occurs completely on its own.

Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory in the history of science, used in the design of the computer you are using to browse dz.com, used in the design of your DVD player, CD player, TV set, all of which behave just as the theory predicts, also predicts that particles of matter can spring out of nowhere, at random

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mardigrasbob 0]

God, I love this shit!
Could we have had this conversation in China?
I firmly believe that the most ardent athiest will get on his knees when faced with his own mortality.


----

[billvon 2,998]

>Could we have had this conversation in China?

I had a really interesting conversation like this in Hong Kong, once. It was more about materials physics than the Casimir effect though. Does that count?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Well, thanks to a BIBLICAL LITERATURE CLASS that I took in HIGH SCHOOL...I will put in bold the creation stories/theories that I learned...

Quote

Quote

Creation is also a theory and should just as equally be taught in school.

Which theory of creation should be taught in schools?

Asatru
Baha'i
Buddhism
Caodaism
Celtic Druidism
Chewa religion
Christianism
Confucianism
Deism
Druzes
Efrain Society E. Link
Falun Dafa
Islam
Ijaw and Ibo
Ifa
Hinduism
Hoodoo E. Link
Jainism
Judaism
Kemetic
Kongo religion
Luminism
Maasai religion
Norse
Nuer religion
Oromo religion
Rastafarian
Romuva
Sabaean Mandeans
Santeria
Shona
Sikhism
Shintoism
Taoism
Tswana religion
Yezidism
Yoruba
Voodoo
Zoroastrianism

And those are just a few that I remember...


Some of those listed above are redundant...but I put them in bold anyway...My teacher treated the Bible like any other piece of literature...it just so happens that the Bible is the most widespread influential piece of literature written. What I want to know, is of the people who criticize it vehemently, how many of them have read it and/or studied it. I decided a long time ago that if I wanted to dispute a belief, I sure as hell better know what I am talking about, and not just discussed it with someone or read one little passage from it.


~R+R...$0.02...

Well, if you studied it in HIGH SCHOOL it must be correct and comprehensive. Rather like high school physics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Agreed. It does not talk about any sort of condensation of the earth out of a pre-solar nebula, or the Big Bang.

The Bible isn’t a science book. The story doesn’t present the creation of the universe in a scientific manner. That would be incomprehensible to us and especially the people back then. It is an alternate theory to what is being taught, however. It has its place.

Quote

Well, if you want to teach creationism as described in the bible, then you're talking about teaching that the earth was created in seven days, that god created a watery planet first, then created light and energy, then created land. Then came vegetation. Only then, after the earth had been created and life had begun on it, did he create the rest of the heavens - all the stars, the moon etc. The Big Bang theory is in direct contradiction to this sequence of events.

Paragraph by paragraph from my NIV Bible:

The heavens were created first. The Earth was also created in this process (I’m thinking something like “The Big Bang”). Next light and energy were provided as it pertained to Earth (The Sun) and land masses were formed from the ocean as well as a breathable protective atmosphere. Vegetation came next. All this is going on during the initial expansion of the infant universe. Other planets and stars were also being formed and set on their paths. The Earth’s rotation was set in correlation with the Sun and Moon. Water, air, and land animal life were then created. Man and woman were created last in God’s spiritual image. They were given dominion over the Earth. The last day was set aside to be holy and a day of rest. There is no contradiction that I see.

As for the 7 days issue, I believe this was written to be somewhat comprehensible to the people of the time. I don’t know how long a day is for God. I believe that he created time and space as a place for us to exist. Similar to how he also created the protective and breathable atmosphere around the Earth so that life on Earth would be possible. I believe that he can control time just like anything else he created. I think he could have literally created the framework for the universe in 7 days and/or I also think he could have done it over the course of millions of years.

Quote

Then god created man out of dust. Some time later he took a rib out of the first man and created a woman. So women were not present at first, and the first man was created out of dust.

Now, you might have your own theories on what really happened. You might decide that the bible wasn't entirely accurate, and when it claimed that woman was made out of a man's rib god really meant something completely different. But if you teach that you are teaching Pajarito's Personal Interpretation of the Bible(TM) not the Biblical story of creation. And you have every right to teach that to your kids, but your own personal beliefs on which parts of the bible you believe and which parts you ignore in favor of real science are not what you base biology curriculums on. Biology is a science, not a system of belief.

We were formed from components in the Earth whether you believe in evolution or creation. I think the symbolism in creating woman from the rib of man is that the two became one flesh. Spiritually and physically, they are made for one another. They are life partners and were made to help each other as well as procreate. I try not to deviate from the Bible. If I do so, I assure you that it is completely unintentional. You seem to infer that is what I’m doing by saying, “But if you teach that you are teaching Pajarito's Personal Interpretation of the Bible(TM) not the Biblical story of creation.”

Quote

Now, if you were teaching a class on theology, that would be a dandy topic. Present it, and people can decide for themselves what they believe.

Evolution takes God completely out of the equation and is taught as proven fact. I agree that it should be taught in detail but there are other options. Taken back to the source (The Big Bang), Creation is just as valid and should be at least presented.

Quote

Really? You believe that the earth was created first, then the rest of the stars? You believe that the first woman was created from a rib dissected out of the first man? You seem smarter than that.

Read Genesis more carefully. You say that I’m reading into it what I want but I say that you’re doing the same.

Quote

Which is too bad. History of religions is an important topic in terms of both deciding one's own beliefs and understanding world history. We'd be a lot better off today if people understood Islam, Buddhism and Judaism as well as they understood Christianity.

But the place to teach all that is in a religion class, not a science class. Religion and science are separate topics.

Probably so, however, the “separation of church and state” people won’t allow that in public schools. Too bad.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

the more I read about this kind of stuff, the more I buy into the whole yoga, sound of Ohm, vibrations belief thing. Eventually I think we'll find that there is no solid matter at all, that there is no tiniest particle and that what we perceive as physical substance is really just a concentration of vibrations within the infinite vacuum of space.

Welcome to cessation of suffering - acknowledgment of birth and rebirth. Welcome to non-self.



A butterfly flaps it's wings in the west....

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[pajarito 0]

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the “so help me God” phrase in the court oath mostly symbolic and not necessarily required? I believe the judge has the authority to change it if he/she deems necessary. It’s still against the law to lie on the stand even if you’re an atheist who took the oath as customary, however.

[RoadRash 0]

::sigh::...My point, you missed it yet again...


Thanks for yet another oneliner...pointless and ineffective...


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory in the history of science, used in the design of the computer you are using to browse dz.com, used in the design of your DVD player, CD player, TV set, all of which behave just as the theory predicts, also predicts that particles of matter can spring out of nowhere, at random

I'm absolutely sure that you know more about Quantum electrodynamics than I do but, just because you don't know or can't prove where something came from, doesn't mean it just "poofed" out of nothing.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory in the history of science, used in the design of the computer you are using to browse dz.com, used in the design of your DVD player, CD player, TV set, all of which behave just as the theory predicts, also predicts that particles of matter can spring out of nowhere, at random

I'm absolutely sure that you know more about Quantum electrodynamics than I do but, just because you don't know or can't prove where something came from, doesn't mean it just "poofed" out of nothing.

Great insight. Maybe we'll see you in Stockholm next year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Great insight. Maybe we'll see you in Stockholm next year.

Yeah...see YOU there too. I'm sure you'll be invited. I'm also sure they'll give you a first class seat on the plane so as to accomodate for the size of your vastly superior brain.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

> Laws can not be passed which restrict the rights of religion to freely practice.

Agreed.

I disagree with both of you. Such laws can and are routinely passed and signed by the executive. It is the responsibility of the court systems to overturn those laws if they cannot pass scrutiny. If such laws cannot be passed, there is no need for a court system that revews these laws.

I have been noticing a lot of legislation getting passed that clearly courts trouble being found constitutional. It seems that legislators, in bad faith, pass laws that they know are most likely unconstitutional, and then just enjoy it for the time they have it -- when they never should have passed it in the first place.

There are times when laws get passed that are so clearly unconsititutional that everyone could agree -- but the legislator proposed it because it was what he wanted, constitution be damned. I think that in such cases -- when a lawmaker comes up with a law that couldn't possibly be constitutional -- that he should be held liable for malfeasance, and tried for an attempted violationof civil rights. (Maybe even a crime against humanity, or treason.)

Lawmakers have been playing a game on us, pushing the envelope and just hoping no one successfully challenges their bad laws. This has got to change.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mardigrasbob 0]

Wow!!!!!
What High School did you go to?
My teachers thought A.D. meant "after death".
Education is the key. I agree fully with your post that is why I didn't reply. So don't feel like you wasted your effort.

One point though:
There are people who are terrified of the Bible, but will visit a Voodoo shop or have their fortunes told.

-------------
Did you hear about the dyslesic agnostic insomniac?

He stayed awake all night wondering if ther really was a Dog!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Great insight. Maybe we'll see you in Stockholm next year.

Yeah...see YOU there too. I'm sure you'll be invited. I'm also sure they'll give you a first class seat on the plane so as to accomodate for the size of your vastly superior brain.

Do you also argue about the law with judges, medicine with physicians, theology with bishops, and call them big headed if they disagree with you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

God, I love this shit!
Could we have had this conversation in China?
I firmly believe that the most ardent athiest will get on his knees when faced with his own mortality.
----

Kind of like the old saw "there are no atheists in fox holes"?

I've faced life and death situations a few times. In each case I was too busy trying to survive to worry about calling out to god. Not only would taking the time to do so make it more likely that I died, it'd also be a blatantly irrational failure on my part.
If one spends years contemplating the existence of God and repeatedly draws the conclusion that he's a myth, than it's obvious that a last minute change is born of emotional panic, not reason.

This would hardly be an argument for God, but it makes a great argument for the degree of fear of dying that most of us hold.

Believe what you must to get throug the day. I didn't suddenly turn to god before, and I won't the next time the shit hits the fan.
There are more productive things to do, like fighting back, pulling handles, bracing for impact and such.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

God, I love this shit!
Could we have had this conversation in China?
I firmly believe that the most ardent athiest will get on his knees when faced with his own mortality.

If this is so, it still proves nothing. It's relatively easy to evoke a fear reaction that overrides rational thought, conditioning, and even intense training. What you're describing could very well simply be a biochemical response to abject fear and terror. Doesn't mean there's legitimacy to some crazy notion that "at heart, we all know god exists and will pray to him when faced with death," which is what I believe to be your pet theory here. Is it?

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Not only would taking the time to do so make it more likely that I died, it'd also be a blatantly irrational failure on my part.
If one spends years contemplating the existence of God and repeatedly draws the conclusion that he's a myth, than it's obvious that a last minute change is born of emotional panic, not reason.

Stated MUCH more succinctly than I managed to do it. Thank you. My point exactly.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Quote

Not only would taking the time to do so make it more likely that I died, it'd also be a blatantly irrational failure on my part.
If one spends years contemplating the existence of God and repeatedly draws the conclusion that he's a myth, than it's obvious that a last minute change is born of emotional panic, not reason.

Stated MUCH more succinctly than I managed to do it. Thank you. My point exactly.

Blue skies,
-

One thing for sure; We will all find out one day. If I am wrong; oh well, I lived life in a fantasy. But What If I'm Right.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not only would taking the time to do so make it more likely that I died, it'd also be a blatantly irrational failure on my part.
If one spends years contemplating the existence of God and repeatedly draws the conclusion that he's a myth, than it's obvious that a last minute change is born of emotional panic, not reason.

Stated MUCH more succinctly than I managed to do it. Thank you. My point exactly.

Blue skies,
-

One thing for sure; We will all find out one day. If I am wrong; oh well, I lived life in a fantasy. But What If I'm Right.

If one believes in oblivion after our earthly life, then technically he believes he won't find out.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

The thing is, if you live this kind of silly, restricted, religious life and you turn out to be wrong, you blew your one shot at enjoying your existence.

On the other hand, if my living a fun but still good life (i.e. doing good for others, loving others, not harming others...) is not enough to get god to let me enter heaven, then fuck that god. It's far more noble to live a good life out of the realization that it's just the right thing to do than it is to live a good life because you're selfishly trying to secure a future in heaven for yourself. And any god that will not make allowances for good people who simply didn't find themselves believing in god and his petty rules is not a god worth wanting to spend eternity with. And any god who would condemn me to eternal pain in hell even though I've been a good person? That kind of god should eat shit and rot in hell himself!

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Mirage63 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Great insight. Maybe we'll see you in Stockholm next year.

Yeah...see YOU there too. I'm sure you'll be invited. I'm also sure they'll give you a first class seat on the plane so as to accomodate for the size of your vastly superior brain.

Do you also argue about the law with judges, medicine with physicians, theology with bishops, and call them big headed if they disagree with you?

But KALLEND you are BIG HEADED

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Great insight. Maybe we'll see you in Stockholm next year.

Yeah...see YOU there too. I'm sure you'll be invited. I'm also sure they'll give you a first class seat on the plane so as to accomodate for the size of your vastly superior brain.

Do you also argue about the law with judges, medicine with physicians, theology with bishops, and call them big headed if they disagree with you?

But KALLEND you are BIG HEADED

And you have a BIG ASS, Rumble. I still enjoy jumping and having a beer with you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kerr 0]

Quote

Honest question:
What happens if you go into court and have to give sworn testimony on the witness stand, and they place a bible before you, tell you to put your hand on it, raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD?

I'd be interested to know what the answer to this is.

I served on a jury last year (Murder trial at the Old Bailey) and as an atheist was wondering what would happen when it came to be sworen in.

It turns out that in the UK each court as a a copy of each of the major religious texts, and can get copies of almost anything at short notice. Each of these comes with a version of the oath tailored for the particular religion, mainly just changing the name of the book/text and deity. That takes care of the different religions. There is also a version that has no reference to any religion and you don't need to hold onto any book.

I was slightly surprised that out of 12 jurors, 10 took the non religous version. Most of the witnesses did the same.

On a related note, I was reading some articles recently that stated that although freedom of religion has been part of US law since its inception, this freedom did not formaly extend to atheism, in all states, untill relativly recently. Anyone got anything on that.

--
Kerr

[mr2mk1g 10]

Oath for an atheists is "I do solemnly swear and affirm" as opposed to "I swear, by almighty God". There’s no legal distinction between the two types of evidence.

No court papers that I can think of contain any religious references.

It all seems perfectly logical to me. The number of jurors making the affirmation as opposed to the traditional oath reflects the amazingly low number of people in this country who consider themselves to be a “practicing Christian".