| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2009 02:58:25 PM · #776 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Come on Paul. I've forgotten more about abiogenesis than you've ever known... :P
The conversation, however, has been had many times on the thread and we don't need to go there. If you don't consider a paragraph on Miller-Urey to be "glossing over", then you got a lot of learning to do at least about this particular subject. RNA-World, Protein-world, clays, etc. Pros and cons of each and all. |
Actually, I was referring to your sentence as the glossing over, not what was written in any textbook -- I guess I was writing in a hurry and not so clear. I still think there's better evidence for life having arisen as a result of undirected natural chemical/physical interactions than there is for it being the result of one or more gods playing with their chemistry sets. (flippancy intended)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
And, regardless if public school teachers say a lesson on ID is optional, doesnt mean the information is correct. Im also glad you brought up the scopes trial... this was another attempt to silence science in the name of religion. Not allowing ID in a classroom is trying to prevent a false science from being taught in a science classroom. |
The thing of it is, they've totally taken religion out of the schools, utterly. And that's not a good thing. You can't, at the very least, call yourself an informed citizen if you have not learned the history and fundamentals of various religions, because these religions, in toto, have been key to shaping all of human history and development up to this point, for better or for worse. |
 Isaac is currently in the middle of the second unit studying Islam in his 7th Grade history class -- the first unit studied more the history and influences, the second seems to be more a discussion of the religious tenets themselves. This is in a Bay Area public middle school ...
I have no problem with teaching about religions in school, but a very real problem with teaching religion in (public) schools.
It seems interesting to me that a lot of parents are opposed to sex education in public schools, on the grounds that teaching "values and morality" should be within the purview of the parents, yet these seem to be the same folks who clamor for prayer and (essentially) religious inculcation in the classroom. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:02:46 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
Originally posted by yanko:
But validating another viewpoint means more than just lip service. It means you don't actively and politically try to superimpose your belief system over another's (ex. gay marriage). Would you agree? |
Where you run into trouble is when you get up against something that is a necessary and required change of societal thought that a religion is completely against in its laws.
The likelihood of gaining tolerance for the fundamental Christians about gay marriage is not good, yet like many of the earlier laws of the Bible, this has been proven to be a shift that will have to happen in order to move on with life and society's changing.
That means there has to be a willingness to change and grow as society does. Just as birth control was something that Catholicism has had to address, so will Christians have to grow and accept gay relationships.
There has to be acceptance and tolerance to inevitable change.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:05:19 PM · #778 |
Perhaps Intelligent Design is the safest way to teach kids Religion in school. It isn't compatible with only the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. It relates to all religions. It is very unifying actually...It's basically a new age way of capturing the new generation's attention, and letting them know that if we were created in God's image and we were intelligently designed, then we ourselves are intelligent designers, capable of great things.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 15:07:38. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:07:46 PM · #779 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've gotten to know you enough Louis that it doesn't bother me as much, but just be aware that some of what Robert is speaking about is the use such strong words as "delusion" and "ludicrous" which you, yourself, have used in your last half dozen posts. It doesn't advance the conversation very well. If there ever is going to be understanding and acceptance between the two camps we all probably need to "stand down" a bit. I'm not saying I'm never guilty of this either and Robert is probably the best example of the proper spirit. |
It's difficult not to be honest. If one honestly and sincerely thinks that supernatural belief is delusional, or that the doctrine of transubstantiation (for example) is ludicrous, is it reasonable not to make that known in a conversation like this? Wouldn't the participants prefer to know that, and react to it accordingly? I suppose this hearkens back to the automatic respect everyone is supposed to give religion and its observance. There seems to be no in-kind respect to non-belief generally. I am, after all, speaking generally, and not about any one individual.
Robert's a fine fellow and I like him very much, but because he's in your camp, more or less, perhaps you don't see that he doesn't always exemplify the proper spirit, whatever that may be ("science Nazis" and so forth).
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:12:41 PM · #780 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Isaac is currently in the middle of the second unit studying Islam in his 7th Grade history class -- the first unit studied more the history and influences, the second seems to be more a discussion of the religious tenets themselves. This is in a Bay Area public middle school ...
I have no problem with teaching about religions in school, but a very real problem with teaching religion in (public) schools. |
As to the first part, that's excellent. It doesn't surprise me that this is happening in the Bay Area.
Regarding the second part, we're in complete agreement :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:13:00 PM · #781 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a hard time reconciling that out of these three good and decent, caring and compassionate men, that two of them are going to burn in Hell. |
It's easiest if you understand that in the Christian's eyes, none of them are "good and decent". Not the Christian. Not the Muslim. Not the atheist. Nobody can "earn" their way into heaven, another way is needed. The less you concentrate on the deeds, the more it may make sense.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 15:15:18. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:14:27 PM · #782 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Robert's a fine fellow and I like him very much, but because he's in your camp, more or less, perhaps you don't see that he doesn't always exemplify the proper spirit, whatever that may be ("science Nazis" and so forth). |
I'll call out fascist behavior wherever I see it. See my use of the term "Bible-thumpers" for a case in point :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:15:57 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I hear ya Robert and I do try hard to listen and understand the other positions as well as know the tenuous nature of my own position. However, at the end of the day, Christianity DOES profess a "it's my way or the highway" creed (at least concerning salvation). There is no getting around it and it is both the religion's strength and what makes it abhorrent to others.
Still, I believe it's possible to "validate" another view while at the same time disagreeing with it. |
Originally posted by yanko:
But validating another viewpoint means more than just lip service. It means you don't actively and politically try to superimpose your belief system over another's (ex. gay marriage). Would you agree? |
Where you run into trouble is when you get up against something that is a necessary and required change of societal thought that a religion is completely against in its laws.
The likelihood of gaining tolerance for the fundamental Christians about gay marriage is not good, yet like many of the earlier laws of the Bible, this has been proven to be a shift that will have to happen in order to move on with life and society's changing.
That means there has to be a willingness to change and grow as society does. Just as birth control was something that Catholicism has had to address, so will Christians have to grow and accept gay relationships.
There has to be acceptance and tolerance to inevitable change. |
That's the thing there is NO change with gay marriage at least not if you're heterosexual. That's what I don't get. If it doesn't affect you then why would you be against it? What people don't understand is this country isn't ruled by your belief system, Jason's or mine. This isn't a contest to see who's belief system can gain power. We already have a belief system in place, it's called the Constitution, not the Bible. It's time we all recognize this so we can move forward as a group and not as individuals.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 15:16:41.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:17:42 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd hope the arbiter would be someone who can put their own personal feelings, beliefs and desires aside and decide on what's best for society as a whole. Do you think this isn't possible? Have you ever had to rule over a dispute? Do you always side with just what benefits you personally? |
Frankly I do not think it's possible because a) EVERYBODY brings their own view to the table and b) "what's best for society" isn't exactly black and white. It's utterly dependent on a). Such a system would be an utter mess in my view.
In Germany it's a crime to deny the holocaust or be a neonazi. I think we all agree that the ends are correct, but would we want such a legal precedent in our own country? I gotta say that would make me somewhat scared. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:37:46 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
I'd hope the arbiter would be someone who can put their own personal feelings, beliefs and desires aside and decide on what's best for society as a whole. Do you think this isn't possible? Have you ever had to rule over a dispute? Do you always side with just what benefits you personally? |
Frankly I do not think it's possible because a) EVERYBODY brings their own view to the table |
In my opinion this is where your worldview limits you. In a sense you have no faith in people. We are all selfish, all of the time, and that can't change. Now I can agree on the first part but not on the other two.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"what's best for society" isn't exactly black and white. It's utterly dependent on a). Such a system would be an utter mess in my view. |
True, what is best for society isn't black and white but I disagree with your conclusion that it depends on a) and that it would be an utter mess. What evidence do you have to support this?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In Germany it's a crime to deny the holocaust or be a neonazi. I think we all agree that the ends are correct, but would we want such a legal precedent in our own country? I gotta say that would make me somewhat scared. |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:50:41 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by yanko:
True, what is best for society isn't black and white but I disagree with your conclusion that it depends on a) and that it would be an utter mess. What evidence do you have to support this?
|
This might get at it tangentially, but do you think it's an accident that Supreme Court Justices Alito and Roberts, appointed by Bush, tend to make conservative judgements while Sotomayor is very likely to make liberal judgements? (I'll allow that she hasn't ruled on much yet, but listening to some of her lines of questions it won't be surprising.)
This is our highest court in the land and was set up by our forefathers to be apolitical. If that was ever true, it currently is not. But even thinking rationally, if you are going to judge something, you are going to need a standard to judge it by. No matter what standard you use, whether it be your own or borrowed, how can it not be somehow partial to a view? As a standard it imposes a viewpoint by definition.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 15:51:41. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 03:53:42 PM · #787 |
Exactly it depends on what is best for mankind as a whole. People believe in what suits them personally, that is selfish. The Earth is facing climate changes. The Earth is polluted and over populated. It is reasonable to believe that the only way to solve these problems is to use science. Doing so is be-littling I agree. Weather control is an example...We can control the weather now, its scary! But... is it necessary. Is it science or bust? Overpopulation can be solved. How? Implementing Anti-gravity technology to travel the stars. If this is perverted science to some, then realize that Gene Roddenberry visualized this a long time ago and all in the name of Utopian living. Good hearted people will not pervert science. Perhaps all this new generation of Indigo kids and autistic math geniuses will prove science isn't necessarily a Nazi thing if the man who controls the science is a gentle and humble person. Terra forming new planets and replicating food with stem cells, growing orgrans, and growing people is scary to me, but Im afraid that it's the only way to keep mankind ticking. (Temporarily) I hope. Reality and truth hurts, but I'm a realist. It seems like we are heading towards the Brave New World scenerio. A movie which they are re-making btw, and I wonder why. Basically, my point is, Science is not wanted, but needed in some cases, but I do acknowledge that Physics is a bitch! Fringe fans will know what Im talking about!
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 04:09:24 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
True, what is best for society isn't black and white but I disagree with your conclusion that it depends on a) and that it would be an utter mess. What evidence do you have to support this?
|
This might get at it tangentially, but do you think it's an accident that Supreme Court Justices Alito and Roberts, appointed by Bush, tend to make conservative judgements while Sotomayor is very likely to make liberal judgements? (I'll allow that she hasn't ruled on much yet, but listening to some of her lines of questions it won't be surprising.) |
No I don't think it's an accident. Unfortunately the executive branch treats the SCOTUS as if it's just another political tool to gain more power for their base.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is our highest court in the land and was set up by our forefathers to be apolitical. If that was ever true, it currently is not. But even thinking rationally, if you are going to judge something, you are going to need a standard to judge it by. No matter what standard you use, whether it be your own or borrowed, how can it not be somehow partial to a view? As a standard it imposes a viewpoint by definition. |
True. As I said earlier we already have a standard (i.e. the Constitution). We just need to use it consistently and without personal bias. I think some judges have been able to do just that but all too often we get lines like the one you quoted (i.e. "I'll know it when I see it") which, in my opinion should be grounds for disbarment.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 06:11:10 PM · #789 |
| I took philosophy of religion class in School. it seemed to cover most of the beliefs. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 06:21:31 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
I took philosophy of religion class in School. it seemed to cover most of the beliefs. |
High School or College?
R. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 07:41:00 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If there is no God and there is no point to our universe, I don't see the point in caring for others. It would be every man for himself. |
Frans de Waal and 'The Age of Empathy' (broadcast earlier today on NPR's Science Friday):
Abstract: Is it human nature to be greedy and selfish? Primatologist Frans de Waal doesn't think so. In his new book "The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons For a Kinder Society" de Waal says empathy and solidarity are our primate heritage. De Waal joins guest host Joe Palca in this hour for look at how he thinks we humans may learn to get along better by looking to the natural world.
Streaming audio, podcast and downloadable mp3 available at above link. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 07:46:11 PM · #792 |
I also heard this morning on NPR that monkeys are able to employ free market forces. Viva la revolution!
You'll forgive me if I roll my eyes a little at some of the primate stuff that gets looked at. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 09:37:47 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll forgive me if I roll my eyes a little at some of the primate stuff that gets looked at. |
Me too ... ;-)
priâ€Â¢mate – noun
1. Ecclesiastical. an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 21:57:15. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 10:48:00 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have a hard time reconciling that out of these three good and decent, caring and compassionate men, that two of them are going to burn in Hell. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's easiest if you understand that in the Christian's eyes, none of them are "good and decent". Not the Christian. Not the Muslim. Not the atheist. Nobody can "earn" their way into heaven, another way is needed. The less you concentrate on the deeds, the more it may make sense. |
It's also easier to discuss this if you stay on topic. I said nothing about deeds....what I am questioning is why EACH of these religions condemns the others because of their way of seeing things, when to an outsider, if they live as good and decent men, it's hard to see any one as better than the others.
It's not about the Christians, Jason, truth be told, I have more than a little disdain for their attitude because of their "My way or the highway" attitude. It's about ANY religion that feels that they're the ones with the only and/or "Right" path to God.
It just doesn't make *any* sense.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2009 11:19:21 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
in the Christian's eyes, none of them are "good and decent". Not the Christian. Not the Muslim. Not the atheist. Nobody can "earn" their way into heaven, another way is needed. |
The claim here is that every product of a perfect creator comes complete with a fatal flaw and a manual that can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Each lovingly crafted piece can only get back to the factory by successfully guessing the correct return policy from among thousands of equally compelling choices... only a handful of which will be available at any given time based upon shipping region. The rest of the lot will be burned. Limit one per customer, offer expires approximately 80 years from shipment date.
Message edited by author 2009-10-23 23:20:26. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 11:36:05 PM · #796 |
| Is heaven a state of mind? Or a physical place? Ponder this for a minute folks. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 11:40:03 PM · #797 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Is heaven a state of mind? Or a physical place? Ponder this for a minute folks. |
Per Achoo's argument against proof, it can't be physical. It can only be an individually imagined utopia. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 11:54:12 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Is heaven a state of mind? Or a physical place? Ponder this for a minute folks. |
Per Achoo's argument against proof, it can't be physical. It can only be an individually imagined utopia. |
Can't argue that. It's because you're probably not wrong and also not right either. Some things are just gray and not black and white. I agree with some of those quantum physicists that man is responsible for shaping and creating his reality. Day by day, week by week; ala the law of attraction too. If it is imagined it could be conceived. To die and go to heaven is possible for me, because I view the belief as subliminal. Jesus spoke in parables quite often too. |
|
|
|
10/23/2009 11:57:43 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
in the Christian's eyes, none of them are "good and decent". Not the Christian. Not the Muslim. Not the atheist. Nobody can "earn" their way into heaven, another way is needed. |
The claim here is that every product of a perfect creator comes complete with a fatal flaw and a manual that can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Each lovingly crafted piece can only get back to the factory by successfully guessing the correct return policy from among thousands of equally compelling choices... only a handful of which will be available at any given time based upon shipping region. The rest of the lot will be burned. Limit one per customer, offer expires approximately 80 years from shipment date. |
I check in on this thread a bit once in a while, and I have to say that you really have a pretty clever metaphor here, Shannon! I think it nicely sums up your thoughts. I'm a Christian, but I appreciate your post. |
|
|
|
10/24/2009 12:42:32 AM · #800 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That means there has to be a willingness to change and grow as society does. Just as birth control was something that Catholicism has had to address, so will Christians have to grow and accept gay relationships. |
Perhaps you should choose a better example other than Catholics and birth control.
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church̢۪s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Catholics are still against birth control.
|
|
