Atheists

Status
Not open for further replies.
emp said:
Actually, I would not care if they left the rest of the populace alone (seperation of church and state and all that, ya know?)

As they are actively trying to change laws, get into school curriculums, etc.. all over the world, I do care.

::emp::
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the constitution talks about that in the context of forming a state-sponsored religion, not censoring all religiously-oriented speech from public society or government.

Think abou this for a minute... If those people do believe God is speaking to them in a book & personally, then they would be idiots if it didn't reflect in their political beliefs, how their kids are taught, and everything else they do or say. I'd have zero respect.

America IS a democracy and if 80-something percent of the people here are Christians, then you're s*** out of luck if you're one who isn't. Might not be fair to you, but that's what you get when you live in a democracy.

I think people forget that lately - the USA isn't about protecting the rights of the individual as much as it is protecting the rights of the majority of individuals. I hear Scandinavia is nice this time of year for athiests... :1bluewinky:
 


Hey Emp,

Do you get the PBS show Nova in Germany? (do you get PBS in Germany???) Anyway they had an episode following the Creationism trial a few years back where a school board in Pennslyvania was trying to introduce Intelligent Design in the science classes at school. It was a great episode, Nova reinacted bits of the trial and we got to listen to the scientists explain the scientific data that supports evolution and why it would be impossible to ever have true data to support the notion of I.D. It was also quite amusing watching the Defense (I.D.) trying to support their case. It was quite obvious from the beggining that they just couldn't.

Another interesting thing about the case was the Science teachers. When the school board first decided that the classroom had to participate in the "theories of I.D." they flat out refused. They all got together and stood firm against it. Some of these science teachers were religious too but they were like "Religion is not Science and therefore has no business being taught in a Science class" I was quite proud of them.

Here's more info about the case and the Nova episode NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS
 
blacktastic said:
Yeah, but the constitution talks about that in the context of forming a state-sponsored religion, not censoring all religiously-oriented speech from public society or government.

Think abou this for a minute... If those people do believe God is speaking to them in a book & personally, then they would be idiots if it didn't reflect in their political beliefs, how their kids are taught, and everything else they do or say. I'd have zero respect.

America IS a democracy and if 80-something percent of the people here are Christians, then you're s*** out of luck if you're one who isn't. Might not be fair to you, but that's what you get when you live in a democracy.

I think people forget that lately - the USA isn't about protecting the rights of the individual as much as it is protecting the rights of the majority of individuals. I hear Scandinavia is nice this time of year for athiests... :1bluewinky:
Click to expand...


And that's why we have the Supreme Court to save the majority from their own stupidity. :1bluewinky:
 
Away for a while and come back to find yet another discussion on religion.. guess it's the right time of year for it!

I think I'm an agnostic (but I'm not sure :)), gotta keep an open mind and realistically accept that we'll never know the answer to this question. There is also a massive difference between following a religion and believing in a higher power of some sort or other aspects of spirituality in a non-religious way.

Of all the religious/spiritual ideas, the teachings of the first Buddha make the most sense to me. It's a shame that (as with other teachings) they have been perverted into religion.

If Jesus, Mohammed, or the Buddha were around today what do you think they would make of what religion has become? Would Jesus like the "consumers for Christ" mentality of Christmas or the 24 hour give-us-your-money-and-go-to-heaven TV channels? Would Mohammed understand how his teachings have been corrupted by the extremists with horrific consequences? Would the Buddha appreciate the attachment of Buddhists to giant golden effigies and the desire to worship?
 
blacktastic...

Funny thing is that at the time of the idea of seperating church and state, you had way more Christians than you do today. It was Christians who thought this up.

ANd by the way, I am not for censoring religious speech, just put it where it belongs. In the churches and in school courses clearly labeled "RELIGION" and not biology.

::emp::
 
When I went to a Lutheran junior high school, we watched a video on how the Constitution doesn't actually say separation of church and state. The sentence in the Constitution that it refers to has just been interpreted to mean that and actually means something like the government can't favor one religion over another. Nothing is said about how the government has to be secular.

I'm not necessarily arguing that, I just was told it once.
 
The only problems with religion occur when one person or group decided they must enforce their view point on another person or group to the point of infringing on their rights. Which sadly is a case with a lot of nut jobs.

If communities around all groups kept to themselves instead of proclaiming their way is the *right* way, the world in general would be a happier place.

The irony in all that of course is watching as hundreds of priests get busted later in life for playing with kiddie cock !

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Luckily, they have lots of money to buy their way out of it;

BBC NEWS | Americas | LA cardinal offers abuse apology
 
Romestar said:
When I went to a Lutheran junior high school, we watched a video on how the Constitution doesn't actually say separation of church and state. The sentence in the Constitution that it refers to has just been interpreted to mean that and actually means something like the government can't favor one religion over another. Nothing is said about how the government has to be secular.
Click to expand...

Also, please note that the separation of state and church is not an American invention, nor has the US been the only country to do so.

Fuck, this stuff dates back a few hundred years. You and me, we are all reaping the benefits.

Actually, this is what irks me most about creationists.
Taking all that science gives you. Like... cars, food, computers, the internet, telly, modern medicine... and still shitting in the nest.

Science is a methodology, not a faith. And guess what? If it works on one thing, it works on all. There is no "let's leave THIS out" clause in science, where THIS be anything you don't like (evolution, big bang, etc..)

Take it all, or leave it all.

For all I care, you are free to use all the technological advances that you can wrangle out of the bible or any other religious text of your faith.
So next time you break your arm, try praying. Next time someone gets hit with a multi-resistant, evolved strain of bacteria, mix something from the bible, cause those pills have been made by a baad, baaaaad atheist science that believes in things such as evolution, speciesation, and the like.

And I guess I won't be seeing you around on this forum anymore, as those biblical computers don't do them intartubes so well.
Kthnxbye.

::emp::
PS: Yes, cranky! I am sittin here at half past three in the morning being hit with insomnia again.
 
OH, BTW... for those who like to REPEATEDLY throw that nonsense about Einstein being a believer at me:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
[FONT=Bookman Old Style, Arial]Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.[/FONT]

::emp::
 
Emp, creationist scientists love science just as much as secular scientists do. To them it's studying God's creation. A creationist would argue that there is no reason why your science of a big bang is any better than their's of a creator and a young earth. Both sides make observations, but evolutions view everything in the context of a old earth and creationists view everything in the context of a young earth. Issac Newton and [SIZE=-1]Wernher Von Braun[/SIZE] were Christians ;)

You might even find this very interesting:
The Inspired Bible-Bible-Scientific Truth in the Bible
 
Romestar said:
A creationist would argue that there is no reason why your science of a big bang is any better than their's of a creator and a young earth.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they would be arguing incorrectly. Extremely incorrectly. There are many reasons.

Romestar said:
Both sides make observations, but evolutions view everything in the context of a old earth and creationists view everything in the context of a young earth.
Click to expand...

The concept of a "young earth" is absolutely absurd. Anyone who honestly believes the planet is only 6,000 years old is either deluding themselves or is uneducated - two traits unbecoming of any scientist. This is why "creation science" is ridiculed; it's based upon myth and the pitiful yearnings to be part of a "celestial dictatorship," as C. Hitchens so eloquently and accurately describes these beliefs.

Either way, these people are most certainly not scientists. To call themselves as such is insulting.
 
elime said:
Yes, and they would be arguing incorrectly. Extremely incorrectly. There are many reasons.



The concept of a "young earth" is absolutely absurd. Anyone who honestly believes the planet is only 6,000 years old is either deluding themselves or is uneducated - two traits unbecoming of any scientist. This is why "creation science" is ridiculed; it's based upon myth and the pitiful yearnings to be part of a "celestial dictatorship," as C. Hitchens so eloquently and accurately describes these beliefs.

Either way, these people are most certainly not scientists. To call themselves as such is insulting.
Click to expand...

o_rly.jpg



there's no reason why the earth can't be young. They have an explanation for everything, at least a more logical one and one with more mathematically probability than evolution.
 
Romestar said:
there's no reason why the earth can't be young. They have an explanation for everything, at least a more logical one and one with more mathematically probability than evolution.
Click to expand...

First off, I could come up with an explaination for everything too. I could say space aliens came here thousands of years ago and put us here. Just because I have an explaination, doesn't make it valid.

Second, mathematically probability has nothing to do with anything. Your configuration of DNA is an extremely small probablity of all the possiblities that you could have been... does that make you less likely to exist? No.
 
Romestar said:
there's no reason why the earth can't be young. They have an explanation for everything, at least a more logical one and one with more mathematically probability than evolution.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you count the "mathematical probability" of there being an invisible, omnipotent being that made all of the universe, the earth, the flowers and mankind, as well as planting false evidence for all them stupid scientists as HIGHER than that of evolution, for which there is tons of data supporting the theory.

Well...

Then yes.

But do not count me as convinced.

::emp::
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom