The dumbing down of America continues...

[MarchHare]

Granted, but isn't that going down the slippery slope against the freedom of expression. Don't take your religion out of your house and into public. Don't parade your sexuality.

What I'm saying is that Christians won't receive any opposition at all from non-believers if they keep their religious views private. If they do bring them into the public sphere, it's perfectly fair and just that they would be debated by atheists. Likewise, when someone like Dawkins publishes a new book, I fully expect those who disagree with his conclusions to publicly argue with him.

There's a stark difference between public debate and persecution, though. Your previous posts implied that Christians were being persecuted by non-believers, and that, quite simply, is not true.

On the school thing, in Canada you have a choice of schools so you can send your kid to a christian school or a Muslim school. Or are you saying that overall we should legislate the teaching of bible studies out of any school and deny people from making a choice based on thier own beliefs?

Publicly-funded schools should only teach a secular, non-religious curriculum. I have no problem with the subject of religion being taught in the context of a history or social studies class, but teaching specific religious views has no place in a public school. On the other hand, I fully support the right of private schools, church-run Sunday schools, or home schooled students to be taught whatever religious beliefs they wish to teach. It's only when taxpayer money is involved that I take exception.

As I've said in previous posts, I'm on board with that, but again now your talking about that whole slippery slope debate again. Can you really outright deny or ban a person his religious views no matter how extreme. Do we as individuals in a free state have the right to condemn someone for believe too hard. Now of course we need to seperate out extremist from violent extremism, but thats the only place where society as a group has a right to interject its majority beliefs.

I'm certainly not proposing that any religious view be outright banned. I don't think any atheist here is taking that position. I fully support the statute in the Charter pertaining to freedom of religion. Canadian citizens are (and should be) free to practice and hold any religous beliefs they want. Once again, I only take exception when religious groups attempt to use their influence to force their beliefs on everyone else, such as altering the law to confirm with their views or teaching their beliefs in a public school.

Its not a matter of denial, its a matter of democracy isn't it. If the majority of voters don't feel that a person is suitable or jives with societies beliefs then he's not going to win an election. Or are we going to have to start appointing leaders based upon an even representation of thier belief systems, and if so isn't that subverting democracy itself.

Oh, I realize it's a matter of democracy and that there isn't any law that denies an atheist the right to be elected to office, but I was using that example to counter your argument that Christians are held back from attaining leadership positions. That quite simply is not true, and throughout history it's been the non-believers who have been held back.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But when we talk about religious beliefs, I'm not seeing people who believe in the bible disputing things that are undebatable facts. No one is trying to debate the laws of gravity, or that fire is hot, or that the combination of sperm and egg makes babies, there's no debate on that. But when people start debating religion, they tend to believe that people in the book are so ignorant that they don't believe in common proofs (fire hot, man can't fly).

Is creationism a silly premise, maybe to me it is, but to me if I believe in god, then possibly I believe that he kick started the whole chain of events due to the possible randomness of the initiation of life on this planet, and that at the moment, there is no direct proof of intelligent life evolving in our own galactic neighborhood.

Most non-deists would have no problem with someone believing in God kick starting the whole thing, influencing first life and evolution (in such a way that looks totally natural), etc..

That's why I say it's important to define the terms.. when arguing against creationism, it's young earth creationism, the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, that they're arguing against.

Take the whole "earth is the centre of the universe" idea. What if a group of people believed it today? People have a right to believe it if they want, but I also think it's fine if they are scoffed at and questioned for their beliefs. I'm not saying they should be harassed, their freedoms restricted, etc.. but I'd also say I would have no problem if they were denied being a professor of astronomy at a university for example.

The lumping of all people who have deep religious beliefs as extremists is the thing on this board and in society in general is what I have problems with, and it goes without saying that people with extreme religious views that don't respect people who don't share that viewpoint falls into the same problem area for me.

There's a difference between not respecting the viewpoint and not respecting the person. And again that's why it's good to first define what people mean when they say "I believe God created everything", because that can mean a lot of different things. But I think most atheists and the like are very respectful of others.. until they demonstrate being willfully ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, etc..

[Azure]

Spiritual people inspire me...religious people scare me.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why is it that atheists try to force thier views on people with religion, who want nothing to do with that debate. That includes trying to convert agnostics over to become complete atheists.

Why waste the time and energy trying to convince or convert someone who dosen't want to be convinced or converted?

I know you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, but the fact is quite on the contrary Captain. I think atheists do very little of what you suggest and only take action when someone tries to force their religious beliefs on them. Frankly, I don't care if you want worship the Easter Bunny, as long as you do so in the privacy of your own home or church. Don't thrust your beliefs of a supernatural entity on people and not expected to get a good bitch slapping for it.

You know, its kind of funny, but there have been more sightings and physical proof of UFOs, EBEs, and visitations from intersteller vehicles than there has been for any religion, yet the people that come forward with this proof are considered mentally unstable and not credible. How can one group of people, that has seen or experienced something (verifiable) be chastized for their beliefs, and a group that believes in something with zero evidence to support it, be considered as normal and the bedrock of our society? Very strange.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Spiritual people inspire me...religious people scare me.

[Azure]

Physical proof Lanny?

You cannot expect a religious belief to proven by factual evidence.

[photon]

Oh, and in the "earth is the centre of the universe" idea, what if that was being taught by parents to their children? Is that ok?

I don't think we (meaning society) can restrict that. We can't put bugs in their homes.

But through education, popular culture, etc I think we can do a better job of promoting critical thinking and such.

So when the kids that were taught that the earth is the centre of the universe, they'll get exposed to the truth enough that they'll change their minds.

Because I think having a bunch of people that believe the earth is the centre of the universe does real harm to society.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Granted, and the bible was also written by many different men over a large number of generations, and again its a document written on the premise of divine intervention. In other words, god didn't sit there and dictate to these men, but inspired them to write about thier interpretation of events that occured around them in thier own manly words.

It was also overseen and kept by flawed men who had political agenda's at the time of thier passages.

Change People/Human Beings to MEN and its a little more accurate....

[photon]

Do not derail this thread into an aliens visitation thread, if you need start a new thread.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Do not derail this thread into an aliens visitation thread, if you need start a new thread.

Yes sir...that is why I edited my post.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I know you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, but the fact is quite on the contrary Captain. I think atheists do very little of what you suggest and only take action when someone tries to force their religious beliefs on them. Frankly, I don't care if you want worship the Easter Bunny, as long as you do so in the privacy of your own home or church. Don't thrust your beliefs of a supernatural entity on people and not expected to get a good bitch slapping for it.

But aren't you setting a dangerous double standard here, shouldn't you also be stating that people that are athesists should also confine thier opinions to thier homes or too thier areas of congregation? Lets be honest and frank in that both sides spend a great deal of energy trying to promote thier ideas on each other?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You know, its kind of funny, but there have been more sightings and physical proof of UFOs, EBEs, and visitations from intersteller vehicles than there has been for any religion, yet the people that come forward with this proof are considered mentally unstable and not credible. How can one group of people, that has seen or experienced something (verifiable) be chastized for their beliefs, and a group that believes in something with zero evidence to support it, be considered as normal and the bedrock of our society? Very strange.

Personally I don't believe in UFO's visiting earth, or Roswell because I aspire to the marble theory of the universe (if you want to know what they is let me know ). But your right, we tend to write off things that we don't see for ourselves or don't see as a concrete proven with photo's, movies or personal experiences as products of the lunatic fringe. But again this is going back to the heart of this whole debate. Evangalist based Christian's maybe don't believe in evolution, because they don't see the train of evidence as a solid cast in stone thing, and people that don't believe in creationism don't believe it because they believe more in a proven theory of evolution.

[MarchHare]

But aren't you setting a dangerous double standard here, shouldn't you also be stating that people that are athesists should also confine thier opinions to thier homes or too thier areas of congregation? Lets be honest and frank in that both sides spend a great deal of energy trying to promote thier ideas on each other?

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. When we're referring to "the public sphere" what we mean is the government, not "out in public". I don't think any reasonable person wishes to deny the right of a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu or atheist to stand on a soapbox in the town square (or an internet message board ) and express their views. What we take exception to is when a religious group uses their influence to lobby the government to adopt a law based on their beliefs. Some examples of this would be opposition to gay marriage because of passages in the Bible or teaching "intelligent design" in science classes of publicly-funded school. If your church wants to ban gay marriage, that's fine. If your Sunday school wants to teach creationism, that's fine. What's unacceptable is for the government to promote those beliefs and force them on others who don't share them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. When we're referring to "the public sphere" what we mean is the government, not "out in public". I don't think any reasonable person wishes to deny the right of a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu or atheist to stand on a soapbox in the town square (or an internet message board ) and express their views. What we take exception to is when a religious group uses their influence to lobby the government to adopt a law based on their beliefs. Some examples of this would be opposition to gay marriage because of passages in the Bible or teaching "intelligent design" in science classes of publicly-funded school. If your church wants to ban gay marriage, that's fine. If your Sunday school wants to teach creationism, that's fine. What's unacceptable is for the government to promote those beliefs and force them on others who don't share them.

But is a religon based lobby and worse then any type of lobby group whether its cigarette manufacturs or car manufacturers? They all want to influence government to thier own ends.

Would you have the same problem if somebody lobbied the government to ban the teachings of creationism?

[MarchHare]

Would you have the same problem if somebody lobbied the government to ban the teachings of creationism?

Such a lobby isn't necessary, because creationism does not adhere to the scientific method and thus has no place in a science classroom anyway.

I would have a problem if someone lobbied the government to ban the teaching of creationism in private dwellings, though, such as homes and churches.

[Bingo]

The absolute intolerance for those that believe differently about something than yourself in this string is just amazing in my mind.

I could only read two pages of it quickly and then give up.

I grew up in a Catholic family, had my children baptized, they will go to a Catholic school. As I've matured I have changed my belief system both in modernizing my stance on it, and in applying my own take on things.

I really don't have a clue as to what did or didn't happen to begin "life", nor do I profess to know where any of are going if we're going at all when this "life" comes to a close.

But I certainly know that I have a much more open mind and have tolerance to pretty much anyone else when it comes to a differing opinion on these subjects than most in this string.

Really sad actually.

I work with many Atheists and we can talk at length over a few beers about things like this without anyone calling me pathetic, or weak minded or begin sentances with "all religion is ..." as if this person honestly can reach such a point in a discussion.

Wow.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And a thousand years ago people might look back at a book and think its absurb that men traveled to the moon in a small three man capsule in a trip that took more then 10 minutes.

This is really a bad comparitive. I very seriously doubt that this would be the case in a thousand years. More likely, people in the next millenium would think it absurd if some quacks ran around claiming that Buzz Aldron was magically transported to the moon where he had an encounter with the Almighty.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...Whats to say, and playing devils advocate here, that the meteor collisision that killed off the dinosaurs wasn't sent by the maker himself?

Nothing wrong with this, but creationists vehemently reject the notion of mass extinction in this manner. For them, a global flood becomes the keystone for providing the "correct" interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. Given that the creationist's scientific models have been soundly debunked over and over again, the only issue people have is with the incessant insistance that they are still conducting good science.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

People on the whole have the right to believe what they want to believe, and calling them stupid or suicidal or ######ed because they don't fit into your own personal interpretation of the world really reflects a high level of intolerance and ignorance.

...you shouldn't be forced or pressured into adopting someone elses beliefs. Its thinking like that that lead to the acceptance of the inquisition.

This is outside of the pale of the debate. Religious fanatics are free to believe as they wish, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights/freedoms of others. The problem with creationism and the problem with creation science is that creationists have sought to bring their debate into the arena of empirical science where it does not belong. No, this does not mean that anyone wants them eliminated or persecuted as a result. People simply do not want non-science as part of the science cirriculum.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Does it hurt you personally if someone dosen't believe in evolution, not really, and are you prepared to figuratively burn someone at the stake because they don't believe in it (deny them jobs, or respect or a position of leadership), because that goes against everything that we as a society are supposed to believe in.

Sorry about the rant, but a couple of posts in this string really tipped my goat.

The denial of employment because of ones beliefs is not always a matter of unjust persecution. If the university at which I am employed decides to deny a mathematician tenure because of his firm and unyielding belief in creationism, that is their perogative.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Such a lobby isn't necessary, because creationism does not adhere to the scientific method and thus has no place in a science classroom anyway.

I would have a problem if someone lobbied the government to ban the teaching of creationism in private dwellings, though, such as homes and churches.

Sooooo. . . If I don't believe in the validity of the scientific method which is a method created by man, which would throw my belief in evolution out, then I shouldn't have a say in the education system.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not seeing people who believe in the bible disputing things that are undebatable facts. No one is trying to debate the laws of gravity, or that fire is hot, or that the combination of sperm and egg makes babies, there's no debate on that. But when people start debating religion, they tend to believe that people in the book are so ignorant that they don't believe in common proofs (fire hot, man can't fly).

I see religion as a major force that holds back the good works of human kind. And that it has been such a force since it's inception.

It promotes bigotry, falsehoods and has an agenda of ignorance and intellectually lazy ideas. Even having been proven wrong, time and time again, religons continue to say horrible, hateful things.

Other religions are wrong.
Sex is evil.
Science is wrong, god created everything.
Abortion is evil.
Women cannot be senior members of clergy.
Don't question faith, or the existence of god.
Man is superior, certainly not decended from apes.

The lumping of all people who have deep religious beliefs as extremists is the thing on this board and in society in general is what I have problems with, and it goes without saying that people with extreme religious views that don't respect people who don't share that viewpoint falls into the same problem area for me.

I have no problem with people. I see the problem as the institution of religion brainwashing defenseless children into a culture of lies.

You know how most feel about Scientology? That L Ron Hubbard made a few quick bucks and started a cult that is sucking in a lot of weak minded people? That the belief aliens from Xenu are going to come back with volcanoes and crap to scoop up followers is a pretty silly one?

That's how I feel about every religion on earth.

I want the lies and made up stories to stop.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The absolute intolerance for those that believe differently about something than yourself in this string is just amazing in my mind.

I could only read two pages of it quickly and then give up.

I grew up in a Catholic family, had my children baptized, they will go to a Catholic school. As I've matured I have changed my belief system both in modernizing my stance on it, and in applying my own take on things.

I really don't have a clue as to what did or didn't happen to begin "life", nor do I profess to know where any of are going if we're going at all when this "life" comes to a close.

But I certainly know that I have a much more open mind and have tolerance to pretty much anyone else when it comes to a differing opinion on these subjects than most in this string.

Really sad actually.

I work with many Atheists and we can talk at length over a few beers about things like this without anyone calling me pathetic, or weak minded or begin sentances with "all religion is ..." as if this person honestly can reach such a point in a discussion.

Wow.

Thats a good attitude to have and I agree, why does everything have to be set in stone on one side of the line or the other? People will believe whatever they want to, so let them, its their perogative.

Locke.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sooooo. . . If I don't believe in the validity of the scientific method which is a method created by man, which would throw my belief in evolution out, then I shouldn't have a say in the education system.

Do you have a problem with the scientific method other than the fact it was "created by man"? Can you propose a reasonable alternative for scientific discovery?

It may not be perfect, but the scientific method haas been a very effective tool in its nearly 400-year existence. I just don't see any reason to cast it aside.

Now, I do have a problem with insisting that religion must conform perfectly with science; something that creationists are more guilty of than anyone. Religion is largely irrational, and for those of us who are deeply religious, this is not necessarily a negative thing... Stephen Jay Gould and non-overlapping magesterium and all that.