Page 11 of 34 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151621 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 675
  1. #201  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    I think earth was created for man to inhabit and does appear to be older than it is - when carbon dating is used to calculate its age.
    Its not just carbon dating. Its uranium-lead dating, tree-rings, snow sedimentation layers, sedimentation layers, the length of time it takes to compete natural processes like erosion etc.

    It's not just by accident that we think the earth is old, its for many many reasons. The only way it could actually be dramatically younger is if we are being intentionally misled.

    Surur
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Atheists are more accountable because they don't blame things on the action of god. They are more inclined to actually do something instead of just hoping their prayers work (which doesn't mean I think atheists are better people by definition - but the opposite certainly isn't true either.
    Just because one may pray for help does not in any way make them incapable of helping themselves, acting on their own, being held accountability for their actions and efforts, etc... A saying comes to mind "Pray as if everything depending on God. Then work as if everything depended on you". To assume that prayer is an end all of personal responsibility and accountability maybe a shallow understanding of what it actually is.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Look at all the atrocities comminted in the name of religion).
    I believe that religion is a tool that can be used for both good and evil, just as anything else in this world. It certainly has been used as an excuse to achieve personal political agendas, greed, accusation of power, etc.... But it has also given millions the spiritual balance in their lives which cannot be denied that has given them moral guidance to be model citizens in their society and within their interactions among other people, in personal, business, and political arenas.

    There is no doubt that my religious aspect of my life has guided me to maintain a high level of honesty in my daily dealings with others....and honesty with myself.

    But as I stated there are also others who have hidden behind the name of religion to get their selfish desires, whether it be political, money, power, land, revenge, etc.... The Crusades and the current Islamic Extremists are two examples of this.

    Personal accountability is often times overlooked when the name of religion is called. And religion taking the fall for the actions of the individuals, even though the religion that their actions were done in be half of always condemned the actions taken by the individuals.

    As for religion and science. I have stated several times that both can co-exist. I posted this earlier, in lengthy detailed explanations in other similar threads, but still think it is a perfect example in general terms of how I believe as well. I had a biology teacher in college say something pretty interesting. He had a strong faith in God and in creation, and a very strong and solid grounding in science. He once said something like this: "By law I have to teach the theories of Darwin and think that it is vital to learn. By faith I believe without a doubt there was a creation by God. I have no doubt that aspects of Darwin's theory are true, i.e. adapting to one's environment for survival. But there are several huge wholes in the theory and many still unanswered questions with it. All I can say is that when I die I cannot wait to see how it all fits together!"
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I had a biology teacher in college say something pretty interesting. He had a strong faith in God and in creation, and a very strong and solid grounding in science. He once said something like this: "By law I have to teach the theories of Darwin and think that it is vital to learn. By faith I believe without a doubt there was a creation by God. I have no doubt that aspects of Darwin's theory are true, i.e. adapting to one's environment for survival. But there are several huge wholes in the theory and many still unanswered questions with it. All I can say is that when I die I cannot wait to see how it all fits together!"
    Its alarming that some-one with his beliefs are supposed to pass on knowledge to others. He is obviously using his position as a podium to spread misinformation. He should keep his religious beliefs out of the class room and concentrate on passing on the various science-based arguments.

    Various areas of science are in flux, e.g. important questions about the development of the universe, but despite not having all the answers one can assign probabilities and levels of certainty to arguments based on how well they mesh with other theories. To use gaps in our current knowledge as an argument for an extremely far our and extremely improbable idea speaks of great bias. He should get out of the classroom and go to his real calling, the church, before he infects even more young minds.

    Surur
  4. #204  
    I am sorry that I did not preclude my statement a little better. This was not what he taught in class. This was a one on one personal and private discussion outside of the school environment. We went to the same church and our conversation was held there. His scientific knowledge was impressive. His faith in his religion was strong. This is only a single example that they can co-exist, nothing more.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/27/2007 at 04:28 AM.
  5. #205  
    How can you say he is infecting young minds? Why not teach them both about evelution and creation and that there minds decide themselves?
    This is why I send my children to a private school, I think children should learn both. I also think they should be aloud to pray in school if they so choose but that is a different thread all together.
  6. #206  
    How can you say he is infecting young minds? Why not teach them both about evelution and creation and that there minds decide themselves?
    Because children are very impressionable and na´ve. Why else would they sincerely believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy? It behooves us to teach them the best current knowledge possible, because they are not capable of making up their own mind.

    Teach religious myths in religious studies. Teach science in science class.

    Surur
  7. #207  
    Do you still believe in Santa Claus?
    You seem pretty inteligent to me. You have made your own choices.
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    Do you still believe in Santa Claus?
    You seem pretty inteligent to me. You have made your own choices.
    Religion has a lot more reinforcement going for it than Santa Claus. It also has greater influence on worldly events. Its not a trivial issue like Santa Claus, thats presumably why laws re church and state are codified in America.

    Surur
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    How can you say he is infecting young minds? Why not teach them both about evelution and creation and that there minds decide themselves?
    This is why I send my children to a private school, I think children should learn both. I also think they should be aloud to pray in school if they so choose but that is a different thread all together.
    I for one, totally agree with this idea; as I said before, I am an atheist (not an agnostic or stranged theist), I was raised a Catholic and studied theology for twelve years in my Catholic school (I was raised in Spain). I can argue that I was perhaps more "indoctrinated" than most of you.

    I was also taught in school to read and to have curiosity, to research and learn all subjects (including science). Was that upbringing that lead me to developed a Free Thinking mind, to question the dogma and eventually to reject it by way of learning and reasoning.

    I strongly feel everyone should be allowed to learn an explore all disciplines of human knowledge, not just the ones we particularly happen to agree with. Every person should be afforded the opportunity to make their own mind regarding religion and everything else. Less than amounts to censorship of ideas.

    Every person (or child) should be free to walk their own path to enlightment, and that can only happen when they are afforded the opportunity to evaluate ALL available ideas and ALL available points of view. Whatever he choses to embrace in the end will be the ultimate expression of his free thinking mind, not the result of a forced-upon believe structure.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  10. #210  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    I for one, totally agree with this idea; as I said before, I am an atheist (not an agnostic or stranged theist), I was raised a Catholic and studied theology for twelve years in my Catholic school (I was raised in Spain). I can argue that I was perhaps more "indoctrinated" than most of you.

    I was also taught in school to read and to have curiosity, to research and learn all subjects (including science). Was that upbringing that lead me to developed a Free Thinking mind, to question the dogma and eventually to reject it by way of learning and reasoning.

    I strongly feel everyone should be allowed to learn an explore all disciplines of human knowledge, not just the ones we particularly happen to agree with. Every person should be afforded the opportunity to make their own mind regarding religion and everything else. Less than amounts to censorship of ideas.

    Every person (or child) should be free to walk their own path to enlightment, and that can only happen when they are afforded the opportunity to evaluate ALL available ideas and ALL available points of view. Whatever he choses to embrace in the end will be the ultimate expression of his free thinking mind, not the result of a forced-upon believe structure.
    Just because you overcame your indoctrination does not mean the majority do, or that this is the right way to go about things.

    Religion should be taught in religious studies, and there they should explain why their creation myth is better than all the other ones. There is no reason why junk science like "intelligent design" should be taught in science class, where it will certainly cause damage to a percentage of children.

    I send my daughter to private school too, but I do it for the safer environment and brilliant educational results, but I would yank her out of there in an instant if I hear them talking about how the eye is too complex to have evolved.

    Surur
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I believe that religion is a tool that can be used for both good and evil, just as anything else in this world. It certainly has been used as an excuse to achieve personal political agendas, greed, accusation of power, etc.... But it has also given millions the spiritual balance in their lives which cannot be denied that has given them moral guidance to be model citizens in their society and within their interactions among other people, in personal, business, and political arenas.
    I agree with your honest appraisal; the original argument implied that because we are atheist we can have no knowledge of right-wrong, morality or ethics, with that one I totally disagree.

    Personal accountability is often times overlooked when the name of religion is called. And religion taking the fall for the actions of the individuals, even though the religion that their actions were done in be half of always condemned the actions taken by the individuals.
    Again, totally agree, religion (or abscence thereof) is not responsible for good or evil behaviors, the person is. The original idea presented by Musicman insinuated that without religious ideas we can not find the truth or behave in a morally acceptable way - I reject this idea completely.

    As for religion and science. I have stated several times that both can co-exist.
    I have to disagree with this proposition.

    Religion seeks to explain the world based on faith, mostly centered around beliefs in supernatural beings performing acts in defiance of known laws of physics. True faith rejects new ideas and changes because is an emotional (not empirical) believe.

    Science, on the other hand, seeks to explain the world through empirical observations evolving into theories that are plausible within the constrains of the known laws of physics. Science is open to new ideas and theories to account for new observations. And no, science does not have all the answers.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    ...thats presumably why laws re church and state are codified in America.

    How's that working out for us by the way?

    (sorry....couldn't resist)
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Just because you overcame your indoctrination does not mean the majority do, or that this is the right way to go about things.

    Religion should be taught in religious studies, and there they should explain why their creation myth is better than all the other ones. There is no reason why junk science like "intelligent design" should be taught in science class, where it will certainly cause damage to a percentage of children.

    I send my daughter to private school too, but I do it for the safer environment and brilliant educational results, but I would yank her out of there in an instant if I hear them talking about how the eye is too complex to have evolved.

    Surur
    I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Please do not take offense to the following comments, are just used as a way to illustrate my point.

    Your "anti-indoctrination" stance is not much different than the Catholic Inquisition (of course without the violence); they too sought to suppress any other ideas (mostly scientific) that failed to align with their accepted Dogma. They were wrong then and the "main-stream" atheist community is wrong now. The Church strongheld censorship of ideas prevented scientific progress for centuries - think were we could be today if not because of it.

    I did not "overcame" my "indoctrination" as you state, by being allowed to explore all subjects of human knowledge besides religion I was able to evolve in my thinking to where I am today. I came to my own conclusions based knowledge, not lack thereof.

    I want my children (and all children) to make their own mind about this and any other subject, if in the end should they embrace religion, I will still love them as much.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoNewt View Post
    Free will?, how can Adam/Eve had free will, didn't God knew what they were going to do with the tree?

    Remember, God is omniscient, I don't say it, the Bible does - 1 John 3:20

    IMO, the concept of omniscience contradicts the concept of free will.

    If somoen, anyone KNOWS what I am going to do before I do it (as omniscience would indicate) than I do not have free will, because the outcome is determined.

    I may have the appearance of free will, but I don't actually have it.

    Chris
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Its not just carbon dating. Its uranium-lead dating, tree-rings, snow sedimentation layers, sedimentation layers, the length of time it takes to compete natural processes like erosion etc.

    It's not just by accident that we think the earth is old, its for many many reasons. The only way it could actually be dramatically younger is if we are being intentionally misled.

    Surur
    "Misled"?
  16. #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    True, God is omniscient. He is also omnipresent, and omnipotent.

    As I stated early, God does not want mindless robots worshipping Him. Even though He knew Adam and Eve would sin, He wanted them to have free will.

    But if God is omniscient, then he KNEW that by placing the tree in the garden that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. God set them up to fail.

    Chris
  17. #217  
    Let me tell you a funny related story. On the Wii Everybody votes channel, the question was, What came first, the chicken or the Egg. I votes the Egg, as a chicken embryo could obviously be borne by a 'nearly chicken' bird, but my daughter voted chicken, because God only created adult animals when he created the world, and obviously the eggs came afterward.

    I did not bother arguing it out with her, and being 9 years old, hopefully some day she will come back from school telling me all about genetic recombination and centrosomes etc, but I think this is a clear example of how thinking things through from a religious POV can lead to very wrong conclusions. Imagine if these ideas get reinforced even more in science class by people with an agenda.

    BTW, on the wii channel I think most people said chicken.

    Surur
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by Dim-Ize View Post
    I think earth was created for man to inhabit and does appear to be older than it is - when carbon dating is used to calculate its age.
    Carbon dating cannot be used to calculate the age of the planet. As mentioned in the tangent in the other thread (but sidestepping the real question), it can only calculate the age of organic matter to ~50,000 or so years, which although enough to easily differentiate a fake 3 year old fossil from a real one, wouldn't necessarily tell you the whole story. I guess it's a good thing that similar methods with other radioisotopes can take up the slack.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by captaindan View Post
    How can you say he is infecting young minds? Why not teach them both about evelution and creation and that there minds decide themselves?
    Because creationism, since it is not science, does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom.

    If there was some class like religious studies, I would have no problem teaching what creationism is there (along with other religious ideas). Or teaching it through the church religious education (I went to sunday school, doesn't it seem appropriate to teach it there?). But to include as SCIENCE in a science curriculum is misleading and wrong.

    This is why I send my children to a private school, I think children should learn both. I alsno think they should be aloud to pray in school if they so choose but that is a different thread all together.
    I have no problem with children being exposed to religious ideas in school - as long as those ideas are not presented as SCIENCE, in a scientific setting. I am a strong proponent of some sort of comparative religion class in high school, which could include beliefs of creation.

    In terms of praying in school, go ahead if you want to, no problem with that.
    But, as you say, a different discussion for a different place.

    Chris
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    But if God is omniscient, then he KNEW that by placing the tree in the garden that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. God set them up to fail.

    Chris
    Corect god is omniscient and therefore as stated inconsistent with the concept of free will.

    God knew they were going to eat from the tree, if they had chosen otherwise, then god can not be considered omniscient by definition.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo

Posting Permissions