Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Thor

No more polite disagreement, this kind of anti science has to end, its not OK to doubt truth because you follow some particular belief system based on 2000 yr old books.

And that 2000 year old book mostly ripoffs quotes from 3000 years earlier, they just replaced the gods with god.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GGG

I keep seeing this arguement come up that athiests are fine wirth moderates but want to bring the debate to the extremists.
But you aren't going to get anywhere with extremists so all that ends up happening is you having the same discussion over and over again with moderates. Anyone who is convinced there is no God by dawkins et all was a likely a moderate anyways so the fight doesn't work. Dawkins also ends up pissing off some moderates which makes them defensive and probably pushes them down the scale

But moderates are the ones we are counting on to be a voice of reason against extremism.

The real reason this rise of atheism has been seen in the last almost 10 years now, especially the last 5, is because of the disturbing trend in the US in the Bush years to move the US more into mixing church/state, the rise of extremism in Islam, and the awareness that if we don't speak up we are guilty of not being in the debate.

Its really consciousness raising that's the main focus here, and to hold all Religions to account the same way we argue and criticize political ideology, economic ideology, and just how bad the Oilers truly are.

Dawkins doesn't state he definitely believes in no God, just that there is no proof of it, so he's 99.9% sure, as am I, its silly to say 100% because I can't be certain Loch Ness or bridge trolls don't really exist either.

While Dawkins definitely pisses off some, at least he's in the discussion now. The deafening silence for the last 2000yrs from the nonbeliever side is finally gone, gone are the days of leaving that to brave philosophers like David Hume, Engels, etc..

We piss of believers even if we are nice, once you open the door to criticize religion you will offend, its because religion has had a long undeserved layer of protection against criticism and now its finally being in parts of the world held to open debate.

We are fortunate in the west to have this freedom, there is certainly a dark shroud over most of the Islamic nations of the world where Atheists hide their non belief for fear of punishment, ridicule, banishment, and even death.

So the debate might seem pointless to you, its still a necessary and important venue for us to speak out.

[Daradon]

^^^ That's exactly the point. Christians (and the world in general) want the moderate Muslims to speak out and tell the fundamentalists in their religion that their actions are not acceptable. So why is it that the moderate Christians can't tell that to the fundamentalists in their religion?

If these people can't do the speaking and acting for their faiths, they can't really get mad at the growing backlash from agnostic and atheist communities that are seeing backwards steps taken in their countries and governments.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think theres a good model for how to view a possible near future society from what we see today, I hate always picking on this point, but that book Society without God reminded me again why Nordic countries are so unique and that even in a very godless Denmark/Sweden people still have a special appreciation for church, for baptisms, confirmations, Priests who are there to talk to during troubles, etc.. And thats from mostly a nation of non believers.

I like this concept leaving religion in culture without a lot of dogmatic belief while still respecting its traditions. I believe in a Christian God and was raised Catholic but I am certainly not wedded to the Dogma of the church. To do it you would start by taking over Christian Holidays almost like the reverse of the Early Chirstinans Christianizing all of the Pagan holidays.

The interesting thing in North America is the resistance to this happening from the athiest side. Christmas is propably the most de-Christianed of the holidays and is on its way to becoming a non-christian holiday. But i find the fight against nativity seens and Christmas trees on public properties to be counter productive to the goal of de-religifying.

The early christians had it right that you steel all of the symbols and make them your own instead of fighting the symbols themselves.

[Thor]

I am not for fighting against Christmas, I'd say using government property for a nativity scene is about the smallest reason to get upset that you could find.

___________________

Anyhow, I forgot to post this earlier, Neil deGrasse Tyson the famous astro physicist goes on a hilarious rant against Intelligent Design called Stupid Design

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg

[cyclone3483]

Darwin believes in God...now

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thor

I am not for fighting against Christmas, I'd say using government property for a nativity scene is about the smallest reason to get upset that you could find.

It wasn't meant to be a criticism of athieism. It was more of a suggestion of how to implement your idea of a secular society embracing religious traditions. I think that people will never be converted out of religion in mass so the best way to seculurize society would be to subvert the religious traditions into secular ones.

As for people still believing in creationism the best bet is to sell people on the concept that God kicked everything off, it works good with Big Bang in that you have an infinitel dense, infinately small piece of matter that has existed until it exploded doesn't work that great with the cyclic universe theory (although you can use that one with the Hindu's).

I think people are much more willing to take small steps. So instead of getting God out of schools you make small changes to allow science to succeed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Darwin believes in God...now

What do you mean by this cryptic remark?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm really beginning to push the bounds of my own thinking in some of my more recent ideas: I think that I may be moving into a place where I believe that religion has run its course, and that is ok. I still believe in God (most of the time), but more and more I am found questioning practically everything I was ever taught about him. Predominantly, those things about religion and about Christianity specifically: Maybe it is time to admit—as a Christian—that the harm that religion has caused has rendered it obsolete. Can the future of religion be an abandonment of it? Is it possible to remain a theist and a Christian, and to reject the sacral institution of the Church?

Don't give up on a "spiritual" life. We could all do well to study the symbols without being burdened by their factuality. I don't like the term "spiritual" (I don't think there are spirits) or "mystic" (sounds like hocus-pocus). I think we can all be "seekers". Why identify ourselves by only one philosophy, when we can obtain wisdom from many?

Carl Sagan said at the start of Cosmos that "we are all made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself".

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Darwin believes in God...now

Have you every tried stand-up? I think you'd be good at it!

[troutman]

Darwin's religious views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...ws_on_religion

In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I've always thought so too. It's not only common sense to make this life the best possible because there is so little proof of an afterlife, but also it's actually our responsibility to make this world better for our neighbours and the generations that come after us. When you stop banking on the afterlife, this hits home a lot harder.

Each of us are part of an unbroken chain of ancestors, going back millions of years. Every one of our ancestors survived long enough to have children. We honor their struggle to survive by passing on the torch of life. It is a great gift to be alive.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by troutman

Each of us are part of an unbroken chain of ancestors, going back millions of years. Every one of our ancestors survived long enough to have children. We honor their struggle to survive by passing on the torch of life. It is a great gift to be alive.

Right on Brother trout!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think you're talking the dogmatic sort of teaching but IMO i want my kids taught creationism. And evolution. And why people think and beleive in each.

Yes, there's a difference between teaching creationism and teaching about creationism. I think a comparative religions class that includes the creation myths of various religions and cultures would be a very interesting class.

Ad evolution of course in the science classroom.

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

That millions of people belive each means way more in my mind then whether one r the other is right. Both need to be learned and understood. I want them challengeing both ideas, and not accepting anyone's evangelical truth, the Church's or Science's.

Not quite sure what you mean here. I think it's important to teach kids the idea of the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity, and studying why people reject science is also something interesting to study.

Challenging ideas (being a skeptic) is necessary, though I definitely wouldn't use the term "evangelical truth" to describe science, "provisional empirical truth" is maybe better, though the word truth really doesn't have a place in science. So it'd be more teaching that creationism is accepted through faith despite evidence, and evolution is accepted provisionally as accurate because of evidence.

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

Darwin believes in God...now

Darwin believed in God most if not all his life. Do you have a point?

[SportsJunky]

You guys must be awesome at partys! =)

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don't give up on a "spiritual" life. We could all do well to study the symbols without being burdened by their factuality. I don't like the term "spiritual" (I don't think there are spirits) or "mystic" (sounds like hocus-pocus). I think we can all be "seekers". Why identify ourselves by only one philosophy, when we can obtain wisdom from many?

Carl Sagan said at the start of Cosmos that "we are all made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself".

Or in the words of Joni Mitchell....

We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden


And she beat him to it too!!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine; I think largely because of my close connection to many of its proponents. I read what I can about the subject, and I also spend (probably too much time) perusing the internet for additional resources. I don't know if this has been posted before, but I recently found a very, very good critique of creationism on youtube: It is a series of fifteen ten-minute videos produced by a geosciences major at the University of Texas who calls himself "AronRa". his attack is positively withering, and should be considered essential viewing for anyone who ever doubted the strength of Darwin's theory.

I just wanted to post that I just watched all fifteen of these videos--and I have to say, these are in my view required material for anyone who wants to have a discussion about Creationism, Evolution and Theism. This guy knows his stuff, and the videos are fast-paced and persuasive. So--thanks for posting those, Text--I'll be sending them around to friends and family.

On the topic... I guess I think the important thing for a discussion like this is that we agree to some ground rules, in the sense that we have to use the terms of the debate consistently.

1. A belief in Evolution does not necessarily contradict the existence of god. It can't, because like any scientific theory it can only make theories about what is empirically testable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that science believes nothing one way or another about the existence of God.
2. Belief in God does not necessarily contradict evolution. In fact, many evolutionary scientists (though certainly not all) are Christians.
3. What is at issue here is not "religion" but "creationism," which is a narrower subset of belief. Evolution and creationism are only at odds where creationism seeks to make predictions about the empirical universe that turn out to be wrong. This is an important point. If "creationism" made correct predictions, or if it were scientific, there would be no conflict--it would merely cause a reconsideration of existing paradigms to account for the novel data. The conflict only arises because people insist on believing this stuff in spite of the fact that the evidence contradicts them.
4. This is because evolution is actually not a belief, unlike creationism. It's not an "ism" at all--it's not a doctrine, it's not a religion, in fact (as AronRa convincingly argues) it's in a way the reverse of these things. Creationism rests on belief, science rejects belief as a source of truth in favour of empiricism.
5. The reason this is an important question when it comes to formal public policies and educational curricula is because in spite of creationists' attempt to make of their fringe ideology a mainstream belief system, "evolution" and "creationism" are not on equal footing at all. They don't belong to the same systems of knowing, and therefore can't explain the same things or even answer the same questions. Teaching creationism in the science classroom is not just a matter of "equal time" for different viewpoints. It's more akin to teaching sorcery in the mathematics classroom; it replaces science with superstition and tells students that they're the same thing. This is not okay--and if it ever comes to pass we should not stand for it as an enlightened nation.

[Dion]

nm

[driveway]

Hydrogen is a colourless, odorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.

[Cheese]

This series that textcritic posted should not go unoticed.
Watch and share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX6...x=0&playnext=1