Science and Religion - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Ah, but making decisions based on magical beliefs does harm others.

You mean like Obama on gay marriage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Yes.  It was harmful when he spoke out against it.  His actions have atoned for it, however.  He never pursued a defense of DOMA, ended Don't Ask Don't Tell, and has done a myriad of other things for the LGBT community--including coming out in favor of marriage equality.  He ended up on the correct side of history there.  

 

...

 

 

Nice try, Floorjack.

Slam dunk you mean. The gay community had to force his hand on DADT and he only rushed it thought to get it done before the court case finished. Then he only changed his mind on marriage because his supports were tried by his lack of action and were looking for withhold money and votes in 2012. He's either a political coward that didn't support it for votes or a religious bigot only supporting it now for votes. Doesn't sound like the right side of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Hallucination is not an acceptable form of evidence.  

See, there you go.  You would immediately dismiss it as a delusion or hallucination.  

Good question.  I don't have an answer.  Nor does anyone.  

First, I don't think the experience I described would have anything to do with a seizure.  Secondly, you're again proving my point:  You would dismiss any evidence that would be offered, because it is not scientific.  You only believe in what you can measure.  

Are you claiming that all believers have had such an experience?  And if so, why would that experience make them dangerous?  What if that experience was limited to their faith?  How would that impact you in the slightest?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You are projecting again.

Not at all. I'm not the one who wants to force others to conform to his values and morals and beliefs. That's you (and tonton, et al.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler 

Science and religion...

 

I'm not sure that religion is dealing with science at all, mostly it's about spiritual guidance, general purpose of life, origin, destination and moral laws...

 

Science on the other hand can't tell us anything about origins, it can only tell us about how things work within the already existent universe. The reason is that science needs reproduceable phenomena to verify or falsify emprically theories that are able to predict behaviour.

 

But that the universe follows universal laws that can be described mathematically hints imho very strongly at an intelligent design.

 

The question if such an intelligent designer indeed communicated with humanity using messengers and prophets remains a question of faith.
 

 

Excellent post.  Couldn't have said it better.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot 

 

 

No... it doesn't "hint" at any such thing.

There is NO observational support for the existence of a Deity.  (well... except for all the videos that said deity has posted at mrdeity.com)

 

He's merely expressing his opinion that it hints at intelligent design.  It would be better if you just expressed your opinion as to why you disagree.  Instead, you're pulling a BR by attacking.  

The problem with "intelligent design" is that it suffers from precisely the same flaw that is often asserted to exist in scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. If the observed universe presents features that one cannot accept, for whatever reason, to have arisen without intervention, then positing a creator simply removes the question one level further. How could the creator itself, presumably having at least equivalent complexity to that which it created, have arisen without intervention? If the problem is one of understanding what came before the universe, then that just reflects a lack of understanding of the nature of time, probably due to the human experience of an apparently monotonic process.

None of which disproves intervention or intelligent design, but it does reveal it to be an arbitrarily added level of conjecture, introduced for no reason other than a lack of understanding, rather than a necessary incremental addition to explain an observation.

As has been argued many times, once one steps outside the formal mathematical framework upon which our understanding of physics is built, our hypotheses become no more than flights of imagination - evidenced by the countless different incarnations of the concept of a creator. When faced with the existence of so many competing creator "theories", it has always puzzled me how the adherents to any particular religion can have so much confidence in their own received wisdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Do you believe all visions/experiences that could be interpreted as delusions or hallucinations are divinely inspired? 

I'd say that's very unlikely.  

That would be up to the person who had the experience.  There are tens of thousands of people (if not more) who claim to have experienced supernatural phenomena.  Deciding what those experiences are, and what they mean--is up to them.  

Your answer is that God does not exist.  I neither like nor dislike it.  I was addressing the question of why God does not reveal himself in a very obvious way.  I cannot answer that.  

Newsflash, genius:  It was a hypothetical.  I did not experience anything like that.  The point was to illustrate that you and like minded people would dismiss any evidence that was not scientific.  

I am not being evasive at all.  Why do you assume that their experiences would not be limited to their faith?  

 No, that's not what happened at all.  

That's not necessarily what happened either.  

I don't know what situation you're referring to.  Thanks for the links on basic, well-known substances and causes of of death, though.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

It's illegal to be Atheist in Kentucky. Who is actually using force again?

Well, you are of course. Finding one (or many examples) where someone else is also doesn't alter that fact. I'm sure you know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Really I am? Show me where I am. Show me where I am endorsing the government to do so, other than protection of health?

Pretty much anywhere you advocate the state do something you think people aren't doing enough of or mandate stopping things you think people are doing too much of or using the state to take from one and give to another.

Provide "free" healthcare? Yep.

Provide "free" government education? Yep.

Enforce a minimum wage? Yep.

Vaccine mandates? Probably. (I know BR does, I'm pretty sure you're on record on this one too.)

Anti-discrimination laws? I'll bet yes.

I'm sure the list is quite long actually.

You are a liberal authoritarian statist in the classic tradition. Your answer for most things is higher taxes, more government regulation and spending. Government as mommy and daddy to give everyone everything and more government rules and regulations to "protect" everyone else who you assume are all dumber than you are and, worse, in capable of learning and growing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Or are you lying about what I'm doing... Again?

No. I think you are blind to how your advocacy is in fact an attempt to force your values onto others.

A great quote from Thomas Sowell:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

It's illegal to be Atheist in Kentucky. Who is actually using force again?

No, it's not.   (And that source is not exactly biased towards the conservative Christian point of view)  

The law requires the Kentucky Homeland Security Dept to display a plaque acknowledging that security (from terrorism) comes from God.  The law also states that failure to comply can result in jail time, up to 12 months.  It does not outlaw atheism, nor does it do what the article title suggests ("persecuting atheists").  

All that said, I think it's an utterly stupid, pointless law.  I don't know whether it's actually unconstitutional, however.  I'm not even sure on what grounds one could sue..perhaps the person being directed physically put up the plaque?  Or perhaps one could take issue with the state displaying a religious message on state property?  That's obviously a whole other discussion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You don't know if it's unconstitutional or not?

No.  Do you?  It looks like there have been some conflicting rulings.  It doesn't appear to endorse a particular religion, nor does it require atheists to engage in any overt act.  As I said, the only person who could make this argument would be the person who actually had to place the plaque, or perhaps the homeland security official in question.  So that's the legal side without personal opinion.  If you want to get into that, I'd tell you that the Establishment Clause was initially only intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion (e.g. Church of England), and/or infringing on the populace's right to worship freely.  It was never even intended to stop states or localities from establishing religions.  It was not intended to banish religion from the public square.  Over the past 50 years, court rulings have expanded the meaning of the EC to ban school prayer, religious displays and even expressions of faith at certain official functions (such as graduation ceremonies).  They've even gone so far as to apply a "psycho-coercion test" in lieu of analyzing whether or not people are required to actually perform an act, or may "feel" compelled to.  The bottom line is that I think we've gotten very far away from the intent of our founding fathers.  As far as I'm concerned, while the law is stupid and unnecessary, it's not unconstitutional.  The courts may or may not agree, which is why I "don't know."

Quote:

You don't know if it's persecuting atheists or not? 

I didn't say I didn't know.  I said it definitely did not result in atheist persecution.  If you disagree, please explain how and why.  Please explain what it requires atheists to believe and do.  Please explain how it's persecution.  

I'll leave the personal attack alone.   Moving on...the fact is that neither question is blindingly obvious, not unless you're completely ignorant of what the law actually says, and what case law in general tells us with respect to the Establishment Clause.  I must tell you that I have spent some time studying this issue in my capacity as an educator, including a in-depth course on school law (which got into 1st Amendment and other Constitutional issues heavily).  If you'd like to have an honest discussion on the issue, I welcome it.  Or, keep being...well...the way you're acting now.  It's up to you.  

How about West Point, a US Government facility, forcing religion on cadets?

This is a pretty damning report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

"It doesn't force atheists..."
What the f...?
What if the people in the homeland security department are atheists? It's not forcing them? If they don't admit there is a god, they face prison time!
What a blind, sad little man.

I'm going to again turn the other cheek on the personal attack.  Next time I won't, opting instead to report all your recent ones at the same time.  I'll ask you again nicely to please stop.  

Now...It doesn't require atheists to do or acknowledge anything.  It requires a plaque to be placed on a government building.  The prison time is for refusing to install the plaque, at least from what I gathered.  As I said, the only person(s) who might have standing are the ones who must physically place the plaque.  

I don't see how it's forcing them.  What is it forcing them to do?  Does the plaque speak for them personally? Are they asked to publicly proclaim they agree with the message?  This doesn't even rise to the level of the aforementioned prayer at a graduation ceremony (psycho-coercion test).  It seems what you are really arguing is that atheists might find the plaque offensive.  While I again the think the law is utterly stupid and unnecessary, you/them being offended does not make it unconstitutional...not necessarily.  

This doesn't mean a court would rule the way I've stated, of course.  Over the years we've seen less and less tolerance for religious expression in government/public settings, right down to municipalities being ordered to not display the Ten Commandments (which serve a secular purpose and are clearly the basis for many of our modern laws).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

How about West Point, a US Government facility, forcing religion on cadets?

 

This is a pretty damning report.

I see how it is. tonton doesn't like it when the government forces people to do things, until he wants the government to force people to do things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Now...It doesn't require atheists to do or acknowledge anything...

(unless they are in the Homeland Security Department, then it does)

So, in other words, you're wrong.

Excuse me? What about the executive who refuses to order the plaque to be placed? What about the staff who refuse to pass that order on to the purchasing department? What about the contractor who designs and the one who forges the plaque? Are you seriously saying that if the head of department happens to be an atheist and refuses (as is their constitutional right) to place the plaque, then the contractor who puts up the plaque is the only one who might be arrested?

And isn't that enough to say, "Wait a minute! That's total bullshit! What if the Homeland Security Department head is an Atheist?"

It's forcing them to display a claim that God exists. Imagine if you were asked by your school not only to not pray at school, but to display, of your own will, a sign on the wall that says, "There is no God." Wouldn't you have a problem with that? Mightn't you refuse to do that? It's not speaking for you personally. It's not asking you to publicly proclaim that you agree with the message. And hell yeah, you would be offended. And there's no way in hell you would follow that order. Have fun in jail, because of your beliefs.

Common morals stand as the basis for our modern laws. Do you really have to be told, "Thou shalt not kill" to know that murder is wrong and should be a crime? I don't. I know what right and wrong is without having to read it from a book or have it explained to me by a pastor, TYVM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

There's the caricature again.  What have I posted on this topic that shows "lazy magical thinking?"  I have acknowledged that the Earth is over 4 billion years old.  I have not rejected a single scientifically proven fact.  I do not deny evolution.  Are you really calling all believers like me "lazy" and ignorant because we believe in a being whose existence you cannot disprove?  

Given the lack of evidence either way it is possible that yes there is a God, that he created the world over 4 billion years ago and he also created evolution etc. 

The real issue isn't the evidence of evolution etc it's that some Christians take the Bible, particularly the early books of the Old Testament to be literal and perfect when they have seen in their own lives that messages get twisted as they are passed on and translations can be wrong. Perhaps old King James was a tad rusty with his ancient Greek/Hebrew/whatever and thought that the word meant 'days' and not 'ages'. I grew up with many of these literalists and they really think their Bible is sacrosanct and perfect and they ignore that it wasn't written in English and mistakes could have happened. 

On the flip side there are many people, a good number of them scientists, that believe that there is a God and that yes he created all things. Most importantly he created us in his image which means we are intelligent beings, capable of learning and evolving. And Science is the means by which we learn and understand how he created the universe and through this knowledge we become more like him. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Of course you did.  You are the one that is asking, and will make the judgement as to what's meaningful.  Clearly, nothing will be meaningful from your point of view.  And that's not even a criticism...it's just the way you think, which as I said is perfectly fine.  

 

 

This sounds like an excuse for you not to answer the question.  Answer the question.  What meaningful contribution does Christianity have for the age of the Earth?  

Nothing. Well not directly. But it did help to spread the contribution of its forefather Judaism. A religion which in the very first pages of the Old Testament posited the notion of the development of the planet in stages not simply being snapped fully formed into existence several hundred, even thousand years, before Science came up with Evolution. In fact, given the dominance of religion in those days, it's possible, even plausible, that the Book of Genesis is where Science got the idea in the first place, just with a redefined time table. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

(unless they are in the Homeland Security Department, then it does)

So, in other words, you're wrong.

It does not require them to perform any particular action (public statement of faith, worship activity, reciting scripture, etc).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

How about West Point, a US Government facility, forcing religion on cadets?

 

This is a pretty damning report.

Then don't go there. Don't send your kids there, don't let them go there. 

As long as they are upfront about the presence of religion, as long as anyone can leave at any time (perhaps having to forfeit that terms tuition) what's the real issue. It isn't really a government facility anymore than a state university is. You don't have to go there to be in the military, run for office etc. It's not like someone passing a law that you have to be Christian, and devoutly Southern Baptist at that, to run for Congress, be a Supreme Court judge, President, State Governor etc. 

As for the article, this guy spent 3 years apparently seeing all this stuff but was only outraged enough to do something about it this year?? So for 3 years it really wasn't a big deal it seems. Feels a bit off. Makes one wonder if something else didn't happen to suddenly outrage him. Like perhaps he found out that he wasn't going to get a pretty Gold Star on his diploma which would up the klout of the document and he's pissed off because he feels the school is playing favs. Perhaps a valid complaint but perhaps not if they were up front about the requirements for such honors and he said nothing for 3 years. If they were up front and said it was simply for academic excellence and he can back up that he had near perfect marks then the game changes. Regardless, we don't have the full story and it feels a lot like he's not telling it for a reason and covering up the absense with hyperbolic outrage. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

Then don't go there. Don't send your kids there, don't let them go there. 

 

As long as they are upfront about the presence of religion, as long as anyone can leave at any time (perhaps having to forfeit that terms tuition) what's the real issue. It isn't really a government facility anymore than a state university is. You don't have to go there to be in the military, run for office etc. It's not like someone passing a law that you have to be Christian, and devoutly Southern Baptist at that, to run for Congress, be a Supreme Court judge, President, State Governor etc. 

 

As for the article, this guy spent 3 years apparently seeing all this stuff but was only outraged enough to do something about it this year?? So for 3 years it really wasn't a big deal it seems. Feels a bit off. Makes one wonder if something else didn't happen to suddenly outrage him. Like perhaps he found out that he wasn't going to get a pretty Gold Star on his diploma which would up the klout of the document and he's pissed off because he feels the school is playing favs. Perhaps a valid complaint but perhaps not if they were up front about the requirements for such honors and he said nothing for 3 years. If they were up front and said it was simply for academic excellence and he can back up that he had near perfect marks then the game changes. Regardless, we don't have the full story and it feels a lot like he's not telling it for a reason and covering up the absense with hyperbolic outrage. 

I tend to agree.  Military service is not required.  Going to West Point is not required.  The military has a wide leeway when it comes to instituting and promoting the culture it feels necessary to help fight and win war on behalf of the United States.  It is often said that serving in the military is not a right, it is a privilege.  For the most part, I agree.   

Previously:  

I agree.  

Again, we agree, though BR et al are likely to pounce.  Such an explanation will be meaningless to him, because it is not scientific. Moreover, by his standard anyone who disagrees with his notion of the null hypothesis is an idiot.  Good luck.  :)  

Another good point.  But put up your flame shield.  :)  

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

You mean like Obama on gay marriage?

His views didn't bother me. He has a right to his own views and frankly I see some merit to them. There is little to nothing to gain from gay marriage in the sense that many of the gay community are pushing it. Because they are pushing for some legally mandated right to go into a church and have a priest etc ordain their domestic union, even if said church doesn't believe such unions are right 'under God'. Basically the Government telling the Church what they can and can't believe. That's a direct violation of the First Amendment. 

Now some folks are arguing that states should allow domestic partnerships with all the same legal rights afforded in a 'marriage' (50/50 split of assets of the union legally dissolves, inheritance rights etc) regardless of whether its same gender or not. So long as the government provides a means to validate the union and invalidate it as needed, who needs some guy/gal and a church. And that I do agree with. If The Church doesn't want you, well how many churches out there started because someone was rejected everywhere else and said 'screw you guys' and started a new one. Shit, the whole Church of England was started because Henry the 8th didn't like the Pope telling him that he could stick his dick. So if the US can have Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and even freaking sciencetologists why can't we have the Church of the Blessed LGBT

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

No, it's not.   (And that source is not exactly biased towards the conservative Christian point of view)  

 

The law requires the Kentucky Homeland Security Dept to display a plaque acknowledging that security (from terrorism) comes from God.  The law also states that failure to comply can result in jail time, up to 12 months.  It does not outlaw atheism, nor does it do what the article title suggests ("persecuting atheists").  

 

 

And how many folks that objected to that plaque and the law have been retaliated against for filing lawsuits saying that the requirement is unconstitutional (success in the argument or not). How many people have even filed them. 

How about similar lawsuits in said state against any 'religious' statements being forced on government/state employees. There are some interesting comments in the article in this regard. Including the fact that the law's sponsor, despite putting his personal religious views first and being part of numerous and costly lawsuits over the years, has been in his position for 26 years. What does that say about the people in Kentucky that they haven't voted him out or found a way to kick him out etc. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You don't know if it's unconstitutional or not?
 

Only because the State Supreme Court has refused to rule on it either way and it is only just being put up to the US Supreme Court for judgement. 

You are however correct on the second question, sort of. Those that have gone to jail aren't necessarily athetists. There could be some religious and God believing folks that also believe that its wrong to try to shove God down folks throats. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Another good point.  But put up your flame shield.  :)  

I have one better than that. It's called "ignore"

I am a US citizen and an intelligent human being and it is my belief that I have both a Constitutional and a moral right to have an opinion and speak it. I don't require that anyone agree with said opinion, just with my rights to have and speak. Just as I believe they have the same rights and I have a right to not agree with them. So long as anyone is acting like a mature person and having a discussion its all good. But the moment that someone tells me that I'm stupid, deluded etc for not tossing myself at their feet to declare them perfect and wise etc, well that's the moment I exercise my right to not listen to them. i add them to my ignore list and move on. And I openly invite anyone that can't act like a mature adult and have a discussion even if it means folks will disagree with them to do the same to me. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

Only because the State Supreme Court has refused to rule on it either way and it is only just being put up to the US Supreme Court for judgement. 

 

You are however correct on the second question, sort of. Those that have gone to jail aren't necessarily athetists. There could be some religious and God believing folks that also believe that its wrong to try to shove God down folks throats. 

From what I've read, it's never been enforced.  That was my point about legal standing.  If there are no damages, it makes it tougher to bring suit.  Now, despite his indignation, tonton raises an interesting point:  What if the person who was in charge of submitting the purchase order for said plaque refused to submit it on 1st Amendment grounds?  And what if that person was prosecuted or professionally disciplined?   That is a much more interesting legal question, but also hardly a slam dunk. It would presumably at least warrant legal standing.  

I have no idea how a court would rule on that.  It might be that the person cannot refuse without consequences, because submitting a purchase order does not actually constitute an expression of religion.  I'd think the same reasoning would apply if a building secretary in my district refused to order, say, Christmas decorations.  In such a case, the employee is not acting on his or her own behalf, but on behalf of the employer.  It's hard to argue that fulfilling an administrative function is akin to forced personal expression.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

It's funny how SDW is defending this law. 

I am not defending it.  I have specifically said I wouldn't and don't support it, and that it's "stupid, unnecessary and useless."  I couldn't be more clear about not supporting or defending it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

"Interesting example. I was about to tell you that I know music teachers who are required to perform a certain number of Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa songs each holiday season. But I am not Jewish. By your standard, aren't my rights being violated?"
Do any of the songs say there is no Jesus? Get real. Not even close to the same thing. Dreidel dreidel doesn't go against your religious beliefs.

This is what you choose to focus on?  You accuse me of drawing a poor analogy while ignoring the fact that I just completely took apart your "There is no God" analogy?  LOL.  You're not interested in any actual discussion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


I was about to respond to that. Are you claiming that the plaque as required isn't saying "There is a God"? Of course it is!

I wasn't claiming that.  I was saying that your analogy was not necessarily drawing a reasonable equivalence.  In other words, a sign on a public school proclaiming "there is no God" is not equivalent to the law in question.  Here is the law once again: 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

"Our security relies on the grace of God... Which there might not be, if that's what you believe... But it relies on Him! No pressure."

 Does the plaque constitute coercion to participate in worship?  I can't say I think it does.  Do you...and why?  

By the way, you still haven't retracted your initial claim that "it's an illegal to be an atheist in Kentucky."  Do you finally acknowledge your were wrong about that?