Tennessee seeks to question evolution in bill

Apr 09, 2012 by Jean-Louis Santini
US conservative Christians and science advocates are clashing again, this time in Tennessee over a bill that would allow debate in public schools over theories like evolution.

US conservative Christians and science advocates are clashing again, this time in Tennessee over a bill that would allow debate in public schools over theories like evolution.

Lawmakers from the southeastern US state home to a strong base of ultraconservative "Tea Party" activists have approved the bill, which now awaits the signature of Governor Bill Haslam, a Republican.

The measure, which could pass by a Tuesday deadline, would allow public schoolteachers to challenge accepted science on topics such as climate change and evolution in their classrooms without facing sanctions.

If it passes, Tennessee would join nine other states with similar laws promoting creationism, more or less explicitly.

Critics have labeled the legislation the "Monkey Bill" in reference to the highly publicized 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" in which Tennessee charged high school science teacher John Scopes of violating a state law against teaching "that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

The Tennessee Science Teachers Association and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union rights group, the measure's biggest critics, are calling for Haslam to veto it. They say it would provide legal cover for educators to teach pseudoscientific ideas.

"They are not talking that much about creationism but rather about Intelligent Design," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU's Tennessee branch.

"It's a very nuanced and clever way... to challenge the theory of evolution and allow teachers to inject Intelligent Design and neo-creationism." Intelligent Design is the idea that scientific evidence can show that life forms developed under the direction of a higher intelligence.

The measure states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

It also says the legislation "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."

In a letter to lawmakers, the Tennessee members of the National Academy of Sciences argued that the bill would "miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy."

The Tennessee Education Association, meanwhile, blasted the "unnecessary legislation."

But Haslam has already indicated he would "probably" sign the measure into law.

The Discovery Institute, whose model legislation inspired the bill, hailed the passage of a text that "promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution."

Based in Seattle, Washington, the group backs the teaching of alternatives to evolution in public schools and supports research into Intelligent Design, a form of creationism.

The creationist offensive is part of a long-running battle, in a country where only a quarter of the population believes whole-heartedly in evolution, between advocates of non-religious teachings in public schools and conservative Christians who say man is a divine creature not descended from apes.

It was not before 1968 that the US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, based on the separation of church and state, to teach anti-evolution principles.

And in 1987, the high court said that mandatory teaching of creationism was against the Constitution because any such law intended to advance a particular religion.

Explore further: Can science eliminate extreme poverty?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Teaching evolution: Legal victories aren't enough

May 20, 2008

In many ways, much has changed since the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. In recent years, US courts have consistently ruled that teaching explicitly religious alternatives to evolution in public schools is a violation ...

Texas board hears testimony on science standards

Mar 26, 2009

(AP) -- Tensions over the teaching of evolution are simmering as the State Board of Education begins the final stretch in the process of adopting new classroom science curriculum standards.

Recommended for you

Can science eliminate extreme poverty?

15 hours ago

Science has often come to the rescue when it comes to the world's big problems, be it the Green Revolution that helped avoid mass starvation or the small pox vaccine that eradicated the disease. There is ...

Japan stem cell body splashes cash on luxury furniture

Apr 14, 2014

A publicly-funded research institute in Japan, already embattled after accusing one of its own stem cell scientists of faking data, has spent tens of thousands of dollars on designer Italian furniture, reportedly to use up ...

User comments : 185

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Au-Pu
3.8 / 5 (20) Apr 09, 2012
It is incredible that in the early 21st century so many Americans are able to remain so blinded by the fables of religion and to blindly believe and follow such claims by poorly educated and fundamentally ignorant preachers. The USA seems to be locked in the 17th or 18th century when it comes to religion. This would make a large portion of he general US population one of the most backward in the world. Which gives us the most technologically advanced nation on Earth with the most ignorant populace on Earth.
Wake up before the Bible Belt destroys the USA.
If you do not bring these rampant idiots into line they will destroy the nation.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
This will make great opportunities to short the US dollar, no doubt. How ironic the film Titanic was released the same weekend.
lowerarchy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
I agree with Au-Pu above but I don't think it's a paradoxical - as most folk use technology rather than invent it, so it seems probable that the society with most tech is likely to be the least tech-savvy. Leaders of religions on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for their followers to wear crosses openly and promote their faiths in everyday life - so this battle will only intensify.
Sigh
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2012
The Discovery Institute, whose model legislation inspired the bill

That alone is a big fat clue that this bill is not about academic freedom and critical thinking, but about creationism. The Discovery Institute is committed to what they call the wedge strategy that tries to bring creationism into academic discourse by disguising its religious content.

hailed the passage of a text that "promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution."

Not a word, of course, they they're the ones manufacturing the controversy to promote their religion.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 09, 2012
It's incredible that the evolutionists want it to be illegal to even propose any alternate theory.

Intelligent Design is in every sense a rational, scientific, evidence-based theory.

Students should have a right to challenge knowledge and stump their uneducated teachers, and show how certain supposed knowledge are imperfect in science.
CardacianNeverid
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 09, 2012
Intelligent Design is in every sense a rational, scientific, evidence-based theory -LurkerTard

What a fucking moron.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (12) Apr 09, 2012
Which can't be falsified and hence isn't science, or scientific in any way.

"Intelligent Design is in every sense a rational, scientific" - LurkerTard

So other than being 100% wrong, you are 100% tard.

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2012
This is one of the problems with public school.

Whether you agree or not the simple FACT is that people who are paying taxes to have their children educated WILL have a say in how they're educated. Welcome to reality.

Best to let them have their charter schools so they can send their kids to "this kind" and you can send your kids to "that kind"...this simply isn't going away.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2012
Conservative ideology is destroying America.

"this simply isn't going away." - Modern

The ongoing destruction of America by Conservatives just isn't going to stop.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2012
The ongoing destruction of America by Conservatives just isn't going to stop.


Beat them at their own game.

My advice is that if something isn't working, try something different....

Our schools are lackluster in twenty different ways, this is an example of ONE. Anyone who can sit with a straight face and tell me that as a whole public education is doing a "good job" of anything in this country is either hopelessly ignorant or a very good liar.

Try charter schools, if they educate better then they'll attract more kids and do better. If they don't they'll go away without any further action or legislation...
OldBlackCrow
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
I fully support the bill. Those parents who rightfully know ID is BS will ensure their kids are corrected at home or they will pull their kids out of public school or finally, out of the state.

This will be quite helpful for society, as those states who are stupid enough to pass such laws will eventually be left behind in science and industry. They will either fail economically or have a huge backlash from the population that will, in effect, show how stupid ID really is.

We, as secularists, should not make the same mistakes as the religious extreemists have done in the past thousands of years. Allow their ideas to live in the demanding and rigorous world of ideas to see who wins... I will sit back and enjoy the show.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2012
Whether you agree or not the simple FACT is that people who are paying taxes to have their children educated WILL have a say in how they're educated. Welcome to reality.
And taxpayers everywhere have a right to ensure that children aren't being taught superstition, which is a form of child abuse. The expression of this right will only increase over time. Welcome to reality.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2012
And taxpayers everywhere have a right to ensure that children aren't being taught superstition, which is a form of child abuse.


BAHAHHAHAhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah!!!!!!!

No, no, Otto...reality is over HERE...not over THERE....
cyberCMDR
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2012
Despite what the ID community says, ID is inherently a religious concept. They don't specify what the "intelligent designer" is, perhaps an alien race? If evolution is impossible, where did they come from? At some point, you have to have a supernatural entity that somehow is more complex than its designs, to get the ball rolling.
The other failing of ID is that it is an inherently untestable concept. Their "proof" consists of looking at living forms and saying "Gee, that looks complicated", and therefore must be designed. They have no measure of complexity, no experimental data, nothing. It fails the most basic requirements for being called science. The only things it has going for it are that it isn't evolution, and ID provides adherents a code word for saying "God did it" without obviously being religious.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
This is one of the problems with public school.
Yes public school will suffer mean regression. A curriculum that will satisfy nobody. Otherwise known as the tragedy of the commons. When individuals fail to constrain themselves and "overgraze" schools by placing excessive particularistic demands on them, they are doomed to the same fate as overgrazed public pasture.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2012
"If it passes, Tennessee would join nine other states with similar laws promoting creationism, more or less explicitly."

"only a quarter of the population believes whole-heartedly in evolution"

Everytime I didn't think living next door to America could get scarier....more stats show up that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. One 5th of the country is allowed to teach whatever they want regarding human origins....wow....

Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2012
"If it passes, Tennessee would join nine other states with similar laws promoting creationism, more or less explicitly."

"only a quarter of the population believes whole-heartedly in evolution"

Everytime I didn't think living next door to America could get scarier....more stats show up that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. One 5th of the country is allowed to teach whatever they want regarding human origins....wow....



Nearly all Americans tell their kids to believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Doesn't this scare you more? Why or why not?

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

IOW kindly spare us the melodrama and histrionics...no one is gonna hurt you precious, you'll be OK.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
IOW kindly spare us the melodrama and histrionics...no one is gonna hurt you precious, you'll be OK.
American mythology is a devastatingly powerful tool. For example, the rulers of USA worship an adult Santa Claus, the god Moloch: god of child molestation. Even while the conscious mind rationally dismisses such notions, the subconscious mind employs mythology as the framework of perception. Frankly, a society ruled by child molesters and those that serve them can only advance so far.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2012
The measure states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

Which is OK - but science is fully able to furnish that. ID, creationism or other pseudoscience isn't needed for this.

to fully and objectively discuss controversial scientific topics, like evolution.

Fine. Discuss evolution. But please note that it's NOT a controversial subject. Unless you are saying multiplication is a controversial subject because some people don't understand it.

Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, based on the separation of church and state, to teach anti-evolution principles.

There. Case closed. That bill is unconstitutional.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2012
And taxpayers everywhere have a right to ensure that children aren't being taught superstition, which is a form of child abuse.


BAHAH...hah!!!!!!!

No, no, Otto...reality is over HERE...not over THERE....
First my little godlover you all are going to have to reach a consensus as to which particular fantasy world is the right one. THEN you may wish to present it for scrutiny.

Until then how can you expect the general public to accept it as REAL? And why should you expect it to be something we would want to teach to children??

In the meantime we ought to be teaching them what we have actually learned about THIS world, and how we learned it. Because these are things they will need to know if they are to function in it. Yes?

Of course if they are going to have to interact with delusionists like yourself they should be prepared with the proper information. Like the fact that your book is full of verified lies as are they all. They obviously should know this.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2012
Nearly all Americans tell their kids to believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Doesn't this scare you more? Why or why not?

I'll field this one: Because adults own up to these being a lie eventually. And these fairy tales will not hinder the child during their career. Teaching creationism automatically excludes a child from any career in biology, medicine, pharmacology, ...
Quarl
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Far more evil has been done in the name of whatever "God" than any other reason. There are the Crusades, Jihad, bombing of abortion clinics, etc. just to name a few.

I say if they want to waste time in school let them; the intelligent parents will correct the improperly taught children at home. However, the teachers should no longer be allowed to penalize a child for a contrary view...and classes should be recorded and available for parental viewing and copying. And I.D. bullies should be caned by the parents of the bullied first and groin-kicked by the bullied second. This should also be recorded, stored, and available for parental copying and the latest perpetrator should have their video running on a loop in the school common room. I'm sure I'll think of something else later.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
I'm an atheist, so know that while I play a quasi-devil's advocate here:

The measure states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."


Sounds like explicit encouragement for teaching critical thinking, to me. I think every HS should have a dedicated class for that, but budgets are tight, so putting it in science class shouldn't be so bad. That SHOULD result in supporting the strength of the theory of evolution, right? That also assumes teacher integrity is present, but if you have a teacher clearly showing ID/creationism bias, then they aren't being objective and can then be disciplined.

It also says the legislation "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine."


Show how ID is inherently religious and it's gone. Poof! Shouldn't be hard.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2012
Evolution is not a "controversial" idea to scientists, the only people who's opinions about it matter in the least.

I don't like people not believing in evolution, but I understand it... what I don't understand is people who have NO educational background in the natural sciences actually thinking that their opinion is relevant and should be taken into consideration.

Not everyone's opinion is equal, when a doctor tells you to get your child immunized and Jenny McCarthy tells you that immunization causes autism one of those opinions is worth significantly more than the other one, but somehow most people in this country don't seem to understand this, and that is what really bothers me.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
but somehow most people in this country don't seem to understand this, and that is what really bothers me.


I couldn't agree more, however this

The measure states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."


should only improve that, as it is written. Now...how it is likely to be enforced is what I think us defenders of science are worried about. Unfortunately, this article only has those two quotes from the proposed legislation. Anything else is speculation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
I thought of a thought experiment:

What if religions had never been invented, and scientists were busily examining all the phenomena they could get their hands on like they have been for the last few centuries (albeit without all the sundry interference from religionist jackals), and they chanced upon the anthropic principle.

A few might at that point wonder if some superior intelligence could have designed a universe so that beings like us could thrive in it. But can you imagine anyone proposing that this being would actually respond if we worshipped it and prayed at it? That if we acted in some favorable way it would actually want to keep parts of us around forever?

Despots might be intrigued at the possibilities I suppose. But the idea would never occur to any scientist that any intelligence capable of creating a universe would be much impressed by fauning. Or genuflecting or incense-burning. Or ritual pretend cannibalism. Or of course martyrdom.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
I'll field this one: Because adults own up to these being a lie eventually. And these fairy tales will not hinder the child during their career. Teaching creationism automatically excludes a child from any career in biology, medicine, pharmacology, ...


Well if we're speaking about legalities ANYONE who did exclude an American citizen from ANY career on the basis of their beliefs is breaking the law...period.

However this is digression, the Canadian was acting like he was skeeird and afeeired that his neighbors were teaching their children something that HE considers a fairy tale....

Two different subjects
Deathclock
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
"teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

This is ALREADY the case... we don't need legislation for this if this is all there is to the bill.

Does anyone think that currently teachers are NOT allowed to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."?

This is just snake oil, they pad the bill with perfectly benign and completely unnecessary distractions to help conceal the real point of it.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2012
Well if we're speaking about legalities ANYONE who did exclude an American citizen from ANY career on the basis of their beliefs is breaking the law...period.

It is perfectly legal to exclude someone from a career if that person shows that he/she does not have the least bit of knowledge about the fundamentals of the subject at hand. You cannot sue yourself into a career in biology with a belief in ID or creationism and a dismissal of evolutionary theory.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
First my little godlover you all are going to have to reach a consensus as to which particular fantasy world is the right one.


No we don't...next...

Until then how can you expect the general public to accept it as REAL?


That's YOUR requirement...other people actually do believe and think differently than you...no, really they do...

And why should you expect it to be something we would want to teach to children??


Who's "we" paleface?

Of course if they are going to have to interact with delusionists like yourself they should be prepared with the proper information. Like the fact that your book is full of verified lies as are they all. They obviously should know this.


Oh, you've VERIFIED God doesn't exist eh? By all means let's hear your case...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Well if we're speaking about legalities ANYONE who did exclude an American citizen from ANY career on the basis of their beliefs is breaking the law...period.
...in this country, at this particular point in time. We dont want belief in any particular religion to be a requirement for said employment either, as it is elsewhere and as many in this country would prefer. But of course thats what religions will do isnt it? Belief is the first commandment. Nonbelief is only a temporary and minimally tolerable state of affairs.
No we don't...next...
So first we should teach sharia. Or perhaps that jesus walked amongst the comanches like the next president believes?
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
"Or perhaps that jesus walked amongst the comanches like the next president believes?"

Which candidate is a Mormon?
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2012
It is perfectly legal to exclude someone from a career if that person shows that he/she does not have the least bit of knowledge about the fundamentals of the subject at hand.


Apples and Oranges...

I can know everything there is to know about any subject you care to name AND be a creationist (though I'm not).

Go fish....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Oh, you've VERIFIED God doesn't exist eh? By all means let's hear your case...

Erm...you are aware that the one making the claim first (i.e. the ones claiming that there IS a god) need to put up their evidence first?

Otherwise I could go around demanding that we teach about hobgoblins, unicorns and froodelfums - because no one has yet proven that they don't exist. That would be silly, wouldn't it?

I can know everything there is to know about any subject you care to name AND be a creationist (though I'm not).

Nope. You can't work on a subject that is based on evolutionary principles if you think there is a designer (e.g. crossing species to find better antibiotics, or researching genetic trends, or ... ). All your answers would be flawed from the word 'go'.

No 'fish' required. Certainly not the christian one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Oh, you've VERIFIED God doesn't exist eh? By all means let's hear your case...
Sorry I dont get sucked into that non-argument. I always prefer the one that lists all the many horrors perpetrated by religionists throughout the world, and how your passive indulgences enable these horrors to occur. That one makes sense and is easy to understand.
"Or perhaps that jesus walked amongst the comanches like the next president believes?"

Which candidate is a Mormon?

Mitt romney. Try to keep up.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Erm...you are aware that the one making the claim first (i.e. the ones claiming that there IS a god) need to put up their evidence first?


I am, Otto isn't. He said he's verified God doesn't exist he's making that claim that POSITIVE assertion. I simply asked him to prove it. HIS assertion, not mine.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I certainly wouldn't claim I've verified the non-existence of something...would you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Erm...you are aware that the one making the claim first (i.e. the ones claiming that there IS a god) need to put up their evidence first?


I am, Otto isn't. He said he's verified God doesn't exist he's making that claim that POSITIVE assertion. I simply asked him to prove it. HIS assertion, not mine.
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.

Dawkins and Krause on mormonism.
http://www.youtub...M8PvpmW4
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.


You've made a claim all I'm asking you to do is prove it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.


You've made a claim all I'm asking you to do is prove it...
I did not.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.


You've made a claim all I'm asking you to do is prove it...
I did not.


My mistake. So you're in fact an agnostic and not an atheist...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Nope. You can't work on a subject that is based on evolutionary principles if you think there is a designer (e.g. crossing species to find better antibiotics, or researching genetic trends, or ... ).


Of course you can. I Think there is a designer and I also believe in evolutionary principles...

For instance if I'm in the Medical field and I believe people can be healed by faith. That doesn't mean I can't practice medicine...

Are you going to make it a requirement that ALL people are atheists in order to hold a job in this country???

antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 09, 2012
I Think there is a designer and believe in evolutionary principles...

In that case you probably won't get the job, anyways. Hiring schizophrenics is not mandatory.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
I Think there is a designer and believe in evolutionary principles...

In that case you probably won't get the job, anyways. Hiring schizophrenics is not mandatory.


Why wouldn't I get the job? Moreover if I didn't I'd have a hell of a good lawsuit and someone would go to jail (rightly so)...

Are you a manager?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.


You've made a claim all I'm asking you to do is prove it...
I did not.


My mistake. So you're in fact an agnostic and not an atheist...
I am an ANTIRELIGIONIST. Based upon overwhelming evidence and a sense of moral outrage.
http://en.wikiped...nce_Army
http://www.haaret...1.423448
http://www.freep....v%7Chead
http://phys.org/n...ill.html

-How could anyone NOT be?

Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2012
I am an ANTIRELIGIONIST. Based upon overwhelming evidence and a sense of moral outrage.


Ohhh a BIGOT....gotcha.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2012
For instance if I'm in the Medical field and I believe people can be healed by faith. That doesn't mean I can't practice medicine...
Naw it just means that sooner or later youll probably end up killing somebody.
Ohhh a BIGOT....gotcha.
Open up your book to where it tells you how to treat nonbelievers and apostates. Every religionist book carries the same explicit instructions. Bigotry is why religions have been so wildly successful through the centuries. 'Fill up the earth...with more of us and fewer of them.'

Its ok - god approves this message.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
My mistake. So you're in fact an agnostic and not an atheist...

Are you an agnostic when it comes to unicorns? Do you append "..or maybe a unicorn did it" to every statement you make (in thought or word)?

As in:
"This cannonball flies in accordance with the laws of motion...or maybe a unicorn did it"
"This species evolved according to mutation, natural selection and survival of the fittest...or maybe a unicorn did it"

If you don't do this, then you are not a unicorn agnostic, but an "a-unicornist"

If you understand this then you understad why atheists are not agnostics. Agnostics accord the god hypothesis a possibility. That is foolish UNTIL there is either a valid test or some valid piece of evidence.

(Note: This does not only apply to god(s) but also to all other crank theories like ID, creationism, ... )
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
Yah and Im saying that is a classic religionist wormhole. You guys have so many.


You've made a claim all I'm asking you to do is prove it...
I did not.


My mistake. So you're in fact an agnostic and not an atheist...


False dichotomy, there is no reason he cannot be both.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
I see antialias got himself sucked in. Its like arguing over what color of uniforms would be appropriate to wear for a pogrom. Its irrelevant. Pogroms must end and for this to happen, religions must end.
False dichotomy, there is no reason he cannot be both.
I am neither. I am saying the argument only reinforces religionists reasons to maintain their fantasies. I reject the argument entirely.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2012
I see antialias got himself sucked in. Its like arguing over what color of uniforms would be appropriate to wear for a pogrom. Its irrelevant. Pogroms must end and for this to happen, religions must end.


Actually what must end is people telling other people what they MUST or MUST NOT believe and mind their own ******* business.

There is no fundamental difference morally between Otto the most zealous believer out there. Their means are identical, it's only the ends that differ...

Moreover I've seen such tendencies in antialias on this thread as well.

Exclusion of people based on creed is one of the most morally bankrupt and abhorrent philosophies on the planet IMO.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
I am neither. I am saying the argument only reinforces religionists reasons to maintain their fantasies. I reject the argument entirely.


Feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but know that if you don't hold an active belief in one or more ideas of God then you are an atheist by definition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2012
Actually what must end is people telling other people what they MUST or MUST NOT believe and mind their own ******* business.
Sorry. Your belief in a superbeing who favors you and your particular brand of superbeing-worship, and who will grant you and the people you love ETERNAL LIFE, is the root cause of extreme misery and oppression in the world. It always has been.

People right now are killing and dying by the thousands in order to preserve their chance at immortality. By holding these fantasies yourself you have a DIRECT HAND in this carnage.

It is only proper that people speak out against this whenever they have the opportunity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2012
I am neither. I am saying the argument only reinforces religionists reasons to maintain their fantasies. I reject the argument entirely.


Feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but know that if you don't hold an active belief in one or more ideas of God then you are an atheist by definition.
Sorry but dividing the world up based upon religionist fantasies is not productive of anything but religion. Calling yourself a non-believer is only another way of unwittingly participating.

Take a stand against this disease. Declare yourself AGAINST religion.
http://www.youtub...-3QnhxZk
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
Words have meaning whether you like it or not.
Skultch
4 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
If one's spiritual beliefs are their way of coping, approximating an understanding of reality, and/or bonding with their family/communities, then I don't have any problem with it. It's only when they use dogma to support political policy or inhibit progress that I take issue. Yes, there are indirect downsides to this, but one thing at a time. You take faith out of everyone and what are they going to do? It takes a lot of education to realize how secular humanism is the better approach for an individual.
Does anyone really think that ditching religion for secular humanism is in the best interests of a rural/agrarian community? I'm not so sure. Their lives aren't that much different than they were 200 years ago. Simpler systems like a religion just work for them.

Now. Regionally? Nationally? Those interests are different. I think dogma has no place in diverse, secular, national politics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Words have meaning whether you like it or not.
This is somewhat like the philos on this site (noumenon) calling stephen hawking a positivist. This only makes philos feel relevant. Im sure that hawking wouldnt give a shit what philos thought he was, or would at most be mildly annoyed at their presumptuousness.

Hawking doesnt exist to give philosophy meaning. Hitchens PBUH didnt exist to make religionists feel self-righteous. He did make it his goal to expose their imminent danger to the world, and he proudly called himself an antireligionist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
If one's spiritual beliefs are their way of coping,
We now have drugs for this. Exercise is a much healthier and certainly moore benign alternative.
approximating an understanding of reality
It doesnt. The universe wasnt created in 6 days.
and/or bonding with their family/communities
Again, why not sports or a trip to disney world?
then I don't have any problem with it. It's only when they use dogma to support political policy or inhibit progress that I take issue.

http://www.youtub...=related

-The dude was a master.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
Again, why not sports or a trip to disney world?


You think a bond created that way is as strong as the religious bond? No, of course you don't. These people actually Need to have Strong bonds between them or they don't survive a third bad harvest or herd die-off. People might not need these types of bonds in urban or even sub-urban communities with plenty of overlapping secular support networks and more diverse economies.
Skultch
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2012
coping
We now have drugs for this. Exercise is a much healthier and certainly moore benign alternative.


Agreed, but that doesn't work for everyone. Again, if they keep it to themselves, what's the problem? The culture of ignorance spreading? OK, then explain how the ignorance of a ranch community in Oklahoma affects you so much that THEY should change instead of You just ignoring it. Again, as long as they keep their dogma within their community, how does this ignorance hurt anyone else?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2012
You think a bond created that way is as strong as the religious bond?
It would be a bond based on something real. Remember that religion-inspired bonding is a very recent development. Before religion and throughout our evolution, people got along just fine.
Agreed, but that doesn't work for everyone.
Neither does the religion-mandated restriction of women to exclusively bearing and raising children. Or the chronic fighting and dying of whole generations on the battlefield due to religion-created overpopulation. Or the starving of children for the same reason.
Again, if they keep it to themselves, what's the problem?
Well that IS the problem isnt it? Theyre not SUPPOSED to keep it to themselves are they?

'19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.' matt28
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
A common theme.

'By Dawrah, by islamic propagation or by the rifle. Either way its going to happen.' -at 9:22
http://www.youtub...pp_video
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 09, 2012
It would be a bond based on something real. Remember that religion-inspired bonding is a very recent development. Before religion and throughout our evolution, people got along just fine.


Oh, so the emergence of monotheistic religion and agriculture at roughly the same time was a coincidence? They go hand-in-hand, brother. You know this.

Anyhoo, I'm not here to defend a specific religion (so I won't retort your bible verse), just saying that not all spiritual belief is evil. I'm envisioning a multi-staged approach. Convince people of the real evil that exists in the inherently xenophobic religions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.......THEN.......focus on the more indirect evils and inefficiencies that come from superstitions and supernatural beliefs.

Organized religion is inherently xenophobic and should be phased out. Individual spirituality, while counterproductive, should not be lumped in with the former, and its eradication should be of a lesser priority. eh??
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Anyhoo, I'm not here to defend a specific religion (so I won't retort your bible verse), just saying that not all spiritual belief is evil.
But it sounds like youre prepared to sort through them all and separate good from bad eh?
Individual spirituality, while counterproductive, should not be lumped in with the former, and its eradication should be of a lesser priority. eh??
Meaning... what exactly? All those who find sunsets and rollercoasters inspirational are ok, while all those who think that we have some deity to thank for these things (and we had better do so or else) are not?

And who exactly owns the word 'spiritual'? Is it really, down deep inside, all those of us who really only want to live forever and who would be willing to do -anything- to make this possible?

Maybe we should make the effort to give up words like 'spiritual', 'soul', 'everlasting life', etc as being caustic and evocative of violence and bigotry. Kind of like racial epithets.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 09, 2012
I don't have to separate the beliefs that do harm with those that do not. Society will do that itself as it is educated. We are more secular as a 1st World and as a species than ever before and I don't see evidence of that reversing. The only difference between you and me on this is I have patience and empathy for those who don't know better yet.

Lumping in the hippies, reform Jews, non-practicing but self-proclaimed Christians, etc, with fundamentalists will only delay your goals. Let's get the fence-sitters on our side against the directly evil first. Then we can show them the dangers of the more benign beliefs that they don't even need.
Mahal_Kita
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2012
Hahahaha!

Some y'all call it Taleban and must be eradicated, and some y'all call it Christian and ..

Well, now you see what the difference is not.
Mahal_Kita
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2012
I Think there is a designer and believe in evolutionary principles...

In that case you probably won't get the job, anyways. Hiring schizophrenics is not mandatory.


Hm.. Sounds uncanny familiar.. :-)
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
Nearly all Americans tell their kids to believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Doesn't this scare you more? -ModernMumboJumbo

No, because kids outgrow those beliefs. The beliefs aren't forced down their throats once they realise that they false. Unfortunately, too many don't outgrow religion (which is identical in nature), mainly because religion continues to be perpetuated (forced down their throats). THAT is what scares me.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
"would allow public schoolteachers to challenge accepted science on topics such as climate change and evolution in their classrooms without facing sanctions."

Sounds like an academic freedom issue.
But then many 'scientists' today can't accept such freedom as we see with AGW and evolution.

Where is the equivalent 'liberal' outrage that Muslims teach their children to murder Jews?
AWaB
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012
Despite all of the name-calling, etc. going on on this board, there is something that can be gleaned from this emerging trend of anti-evolution. When you try and mix science with religion, you're going to have major problems from either side's followers. Leave people's religion alone when you're teaching science! If people don't yell at each other about right and wrong, you won't have these messes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
Leave people's religion alone when you're teaching science!

What happens when science becomes the religion, which is what is happening with AGW.
IronhorseA
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
This is one of the problems with public school.

Whether you agree or not the simple FACT is that people who are paying taxes to have their children educated WILL have a say in how they're educated. Welcome to reality.

Best to let them have their charter schools so they can send their kids to "this kind" and you can send your kids to "that kind"...this simply isn't going away.


And as President Lincoln once said, "Sometimes the People can't decide".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
This is one of the problems with public school.

Whether you agree or not the simple FACT is that people who are paying taxes to have their children educated WILL have a say in how they're educated. Welcome to reality.

Best to let them have their charter schools so they can send their kids to "this kind" and you can send your kids to "that kind"...this simply isn't going away.


And as President Lincoln once said, "Sometimes the People can't decide".

The state knows best? Lincoln's decision resulted in the greatest number of US casualties in any war to date.
IronhorseA
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012
"The state knows best? Lincoln's decision resulted in the greatest number of US casualties in any war to date."
Also resulting in the ending of slavery. Sometimes the redneck needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is. Its sad when we have to resort to that, but some things are far worse.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
"The state knows best? Lincoln's decision resulted in the greatest number of US casualties in any war to date."
Also resulting in the ending of slavery. Sometimes the redneck needs to be put down like the rabid dog he is. Its sad when we have to resort to that, but some things are far worse.

Ending slavery was not the intent of the war. National power was.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Exclusion of people based on creed is one of the most morally bankrupt and abhorrent philosophies on the planet IMO.
More commonly it's referred to as the Age of Enlightenment.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
Exclusion of people based on creed is one of the most morally bankrupt and abhorrent philosophies on the planet IMO.
More commonly it's referred to as the Age of Enlightenment.

Which you obviously missed out on...catch up...
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
In case you hadn't noticed you post is meaningless drivel, and the same could be said for your "argument."
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
In case you hadn't noticed you post is meaningless drivel, and the same could be said for your "argument."


The Enlightenment included a more diverse belief system than any other before it. Whereas previously excluded beliefs and ideas were given a chance. Which history books have you been reading?

As to my "argument"...well if you think legally excluding people based on their beliefs is legitimate, which seems to be what you're getting at, then I suggest you try to revive Stalinist/Maoist Communism which you have FAR more in common with...not bandy about The Enlightenment which is painfully obvious you are CLUELESS about.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012
Ending slavery was not the intent of the war. National power was.


True. You state's rights-ers lost. Get over it. It's just pathetic how you guys have been holding on for 150 years. YOU LOST!!! It. Doesn't. Matter. If. Your. Constitutional. Interpretation. Says. It. Was. Wrong.--- You are a child trying to stop the ocean from crashing onto the beach. Ride the wave, brother. Ride the wave. Your welcome.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
I don't have to separate the beliefs that do harm with those that do not. Society will do that itself as it is educated.
The promise of immortality is very compelling. People educated to the possibility will tend to believe it, and act accordingly.
We are more secular as a 1st World and as a species than ever before and I don't see evidence of that reversing.
Look harder. The fastest-growing groups in this country are religionists. That's their job. Consider the headlines a decade or so from now... Residents in Dearborn vote to enact sharia law... Millions of Muslims flood the mall in DC'
The only difference between you and me on this is I have patience and empathy for those who don't know better yet.
Religions are designed to overwhelm pleasant passive people like yourself. Sorry dude, it is not cruel or impatient to speak up NOW. All it takes for believers to turn fundy is one more generation born beyond their ability to feed them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
Ending slavery was not the intent of the war. National power was.


True. You state's rights-ers lost. Get over it. It's just pathetic how you guys have been holding on for 150 years. YOU LOST!!! It. Doesn't. Matter. If. Your. Constitutional. Interpretation. Says. It. Was. Wrong.--- You are a child trying to stop the ocean from crashing onto the beach. Ride the wave, brother. Ride the wave. Your welcome.

Right, the Constitution should be shredded and the majority should decide what rights they think you deserve to have. That is the 'liberal' way.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
The 14th amendment does not nullify any previous amendments, including the first or the second or the 9th or the 10th.
Calenur
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Religion certainly is a mental disorder; we should be trying to help these people....poor little things.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
we should be trying to help these people....poor little things.
Yeah like these guys:

"Breivik has confessed to detonating bombs that killed eight people in downtown Oslo and to killing 69 people with a rifle..."He wants to be found sane and accountable,"...Breivik will provide an explanation for his actions. "He will not only defend his actions," said Lippestad, "but will also lament, I think, not going further."

"...To bolster his case, he plans to call both Islamic extremists and right-wing extremists to the stand. Lippestad says he will call Mullah Krekar, an Islamic extremist now resident in Norway, as a witness. Krekar, who once headed Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist group in Kurdish Iraq, has admitted meeting with Osama bin Laden...

"Lippestad said he wants to demonstrate that "Islamists also believe that Europe is the setting for a war of religion" and that therefore Breivik's belief in such a conflict is not delusional."

NOT IN THE LEAST.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
Religion certainly is a mental disorder; we should be trying to help these people....poor little things.

"Despite his private fury, Hitler knew that he could not afford a confrontation with the Church at a time when Germany was engaged in a life-and-death war, a belief which was reinforced by the advice of Goebbels, Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery, and Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS. Robert Lifton writes: "Nazi leaders faced the prospect of either having to imprison prominent, highly admired clergymen and other protesters a course with consequences in terms of adverse public reaction they greatly feared or else end the programme." Himmler said: "If operation T4 had been entrusted to the SS, things would have happened differently", because "when the Führer entrusts us with a job, we know how to deal with it correctly, without causing useless uproar among the people."[79]"
http://en.wikiped...rogramme
Get the church out of the way?
IronhorseA
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012
"
Ending slavery was not the intent of the war. National power was."

However, the south seceding from the union and precipitating the conditions that led to the war was about slavery.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
Get the church out of the way?
"When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics. The abbot... is said to have replied Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain."

"And they killed everyone who fled into the church; no cross or altar or crucifix could save them. And these raving beggarly lads, they killed the clergy too, and the women and children. I doubt if one person came out alive such a slaughter has not been known or consented to, I think, since the time of the Saracens."

"Ten to twenty thousand are thought to have been slain this day - in what proportions Catholic and heretic, only God can say."

-And as we all know ryggy, INCLUDING YOU, hitler was a good catholic. Gott mit uns. 'Bis in den Tod, so wahr mir Gott helfe.'
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.
Calenur
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012
Yes rygg, get the church out of the way. I prefer to take the education approach, not extermination. With people like you, there never is a reasonable solution for anything, it's always one extreme or the other.

With religious nonsense running fairly high in the states right now, it's hard not to look at Sweden and wonder why we don't take a few hints.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
Yes rygg, get the church out of the way. I prefer to take the education approach, not extermination. With people like you, there never is a reasonable solution for anything, it's always one extreme or the other.

With religious nonsense running fairly high in the states right now, it's hard not to look at Sweden and wonder why we don't take a few hints.

People like me respect the individual's right to faith.
What's so great about Sweden, except they support school vouchers. They are having quite a bit of trouble with the Muslims.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.

Communists/socialists/'progressives'/'liberals' are opposed to individual liberty and individual property rights.
Calenur
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012

People like me respect the individual's right to faith.
What's so great about Sweden, except they support school vouchers. They are having quite a bit of trouble with the Muslims.


This response is just too good, I don't know where to start. You support an individual's right to faith.....but goddamn those muslims. What you and every other christian mean, is you support your right to blather your nonsense to anyone anywhere you wish. There is absolutely no difference between your spaceghost and a muslim's spaceghost. You aren't special, but you are profoundly racist.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
Yes rygg, get the church out of the way. I prefer to take the education approach, not extermination. With people like you, there never is a reasonable solution for anything, it's always one extreme or the other.

With religious nonsense running fairly high in the states right now, it's hard not to look at Sweden and wonder why we don't take a few hints.

Like govt funding for various religions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.

Communists/socialists/'progressives'/'liberals' are opposed to individual liberty and individual property rights.
But... that is their faith. I thought people like you respect the individual's right to faith. I think you are being 2-faced.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012

People like me respect the individual's right to faith.
What's so great about Sweden, except they support school vouchers. They are having quite a bit of trouble with the Muslims.


This response is just too good, I don't know where to start. You support an individual's right to faith.....but goddamn those muslims. What you and every other christian mean, is you support your right to blather your nonsense to anyone anywhere you wish. There is absolutely no difference between your spaceghost and a muslim's spaceghost. You aren't special, but you are profoundly racist.

When a 'faith' is responsible for violent plunder (communism) or violent acts, rape and murder by Muslims in Sweden, then I oppose that 'faith'.
Are not 'liberals' opposed to violence?
Calenur
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012

Are not 'liberals' opposed to violence?


That's quite a leap you made; Of course I'm opposed to violence. Perhaps one of these days you'll be able to walk me through the logical steps you used to assume that's what my comment meant.

As you said, when a faith is responsible for violent plunder, violent acts, rape and murder, then I oppose that faith. Those very acts are quite well documented in christianity, so I think what you really hate are those unlike yourself. Atrocious acts of violence, rape (child rape is pretty common), and murder occur every day at the hands of self professed christians. These acts occur every day at the hands of almost every religion; I think you should come to our side.

Your statements don't match up. Just like most bible thumpers, you have selective hearing/seeing/rationalizing which prevents you from seeing the hypocrisy of your statements.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 10, 2012

People like me respect the individual's right to faith.
What's so great about Sweden, except they support school vouchers. They are having quite a bit of trouble with the Muslims.


This response is just too good, I don't know where to start. You support an individual's right to faith.....but goddamn those muslims. What you and every other christian mean, is you support your right to blather your nonsense to anyone anywhere you wish. There is absolutely no difference between your spaceghost and a muslim's spaceghost. You aren't special, but you are profoundly racist.

When a 'faith' is responsible for violent plunder (communism) or violent acts, rape and murder by Muslims in Sweden, then I oppose that 'faith'.
Are not 'liberals' opposed to violence?


But you didn't say "criminal muslims," did you? You are the king of racist denial. Really. You are good.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.


Had nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or their abysmal economic system that imploded.....
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (23) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.


Had nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or their abysmal economic system that imploded.....

You really think the USA fights for freedom? Are you fucking kidding me? Where are you from?
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Apr 10, 2012
Pardon me..

I agree the USA is fighting for freedom...
The freedom for dominating the rest of the world.

Who owns the USA?
Who owns britain?
Why did the vatican burn the templars?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
The real reason USA was fighting "communism".
They were against religion.


Had nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or their abysmal economic system that imploded.....

You really think the USA fights for freedom?

Yes. No one else does.

Where are YOU from? Probably a country liberated from some tyranny by the USA.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
As you said, when a faith is responsible for violent plunder, violent acts, rape and murder, then I oppose that faith.

And those who follow Christ are opposed to violence and have died for their faith.
How many have been murdered by 'liberal'/socialist regimes in USSR, Germany, China, DPRK, ...?
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (24) Apr 10, 2012
Where are YOU from? Probably a country liberated from some tyranny by the USA.

No i am from a country who falls under the tyrany of the USA.
Why do you think the USA has mlitary bases everywhere?
Because they want us to be free?
Fucking douchebag.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
Where are YOU from? Probably a country liberated from some tyranny by the USA.

No i am from a country who falls under the tyrany of the USA.
Why do you think the USA has mlitary bases everywhere?
Because they want us to be free?
Fucking douchebag.

The US only has bases where the current govts grant permission.
The Philippine govt did not want the USA to repair Clark or Subic after the volcano so the US left.
So where do you live?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
If kaas is from Netherlands, there is no US base there, and the Allies liberated and fed the starving Dutch from the Germans.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
Saw this quote on a message board and thought it was pretty funny, so I'll share it:

Christianity: The belief that an invisible cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him you accept him as your Master, so that he will remove an evil force from your soul, which was put there because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. What's the problem?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
And those who follow Christ are opposed to violence and have died for their faith.
That is what they SAY isnt it? But all of history proves you wrong. It proves that xians are just as capable of martyring themselves and murdering other religionists as any of them are.

It is not what religionists SAY that tells us what they are. It is what they DO.

Your comparison of xians to secular butchers is funny. You are admitting that there is no DIFFERENCE in their potential for butchery, despite what they say.
No i am from a country who falls under the tyrany of the USA.
I dont know, maybe it was warranted? Maybe you didnt know how to behave yourselves?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
And those who follow Christ are opposed to violence and have died for their faith.
You also realize that presenting yourself for killing is EVERY BIT as violent as killing others? Martyrs for bogus causes: whats the point? It is merely suicide. Willful participation in the creative culling of your own tribe. Congratulations you are self-domesticated.
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (23) Apr 10, 2012
there is no US base there

You are not aware of EU politics as i am, obviously.

In light of the findings about Air Force nuclear security, General Roger Brady, the USAFE Commander, on June 11 visited Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium and Volkel Air Base in Holland. Both bases store U.S. nuclear weapons for delivery by their national F-16 fighters.

It is believed that since the early 1960s, USAF nuclear weapons are stored at Volkel Air Base, to be used by the host nations aircraft.[4]

In a document leaked as a part of the United States diplomatic cables leak the presence of nuclear weapons in the Netherlands is confirmed, though no specific location is given.[11]

It is home to three F-16 Fighting Falcon squadrons, 311, 312 and 313. It also houses a maintenance, logistical, a base Squadron for the RNLAF, and also the 703rd Munitions Support Squadron, part of the 52d Fighter Wing from the United States Air Force.
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (23) Apr 10, 2012
la7dfa
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
Religious people never seem to give up. Crazy people like Sarah Palin has been very close to gaining access to thermo nulear arsenal. With her faith, it was only a question of time before armageddon...
http://www.youtub...=related
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
"USAG Schinnen is the only military facility run by the United States of America in the eastern part of BENELUX. It is located in Netherlands and is actually a co-base, which means the American may run it, but they have to stick to the Dutch laws and regulations. BENELUX is a fictional area that includes three countries Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg."
"USAF nuclear weapons are stored at Volkel Air Base, to be used by the host nations aircraft."

Where is the USA base? Looks more like a joint facilty and there is a group called NATO which I believe Netherlands are a member.
If the Dutch govt wants the USA out, they only need to make the request.
The US wanted to move its German bases further east but the Germans protested.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2012
Religious people never seem to give up. Crazy people like Sarah Palin has been very close to gaining access to thermo nulear arsenal. With her faith, it was only a question of time before armageddon...

Europe and Russia don't seem to mind the crazy Iranian muslims having nuclear weapons. Is it because they are threatening to attack the Jews?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2012
"Religious liberty is the proverbial canary in the mine. If people are oppressed because of their religious faith, they are likely to be victimized for holding other unpopular beliefs."
Russia: "The government increasingly used its anti-extremism law against peaceful religious groups and individuals, particularly Jehovahs Witnesses and Muslim readers of the works of Turkish theologian Said Nursi. "
"Violations are even evident in Europe, most notably Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, where Muslim women have been barred from voluntarily wearing the hijab."
http://www.forbes...berty/5/
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Apr 10, 2012
A headrag that does not cover up the face is allowed in the netherlands.
Anything that covers up the face is not allowed in public.
Actually a few months ago i saw a muslim woman working in the social secury office building.She was wearing a headrag(that didnt cover up her face). In fact people loke those have more rights than normal citizens which is causing a caucasian genocide at this very moment.
kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (22) Apr 10, 2012
http://elitistdec...and.html

If the Dutch govt wants the USA out, they only need to make the request.
The US wanted to move its German bases further east but the Germans protested.

Europe made many requests towards the USA, mostly regarding clearance to go through banking infomration, USA always says NO.
Europe however always gave clearance for any information the USA needed. The Euopean crisis was caused by goldman sachs and co., go figure.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2012
http://elitistdeception.blogspot.com/2008/01/multiculturalism-tool-to-divide-and.html

If the Dutch govt wants the USA out, they only need to make the request.
The US wanted to move its German bases further east but the Germans protested.

Europe made many requests towards the USA, mostly regarding clearance to go through banking infomration, USA always says NO.
Europe however always gave clearance for any information the USA needed. The Euopean crisis was caused by goldman sachs and co., go figure.

What does this have to do with military bases?
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Ahahahahaha...... You can't get any dumber than RyggTard.

"You really think the USA fights for freedom?" - Foofa

"Yes. No one else does." - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
America doesn't seem to mind the crazy Israelis's murdering Palestinian children. Is it because America has a long history of murdering civilians?

"Europe and Russia don't seem to mind the crazy Iranian muslims having nuclear weapons. Is it because they are threatening to attack the Jews?" - RyggTard
kaasinees
0 / 5 (21) Apr 11, 2012
@VD, you must live here since you downrated me about caucasian genocide, even the "royals" say there is no dutch identity.

http://www.youtub...pHmZuDz0

I invite you to my country and go on the street, where muslims will call you a jew without fear on the streets.

In fact people are allowed to have double passport.

http://www.youtub...rw31nl3I
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Cuba has never granted permission for the U.S. military base that it suffers.

"The US only has bases where the current govts grant permission." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Why would I care?

"I invite you to my country and go on the street, where muslims will call you a jew without fear on the streets." - Kaasinees
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
America alone has murdered around 50 million people in it's history.

Isn't that enough for you?

"How many have been murdered by 'liberal'/socialist regimes in USSR, Germany, China, DPRK, ...?" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Maybe he is from Nicaragua where the U.S. used terrorism to murder 200,000 innocent Nicaraguan Civilians under the orders of Ronald Reagan and with funding from drug running by the CIA and the illegal sale of weapons by Reagan to Iraq and Iran.

"Where are YOU from? Probably a country liberated from some tyranny by the USA." - RyggTard
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
Pardon me..

I agree the USA is fighting for freedom...
The freedom for dominating the rest of the world.

Who owns the USA?
Who owns britain?
Why did the vatican burn the templars?


Didn't you forget to mention AWT in your post or is that someone else? Sorry the buffoonery here is so rampant it's easy to confuse people...
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 11, 2012
Creationist teachers:

Please don't forget to include the Pastafarian theory of creation in your class. Thanks. All Hail His Noodly Appendage!

Oh...yeah...go ahead and include all other possible explanations, as well. It looks like you'll need a dedicated semester or 5 to make sure you get em all.

Ah! I almost forgot to remind you to teach alchemy, geocentric theory, astrology, blood-letting, and the stork theory of reproduction.

Finally the children will be able to choose for themselves what is "true," since we all know that choice is a more important value than truth and progress.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
America alone has murdered around 50 million people in it's history.
Most of those people would have died anyway because they were born above the line of stability; above which people begin to run short of jobs, living space and food. We only had the wherewithall to put their deaths to good use whereas, if left to their own ends, they would have been commandeered by some despot or other, to riot in the streets or invade some peaceful neighbors.

Stability is created in the world by ridding it of the overpopulation caused by religion. A vicious Cycle. The only enduring solution would be to get rid of religion. Yes?

As ryggy was only too gracious to point out, religious and atheistic despotism are EQUIVALENT. The only difference is that religions CAUSE the overpopulation which makes despotism INEVITABLE, and necessary.

Communism for instance does not do this. Communism ENABLED some 800 MILLION ABORTIONS which stabilized the regions where it dominated.

As always thanks ryggy.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
All the naturalist big bang teachers don't forget to include the fact that the theory has been falsified by the first law of thermodynamics too :)

Not to mention the fact that singularities of that density don't "explode"...at all...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
Finally the children will be able to choose for themselves what is "true," since we all know that choice is a more important value than truth and progress.
Unfortunately religions have had a few millenia to perfect their Spiel. They have evolved, discarding the less effective in favor of the more effective. They employ an incomparable and irresistible combination of fear and seduction and peer pressure to ply their wares.

If you do not accept the wondrous gifts their god has so graciously offered, you will suffer endless torment in the next life as well as endless chastisement in this life.

Science unfortunately does not possess these tools. Children are particularly weak in reasoning skills and particularly susceptible to religionist scare tactics, fantasies, peer pressure, and authority.

They need adults to decide what is best for them.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
So any scientist, by your definition Otto, that is teaching an incomplete or false theory is committing child abuse.

We better not teach kids anything then, because we ALL know that science changes as knowledge changes...we don't want to abuse children do we....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
All the naturalist big bang teachers don't forget to include the fact that the theory has been falsified by the first law of thermodynamics too :)

Not to mention the fact that singularities of that density don't "explode"...at all...
Well we know at least one apparently does. So instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions like the typical religionist is so eager to do, we can go about figuring out how this happened. Luckily for us, scientists are busy doing this very thing.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
Well we know at least one apparently does.


Via what falsifiable mechanism are you proposing this happened?

No falsifiable theory, no scientific method...go fish.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
So any scientist...is committing child abuse.
Naw teaching children incomplete or false CONCLUSIONS which have been shown to have no basis in reality, is not good for them.

Teaching them that the bible is the perfect word of god when it says that Hebrews was written by Paul when it was not, or that the ending to Mark is not the crude fudge job that it obviously is, is not good for them.

Science is a work in progress and this is how it is taught to kids. Religion is taught as a forgone conclusion whereas it too is a work in progress... archeology is making great progress in showing that biblical events never happened. Scientists are making great progress in exposing biblical fabrications and deception. Etc.

Why, did you know that jesus could not have been the straight-haired, fair-skinned anglo you show nailed to all your crosses, because he was a SEMITE?

Kids should be taught that religion is a work in progress too. It would only be fair, as they will learn this eventually.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Well we know at least one apparently does.


Via what falsifiable mechanism are you proposing this happened?

No falsifiable theory, no scientific method...go fish.

How would you know? I would defer to the vast body of scientific opinion which says that this is the case. I would tend to trust all the 1000s of scientists who actually know what 'falsifiability' means and how to use it in their work.

Sorry eminem you lack credibility.
http://www.youtub...pp_video
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
How would you know? I would defer to the vast body of scientific opinion which says that this is the case. I would tend to trust all the 1000s of scientists who actually know what 'falsifiability' means and how to use it in their work.


So you don't have an answer, you just accept it on faith?

Fine with me, but you know that makes you quite possibly the biggest hypocrite on this board...

Just saying.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
How would you know? I would defer to the vast body of scientific opinion which says that this is the case. I would tend to trust all the 1000s of scientists who actually know what 'falsifiability' means and how to use it in their work.


So you don't have an answer, you just accept it on faith?

Fine with me, but you know that makes you quite possibly the biggest hypocrite on this board...

Just saying.
As always you guys confuse faith and trust. I trust that scientists know what they are doing. I am somewhat familiar with how they do their work. I understand what they have to learn and experience in order to be able to do what they do. This gives me a degree of confidence that I can trust what they tell me.

I am similarly familiar with where religious opinions come from and what they are used for, and can similarly distrust them on that basis.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
Naw teaching children incomplete or false CONCLUSIONS which have been shown to have no basis in reality, is not good for them.


Where's your scientific falsifiable theory to back up that CONCLUSION...or is that just your OPINION?

Moreover that was not your previous argument. Re-read it.

Science is a work in progress and this is how it is taught to kids.


That wasn't my experience, but fine...

Religion is taught as a forgone conclusion...


Again not my experience, but fine...

Why, did you know that jesus could not have been the straight-haired, fair-skinned anglo you show nailed to all your crosses, because he was a SEMITE?


Why, did you know this hasn't the SLIGHTEST bearing on anything we're discussing here whatsoever?

Kids should be taught that religion is a work in progress too. It would only be fair, as they will learn this eventually.


Why SHOULD kids be taught about religion at all?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
As always you guys confuse faith and trust. I trust that scientists know what they are doing.


But still are willing to ridicule creationists without having the slightest actual clue as to how your own beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence?

I am somewhat familiar with how they do their work.


Obviously not. You haven't a clue and have said as much...

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Where's your scientific falsifiable theory to back up that CONCLUSION...or is that just your OPINION?
As I am not a scientist I shouldnt be offering one.
Moreover that was not your previous argument. Re-read it.
Are you sure?
That wasn't my experience, but fine...
So you were taught that scientists had discovered all there was to know and so had packed up and gone home? Or that they were still working on discovering, refining, improving, etc. -?
Again not my experience, but fine...
You were taught

"18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.


19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.' rev22

-Right? Of course we know it was adulterated a lot since-
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
But still are willing to ridicule creationists without having the slightest actual clue as to how your own beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence?
I TOLD you. Scientists and me are a TEAM so to speak. I TRUST them when they tell me that creationism is OBVIOUS nonsense. And I also DISTRUST religionists because their book is obvious NONSENSE. In part because scientists TELL me it is. Klar?
Obviously not. You haven't a clue and have said as much...
Blah? How come you all think jesus was an ANGLO? Answer me that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
But still are willing to ridicule creationists
Well, sure. This is what the internet (and our brains) are for. Read this and get back to me.
http://www.huecot...ndex.htm

This is good for a few laughs:
http://debunkingc...pot.com/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Maybe you prefer multimedia
http://www.youtub...wMP4Sxgo
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
I TOLD you. Scientists and me are a TEAM so to speak. I TRUST them when they tell me that creationism is OBVIOUS nonsense. And I also DISTRUST religionists because their book is obvious NONSENSE. In part because scientists TELL me it is. Klar?


See Otto, here's the problem, you don't even know enough about science to UNDERSTAND that scientists don't even have a falsifiable theory to explain how the big bang violated the first law of thermodynamics. To put it simply, you're too ignorant to know you're ignorant and hypocritical. I'm attempting to educate you. Klar?

Blah? How come you all think jesus was an ANGLO? Answer me that.


Who's "you all" paleface?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
See Otto, here's the problem, you don't even know enough about science to UNDERSTAND that scientists don't even have a falsifiable theory to explain how the big bang violated the first law of thermodynamics. To put it simply, you're too ignorant to know you're ignorant and hypocritical. I'm attempting to educate you. Klar?
Whoa. Are you saying that all the scientists who support the big bang theory, who know far more than either you or I do about science, dont know enough about the fundamental laws of physics which, according to YOU, make this theory invalid?? Is this what you are saying?

Stephen hawking doesnt know that physics according to modernmystic nullifies the big bang theory???

Ahaaahaaahahahahahaaaaa you dumbass. Why dont you give him a call? I am sure he would appreciate the insight heehee

I am sure this is not your idea. Why dont you provide a link to the source of your info?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Who's "you all" paleface?
Oh come on. Are you saying your little dashboard jesus looks like this?
http://www.hairca...rstyles/

No. I am sure he looks a lot more like this:
http://www.thedai...-broncos

Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
How can the big bang violate the first law of thermodynamics when the law is only applicable to the very system the BB created? IOW, isn't the law part of the very Universe, not that the Universe is subject to the law?

Anyhoo, science isn't interested in pre-causality, so your 'requirement' that a falsifiable theory be submitted is not logical. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
MM, if I'm reading you correctly, it *seems* like you are expecting science to tell us "why" when that's an unfair expectation to put on a method that only has the purpose of explaining "how." Personally, I don't need to know if the Universe was created or is infinite or a temporary separating of nothing. Cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution tells me everything I need to know. I think. Maybe you require a purpose or meaning for life. I don't.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
Otto, I don't need a link, I just need to know the first law of thermodynamics prohibits a natural explanation for existence. I've seen no scientific theory which accounts for it. Neither do you, or at least you've not posited it here at any rate.

Skultch you are quite correct if spirituality holds no value in your life. I respect your values, and your opinion on the matter.

However in order for a theory to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, it's not "my" requirement, scientists set that one for themselves.

SINCE the laws of physics prohibit the creation of matter and energy then any theory which deals with the origin of the system must account for HOW (not why) all the matter and energy in the universe got here.

If it doesn't it's not a theory of science and I see no reason why competing theories be held to a higher standard...
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
SINCE the laws of physics prohibit the creation of matter and energy then any theory which deals with the origin of the system must account for HOW (not why) all the matter and energy in the universe got here.
There is no conservation of matter, which is just standing waves. As for conservation of energy, the supply of zero point energy is either very great or infinite. Physicist constantly regauge their energy measurements to zero, but they are measuring relative energy levels: differences which straddle very high absolute energy levels. Between causal links the relative energy levels tend to be conserved.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
All the naturalist big bang teachers don't forget to include the fact that the theory has been falsified by the first law of thermodynamics too :)

Not to mention the fact that singularities of that density don't "explode"...at all...

When were laws created in science?
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.
Max Planck
Read more at http://www.brainy...fyKRy.99
"
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
As for conservation of energy, the supply of zero point energy is either very great or infinite.


Where did it come from? Please quit taking the conversation in circles. The initial problem still stands.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
I just need to know the first law of thermodynamics prohibits a natural explanation for existence.
But first you would need to know what the first law of thermodynamics is, and how it could relate to the big bang, and you have never provided any evidence that you know these things, only a lot of empty bluster which implies that you do not.
I've seen no scientific theory which accounts for it.
And if you did see one would you understand it? I fear not.
Neither do you, or at least you've not posited it here at any rate.
Posited. I have posited here my correct assumption that the scientists who are capable of such things, do. This is called positing by proxy.

This is how society works. We learn to trust others who have the skills to do things for us that we cannot do for ourselves. Like explaining science.

I will tend to trust scientists to do this while you will apparently tend to trust superstitionists who tell you to believe what they tell you, or burn in hell.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
But first you would need to know what the first law of thermodynamics is, and ow it could relate to the big bang, and you have never provided any evidence that you know these things, only a lot of empty bluster which indicates that you do not.


Your inability to understand doesn't negate the problem Otto.

Posited. I have posited here my correct assumption that the scientists who are capable of such things, do. This is called positing by proxy.


Well then any creationist could posit their incorrect assumption that the priests who are capable of such things do...and both have equal force.

http://en.wikiped...uthority

Don't hide behind scientists authority or opinions Otto, attempt to think for yourself and actually argue the point. The only reason I can see that you aren't is because you honestly don't understand the subject.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
When it was first realized that 1 plus 1 = 2 rather than 3 or 1.

"When were laws created in science?" - RyggTard
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Your inability to understand doesn't negate the problem Otto.
But your conspicuous lack of ability DOES.
Well then any creationist could posit their incorrect assumption that the priests who are capable of such things do
No see, you dont even understand the argument from authority fallacy. People with competence in one subject will falsely claim that it gives them competence in something else.
...and both have equal force.
-And this would be the fallacy of unwarranted generalization.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2012
Argument from authority only requires two things to be true; The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject, and a consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

I submit that Christian creationist ministers are legitimate experts on the book of Genesis, and a consensus exists among them on the matter....
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
I submit that Christian creationist ministers are legitimate experts on the book of Genesis, and a consensus exists among them on the matter....
...which has nothing to do with science, beyond the sciences of sociopolitics and psychopathology. What else you got to submit?
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012
SINCE the laws of physics prohibit the creation of matter and energy then any theory which deals with the origin of the system must account for HOW (not why) all the matter and energy in the universe got here.


If you are trying to figure out how a system of laws came to be, it makes no sense to require the explanation to conform to those laws (which are just explanations). Is that a more clear way of explaining this?

My understanding of M-theory (all I know about it is from Hawking's books) is that the 'how' was nothing divided up into something. I know everyone keep saying nothing "turned into" something, but I think that's just a more simple and digestible, but less descriptive way to put it. This is a gross oversimplification, but since nothing became matter and anti-matter, conservation *within* the system is conserved. No one has ever said that conservation applies to a context bigger than the Universe. Conservation of energy is simply a description of the Universe
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012
If you want to put a "god" outside the system, that's fine, but I think you also have to accept the multi-verse theory as equally plausible. I'm not sure we have evidence either way.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
I know everyone keep saying nothing "turned into" something, but I think that's just a more simple and digestible, but less descriptive way to put it.


Yeah Hawkings explanations really make no sense at all. Nothing is nothing. Once you ascribe any property to it it's something and then you're right back where you started. Hawking IMO is straining the point to idiocy in order to maintain his worldview....period. It doesn't have anything to do with science anymore when you're talking about something coming from nothing.

Of course I agree that within the system matter and energy are conserved, but that doesn't tell us how we got the system to begin with.

If you are trying to figure out how a system of laws came to be, it makes no sense to require the explanation to conform to those laws (which are just explanations).


Yes but you still need to posit SOME mechanism to account for it, otherwise you might as well say pookas did it...
Calenur
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2012
Modernmystic,

I disagree with your opinion that scientists are teaching their opinions, putting them on par with religion. We teach students theories which enable them to make accurate predictions about the universe. They may be flawed, and we don't have all of the information, but that's not a weakness in the system. It provides students tools in order to help us expand our current understanding, and fill in some of those gaps. We can use the tools we're taught to try to answer questions, such as the one you're hitting so hard. Science isn't dogma, it changes based on observation and evidence.

I'm coming back to this debate a bit late, unfortunately. At the moment, discussing how the universe began is a bit like discussing the possibility of a god. The big bang is a useful model...why does it need to be more?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
I disagree with your opinion that scientists are teaching their opinions, putting them on par with religion.


I'd disagree with that too.

We teach students theories which enable them to make accurate predictions about the universe.


Since neither ID or the big bang is falsifiable and since both have contradictions I see no reason why one is held to a higher standard than the other. This goes for Biogenesis too.

Evolution OTOH has no significant inconsistencies that I can see and is a rock solid scientific theory. ID is not a valid alternative in that case.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
Yeah Hawkings explanations really make no sense at all...


Argument from ignorance fallacy. No one claims that it is intuitive.

Again, the BB is not an explanation. It is a description. Science is not in the business of explaining how the BB started, so comparing the BB to ID/creation is illogical.
Calenur
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012

Since neither ID or the big bang is falsifiable and since both have contradictions I see no reason why one is held to a higher standard than the other. This goes for Biogenesis too.


At this point that may be true, however the big bang theory has provided experimental evidence of a big bang like event. The COBE satellite experiment is widely regarded as one of the most successful predictions turned evidence in cosmology. The theory provides us useful tools be able to understand events and conditions in the early universe; It's not seeking to address how the big bang came to be. ID is nonsense because it essentially takes the hard work of scientists, and slaps "God did it" on the beginning.
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012
Hawking is merely reporting what the math is telling us. That is different than the straw man that he is also saying "physics explains the nature of pre-causation."

Of course it's counter-intuitive. Reality doesn't care if you require it to be intuitive to the human brain; it is what it is. We "know" something can come from nothing with virtual particles. You can deny that if you want, but know that you have nothing to back it up if you can't do the math yourself. You have "faith" that it is untrue and I have "trust" that it is true. Clergy have no authority post-initial-cause. How should we laymen weight the strengths of our authorities?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
Hawking is merely reporting what the math is telling us. That is different than the straw man that he is also saying "physics explains the nature of pre-causation."

Of course it's counter-intuitive. Reality doesn't care if you require it to be intuitive to the human brain; it is what it is. We "know" something can come from nothing with virtual particles. You can deny that if you want, but know that you have nothing to back it up if you can't do the math yourself. You have "faith" that it is untrue and I have "trust" that it is true. Clergy have no authority post-initial-cause. How should we laymen weight the strengths of our authorities?


Mathematics requires a system to operate in or on...ie something. His theories and explanations are not only counter-intuitive, they are literally impossible.

We "know" something can come from nothing with virtual particles.


Virtual particles require a vacuum and vacuum energy, which are both something.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
The basic problem here is that Hawking is a mathematician and a physicist playing at being a philosopher.

He's a brilliant physicist and possibly the most skilled mathematician on the planet...he's not a very good philosopher however...
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012
Says you.

To bring this back to the topic at hand:

Any idea on creation lies outside of science, by definition, and should not be compared to scientific theories.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2012
Yeah Hawkings explanations really make no sense at all. Nothing is nothing...Mathematics requires a system to operate in or on...ie something. His theories and explanations are not only counter-intuitive, they are literally impossible.
The outrageous audacity of someone who thinks the creator of an entire universe would actually be concerned with his welfare...

Obviously, hawkings understanding of 'something' and 'nothing' are somewhat more 'mature' than yours. You do accept that you have absolutely no education, no experience, no preparation to understand these things in the way that he and other scientists do? I would certainly hope that you could accept this.

No, I really dont care. Keep blaspheming reality and common sense. It is very illuminating and quite good fun.
The basic problem here is that Hawking is a mathematician and a physicist playing at being a philosopher.
And you are a religionist with a stunted personality playing at being a great physmatist...?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
Any idea on creation lies outside of science, by definition, and should not be compared to scientific theories.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Skultch
not rated yet Apr 12, 2012
I guess so. We both probably think the other isn't seeing our points clearly. Even though you don't buy my premise, I'm going to take this one step further:

Even if god created the BB (or even the Universe pretty much as it is now), we still don't have confident extraordinary evidence of current intervention from said creator. Therefore, even IF a god-the-creator is plausible (shit, even if it's likely) we still don't have good reasons to change our day-to-day lives based on that idea. We don't have enough information to say that one or any of the current religions is correct, so why does it even matter if a god created everything? Both atheism and theism SHOULD produce the same Universe we see before us. The former is more simple, so that's the one we should going with. eh?

This is why I often say that the concept of an interventionist god is a superfluous concept. We'll have better confidence that our actions will improve our lives if we keep our input factors limited.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
Maybe this will help:

In order to describe something you must ascribe properties to it. Mathematics describes physical systems. When you attempt to ascribe properties to nothing it becomes something. This implies mathematics cant describe nothing. Therefore mathematics cant be used to make predictions about nothing, and hence Hawking or anyone else can't legitimately report to us what math says about a subject it can't describe....

We don't have enough information to say that one or any of the current religions is correct, so why does it even matter if a god created everything?


Agreed, and there is were faith comes in. You either do or you don't. I do, you don't.

I respect your position.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
I might be coming around to seeing your point on "something-from-nothing" theory not exactly being science. It can't be predictive. What would it predict? Another Universe that looks just like this one? Yeah, that's not falsifiable.

One thing, though: Hawking, at least, does not claim the BB is the beginning. So, when he says THIS Verse came from "nothing," I'm pretty sure he means it came from a brane collision. Somehow, the math suggests that these branes are "something" but from inside the event horizon of the Universe (our perspective) it just "looks" like nothing.

Yeah, it does come down to faith for a theist. I guess I trust that our top scientists aren't deceivers. How many people can do the math that Hawking/Krauss/Penrose can do? I guess they could all get together and deceive us all that cosmic evolution is consistent. Maybe it's just my personality that makes me chose that that is less likely than a bunch of bronze-aged ignorant goat herders being correct.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2012
I might be coming around to seeing your point on "something-from-nothing" theory not exactly being science. It can't be predictive. What would it predict? Another Universe that looks just like this one? Yeah, that's not falsifiable.
How pleasant. I hope skultch that youre not coming around to the opinion of many religionists that, since these things are obviously not discoverable, that we should stop looking??

Because scientists do not believe this. They are continuing to look, and develop theories, and discover ways of exploring what you all think is the unreachable and unknowable.

Thank god there are those not willing to conclude 'we will never know'.
http://en.wikiped...g_theory
http://www.santac...-up-date
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
Just because creating *might* be unfalsifiable does not mean every single thing that happens in the Universe should not be figured out. Otto, I'm thinking you equate understanding a theist with capitulation.

How do scientists claim their creation theory is falsifiable? I thought they simply don't broach the subject at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2012
How do scientists claim their creation theory is falsifiable? I thought they simply don't broach the subject at all.
I guess you would have to ask a scientist who is actually able to answer that question competently, instead of relying on people who think they can make statements like
Therefore mathematics cant be used to make predictions about nothing, and hence Hawking or anyone else can't legitimately report to us what math says about a subject it can't describe....
-and provoke anything in us besides outrage. People like this vote. People like this think they can decide what children should be learning about SCIENCE in schools.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
How do scientists claim their creation theory is falsifiable? I thought they simply don't broach the subject at all.
I guess you would have to ask a scientist who is actually able to answer that question competently, instead of relying on people who think they can make statements like


Not relying on MM for anything. I've read all of Hawking's books and I think I understand them as well as any layman. I'll probably read the last one again before another comes out. THAT's where I will confirm if they claim falsifiability or not.

Why do you assume I would use MM as any authority, just because I'm *trying* to see his point?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2012
Why do you assume I would use MM as any authority
...
I might be coming around to seeing your point on "something-from-nothing" theory...It can't be predictive. What would it predict?...Yeah, it does come down to faith for a theist.
MMs 'point' is that he believes he has enough knowledge to make a point.
I've read all of Hawking's books and I think I understand them as well as any layman.
-So then you can understand him to the same extent I do when he says

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

-In that I have no idea from his perspective what he means by the terms 'nothing' and 'create'. I do know that it involves dozens of pages of calculations, derived from the collective work of hundreds of scientists over many generations. I know MM has no appreciation of this whatsoever.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
I might be coming around to seeing your point on "something-from-nothing" theory...


seeing /= agreeing with

It can't be predictive. What would it predict?...Yeah, it does come down to faith for a theist.


Okay. So, what does the BB theory predict, then?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2012
One thing, though: Hawking, at least, does not claim the BB is the beginning. So, when he says THIS Verse came from "nothing," I'm pretty sure he means it came from a brane collision. Somehow, the math suggests that these branes are "something" but from inside the event horizon of the Universe (our perspective) it just "looks" like nothing.


I apologize, I could have saved a LOT of posting if I'd have made my position more clear from the beginning. I do indeed see merit in brane theory. I hope you realize that brane theory is a recent development and that prior to a few years ago atheists that went on and on about something coming from nothing were spitting in the wind.

HOWEVER, this is a PLAUSIBLE answer to the blaring contradiction we've been faced with. It needs significant development, and currently isn't "science" per se as it fails many of the tests currently applied to a scientific theory. I look forward to further developments along this line. (cont.)
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2012
Look let me be clear here. Creationists frustrate me because they're simply not teachable on these matters. Their minds are closed. Atheists frustrate me because they intentionally ignore or gloss over contradictions in current theory to soothe their worldview.

I'm not your "enemy" here. You can learn from those who disagree with you, or hold differing opinions or view points. In fact your "opponents" are a GIFT. They challenge you, they make you stretch and bend if you LET them. I'm certainly not perfect in this regard either...far from it. I strive to be open, to let my guard down, to realize there is no "safe place" in reality, to know in by bones that reality does not negotiate.

Thank you all for your comments, opinions, and challenges....sincerely.

One more thing...if I may quote the amazing Chris Knight...

"He loved solving problems, he loved the answers. But he thought the answers were the answers for everything. Wrong. All science, no philosophy."
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 13, 2012
Totally agree on the goal of being open minded. Yeah, it's tough. None of us are wired that way, and it seems to only get worse with time.

I disagree that "blaring contradictions" exist. Sticking with the BB theory (ignoring M-theory for now) I still think you are requiring predictive ability and falsifiability when I consider this to be a special case. Since the very theory bumps up against the beginnings of scientific causation, we have to treat it differently than other scientific theories. I don't think that makes it "not science," though. I'd be interested in discussing what we should consider it to be. Something metaphysical? I don't know, but I like where this is going...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2012
Something metaphysical? I don't know, but I like where this is going...
It wouldnt be that as the metaphysical doesnt exist. Like hitchens I can declare that with a sufficient degree of confidence.

Must be something real. I am sure scientists will figure it out. I have a sufficient degree of confidence in this as well.
Jimee
not rated yet Apr 16, 2012
Charter schools are a way to destroy public education and promote education for only the wealthiest. Back to the 11th century with the Right Wing haters!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2012
Charter schools are a way to destroy public education and promote education for only the wealthiest. Back to the 11th century with the Right Wing haters!

Charter schools ARE publicly funded schools with more local control instead of union control.
Sweden provides vouchers and so students and parents have a choice.
I thought 'progressives' supported 'choice'.

More news stories