I'm very sorry for disrupting the flow of an otherwise interesting thread but here's a funny side story
Someone I know as a child was caugh masterbating by another (religious) friend. The friend in turn told his parents who told their priest. Long story short this poor kid has a exorcism performed on him to remove his demons. I kid you not.
I can't help but laugh at that.
Another thing: I notice stickman proclaiming "God I hate religion" funny as that is in itself I find I do that too. I'm not religious but I take "the lords" name in vain all the time just out of habit. Jesus Christ! (stub a toe) Oh my God! (dog caught fire) Sweet Jesus in a handbasket! (Spontaneously funny and amazing occurance) etc.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1594519:date=Jan 3 2007, 08:01 PM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aeroripper @ Jan 3 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]1594519[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Wasn't it added in the 50s to give make it seem like god was on 'our' side over the godless communists? I could be mistaken though. It doesn't say "one nation through Christ our lord" in it. It says 'God', which is a fairly broad assumption that the majority of the nation believes in some sort of higher power, not necessarily a Christian one. That is not enough clearance to apply the blanket term, "A Christian nation", to an entire populace. I think its open to individual interpretation as to what "God" is, or stands for, other than it being a monotheistic power. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about athiests who are forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under god? This is arguably a violation of the US constitution. A case in the supreme court ruled so in 2002, but it collapsed when the parent fighting the case on behalf of the child was shown to be the non-costodial parent and therefore didn't have standing on the issue.
The 'under good' was introduced by Eisenhower post WW2. There's a good summary of it on the wikipedia page for 'Pledge of Allegiance'.
I grew up during the transition from a strong catholic grip on Irish morality to a the secular modern european state we are today, and I have fist hand experience of the problems a lack of separation of church and state can bring. Even though the draft EU constitution didn't get ratified, I was very happy to see the european leadership refuse to mention god in the constitution. Religion has no place in civic governance or on national symbols.
<!--quoteo(post=1594747:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:59 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jan 4 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]1594747[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What about athiests who are forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under god? This is arguably a violation of the US constitution.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe they're in the wrong country then? I mean, they may be born there, but if they are not willing to accept the fundamental values of the country, why are they there? They can just go to Canada or some european country, right?
As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so. And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority?
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->America, Fair and Balanced, Republic, Checks and Balances appear as registered trademarks of FOX News Network, LLC. "Union of Democratic States" is copyrighted 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Maybe they're in the wrong country then? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are being silly now.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I mean, they may be born there, but if they are not willing to accept the fundamental values of the country, why are they there? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is 'One nation under god' a value? This is a belief, not a value. Athiests are capable of arriving at the same set of morals and ethics as monotheists. They should not need to recognise the existence of god to pledge allegiance to their nation.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> They can just go to Canada or some european country, right? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, if they love their country and are patriotic, they should stay and support change. It's called democracy.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The constitution isn't a law. It's a framework for governance and a set of rights that laws must abide by. The constitution is not there to serve the people, it is there to protect the people from government. Laws are easy to pass, constitutional amendments are very difficult to introduce.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is correct, but the people should be required to first give a mandate to their leadership to amend the constitution.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not true. The majority do not govern, the elected representatives do and the people have to bow to their will, irrespective of what the majority or minority think. The majority give a mandate to the elected representatives. The minority should be allowed freedom of expression and the right to continue to argue the case for their beliefs.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the majority should be able to enact change, but the point is that right now in the US as the law currently stands, the presence of 'god' on national currency and the fact that athiests are generally forced to recognise the existence of god every day in school is counter to the ideals codified in the US constitution. Right now, if an athiest wants to stick to her beliefs her only option is to refuse to pledge allegiance, which brings her loyalty into question and creates needless friction between two equally valuable belief systems.
The great thing about the US throughout history, is they have generally, on the balance of things, protected freedom of expression and the rights of the individual.
America's democracy is not set up to let the majority do whatever they want. If the majority of Americans elected to send black people to concentration camps, it still wouldn't happen (or at least it would be illegal): our constitution and our courts are set up to keep America safe for everyone. The will of the majority is not a good enough reason to do anything in America, and "if you don't like it, move somewhere else" is never an acceptable answer. Even if everyone were magically capable of moving somewhere else whenever they wanted to, we'd just end up with an empty nation. Every time a decision was made that someone disagreed with, they'd leave, until it would just be one person left in charge and everyone else who had some sort of disagreement with him or her gone.
<!--quoteo(post=1594787:date=Jan 4 2007, 02:26 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jan 4 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]1594787[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You are being silly now. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Yes indeed I was, but I made you make a good post on the subjects I touched. I are skilled provocateur!
As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again? That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths.
<!--quoteo(post=1594811:date=Jan 4 2007, 09:50 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]1594811[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes. Yes indeed I was, but I made you make a good post on the subjects I touched. I are skilled provocateur!
As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again? That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While reciting it without "under God" wouldn't anger anyone, the proposal of removing "under God" now would enrage some religious people beyond belief - despite the fact it wasn't there before. I guess it always tends to be harder to remove things than to add them.
Good discussion, it is very interesting to read. however, I'm not going to jump in, as I've been down the road of internet religious debates one too many times. I will however, respond to the one thing LF says no one disagrees with <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />.
<!--quoteo(post=1593855:date=Jan 1 2007, 05:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 1 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]1593855[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The one stance about belief in general I've never seen anyone dare to speak up against is this one: "Believe whatever the hell you want, but leave ME alone. And WHATEVER you do, do NOT try to make LAWS that I have to live by based on YOUR religion." <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take issue with it in one concern. My beliefs do shape my morality, and the standards in which I live and act. however, you are correct in the fact that I, at no time, wish to enforce my way of life on anyone else.
The problem is then this: When the government legislates things that violate my personal stance on morality, it is not that big of an issue. However, when the public institutions teach my children that such a way of life, one which is contradictory to our beliefs, is sanctioned and valid, then the gov't, or society, has stepped in and forced their beliefs on me. However, if I use the gov't to uphold my beliefs, I am subjugating my beliefs on others. There will always be disagreements on such "common ground".
So, this sounds in theory a wonderful median, one in which I'd love to adhere to, but it isn't feasible. And no, I'm not talking about "In God We Trust" or the Ten Commandments in public office. I'm speaking in regards to lifestyles and activities that aren't just accepted by our gov't (I believe anyone should have the freedom to live in any way they choose, barring injury or hurt to another), but when public education teaches that certain ideas/actions are endorsed as normal behavior/activities, I take issue with morality in contrast to my beliefs being forced on me.
I don't mention examples because I do not wish to derail this threadin specific arguments (leat of which the American "Big Three" moral debates). But consider this, I see a lot of "Christian" people adhering to a faith they've no personal knowledge of, living according to a religious observance rather than a real experience, and my heart hurts for the sadness cause by those who come "In The Name of Christ", yet lie,cheat, and destroy the lives of God's children. I also see many atheists in the same "jump on the bandwagon" mindset about the "evils" of anything religious and the ignorance of anyone who adheres to a faith, arrogantly teaching their own views as the absolute. The point is, before you make broad generalizations about people of faith, understand no one is innocent of being falsely stereotyped, and try as we may, there are those who do not adhere to the mold in which they've been associated.
Realize the true followers of Christ do not always agree nor condone the actions of an institution that is often thought to represent them.
<!--quoteo(post=1594811:date=Jan 4 2007, 09:50 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]1594811[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again? That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one would even notice. In fact, you could skip saying it all together and almost no one would notice.
Little known fact: American citzens are never actually forced to say the pledge of allegiance. Its just something they teach the little kids to promote patriotism, but if you don't want to say it, all you have to do is be quiet while everyone else is saying it. Remember that lawsuit you were talking about earlier? That wasn't a lawsuit about his kid being forced to SAY the pledge, it was a lawsuit about his kid being forced to HEAR the pledge, which makes it sound much more frivolous.
Disclaimer: I believe Citizens are made to say some sort of pledge on one of 3 occasions--being sworn in to public office, being sworn in to the military, or a foreigner being sworn in to citizenship. However, since I have never done any of those things myself, I don't know WHAT pledge is required, and I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is the one used. Maybe for new citizenship it is.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What about athiests who are forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under god? This is arguably a violation of the US constitution. A case in the supreme court ruled so in 2002, but it collapsed when the parent fighting the case on behalf of the child was shown to be the non-costodial parent and therefore didn't have standing on the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it would be a violation of the US constitution. Although I am not aware of school that would punish the child for not saying the pledge of allegiance, especially the god part. I don't think the 'under god' bit is necessarily referring to the Christian god was my meaning.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so. And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As said previously, the constitution protects citizens unalienable rights from government interference. The citizen has them innately, and does not receive that power from the constitution. It's fundamentally limiting the governments power over the citizen.
Also there is thing called minority rights to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. It's not entirely black and white and in some cases minorities rights absolutely have to be protected, and who need the most protection.
Actually, considering the circumstances that influenced Esienhower to add the words "under God," it is pretty clear that the words refer to the christian god.
<!--quoteo(post=1595828:date=Jan 7 2007, 09:54 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 7 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]1595828[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually, considering the circumstances that influenced Esienhower to add the words "under God," it is pretty clear that the words refer to the christian god. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that's true then wouldn't it be a violation of the separation of church and state? Not that I'm super interested in that topic, discussing technicalities isn't very entertaining <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> I really think that one of the best arguments against religion (apart from the fact that, why the hell would you believe a 2000 year old book over the combined scientific knowledge of our entire race) is the fact that you can pretty well predict someone's religion by the part of the world they were born in. To me this is so damning of the idea that religion could be some eternal truth, where the eternal truth you subscribe to is pretty much 100% predicted by your parent's religion and the part of the world you're born in. If America was 90% Buddhist, Eisenhower probably would've been a Buddhist and added the word God (or whatever Buddhists believe) with the Buddhist God in mind. It just seems like such a contingency that I find it hard to claim that this particular one is the actual real one...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?
Go all the way back before ANYTHING. What caused "SOMETHING" to exist? If you say SOMETHING always existed (perhaps energy?) then what caused this ever-present SOMETHING to change? (or to "go bang" for instance if you believe in that big thing.)
I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)
But if someone understands this idea better, please enlighten me, I've never understood it.
<!--quoteo(post=1599635:date=Jan 17 2007, 01:23 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 17 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]1599635[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> From the first post: I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?
Go all the way back before ANYTHING. What caused "SOMETHING" to exist? If you say SOMETHING always existed (perhaps energy?) then what caused this ever-present SOMETHING to change? (or to "go bang" for instance if you believe in that big thing.)
I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)
But if someone understands this idea better, please enlighten me, I've never understood it.
Cheers, ~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He is referring to the popular strawman of oversimplifying evolution by claiming it is only a sequence of random mutations, while ignoring the forces of natural selection.
<!--quoteo(post=1599635:date=Jan 17 2007, 04:23 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 17 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]1599635[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no: not atheists, but biologists, who are not necessarily atheists. The reason is that it is not correct to say that it's all chance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are talking about something quite different than things within the universe. No one has any idea whatsoever how to even begin to think about the why the universe is the way it is. Remember: every piece of evidence, every single observation and thing we have come to rely upon as a guide to understanding resides WITHIN the context of the universe. As such, it isn't helpful at all when it comes time to think about what the universe is or could have been. That's why a big fat "we have no clue" is the most honest option.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not a particularly helpful distinction though. Chance is never a thing on its own: chance is something we talk about as occurring within a particular system. And defining it so that it includes "everything but an intelligent designer" is like saying that the flavor of something is "not vanilla" and pretending that you've accurately labeled what it is, when in fact, you've just ruled out one possible option out of thousands or even an infinite number of possibilities.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1599635:date=Jan 17 2007, 04:23 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 17 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]1599635[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Generally, you don't call it chance when ice-cubes melt, when you throw a ball and it moves in the direction you threw it, or when the earth successfully completes another revolution around the sun. When things are governed and directed by natural law, chance just doesn't seem to be a descriptive word. The same can be said of evolution and the origins of life.
Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that <strike>creationism</strike> intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on.
In that case you can substitute the word "inevitable". It was inevitable that the ice cube would melt and the earth would revolve around the sun, and apparently it was inevitable that life would evolve.
Of course, a lot of people would disagree with that statement, just as many people would disagree that life could evolve by chance.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1600924:date=Jan 22 2007, 12:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 22 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]1600924[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that <strike>creationism</strike> intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hence why physicists spend so much time trying to explain all physical phenomena with as few natural laws as possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1600924:date=Jan 22 2007, 12:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 22 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]1600924[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that <strike>creationism</strike> intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.
@DarkATI, the answer to your questions is that we don't know yet. That doesn't mean scientists are wrong. And I absolutely love how you talk down to the big bang theory. Do you know anything about it? Do you know the evidence for it?
<!--quoteo(post=1601271:date=Jan 23 2007, 05:24 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 23 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]1601271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.
@DarkATI, the answer to your questions is that we don't know yet. That doesn't mean scientists are wrong. And I absolutely love how you talk down to the big bang theory. Do you know anything about it? Do you know the evidence for it? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> EXCUSE ME SIR GOD EXISTS (JUST READ THE BIBLE IT PROVES EVERYTHING)
<!--quoteo(post=1601271:date=Jan 24 2007, 12:24 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 24 2007, 12:24 AM) [snapback]1601271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do hereby feel corrected. That intelligent design and natural law have some of the same problems does not mean that they are otherwise comparable. The natural laws, for example, are well-substantiated - nobody demands proof of, say, gravity (for obvious reasons), and if anybody does anyway, such proof is quickly and easily procured. The existence of gravity is not in dispute. But the big question is "why?"
I guess I don't really see your point then. Of course 'why' is a question <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
if you have an opinion on whether there is or isnt a god then youre involved in theology, and if youre involved in theology then youre a religious person. and because its assumable that youve been raised in a western society with christian values (atheism is connected to pretty much just christianity), your piety lies with the christian god.
Atheism is not connected with christianity, it is disconnected from all religions. That's the point of atheism.
Having an opinion on whether there is or isn't a god may be theology, but that does not make you a religious person. To quote Dan Brown's Angels & Demons: "One does not need to have cancer to analyze its symptoms."
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1601281:date=Jan 24 2007, 12:30 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 24 2007, 12:30 AM) [snapback]1601281[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do hereby feel corrected. That intelligent design and natural law have some of the same problems does not mean that they are otherwise comparable. The natural laws, for example, are well-substantiated - nobody demands proof of, say, gravity (for obvious reasons), and if anybody does anyway, such proof is quickly and easily procured. The existence of gravity is not in dispute. But the big question is "why?" <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're lack of understanding of the scientific process is shocking. People do demand proofs of the theory(ies) of gravity. Unless someone demands proof, it technically isn't science. Science <b>requires</b> a theory be verified experimentally. You may not need proof to 'experience' gravity, but every scientist will demand proof of any theory of gravity you put forward. Just because all scientific theories haven't been proven doesn't mean people aren't trying.
Intelligent design shortcuts the scientific method and bends it to the foregone conclusions it sets out to find. This is bad science to begin with. Furthermore, the fundamental assertions of ID are fundamentally flawed, both logically and conceptually.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that creationism intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It appears to me that you have bought the ID scam hook, line and sinker. Perhaps it isn't science you misunderstand, but ID. I suggest you take the time to do some serious reading on ID before you compare it to proper science in future.
"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
ID does not set out to be objective and inquisitive. It has a goal and it looks for hypothesis that might fit their foregone conclusions. These problems are just for starters. When they talk about the 'fine-tuned universe' they show not only a very poor understanding of statistics, but are arguably trying to just confuse the issue and bring doubt into the question. And this is kicker, ID do not have to prove anything. They simply have to create enough doubt of science in the public perception to allow Christianity to further its political and civil objectives. These people think they do good science, but it has been clearly demonstrated that they don't. That's okay though, the history of science is full of bad science. Newton devoted half of his life to the study of Alchemy, believing he was put on earth to explain the mysteries of God's universe.
It still amazes me how a few newsbites about ID has put it side-by-side in the arguments of the uneducated ( or, as I assume in the case of the typical troll, the uninterested ).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> if you have an opinion on whether there is or isnt a god then youre involved in theology, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, someone who chooses the colour of the paint for their house is involved in geology.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and if youre involved in theology then youre a religious person. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think perhaps you are simply trolling.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> and because its assumable that youve been raised in a western society with christian values (atheism is connected to pretty much just christianity), your piety lies with the christian god. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even given the crazy cultural assumptions and sweeping generalisations you make, you still make many errors of increasing superlatives.
You start with opinion -> scientificy discipline -> vocation -> piety.
So by your reasoning, pretty much everyone is pious. It'd be hard to hold up your reasoning to a single living human and have them fail your 'acid test for piety'.
If I didn't know better, I'd think everyone here is doing their utmost to misunderstand me. The reason why hardly anybody demands proof of gravity is because it has ALREADY been proven many times. Of course some demand proof anyway, and speedily it is given to them. That is how we know that gravity works - because every time we set out to prove it, we succeed, and every time we set out to disprove it, we fail. So I ask you: Do you really demand proof of gravity? Beyond the proof you can easily conjure yourself, such as dropping something and watching it hit the floor? I bet you don't. Because it has already been proven time and time again, and you probably can't even think of another way to prove or disprove it that hasn't already been tried.
And NO, I'm NOT buying into intelligent design. Where are you getting that idea from? And no, merely quoting my post is not the answer to that question. Please point out where I pledge my allegiance to intelligent design, thankyouverymuch.
Comments
Someone I know as a child was caugh masterbating by another (religious) friend. The friend in turn told his parents who told their priest. Long story short this poor kid has a exorcism performed on him to remove his demons. I kid you not.
I can't help but laugh at that.
Another thing: I notice stickman proclaiming "God I hate religion" funny as that is in itself I find I do that too. I'm not religious but I take "the lords" name in vain all the time just out of habit. Jesus Christ! (stub a toe) Oh my God! (dog caught fire) Sweet Jesus in a handbasket! (Spontaneously funny and amazing occurance) etc.
Wasn't it added in the 50s to give make it seem like god was on 'our' side over the godless communists? I could be mistaken though.
It doesn't say "one nation through Christ our lord" in it. It says 'God', which is a fairly broad assumption that the majority of the nation believes in some sort of higher power, not necessarily a Christian one. That is not enough clearance to apply the blanket term, "A Christian nation", to an entire populace. I think its open to individual interpretation as to what "God" is, or stands for, other than it being a monotheistic power.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about athiests who are forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under god? This is arguably a violation of the US constitution. A case in the supreme court ruled so in 2002, but it collapsed when the parent fighting the case on behalf of the child was shown to be the non-costodial parent and therefore didn't have standing on the issue.
The 'under good' was introduced by Eisenhower post WW2. There's a good summary of it on the wikipedia page for 'Pledge of Allegiance'.
I grew up during the transition from a strong catholic grip on Irish morality to a the secular modern european state we are today, and I have fist hand experience of the problems a lack of separation of church and state can bring. Even though the draft EU constitution didn't get ratified, I was very happy to see the european leadership refuse to mention god in the constitution. Religion has no place in civic governance or on national symbols.
What about athiests who are forced to pledge allegiance to a nation under god? This is arguably a violation of the US constitution.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe they're in the wrong country then? I mean, they may be born there, but if they are not willing to accept the fundamental values of the country, why are they there? They can just go to Canada or some european country, right?
As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so. And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority?
And that, kids, is why America™ is a Fair and Balanced® Republic™ formed of a Union of Democratic States© with a system of Checks and Balances™
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->America, Fair and Balanced, Republic, Checks and Balances appear as registered trademarks of FOX News Network, LLC. "Union of Democratic States" is copyrighted 2007 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Maybe they're in the wrong country then?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are being silly now.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I mean, they may be born there, but if they are not willing to accept the fundamental values of the country, why are they there?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is 'One nation under god' a value? This is a belief, not a value. Athiests are capable of arriving at the same set of morals and ethics as monotheists. They should not need to recognise the existence of god to pledge allegiance to their nation.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
They can just go to Canada or some european country, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, if they love their country and are patriotic, they should stay and support change. It's called democracy.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The constitution isn't a law. It's a framework for governance and a set of rights that laws must abide by. The constitution is not there to serve the people, it is there to protect the people from government. Laws are easy to pass, constitutional amendments are very difficult to introduce.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is correct, but the people should be required to first give a mandate to their leadership to amend the constitution.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is not true. The majority do not govern, the elected representatives do and the people have to bow to their will, irrespective of what the majority or minority think. The majority give a mandate to the elected representatives. The minority should be allowed freedom of expression and the right to continue to argue the case for their beliefs.
<!--quoteo(post=1594759:date=Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 4 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]1594759[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the majority should be able to enact change, but the point is that right now in the US as the law currently stands, the presence of 'god' on national currency and the fact that athiests are generally forced to recognise the existence of god every day in school is counter to the ideals codified in the US constitution. Right now, if an athiest wants to stick to her beliefs her only option is to refuse to pledge allegiance, which brings her loyalty into question and creates needless friction between two equally valuable belief systems.
The great thing about the US throughout history, is they have generally, on the balance of things, protected freedom of expression and the rights of the individual.
You are being silly now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Yes indeed I was, but I made you make a good post on the subjects I touched. I are skilled provocateur!
As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again?
That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths.
Yes. Yes indeed I was, but I made you make a good post on the subjects I touched. I are skilled provocateur!
As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again?
That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While reciting it without "under God" wouldn't anger anyone, the proposal of removing "under God" now would enrage some religious people beyond belief - despite the fact it wasn't there before. I guess it always tends to be harder to remove things than to add them.
<!--quoteo(post=1593855:date=Jan 1 2007, 05:05 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 1 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]1593855[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The one stance about belief in general I've never seen anyone dare to speak up against is this one:
"Believe whatever the hell you want, but leave ME alone. And WHATEVER you do, do NOT try to make LAWS that I have to live by based on YOUR religion."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take issue with it in one concern. My beliefs do shape my morality, and the standards in which I live and act. however, you are correct in the fact that I, at no time, wish to enforce my way of life on anyone else.
The problem is then this: When the government legislates things that violate my personal stance on morality, it is not that big of an issue. However, when the public institutions teach my children that such a way of life, one which is contradictory to our beliefs, is sanctioned and valid, then the gov't, or society, has stepped in and forced their beliefs on me. However, if I use the gov't to uphold my beliefs, I am subjugating my beliefs on others. There will always be disagreements on such "common ground".
So, this sounds in theory a wonderful median, one in which I'd love to adhere to, but it isn't feasible. And no, I'm not talking about "In God We Trust" or the Ten Commandments in public office. I'm speaking in regards to lifestyles and activities that aren't just accepted by our gov't (I believe anyone should have the freedom to live in any way they choose, barring injury or hurt to another), but when public education teaches that certain ideas/actions are endorsed as normal behavior/activities, I take issue with morality in contrast to my beliefs being forced on me.
I don't mention examples because I do not wish to derail this threadin specific arguments (leat of which the American "Big Three" moral debates). But consider this, I see a lot of "Christian" people adhering to a faith they've no personal knowledge of, living according to a religious observance rather than a real experience, and my heart hurts for the sadness cause by those who come "In The Name of Christ", yet lie,cheat, and destroy the lives of God's children. I also see many atheists in the same "jump on the bandwagon" mindset about the "evils" of anything religious and the ignorance of anyone who adheres to a faith, arrogantly teaching their own views as the absolute. The point is, before you make broad generalizations about people of faith, understand no one is innocent of being falsely stereotyped, and try as we may, there are those who do not adhere to the mold in which they've been associated.
Realize the true followers of Christ do not always agree nor condone the actions of an institution that is often thought to represent them.
As for the pledge of allegiance, what if one were to simply omit the two words "under God" while reciting it? Would anybody really care? Would they really question one's loyalty, or make one recite it again?
That (<strike>original</strike> earlier) version would not be offensive to atheists, nor to most people of religious faiths.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one would even notice. In fact, you could skip saying it all together and almost no one would notice.
Little known fact: American citzens are never actually forced to say the pledge of allegiance. Its just something they teach the little kids to promote patriotism, but if you don't want to say it, all you have to do is be quiet while everyone else is saying it. Remember that lawsuit you were talking about earlier? That wasn't a lawsuit about his kid being forced to SAY the pledge, it was a lawsuit about his kid being forced to HEAR the pledge, which makes it sound much more frivolous.
Disclaimer: I believe Citizens are made to say some sort of pledge on one of 3 occasions--being sworn in to public office, being sworn in to the military, or a foreigner being sworn in to citizenship. However, since I have never done any of those things myself, I don't know WHAT pledge is required, and I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is the one used. Maybe for new citizenship it is.
Yes it would be a violation of the US constitution. Although I am not aware of school that would punish the child for not saying the pledge of allegiance, especially the god part. I don't think the 'under god' bit is necessarily referring to the Christian god was my meaning.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
As for the constitution, it's a law like any other: It's supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. If the people want their country centered around God, the constitution should not prevent them from doing so. And it's a democracy, so the minority should bow to the will of the majority. That's how democracy works. What would the point of democracy be if the majority could not force their will on the minority?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As said previously, the constitution protects citizens unalienable rights from government interference. The citizen has them innately, and does not receive that power from the constitution. It's fundamentally limiting the governments power over the citizen.
Also there is thing called minority rights to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. It's not entirely black and white and in some cases minorities rights absolutely have to be protected, and who need the most protection.
Actually, considering the circumstances that influenced Esienhower to add the words "under God," it is pretty clear that the words refer to the christian god.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's true then wouldn't it be a violation of the separation of church and state? Not that I'm super interested in that topic, discussing technicalities isn't very entertaining <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
I really think that one of the best arguments against religion (apart from the fact that, why the hell would you believe a 2000 year old book over the combined scientific knowledge of our entire race) is the fact that you can pretty well predict someone's religion by the part of the world they were born in. To me this is so damning of the idea that religion could be some eternal truth, where the eternal truth you subscribe to is pretty much 100% predicted by your parent's religion and the part of the world you're born in. If America was 90% Buddhist, Eisenhower probably would've been a Buddhist and added the word God (or whatever Buddhists believe) with the Buddhist God in mind. It just seems like such a contingency that I find it hard to claim that this particular one is the actual real one...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?
Go all the way back before ANYTHING. What caused "SOMETHING" to exist? If you say SOMETHING always existed (perhaps energy?) then what caused this ever-present SOMETHING to change? (or to "go bang" for instance if you believe in that big thing.)
I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)
But if someone understands this idea better, please enlighten me, I've never understood it.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
From the first post:
I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?
Go all the way back before ANYTHING. What caused "SOMETHING" to exist? If you say SOMETHING always existed (perhaps energy?) then what caused this ever-present SOMETHING to change? (or to "go bang" for instance if you believe in that big thing.)
I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)
But if someone understands this idea better, please enlighten me, I've never understood it.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is referring to the popular strawman of oversimplifying evolution by claiming it is only a sequence of random mutations, while ignoring the forces of natural selection.
I always have trouble with this one. Atheists seem so offended by the mere mention of "chance" regarding the origins of life. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no: not atheists, but biologists, who are not necessarily atheists. The reason is that it is not correct to say that it's all chance.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why? If no one "willed" or "created" any of this isn't it fair to say that it just so "happened" (by chance) to occur?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are talking about something quite different than things within the universe. No one has any idea whatsoever how to even begin to think about the why the universe is the way it is. Remember: every piece of evidence, every single observation and thing we have come to rely upon as a guide to understanding resides WITHIN the context of the universe. As such, it isn't helpful at all when it comes time to think about what the universe is or could have been. That's why a big fat "we have no clue" is the most honest option.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not a particularly helpful distinction though. Chance is never a thing on its own: chance is something we talk about as occurring within a particular system. And defining it so that it includes "everything but an intelligent designer" is like saying that the flavor of something is "not vanilla" and pretending that you've accurately labeled what it is, when in fact, you've just ruled out one possible option out of thousands or even an infinite number of possibilities.
I submit to you that if nothing existed to purposefully will the creation of life and/or to create life, itself, then CHANCE created life and everything around us. (Since chance is the absence of purpose and/or direct intention.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally, you don't call it chance when ice-cubes melt, when you throw a ball and it moves in the direction you threw it, or when the earth successfully completes another revolution around the sun. When things are governed and directed by natural law, chance just doesn't seem to be a descriptive word. The same can be said of evolution and the origins of life.
Of course, a lot of people would disagree with that statement, just as many people would disagree that life could evolve by chance.
Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that <strike>creationism</strike> intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hence why physicists spend so much time trying to explain all physical phenomena with as few natural laws as possible.
Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that <strike>creationism</strike> intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.
@DarkATI, the answer to your questions is that we don't know yet. That doesn't mean scientists are wrong. And I absolutely love how you talk down to the big bang theory. Do you know anything about it? Do you know the evidence for it?
I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.
@DarkATI, the answer to your questions is that we don't know yet. That doesn't mean scientists are wrong. And I absolutely love how you talk down to the big bang theory. Do you know anything about it? Do you know the evidence for it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EXCUSE ME SIR GOD EXISTS (JUST READ THE BIBLE IT PROVES EVERYTHING)
I think that the implication you make here that ID should be on the same level as natural law (if you're not implying that, then correct me) is awfully dishonest. Just because we don't know where something comes from doesn't mean that we never will, doesn't mean it's not useful, and doesn't mean we can make stuff up and call it truth.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do hereby feel corrected. That intelligent design and natural law have some of the same problems does not mean that they are otherwise comparable. The natural laws, for example, are well-substantiated - nobody demands proof of, say, gravity (for obvious reasons), and if anybody does anyway, such proof is quickly and easily procured. The existence of gravity is not in dispute. But the big question is "why?"
I guess I don't really see your point then. Of course 'why' is a question <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
therefore, atheists are christians
Having an opinion on whether there is or isn't a god may be theology, but that does not make you a religious person. To quote Dan Brown's Angels & Demons: "One does not need to have cancer to analyze its symptoms."
Do hereby feel corrected. That intelligent design and natural law have some of the same problems does not mean that they are otherwise comparable. The natural laws, for example, are well-substantiated - nobody demands proof of, say, gravity (for obvious reasons), and if anybody does anyway, such proof is quickly and easily procured. The existence of gravity is not in dispute. But the big question is "why?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're lack of understanding of the scientific process is shocking. People do demand proofs of the theory(ies) of gravity. Unless someone demands proof, it technically isn't science. Science <b>requires</b> a theory be verified experimentally. You may not need proof to 'experience' gravity, but every scientist will demand proof of any theory of gravity you put forward. Just because all scientific theories haven't been proven doesn't mean people aren't trying.
Intelligent design shortcuts the scientific method and bends it to the foregone conclusions it sets out to find. This is bad science to begin with. Furthermore, the fundamental assertions of ID are fundamentally flawed, both logically and conceptually.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Natural law, however, is mired in the same problems that creationism intelligent design is: Where did natural law come from? And once you figure out that natural law comes from 'X', where did 'X' come from? And so on
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It appears to me that you have bought the ID scam hook, line and sinker. Perhaps it isn't science you misunderstand, but ID. I suggest you take the time to do some serious reading on ID before you compare it to proper science in future.
"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
ID does not set out to be objective and inquisitive. It has a goal and it looks for hypothesis that might fit their foregone conclusions. These problems are just for starters. When they talk about the 'fine-tuned universe' they show not only a very poor understanding of statistics, but are arguably trying to just confuse the issue and bring doubt into the question. And this is kicker, ID do not have to prove anything. They simply have to create enough doubt of science in the public perception to allow Christianity to further its political and civil objectives. These people think they do good science, but it has been clearly demonstrated that they don't. That's okay though, the history of science is full of bad science. Newton devoted half of his life to the study of Alchemy, believing he was put on earth to explain the mysteries of God's universe.
It still amazes me how a few newsbites about ID has put it side-by-side in the arguments of the uneducated ( or, as I assume in the case of the typical troll, the uninterested ).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
if you have an opinion on whether there is or isnt a god then youre involved in theology,
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, someone who chooses the colour of the paint for their house is involved in geology.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
and if youre involved in theology then youre a religious person.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think perhaps you are simply trolling.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
and because its assumable that youve been raised in a western society with christian values (atheism is connected to pretty much just christianity), your piety lies with the christian god.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even given the crazy cultural assumptions and sweeping generalisations you make, you still make many errors of increasing superlatives.
You start with opinion -> scientificy discipline -> vocation -> piety.
So by your reasoning, pretty much everyone is pious. It'd be hard to hold up your reasoning to a single living human and have them fail your 'acid test for piety'.
And NO, I'm NOT buying into intelligent design. Where are you getting that idea from? And no, merely quoting my post is not the answer to that question. Please point out where I pledge my allegiance to intelligent design, thankyouverymuch.