PROOF that Evolution is a Myth

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by evman150

A "queue" is a line. For somebody with that incredibly annoying signature, you should at least know the difference between a "queue" and a "cue". Truly as well, fwiw.

Apparently you can't read my signature then. It says, "I am anti txt tlk." Not "I'm a spelling Nazi and claim to be perfect." For someone that seems so anal about things like that, perhaps you should stop and read before you type, eh?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That sort of goes in the opposite direction of how athiests think.

really? maybe i've just run into "bad" athiests then. or maybe its just the ones that push their beliefs on others that are somewhat misguided (like a bunch of christians i know). but i personally know several athiests that say since science has some explanation for things and they haven't experienced god that god doesn't/can't exist.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Apparently you can't read my signature then. It says, "I am anti txt tlk." Not "I'm a spelling Nazi and claim to be perfect." For someone that seems so anal about things like that, perhaps you should stop and read before you type, eh?

It's still a gross error and should be corrected anyway, but your point stands.

I suppose your mistake is better than using "que" for both (or either) meanings. "Que" isn't even a word and it's sad how often you see it on internet message boards.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think I am missing the point, because I don't recall the library being destroyed because the science contained within was somehow challenging religion at the time.

It was destroyed no less than 4 times, and the last (the Muslim conquest of Eqypt), was the only one that could be considered having to do with religion. But even that time, it had more to do with power than religous protectionism. Nothing I have ever read would indicate that it did. You might recall that the Muslim world was in fact a source for scientific output during the Dark Ages of Europe. Their religon was not threatened by science at all during that period.

Ya when I was typing my post out I realized it followed only very loosely what I was quoting. But after typing it all out I didn't feel like deleting it and I decided to post it.

I realize it was not religion directly that led to the destruction of the library, but the destruction sure was an impetus for religion and "it" took full advantage, turning the western world into a theistic "hell" for a thousand years.

My main point is, if the GL was not destroyed, we would most likely be 1000 years ahead of where we are today technologically and societally.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by evman150

It's still a gross error and should be corrected anyway, but your point stands.

I suppose your mistake is better than using "que" for both (or either) meanings. "Que" isn't even a word and it's sad how often you see it on internet message boards.

What's the point in correcting it now when you've quoted it? Won't change the quote. And you're right... I almost wrote que, which isn't a word, which is why I changed it. Problem is I work in call centre, so queue is the cue I use most often. Whatever.

[FurnaceFace]

Pssst Firefly, hit him with the "que is a word in French, Spanish, and other languages" play. That'll get him. ;-)

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Pssst Firefly, hit him with the "que is a word in French, Spanish, and other languages" play. That'll get him. ;-)

But then the sentence doesn't make sense. I'd rather use the wrong version of a word than start throwing in other languages... then I'd just confuse myself.

And I'd also like to add, OT, that every time I spell the word 'just' I have to go back and edit it because I've spelled it jsut. That drives me nuts.

[photon]

Originally Posted by evman150

This is why they shouldn't have to go to churches.

Here's a statement that sounds incredibly harsh at first blush but is absolutely true:

Indoctrination of children is tantamount to intellectual rape.

It is my belief that the only things that should be "indoctrinated" into children are skepticm and free thought. Doubt everything and make up your own mind.

The thing is though the very act of parenting is indoctrination.. every virtue and flaw is passed on to the children. As a parent I worry all the time about what flaws I am inadvertantly teaching and what virtues I am not modeling.

For every parent that teaches their child to value reason, there's another that teaches hatred of those below them.

In practical terms, outside of rounding up all the children and putting them in education facilities so they're all taught "properly" (or who even gets to decide that), how can you even do that?

I guess like you said limiting churchgoing to the age of majority might be a method, but church is so intertwined with culture and history it would never happpen.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Nope, in this case it's majority, and history.
Who knows, when one day the Muslim population reaches a size that it can support a school system almost equal in size to the Catholic system (the Catholic system in Calgary is ~ 45% the size of the Public system), then they may be successful in getting their own check box. And if they do good for them.

Actually, I believe the only reason there is a separate Catholic system stems from when Alberta became a province. Quebec wouldn't vote to allow Alberta into Canada unless we had a separate Catholic school system mandated in our constitution. Ironically, Quebec has now gone totally secular. So I doubt if any other religions will get their own publicly funded school systems, regardless of numbers.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Given so many conflicts that religion causes in this world, even the staunchest secularists need a good religious education in order to conduct a proper dialogue and argue their side.

I have to agree. The thing is that both sides, in fact more than just both, since there are so many sides, get far to emotional about the issue and act as if they've forgotten their brain at home.

The issue isn't simple, nor is it really new. We've had hundreds of years of conflict of growing secularism (and science) versus religion. And even a longer history of religion versus religion (which pre-dates all the monotheism (belief in one God). Understanding the fundamentals of all these conflicts is essential to being able to argue your point - but also gaining tolerance of others.

Despite my lack of belief in God, one of my favorite hobbys is following/reading about the early Christian church. It's fascinating, and can teach us a lot about human behaviour, and the power of humans to corrupt and change anything for small personal gains, from the bible to the words of Jesus and even science.

And nothing seems to stir the pot like the threat of the end of something as fundamental as your belief system. I think that the American evangelicals who are on the extreme fringe (because I believe that most don't act out like those in the videos, nor do they share those views) are terrified of the challenge of modern America since it is largely secular and consumer driven and doesn’t care much about God, not does God play a major part of their life.

They feel threatened and backed into a corner and have mobilized their constituents to challenge the government, the freedoms and the sciences of the mainstream. In fact, they even attack other Christians. So, expect the unexpected from the lion backed into a cage and fighting for survival. (though I don't think they are really threatened, but I think they think they are)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But I'm sure not all killings are religiously based... Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that most murders in Canada are likely not based on religion at all. I digress though, I do agree that it's frustrating to see people use religion as an excuse to kill.

I wasn't talking about Canada. Luckily we don't have the problem here.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I wasn't talking about Canada. Luckily we don't have the problem here.

Most of the US doesn't either. Not sure if you weren't infering that or not, but I thought I'd reply if you were anyway. Its just a small area in the Southeast that causes a lot of problems for the rest. Its like how we have "100 Huntley Street" et al. up here, but that doesn't make this the mecca of Evangelical BS.

This indoctrination = Intellectual Rape allegation from another poster is disgusting. If that's true, telling a child not to steal or bully is intellectual rape, since it indoctrinates a child into the parents way of thinking, even if its not in the child's best interest. What would you recommend, tossing our young into the forest and letting them raise themselves?

As for a less ridiculous allegation of catholic schools = indoctrination factories... I don't see it. I was there, and frankly, became less religious as I went through. I can count on one hand the amount of people who became more religious from school. Odds are very good they had a very strong religious upbringing outside of school, and would have had this even if they went to public school. Parents teach their children what they feel is right, modern liberal christianity teaches that it is wrong to force it on anybody. (of course, this is likely a result of learning bad lessons and government influence, but thats the way it is)

You see, when you teach the faith, you also inherently teach the flaws, directly or indirectly, and those who choose to be free thinkers will take that on their own. Some people obviously do indoctrinate their children (mormons, jehovahs, etc.), and sell them bull stories about Joseph Smith and magic plates, or peanut butter jars of no evolution... but when it comes to mainstream christianity, its pretty liberal... it had to become that, since after WW2, people refused to listen to fire and brimstone rhetoric. Hence, Vatican II was born, and it taught tolerance and greater openmindedness. They decided that the Bible is not to be taken literally, since "good catholic scientists had proven how God created man" and this was not creation.

The whole point of the catholic faith (as well as Lutheran, Anglican, United, etc.) is that its core beliefs and values are self-evident and present in all people deep down, and if you don't want to be a part of their religion, sure... no one is going to come knocking on your door, or even attempting to coerce a young child that they will go to hell if they don't adhere to catholic dogma.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I have not said that we should ask the children which deity (if any) they believe in, and then educate them thusly. Obviously the children are not in a place to make that decision. What I am saying is that we should put them in a school that doesn't advocate religious views either way. Then they can make up their mind when have the cognitive ability.

But aren't they better able to make a decision if they are educated on this deity or deities they are supposed to accept or reject?

At that young age, the typical conclusion is that they are at public/catholic/christian/muslim/private school because their parents made them... just like bedtimes, food choices, etc. When they become older, with a more sophisicated cognitive mind, they begin to challenge all these things, or accept them. How many people in their teenage years agreed with everything their parents taught them?

I'd guess next to no one. Part of growing up is realizing your parents are (most likely) excellent people, but also are fallible. Children believe their parents are 10 feet tall and bulletproof... adolescence proves to them they aren't. Many when they approach their adulthood,get to know their parents on a more personal level, almost like friends, hearing about the stupid things they did, etc. Some of what they believe in, and what they taught you is wrong, or rather, does not fit who you are. How many of you have conservative parents, but find themselves firmly left of centre? I grew up in a conservative, European based household with moderate religious overtones. I turned out with much of that, but a lot I learned on my own through experience and knowledge. I find myself defending people's right to religion, and extol the virtues that a moderate religious upbringing can have... but I'm far from religious. My children will go to Catholic School, because I'm confident that my offspring will be at least as smart as me, and separate truth from fiction on their own. I think my children deserve to learn about the religion of their ancestors and make their own call.

In our catholic schools, we were taught that an open and free mind is the greatest gift... and that simply falling in line is a horrible way to live. Very often we were told that our beliefs have holes in them, and that one can either have faith in what we have, or challenge it and go own path.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This indoctrination = Intellectual Rape allegation from another poster is disgusting.

The funniest is when people are indoctrinated to hate particular religions, and they don't even realize it. And I say indoctrinated, because much of what they say is verbatim from television and the media (which usually only reports on negatives).

Listening to the broad statements thrown around like;

"Religion is bad because it is responsible for [insert whatever]."

... is like saying;

"Philosophy is evil, because [insert bad person] used philosophy to come up [insert bad event]."

[Jayems]

[AC]

Originally Posted by evman150

Ever heard of the Great Library? We lost out on 1000(+) years of free thought and technological progress because of its loss and the corresponding dive into the dark ages. Free thought was destroyed along with the library and religion was allowed to take hold. For 1000 years humanity accomplished almost nothing. Can you imagine if the calculus was invented 1000 years before Newton and Leibniz? The steam engine? The industrial revolution? The propogation of free thought? Instead we wasted time on the ignorance of religion, witch hunts and sacrificial killings.

Religion is the most major impediment to science there is. Noting a number of theistic scientists is no more to the point than pointing out the few that exist now.

I thought I'd post this excerpt from David Mill's book Athesit Universe.
He clearly has his own view, but his points fit in quite well with your post. It's a good read, and I quite enjoyed the book.

"The Christian Church has fought bitterly throughout its history - and is still fighting today - to impede scientific progress. Galileo, remember, was nearly put to death by the Church for constructing his telescope and discovering the moons of Jupiter. For centuries, moreover, the Church forbade the dissection of a human cadaver, calling it "a desecration of the temple of the Holy Ghost." Medical research was thereby stalled for almost a thousand years. It is no coincidence, therefore, that Christianity's longest period of sustained growth and influence occurred during what historians refer to as The Dark Ages.

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians made amazing scientific discoveries and wrote detailed scientific analyses that the Christian Church later destroyed and suppressed for centuries. A mob of religious zealots deliberately burned the greatest library of the ancient world, at Alexandria, Egypt. And it was not until Renaissance scholars emancipated Europe from religious shackles that these scientific principles were rediscovered 1500 years later.

Fifteen-hundred years of progress were therefore stifled by the Christian Church. Were it not for religious persecution and oppression of science, mankind might have landed on the moon in the year 650AD. Cancer may ahve been eradicated forever by the year 800AD. And heart disease may, today, be unknown. But Christianity put into deep hibernation Greek and Egyptian scientific gains of the past.

Historically, the Church fought venomously against each scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a "gift from God to mankind." The Catholic hierarchy even opposed the invention of the printing press because copies of Scripture could be easily mass produced and placed in the hands of those who might misinterpret or criticize "God's Word." Before the printing press, Scripture had been read and deciphered only by Catholic priests.

The Church angrily denounced the introduction of medicines, antibiotics, anesthesia, surgery, blood transfusions, birth control, transplants, in vitro fertilization, and most forms of pain killers. Supposedly, these scientific tools interfered with nature and were therefore against God's will. Today, the Church is fighting cloning technology and genetic engineering. But when cloning laboratories provide an unlimited supply of trasnplant tissue for dying children, and when genetic engineering cures all forms of cancer, Church leaders will once again forget their initial opposition and hail these achievements as evidence of God's love for mankind. Today, science is prevailing, but throughout most of recorded history, religion strangled scientific inquiry and often tortured and executed those who advocated the scientific method."

[AC]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It'd be nice, but I doubt it.

The more I learn about religions, the crazier I think they are. The Christian myth of creation, the reason for the rift between Shias and Sunnis, the incredible story behind Mormonism, the wild stories in the old testament... all this stuff just blows my mind.

The more I know about it, the less tolerant I become, I'm afraid.

This is quite true for myself as well.

My atheism specifically came about because I attended a Christian private school for several years. Since then, the more I learn (and I am quite fascinated by different religious doctrines and believes), the more adamant I become in regards to my atheism.

[evman150]

This indoctrination = Intellectual Rape allegation from another poster is disgusting. If that's true, telling a child not to steal or bully is intellectual rape, since it indoctrinates a child into the parents way of thinking, even if its not in the child's best interest. What would you recommend, tossing our young into the forest and letting them raise themselves?


Indoctrinate: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments; to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.

"Don't steal because it is the law not to", is a whole lot different than "don't have sex because you will go to hell".

"Treat others with respect if you want to be respected yourself" is a lot different than "be kind to others [except blacks, gays, women, ######s, midgets and other blasphemies] or god will punish you".

Maybe it's just my view on this, but morals are not (should not?) be indoctrinated into you. They are just part of being a good person. Follow the law, be kind to others. Either do it or don't do it. But don't just do it because something is going to happen to you if you don't. Do it because you believe it is the right thing to do.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Please read posts before before interjecting your anti-religious bent. Heck, I'm arguing your side that theological degrees are useless in these areas and that people who claim to be authorities on scientific matters hiding behind a doctorate in front of their name should be made to indicate what their credentials really represent.

BTW, every Ivy League school in the United States has religious studies doctorates. Harvard even has a divinity school. You seem to misunderstand the difference between a disapassionate/objective study of religion and theology in general versus that of ministering, prosetylizing, or apologetics. Theological degrees however, have their own merit as you fail to recognize that religion, culture, society, politics, and history are intertwined and you can't study those things without understanding the theological basis of those religious which have been a fundamental force of influence in civilization.

I'm just saying a guy with a theology degree should not be posing as an authority on matters of science to his captive audience without informing them of that fact. It's decieving and unethical. It's like getting a botonist to explain the engineering in your car.

well dog if you read MY post youll find I wasnt bashing you either...I was simply commenting in the same vein as you were. This is after all a "message board"..there is no possible way to read facial expressions.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think that's the fundamental thing with a lot of secularists/atheists. They are really pissed off that in their opinion, so much of the human race is wasting their time.

LOL...Are we supposed to take this comment as coming from a theistic or atheistic point of view?
I dont find the human race is wasting my time at all, quite the opposite to be honest. I live each and every day as though it was my last, to the best of my ability. Ill bet you fundamentalists wish they could hop off the world right now and head to their valhalla in the sky!