Thanks for following up, and happy new year.

Maybe we're looking at different ends of science. Your model makes sense during the initial R&D phases, and generating hypotheses. My model makes sense in the later phases, when deciding what constitutes scientific law and fact. I agree with your point on creationism; to be fair, why wouldn't Christians include all other religions' creation myths, and other philosophies' as well? It's better to leave the unsupported theories for religious studies.

I can't fault people for being religious. We have to use our internal rationale to decide what to think about reality and our existence. Whether people decide there's a god with an elephant head, or if they decide we're in one of an infinite number of parallel universes, or if they think we're just machines and consciousness is an illusion, I can't fault them for their choice. I can show them my rationale for my beliefs, and I can educate them based on what science shows. But my point earlier was that science doesn't show what some people claim, and that scientific "constructionism" (i.e., "only what we can prove exists, exists") is intellectually foolish, has been proven to be folly in the past, and is not accepted by the scientific community.

Science and knowledge may never be able to refute basic theism, and if people want to use that fact to justify their beliefs, they can do that. If theists want schools to teach people the world is flat, or that evolution isn't true, or that condoms spread AIDS, they can't do that, and those efforts should be resisted in full force. Religion and science need that firm dividing line, and if someone thinks they can get on in life without one or the other, there's no problem with that as long as they don't infringe on others' rights to make their own choices.
In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
Alrighy then. I'm sober and moderately coherent, so let's carry on.

We have a very different view of science. Science can't possibly work by ruling out things, because there the universe is infinite, or, as infinite as we are able to measure at this time. The experiment that produces a result never comes alone. It's always there to support a hypothesis, and to prove it, if successful.

There will always be things we can't perceive ourselves, and we will always work towards finding new ways to view the universe. If we would ever discover everything there is to know, the world would be rather dull, in my opinion.

This, however, does not grant anybody a license to invent facts, to make claims with no substantiating evidence and to basically invent a new universe and ask the rest of us to live in it.

Proving something by disproving every other possibility only works when there is a finite number of possible possibilities (I love that phrase, by the way). There is no finite group of Gods. Every person is free to come up with a new God every day. If someone were to ask 1000 Christians to describe their God, and then compile their replies into a profile, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't end up with at least 4-5 separate deities.

My problem with all religions, isn't about the nature of the faith, or of the God itself, but rather with the claim that they know something which they can't possibly know. Teaching Intelligent Design in a school and putting it on the same level as the science of Evolution, simply because a book tells you the world is 6000 years old, is ludicrous to me.

--------------------

I think we sort of diverged from the original point, and I don't have an actual argument to make anymore. Have a happy new year

I'm with you truck. But I'm agnostic.

I'm just tired of (literally: this is partly from Junior High) immature people who seem to be unable to do anything with atheism other than flip the bird at Christianity.

I don't look at their complaining as actually constructive. Gay rights movements are fine, but bitching about religion and complaining like a little child about those damned Mormons bugging you all the time is just plain stupid.

Realize that if you are one of these people you probably have issues from your past that you need to get help with FROM A PSYCHOLOGIST.

IMO... and you may not be ready for this.. ready? YOU HAVE TO LET GO OF GOD!

You are likely a victim of domestic violence in a so-called "Christian family" that forced "religion" down your throat.

Don't blame Christianity or God for your evil fucked up parents. Don't blame yourself.

The above is an edit. Here's the rest of my post talking about what atheists SHOULD be doing if they're going to be publicly dissing Christianity:


If they're going to diss religion, they could at least be talking about how stupid the concept of a guy making a universe and sitting up there pre-programming himself apparently to endlessly get his jollies off on boring repetitious shit in some endless struggle between his all-powerful self and the imprisoned by him but apparently still able to influence people due to him (God) Devil in Hell.

If God is all-powerful, why the hell did he FUCK UP?!!

"God works in mysterious ways."

GAME OVER IT'S RIGGED!

Here's my atheist rant: If God exists and things are as they seem to be (see above), then God can KISS MY ASS TO HELL WITH HIS FRAUDULENT, EVIL, RIGGED BULLSHIT! Also, NICE JOB BEING THE BENEVOLENT LOVING GOD BY BEGINNING THAT LITTLE SAGA BY TORTURING YOUR SON TO DEATH AT THE HANDS OF THE EVIL PIECES OF SHIT THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE SAVING.

THERE!

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
"Well, we're here, so how we got here is irrelevant."

That's what I mean about lazy.. you just don't want to get it. It's like looking at a river valley and saying.. "it's a good thing these hills come together to form a perfect vessel for this mountain snow melt." It is that simple. The river runs there because it is the lowest point. The valley is formed because the river runs there and makes the valley deeper.

That's exactly why humans use oxygen. It's why some people from northern climates are really pale and people from really sunny places have lots of pigment. God didn't make some people black and some people white. They all "started out in his image". Or is that microevolution.

The garden of eden and Noah's flood are simply oral traditions from nomadic tribes that got assimilated into modern culture. Your Bible has been arbitrarily modified for thousands of years. It's been a political device capriciously modified and edited as the ruling powers saw fit.

I do take exception to how off-handedly dismiss the Bible, though. The Bible has been validated through historical accuracy of events depicted, is a unique document in all of human history, and is validated through the fulfillment of prophecy over time.

Studies have verified that the transcripts have held up without material alteration according to the earliest known records.
The type of forgery necessary to corrupt the Bible we know today is a feat I doubt would be possible even in this day and age. You'd have to destroy every prior copy and convincingly alter remnant copies, all the while leaving no historical footprint to tell the tale.
I posed a scientific question to see how entrenched you all were about the notion that God could not exist. I'm still not impressed with the answers.


You obviously don't know much history about your religion. You can't honestly believe that what we call the Bible was just a filtered set of gospels. And then even certain aspects of those were shaped, such that original Christian sects allowed women to hold honored positions, and even preach. All references to such things were removed by non-holy means.

How can you say there is no alteration? Really old greek, latin.. always interpreted. Heck, wasn't there usually margin notes up until the King James which has it's own history. Aren't there like four or five "King James" Versions.. The wording is different in them all.

You really can't be serious. "Studies have shown"... ok.. "It's been proven that".

---------------
You are not impressed because it's your job to think for yourself. It's not anyone else job to make you believe something. Making someone believe is childish. You have to want to discover new information, think for yourself, be open to new ideas. You refuse to look and even try to see the other side.

If you had tangible, observable, logical evidence in your ideas, people would listen. But you don't have anything to bring to the table. You only have a belief and faith. There is not competing idea, just this never ending game religion plays where they find an area of human understanding that is lacking, and say God did it. Thousands of years ago it was rain, lightning and crop yields... Now it is before the big bang, and primordial ooze. Since it is hard to "prove" or demonstrate millions of years of time and natural forces, religion jumps in there and say, "you have to teach both sides".

They don't have another side or theory or evidence or progress. Intelligent Design should be bringing scientific discovery and break throughs and new inventions. Especially since they have God and prayer and holy water and host wafers. Shit, I forgot about all the prophecies. Certainly that would be a HUGE advantage!

Can you not even concede that Christianity declared the world flat and sun went around the Earth. These were equivalent to the modern Creationist meddling with a competing theory. But instead of proof or science... Religion just demands equal treatment, just because. Just because they have faith they must be right. How many years of scientific progress was stiffle or murdered over the Sun going around the Earth based on measurements and THEORIES. Do you really think the theory of planetary orbit is any different from the theory of natural selection?

I agree, this video is both hilarious and scary. If I ever have children, I want them to make up their own decisions! Forcing religion on a child is not fair. This kid did a great job of mocking the adults!

>> Pennypacker
000.1%

WHOAH, 000.1 PERCENT? GOOD GRAVY, SON!

On a more serious response, there are intolerant athiests just as there are intolerant theists, life goes on, and you should stop being a total jackass just because there's a video talking about how somebody was stifled by their parents trying to force religion and close-mindedness on them, and then they realized "hey let's just try to respect other people's beliefs as long as they're not hurting anyone else."

>> ^MINK:
dawkins is wrong. bringing up a child with a religious background is absolutely nothing like child abuse.
typical dawkins "intellect" on parade again. dawkins is an extremist himself.


Read The God Delusion. John Cornwell is a lying sack of shit, his entire argument in this video is based on complete misrepresentations of what Dawkins has actually said. Most of the "summaries" of Dawkins is entirely taken out of Cornwells own head ie: "He parallels religion with a cultural virus* that's so evil** that he says its even worse then pedophile abuse***"

What a lying sack of shit. Dawkins has never said that. Anywhere. Ever.

*Yes, he calls religion a virus, but unless you're an ignorant lying piece of shit like Cornwell, you should know that the word "virus" in this context is not used in the negative, insulting way. He refers to memes, cultural ideas, including scientific ideas, by the way, as a form of virus, in the sense that, like a virus, it replicates through occupation of hosts, and like viruses, the only prerequisite for their existence is their ability to replicate.

**Viruses are not evil, nor are they good, they just are.

***No, he has never said religion is "worse than pedophile abuse", this is simply a fabrication that ranks with the last public statements of Comical Ali.
Dawkins has, with considerable restraint, and careful distinction, said that SOME forms of religious indoctrinations, (such as threats of hellfire) and the overt way of forcing religions upon children by labeling them "catholic child" or whatever, can be called a FORM OF CHILD ABUSE. He has never compared it to pedophilia or any other form of abuse.

Since every religion I know of teaches that people will fail to follow it or at least follow it very poorly, you cannot judge any (of these) religions based on the behavior of their members. It sounds like a cop-out, but it makes sense when you think about it.
Christianity for example teaches that all people are sinners and by nature will fail to live up to the expectations of God. In other words, their actions will not coincide with their religion. (In Christianity, belief in Jesus and His sacrifice exempts one from the consequences of this failure).

Too many people make blanket negative statements about religions based on the actions of small groups of them. Given what I've said above, these statements are not justly made.

In response to saying that religion is only a tool for controlling people?
That's assuming that they are all in fact false.

I'll prop you on this one though:
Religion is a series of personal beliefs and it's exactly that - personal. A person's spiritual beliefs should not be forced upon others and any view of superiority by a group is an illusion that will only end up in violence.
Too true. How long will it take for people to realize that forcing religion just does not work?