cbs poll on evolution vs. creationism

[Archmonarch]

To an extent, it can be gratifying.  The double standards and hypocrisy I see coming from these boards and elsewhere concerning Christianity is just sickening, though.  Cripes, it makes me want to vomit.  I have yet to attack anybody on this board for being an Atheist.  Absolutely sickening.  But nobody will admit to there being a double standard.  It'd compromise their principles.      Right, Gabs?

 

*sigh*  But then again: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness..."  I guess it's all good in the end. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is my main problem with evangelists. I have no problem with religion or belief of any humane sort, in a vacuum. However, as we all know, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Thus, we must take into consideration other factors.

 

It seems to me that evangelists have no actual desire to convert others, but instead make the effort to validate their own beliefs and basic goodness. It is for this reason that when (I will use Christians as an example, only because they are most numerous) a Christian comes up to a person and says "Repent or, I'm sorry, but you'll have to burn in hell," that others get angry. If you object, well, hey, they're just trying to save your soul. Isnt that a good thing? Arent they helping you by displaying the TRUE path in neon lights? It is this assumed moral superiority that infuriates me. And then when you complain or try to present an equally valid opinion, somehow you are oppressing their rights by not respecting their choice to their beliefs. Do we not have the right to our own, without harassment or the threat of eternal damnation? When has a Jew, Buddhist, Confucianist, Wiccan, Neopagan, etc. ever come up to you and said, "Um, yeah, sorry guy, but," *sucking of teeth* "if you dont convert, you'll spend the entire span of universal existence being tortured because you dont agree with me." Should not the courtesy extend both ways?

 

I do not blame Christianity, or any religion, for the actions of its people, though some do seem deeply rooted in the religious texts of those faiths, as misinterpreted or stretched as they may be. It is as Mothman has said, humanity's fault. Yet is it not then also within humanity's power to fix what they have broken? Why should it be accepted just because it is the way it is now?

 

*knowing* the teachings vs reading/memorising (Planescape Circle of Zerthimon parallel)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh. I was just thinking about this earlier today in relation to the Buddhist concept of termas.

[julianw]

This is my main problem with evangelists. I have no problem with religion or belief of any humane sort, in a vacuum. However, as we all know, nothing occurs in a vacuum. Thus, we must take into consideration other factors.

 

It seems to me that evangelists have no actual desire to convert others, but instead make the effort to validate their own beliefs and basic goodness. It is for this reason that when (I will use Christians as an example, only because they are most numerous) a Christian comes up to a person and says "Repent or, I'm sorry, but you'll have to burn in hell," that others get angry. If you object, well, hey, they're just trying to save your soul. Isnt that a good thing? Arent they helping you by displaying the TRUE path in neon lights? It is this assumed moral superiority that infuriates me. And then when you complain or try to present an equally valid opinion, somehow you are oppressing their rights by not respecting their choice to their beliefs. Do we not have the right to our own, without harassment or the threat of eternal damnation? When has a Jew, Buddhist, Confucianist, Wiccan, Neopagan, etc. ever come up to you and said, "Um, yeah, sorry guy, but," *sucking of teeth* "if you dont convert, you'll spend the entire span of universal existence being tortured because you dont agree with me." Should not the courtesy extend both ways?

Seems like you and Commissar's opinions on evangelists are pretty similar.

 

Judaism is a highly exclusive religion. It's no wonder why Jewish rabbis don't come up to you and tell you to convert. Confucianism is very much cultural-oriented. Confucius's philosophy has touched a larger portion of East Asia, but it spread through culture and not by missionaries. Buddhism spread in similar ways. This is largely due to the fact that both religions do not have a central institution that actively organizes the spread its religion.

 

Now Christianity and Islam on the other hand, both have highly organized institutions of power that direct their followers' actions. It's no wonder both religions had spread much faster throughout history. For Christianity though, the church and even the title Pope was not officially sanctioned by Christ Himself. When Muhammad died, Islam also divided into sects. I will not argue whether these divisions and the institutions and priests emerged as the result are good or bad, but they are at least not designed by Christ or Muhammad for each of their religions. Hence, they are human institutions.

 

Many would cite words like 'you are either with Me or against Me' or 'no one comes to the Father but through Me' to argue that Christ does not give man any choice about the practice of religion. But I would also cite words like 'not all who cry to Me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter heaven, but those who do the will of My Father in heaven' and 'whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is my mother, sister and brother' to argue that Christ does not condemn all non-Christians. As for Muhammad, he did wage war on the pagans to convert them into Islam. First of all, those were uncivilized barbarians who practiced many sinful acts such as burying their first-borns if they were daughters. Secondly, Muhammad did so out of self-defense for they pursued Him and His followers hundreds of miles across the Arabian Desert, seeking to destroy them. Muhammad left the Jewish and Christian tribes alone and only taxed them for protection from enemy tribes. (Do we not also pay taxes to our own governments?) He had always recoganized Moses and Jesus as true prophets from God.

 

As I have stated before, actively preaching one's own religion is appreciated by me because it shows that he/she is sincere about his/her faith and care for others. But if any one ever comes up to you and tells you that 'convert now or you will be eternally tortured because I am right and you are wrong', you can just scoff at them. There is no need to get upset at all. Obviously he/she does not even know his/her own religion. Otherwise, he/she surely would have known how lowly and humble Christ, Muhammad and Buddha have conducted themselves during their lives, and they are the ones who claimed to be the Lord and could never be wrong and here some flawed (as we all are) individuals are telling you with arrogance that they are absolutely right. As I said, scoff at them.

Edited November 9, 2005 by julianw

[Atreides]

The old fire and brimestone method never works. It's insulting.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When taking into accont the span of human history and all the religions that have existed over that period. There is no reason whstsoever to buy into any modern religion since they are little more than new inventoins on an old theme.

 

Personally i wouldnt follow the christian god I just have respect for it and consider it a failed deity who would if it exsted in a job market be replaced. Same goes for all the other so called omnipitants entities too.

 

So if you do want to follow a god , then just create your own it's what humans have been doing from the begining.

 

 

PS if thats less legiable than usual it was typed one handed with my off hand while taking a nintendog for a walk.

[random evil guy]

Kansas go bye-bye!

 

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_...volution_debate

[WITHTEETH]

Kansas Board Definition of Science:

"The state of Kansas would like to adopt a definition of science that simply says science is a systematic method of investigation that uses observation, hypothesis, testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomenon,"

 

 

The rest of the world:

Study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

 

The problem I believe with Kansas' definition is that anything can become logical with a little finesse and forgeting that it can be basaed on false premise. also natural phenomenon sounds a bit mystical, It suggest to me that science can't be taken seriously. What are others opinions of this definition?

 

EDIT: i think Kansas' definition should be labeled under pseudo-science that way when scientists have to actaully do work they know where not to look.

Edited November 9, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Commissar]

That makes me want to cry.

 

Edit: In Dover, however, eight of the nine Republicans who backed the ID push there were up for election; all were beaten by Democrats who disagreed with teaching creationism in public schools.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/09/ev...n.ap/index.html

Edited November 9, 2005 by Commissar

[Blank]

Kansas Board Definition of Science:

"The state of Kansas would like to adopt a definition of science that simply says science is a systematic method of investigation that uses observation, hypothesis, testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomenon,"

 

 

The rest of the world:

Study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

 

The problem I believe with Kansas' definition is that anything can become logical with a little finesse and forgeting that it can be basaed on false premise. also natural phenomenon sounds a bit mystical, It suggest to me that science can't be taken seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think in Kansas' definition, they are merely labeling 'the physical world' as natural phenomenon. IMO both definitions are basically the same.

 

And BTW, can't anything become logical with a little finesse and forgetting

[Commissar]

I think in Kansas' definition, they are merely labeling 'the physical world' as natural phenomenon. IMO both definitions are basically the same.

 

And BTW, can't anything become logical with a little finesse and forgetting 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. The second definition makes it very clear that explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The new Kansas definition allows those explanations to come from anything.

 

I still say somebody ought to sue to get FSM taught.

 

Or we ought to simply kick Kansas out of the union.

[Walsingham]

I'm pleased to see this thread still blooming with cultured debate.

 

I've been wondering recently about the depth of issues which can be brought up in a populist medium, like a game. Do you think thsi could be touched on in an Obs release? And if so, how?

[Commissar]

I'm pleased to see this thread still blooming with cultured debate.

 

I've been wondering recently about the depth of issues which can be brought up in a populist medium, like a game. Do you think thsi could be touched on in an Obs release? And if so, how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I feel like I'm back in class all of a sudden?

[Gabrielle]

[Walsingham]

I'm pleased to see this thread still blooming with cultured debate.

 

I've been wondering recently about the depth of issues which can be brought up in a populist medium, like a game. Do you think thsi could be touched on in an Obs release? And if so, how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I feel like I'm back in class all of a sudden?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry. Far too much time spent training people. :">

[taks]

Thread Pruned ... obviously with the hope that there will be no further derailment ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're a silly dragon, aren't you?

 

taks

[Cantousent]

I'm pleased to see this thread still blooming with cultured debate.

 

I've been wondering recently about the depth of issues which can be brought up in a populist medium, like a game. Do you think thsi could be touched on in an Obs release? And if so, how?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I feel like I'm back in class all of a sudden?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry. Far too much time spent training people. :">

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, don't worry too much. Commissar gets so tied up in these arguments, he might as well be back in a classroom.

[Walsingham]

Ah, don't worry too much.  Commissar gets so tied up in these arguments, he might as well be back in a classroom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I always envisaged these discussions taking place on the hurricane tossed bridge of a pirate ship. Ah well.

[Cantousent]

Well, we do churn the waters from time to time, don't we?

[thepixiesrock]

Well, we do churn the waters from time to time, don't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sir, the men are awaiting orders, sir.

[Guest Cantousent]

Stand down, men. There's a Nor'wester blowin' and I want all hands below decks.

[LoneWolf16]

::sigh:: I see my witty rebuttle to ::cough:: Cantousent was pruned (Thanks Fio ).

 

Anyway, Kansas.........I hate Kansas. Another classic example of people in positions of power who obviously have neither the wit, nor the non-partisan attitude that should be required to occupy them.

 

Just makes me sick. Leave science alone, it's done a much better job of explaining the world around us, and providing real, tangible evidence to back its claims than...some other things I could name.

Edited November 10, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[Walsingham]

Hold on a minute there, buddy. Science without a conscience can provoke evil just as surely as religion. Spot of eugenics, anyone? Religion is at least inescapably tied to morality and conscience even if it can be blinkered.

[WITHTEETH]

Science can be used for evil as well as Algebra.

 

Statistics are evil!

 

"

 

See when Bush famously said "we have to balance science and morals" i think that statement is incorrect because its the equivelant of saying we have to balance algebra and morals. Science is statistics, thats it. You can't balance statistics, unless you plan to cut its progress, which he is successfully doing. He and his "War on science" Theres a war on everything these says aren't there? hohum, I love humanity, i just wish someone would step up and become a better example.

Edited November 10, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[LoneWolf16]

^----Agreed.

 

Never claimed it was, Hammy. Just stating facts

[WITHTEETH]

How would Christians like it if their religion had to be based on positive empirical truths?

 

Scientists don't want their statistics based on logical claims that can't ever be proved.

How about neither impose their will on the other, and we all stay happy

Edited November 10, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Commissar]

Hold on a minute there, buddy. Science without a conscience can provoke evil just as surely as religion. Spot of eugenics, anyone? Religion is at least inescapably tied to morality and conscience even if it can be blinkered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I predict that this particular statement will draw all sorts of fire, and so I'll try and preempt it.

 

Religion is inescapably tied to changing conceptions of morality; numerous individuals in this thread have placed religion itself above reproach, and have demanded that all immorality that has had religion as its root cause in history be relegated to the status of misunderstanding religion. Human failings, not religious ones. If we're to be at all fair, we must do the same with science - nevermind that science is not a dogma, a theology, or even a set of beliefs. If religion is never at fault, neither is science.