skookum
America would actually do well to practice Christianity, if anything as a great unifier

Yes, Christianity has always been a great unifier.


/You cannot be serious.
//It'll be so much better when everyone is the same!

To clarify:

A scientify theory is set of rules that explains observed phenomena. It is NOT called a theory because it can't be proven, or because the proof is incomplete.

Scientific theories are like a file of facts collected about a subject.

I took a course called "Music Theory" in college. It was called that because it explained how music was put together and how it is used in different cultured.

It was NOT called music theory because we weren't sure music existed.

Evolution Theory is a collection of observed phenomena, including the things we've predicted and verified.

mp3sum: It may be interesting to you, but how does it play into any sort of logical phillisophical investigation? Yes it's possible, in the sense that the genesis of the universe occurred just 10 minutes, and there's no way to determine whether our memories or any of history is real. But rather than being of any relevant value philisophically, it's more just a surreal thought in your head.

Actually yhe part I was talking about as interesting doesn't concern itself with the Bible at all, it is merely whether or not there may be evidence of design. You have to delve past the Discov. Instit.'s bull to find it though which is not fun.

I'm not interested in the whole "teach the controversy" garbage. Evolution is an amazing theory and as I said in a previous post I actually do work/study in a related sub-discipline. There are elements of ID (but like I said you have to get past the front of the DI) that is all about logic and philosophy that is interesting from a philosophical standpoint.

SkinnyHead

That's what evolutionists claim, but is that the view of the Catholic Church?

Are you a gravitist or electro-magnetist?

/where's my "It's just a Theory!" card when I really need it

mp3sum: I agree with your assessment of faith (you've read and understood the definition, congrats)

See, now you're being a bit snotty. That's not really called for, methinks.

All I said was to posit that God can not be known is just as silly as insisting he can.

Saying that something can be known requires proof--proof that is demonstrably impossible to acquire. To say that something cannot be known because there is no way to acquire proof ought to be self-evident.

All people of faith are fundamentalists to some degree. Virtually no one believes in 100% of their chosen religion's tenants.

How does a percentage of the tenets of faith that one believes translate to fundamentalism?

A theory is an explanation of observable phenomena that saves all the data. If you have to throw out any compelling data, your theory is gonna be bogus.

Science is in a continual process of self-checking. Trust me, there are scientists out there working day and night to disprove every theory there is. That's one of the functions of science. It contains its own mechanisms for self-correction.

Religion is mystery. Somehow, the wine turns to blood. We do not ask how this is done. Somehow, the spirit transcends the body. We do not look for empirical evidence of this occurring.

For religion to make a claim on science is for it to abandon its place as a spiritual pursuit and take up things scientific--to pretend that it is an empiricist, self-correcting discipline. This does not mix well with its self-imposed absolutes--Holy Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and so forth.

Creationism, and its mutant offspring Intelligent Design, are political. Political in the sense that they seek to create in the minds of people the idea that science is somehow opposed to religion, and that religion knows what's best for scientists as well as religionists (not spirtualists, religionists). Hence Intelligent Design's forays into Cosmology and Earth Sciences and so forth.

This dovetails neatly with the populist anti-intellectual plank of Right-wing politics. We have the right-wing media whining about college professors all being "liberals." We have abstinence (religionist ideology) versus rubbers (a scientific, physical barrier between the sperm and the egg). We have church versus science, church versus the "liberals," church versus EVERYBODY.

And it follows that there is a backlash, so the church can claim it is embattled and persecuted. Perfect!! Christ was persecuted. So it makes the church all the more morally indignant. And right.

So now we have it, an immensely well-funded and organised effort to teach our children that scientific conclusions can be valid even if they throw out salient data and are not checked and rechecked. 0ne hopes that the politico-religionists do not extend their influence into civil engineering and aeronautics.


.

Murkanen

Are you a gravitist or electro-magnetist?

What about Intelligent Falling?

I am a devout christian (catholic, if you do not believe catholics are christian, please increase your level of literacy).

I also have a masters degree in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in Molecular Toxicology with concentrations in organic chemistry and biochemistry biophysics. I have at least 10 publications to my name, and have been doing research for 11 years.

There is no conflict between my faith and my pursuit of science. I won't bother explaining why. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

wh0mprat

mp3sum

Now you're resorting to semantics and sophistry.

OK.

"Does God Exist?"

Is it in God's nature to exist as a physical entity? Can a non-physical entity even be said to exist? What level of proof will we require to confirm this existence?


God could be a spatial/temporal relationship between physical objects... he may exist like a square exists or like a second exists.

God could be like consciousness, something only provable or visible to the subject itself (go on, try and prove to me you aren't a sophisticated program running on Fark's servers).

God could be the negative space, or absence of matter and energy... a true "God of the gaps" as it were.

The problem is most poeple define God outside of all of this, and thus don't give even a useful analogous or cogent metaphorical defition.

FloydA: What should be done with those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept Christianity?

They would still be accepted in society, but one would notice that you would not make as many personal achievements as those who professed Christian lives. And since most social interactions would center around a church, many who rejected the community would find themselves in places more given to crime and lowlifes.

wh0mprat: Yes, Christianity has always been a great unifier.

Sarcasm aside, if the idea caught on strong enough, there could be a progression to some kind of caste system, yes. Persecution of non-believers would be discouraged, certainly, but you can't help having a few bad apples in the bunch that wouldn't want to be a part of it.

muninsfire [TotalFark]
mp3sum: I agree with your assessment of faith (you've read and understood the definition, congrats)

See, now you're being a bit snotty. That's not really called for, methinks.

Snooty?? Snotty.
/Abe Froman
Just messin with you man. Not necessary, but necessary none the less.

mp3sum:All I said was to posit that God can not be known is just as silly as insisting he can.

Saying that something can be known requires proof--proof that is demonstrably impossible to acquire. To say that something cannot be known because there is no way to acquire proof ought to be self-evident.

Right, so there's no way to know whether there's any way to know.

All people of faith are fundamentalists to some degree. Virtually no one believes in 100% of their chosen religion's tenants.

How does a percentage of the tenets of faith that one believes translate to fundamentalism?

That's the point I'm making. You break people of faith up into fundies and non-fundies, when in fact they all fall into that category, commitment to their dogma non-withstanding.

skookum: Sarcasm aside, if the idea caught on strong enough, there could be a progression to some kind of caste system, yes. Persecution of non-believers would be discouraged, certainly, but you can't help having a few bad apples in the bunch that wouldn't want to be a part of it.

A caste system, may I remind you, which is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy [ "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal" ] that our country was founded on.

Sorry, you fail. Thanks for playing, try again.

WOW.

There are moderate Republicans left?

FloydA: And you too! There've been a spate of ev. articles on the front page in the last 72 hours. What's going on up there in TF land? Is it boom and bust there too? Or are you just throwing us the crumbs? ;-)

Yea I joined the party too late for most of them. TF is just as dry really. Besides only greenlit threads are interesting.

mp3sum: That's the point I'm making. You break people of faith up into fundies and non-fundies, when in fact they all fall into that category, commitment to their dogma non-withstanding.

I do not think that that word means what you think it means.

"Fundamentalism is a continuing historical phenomenon, it is increasingly a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion."

There are many people of faith who do not fall within that category.

Right, so there's no way to know whether there's any way to know.

And since there's no way to know if there's a way to know, necessarily, this means that there's no way to know. You're making a circular arguement.

Dhusk: There are moderate Republicans left?

They get called "liberals" these days.

juandoh
I am a devout christian (catholic, if you do not believe catholics are christian, please increase your level of literacy).

Already starting off defensive, nice. In fact, it's not hard to argue all the differences between Catholics and Christians, and how the former might not necessarily be a subset of the latter, but it seems like you're on a roll so...

I also have a masters degree in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in Molecular Toxicology with concentrations in organic chemistry and biochemistry biophysics. I have at least 10 publications to my name, and have been doing research for 11 years.

Um, you da man?

There is no conflict between my faith and my pursuit of science. I won't bother explaining why. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

Unfortunately it seems like you might have benefited from some basic psychology courses (not that biophysics isn't cool stuff). If you have faith, then your mind is predisposed to belief in that for which there is no proof. This does not mean you will apply faith to everything in your life, and when I said earlier that faith and science are like oil and water, this applies to psychological mechanisms at a very basic level. Simply put, the part of your mind that latches onto beliefs without proof is in conflict with the scientific part of you.


Clever Neologism
The problem is most poeple define God outside of all of this, and thus don't give even a useful analogous or cogent metaphorical defition.

How is this problem? As you said, God can be anything and everything, and there's currently no way to know. It seems all good to me.

skookum: They would still be accepted in society, but one would notice that you would not make as many personal achievements as those who professed Christian lives. And since most social interactions would center around a church, many who rejected the community would find themselves in places more given to crime and lowlifes.

wh0mprat: Yes, Christianity has always been a great unifier.

Sarcasm aside, if the idea caught on strong enough, there could be a progression to some kind of caste system, yes. Persecution of non-believers would be discouraged, certainly, but you can't help having a few bad apples in the bunch that wouldn't want to be a part of it.


I hope you're trolling, b/c if not, you're scaring the shiat out of me.

entropic_existence

Yea I joined the party too late for most of them.


It's always a fine balance. You can't come too early, because you don't have anything to say that isn't a trite simplification, and you don't want to make a huge detailed and interesting, complete post and kill the thread.

You can't come in too late, because it's devolved into a shouting match with no one making any new interesting arguments, and crowding out yours (which strangely, and thankfully, hasn't happened in this thread).

Ah, the delicate balance of forum posting.

muninsfire: A caste system, may I remind you, which is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy [ "We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal" ] that our country was founded on.

No I don't think you understand. A caste system would develop naturally. People would willingly join a National Church, no government sponsorship and rules of conduct would be decided by private policy.

It's pretty much the only way this country is going to come together, by agreeing to a core set of principles with religion as the uniter.

"Macroevolution, on the other hand, claims that species evolve and work their way up, adding to their genetic potential as they go. Macroevolution has never been observed, and can't be proven to have happened in the past."

Current fossil, genetic, and zoological evidence or existing animals and species disagree. While we have no direct observable evidence (obviously), research has shown every indication that this has happened in the past.

Discounting the evidance is the same as finding the Incan ruins and concluding that because there were no people living there when it was discovered, there was never an Incan civilization.

skookum
Sarcasm aside, if the idea caught on strong enough, there could be a progression to some kind of caste system, yes.

This is a joke. A damn fine one too. You profess a subtle jape, for those with ears to hear it.

juandoh

Congratulations.

"Somehow, the wine turns to blood. We do not ask how this is done. Somehow, the spirit transcends the body. We do not look for empirical evidence of this occurring."

That's because these things never happened...There's no need to research something that never occured...

skookum: No I don't think you understand. A caste system would develop naturally. People would willingly join a National Church, no government sponsorship and rules of conduct would be decided by private policy.

It's pretty much the only way this country is going to come together, by agreeing to a core set of principles with religion as the uniter.

Then the cure is worse than the disease. I would rather this country be dissolved entirely than enter into a state in violation of that basic founding principle.

Or are you trolling? In which case, kindly STFU. I was having fun until you came in.

muninsfire [TotalFark]
I do not think that that word means what you think it means.
Actually that's the definition I had in mind.

There are many people of faith who do not fall within that category.

I would argue that there are not. The world is made up of many people with faith and many without, most of which succumb to one of the basic driving forces of humanity: to figure out this world. They're already in disagreement at a very fundamental level because of faith.

Right, so there's no way to know whether there's any way to know.

And since there's no way to know if there's a way to know, necessarily, this means that there's no way to know. You're making a circular arguement.

It's not circular, it's infinite.

Moderate Republicans scored key primary victories in State Board of Education races

I guess that's the best we can hope for in Kansas.

/"Progressives scored key primary victories in State..."
//Heh. Oh, well.
///I'm not going to comment on this thread because it's either full of trolls or chillingly bad

It's always a fine balance. You can't come too early, because you don't have anything to say that isn't a trite simplification, and you don't want to make a huge detailed and interesting, complete post and kill the thread.


I just like to come in, start flinging poo and see what sticks.

FloydA: Do you have more noteworthy personal achievements than, for example, atheists Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins?

Perhaps, finally, their acidic misanthropic style would finally be scorned for the un-Christian behavior that it is.

How about Jews Elie Wiesel, Jonas Salk or Franz Boas?

Jews most likely would continue in their own way, with their own faiths. But it would be recognized that their philosophies are out of date and anachronistic.

I really hope you're trolling.

No, I'm just offering an alternative. This country is much too fragmented, and faith is already being dismissed as myth. America needs to return to these roots.

They would still be accepted in society, but one would notice that you would not make as many personal achievements as those who professed Christian lives.

Perhaps we could all wear gold "A" badges?

skookum: It's pretty much the only way this country is going to come together, by agreeing to a core set of principles with religion as the uniter.


Patriatism is the new religion in this day and age.

There is more empirical evidence for evolution than there is for Intelligent Design. This is not only because there is mountains of evidence collected over decades that support evolution, it is also because there is no empirical evidence for Intelligent Design.


.

2006-08-02 12:59:46 PM wh0mprat


Just because it's interesting doesn't make it scientific. If it's not scientific, it doesn't belong in scientific discussions.

If it had any merit, it would be seriously considered.

God, the guy who could PROVE Intelligent Design would be a superstar.


Hmm. I think you are being overly judgmental. Just because an argument can be shown to be wrong does not mean that it lacks scientific merit. And entropic_existence is right that ID proponents "cherry-pick" but again, ID in its purest form is all about cherry picking because: the hypothesis is that there is evidence of intelligent design in natural forms. It doesn't claim that ALL natural forms shown this evidence, only that certain ones do. And if you read my boobies boobies boobies (this thread needs boobies), you'll see that I question why one would include Lamarckism and spontaneous generation (theories that were taken very seriously in the 18th and early 19th centuries) and omit discussions of ID simply because you're afraid of misleading the general public.

Yes we all know that 99.9 % of biologists don't take it seriously, but you don't need to wait until that number is 100% to include it in discussions of biology, if you approach it from the context of molecular evolution.

If you want to teach a religious version of how we got here, you are free to do so in church.

.

FloydA
Why not just set up special camps?

Maybe we can have New York and LA.

Skookum
It's pretty much the only way this country is going to come together, by agreeing to a core set of principles with religion as the uniter.


That's like saying the only way to get to another planet is to travel faster than light. Good luck with that.

A few points.

Why does the country have to "come toghether"?
Why can't the Constitution be the core set of principles, to the extent that such a thing is needed?
What can't Buddhism or Sikhism be the uniting religion?

Intelligent Design cannot stand up to the burden of proof it places upon evolution, and it exempts itself from its own demands, since it can neither be proved nor disproved.


.

mp3sum

Clever Neologism
The problem is most poeple define God outside of all of this, and thus don't give even a useful analogous or cogent metaphorical defition.

How is this problem? As you said, God can be anything and everything, and there's currently no way to know. It seems all good to me.


It's a problem because it makes it very difficult (I would say impossible, even) to meaningfully communicate with each other about it, and because it is a large part of most people's social, mental, and cultural structure.

mp3sum: Actually that's the definition I had in mind.

Obviously not, as:

They're already in disagreement at a very fundamental level because of faith.

Not necessarily. Having faith in a higher power in no way precludes wanting to figure out how the world works. Actually, I'd argue that having faith in a higher power would drive you to desire to know how the world works--and that knowing how the world works would give you even greater faith.

It's not circular, it's infinite.

Same thing.

Bhopper: Perhaps we could all wear gold "A" badges?

No, stay traditional: scarlet.

IdBeCrazyIf: Patriatism is the new religion in this day and age.

It's "Patriotism". And the Tao says:

When the Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born.

/This is all FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE and is NOT meant to be taken literally, before you all call Homeland Security on me.

skookum
This country is much too fragmented, and faith is already being dismissed as myth. America needs to return to these roots.


What makes you say the country is "too fragmented"?

Faith is belief in the unproven and unprovable. It is irrational.

Why does Amerca need to return to these "roots"?

SkinnyHead: ALL men are created equal? Are you some sort of creationist? Do you think that some magical man in the sky gave you equality and inalienable rights?

You evolved from a monkey-man by purely natural processes. You have no more rights that a monkey.

A) Subsitute the word "born"--are you happy?
B) You're a troll, and a bad one at that.
C) If you actually read the thread, you'd notice that I'm not a creationist.
D) Burma shave.

wh0mprat: Why does the country have to "come toghether"?

You really have to ask?

Why can't the Constitution be the core set of principles, to the extent that such a thing is needed?

Because a private organization should be able to come up with its own set of principles based on religion without government intrusion. Perhaps many of the points could be lifted from the Constitution, it would be up the members to agree what gets written into the charter.

What can't Buddhism or Sikhism be the uniting religion?

Because America has a rich Christian tradition that needs to be revitalized.

skookum: America needs to return to these roots.

Those were never the roots of this country to begin with, so there would be no "return". Jeez, to to what you propose, we'd have to eliminate the first amendment to the Constitution.

Good Luck with that.

SkinnyHead: ALL men are created equal? Are you some sort of creationist? Do you think that some magical man in the sky gave you equality and inalienable rights?

You evolved from a monkey-man by purely natural processes. You have no more rights that a monkey.

People who are being deliberately obtuse are funny.

skookum: No, I'm just offering an alternative. This country is much too fragmented, and faith is already being dismissed as myth. America needs to return to these roots.

Gee and here I thought most of Americas founding fathers were Diests. They saw some good ideals and moral codes in Christianity but pretty much all religions shared them in some form or another.

Your ideas sound alot like those expressed by the government in V for Vendetta. "Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith." No Thanks. Then again I'm not an American but most of us outside of the US have a vested interest in the political landscape within it.

skookum: Because a private organization should be able to come up with its own set of principles based on religion without government intrusion.

They already do. I fail to see where there's government intrusion into the churches now. Unless you want human sacrifice or something, that is....

/I don't remember having you on my list of screwball fundamentalist types....

skookum

FloydA: Do you have more noteworthy personal achievements than, for example, atheists Penn Jillette or Richard Dawkins?

Perhaps, finally, their acidic misanthropic style would finally be scorned for the un-Christian behavior that it is.


Acidic, definitely. That's because they can be sued if they actually came out and simply said someone is a liar, cheat, and a swindle. They have to beat the data into the ground, and just call them bullshiatters.

In fact, they are so caught up in litigation anyway it isn't funny.

Misanthropic? Not by a long shot. In fact, their libertarian stance and most of their debunking comes from a sincere desire to help people not be swindled or waste their time. Not only that, they want people to be able to do as much as possible, even things they hate and would never do, without hurting anyone else. That's the exact opposite of misanthropic, in my opinion.

Truly fascinating to me.

Nobody listening to each other, only the most sensational posts get responses, people not addressing most points, just ad hominem attacks, making fun of the other side, and in the end, nobody is going to change positions anyways.

I guess it's only useful purpose is for people to hone their own point of view while spewing it on others.

That's what it's been for me anyways.

muninsfire: /This is all FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE and is NOT meant to be taken literally, before you all call Homeland Security on me.

I outta just for correcting my spelling =P

skookum
You really have to ask?

I really do.

Because a private organization should be able to come up with its own set of principles based on religion without government intrusion.


But your proposed system wouold replace the Constitution and hence the government. You're replacing one authority with another. This is no "private" church you're talking about, this is an established State church.

Perhaps many of the points could be lifted from the Constitution, it would be up the members to agree what gets written into the charter.

Yeah, that's what they did with the Constitution. You're reinventing the wheel.

Because America has a rich Christian tradition that needs to be revitalized.

I disagree. Why does it need to be "revitalized"? If it were any good, it wouldn't be falling into decline.

"Because America has a rich Christian tradition that needs to be revitalized."

Change "revitalized" to "defined and understood to be a superstition" and you'd be making progress.