Striving to make others disbelieve in God — a question of ethics/morality

[Valery]

Apply the same reasoning to belief in God

The answer would be: arrogance and ignorance among other things. Now, back to my question.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh please, stop tossing around your memorized scientific words to give a flavor of knowledge to your statements. You haven't a clue how to explain either "random mutations" or "chirality cancels abiogenesis"

Was that a question or just another disgruntled atheist insult?

It gets defended so often because so many conservative Christians want science teachers to stop telling kids about evolution and tell them God did it. Here's how you tell which is right: find the average IQ of creationists and compare it to the average IQ of evolutionary biologists.

It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!

If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.

Creationism is dogma

That very statement is dogma, the irony!

 

[watsup]

There is a "fuss" when laws must be passed preventing teachers from expressing skepticism about evolution, when a teacher might lose his/her job for deviating from the evolution dogma.

The fact is if evolution were as undeniably supported by facts and evidence and was as undeniable as many claim, there'd be no need to defend it so much, it is only evolution that is protected this way, no other endeavor in the sciences get this kind of special, kid gloves, namby pamby treatment.

That itself is a philosophical statement, how can you prove that encouraging students to rationally and logically reach their own conclusions is bad for scientific inquiry? what's wrong with teaching children how to think[/B

Are you saying that having an open mind (i.e. being free from prejudices) is undesirable? you'd discourage it if you were a teacher?

I don’t know of any laws that were passed to prevent teachers from questioning evolution. The reason that they don’t spend their time doing so is because of its solid scientific footing. Yes, there are sometimes court cases, but that is because the religious dogmatists want to teach the Sunday school subjects of creationism or ID In science classes, which is totally inappropriate. Separation of church and state and all that....

And you do so love to move the goal posts. You use the terms “rationally and logically”in allowing students to make up their own mind, but in science that is ASKING FOR THE EVIDENCE of any axiom, postulate, theory, or scientific fact. Since creationism and ID have no SCIENTIFIC evidence, then there is zero basis for bringing them into the scientific classroom.

 

[watsup]

It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!

If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.

Not sure what you mean by “dissent” in science. Any “dissent” must be based on evidence, just like the original theory. Evolution is seen by scientists as THE manner in which life has come to its present form on this planet. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise?

And the only paranoia expressed in this thread is from the person that you see in the mirror. Same with fulminating.

 

[weaver2]

It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!
If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.

I didn't bring up the topic of teaching ID in public schools, you did. If anyone is fulminating, you are with your spittle flecked response calling "atheist" of all those against teaching religious claptrap in science class. Let me disabuse you of that little gem of conservative Christian propaganda so dear to your heart. Here's the decision of Judge John E. Jones III Republican and Lutheran in Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Education:

• The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. ..... As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
• The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

Get that ?....... Breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision...... from a Republican, Lutheran, family man, local Pennsylvania boy. You aren't fighting atheists on this ID question you are up against ordinary citizens that don't want your religious dogma in their public schools.


“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I didn't bring up the topic of teaching ID in public schools, you did. If anyone is fulminating, you are with your spittle flecked response calling "atheist" of all those against teaching religious claptrap in science class. Let me disabuse you of that little gem of conservative Christian propaganda so dear to your heart. Here's the decision of Judge John E. Jones III Republican and Lutheran in Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Education:

• The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
• The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. ..... As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
• The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

Get that ?....... Breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision...... from a Republican, Lutheran, family man, local Pennsylvania boy. You aren't fighting atheists on this ID question you are up against ordinary citizens that don't want your religious dogma in their public schools.


“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov.

The Judge had a difficult job and did it well, his role is to ensure the law is being applied though not to dictate what is and is not science, what is and is not truth, his decision is based on the prevailing laws not his own definitions of science, truth etc.

Questioning established doctrine, questioning unquestionable truths is what Galileo did and for that he fell under the hammer of the law, the Catholic hierarchy were wrong to insist their world view was absolute unquestionable truth and likewise those who regard evolution in the same manner.

I'm "fighting" (if this is the term you want to use) people in this forum and thread who regard it as fundamentally wrong to question evolution, to exhibit skepticism about some of the unscientific claims inherent within evolution, that's my position in this thread.

Dogma must be challenged, officialdom defining truth must be resisted, the freedom to question and express skepticism must be defended.

 

[Dragonfly]

I'm "fighting" (if this is the term you want to use) people in this forum and thread who regard it as fundamentally wrong to question evolution, to exhibit skepticism about the unscientific claims inherent within evolution, that's my position in this thread.

There's never anything wrong with questioning anything? Be as skeptical as you want. Encourage skepticism. By all means. Go for it.

Where you run off the rails, at break-neck speeds, is when you insist that the ONLY default option that must be universally accepted is:

"god did it"

 

[gboisjo]

gboisjo said:
BS, protect the church from the state. The founding fathers weren't far removed from Europe, they were well aware of the damage the intrusion the of church
had on the state thus the separation of church and state.

Many early immigrants traveled to North America to avoid religious persecution in their homelands, whether based on a different denomination, religion or sect. Some immigrants came from England after the English Civil War and the rise of Protestant dissenting sects in England. Others fled Protestant Catholic religious conflicts in France and Germany.

These early settlers were the the beginning of the end of Religious intrusion into government.

All one has to do is look at theocracies like Iran to know what it is that we don't want.

Wrong, they wanted to establish their own form of religious intolerance. The Puritans were not pure enough for them.

From the time the settlers first stepped foot in North America until now the trend has been less religion and more atheism. "they" speaks to some who's
religious condition was not reversible, the brainwashing would take a few generations to lessen.

 

[gboisjo]

It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!

If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.

If not evolution, then what ..please elaborate. Stop attacking and share your ideas about our existence.

 

[gboisjo]

Sherlock Holmes said:
It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!

If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.

Not sure what you mean by “dissent” in science. Any “dissent” must be based on evidence, just like the original theory. Evolution is seen by scientists as THE manner in which life has come to its present form on this planet. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise?

And the only paranoia expressed in this thread is from the person that you see in the mirror. Same with fulminating.

The only evidence Sherlock has ever presented with his war against evolution was the fossil record during the Cambrian period. His argument was researched, exposed and debunked.

 

[it's just me]

nope, I directly refuted your claim. You claimed atheism teaches. I refuted that by showing you the definition of atheism. Atheism, by definition, does not teach anything.

Are you trying to teach him something?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's never anything wrong with questioning anything? Be as skeptical as you want. Encourage skepticism. By all means. Go for it.

Where you run off the rails, at break-neck speeds, is when you insist that the ONLY default option that must be universally accepted is:

That's a strawman argument, I never once proposed "god did it" and you'll find there are some here who'd disagree with you, Dawkins too who describes evolution as "a fact" - by definition facts cannot be questioned.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If not evolution, then what ..please elaborate. Stop attacking and share your ideas about our existence.

What have I written that you perceive as "attacking"?

 

[rahl]

Are you trying to teach him something?

where did you get lost? I correctly pointed out that atheism, by definition, does not teach anything. Me refuting his statement doesn't change that basic fact.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Holmes said:
It gets defended so often because of the paranoia I see in so many atheists, the entire evolution theory serves as the rosary beads for the atheist, and you think you're not religious? are you kidding!

If you care to read what I write - honestly - rather than fulminating because someone has the audacity to question what you regard as sacrosanct eternal truth, you'd see that all I've said here is that we should encourage dissent not stifle it, that goes for dissent against evolution and religion.



The only evidence Sherlock has ever presented with his war against evolution was the fossil record during the Cambrian period. His argument was researched, exposed and debunked.

By "debunked" I assume you mean "refuted"? my arguments about the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record were never refuted, rebutted yes, but never refuted.

The fossil record is highly discontinuous, the proposed explanation is that in reality it would have been more continuous but fossilization is so rare that we see a discontinuous fossil record.

This seems plausible at first (I accepted it for many years until I began to question evolution) but the purported rarity is at odds with observation too, one must assume rather a lot in order to accept evolution and I think some of these assumptions are unreasonable.

There was one well written rebuttal and I am yet to respond to that one, this is inexcusable but I am imperfect.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

where did you get lost? I correctly pointed out that atheism, by definition, does not teach anything. Me refuting his statement doesn't change that basic fact.

Rebutted Rahl, you've actually rebutted me not refuted me.

 

[rahl]

Rebutted Rahl, you've actually rebutted me not refuted me.

no, refuted Sherlock. your claim was demonstrably false, and I proved it false. That is a refutation. I'm sorry.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

no, refuted Sherlock. your claim was demonstrably false, and I proved it false. That is a refutation. I'm sorry.

Selecting one specific definition of "atheism" from among several available cannot constitute a refutation Rahl, because you could have easily chosen some other definition and then you'd have actually endorsed me.

A refutation it would be if there were not numerous definitions for "atheism" and if there were not numerous atheists each describing what atheism means, but there are numerous definitions and there are many atheist opinions.

For this reason your counter argument is at best a rebuttal and most certainly not a refutation.

 

[it's just me]

where did you get lost? I correctly pointed out that atheism, by definition, does not teach anything. Me refuting his statement doesn't change that basic fact.

I'm not lost, your definition just sucks, which has been intuitively obvious to me since I've had the displeasure of debating atheists. They always want to tell you things like "atheism is a lack of belief", then they proceed to tell you what they think about your beliefs, or what they think you think. But this new one that says atheism doesnt teach anything strains credibility. Atheists are hardly impartial observers.

 

[watsup]

The Judge had a difficult job and did it well, his role is to ensure the law is being applied though not to dictate what is and is not science, what is and is not truth, his decision is based on the prevailing laws not his own definitions of science, truth etc.

Questioning established doctrine, questioning unquestionable truths is what Galileo did and for that he fell under the hammer of the law, the Catholic hierarchy were wrong to insist their world view was absolute unquestionable truth and likewise those who regard evolution in the same manner.

I'm "fighting" (if this is the term you want to use) people in this forum and thread who regard it as fundamentally wrong to question evolution, to exhibit skepticism about some of the unscientific claims inherent within evolution, that's my position in this thread.

Dogma must be challenged, officialdom defining truth must be resisted, the freedom to question and express skepticism must be defended.

You continue to falsely attribute the defense of evolution as somehow being the same as the Catholic Church condemning Galileo’s astronomy. But you have it exactly backwards. It is those who support the clear case that evolution is the manner in which life has come to its present form on this planet who are the equivalent of Galileo and it is YOU who is the equivalent of the Catholic Church in trying to stop solid science. It’s projection every single time you say it.

 

[watsup]

Dogma must be challenged, officialdom defining truth must be resisted, the freedom to question and express skepticism must be defended.

There is not a single respondent saying that skepticism is not valid IN SOME CASES, but to claim that it should be done just for the sake of being done is par to extremism. Solid science must be accepted, or there is no reason to do science and it can’t move forward. Evolution Is solid science. To continue to claim otherwise is tilting at IMAGINARY windmills.

 

[watsup]

I'm not lost, your definition just sucks, which has been intuitively obvious to me since I've had the displeasure of debating atheists. They always want to tell you things like "atheism is a lack of belief", then they proceed to tell you what they think about your beliefs, or what they think you think. But this new one that says atheism doesnt teach anything strains credibility. Atheists are hardly impartial observers.

Oh those terrible atheists! It is such a displeasure to debate them! And yet I obsessively co to use to do so!

*L*

 

[rahl]

Selecting one specific definition of "atheism" from among several available cannot constitute a refutation Rahl, because you could have easily chosen some other definition and then you'd have actually endorsed me.

A refutation it would be if there were not numerous definitions for "atheism" and if there were not numerous atheists each describing what atheism means, but there are numerous definitions and there are many atheist opinions.

For this reason your counter argument is at best a rebuttal and most certainly not a refutation.

refuted this already. The definition of atheism precludes it from "teaching", as you claimed. You were wrong, and have been proven so.

 

[rahl]

I'm not lost, your definition just sucks, which has been intuitively obvious to me since I've had the displeasure of debating atheists.

It isn't my definition. It's THE definition. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I don't really give a shit if you like it or not.

They always want to tell you things like "atheism is a lack of belief", then they proceed to tell you what they think about your beliefs, or what they think you think. But this new one that says atheism doesnt teach anything strains credibility. Atheists are hardly impartial observers.

atheism, by definition, does not and can not teach anything.

 

[zyzygy]

gboisjo said:
BS, protect the church from the state. The founding fathers weren't far removed from Europe, they were well aware of the damage the intrusion the of church
had on the state thus the separation of church and state.

Many early immigrants traveled to North America to avoid religious persecution in their homelands, whether based on a different denomination, religion or sect. Some immigrants came from England after the English Civil War and the rise of Protestant dissenting sects in England. Others fled Protestant Catholic religious conflicts in France and Germany.

These early settlers were the the beginning of the end of Religious intrusion into government.

All one has to do is look at theocracies like Iran to know what it is that we don't want.


From the time the settlers first stepped foot in North America until now the trend has been less religion and more atheism. "they" speaks to some who's
religious condition was not reversible, the brainwashing would take a few generations to lessen.

William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, two Quakers who came from England in 1656 to escape religious persecution, are executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. The two had violated a law passed by the Massachusetts General Court the year before, banning Quakers from the colony under penalty of death.

Quakers executed for religious beliefs

William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, two Quakers who came from England in 1656 to escape religious persecution, are executed in the Massachusetts Bay

www.history.com