quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- A pair of NASA scientists told a group of space officials at a private meeting here Sunday that they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars, hidden away in caves and sustained by pockets of water.



The scientists, Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, told the group that they have submitted their findings to the journal Nature for publication in May, and their paper currently is being peer reviewed.



What Stoker and Lemke have found, according to several attendees of the private meeting, is not direct proof of life on Mars, but methane signatures and other signs of possible biological activity remarkably similar to those recently discovered in caves here on Earth.

---

quote:

---

it would totally blow fundie cretinists out of the water

---

Ha! How’s that? Does the Bible say Earth is the only place where life was created?
By your logic I guess if we find a dinosaur fossil with a man then evolutionist are blown out of the water
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Of course, as we never have found that, but we have (apparently) found the life on mars, your analogies is exactly relevant .

edit: to make sense and say what I wanted it to say.

[ February 16, 2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

By your logic I guess if we find a dinosaur fossil with a man then evolutionist are blown out of the water.

---

Well, yes. At the very least, we would have to come up with a very good explanation. That's the whole point of a scientific theory, see : It can in fact be blown out of the water by unexpected new data. That's also why the cretinists went to such lengths in the sixties and seventies to fake precisely the evidence you suggest; indeed, some of them still cling to those old footprints, years after they've been shown to be hoaxes.

And yes, the Bible does state that the Earth was the only place life was created. If you insist on a literal interpretation. You can have it one way, or the other way, but not both ways.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
King of Men, would you please stop using the term cretinists? It is not an accepted term that means anything to anyone other than you, and it serves no purpose other than to enflame the opposition. It is not respectful, polite, or condusive to rational discourse to call people who disagree with you cretins in a blanket statement like that.

I think I feel about this the same way some conservatives on the board must have felt about Bean Counter... please, either don't be intentionally insulting or get off my side.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I think 'cretinist' is a highly accurate term. Possibly there are some in that camp who actually are not really fooled by their own propaganda; for them, 'liars' might be more correct. But the rest really are being rather stupid.

However, since you ask so nicely, I'll stop using the word.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Thank you.

It's one of those things where I think preceived accuracy is irrelevant. If it makes people less likely to listen to your arguements rationally, it isn't helping your case.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Good lord! I wonder if KoM is Bean Counter and (s)he's just playing both ends against the middle.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 

quote:

---

And yes, the Bible does state that the Earth was the only place life was created. If you insist on a literal interpretation.

---

Oh, is that right? Stupid me, I must have skipped that particular verse every single time I read the book of Genesis.

Reference, please?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
KoM, now you really are crossing the line of acceptable decorum. Furthermore, the Bible doesn't say anything about the existence of life on other planets.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
No, I agree that it doesn't. But the Creationists do not agree. I am not arguing this as my own position, I am referring theirs.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
It doesn't, and they don't say it does. You are not only being extremely arrogant and insulting, you're also being quite idiotic and ill-informed. Not to mention completely bigoted.

[ February 16, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not sure I'd say "completely" bigoted, but I'm going to have to agree with holes's post, pretty much.
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
Wow, fugu and I agree on something! Truly a historic occasion.

 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Do they not, then? Here is Answers in Genesis, the least rabid of the Creationist websites :

quote:

---

There are no biblical or moral reasons why God should not have formed other planets, as well as those in our own solar system, on Day 4 of Creation Week (Genesis 1:14-19).

Whether there is life on any planet other than Earth is another matter. The Bible teaches that life began on Earth through a process of commanded-by-God creation (Genesis 1:11-27). It also tells us that God's purposes are centred on Earth. Thus God created Earth (on Day 1) before 'the lights in the firmament of heaven' (on Day 4), which were 'to divide the day from the night' and were 'for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years' (Genesis 1:14), i.e. for the benefit of mankind.

Man and woman were both 'made in the likeness of God' (Genesis 1:27). This, coupled with factors such as the Fall, the Incarnation, the redemption of mankind through the once-only death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Coming of Christ to Earth, and the coming Judgment of all mankind, show Earth's unique importance among the billions of billions of stars in the universe. This is despite the frequent belittling, by evolutionists, of the importance of Earth.

The above also implies that God did not create any other life forms elsewhere in the universe.

---

quote:

---

Thus, although it is all but certain that no other man-like creatures6-9 inhabit other worlds, it is true that in God’s universe, and possibly on the stars themselves, there exists a vast host of intelligent and powerful beings, the angels of God. Though it is futile to try to establish contact with them by such devices as space-ships and radio telescopes, we can communicate with God Himself through prayer and through His Word, by faith, and the angels then are “sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

---

My emphasis. Do you have a similar link?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
If you read your own highlighted statement you'll see that it only refers to "man-like" creatures. In other words, no other H. sapiens, but it doesn't exclude anything else amoebas to zebras.

Also is there something that you and other non-Americans like Johnathan Howard don't get about the internet? Anyone can create a website and it doesn't make it representative of anyone's opinion.

[ February 16, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I... I'm just outraged, Ry.
*immediatly emails Ry's post to all the Amish on my mailing list, hoping for an Amish moblog firestorm*
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
nfl, that is why I noted that these are the most respected Creationist websites around. Saying they're not representative is much like saying Hatrack doesn't represent the OSC fanbase, because there are other sites about him out there.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Point of order: Hatrack doesn't represent the OSC fanbase. It's impossible to guess at how much or how little of OSC's fanbase even uses the internet, let alone posts on fansites. The same goes for Young Earth Creationists.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KOM's behavior makes an excellent case for the benefits of religion upon society. While there are and will continue to be many atheists who adhere to a higher road by choice and desire, there are others who see no need to adopt such "silly" virtues.

For all KOM's pronouncements that religion makes people irrational, his feelings about religion are amazingly irrational.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
beverly, are you accusing me of being immoral? Kindly don't.

And [deadpan] my position on religion would only be irrational if it weren't correct in every particular.[/deadpan]
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Hey, I think I remember you. Don't you cause trouble all over the place, up and down, right and left?
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
*streaks through the thread stark naked to furthur contribute to the silliness that is derailing this thread*

Now can that be the butt end of all this discordance?

Can we all get along?

(I always wanted to emote this, so BAM!):


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KOM: No, I am not. I am only making judgement on specific behavior and beliefs I have seen you express. For example: the belief that absolute honesty is not necessary, and the belief that it is not important to treat all with basic respect. "Immoral" would be too strong a word, I don't know that much about your behavior/beliefs.

It seems to me that most religions teach honesty and respect for others. Therefore, I think the presence of religion makes the world a better place, because while a belief in God is not necessary to hold those virtues, not holding a belief in God can make them easier to rationalize.

Book: To whom are you referring?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
That would be the 'respect for others' that for centuries justified slavery? That even now continues to put down homosexuals? That believes God is perfectly justified in sending people to burn for all eternity (or whatever you believe the punishment is) merely for refusing to worship in the proper fashion? Indeed, such respect as that I believe we can do without.

And I don't get your comments on honesty. In this thread I have been attacked for being too forthright about my views; now you attack me for being dishonest? How so? What did I say to make you think I don't believe honesty is important?
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
Uh, King of Men.

EDIT: Ps, BAM!

[ February 16, 2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
The opinions of the Christians you HEAR about are not necessarily the opinions of all the Christians that exist, I hope you know. Also, as far as I know we haven't taken homosexuals away from their homes yet and forced them to perform manual labor. Even though maybe some Christians would want to take rights away from homosexuals, homosexuals enjoy nearly all of the basic human rights that others do.

Also, I would argue that your politeness is a part of your tactics. You'll find that more people are likely to consider your opinion worthwhile if it's delivered with politeness and respect. As of now, you're really not changing anyone's minds, except maybe people who once thought that you might be a neat guy to talk to about religion or even be around at all. You've certainly changed mine.

[ February 16, 2005, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
We discussed honesty many months ago. I'm not even sure I could find the thread now. It is the thread in which I made some atheists/agnostics very upset with me because I inferred that a person who doesn't believe in God doesn't have any solid reaason to pursue a course of honesty in all matters. You put forth your belief that it is *not* important to be honest in all matters, such as when you deem it to have no negative consequence. Other non-religionists argued that they believe very strongly in being honest whether they know the effects of that honesty or not. You openly disagreed with them.

As for your examples of justified disrespect, I believe many of them were situations of people twisting inherently "Good" religious teachings to support evil designs. Evil people will use any ideology to serve their purposes, religious or otherwise.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yes, and religion makes it so much easier to rationalise... Wasn't that your argument two posts ago? And moreover, the Inquisition were plainly good men by any rational standard. They believed they were saving the souls of their victims from eternal damnation! What possible motive could be purer?

I recall reading one of my mother's anthropology texts, where the author had spoken to a Catholic priest in Brazil. "If a tribe of two hundred dies of disease, but one of them accepts God first, is that a worthwhile exchange," he asked. The reply : "Yes." Do you maintain that this priest was evil? By his premises he is absolutely correct, the natives are going to die anyway, but there's no need for them to suffer Hell.

As for honesty, I must say I cannot recall the thread either, so I can't really tell whether I should retract my position in it or not. I could have been mistaken. Or perhaps I was referring to little white lies?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, and religion makes it so much easier to rationalise... Wasn't that your argument two posts ago?

---

quote:

---

(...) because while a belief in God is not necessary to hold those virtues, not holding a belief in God can make them easier to rationalize.

---

quote:

---

I think you were referring to "little white lies", but I would have to check to be sure.

---

quote:

---

And your reliance on Dagonee is a cheap cop-out; while my examples were drawn from the Catholic church, they apply equally to any religion that believes you must know Christ to achieve salvation. And Dagonee will most certainly not argue this with me, he will accuse me of disrespect and say nothing further.

---

quote:

---

Um, yes. And while a belief in God is not required to kill a bunch of people, it does make it so much easier to rationalise.

---

quote:

---

Tell me then, do you believe that it is worthwhile to kill two hundred people if one soul is thereby saved for all eternity?

---

quote:

---

while my examples were drawn from the Catholic church, they apply equally to any religion that believes you must know Christ to achieve salvation.

---

Now that is just silly. If these people did the dispicable things you claim, and from what I have seen from Dagonee I am not at all certain I know, they do *not* apply to other believers. They are things those specific people chose to do for their own reasons. How can that possibly apply to me or other believers, or even other Catholics?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh, sorry, I see I wasn't clear. The question is : Suppose the missionaries are visiting a hitherto isolated village in the Amazonian jungle. They bring with them two gifts of European civilisation : The Gospels, and smallpox. (Or fill in whatever disease you choose, alcoholism will do.) The entire tribe dies, but one of them accepts baptism first and is saved. Is this a good thing? Should the missionaries be permitted to repeat their performace at the next village up the river?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think that these people are going to need to be in contact with this disease at some point and that the missionaries should do everything in their power to care for these people and ease the transition of the two cultures which must inevitably happen. I think that along the way, where appropriate, they should continue to share their gospel message.

Edit: Have you read OSC's excellent book "Pastwatch"? It addresses this issue far more beautifully than I could. I really like what he had to say on the subject.

[ February 16, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I think the hypothetical is bunk, framed in such a way as to make the priest look bad. He couldn't answer in a way that would work. "Yes, it was a good thing that 200 people died" or "No, God isn't as important as 200 lives".
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
SM, you are *so* right. This is one of those "soundbite" issues.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Since both Creationist sources posted by KoM leave open the possibility of God-created life on other planets, how does discovery of life on Mars blow their theories out of the water?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Tch, five people posted while I was writing. I'll try to deal with all of you in turn :

PC, I did not and do not intend insult when I use 'cretinist' in quotes; I did and do intend insult when I use it without quotes. Take my word for it or not, as you choose.

quote:

---

It seems to *me* that if I didn't believe in God or an afterlife, that I would believe that I could avoid unpleasant consequences of my actions. It would be *easier* to rationalize killing.

---

quote:

---

They *are* more rational about their religious beliefs than they were in centuries past.

---

quote:

---

SM, you are *so* right. This is one of those "soundbite" issues.

---

quote:

---

Since both Creationist sources posted by KoM leave open the possibility of God-created life on other planets, how does discovery of life on Mars blow their theories out of the water?

---

As I observed in one of my later posts, that was probably a little optimistic.

Um, I just realised, if this is true, then it is the most momentuous scientific discovery, like, ever. And I derailed it into a religious thread. Oops. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Comrade KoM, your hypothetical depends on the beleiefs or assumptions of the answerer.

If you believe eternal salvation should be the ultimate goal of every Christian, then perhaps one saved soul is worth 200 deaths, as they would have died anyway.

If you don't share this belief, the missionaries would just be hastening death.
It all depends on your POV.

[ February 16, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yes, Morbo, that's just what I'm saying. Religion is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
The only thing?? That statement is absurd.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, that's a good way of dealing with a question you do not know how to answer.

---

quote:

---

You could just as well rationalise it the other way. It's ok to kill X, even if God says it is wrong, because I will be punished for it. And they'll surely be taken up to heaven by a just and loving God. Humans are good at rationalising.

---

quote:

---

Could I suggest you take another look at those fundie websites I linked further up, and then consider that a large percentage of Americans apparently support this being taught in schools? And before you say that they are not representative, please note that they are numerous enough that school boards take notice of them.

---

While I admit that it is possible that you know more about this than I do, I am not likely to trust you as a source on this considering your strong bias against religion. I'm sure there are some that support it. But a large percentage? I dunno.

I say all this not bothering to have checked the links, BTW. While I don't consider myself a creationist, I don't have a problem with some schools choosing to teaching it. I'm sure there are many private schools that already do. It just doesn't bother me. And it seems far from "evil" to me.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Ha, the Strange Attractors of Hatrack, (religion, politics, gay marriage, dingles etc.) claim another thread derailment.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Religion is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

---

quote:

---

Ha, the Strange Attractors of Hatrack, (religion, politics, gay marriage, dingles etc.) claim another thread derailment.

---

quote:

---

I say all this not bothering to have checked the links, BTW. While I don't consider myself a creationist, I don't have a problem with some schools choosing to teaching it.

---

quote:

---

Now that is the most preposterous thing I have heard in a long time.

---

quote:

---

KoM, while you personally may gain nothing from religion, blanket statements against it are really just ridiculous. Yes, some bad things have been done in the name of religion, but some really wonderful things have been done in the name of religion as well. (And that's leaving aside the benefits to a single person of faith and belief).

---

quote:

---

You know, I've heard Valium addicts say much the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Religion lets you deal with the tough things in life. Valium lets you deal with the tough things in life

---

Sports help you get through the tough things in life.
Sex helps you get through the tough things in life.
Teddy bears help you get through the tough things in life.
Making lists helps you get through the tough things in life.
Singing helps you get through the tough things in life.
Reading sci-fi helps you get through the tough things in life.
Insulting people on an internet forum helps you get through the tough things in life.
Cooking helps you get through the tough things in life.
Walking through the park helps you get through the tough things in life.
Swimming helps you get through the tough things in life.
Watching movies helps you get through the tough things in life.
Sleeping helps you get through the tough things in life.
Drawing cartoons helps you get through the tough things in life.

do you see the absurdity yet? Anyone please feel free to add on to the list.

[ February 16, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Indeed you are right, SM. The difference is that none of those other things have bad side-effects, with the possible exception of the intarwebnets.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I think they all can. But seriously, I'm on a roll here:

Water can help you get through the tough things in life.
Electronic gizmos can help you get through the tough things in life.
Drinking hot chocolate on a snowy morning can help you get through the tough things in life.
Watching Broadway Musicals can help you get through the tough things in life.

[ February 16, 2005, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Teddy bears are no doubt harmful if you buy up the entire world's supply and tens of thousands of five-year-olds have nothing to cuddle anymore, yes. The point I'm trying to make is that religion is harmful even in small quantities.

I am going to bed, and will post no further until tomorrow evening. Goodnight all.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Sleep tight, kingy.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Irrational hostility to religion can help you get through the tough things in life.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 

quote:

---

Religion is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you could come up with a nice counterexample instead of this assertion-of-disbelief stuff?

---

Do you have any idea how irrational and bigoted your statement is? Why should I need to explain my assertion of disbelief in the face of such absurdity?

Let me show you:

Being gay is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

Being black is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

Being blind is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

Being poor is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

Being Norweigan is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

Being male is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

-----------
Get the picture? I think the burden of explaination weighs quite heavily on the one making the statement.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Well, I am a young earth creationist. I’ll agree that ICR and Answers in Genesis don’t speak for my beliefs, but they are an excellent source of great information on creation. They might say that they doubt life exists anywhere else in the universe. But this is a far step from saying that if it does that ruins creationism. Personally, I won’t be surprised if the universe is filled with populated planets. Now on to dinosaurs…
Take this article on dinosaurs: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp I find the mention of behemoth very interesting in the bible and the similarity to dinosaurs.

Neat theory connecting with dragons: http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html
More fake stuff: http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html
Fake of course: http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
More? http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html
Fake again: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm
Multiple tracks: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Anyway…. I doubt people would believe in the flood even if we got the ark off of Mt Ararat http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

But my point really is that if you found an acceptable dinosaur and man fossil together, what would that mean to you?
I think any of these theories on dinosaurs should be taught in public school. It’s certainly not right to teach only the atheist religion of evolution as fact.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The hijacking of this thread is annoying, because it is distracting us all from the REAL issue here.

Do you know what this means?!? DO YOU?

It means that Ben Bova was right!
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Oops! Looks like we DO have a young earth creationist on the board. Looks like King of Men has no more excuses to randomly insult people. Darn.

So. Religion is like drugs because religion makes bad things happen and, like, breaks families apart like drugs do and stuff. Wow.

Everything in life has its good points and bad points. Alcohol, when taken in moderation, can be good. Drugs, believe it or not, when taken in moderation can save lives. Like mine and probably yours.

Maybe you think that religion did something terrible for you or your family, maybe it did. But that doesn't change the fact that religion has be an important part of people's lives and an important part of who many people are.

I, personally, dislike romance novels. I think they're mostly badly written, and that they don't have any literary significance, and that they're really pretty much wasted paper. But that doesn't mean that I think that all people who read romance novels are idiots. Or that all romance novels should be banned.

And I really think that no matter what we say, you'll continue to have your bigoted, narrow, shallow opinions and to express them in a rude, callous and uninformed way. And that I'm wasting keystrokes conversing with you.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Maybe he was beaten by a Bad Nun as a child and still bears the psychological scars.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Maybe he got on the wrong end of a Chick tract.
 

---

Posted by the Professor (Member # 5319) on :
 

quote:

---

It’s certainly not right to teach only the atheist religion of evolution as fact.

---

quote:

---

In particular, hyperspectral imagery from space offers great promise.

All natural and human-made materials on the surface of the Earth have a unique signature of reflected light from the Sun. This signature is more detailed than can be captured by a conventional camera or the human eye. Hyperspectral sensors can measure this signature and actually identify materials from space.

---

quote:

---

Fake of course: http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

---

quote:

---

I have a incredible story to tell, which is being hushed up by scientists and goverments all over the world. Darwin's theory of the evolution of species has been disproved. But everyone is covering it up.

---

quote:

---

More fake stuff: http://www.creationists.org/livedinos01.html
http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html

---

quote:

---

Fake again: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm[/URL]

---

quote:

---

The cave where the stones were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less examined by scientists. Skeptics consider the stones to be a pathetic hoax, created for a gullible tourist trade. Nevertheless, three groups in particular have endeavored to support the authenticity of the stones: (a) those who believe that extraterrestrials are an intimate part of Earth's "real" history; (b) fundamentalist Creationists who drool at the thought of any possible error made by anthropologists, archaeologists, evolutionary biologists, etc.; and (c) the mytho-historians who claim that ancient myths are accurate historical records to be understood literally.

---

quote:

---

And by the way, how did this very fine artwork survive the Flood intact?

Multiple tracks: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

---

quote:

---

Ideology is the only thing that can cause otherwise good men to do evil things.

---

quote:

---

Religion of various kinds is the main surviving ideology.

---

quote:

---

i·de·ol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "ideology" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

---

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are plenty more ideologies out there than just religion.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Megan
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
aw, thanks!

You know, bev, I think we just hailed each other at the same time on two separate threads.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, thanks back! That is way cool!

Jinx!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
But my ideology is correct and true in every particular.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

But my ideology is correct and true in every particular.

---

This is the sort of arrogance that makes people not want to listen to you.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Perhaps I should have added a smiley to that? Unfortunately, we don't have an *utterly deadpan* smiley.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Smiley or no, it is the attitude that you constantly portray. Again, it makes people not want to listen to you.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
If that was supposed to be sarcastic in anyway I think its telling how no one else thought it was.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
I assumed you were posting tongue-in-cheek, KoM and I was somewhat amused. The reason that some may not find the humor is due to your (if you'll forgive the delicious irony) holier than thou attitude in regards to religion. You must realize that there are different templates by which people view and live their lives. Attempting to belittle a template that doesn't work for you, but does work for many will not earn you any latitude in making jokes even if they are at your own expense.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Actually, I found that particular post of KoM's massively funny. Possibly because I say things like "everyone knows I am in sole possession of Absolute Truth™" all the time. Of course, I'm also pretty arrogant.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
What I find ironic is that I seem to hear more people on Hatrack mocking believers for their silly beliefs (though they are often more subtle about it than KoM) than I see believers proclaiming to have access to The Truth. They may say that they *think* they have access to The Truth, usually phrased as "I believe _______", but that is *not* the same thing.

We all secretly think that ^^ inside. Else why would we hold the opinions we hold?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

What I find ironic is that I seem to hear more people on Hatrack mocking believers for their silly beliefs (though they are often more subtle about it than KoM) than I see believers proclaiming to have access to The Truth.

---

I think that's because to some extent an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing kind of happens here. There are so MANY different forms of Christian belief on Hatrack that y'all tend to tone down your attacks on each other in order to go after the atheists.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I think that's because to some extent an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing kind of happens here. There are so MANY different forms of Christian belief on Hatrack that y'all tend to tone down your attacks on each other in order to go after the atheists. [Wink]

---

It seems to me this "going after atheists" is usually defending after our beliefs have been attacked in some way. And, no, I don't think it is because there are so many different forms, but because we have learned that people believe different things and it is common courtesy not to belittle the beliefs of others. Some of the atheists on this forum have not learned this.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Some of the atheists on this forum have not learned this."

By "some," I assume you mean "two?" Seriously, for every KoM, you've got a Jay.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
No, but I haven't been counting either.

quote:

---

for every KoM, you've got a Jay.

---

Isn't Jay getting better? I am not seeing any signs of improvement in KoM.

Here is how it looks to me: There may be a Jay for every KoM, but there are others who are not as "in your face" who express some of the same ideas that KoM expresses. I don't see that element on the believers side. For the most part, believers seem to be respectful of other's beliefs--perhaps because they know that those who live in glass houses cannot throw stones. Believers (most believers on Hatrack anyway) know that they cannot scientifically explain their beliefs. So attacking the beliefs of others opens themselves up for the same behavior in kind.

Because atheists hold few if any beliefs that cannot be scientifically explained, many don't feel the need to be respectful towards beliefs that cannot be so explained.

It makes sense. But it results in the behavior I explained above.

[ February 17, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
In my experience, what happens here is that most theists are so dismissive of atheism that they don't bother to address it in their posts, chooing instead to frame their discussions exclusively within the framework of belief in god. Since there are so many theists, it's easy to have whole discussions without ever considering that there are people who don't believe in god. The idea of not believing in god is so incomprehensible to many theists that they can forget that atheists even exist.

This can, and does, result in condescention (intentional or not) toward atheists when we do submit points for consideration.

(It's even worse for agnostics, who take flack from both sides. )
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Because atheists hold few if any beliefs that cannot be scientifically explained

---

quote:

---

there are others who are not as "in your face" who express some of the same ideas that KoM expresses. I don't see that element on the believers side

---

I submit, then, that you either have not been looking or, as a consequence of your bias on this issue, have difficulty noticing the phenomenon. Believe me, it's present.

The mere fact that you aren't sure whether non-theists are in the minority on Hatrack suggests to me that you haven't been paying much attention. Seriously, you don't need a poll; the Mormons alone outnumber the non-theists.

[ February 17, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Not true. Just about everyone, including atheists and agnostics, have some irrational beliefs. It's part of being human, editing your own beliefs can be very difficult, but this difficulty provides continuity of consciousness.

---

quote:

---

I submit, then, that you either have not been looking or, as a consequence of your bias on this issue, have difficulty noticing the phenomenon. Believe me, it's present.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, you don't need a poll; the Mormons alone outnumber the non-theists.

---

This would surprise me. Maybe I will start a poll. We can settle this scientifically.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It may be fun for you to do a count sometime, Bev. Trust me; Christians on Hatrack are not an oppressed, meekly conscientious minority. Remember, though, that your poll's going to skew a bit left; as we saw nationwide, the Christian Right for some reason refuses to participate in self-selected polls.

[ February 17, 2005, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

While there may be more believers than non on the face of the earth, do you think there are more believers on Hatrack than non?

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, what sort of flack to agnostics get?

---

"Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?'
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Okay, so Tom edited and beat me to it. I have other things to say, too, but I was trying to be quick.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Trust me; Christians on Hatrack are not an oppressed, meekly conscientious minority.

---

quote:

---

"Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?'

---

quote:

---

Remember, though, that your poll's going to skew a bit left; as we saw nationwide, the Christian Right for some reason refuses to participate in self-selected polls.

---

Huh, I hadn't heard such a thing. I would expect believers to actually be more likely to check into such a poll on Hatrack. Atheists are more likely to just not care enough.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But I don't think it is a good thing."

Oh, I don't think it's a good thing, either. But I'm pretty sure it's a pot/kettle situation, and you don't even seem aware of the blackness of the other "side's" cookware.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Agnostics are wimps, but pretty harmless. I don't think I'll even bother to send them to re-education camps, come the Revolution. Just so long as it's understood who was right all along.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Heck, I'll say it to Tom right now! Hey, Tom, why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?



But basically, I agree with what Tom just posted between when I clicked "reply" and right now:

quote:

---

But I'm pretty sure it's a pot/kettle situation, and you don't even seem aware of the blackness of the other "side's" cookware.

---

quote:

---

I've heard several people over the years suggest that it's not possible to be a good person without faith in a higher power.

---

quote:

---

But I submit that most believers consider a belief in God to be fairly important, and would not generally make light of the lack thereof by calling it "silly."

---

quote:

---

In just the last few days being back on Hatrack I have seen several different people say that they think religion is "silly". I have not seen anyone say that not believing in God is "silly".

---

quote:

---

That's part of my point. Theists don't view atheism as worthy of consideration. It is below "silly."

---

quote:

---

I've seen Pascal's Wager hauled out a few times to demonstrate that it's stupid to not believe in a God,

---

quote:

---

I've heard one person even suggest that perhaps believing in God makes you more understanding and more supportive of opposing viewpoints, in the face of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary.

---

Whereas you just did the exact same thing, but in the opposite direction.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Whereas you just did the exact same thing, but in the opposite direction."

Yep. I never said it didn't happen. I said both sides did it.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

I consider it. I do not think it is below "silly" at all. I am sorry you feel that way.

---

I know you don't, which is why you are one of the few people on this board with whom I am willing to have this discussion.


 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you take a stand instead of sitting on the fence?'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anyone ever even implied such a thing here?

---

Not meant rudely, or as a challenge, or as a dare, or to discredit, but I know that I've said and still believe that one cannot always stand at the fork, refusing to make a decision. At some point - and I don't know exactly what that point is, I admit - but at some point, the decision of what parameters to live under has been made, whether deliberately or not. For something so important, isn't it better to choose deliberately?

"You cannot always be torn in two."

[ February 17, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Twinky, things you have said in the past have given me the impression that people who believe in God have done or said some very unkind things to you. I am sorry that that has happened. I really hope Hatrack has not added to that. I have never seen a place that tries so hard to be understanding to all viewpoints.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

Yep. I never said it didn't happen. I said both sides did it.

---

Oh. Sorry. I misunderstood.


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, you have been around *far* longer than I have and I am sure you have seen a lot more examples of this than I have. But as I sit here trying to not be biased about this, I still think that there is more animosity from the a-religious towards the religious *here*.

And perhaps the fact that there are more believers in the world than non and the fact that those that do not believe in God have reached that decision through education and searching, often going against the grain, it is not surprising that there are more rude people to be found on the street that happen to also be believers. I just happen to believe that is not the case on Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
I’m so glad you brought up the point about Starlight. Creationists have an explanation for this. But I’m not sure evolutionists have an answer for their own light distance problem:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D Creationist physicist has a book and video called Starlight and Time talking about the question of distant starlight. In this article he answers some criticisms:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
There are a lot of Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers on this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp
I know this doesn’t answer all questions. But just so you know, I was raised an atheist, came to study creation in great detail and have no doubt at all that creationism is true. Study it out. Pray about it. Ask questions. I know I was surprised.
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Well, agnostics, are a varied group, like any. I don't consider myself to be sitting on any type of fence, as an agnostic. I just believe in God without believing necessarily that one has to belong to a church or subscribe to a doctrine to do so. I believe in God without believing that any one person knows what he thinks.

Often, I call myself a Lutheran Agnostic, because being raised a Lutheran, I proscribe to many of the beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Huh, I didn't know you started out as an atheist, Jay.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
Does that really count as being agnostic? You sound like you have indeed made a decision about the existance and character of God - there, but unknowable.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Seems to me there are atheist agnostics and beleiver agnostics and perhaps true agnostics.
 

---

Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
 
If you expand the meaning that much, it loses meaning. Sitting on the fence with feet firmly on one side is not sitting on the fence - you've made a decision.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Agnostic!=fencesitter.

The definitions of atheist and theist overlap with agnostic a bit on each side.

[ February 17, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Well, it's a word one can adopt. I call myself agnostic chiefly because I decided that I wasn't necessarily close enough to Lutheran anymore. Because I didn't know that being Lutheran was my way of being close to God. And I found the definition of agnostic fit me a little better.

I believe there's a God, but I concede that there's really no way to know, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it. Some days I'm closer to the atheistic side of things, most days I'm further away.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

I believe there's a God, but I concede that there's really no way to know, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it.

---

code:

---

   1.
         1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
         2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
   2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

  

---

quote:

---

I’m so glad you brought up the point about Starlight. Creationists have an explanation for this. But I’m not sure evolutionists have an answer for their own light distance problem:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp

---

quote:

---

However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem. Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations, such as Guth’s original model. Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.

---

quote:

---

Russell Humphreys, Ph.D Creationist physicist has a book and video called Starlight and Time talking about the question of distant starlight. In this article he answers some criticisms:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

---

quote:

---

Astronomer Wing-Huan Ip, from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, looked into the conditions necessary for a moon to break up. He says the combined mass of Saturn’s rings would amount to a moon at least 100 kilometres wide (Earth’s moon is 3,473 kilometres wide). Ip says that such a moon could be shattered by a comet only two kilometres across. Yet Ip calculates that such a ring-forming collision would not happen in 30 billion years. This is about twice the age claimed for the universe by most evolutionists.

---

quote:

---

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium; the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen.

---

quote:

---

It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

---

quote:

---

I know this doesn’t answer all questions. But just so you know, I was raised an atheist, came to study creation in great detail and have no doubt at all that creationism is true. Study it out. Pray about it. Ask questions. I know I was surprised.

---

quote:

---

All will be revealed in time.

---

Nope. We will never discover everything there is to discover about this universe.

All might be revealed outside of time.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Dagsie, thou speakest humbug. There is a finite amount of energy in the Universe, and its configurations are quantised. Therefore there is a limit to the number of facts in the Universe, and it is possible to enumerate them. To be sure you'd need a nice compression algorithm. Nevertheless, the Universe is in principle knowable.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Nope - the organizing of the facts themselves would change the configuration of the universe.

Further, while I believe in the soundness of quantum theory, I have zero confidence that there's not something "deeper" we haven't yet discovered. Even if there isn't, we clearly can't know things outside out space-time cone, right?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If you are referring to hidden variables, they are refuted by Bell inequality unless they get seriously weird. And since our space-time cone includes the entire Universe if you wait long enough, that's not much of a limitation.

Also, note that I said 'it is possible to enumerate all allowed configurations of the Universe'. The Universe in which a large part of the energy has been used in that enumeration is a conceivable configuration, yes. That doesn't in any way change the original assertion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'm not talking about "hidden variables." I'm talking about a new paradigm as fundamentally altering of our view of the world as quantum mechanics and relativity were.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Such a theory would have to include quantum mechanics. In any case, how does that invalidate what I said?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Because I don't think we'll ever be to the point where such a revolutionary discovery is not forthcoming.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Then you still need to deal with the finite-configurations bit.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
No I don't - I don't believe there are finite configurations. I certainly don't believe they are knowable, even theoretically.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Then we must either agree to disagree, or begin arguing from authority. It won't matter in either of our lifetimes.

However, I will make a slightly less general prediction : The inflationary theory will be straightened out in our lifetimes. That is, we will have a good understanding of the mechanism, extent, and duration of inflation, arising from a fuller exploration of physics at TeV energies.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It won't matter in either of our lifetimes.

---

True. We're both speculating about something that will happen very far in the future, if it ever does.

Of course, I believe I'll be around to see it.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
skillery and I went around for a while about a finite versus infinitely knowable universe in this thread. Just in case you were interested in other people's arguments on it.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

creationists suggest that most dinosaurs died as a result of the great flood described in Genesis 6-8. Dinosaur types which were preserved on the ark probably faced severe climate changes following the flood.

---

quote:

---

93. What is the Anthropic Principle?
...The Anthropic Principle is a powerful argument that the universe was designed.

---

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#1

The Anthropic Principle has been used by both sides in debates, with varying degrees of logic and applicibility.
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
NASA nixes claims of Mars life

--j_k
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
interesting......
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Dang…. Here I was looking forward to War of the Worlds
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
So it was all just speculation, with no paper submitted to a journal? Then what a waste of 4 pages of discussion...oh, wait.
We hardly stayed on topic anyway, no harm no foul.
 

---