An unexpected religious conversation...

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/23/2009 12:26:37 AM · #726

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm confused NikonJeb. Back on page 24, you clearly think the universe just is. If there is no purpose behind us being here, why would you care about your fellow man? Why would you care who's right and wrong?

What does my believing that the universe just is have to do with me caring about my fellow man?

Why do you care about your fellow man?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/23/2009 12:30:22 AM · #727

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.

Personally, I think the reason *why* we have an ID controversy in the schools at all is because folks are trying to find SOME way of bringing an awareness of God back into the equation, to balance things.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't. I just think, basically, that when the science Nazis close ranks and try to shun every manifestation of the God Experience as akin to lunacy, when they ridicule and belittle believers, tarring them all with the same brush, they are acting more like witch-hunters than enlightened, civilized human beings.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/23/2009 12:37:42 AM · #728

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Most science books gloss over abiogenesis with a quick paragraph about the Miller-Urey experiments and that's it.

Talk about "glossing over" ...

Take a mix of clearly inorganic chemicals, expose them to electric sparks (lightning) for a week or so, and you get amino acids -- given that we don't exactly have a half-billion years or so to let the process develop further, it seems to me that that's not exactly an argument against the possibility (extreme likelihood) that "life" developed due to the natural, undirected action of physical/chemical processes. It's certainly better evidence than any for the postulate that life "requires" some unknowable, indefinable, undetectable "creator" ...

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/23/2009 12:58:36 AM · #729

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I could go on and on about this, but I won't. I just think, basically, that when the science Nazis close ranks and try to shun every manifestation of the God Experience as akin to lunacy, when they ridicule and belittle believers, tarring them all with the same brush, they are acting more like witch-hunters than enlightened, civilized human beings.

Who does this? Do you have any examples?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/23/2009 01:21:42 AM · #730

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...when the science Nazis close ranks and try to shun every manifestation of the God Experience as akin to lunacy, when they ridicule and belittle believers, tarring them all with the same brush, they are acting more like witch-hunters than enlightened, civilized human beings.

People who don't believe in witches aren't going to hunt for them, and you seem to ignore the fact that when religion IS taught, it tends to be exclusively the local favorite rather than an exploration of many beliefs. One could equally bemoan that we don't continue to teach the belief that evil spirits cause disease, comets are to be feared, and human sacrifice prevents natural disasters since they too shaped human history and development. Cultural and historical awareness is a good thing, but religious "teaching" seldom has that goal.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/23/2009 01:31:55 AM · #731

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
I agree scientists have their hands full proving ID.

Agree with whom? No scientists are involved in IDâ�� it's not science.

Right, since it's a pseudoscience which is better left to Cdesign Proponentists.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/23/2009 01:32:19 AM · #732

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most science books gloss over abiogenesis with a quick paragraph about the Miller-Urey experiments and that's it.

Talk about "glossing over" ...

Take a mix of clearly inorganic chemicals, expose them to electric sparks (lightning) for a week or so, and you get amino acids -- given that we don't exactly have a half-billion years or so to let the process develop further, it seems to me that that's not exactly an argument against the possibility (extreme likelihood) that "life" developed due to the natural, undirected action of physical/chemical processes. It's certainly better evidence than any for the postulate that life "requires" some unknowable, indefinable, undetectable "creator" ...

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.

I do take it back about a paragraph though. I dusted off my Biology 101 textbook from Undergrad. It is 1412 pages and the Origin of Life covers exactly three pages if you count the illustrations.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/23/2009 01:33:51 AM · #733

Hear, hear, Bear. I gotta say you have a way with words that often makes me jealous. Well said.

Message edited by author 2009-10-23 01:35:30.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/23/2009 02:17:57 AM · #734

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I dusted off my Biology 101 textbook from Undergrad. It is 1412 pages and the Origin of Life covers exactly three pages if you count the illustrations.

Are there biologists and medical professionals out there not able to do their jobs because they only read three pages on the origin of life in their Biology 101 textbook? Are you a better Allergist/Immunologist because you have?

Message edited by author 2009-10-23 02:29:43.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

10/23/2009 03:21:21 AM · #735

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...when the science Nazis close ranks and try to shun every manifestation of the God Experience as akin to lunacy, when they ridicule and belittle believers, tarring them all with the same brush, they are acting more like witch-hunters than enlightened, civilized human beings.

People who don't believe in witches aren't going to hunt for them, and you seem to ignore the fact that when religion IS taught, it tends to be exclusively the local favorite rather than an exploration of many beliefs. One could equally bemoan that we don't continue to teach the belief that evil spirits cause disease, comets are to be feared, and human sacrifice prevents natural disasters since they too shaped human history and development. Cultural and historical awareness is a good thing, but religious "teaching" seldom has that goal.

I'm with Bear on this one. Yes, I think we SHOULD teach that people believed evil spirits caused disease, that comets are to be feared (well, if they're on a particular trajectory, anyway) and that in the past people did use human sacrifice (and in some places still do) to prevent disasters. In other words, yes, these beliefs and more have indeed shaped human history and development. We should teach these things - not that they should be DONE but that they exist or existed. In some cases it can help with understanding other cultures that exist today as well.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

10/23/2009 03:41:31 AM · #736

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.

Personally, I think the reason *why* we have an ID controversy in the schools at all is because folks are trying to find SOME way of bringing an awareness of God back into the equation, to balance things.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't. I just think, basically, that when the science Nazis close ranks and try to shun every manifestation of the God Experience as akin to lunacy, when they ridicule and belittle believers, tarring them all with the same brush, they are acting more like witch-hunters than enlightened, civilized human beings.

R.

Definitely well said! Bump!

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/23/2009 03:42:31 AM · #737

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Melethia:

What it would have to be is a historic account of the religions of the world......what their basic tenets are, how they acted over the years, and possibly the direction they've taken up to where they are today.

But I'd be willing to bet you anything that there would be no pleasing the religion folks across the board as to what gets taught, and to whom.

It's a fine idea, but I'd bet my last dollar you couldn't possibly develop a curriculum that wouldn't have some group's nose seriously out of joint.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/23/2009 03:50:00 AM · #738

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm confused NikonJeb. Back on page 24, you clearly think the universe just is. If there is no purpose behind us being here, why would you care about your fellow man? Why would you care who's right and wrong?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What does my believing that the universe just is have to do with me caring about my fellow man?

Originally posted by Nullix:

Why do you care about your fellow man?

Wow!

You just won't answer any questions that make it abundantly clear that your faith falls short of the fundamental concepts that we are all God's children and in his eyes, special.

You make snide remarks, have this elitist attitude, and won't come forward with any thoughts on the questions and ideas that many religions struggle with.....

It's funny......I don't think I've ever seen you put forth one single positive post ever in any thread.

What is it that you want from the rest of mankind outside of your view?

I genuinely do not understand what it is that makes your life anything but a struggle against the world you live in.

Message edited by author 2009-10-23 03:55:51.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/23/2009 07:37:02 AM · #739

I had to go back to the original post to get where I want to be. This one's long, and prolly windy by most of y'all's views, but the upshot for you is that I think I'm done with all this now.

The upshot for me is that I'm saddened by what I've discovered about religions, and I pretty much think I need to avoid religious discussion because it breaks my heart at how rotten people are to each other in the name of God.

Originally posted by rossbilly:

I was discussing religious opinions yesterday with a co-worker. He has a college assignment in sociology, to interview someone of a totally different faith / belief. Since he is christian & I'm agnostic, he chose me. Its cool, because we are so vastly different in some ways (skin color, national origin, religious views), yet very alike in others (children, spouses, job).

I was surprised and pleased that any college course would involve asking people to get outside their own belief system to at least find out how another faith works, or in the case of atheism/agnosticism, doesn't....

I would hope that people come away from an experience like that with more questions than answers, but also with an interest in wanting to know more about the people in this life that we share.

The reason that I ask others about their faith is out of a genuine curiosity, and in my view, we are all different in how we arrive at some of the conclusions we reach, but we're all also the same in that we do share this life together. It's our planet, our friends, neighbors, co-workers, and even the guy behind the counter at the convenience store. I guess I'm a PollyAnna, but it just makes no sense to me that on a fundamental level of faith how so much of the population can be thought to be beyond salvage because of differences in the way that we worship.....or don't.

Originally posted by rossbilly:

I jokingly told him that I'd research a hard-core atheist online & use lots of quotes, just to make things interesting in his class (his courses are at a christian college). I thought his reply was very telling, in that he immediately assumed my answers would include satanism. When I replied "But atheists are not satanists", he was totally confused. Even bluntly stating "Atheists don't believe in a god, why would they believe in a devil", he just could not make that connection. We still thought it would be funny to include, but his answer got me to thinking...

One of the saddest things to me about religion is that we never seem to bother to try and understand what, and why, the other person feels the way they do about God......it's just wrong if it's not the way that we do it.

I cannot comprehend that kind of thinking....it just makes no sense to me that God would have it that way either if the basic tenet is that we are all God's children, that what difference does it make how we worship him as long as we're true to the way we understand a relationship with him and that part of that is to be good and decent to our fellow man as we would have him be to us.

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Have you had any interesting 'revelations' during a religious conversation, or learned of some faith based knowledge that surprised you? Feel free to discuss. :)

Well.....I have learned here through the many discussions over the past three years that I'm as confused now as I ever was as to why organized religions are the way they are to the rest of the world. They attempt to validate themselves by doing good works on their terms, yet they turn their backs on all who don't subscribe to their particular brand of God.

The only people I'm truly comfortable around seem to be people of little or no faith, humanists, atheists, and agnostics, because they seem to accept you based on how you treat each other in your personal relationships and don't judge you on how or what you believe.....and in most cases, actually have a genuine interest in what makes you tick.

It's funny.....I believe in God, but I don't subscribe to thousand plus year old writings, by man, and I don't have the gall, or the conviction, to look someone in the eye and tell them they're wrong in how they understand God. I am frankly saddened by the whole condescending attitude that most people of faith have towards people thay feel are either misguided or wrong, and the evidently superior attitude that seems to go along with that.

That God of my understanding certainly doesn't mean it that way. I am absolutely no better than the next guy, and the relationship and understanding I have with God is between me and God, and I sure don't havwe any business telling anyone else thath their relationship with God is misguided or wrong.

I'm fascinated by the science guys, struggling to explain how it all really is, and I learn so much even though I do have a tendency to glaze over after a while. I do believe most of the evidence that I see put forth that talks about how we are and what we can expect to see, but I'm also perfectly content to allow the world to continue on with all its wonder & mystery. I simply do not require an explanation for everything, nor do I have to attribute everything I don't understand to "God's will".

If I haven't learned anything else, I have learned that after all these thousands of years, the human animal is still trying to figure it all out, and I'm not going to find the answers here any more than I have found them elsewhere before here. There is plenty that I just have to accept that will be whether I understand it or not.

I can live with that......8>)

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/23/2009 07:44:40 AM · #740

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I read with great interest your comments in this regard Robert and when I came upon the last paragraph I could not help but look back into my personal history and remember just how the boorish behaviour you allude to in this instance was indeed reflective of the church towards aboriginal peoples and their beliefs.

I sit back and wonder which of these two groups of believers was more enlightened.

Ray

VitaminB

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/23/2009 08:33:05 AM · #741

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I find the perception that science and religion are mutually opposing entities to be disturbing. Science and religion deal with separate things, and can therefore never be 'balanced', but they are not opposed to eachother either. ID is not science, and therefore should not be taught in science classrooms.

Any attempts by scientists to refute or eliminate religion are also erroneous. It is not possible to scientifically prove that their is a creator, nor it is possible to scientifically prove that their isnt. So scientists that attempt to do so are trying to pass on their own atheist or political views through science. That also does not belong in a science class, because it isnt science. Richard Dawkins, for example, is a scientist only when he is doing legitimate experiments. When he is speaking about God, or writing his books, he is doing so as an athiest, not a scientist.

I teach in a catholic school, and my students get educated about the catholic religion, and all the other major religions as well. I know that in many places, education is completely secular. There is, however, always an option for faith based private schools in many areas. Parents that choose to have their child educated in their faith do have the option (albeit, if it is affordable).

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/23/2009 08:34:03 AM · #742

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Come on Paul. I've forgotten more about abiogenesis than you've ever known... :P

Just what are you saying here Doc... that your have a poor memory :O)

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/23/2009 10:09:10 AM · #743

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

There are some who believe Intelligent Design and Evolution do not exclude each other. I believe that is the case. Evolution and Intelligent Design are part of a principle based relationship of Cause and Effect. Evolution is just an automated effect of a cause and if anything should be taught after; not before Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design "AND" Evolution

BS!

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures are roundly rejected by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, Behe's academic home, has published an official statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." In the only court case to consider the legitimacy of "intelligent design" as a scientific theory worthy of inclusion in a public school curriculum, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.

His own school says he's full of it. He's a quack just like any priest, pastor, reverend, mullah, rabbi, bishop, pope or any other religiously empowered loony trying to disprove evolution. It isn't considered a theory anymore by many scientists (biologists mostly). Mostly religious folks call it that now.

Here's a well worded opinion on it.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

merchillio

Nikon D80

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/23/2009 10:45:18 AM · #744

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I had courses just like that in the two last year of high school (I won't even try to find a equivalence between Quebec's school system and yours, but lets say from 16yo to 17yo)

It was a mix between an history course and "culture of the world" course, the most interesting course I ever had. I learned so much about Christianity, judaism, islam, boudhism, hindouism, native american spirituality, and many many others. It was not an attempt to tell wich was right or wrong. It was just an explanation of what people believe, what was the foundation of their religion and how it affects their day to day life.

I learned many many things that make me look at other people in a completely other way. let's take the hijab (muslim veil) for example. At first it was simply a "rule of thumb" that people (especially women) should dress humbly to prevent being attacked for their jewels and rich apparel. Then it got distorded by religious zealots to come to what we see in afghanistan with the burka and that sort of things.

They are trying to make that course mandatory, and many christian parents strongly oppose that project, for fear that their children will convert to another religion if they hear about it.

Louis

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/23/2009 10:54:23 AM · #745

I'm dismayed at all the high-fiving with Bear_Music when his post essentially promotes the supernatural in favour of reason untarnished by what in my mind is a delusion. We should keep religion out of schools if it's not taught in a historical context. Religious observance of any kind does not belong in a place of learning. And quite frankly, the equation with "Nazis" for all things on the opposite side of one's viewpoint is getting old.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/23/2009 11:21:31 AM · #746

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

No, I'm just trying to nail you down to something. Everytime I answer a question, that gives you an opportunity to cut me and my answer down.

I thought the question was a pretty simple and straight forward.

Why do you care about your fellow man?

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

10/23/2009 11:22:57 AM · #747

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I teach in a catholic school, and my students get educated about the catholic religion

Buncha pagan worshipers, the lot o' ya. :-P

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

10/23/2009 11:29:51 AM · #748

Originally posted by Nullix:

Why do you care about your fellow man?

Because we have evolved in to mammals that live in a society, and are capable of empathy. Are you suggesting if you'd never heard your particular version of the "word of god" that you might be inclined to harm your neighbour instead of help him?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/23/2009 11:57:42 AM · #749

Originally posted by Louis:

From what I know about Robert, I highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in the classroom. I also highly doubt he's advocating the teaching of religion in science class (someone above seemed to get that impression). What he is advocating (although he can speak for himself) is to teach philosophy. What have the great thinkers of our history thought about things (including God) and why? I bet he'd want to include great atheist minds as well. But how much of this do our children get? Zip. Even in Undergrad I had one Philosophy 101 class which was mainly a joke. Everything I know about past thinkers has come from self-teaching. This is a travesty, IMO. We may do a barely passable job of teaching the scientific method, but do we teach our kids how to think?

The current status quo would be afraid to teach such things in class because (gasp) the concept of God will be brought up. But we're not supposed to do that! they say. We might get sued! That attitude is doing nothing but ruining our kid's minds.

Message edited by author 2009-10-23 12:00:01.

Louis