I cant take it any more

[wingnutx]

That would be a 'quote stack'.

[El Tejon]

I don't believe in any of your posts!:D

[Moondoggie]

No, Steppenwolf:

I don't know where we come from,
Don't know where we're going to,

But if all this should have a reason,
Then we would be the last to know,

So let's just hope there is a promised land,

Hang on til then,
Best as you can!

"Rock Me, Baby"

[richyoung]

Why do a-religious people not want Inteligent Design theories taught in school?

Because no, the world is not 6,000 years old. No, Adam and Eve were not the first two humans. No, snakes do not talk. No, the dinosaurs did not go extinct because they were too big to fit on the Ark. No, the answer to the question "then how is it that stars are many many light-years away?" is not "because God bends the light to test our faith."

"A-religious people" don't have much credibility when they PATENTLY cannot accuratly describe the thing they are against - as "ID" is NONE o fht ethings you listed.  Thanks for playing and try again real soon....

[charby]

Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
























































































































































A: He lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog.

[Perd Hapley]

Leave the agnostics alone.  At least they don't knock on your door to tell you they don't know whether God has a plan for your life.  

Am I being criticized or ridiculed for something involving quotations?  What's this all about?

[Stickjockey]

If I have it right, someone asked Mr. Einstein's opinion, to which I replied with a quote of his. Someone then commented about something called a quote stick, about which you had a question. Much hilarity ensued.

[280plus]

Hence the ridicule,,,

[Moondoggie]

My quotation was simply using a set of pop lyrics that most closely resembles my point of view on creation/religion/existence/afterlife.

That seemed to me what others were offering in their quotations, as well.

Not intended in any way as a slam.

[Perd Hapley]

I was just confused because Figgy put a quote stick in my hand, and I don't know how it got there.  I'd prefer the ban stick that people were trying to give me earlier.  Then I'd deal with you people, but good!

[Stickjockey]

Fistful, you're still confused. It's a quote stick, and a ban button

[280plus]

Phew,,,try and work with us here will ya?

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

I'd like the pecan waffle, and an order of bacon.

And a decaf w/cream.

[Mabs2]

I had a quick, polite post about my beliefs on God being taught in public schools, but then I realised that the thread derailed into a wacky off-topic barrel of fun, so I replaced it with this...

OOGABOOGA!!

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

fistful,

I have the highest regards for your quote stick.

...and don't worry about its diminutive dimensions-- my wife tells me:
it's not about the size of the ship on the sea,
it's the motion in the ocean.

I said that with a straight face...






























...but this thread has definitely begun to self-destruct.

[cosine]

And this thread is a sterling example of why some people think serious discussion is shunned here at APS.

[Nightfall]

I'm glad to see this thread has deteriorated so rapidly.

I dunno about you folk, but I've begun to find these serious-serious discussions a drain. Look, I've got enough stress in real life. Issues with a much more immediate effect on my existence. I don't find it particularly relaxing to get into important debates about huge issues, especially considering they usually devolve into throwing links and quotes at one another. How many people here have a genuine and deep understanding of astrophysics or evolutionary theory? Yeah, thats what I thought. So why do we get into pissin contests over em?

[Guest]

I like the deep, serious discussions..but one or two atheism vs. Christianity or 9 mm vs. 45 each year is enough. If we can't find something new to argue about, I'm just as happy not arguing at all.

Now the grumpy feminists in gay bars thread? That's a good one. I mean, where else can you have that kind of discussion?

[CAnnoneer]

Curiously, the scientific method evolved exactly as a logical reaction against arbitrary belief and as an attention shift from ethically based theories to observation- and experiment-based ones. From that perspective, science is the most pluralistic and free because it inherently does not tolerate dogmatic structure. If you have alternative explanations that match observation and experiment better, please come forth and state them. If they are righter than the previous ones, eventually they are accepted and become the new status quo, until a newer breakthrough appears and iterates the system...

What many religious people do is accept the gifts of technology but reject the science upon which they are based, because its implications carry a heavy emotional cost. To accept the scientific view of the world is to also accept that based on the little we know, we live in a mechanistic uncaring universe fundamentally governed by a few faceless "inhuman" laws of physics and the resulting mathematical permutations. Such a view is fundamentally at odds with the cuddly warm feeling religious people get from believing there is somebody watching over them.

On another level, many people make the mistake to confuse science with philosophy or ethics. Science simply describes the universe and predicts phenomena. It has nothing to do with ethics and should not be expected to provide moral guidelines for those who want to subsitute it for morality or religion. Once this is understood, things become far more clear. Furthermore, many people also do not see that religion is a form of philosophy and thus comprises different departments within itself - epistemology, phenomenology, ethics, cognition. Many religious people subconsciously feel that because science has proven wrong the primitivistic ideas of religious phenomenology, it somehow also attacks the ethics department. It simply is not and does not need to be so.

[Kyle]

I apologize for oversimplifying the question.

Yes, I realize that Creationism and ID are seperate ideas.

The problem I have with creationism is that it is NOT a science, so it belongs not in science class.

People sometimes say "how can you believe in evolution, its just a theory." Yes, it is a theory. But it is a testable theory that has a lot of evidence in it's favor. It is observable. It was come to by the scientific method and is always up for serious review. I do not BELIEVE in the theory of evolution. It is the best explanation that we have so far. And the details might change, or the whole theory could change or be proven or disproven. It doesnt matter, it is not a belief. It is adaptable to accomodate new information. This is key.

ID on the other hand, is not science. It was devised by theists who believe, to start out with, that a higher power created existance as we know it, or sparked something that developed into what we know. The conclusion, the "theory" if I must, was PRESUPPOSED. The evidence for it is has been carefully groomed to fit this presupposed idea. It is like when an anti does a study, setting out from the onset to prove that guns are bad. No matter what the facts are, the study will end up "proving" what the anti already "knows." This is NOT science.


To respond to fistful...

Why am I pro-choice, pro-gay? Because I lack religious belief. The opposing positions are almost %100 based on faith.

You say that my statement "snakes do not talk" is "dogmatic." This is a common straw-man argument. I assume you know that in our daily lives, we speak in terms of realitive possibility. I am basicaly correct that snakes do not talk. I am techinicaly incorrect, because some snake, somewhere, somehow, sometime, might talk. It COULD happen, in theory. But we cannot go about our daily lives talking in such terms. We have to simplify things, or we get into pure skepticism, where all statements and proposed ideas are infinitely questionable and no statements of fact are acceptably valid.

The same works in science. The knowledge that we have on matter, energy, and subatomic machinations are CONSTANTLY being challenged and questioned. But that does not mean we cannot make positive assertions on the topics. We do not fully understand atomic energy, but we know enough to base a usefull technology on it.

If you tap your finger on a table, it will hit the table and stop. Correct? Not really. It is POSSIBLE that if you tapped your finger on the same spot of the same table 100 million times, there is a theoretical CHANCE that your finger could pass right through (matter, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are in a state of constant motion and change) .Does that make me an inbecile to say that my kitchen table is solid? Of course not.

Should you have faith in theories like evoltution? Only to an extent. Do not have a religious-type faith in it. That is bad, because when you have such a faith, new knowledge on the subject becomes harder and harder to accept, to your own detriment.

Simply accept that we really dont KNOW where existance came from, or how life came to be what it is. Is it that scary to not know? Human beings will live a few more thousand years and we will die off and life and the universe will go on without us. We will probably never know the answers to these questions, and that is OK! But we should keep searching because it is usefull and we might figure it out someday.

The reason teaching junk "science" as if it was real science to kids is detrimental to them is because it damages their ability to discern science from junk science. It is that simple.

I do not mean to belittle anyones faith. But I probably do so when I make certain statements. But again, people should not take them are insults. I tried to explain that  in my post but I guess it did not come across. Noahs ark is a myth. That is not a dirty word. It is a made-up story to convey a basic truth about the God of the Jews and later Christians. Why is this an insult?

How do I know they were written as mythologies? Becuase there are non-biblical historical accounts of ancient times. Because the Egyptians have no records of all of their first borns dying as a result of their enslavement of a religious groups. We know that the OT was not written as the events were taking place. There are are volumes and volumes of work done on this point by religious and a-religious scholars. If you want to know how I know, read some of them.

If I can further explain myself, let me know.

[Perd Hapley]

fistful,

I have the highest regards for your quote stick.

...but this thread has definitely begun to self-destruct.

Disturbing.  

I blame the self-destruction squarely on Malice.  We could have had an interesting conversation about how religion affects political views, or on the rivalry between religious conservatives and secular conservatives.  

Instead, he had to go on about origins, so the bootless* battle is joined.

*Useless, or at least it meant that four hundred years ago.

[Perd Hapley]

Nightfall and Barb, I agree, but I'm going to slug it out anyway.  I used to enjoy this a lot more.


Ethically-based theories?  Hmmm.

science is the most pluralistic and free because it inherently does not tolerate dogmatic structure. If you have alternative explanations that match observation and experiment better, please come forth and state them. If they are righter than the previous ones, eventually they are accepted and become the new status quo, until a newer breakthrough appears and iterates the system...

A great system, but scientists are human.

CAnnoneer, as a Biblical creationist, please tell me what I'm rejecting that results in useful technology.  Give me some details that really show what you mean.  I think it really is the other way around.  Have the Amish claimed that electrons don't actually behave in the way that electrical engineers postulate?  I doubt it, yet they still reject electronic technology.  (The traditional ones, anyway.)


I have much more to say on this, but it's too late.

[Kyle]

You know what fistful, I no longer wish to enage in this discussion. If you planned to respond to my second post, dont bother. If you really would like to have a discussion on the things you mentioned, start a thread and I will find it.

And I promise not to post 2 pages of random garbage like other forum members so rudely found it necessary to do to this thread.

The reason I dont want to contiune this is because of your last 2 posts. I found it unnecesarily condescending. Not towards my views or beliefs, but towards me as a person. I would hate to bother you to respond to my boring thread anymore.

[proud2deviate]

Woohoo! My first post on APS and I've found an open thread discussing the very matter I came over here to address. Lucky me.

This post will likely not follow any rational format. Ideas will be expressed and abandoned, opinions will expressed and not backed up by anything even remotly resembling fact, and I won't cite any credible source or reference. It should be fairly flow-of-thought. Considering we're talking about god and religion, I find that somewhat appropriate.

So, where do I stand on religion? To say the least, I don't like it. At its worst, it can be one of the most dangerous and destructive forces in the known universe. Fanaticisim and hate, despair and wrath, sturm and drang, fire and brimstone. Division and conquest. At its best, I can't see that it does much more than sully the mind and halt progress. Religion is drug. Fun for now, maybe, but you damn well could have been painting the garage instead of sitting around stoned off your ass.

A brief history of religion, past to present. . .

Take three rational, sane human beings and place them on a worthless, barren mountain top. They shake hands, introduce themselves, and mill around for a bit. Eventually, they start to get bored. Two start to amuse themselves with a game of twenty questions, while the third starts to construct a pile of rocks. Around question seventeen or so, our aspiring architect has amassed a pile of rocks some four feet in heigth. His companions, consumed by curiosity, place their game on pause and inquire as to what he's doing. He replies. . .

"I am building a temple in honor of my god, the one true god. For on this very mountain top, he sacrificed his only begotten son so that my sins might be forgiven."

One of the other men steps foward and speaks. . .

"I'm sorry, my friend. It seems you've got things wrong. For this is the very mountain top from which Mohammad, the prophet of the one true god, Allah, ascended to heaven. I claim this mountain top in his name."

The third man steps forth to say his piece. . .

"I'm afraid you're both wrong. This is the mountain top from which Abraham offered his son Isaac in sacrifice to Yaweh, my god, the one true god, who, in his eternal wisdom, spared Isaac and forged bonds which carry on to this day. This mountain top belongs to my people."

And so they carry on this discussion for a bit. Discussion becomes debate, debate becomes argument, argument comes to blows. These three (previously sane and rational,) human beings end up killing themselves, their fingers wrapped tightly around each other's throat. In their scuffle, they cause a landslide, which falls down this worthless mountain and crushes the atheist who had been living the sweet life, sipping wine in the lush green valley below. History proceeds to repeat itself for the next couple of mellinia. Bombs burst. Buildings crumble. Folks are variously raped and tortured and burned and killed. All for a worthless frigging mountain.

I'm what you might call a pessimistic agnostic. I don't know if there's a god, and I don't particularly care. Consider the following scenarios. . .

God is proven to not exist. (unfortunatly, this is an impossibility.) Great. We can all get on with our lives. Pour the wine and cut the cheese. The gorgonzola is to die for.


God is proven to exist. Likewise great. Now, what signifigance do you place on this? (that's what really matters.) Instead of saying, "Hey there, god. How's it hanging?" I'll bet that about 99% of the world will rush to court favor. They'll build the temples, and drown idols in innocent blood. They'll hound him for guidence and beg him to smite their enemies. They'll toss a goat on the fire and pray pray pray (prey.) God will witness this insanity and go back to his summer home. The people will blame each other for driving him away and start killing each other again. The sesnsible people who wern't all that impressed with god but might have like to have gotten to know him will get on with life, and chalk it all up as no great loss.

God is love. . .

I've heard this one a lot. Sounds great, doesn't it? Everyone loves love. Opiate addicts often compare the chemical high they get to love. I can testify to this one. During an attack of appendicitis some years ago, I found myself in the hospital with a steady supply of morphine administered by young hottie nurses. In spite of feeling like I had been partially eviscerated (in fact, I had been,) I remember this brief period of my life with some fondness. Have you ever been in love? Really, truely, hardcore crushing, sunshine and bunnies, listening to The Cranberries and weeping with joy, love? Take that and translate into pure physical sensation, and you'll know what all these dope fiends are raving about. Love; it's just a needle away. Possibly the greatest force ever experienced by humanity. Pure and rich, casting blinding light into every crevice of our lives.  Love; people will suffer and toil and kill and die for just a little more. The dope fiend will shoot mommy in the head to get to his next fix. Problem is, at the end of the day, there's been more suffering and toiling and killing and dying than loving.

Chicken/Egg/God/Love

Which came first? Was love so pure and beautiful and powerful that the only word we could think of to describe it was god? Or is there love because there is god? I've heard of hell described as seperation/isolation from god. Scary stuff. Love withdrawl for the rest of eternity. I imagine the suicide bomber feels the touch of god/love as much as your average benevolent religious zealot.

The scientific god. . .

I think it was Carl Sagan who originally came up with the different classes of intelligent civilization. He proposed three at first, but with a greater understanding this has since been expanded. Ready? Here we go. . .

Class 1
This describes a civilization that controlls a single planet. Totally. They would harness the forces of that planet, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, gravity, and use the combined energies to drive their machines. (For reference, humanity is currently estimated to be about a .7 on this scale. Personally, I find this to be a generous estimate.)

Class 2
This civilization would be stellar. They would harness the power of an entire star system. All the planets and the sun itself. Perfect controll over all that energy.

Class 3
Galactic. That's right. These guys would have complete control over and entire galaxy. 100-400 billion stars. I'm getting excited. How 'bout you?

Class 4
This civilization would exercise control over a galactic supercluster. Composed of potentially thousands of galaxies each, these are the largest gravitationaly bound objects in the known universe. (speaking of which. . .)

Class 5
That's right. The energy of an entire universe, harnessed by one civilization and bent to their will. Don't think about the implications too hard; it'll cause little wrinkles in your forehead.

Class 6
(yes, I'm sill rambling. How late is it getting?) The multiverse. This civilization can travel between multiple universes and harness the energy of the whole system.

Class 7 (god)
We've arrived. This is the closest thing I've found in science, pseudoscience, or science fiction to a workable god. This entity (or civilization. At this point, who could really tell the difference?) would be able to create or destroy a universe at will, and would use the energy of such an event to it's own unfathomable ends. You hear folks talk about god's plan, and how we can't even begin to see the faintest glimmer of the true nature of it or our place in it. How could we? A full 6.3 classes below he/she/it. Pffft. . .

So, what could such a god really want with us? Walking meat on an average planet circling a medium star in a galaxy of 200 billion in a supercluster of more than a thousand in a universe of more than 10 million in a multiverse of god knows how many, which, by the way, could be destroyed with less than a thought. Does god even know we're here? You don't need to know everything about something in order to smash it with a hammer. Reverse the pattern: we've already seen decimal civilizations. We're living proof. Who's to say there isn't a class .00001 civilization that's proud to control a single atom? Or a single electron? How many of these civilizations do we destroy when we fission a pound of uranium? Do we care?  Does god care about us?


The factual, impactual god

God exists. He's all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see him when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel him when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. . .

Oh, wait. That's something else. Geeze, how late is it getting? Anywho. . .

IMNSHO, The greatest possible impact god can have on us is that which we make for ourselves. More often than not, by virtue of human failings, this impact is negative. No, I don't particularly care to talk theology through my front door at 9:00am on a weekend, nor do I want to get blown up to help you get those 72 virgins. Here's a nickle. Now leave me the hell alone. I can't buy beer on sunday? WTF?? What difference does it make? Tell you what; somewhere in this world it's either yesterday or tomorrow. So sell me my damn Mackeson's.

"In god we trust"

This one irks me more than it should, probably because I think more than I should. Oh well. Who is this We? We the people? We the christians? And if I don't trust in god (I don't,) do I cease to be part of We?

"One nation under god"

This is almost laughable, when you consider the purely political motivations behind it. It's particularly funny when you see it on those bumper stickers where "one" and "god" are excessively huge.

Don't get me started on sex. I'll be banned within the minute. . .

Morality

This really bothers me. Apparently I can't be considered moral unless I subscribe to a particular religion. Hey, it's not my fault I don't need heaven/hell to bribe/threaten me into being a decent person.

It also bothers me when people attribute their accomplishments to god. Humble is good, but take a little credit. The entire world is going to try to strip you of your accopmlishments. You yourself shouldn't be so quick to toss them aside.

Okay, I think I've pretty much gotten out all I wanted to. I wanted to touch on philosophy a bit more, but that was pretty much covered towards the end of science. Thanks for the opportunity to get all that off my chest. I honestly can't say I'm looking foward to doing it again. From now on I think I'll stick to posts about more important stuff, like women or barbecue.  

G'nite, folks. Over and out.

[LAK]

mfree

Don't ever ask someone versed in theoretical particle physics that; there are theories, coming about to explain the phenomenon of "dark matter" that could very well end up explaining the "coagulation" of matter from energy after the little pop.

Why not? They don't have a beginning in their theories either.

Where did the energy come from? Out of nothing?

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org