My standpoint on "Separation of Church & State"

[Duke]

How exactly am I 'forcing my opinion' on anybody? Rjensen opened this thread about the separation of church and state. I've explained why it is essential in order to have liberty for the citizens of a so-called 'free' country. Why am I accused of forcing my opinions on everybody when rjensen is not? Just because I'm an atheist and you two aren't.
:nopity:
Am I out in the wilderness scaring the 'heathens' into following my god? Am I leading a crusade to cleanse the Holy land of unbelievers? Am I torturing innocent people because I need to stamp out heresy annd witchcraft or even just people that don't conform to my rigid little faith?

I think not. Yet all of those things have been done, are being done, and will continue to be done in the name of god.

Rjensen made a mistake opening the discussion about religion 'saving' people. You just made the same mistake in talking about 'forcing opinions' on people.

Why don't you two just let Pako do the talking? He's at least capable of making intelligent points. I may disagree with him, but I have sincere respect for him because it is obvious he has thought about this issue, and researched it, and made a decision based upon what he's carefully considered. You two on the other hand seem to have happened into it by default and don't have the wit to actually think about it. You just mimic what you've heard somewhere else, and not very effectively at that.

Remember: the unexamined life ain't worth living.

Sorry to go off on them, Pako. Maybe you can offer them a little friendly advice about the importance of understanding your own opinions.

 

[rjensen11]

Duke, um, I thought we was friends...

Anyway, um, communism's killed more people, and they aren't religious, so I'm not seeing your point there... "And the unexamined life aint worth living?" Wie bitte? Ich weiss nicht... Just because we're saying religion should be taught in school, you're saying that we're forcing it on people's lives. Um, isn't that what science class is doing whenever it goes against one's faith? So, um, yeah...

We're not bashing the scientific community, mainly because many of them do not bash the religious community(any of them, or all of them, as you are doing, Duke.) Now, have you noticed that I havn't slammed the scientific community? I'm not saying that it's fake, or that it's compltley worthless. I'm just saying that it's freakishly similar to the religious community/ies.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by rjensen11
Schools are trying to make people believe less in Creation, and more into scientific theory, and in turn, will forget everything that our religions have done for us(During the Dark Ages, it was the Church which saved all of Europe from damnation, and brought it back up to the intellectual level of where it was during Ancient Greece)

You know, rjensen, I just went back through your original post, and I was shocked all over again. I could spend days rebutting the logical, philosophical, and factual errors in that one post. But the one above really just jumped out as one of the worst examples I've ever seen. I can't decide whether you just don't understand history, or whether this is actually what you've been feed by whoever is 'teaching' you.

The Roman Empire collapsed during the 4th and 5th centuries AD. This was caused by a large number or reasons and events, but it should be noted that dabbling in Christianity by later emperors was unable to do anything but hasten the demise.

The power void left by the crash of the Western (European) half of the Roman empire was filled by the church. The church exerted huge political influence during the Dark Ages, and wasn't shy about using it. It should be noted that at this time, the vast majority of people lived at subsistence level; yet also during this time hundreds of cathedrals - built by backbreaking labor and at fantastic cost - were built throughout Europe. It should also be noted that the Vatican and the various diocese amassed an enormous collection of art, treasure, and other wealth. While it is true that the secular royalty did so as well, they were never claiming to be doing so for the good of their victims.

You say that the church brought Europe 'back up to the intellectual level of where it was during Ancient Greece'. You couldn't be farther wrong. Did you know that the Romans had hot and cold running water in their bath houses, that many Roman cities had working sewer systems, and that the Romans knew how to make reinforced concrete? Where you aware that Ptolemy had calculated the circumference of the earth within a close margin, thousands of years before? Were you aware that this knowledge was supressed by the church? Ever heard of a little thing called the Spanish Inquisition - created by the Pope to seek and destroy any hint of knowledge that contradicted the Christian faith?

Where you aware that the church imprisoned and nearly killed Gallileo for teaching that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, as was 'proven' by scripture? IS the Earth in fact the center of the Universe? Was he right or wrong?

Where you aware that in 415 AD the Patriarch of Chritianity, Cyril, had the Jews violently expelled from the center of knowledge that had grown up around the Library of Alexandria, and had the keeper of the Library tortured and burned at the stake? Then, Cyril burned the Library of Alexandria - which contained about 80% of the recorded knowledge in the whole ****ing world - because the information it held did not agree with the biblical teachings of Christianity.

This act alone set the human race back about 500 years. The quantity of scientific information, medical knowledge, and history destroyed by this intentional act of supression cannot be imagined.

Cyril was made a saint for doing such a good job of it.

The human race didn't manage to struggle out of the Dark Ages for another, oh, 700 years following this blow. It was only when the rational, scientific, and economic efforts of Europe were able to get out from under rigid church control, that knowledge began to return to the world and to be sought by the best minds in the West. This culminated in the Enlightenment in the 1700s; a time of unparalleled growth in science, reason, and philosophy.

It is no coincidence that the United States was founded as the pinnacle of achievement in the Age of Enlightenment. Enlightenment principles of science, reason, and free-trade economics are written into the Constitution and are in fact fundamental to the creation of this country.

So don't tell me how the Church saved the human race during the Dark Ages. They could hardly have done worse if they were deliberately trying to destroy mankind.

Don't take my word for it. Don't take your current authority figure's word for it, either. Get out and read for yourself, and learn for yourself, and think for yourself. It's the only way you'll survive as a full, true human being.

 

[duo17]

Well said Neon, that comment by jspec was extremely stupid. He didn't even take the time to make sure that his points were valid. :thumbsup:

 

[Duke]

rjensen - yeah, we're friends. I'm honestly not trying to attack you personally. I'm doing this to try to get you and others like you to think for yourselves and not simply swallow what you're fed.

You may well choose the same path - Pako has - but at least you will have chosen it from understanding, not by default.

And yes, to me, you are slamming the scientific community just as I am slamming religion. If you equate my 'faith' in reason with your 'faith' in god, you are misunderstanding the nature of reality and of god, and you are insulting reason and the human mind. That gets me a little steamed.

I've never said that religion is the only cause of human suffering. Communism has not caused the deaths of more people than religion has. It's only ben around for about 120 years. Religion has a 3,000-year head start.

Nonetheless, communism is in fact evil. Communism and socialism seek to enslave men's bodies as a way to control their minds; mysticism and religion seek to enslave men's minds as a way to control their bodies.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by duo17
Well said Neon, that comment by jspec was extremely stupid. He didn't even take the time to make sure that his points were valid.

Thank you, duo17.

Going back to a point you made earlier, I'm not claiming that I - or even current scientists - can explain the earliest origin of the universe. I've read a lot on the subject in attempting to understand, and it is tough going. But I do know that to simply give up and say 'god did it' is to cop out, and to default on trying to understand by simply declaring it not understandable.

[Edit:] Sorry, duo, I didn't realize you were also the person who made the well-said post on this subject up above. Disregard the stuff below if you wish.

While I can't explain the origins of matter, in regards to your question about where life got the energy to begin: it came from heat. The earth was formed from gas and matter spun off when the sun condensed into a star and began its nuclear reaction. As the earth condensed, it was too small to start its own fusion, but nontheless the friction of compacting created the molten core that still exists today. The heat from these reactions creates a lot of organic compounds and nutrient minerals, as well as lots of gases in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and others. It is no surprise then that the first life to rise from this chemical bounty were proto-plants; single cell organisms that fed on carbon dioxide and other compounds. As these grew and grew and grew and the earth became more geologically stable, the atmosphere eventually became oxygenated, which could support animal and other more complicated forms of life.

For some reason, creationists have no problem buying the concept of an infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely existing god who can create a universe. Yet they can't seem to grasp what a really long time is. The earth is many billions of years old. A very small process can have a very large effect, if you give it a few million years to work in. The earth was totally unpopulated for longer than it has been populated, even counting the earliest forms of life. A lot can happen in that amount of time.

 

[Talentless]

I may as well say something of some substance. My only contentions are that it does seem that some, maybe a minority, of atheists will make sweeping judgements about someone's intellect because they are devot, of course scientist and Christianity, insert any religion you prefer, is not an oxymoron, if that is the right word. The other one is what seems to be a presumption. While I do believe it true that man can develop his moral character without the guidance of religious doctrine, and that in modern times the values found in religions may be ingrained enough to make religion obsolete in that matter, if I had the "faith" that man can collectively move forward with human reasoning I would be a socialist.

Also, if human reasoning is so great, explain the stupid critera for choosing candidates. Does anyone doubt that more than a few vote out of blind loyalty or the best two out of three pick of a magic 8 ball?

We may be better off without religion, but I do not believe that we will find a new age of enlightenment, not that I know of anyone saying that here (too much to read).

 

[Pako]

Well said everyone... I don't think that anyone is attacking anyone here, but merely bouncing off ideas to one another. This is due in part (probably) in the hopes that one can persuade the other into their views or opinions. Or perhaps it's just the sharing of our discoveries because we're excited about it or have the need to tell someone what they know. Either way it's all good for sure. I've been away and so much to reply to...

Neon:

You have some very good points suggesting that people should seek out knowledge for themselves and not just accept things "just because". This is very important, as it lends us into an environment of learning and maturity. Ok, I'm going to probably start babbling, but I will try to sub groups some points of interest here, most of what I say is a combination of facts, opinions, and self conclusions that I have come to realize through my own experiences so bare with me ....

1.) Within the Christian faith there are two types of religion. The legalistic religion and the spiritual religion. The legalistic religion would be an organization of people with a hierarchy of individuals within the organization that act on the foundation of a adopted religion following a set of rules and guidelines. Spiritual religion could be described more as a journey using the tools and knowledge contained within the written word of God. I say the written word of God, because it is believed that the Bible is both accounts of a history of events as well as interpreted visions inspired by God and documents by the prophets. The point for this distinction is to help the awareness that both exist. Now, if we look your examples of science being exiled by the church because of their contradictions, I must also add to the list. Jesus, as he was documented in the bible, was crucified because he was feared by the priests of the Sinigogs (sp?). His teachings were in part, contradictory to the teachings of the legalistic religion of the time. The time of Christ is the dividing line of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Adopted strict rules enforced by the church were no longer black and white issues any longer. Example: People weren't allowed to travel more than a modest amount of the Sabbath day because it was the day of rest. Christ questioned this logic saying if a neighbor was in need, would you not help him? The legalistic church of the time would say you must NOT help your fellow man on the Sabbath because it would be considered work, and therefore a sin. Without going into a whole lotta stuff here, the basis for Christianity is daily approach to trying to be as Christ like as possible based the his examples. However, because of the legalistic religion, something so pure as Christ is tainted by the human factor. Don't get me wrong, there's a over abundance of good, good organizations out there, but because we are humans, you will always have people being taken advantage of spiritually, emotionally, and financially and sometimes even killed. These crusaders that killed non-believers of the Christian faith were wrong and hypocrites in there actions. Christ teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and to forgive your enemies and love them as your brother. As you can clearly see, Christ's example was not followed and was justified by some other means. There are accounts in the Old Testament that would help them justify their actions as doing the "Will of God", but as I said, it is clear that the life of Christ was a distinct turning point within the teachings of the Bible, and these examples in the Old Testament were clearly taken out of context.
2.) You were talking about the length of time involved for the process of our earth to evolve. The Bible tells us that a Blink-Of-An-Eye to God is like a thousand years to us. Now looking at the creation for the origin of the earth, lets consider the six days it took God to create the earth. How many times to you think God blinked during those six days?
3.) The last little point here that I’d like to make goes back to our discussion of scientific instruments in helping us to investigate our reality. You mentioned that if you wanted to and had the means to do so, you should fly to Jupiter or do what ever to prove with your own two eyes the existence of someone else’s experience. You also said, “No amount of time, money, or effort will ever allow me to go see god. Remember I am talking about seeing a physical entity, not just finding some mystic faith and taking that feeling as proof.” First off, if you see deer tracks in the snow, do you have to physically see the deer to know that it was there? Do you have to physically see a dinosaur fall into a tar pit know that’s what happened? We see trails and evidence of events that lead us into a conclusion. You know where I’m headed with this, but I’m sure you can see why I have to bring up these points. If you had the time and willingness to, you could use the tools that are available to see the evidence that God exists. Would you ever physically see God? I doubt it, but wouldn’t discount it. But what I can guarantee, is that if you have the willingness to seek out God, He will show you evidence in your own life of his existence, but that becomes your choice and it’s something that only you can do. The way I see it you have absolutely nothing to loose except for maybe a little bit of energy being used and some time exhausted…..
4.) Oh and here’s a thought. In the Bible, Christ is accounted for being born and raised as a child. The next occurrence of Christ was as a grown man. There is eighteen years which are not documented in the Bible. I’m not a scholar of religions, but could it be possible that Christ traveled to other parts of Asia to spread his message? If this is possible, could Christ also be the “holy figure” of other religions? , it’s just a thought…..

~Peace~

 

[Duke]

Pako:

I will grant you the issue of there being two halves, as it were, of organized religion. Yet to choose one half as 'right' and one half as 'wrong' is a purely subjective thing. While I'm sure that the legalistic or dogmatic side has its share of cynical members, I would say that the majority of people who are on the dogmatic side do in fact believe they are following the Word of God. You can say they are mistaken if you wish; but the fact remains that the issue of who is correct can't be decided. If they believe that God wants his Word interpereted literally, then who can argue? Who can prove them wrong?

You are correct, I don't need to see more than deer tracks to accept the presence of deer. Yet those are still physical tracks and they are simply not worth the effort of proving to myself again that they will lead to a deer.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for evidence of a god. Using the tools of faith require me to give up the tools of reason. I can't do that. It's not that I'm unwilling to question my philosophical premises; but that I can't question them properly by throwing away the tools my mind has at its disposal. To me, using faith instead of reason as my intellectual tool set is like investigating a drop of pond water with a telescope rather than a microscope. It is a tool, yes, but not the right tool for the job and one that doesn't give any real information.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by neon_duke
rjensen - yeah, we're friends. I'm honestly not trying to attack you personally. I'm doing this to try to get you and others like you to think for yourselves and not simply swallow what you're fed.

You may well choose the same path - Pako has - but at least you will have chosen it from understanding, not by default.

And yes, to me, you are slamming the scientific community just as I am slamming religion. If you equate my 'faith' in reason with your 'faith' in god, you are misunderstanding the nature of reality and of god, and you are insulting reason and the human mind. That gets me a little steamed.

I've never said that religion is the only cause of human suffering. Communism has not caused the deaths of more people than religion has. It's only ben around for about 120 years. Religion has a 3,000-year head start.

Nonetheless, communism is in fact evil. Communism and socialism seek to enslave men's bodies as a way to control their minds; mysticism and religion seek to enslave men's minds as a way to control their bodies.

Even though I disagree with what you've said, Duke, and you know why, I'm still proud of you for getting your posts shorter, Keep it up man!

P.S. You have a bunch of spelling errors in your posts. You have 'god' instead of "God."

 

[infallible]

Not to change the subject or anything, but i'm quite curious about atheism.

Being a religious person, I know why I live life, and I know why I make certain choices that will effect my life, because I'm considering life after death, and the judgement. Which is a believe that can only be held by a religious person.

So my question is to neon, because I believe I read that you are atheist, or have no religion, why do you live life, what is your purpose, what is your drive?

I've thought about that question for a couple of minutes now, and the only answer(s) I can think of, is you live life simply to live it. You have no purpose, because you feel or believe that once the clock stops it is done. There is nothing. You soul, which I know is a religious belief but something hard (I think) for anyone to deny, simply vanishes?

I personally feel that a person can only do something effectively if he/she has a defined goal, or drive. So my curiosity was struck upon this question, because if you do not have a reason to live life, a defined goal for something that will enable you to make certain choices in certain situations, you are reaping benefits off of the people who do have a drive, a purpose.

So, I would then label a person like this, a leech to society. I am not trying to hint or insinuate that I feel you neon are a leech or that atheists are leeches. I simply wonder what your purpose in life is.


And then to hop into the conversation, though my post is getting quite lengthy, I fail to see why communism, the government philosophy of everyone is equal, equal land owning of things etc etc, is a bad philosophy. The only reason it tanked, was because of the leaders and the human condition. But that is a very big debate, that shouldn't be done in a "Seperation of church adn state" thread.

 

[Jpec07]

Duke, You are "forcing your opinion on others" by "slamming" religion. You are trying to make people see things your way by attempting to disprove their perspectives. So please, just stop.

 

[Pako]

Whoa, come on you guys. There's no need to "attack" neon_duke because he doesn't share common views. There are countless examples of atheists that have contributed to society and the world for that matter. Personal ambition is just that, it's determined on an individual level. There are "lazy" people all over the world reaping the binifits of everyone else's efforts. We call those people parasites, and leaches on society.

neon_duke:

Have you seen the movie "Contact"? Great movie on the topic of faith....

So why is it again that creationism should not be taught in schools? Creationism is not a religion, and therefore isn't unconstitutional right? This is of course dependent on presentation. Here's what I mean, Allah created the universe, or...A divine power created the universe. One statement is a narrow presentation of someone's god as the creator, whereas the other statement is just acknowleging creation, not pointing out a specific doctrine.

In taking up "faith", you would not need to get rid of your tools of reason, but you would have to set aside your current views of reality long enough to run your experiment. You say it's not the right tool for the job. You would not know if it's the right tool or not unless you've tried it for yourself. I liked the pond analagy BTW, .

Other people have tried it and it works, I have tried it and it works....for you, who have not tired it to say it doesn't work would be like me saying that a telescope just won't work because I don't understand how they work.

Well, I'll leave it at that......once again we've come down to individual willingness to accept or reject and that's left up for each of us to decide on our own.

~Peace~

 

[Jpec07]

Creationism, and scientific theory should both be taught in schools as theories on how the earth came into being. You can't prove it either way. So I don't see what the arguement is. You can try to prove anything you want, and you can succeed at convincing yourself, but it is almost impossible to convince others.

 

[duo17]

Originally posted by Jpec07
Duke, You are "forcing your opinion on others" by "slamming" religion. You are trying to make people see things your way by attempting to disprove their perspectives. So please, just stop.

Looks like the flamming moron said something again....

By disproving something that someone said you are not forcing anything on that person. Forcing my opinion on someone would be me saying "Your wrong, what I'm saying is right and you should think so too." Neon is just saying that beleiving in God without reason is stupid.
Earlier, I asked Neon if science could show us where energy came from. He didn't really answer the question, but thats beside the point. Does that mean that I am forcing my opinion on him?


As for Seperation of Church and state, i think it should be seperated because they would have to teach every religion. If they taught say: Hindu in shcool, i wouldn't feel comfortable because thats not what I beleive in. But this topic depends heavily on the definition of Teach. If by teach you mean learn about it then thats fine. But if teach means for example when you learn math, they teach you that Algebra (or whatever) is right, than I think that Church and State should reamain seperate.

I hope most of this made any sense because once again, I'm half alive and I don't really know what I'm doing.

 

[Jpec07]

it makes sense (i guess I joined the conversation late). But just one thing: Neon is assuming that there is no reason for belief in God, when there is plenty. I mean, I am a Practicing protestant, and I've experienced God. I've seen people grow new legs, I've seen blind people see. And a friend of mine got killed in an accident, was dead for 7 minutes, and brought back to life very rapidly (in fact, Doctors say she's in better condition now than she was before the accident). So if you want proof, there it is.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by rjensen11



Even though I disagree with what you've said, Duke, and you know why, I'm still proud of you for getting your posts shorter, Keep it up man!

P.S. You have a bunch of spelling errors in your posts. You have 'god' instead of "God."

Since when is that a spelling error?

Also, he wasn't referring to a specific god, so god does not need to be capatalised.

 

[infallible]

How, in school, can you study history without being taught a little theology? you can't.

There are limits in teaching theology and religion in school, for example the statement "and this religion is correct" or the statement "as an assignment, everyone must go to church on sunday" can not be said.

We are to learn from our past right? Well to do that we need to learn from religion and theology also, considering it's role in the past. Therefore, my official standpoint on the seperation of church and state is as follows: When dealing with the seperation of church and state in the united states of america, under no circumstance whatsoever shall any religion of theological lifestyle (i'd underline that if I knew how) will be imposed on anyone. But, all major religions, should (i'd underline that if i knew how) be common knowledge to the majority of the united states society, and all major religions should be incorporated within educational teachings, in the subject of history, science, english and foreign language. Religion(s) should be taught in the forementioned courses considering the religion(s) value in: history, the crusades, mid east, the buddhist history etc etc; science, to express the different views on creationism and other different beliefs held by different religions etc etc; english, to study old style texts, incorporate some of the worlds "heritage" into english; and foreign languages because not every religious text is going to be found in the english language.


More or less, i've written that without extensive thought, but it is pretty much how I feel.

 

[duo17]

Well Said infallible. I kind of think the same way.

 

[Duke]

OK, I see there are a lot of things to which I need to respond. I probably won't do it in one post because they are many different subjects. Let me get started...

rjensen: I have no interest at all in making my posts shorter or longer. I make them long enough to fully explain my point. Try to stretch your attention span, because some of these are going to get long. As M5 said, I didn't misspell 'god' because 1) I was using it as a generic term, and 2) unless I am using a particular name such as 'Jehovah' there is no need to capitalize it since it is not my duty to share your reverence.

jpec: I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, any more than you and rjensen are. You're both trying to make me think I'm wrong, and to show me that I should change my ways. You, jpec, just can't tolerate it and want me to stop because my opinion disagrees with yours, and I'm better at defending it than you are.

More for jpec: I never said creationism shouldn't be taught in school. I just said it should not be taught as a science, because it is not a science. I fully support a wide variety of creation myths being taught - as part of the social studies/anthropology curriculum, but not as part of the scientific curriculum. If you choose to disregard physical evidence, you are right, nothing can ever be proven. This is why I never make that choice.

And even more for jpec: How are any of those things proof of a god? Just because you can't explain them any other way, and are looking for things to attribute to divine intervention, does not prove that god made those things happen. Do you have proof that your friend was 'dead'? Was there any medical treatment involved? You can claim all these things if you wish, and they certainly are effective at convincing you of something you already believed. You are correct, it is impossible to convince others if they refuse to listen to reason and deny the evidence around them. However, since that is what I base my thoughts upon, I am easily convinced by substantiated facts - but impossible to convince when asked to suspend my rational thought process and accept something on faith. You, on the other hand, cannot be convinced by objective, rational fact, and accept only faith as the basis of your thoughts.

 

[Duke]

Infallible: I'll get to your question about atheism in a moment. Right now I want to continue the thread about teaching religion in school. I would just like to clear something up:

I never said that religion and creationism should not be taught in school. What I did say was that Creationism should not be taught alongside Evolution in science class.

I'm not trying to deny the existence of religion and its impact on the world. Far from it. I think it is critical that religion be understood as part of the historical context that has shaped human society for good and bad. But unless you are going to a private, parochial school, religion must not be taught in and of itself. In other words, no class should ever say, "well, Scripture (or the Torah or whatever) says that this is how you should believe, and how you should behave." That is simply not acceptable in a public school education.

On the other hand, it's very valuable to to learn that Scripture says 'X', and the Torah says 'Y', and the Koran says 'Z', and this is why Christians behave this way, Jews behave that way, and Moslems behave the other way. While a class specifically on comparative religion is a little too specialized for a high school education, I think the information definitely has a place in the social studies/history curriculum.

All of those things are solid, incontrovertible facts, inasmuch as anything relating to anthropology can be called a fact. Consequently, I have no objection whatsoever to their inclusion in the public school education. It is perfectly true to say "Many people believe that god exists...", but when you get into a course or a specific teacher that states 'god exists and he says this...', that is not acceptable.

Note that teaching evolution does not prevent a Creationist from holding his/her faith, since that faith is not based on physical evidence anyway. A Creationist is welcome to adopt the belief that god used evolution to make man, or to simply ignore the physical evidence (which they are doing anyway by the very act of their faith) and believe their creation myth literally. As I said earlier, the non-existence of god cannot be proven. Therefore teaching a theory that does not include a divine creator does nothing to contradict the possibility of a god to a person who chooses to believe in one.

But teaching creation as an actual theory does prevent an evolutionist from holding his /her understanding of the world, by forcing them to deny evidence that is otherwise fundamental to their point of view. Teaching Creation as a physical theory requires the student to accept the existence of a god as the entity responsible for the event. Requiring this belief does in fact contradict the physical evidence of the world that an atheist uses as his foundation.

[Edit:] I need to amplify this a little for Pako. Do you see what I'm saying? You are correct - by not stating that a specific god created the world, you are not promoting a specific religion. But that is just skirting the fundamental issue, because you are promoting the idea of a supernatural creator as a fact. It's irrelenvant which god you say created the world, once you assert that a god created the world.

Can you see the difference? This difference is fundamental to a large number of issues at the border of religion and atheism; but those are for another thread.

 

[Duke]

In taking up "faith", you would not need to get rid of your tools of reason, but you would have to set aside your current views of reality long enough to run your experiment. You say it's not the right tool for the job. You would not know if it's the right tool or not unless you've tried it for yourself.

Pako, you're assuming that I haven't tried the religious/mystic point of view. In fact, I have. I try not to reject anything without understanding it. Note that understanding something is the only valid basis for making a decision on it. It doesn't mean that 'understanding' equals 'accepting'.

My views of reality are inextricably part and parcel of my tools of reason. It's not a matter of simply setting aside one tool and picking up another. Either you believe that the objective reality around us exists, as I do, or you believe that all this is only a skin over some hidden, 'real' reality that is based on supernatural and non-understandable entities and events. The two can't be reconciled. Aristotle and Plato can't be reconciled. Either you believe in your senses and your rational mind, or you believe in something else. I've investigated the 'something else', I've seen where it leads, and I've chosen to accept an objective reality and to create my own place in it.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by infallible
Being a religious person, I know why I live life, and I know why I make certain choices that will effect my life, because I'm considering life after death, and the judgement.

So my question is to neon, because I believe I read that you are atheist, or have no religion, why do you live life, what is your purpose, what is your drive?

I've thought about that question for a couple of minutes now, and the only answer(s) I can think of, is you live life simply to live it. You have no purpose, because you feel or believe that once the clock stops it is done. There is nothing. You soul, which I know is a religious belief but something hard (I think) for anyone to deny, simply vanishes?

I personally feel that a person can only do something effectively if he/she has a defined goal, or drive.

Infallible: I'm not taking your post as an offense, because I realize that you are asking an honest question. However, your choice of words clearly shows that you have made some huge assumptions without considering other possibilities.

You're assuming that because I feel my life will end completely at death, it isn't worth living. I can have no purpose for living it. Why do you assume this? What is it about your existence that makes you see it only as a means of getting on to something else?

You have assumed that no goal that is contained completely in this physical world can be worthy. You didn't state that explicitly (in fact you may not even acknowledge it to yourself), but it is clearly implied by your statements above. You asked why I live life - then you correctly answered your own question. I live my life simply to live it. Isn't life itself a big enough reward for having lived it? It is to me, anyway.

Your mistake comes immediately after: you assume that since I do not see something beyond this physical life, that I can have no purpose, no philosophy, no (for want of a better word) 'spirit'. Note that 'spirit is not used in the supernatural sense. It is easy for me to say I have no 'soul', if you mean some nebulous part of me that will literally live after I'm dead. But I will deny that I have no 'spirit'. This is a very common misperception among religious people. In fact, it is in direct proportion to their religious fervor. The more value they place on the unseen, mystic afterlife, the more contempt they have for the real, physical life.

Let me answer your question directly: My life has a purpose, simply because it is mine. What more noble ideal could I pursue than my own joy, chosen and achieved by my own effort, and without cost to anyone else? Why is this somehow not as 'good' as jumping through a set of hoops, determined entirely by someone else, and in pursuit of nothing more than the vague possibility that I will be rewarded? To me, that is denying life in pursuit of death. Wasteful in the extreme, and fundamentally evil.

Doesn't it require more intellectual strength to set my own philosophical goals, to achieve them to the best of my ability, and to do it by and for myself? Wouldn't it be easier to just pick a set off the religious shelf and convince myself that the reward will be so unimaginably great that it will be worth anything, without question?

To me, strength isn't found outside. Strength comes from inside. Do I receive moral support from others (such as my wife)? You bet I do - because she holds the same values I do. Do I give her the same support? I try to - because I hold the same values she does. But neither of us requires some mystic 'dad' to promise us a big carrot to keep running toward, and to tell us how we should run.

I understand that you were not aiming at me personally when you were making your point about a purposeless person being a leech on society. Nonetheless, I don't really understand it. In fact, I'm not sure that you understand it either, since it is directly contradicted by your statement on communism directly below it (which I will also go into, later). If a person asks nothing from society other than that which they have earned, how is that person a 'leech'? How is that person deriving benefit from others who have a more obvious 'purpose'? Regardless of their apparent purpose, or lack of purpose, a person is only a leech if they ask for the unearned - unearned respect, unearned money, unearned approval. I don't really understand your point.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
But teaching creation as an actual theory does prevent an evolutionist from holding his /her understanding of the world, by forcing them to deny evidence that is otherwise fundamental to their point of view. Teaching Creation as a physical theory requires the student to accept the existence of a god as the entity responsible for the event. Requiring this belief does in fact contradict the physical evidence of the world that an atheist uses as his foundation.

This is where I have to contradict with you. As you know there are many theories that are discussed and presented that directly contradict each other. Einstein even proved that in some cases there is not always an equal and oposite reaction. There is nothing wrong with presenting multiple theories to help define our environment. If only one theory is taught, then we are only doing ourselves an injustice by closing discussions to other possibilities. If you like, I could give you some examples of contradictory theories within the evolutionary study of where humans came from if you like. Both theories are evolutionary based but they both have different interpritations of the collected data. So which theory would you have faith in, theory #1 from scientist A, or theory #2 from scientist B?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
here is nothing wrong with presenting multiple theories to help define our environment. If only one theory is taught, then we are only doing ourselves an injustice by closing discussions to other possibilities.

Both theories are evolutionary based but they both have different interpritations of the collected data. So which theory would you have faith in, theory #1 from scientist A, or theory #2 from scientist B?

Pako: as usual, you are correct in your premise but not quite there in what you derive from it. Rationality is all about making informed decisions and selecting from a number of choices. Many scientists present many different theories based on their interpretations of the given data. It is up to the individual to determine the value of those interpretations and thus the relative 'correctness' of the theories.

But what you're saying is like asking whether this painting is better than that concerto. They're not in the same arena. They're not judged by the same standards. They don't relate to each other. You have to fundamentally decide whether you value art or music more.

Similarly, you have to decide whether you value rationality or mysticism more.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by infallible
I fail to see why communism, the government philosophy of everyone is equal, equal land owning of things etc etc, is a bad philosophy. The only reason it tanked, was because of the leaders and the human condition.

I don't mean to break this thread of Church and State, but I need to say a bit about this. Let's begin by defining communism, socialism, and all similar forms of society as collectivism.

The failure of collectivism is always blamed on the people who are forced or misled into following it. It is always said that humans are not 'good enough' to live up to this 'ideal'. This is a vicious lie, and the basis by which collectivists keep managing to dupe the world, time and again. The fault lies with the system itself, not with its victims.

The basic premise of collectivism is 'from each according to his ability; to each according to his need'. We're all taught from a young age that helping people who need it - charity - is defined as 'good'. We are all taught that is 'good' to give to others, and 'bad' to be selfish. Stealing from the rich is perfectly fine, so long as you are giving to the poor. What happens when this is instituionalized and made a way of life? Collectivism. Here's the part they don't want you to understand:

'From each according to his ability; to each according to his need'. These words set the standard of reward, and thus set the goal of those who must live under this system. Collectivism makes need into the only measure of a person's reward. It denies ability as the proper standard. Therefore, in order to be judged worthy of the largest reward, a person must have the largest need and the least ability to provide for it. The more need you have, the richer your reward. The more ability you have, the harsher your punishment, because you are on the From side of the equation, not the To side. This is a vicious circle that is doomed to failure. Why work if the rewarding is for needing, not creating? Under collectivism, you are chained to every other person on the planet, because they need you. Why struggle to drag them along, when you are punished for being able to do so, and they are rewarded for being harder to drag?

It is not the victims' fault for failing to live up to the ideal. The 'ideal' is purposely made an impossible standard and an unreachable goal. It is the system's fault for punishing what is truly ideal in humans and rewarding what is common and unworthy.

There is another example of true evil, and it is masquerading as the pinnacle of human goodness. No devil could ever hope to achieve as much.

[Edit:] OK, I am going to split this off into another thread. If you want to discuss this further, please go here.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Pako: as usual, you are correct in your premise but not quite there in what you derive from it. Rationality is all about making informed decisions and selecting from a number of choices. Many scientists present many different theories based on their interpretations of the given data. It is up to the individual to determine the value of those interpretations and thus the relative 'correctness' of the theories.

But what you're saying is like asking whether this painting is better than that concerto. They're not in the same arena. They're not judged by the same standards. They don't relate to each other. You have to fundamentally decide whether you value art or music more.

Similarly, you have to decide whether you value rationality or mysticism more.

Actually, a better analogy that demonstrates what I'm talking about would be this:

There's a painting. One person is saying that "something" happened causing the paint to get on the canvas, and through the properties of the paint and the interaction of the canvas with the help of gravity and other environmental effects, caused the patterns on the painting to resemble objects, therefore there was no artist that made the painting. While there's another person saying that an artist took the paint, and used different tools to apply the paint onto the canvas making objects with the canvas and the paint, therefore there is an artist that made the painting.

 

[Duke]

But which side is which?

I'm assuming that the first version is Creation, and the second is Evolution. In other words, something tangible and understandable caused the raw materials to become the second painting, and there was a process of development from sketch to base to final product; instead of the first painting which mystically sprung into being as a completed work.

If you meant it the other way, you're not quite being fair about it. If that's what you meant, you'd have to say that in both cases we are presented only with a finished painting. For the 'creation' painting we are only allowed to look at the finished product from behind the little velvet rope, and read the wall plaque written by an art historian who claims to have met the artist.

For the 'evolution' painting, however, we are allowed to get up close and touch it, to see how the different colors of paint are layered, and to X-ray it to see the pencil sketches on the canvas underneath. We can also compare it to other paintings by the same artist and compare how certain things were done using the same methods, but others were done differently. We can then draw our own conclusions about how this particular painting fits into the overall scheme of the artist's career.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
If you meant it the other way, you're not quite being fair about it.

Your right man, I wasn't really being that fair.

But as you can see there are two possible choices for the origin of the universe. 1.) Is a natural occurance of which we don't understand and don't have the current technology to or ability to derive at a logical conclusion. 2.) Is a super-natural occurance of which we don't understand and don't have the current technology to or ability to dervie at a logical conclusion.

But for now, it is more reasonable for me to think that there was divine direction during the creation process than just the laws of survival. Why would a mineral deposit have a drive for survival? Why would a particular mass have the need to survive, exploding causing such force as described by the Big Bang? For me, it is more logical to make the assumption of a guiding force, a creative entity than it is to make the assumption that something was manifested out of nothing, which over a very looooooooong time evolved into more somethings of raw mass that had the primal instinct to survive, thus evolving into more advanced collections of mass called organisms which in turn really helped boost the evolutionary process.., expanding the evolutionary branches of diversity into all the known species of living organisms that we know today.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
But as you can see there are two possible choices for the origin of the universe. 1.) Is a natural occurance of which we don't understand and don't have the current technology to or ability to derive at a logical conclusion. 2.) Is a super-natural occurance of which we don't understand and don't have the current technology to or ability to dervie at a logical conclusion.

Actually, there are more than two possible choices. Allow me to demonstrate. The origin of the Universe is (choose one only):

1) A natural occurance which we do not yet fully understand, because we do not currently have the technology to provide data allowing us to derive a logical conclusion - but please ask again in a hundred years; or

2) A supernatural occurance which we can not understand at all, because it was performed by an invisible and all powerful being too huge for our puny minds to ever comprehend; so don't bother asking any more questions, thank you, good day, don't call us, we'll call you, run along...

I know which answer I like better.
:smilewink