Some stuff from the Book

[Anonymous]

Kurieuo

I don't want to influence your opinion, but I still remember the saying that I don't often hear said these days: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will ever hurt me."

You've already successfully influenced my opinions, K. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As for the sticks and stones thing, I think the person who came up with that killed himself after hearing too many abusive words. Perhaps that's why the saying isn't heard very often these days...too many people realized that words often do hurt.
vvart:

Evolution states that given enough time and various conditions in environment a frog could become a human, now if you take the naturalistic process out what is it that you have?

I've never heard that before. Who did you learn the evolutionary theory from? I'm quite sure whoever was teaching you was leading you astray because a frog cannot become a human...that sounds like the fairy tale of evolution as opposed to the theory.
Mastermind:

Now if I can convince more people to fight the real enemy(naturalism), we'd strengthen our position considerably. So far, in my new stance, all debates have ended with the atheist getting pissed and whining that their position is more logical(we were debating naturalism vs ID, and he couldn't touch me on evolution as I now accept it), with absolutely nothing useful to say

The real enemy is--in my opinion--ignorance. All of us are ignorant of something or another, and I think a pride in ignorance is the enemy.

I have a few questions for you (as opposed to the complaints and whining you say atheists like to do):
1) Assuming naturalism is taken out of the school curriculum, what should it be replaced with?
2) Assume you were, to the dismay of scientists, put in charge of re-writing the school curriculum on the new anti-naturalism chapter. Could you write the chapter for all of us to see?
3) Once you are finished writing the chapter, how will people respond to it? I am not only talking about atheists/agnostics/scientists, but other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
4) If you believe, as I do, that science would become a philosophical debate class if creationism or ID were introduced as a valid scientific theory, how would you respond to the debates? Would you re-write your chapters to account for other people's views, or would you keep your view as the scientific fact?

To the person (I forgot who) who said that science is not entertaining: I disagree. Just an opinion. I read science all the time because I think it is entertaining, not because I want to torture myself with drab material. I enjoy learning as some people enjoy horror movies...it's a hobby of mine.
Suggestion: Read some of the Richard Feynman books. Surely, You're Joking Mr. Feynman is a great read written by a brilliant (and funny) scientist.

[Prodigal Son]

thanks for the suggestion...i might just read it!

happy to hear you don't find science boring anymore.

[Mastermind]

The real enemy is--in my opinion--ignorance. All of us are ignorant of something or another, and I think a pride in ignorance is the enemy.

The people I discuss with are rarely ignorant. Some people however are so entrenched in illogical convictions that nothing shall move them from it.

I have a few questions for you (as opposed to the complaints and whining you say atheists like to do):
1) Assuming naturalism is taken out of the school curriculum, what should it be replaced with?

Nothing. The cause is irrelevant to any scientific process, and as such, a waste of money. If something must be taught, then both ID and naturalism should, as neither has any empirical evidence supporting it.

2) Assume you were, to the dismay of scientists, put in charge of re-writing the school curriculum on the new anti-naturalism chapter. Could you write the chapter for all of us to see?

I would write no such thing. In fact, I would take naturalism out of the curriculum altogether, as it is more a matter of philosophy thant science, and as such should be in no textbook. However, for the sake of amusement, I will write a short paragraph on it(we assume the country this book is taught in is my own Empire, which is also a partial Christian Theocracy).

"Upon the foundation of the great Celestial Empire under our LORD and God, I have taken an oath to uphold Divine TRUTH in all matters. It has been brought to our attention that the heathen dogs of the Old World have corrupted the knowledge of a humanity in the most horrendeous way possible. Such tainting of our knowledge is not acceptable. As such, the Empire has launched an investigation led by the honorable Grand Inquisitor Maga Karn. The findings were shocking to all of us: the heathens have violated the purity of Science, given unto us by our LORD God, with their own putrid dogma. By taking a piss on hundreds of years of Scientific Reason, the heathens have entrenched their blasphemous naturalism, an Atheist origins, into a process which has no use of such strawman theories, claiming it is an integral part of it. Based upon our God given reason, LORD be praised, we have deduced that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that naturalism(the idea that mutations are random) has any part in evolution, and as such, education in its matter should be kept where it belongs: Philosophy and Atheism classes. We are apalled that the true free thinking scientist community of the Old World would still support a dogmatic device that sticks a nail in Progress's tire, beats the name of Science to a bloody pulp, and finally takes a piss on the graves of the Christian Fathers of the Scientific Revolution. God Bless you.

3) Once you are finished writing the chapter, how will people respond to it? I am not only talking about atheists/agnostics/scientists, but other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

True scientists will recognize it for what it is: the truth. The scientists with a naturalist bias(in other words, their personal belief) will whine. Young earth creationists will swarm the streets damning me to hell for not going against Evolution as well. ID proponents will put up another apologetics web site debunking evolution. Jews will come up with a way to market this. Muslims will laugh at the atheists while Osama bombs Michael Newdow's house. Newdow goes to Saudi Arabia to file a lawsuit against Osama and gets his head chopped off. Buddhists will sit down and meditate on it, and by the time they wake up they'll realise they don't give a ****.

4) If you believe, as I do, that science would become a philosophical debate class if creationism or ID were introduced as a valid scientific theory, how would you respond to the debates? Would you re-write your chapters to account for other people's views, or would you keep your view as the scientific fact?

If anybody can bring empirical evidence of ID or creationism that cannot be dismissed through logic rather than atheist propaganda, they are more than welcomed to teach it. This also goes for naturalists. However, I will not favor naturalism simply because there are more atheist scientists than theist scientists. Their position earns them no extra favor. If they want something taught as science, they better have substantial proof. This goes for both sides. Either that, or we can start teaching about Yggdrassil while we're at it.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo

I don't want to influence your opinion, but I still remember the saying that I don't often hear said these days: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will ever hurt me."

You've already successfully influenced my opinions, K. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As for the sticks and stones thing, I think the person who came up with that killed himself after hearing too many abusive words. Perhaps that's why the saying isn't heard very often these days...too many people realized that words often do hurt.

I wasn't clear I think, I meant influence your opinion (i.e., response) on how you think people would have answered these same scenarios, say about 30 years ago. That is, which scenario do you think people today would find more morally bad, and which scenario do you think people back in the day would have thought the worst?

What is the point of this question? Well, I think many would reasonably assume that 30 years ago, people would have likely made a judgement in scenario two without much hesitation, and with the first scenario they may have just rolled their eyes, thought what an idiot, then basically thought nothing further. Today, many would think twice about judging in scenario two, and see that the first is far more morally worse.

Now what is the point of reflecting on this further? The point is that I wish to cause more confusion and so deeper thinking. Do you think that judgments may have changed because morality is not really objective, but rather a product of culture? If not, why?

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Genesis 2 does suggest God created the animals from soil as with man, so maybe not through evolution, however im not so sure about that. Anway regardless Mastermind is right and Naturalism is whats wrong with science to this day.

Natural selection doesn't belong in the classroom!

[Mastermind]

The presence of bacteria is not observed in the bible. Who is to say God did not draw unicellular organisms from the ground and force them into the shape of man? There would be no difference between bacteria cultures and dust to the Bible's writer.

[Anonymous]

That's a little far-fetched...Did you ever find what the deal is with genesis 1 and 2 regarding when animals were made?

[Mastermind]

Nope

[Anonymous]

Now what is the point of reflecting on this further? The point is that I wish to cause more confusion and so deeper thinking. Do you think that judgments may have changed because morality is not really objective, but rather a product of culture? If not, why?

Okay. I gotchya now.
It's funny that you bring this up because earlier today, I received an e-mail with an advertisement from the 1950s...I'm not sure if it was the same in Australia in that decade, but I know women, blacks, Jews, and--well, pretty much anyone who wasn't a white male--was discriminated against for being "different" than the culture that we were raised by here in America. I think, though I may have my facts criss-crossed as American history is pretty vague to me (considering I believe American historty to definitely be a subjective account and therefore take it as seriously as "terror alerts"), that we are a culture not founded "under God," as our currency states, but under white Puritans whose line of ancestry seems one of bigotry and hate--hardly something I would be proud to tie "under God" to if I were a Christian.
The advertisement (and please forgive me for going off on a tangent...it will tie in) was written for women, but it was probably written by a man or a woman who had been brainwashed by the man-in-charge culture. It said things like this: "treat your husband the way he deserves to be treated when he comes home from a long, hard day at work. Make sure you have your kids cleaned up and tell them to be on their best behavior. Always have a meal prepared for him when he comes home...chances are, he's going to be tired. Also, you should let him do the talking. He's going to have a lot to talk about, and you should listen." Those aren't the exact words of the article, but they are pretty close.
The point is, those things that are seen as morally good do change with culture, time, location, religion/philosophy, and movements by bold--dare I say?--liberals. That's why I cannot ever come to grips with believing in absolute morality or absolute good--it seems to be a perception when it comes to certain things. I think we can agree that things like murder, rape, molestation, or any other heinous act are generally considered to be bad from culture to culture, religion to religion, or time to time. Other things, such as having women, blacks, Jews, Muslims, or any other group not affiliated with the still-dominant white male (in terms of who is in control as opposed to my personal beliefs) being seen in less-than human words and caricatures, have taken a lot of time to become less of a problem than it was in the 1950s.
I do believe there is a code to live by that is genuinely good, but I think that everyone feels they are doing good by living up to their own personal code. For example, I know someone who is--unfortunately--quite racist. I try not to judge him because I know he was raised to be a racist by parents who were raised by racists and so on and so forth, but I do try to get him to see from my perspective of good and bad...what good does he expect to come from his behavior? His idea of good is one without crime (that seems to be a consistent "good" view), but his ignorance comes from believing that crime comes from non-whites. It's his skewing of good intentions that make him...I don't really know how to say it nicely, but you can fill in the blanks. So perhaps there is an absolute standard for "good," but those standards can be skewed to fit individual preferences. I dunno. You were right about this being confusing! You were also right about causing deeper thinking...I think I lost my original point.
Mastermind

The people I discuss with are rarely ignorant. Some people however are so entrenched in illogical convictions that nothing shall move them from it

For example,

It has been brought to our attention that the heathen dogs of the Old World have corrupted the knowledge of a humanity in the most horrendeous way possible. Such tainting of our knowledge is not acceptable. As such, the Empire has launched an investigation led by the honorable Grand Inquisitor Maga Karn. The findings were shocking to all of us: the heathens have violated the purity of Science, given unto us by our LORD God, with their own putrid dogma. By taking a piss on hundreds of years of Scientific Reason, the heathens have entrenched their blasphemous naturalism, an Atheist origins, into a process which has no use of such strawman theories, claiming it is an integral part of it. Based upon our God given reason, LORD be praised, we have deduced that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that naturalism(the idea that mutations are random) has any part in evolution, and as such, education in its matter should be kept where it belongs: Philosophy and Atheism classes.

It sounds to me as though you are a big fan of Star Wars, but have replaced Yoda with God, Luke Skywalker with yourself, Darth Vadar with naturalism, the evil Empire with 'Atheistic-origin' science, etc. I got a great kick out of this!

However, I will not favor naturalism simply because there are more atheist scientists than theist scientists.

I agree with you. I am not a big fan of the 'majority rules' concept myself, as I know how easy it is to influence the minds of people by scaring them out of the majority. Good on ya! Keep up that attitude and you might be able to develop the mind of a psychologist, which is also--gasp!--a scientist!
colors

thanks for the suggestion...i might just read it!

happy to hear you don't find science boring anymore.

I still find certain aspects boring...I can do without all the math and anything with too much jargon--I get enough of that from the military, let alone something I tend to enjoy!

[Mastermind]

For example

We were discussing religion, and this atheist didn't even bother to use scientific information. He kept saying I was wrong for believing it and that "it's obvious that there isn't a God or any paranormal BS". I give him references to a few hauntings that were thoroughly investigated by scientists and were unexplained. He completely ignored them, called me an idiot for a few more paragraphs(again, without supporting his opinion. I didn't even want references, just a shred of logic) then left. That is, to be honest, the worst debate I've ever been with. He was even worse than some of the Young Earth Creationists who damn everybody who disagrees to hell.

It has been brought to our attention that the heathen dogs of the Old
It sounds to me as though you are a big fan of Star Wars, but have replaced Yoda with God, Luke Skywalker with yourself, Darth Vadar with naturalism, the evil Empire with 'Atheistic-origin' science, etc. I got a great kick out of this!

Why would I do that? I was on the empire's side:P
BTW, George Lucas is a big christian and Star Wars is some of the best subtle Christian propaganda that I've ever seen. Right up there with Bioware's RPGs.

I agree with you. I am not a big fan of the 'majority rules' concept myself, as I know how easy it is to influence the minds of people by scaring them out of the majority. Good on ya! Keep up that attitude and you might be able to develop the mind of a psychologist, which is also--gasp!--a scientist!

I don't like that comparison. Mostly because I don't think most psychologists actually know anything about the human mind. Certainly not any worthwile information.

[Anonymous]

mastermind thats one terrible debate, but atheists like him are fairly common otherwise we wouldn't have atheists .

Psychology isn't a science, its equal to reading palms!

[Prodigal Son]

hmm, oh well.

i have a question...has this discussion helped you at all?

[Anonymous]

colors

i have a question...has this discussion helped you at all?

I'm wondering if this question was directed to me. The answer, if so, is "yes." Perhaps it is time to put this one to rest, as different topics have been introduced. However, Kurieuo has helped me very much to see from different perspectives, and it has been pretty amazing thus far.
vvart

mastermind thats one terrible debate, but atheists like him are fairly common otherwise we wouldn't have atheists .

Psychology isn't a science, its equal to reading palms!

I am curious as to how you know "atheists like him" are fairly common. Apparently, you must know a lot of atheists, otherwise you wouldn't know such a thing and would only be acting upon assumption based on predjudice. This topic should be further enhanced with a new thread entitled "common misconceptions about..." What do you think?
Another thread you could start could be called "Is Psychology Mysticism?" Perhaps I will open that thread, as it sounds pretty interesting and, since I disagree that Psychology is the equivalent of astrology (which may be what you are actually referring to, I'm not sure), it could open a new line of debate.

Mastermind

I give him references to a few hauntings that were thoroughly investigated by scientists and were unexplained. He completely ignored them, called me an idiot for a few more paragraphs(again, without supporting his opinion. I didn't even want references, just a shred of logic) then left. That is, to be honest, the worst debate I've ever been with.

That sounds like one closed-minded individual. Then again, atheism is the deepest extreme of skepticism, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing...whenever someone becomes arrogant, as the person you were debating with, the fun is lost, the learning is lost, and no one benefits. I don't really know if I believe in ghosts or not...I've never actually witnessed one, I don't know if the pictures with them are digital alterations or double-exposed film or the real thing, and I've never read about the scientists who did the investigations or their credentials or their methodology in their research. However, I haven't closed my mind to the possibility--such is the way with agnostics as opposed to atheists. The same goes for God, UFOs, aliens, government conspiracies, etc. when dealing with agnostics, who seem to be open minded enough to not claim to know anything! Claiming to know something does not exist without a lot of reliable evidence seems to me to be just as difficult as claiming to know something does exist without a lot of reliable evidence.
As for George Lucas, I didn't know he was a Christian, though I wondered if the battles of good versus evil were the representations of Biblical stories somewhat modernized. I learned something new again!

I don't like that comparison. Mostly because I don't think most psychologists actually know anything about the human mind. Certainly not any worthwile information.

There are a lot of phonies out there, but I think a few good shrinks could do a lot of good. Robin Williams portrays one of those few good shrinks in "Good Will Hunting" because, quite simply, he is a friendly character...that's really all it takes to be a shrink--a willingness to have an open ear, an open mind, and a non-judgmental attitude toward any behavior without investigating the science behind what might cause those behaviors, such as the famous psychological battles of nature vs. nurture. I thought that movie did an excellent job of portraying that. It assumed the nurture aspect had a lot to do with Will's cockiness as opposed to the genetic nature, so I thought a lot of Christians would enjoy such a film. (I've read in previous posts how things like homosexuality--which have been deemed genetic by many scientists breaking the genome--should not be tolerated on the grounds that it is the nurturing aspect that brings it to life.)

That is all. This thread is becoming ridiculously long and could have easily been split into about thirty different topics.

[Prodigal Son]

i'm glad.