http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4
I always hear "what can that hurt?" when it comes to prayer in school. It is an invasion of the rights of those who don't want to be exposed to voodoo. Of course I am talking about an organized silent moment. If you pray on your your own that is your business...after all...those prayers are only n your head. What if the children start organizing into groups and holding prayer sessions on their own?
Well, the ten commandments are the popular "religious" symbol to erect but I pretty much agree here. I am not in favor of banning art from museums period. I like Da Vinci, Dali, Gilbert Sheldon and R. Crumb. Everything from the Madonna on the Rocks to the Comic That Plugs You In.
Evolution is the issue here. It is amazing how religious faith can affect people and their actions. Of course this is the emotional human and that gets back to the original dangerous animal discussion about our (human) possible genetic predisposition to war.

It gets problematic in the quote I italicized, Eileen. A book of logic taught properly has to allow for God to exist because logic cannot work without precedent and there is no proof for first cause. This is not the same as teaching creationism or supporting a particular religion, theology or ideology. It is recognizing the limitations of logical argument.

This is why a proseletyzing atheist is not consonant with a practicing scientist. Scientific method cannot be used to prove nor disprove the existence of God. One who asserts they can is either lieing or incompetent or both. Scientists who are practicing science don't take up that argument because they are aware of the limits of their method. This HAS to be taught because otherwise science is being tinctured with the religion of the atheist in preference to others and then we are in the very thing you want to avoid.

It is also undesirable to argue the merits of any religion or faith with an atheist except atheism. Their first precedent is to deny any God exists so it becomes their burden to prove a negative. Only a fool or an incompetent logician tries that.

So then it simply comes down to law: what a society permits through legal structures of governance and to an as yet unresolved and untested question in this thread: is morality above the law? This is a well-known debating question. See Wyle vs USC 1935 or the fictionalized movie version where they were portrayed as debating Harvard which they actually did not do but which was a stronger frame for the movie maker's objectives.

The reason it can come down to that debate is because it is possible to provide evidence for and against faith being supported in public schools. However, there is no logical test for the validity of it; only anecdotal evidence.

In America at this time, the public support is to not teach any particular religion in our schools and to dissuade displays of support in public institutions. In the Netherlands, there was a furor when a public official a few years ago made the suggestion that if the majority of the population were to become Muslim, it would be possible that Sharia would become part of the legal system. Further, this was the argument that prompted the trial of Sir Thomas Beckett in the time of Henry II. The question was one of jurisdiction given a state crime. Is the state the venue for trying murder or the church? Becket claimed by prior agreement that members of the clergy could only be tried by the church. Henry claimed it was a state crime.

So my question: given such a majority in the Netherlands, should Sharia become state law as it is in other Muslim-majority countries? Further, even given a minority should a state make an agreement with a religious organization that rights to trial be given over to them in cases where the accused is a member of that religious group?

The simpler case is marriage. US cases headed to the Supreme Court over same sex marriage will test this. In cases of public displays in accordance with religious tenets note the following in France:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=T2

It is only problematic because you want it to be. You mean allow for the possibility that god exists. This has absolutely nothing to do with creating textbooks that supply an alternative theory of biology solely designed to support the existence of god with creationism.


Not following the logic here? Both a proselytizing atheist and a practicing scientist can allow for the possibility god exists. It is the probability that god exists is the question they would debate. Scientific method can be used to assign probabilities to the description of the progression of living beings and the current diversity of life on this planet as the result of an evolutionary process. The probability that life was created as depicted by those with god agendas is negligible. The objective scientist (and atheist) does not need creationism as they have no agenda to prove if god does or does not exist.
The question from the scientists point of view is did life evolve on this planet from simple subcellular and cellular chemical processes not whether god exists or not. You are right that the scientist should consider creation as a possibility. The currently accepted scientific view is that it is an extremely low probability that life was created as the religious describe and want maintained in text books. It is the religious who worry about the perception evolution leaves not the scientist or the atheist because they don’t care.


I am an atheist who truly believes god exists. God is a creation of man. God was created out of fear, superstition and ignorance. God exists and he is a horribly evil SOB God is the nightmare on Elm Street that always returns for a sequel. God is a figment of the collective imagination with dangerous and unpredictable fringe elements. Why don’t you try to prove that is negative?


What are you talking about? Who is questioning whether morality is above the law?


What is the evidence in supporting forcing people against their will to be exposed to other peoples belief in god? Why should my kid be exposed to your fantasies any more than your kid should be exposed to my fantasies?


That would be constitutional. Freedom of religion means I don’t have to be subjected to your beliefs. In a school, when you are forcing your beliefs, these kids are forced to hear or experience them. That is unconstitutional! Why should god get a pass when it comes to the constitution?
These are the very reasons that separation of church and state needs to be defended. This is not now and hopefully will never even be considered an option in the USA.


Marriage is a contract. Sure there are emotional out bursts and crying and shit but it comes down to marriage being a contract. If the constitution has any meaning at all it will not rule on who can make a marriage contract with who? Why is it the governments business?

You don’t seem to be following what is going on here. I don’t care if you believe there is a god. I don’t care if you worship ants and eat beetle dung and call it a sacrament. Whatever god you want to believe in is fine with me. The point is, keep it to yourself (cause we are tired of fricking hearing it) and don’t use it to create barriers and fights that start wars. It is like this, if you are going to have your gods THEN CONTROL THEM AND MAKE THEM STOP KILLING PEOPLE! That is at least on atheist’s point of view. If I thought it would do any good I would gather together all religious books I could find (the bible, the quran, the torah, the bagavid gita…whatever it might be) and burn them all in one giant bon fire! I don’t fear the words printed on the pages. I don’t fear the art work that portrays Jesus or Moses or Mary or John or any one of those icon’s. I fear the destructive and violent behavior that these material things instill in people that results in the towers burning and people protesting funerals etc etc etc. until ultimately I hear of women in Iraq with babies in one hand and automatic weapons in the other for fear of their life’s in some ridiculous god inspired blood bath. HELLO??

.... so, I guess science can't be used to prove the non-existence of something that hasn't been proven to exist? Well, at least that part makes sense.

i have had and struggled with similar thoughts

I agree 100%! Of course I would go a little further and ask; why would anyone care to do that?

That's it. It can't be used to prove the existence of memes, or any other model. That's why science is couched in terms of predictive theory.

On the other hand, tests of behaviors can be scientific and that is why I ask about majority rule and imposition of religious laws (pick any you like). If it can be shown that living under some set of behavioral restrictions produces longer life, healthier life, and so on would you agree these are a good and the state should enforce them?

BTW: asking what is the most dangerous animal is a begging question. Whereas science can provide a definition for what is an animal, dangerous is non-rigorous. If we were to base that on the animal per se in terms of it's power by type to cause harm, anthrax is far more dangerous than a grizzly bear and a grizzly bear is slightly more dangerous than a bengal tiger and so on. Homo sapiens without clothes and without other homo sapiens are very far down on the danger list.

13

Hehehe. This seems to be getting pretty goofy to me...and that is saying something...

So who is asking for science and proof of that for which faith suffices?

That would be goofy indeed.

Again, competent scientists don't use science to test spirituality. The closest any texts I've seen so far come to that are the works on quantum effect and consiciousness. One commenter asked an interesting question: is consciousness a quantum effect or is quantum effect a product of consciousness? Keep Schroedinger's Cat in mind.

It's like a joke that you have to explain. If you have to explain it, it's no longer a joke.

2 more pages. Time to begin your closing arguments or get funnier jokes.

I dunno...that doesn't seem to be holding true on every thread.

As to the subject at hand...Humility, tolerance, and love for one another. I hate to keep repeating myself here (or maybe not). If you apply those things to your daily life, you are not only following the tenants of most of the religions I know anything about, but you will be a better person no matter what you believe.

Edited to say: Science is only as good as the theory. While I don't actually question the accuracy or validity of carbon dating, where is the real proof?

It's pretty funny to me! IMLMFAO! If things haven't tidied up with all of the o'verbiage of nearly two threads, they ain't a gonna in two more pages!
And, Gus, gotta agree with you on "the subject(s) at hand." Seems to have skipped a few or gotten lost in the the crush.

I am not trying to argue, persuade or be funny. I just wanted to hear opinions and I was good on this subject with one thread. My observations are that the general consensus agrees with all of the arguments Dr. Smith puts forward but deny his conclusions. For example...treat those around you with Humility tolerance and love is a tenant of most religions. This is in agreement with his (Dr. Smith's) argument. However, religions create barriers where the sincerity level changes. That barrier and lack of sincerity can be manipulated ultimately to dehumanize other humans. Deny it all we want, it happens all to often. Those men flying those planes into those buildings were generally described as "nice enough chaps" by those who encountered them. The psychiatrist at Fort Hood who pulled the gun one day had walked the barrier line along time before religion got the best of him. Religion is not the only barrier but it is now and always has been a major cause of wars. I debated it with Len so long because it is important that the voice of those like myself is heard. We remained silent way to long as the criers of the faithful drone on and on about their god and their morals and their rights to their land founded on their religion. People who don't buy it and don't want to hear it need to speak up.

And finally, what kind of proof are you looking for? Proof of what? Is there some cosmic unknown that keeps you awake at night? This is the sort of thing I don't understand.

i was able to say a lot of what i wanted to say about it, including about religion. i will highlight this as i didn't quite manage to articulate how i felt about the conflict of messages involving religion.



and i do appreciate your thoughts that are included there, goofus (about humility tolerance and love)
but my experience with religion...just seemed to lead to a confusion of spirit, or thought if you will