quote: Well, if you want to hearken back to that discussion, I believe atheism is enough of a "religion" that a student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt or button that says "There is no God" to school. As long as headscarves are still allowed.
Actually, my point of the previous discussion was that there was no way to really know if something was really a religious feeling and deserving of special protection under freedom of religion, or not. Therefore, the term freedom of religion has no real meaning, and it would be more precise to look at it under the paradigm of freedom of speech.
posted
Storm, there are aspects of religious exercise that go beyond speech. For example, wearing a headscarve is not viewed as a speech by those who do it - it is a modesty action. The right to avoid being drafted for religious reasons is not speech.
Speech protection is not enough to protect free exercise of religion.
quote: Storm, there are aspects of religious exercise that go beyond speech. For example, wearing a headscarve is not viewed as a speech by those who do it - it is a modesty action. The right to avoid being drafted for religious reasons is not speech.
Speech protection is not enough to protect free exercise of religion.
There are plenty of 'modesty actions' which have nothing to do with religion and there are plenty of people who want to avoid the draft for non-religious reasons. Why should the 'non-religious', for the moement defined as those who do not claim religion, not be as free as the 'religious', for the moment defined as those that do?
I admit that I probably don't want to use the term 'freedom of speech' as it is too restrictive. Perhaps freedom of conscience and expression?
posted
I don't think there's any need for that. Athiests many times have claimed freedom of religion. We just don't need another term.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The position the courts have taken is that if someone reasonably asserts something is part of their religious beliefs, it gets protected as a religious practice.
Easy to determine religious assertions involve: religions that have many members and a published body of doctrine, religious practices that the person has been known to consistently follow, that sort of thing.
There is the problem of the courts deciding what somebody does for religious reasons and what someone does for other reasons, but as religious expression is what is protected (implying a need to discriminate what is religious expression), and rights for religious expression can only excede the rights given free speech, there seems no particular reason to limit it to what may be determined to be protected by free speech. More religious expression will always be protected by freedom of religion, since if it was already protected by freedom of speech there wouldn't be a need for the idea of freedom of religion.
That the courts/laws decide what consitutes religious expression in the state's view is not so bad, I think. Or at least, it is necessary that someone perform the ascertainment, just as with other freedoms. It is impossible to have a freedom to do something under a government without there being a definition of what that something is, and the only body that may be logically empowered to perform such an ascertainment is the government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said that I didn't think ther was a "divine existence" in Buddhism. I said that I didn't believe that Buddhists made any strong claims as to how the physical world was created, or how it works. To be honest, neither did you state how Buddhists believe the world was created, and how it developed. I'm not going to give you grief if you don't know--I'm just saying that I'm not aware of any claims.
The typical Buddhist idea for how the universe works is not able to be adequately put into a timeline of "this happened, then this happened" as far as how the world was created, which is why it rejects creationism theory and generally does not argue against evolution theory. However, unlike atheism, Beddhism believes in the divine, which atheism rejects, which is why Buddhism isn't even close to atheism, which is the rejection of the divine. Buddhism is not concerned with creation of the universe in the same sense Christianity and other (more Western) faiths are. I didn't state how Buddhism feels because it's not explainable in the context you are trying to claim it, but I can assure you that there are sciences Buddhism has contributed to. They are, however, not the "hard sciences."
quote:Yes, "Islam." Sorry. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his only prophet. It's 11:30 at night, and I had a brain fart. What was I suposed to do, call it "The Moslem faith."
No, that would have been insulting, too. And the fact that you give a dismissive apology instead of a real one makes me want to talk to you even less. If you can't even respect the validity of other faiths, all you're doing is showing how you are so sure that your own is better than all the others, thus showing you have atheist dogma concerning other religions, thus showing the "religious-ness" of atheism. In other words, you're proving my point with every dismissal, along with being insulting to a faith I have grown to love dearly.
Oh, and it's not just "in the past" when Islamic Arabia contributed to those sciences. There are still universities—the first universitities in all of history—that still do much work in those and other fields. And if you don't understand how intrinsically connected the religion of Islam is connected to culture, government, and science, then you are just speaking from ignorance. In fact:
quote:Do followers of Islam have a non-scientific belief system as to how the world was created, or how life developed and changed over time? (Something to compare with "Creationism", let's say). I tend to think, "not."
You'd be wrong. Islam follows a similar creation theory that Judaism does, also similar to Christianty. You have yet to admit that you were wrong. I await your apology.
quote:Biologically, I am a reformed Jew. Heck, some of my best friends are Jewish! Not a single Jew I have ever met believes for a minute that the Old Testament is a valid science tract. It's accepted as allegory.
In other words, you don't know a thing about Jewish theories. Once again, your ignorance is speaking, not facts, not knowledge, only dogma.
quote:
quote:Science is not separate from religion
Care to expound upon that? Just because religious groups tried hard (and sometimes succeeded) at various scientific explorations does not mean that the two are inseparable. The creation of the Arabic numbering system works just as well in the hands of an atheist as it does in the hansda of a theist. Newton praised God in the forward of his Principia Mathematica, but Newton did all the work (well, not really--he stole a lot of it from others. He was the Bill Gates of his time). And some say that Newton added that dedication just to keep from being imprisoned for heresay.
Science viewed as a separate entity from the religious institutions that created and pushed them forward is a relatively new phenomenon. Science does not exist to disprove religion, and never has. In fact, the questions behind most science (the "why" and "how") come directly from religion.
quote:My parable (ooh! Gotta love that Freudian slip!) was intended to explore the depth of a-religious faith, nothing more.
[edit--"nothing more" is probably incorrect--but you still refuse, apparently, do discuss the issue. You're spending most of your energy calling me "contemptuous"]
You read my "contempt" into it, I'm afraid.
Here, let me help you, I think you have something in your eye...
Let's see: you use Christianity as the sole basis for comparing the disbelief of atheism in the divine to, you compare the Christian God to a human in your basement imagined by your children, you insultingly call Islam "Mohammedism" and make excuses for calling it such instead of just apologizing (and, in fact, then go on to use "Moslem" instead of Muslim or Islam... do you realize the pejorative of what you keep choosing to call it?), you display absolutely no knowledge of the Jewish outlook on creation and science (and the "reformed Jew" remark is questionable as far as intent), and you demand I put Buddhism in Western terms of scientific outlook, when Buddhist theology simply does not work that way (if you like, I can direct you to books to educate you, provided you really want to learn... so far, every post of yours indicates otherwise).
quote:I never said that science "exists" to disprove any religion. That implies intent. Science "exists" to figure out how the universe works (and engineering "exists" to help make a profit from it...)
And there are sciences that are still tied directly to religions. Furthermore, scientific findings are only used to "disprove" religion by one group of people: atheists. Sure, there are theological details that science has been brought up to debunk by many people of many faiths, but the only time I see science as a whole being used as some kind of "disproof" of religion has been by self-identifying atheists. This is not a coincidence, nor is your misconception that religions don't have science. It's the same kind of self-perpetuating dogma that "my faith is the Right One" that all religions have.
quote:Science would work just fine in a world without religious belief. Maybe better. Ask Galileo.
Without religion, it's easily arguable that science would have never begun, since all sciences have origins in religion.
Chris:
quote:That's why I can only participate up to a point. I'm a devout apatheist -- "don't know, don't care" -- and watching everyone split hairs gets repetitive after a while.
Welcome to debate on teh intarweb.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and Eric, I'm currently on a dial-up connection (I'm far away from home this week ), so both sifting through my few thousand links and pulling up definitions from online dictionaries (because pics of my own dictionary would be just as difficult ) becomes time consuming and inconvenient. I don't really expect anyone who feels atheism isn't a religion to change their mind, any more than I expect any atheist who doesn't already (there are a few who do) have respect for other religions as valid beliefs to change their mind. I'm just pointing out the obvious errors in "knowledge" and "logic" within atheist arguments.
And MoonRabbit, I apologize. I don't know why I thought you were a she, but I stand corrected. However, I already pointed out how creationism is a science, it just is a science that you do not believe or support. That's fine. However, denying that it's a science is rather hypocritical, considering your previous post regaling us of your experience with your former pastor telling everyone how everything else was wrong and inferior. Do you get what I'm saying? Maybe you don't view it that way, but looking at the way you put it from outside your own point of view, that's exactly what you've gone and done.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I have two brothers who are atheist, and while they still won't admit that atheism is a religion, they do admit that it requires faith that God does not exist (at least one of them is even shaky on that). David Bowles also agrees with me about the faith part, though he's been much too busy to post.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, but my question is, if religious expression and belief is, for all practical purposes that I can see, really indistinguishable from non-religious expression and belief, why confuse the issue? You make the point that the state can decide and this is cool. O.K. Does this not still beg the question?
The *only* defining feature that I can see of 'religious' thought is that you have enough people get together that say 'this symbol or thought is important to me, and if you don't get out of the way and let me wear it/eat it/potray it, me and all my friends are going to go jihad on your ass.' From the point of view of individuals, or people in the minority, I think this definition a little troubling.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We institute the different treatment because it is constitutionally required.
Make no mistake, religious allowances are just that, allowances. The idea is that the government has the power to control many things, but only where they do not impinge upon religious beliefs. The reasons for this are many, and include such things as not being able to crack down on people of certain religions by making laws which conflict with their religions.
So instead of having to judge the intent behind the law and only allowing laws which aren't designed to persecute religious people, the government is merely not allowed to interfere with any religious expression which may reasonably be accomodated in a civil society.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Creationism isn't a science for any commonly accepted definition of science. It is not falsifiable on any account, it does not make verifiable predictions, it is not based on evidence, and it has no experimental basis.
To quote the lay definition, science is
quote:The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
The key part is "experimental investigation". There is no possible experimental investigation in creationism. I cannot create a scientific experiment to test whether God could create the universe, and no one can. its definitionally impossible. For one thing, first I'd have to find a scientifically determined God to use as a subject.
edit to add: and Intelligent Design, while closer, has the same problem. There is no experiment to test if God is influencing the natural progress of this world, no falsifiable predictions from it, et cetera.
posted
Um, fugu, read the FAQ I linked to. While the conclusions that have been drawn are questionable, the techniques used are not used to show whether or not a god created the universe in the "fingerprinting" sense, but to correlate a timeline given in the bible by coming to scientific conclusions through hypothesis, experimentation, recording results, and repeating said experiments. It follows scientific method, it just comes to conclusions that one may or may not find incredibly questionable. So, what you say doesn't discount it as a science, it means you don't like the results of said science. And as I already pointed out, Christians aren't the only ones to conduct this kind of science.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One may apply the scientific method to something and not have all things related to it be science.
It is within the realm of science to investigate the possible correlation of the Bible and known history and prehistory.
This, however, is not the whole of creationism. Creationism inextricably entails the idea that the world was created by God. While specific areas "under" creationism may be scientifically investigated, the domain as a whole is not science, as it is not scientifically investigable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For instance, creationism includes the idea that animals exist today. I can scientiifcally test this. This does not make creationism science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is within the realm of science to investigate the possible correlation of the Bible and known history and prehistory.
This, however, is not the whole of creationism. Creationism inextricably entails the idea that the world was created by God.
The part of it that is science is quite well within the confines of modern science. However, it's a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences. One can argue that vested interests are influencing the science (in fact, I do), but you'd have to first accept that they are conducting science to begin with.
If you want to say creationism as a whole is not a science, that's fine. Creationism as a whole is both science and religion. However, creation science is a science.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that there are certain areas of creation science which fit the definition of science (though they are usually prime examples of bad science, being fraught with bad logic, false assumptions, and generally atrocious methodology).
However, creation science is usually just a veneer of a title given to creationism in an attempt to appear scientific, and as such most creation science is not science.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're entitled to believe that, but it doesn't make it any less of a science than many others. It just makes it a science with vested interests. There are still plenty of sciences that have schools (of thought) with vested interests. In fact, most people use them in debate when their (sometimes questionable) results match their preconcieved hypothesis.
Are we going to get into a hierarchy of sciences now? What would be used as a barometer for it? (I can see the vested interests lining up for dibs now) Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, science is much more of a religion than atheism is.
After all, science has it's own dogma that scientists must abide by and accept or else they get called "unscientific" by the scientific community. It has divisions and sects along the lines of major disagreements within that dogma, although it has no official organization. It tackles most major religions questions, with the notable exception of morality, which it tends to stay away from. It offers explanations of how the universe came to exist, what it's nature is, and how it functions - some of which are even more bizarre and seemingly supernatural than the God explanation.
Atheism, in contrast, is really just a single position on a single issue.
posted
:dedicated atheist Bowles leaps into the fray:
Okay, really quick- atheism requires faith, as John has predicted I would say. It takes faith to say, definitively, that no deity exists. Atheists who pretend otherwise open themselves up to attacks they cannot sensibly defend against.
Here is the essential difference: the leap of faith for a theist is significantly larger than the one an atheist makes. As there is no hard, conclusive, objective evidence of a god's existence or NON-existence, it is simply easier (and, I would argue, more logical) to conclude that one DOES NOT exist. But this conclusion, based on it is on ABSENCE, is most definitely a leap of faith. I know my atheist friends are frantically shaking their heads at me, murmuring about polka-dotted dragons and such, but they know as well as I that even EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED theories are, at the end of the day, liable to be falsified... that is the heart of empiricism.
So, I declare as an atheist, I theorize the non-existence of god. I BELIEVE he doesn't exist. And the means of falsifying this belief are out there for the theists to utilize. If they do, if religious people can use logic and science and other objective methods to demonstrate the existence of god, my belief will change.
As for religion, I hold a deep respect for it. At its best, it creates a memetic framework for human existence, embuing our lives with meaning in a way that simple awe at discovering the universe has been unable to match. I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.
posted
Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?
As for whether or not its bad science, the reasons for it typically being bad science I gave are objective (the atrocious methodology not in all cases, but its a superset of the other two, anyways).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think humanity's future lies in the engineering of a religion that merges scientific questing and self-correction with the notion of spirituality, purpose, and redemption.
Are you by any chance a big fan of the Dune series (Frank Herbet, not the new stuff)?
I'm just curious, because, while he was way more cynical about it than you seem to be, he was interested in the purposeful creation and manipulation of religion.
Dagonee Edit: Just to be clear, you didn't sound cynical at all.
posted
Well, yes, I've read all of Herbert's works. But that's not quite what I mean. I'm not talking about using religion to manipulate people, but creating a religion that will evolve with us and that will have as its sacraments and tenets the healthy survival of humanity, the broadening of its understanding of humans and the universe they live in, and the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't think that's what you meant - I just meant the idea of religion that's truly human-created being a good (or at least acceptable) thing is fairly uncommon - Herbert is the only in-depth presenter of that idea I've seen.
posted
:nods: I see that. I'm curious what you think about the idea, its feasibility and its desireableness.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, since I believe in a divinely revealed religion, I'm not overly anxious to see it implemented. From a political science/psychological/anthropological perspective it's fascinating. From a religious perspective it's anathema to me.
Analyzing the specifics, neither the healthy survival of humanity nor the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe is particularly high on my priority list from a religious perspective. And of course, I believe that the broadening of humanity's understanding of humans and the universe they live in is best served by a combination of science, divine revelation, and reason.
So there's probably little common ground between us on this idea.
quote:Why do you say creationism as a whole is a science? Can you provide a definition of science which both includes creationism as a science and doesn't include nearly every thought system known to man?
Actually, neither creationism or evolutionary theories are science, because neither are falsifiable. Both are hypothetical extrapolations of science, which cannot be proven or disproven with experimental data. Science can only talk about present data, because that is all it can experiment on - and cannot extrapolate about the past or the origins of things.
So, yes, technically creationism is not science. But then you'd have to throw out a bunch of other things people like to call science. If you are going to call extrapolations of scientific data science too, like evolution, then you must also include creationism, and every other potential explanation of scientific data.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.
Jesus, you say the most bizarre things sometimes.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Dag, David isn't the huge Herbert fan. I am. (hence the name "Leto" which I used to use... after Leto II, the ultimate God Emperor)
Oh, yeah, and David:
quote:Well, yes, I've read all of Herbert's works. But that's not quite what I mean. I'm not talking about using religion to manipulate people, but creating a religion that will evolve with us and that will have as its sacraments and tenets the healthy survival of humanity, the broadening of its understanding of humans and the universe they live in, and the physical expansion of our race throughout the universe.
That's what most of the groups who knowingly manipulated in Herbert's works believed, too. Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.
posted
Kurt Vonnegut's works, particularly Cat's Cradle, but truly most all of his work, has a similar idea of human-created religions (and is probably much funnier to read than the Dune series; though I hear the latest stories are unintentionally humorous ).
posted
Cat's Cradle was a good book. But I thought his handling of religion was superficial at best. It dealt with the sociological benefits of religion, especially for people with little material comforts available, but glossed over the moral implications of a religion. I know that was partly his point, but I still found it an incomplete treatment.
I'm sure, judging from your handle, that you disagree.
posted
Well, I think he only addressed the moral implications implicitly, which is okay, because to be explicit about such things makes for bad satire
I think he believes that someone will be the good guy, someone the bad guy, always in any society. If there aren't, society will either collapse, or "invent" one.
quote:However, it's [creationism is] a science that is tied to a religion, which is what makes it different from most other sciences
quote:Science has been tied to many faiths throughout its whole existence.
quote:Science is not separate from religion
So, is science tied to religion, or isn't it?
I refer to the Christian approach to claiming "Scientific bragging rights" because they are currently the only group in the United States that is making any claims whatsoever in that category. The Jews aren't. The Muslims aren't. The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't. Maybe it's just a matter of who has "power" to try and impose change; maybe it's a combination of power and desire. Maybe its that the other groups understand the difference between scientifically provable hypotheses and allegory.
I get the sense, though, that my ideas aren't going to be discussed to any great depth here--for whatever reason. Perhaps I've been a bit too trollish.
BTW, Leto, I do apologize for the "Mohammedism" reference. I apologized in my earlier post, but I don't think you "got it." The "Moslem" reference was intended to echo a common, classless, ignorant (but, hopefully, not offensive) reference to the Muslim faith.
I also apologize for not knowing more about the Hebew faith. But I stand by my statement that there is no Jewish push to teach Jewish "science" in secular schools (and I'd love to hear of pushes for Old-Testament Creationism in shuls).
The reason I pick on the Christian faith is that the Christian faith, specifically among the other faiths, has had the financial ability to support research into the sciences, but has usually chosen not to pursue them.
Doing a little research, I reminded myself of how Da Vinci (who I used as an example of what positive things can happen when the Catholic Church supports the sciences as well as the arts) was thought to have used his "mirror script" (writing backwards) out of a fear of Christian persecution. Similar persecution, I might add, that we are all familiar with regarding Galileo.
What research projects is the Vatican currently pursuing (besides how to safely restore old paintings)?
I will acknowledge that many faith-based universities currently support scientific studies. Notre Dame, for instance, extensively supports scientific inquiry. They are a Catholic University, but they are not the Catholic Church.
I will incorporate that into my dogma, however. For next time.
That the Islamic faith has supported scientific studies, there are no doubts. Heck, I'm sure that there are lots of Muslims pursuing scientific studies even now--but where is there support coming from? From religious/cultural centers? Not from madrassas, certainly. From governments? I'm sure the Saudi Arabian government is supporting a lot of petroleum research. Do you want to make a case for it being a religious thing? I think not.
If a [place religion here] University is supporting of the sciences, is that sufficient representation of the religion itself? Or is that just because the University has chosen to pursue both? I honestly do not have an answer.
Since I can both support and refute my statements, I would ask the same of you, Leto; for the sake of open communication.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, if you think evolutionary theories aren't falsifiable, then you have a very different idea of proof than that of most. You don't have to be able to demonstrate natural selection's occuring in a laboratory under controlled conditions in order for the theory to be falsifiable.
Well, presuming we have no time machine, how would you go about disproving it any better than we can disprove creationism?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was certainly Leto II's stated goal and probably the Bene Gesserit's. I always wished he'd explored Paul's reason for rejecting Leto's course.
He did. Paul didn't do it because he didn't want to become what Leto II became. He was afraid.
DOG:
quote:So, is science tied to religion, or isn't it?
Some are, and some aren't.
quote:I refer to the Christian approach to claiming "Scientific bragging rights" because they are currently the only group in the United States that is making any claims whatsoever in that category. The Jews aren't. The Muslims aren't. The Jehovah's Witnesses aren't.
What part of the link to the Islamic science books did you not understand? What part of rivka's statement did you not understand? This is what is making me start to wonder your motives for posting in this thread, because you have been clearly shown the error of this claim, yet you continue to make it.
quote:BTW, Leto, I do apologize for the "Mohammedism" reference. I apologized in my earlier post, but I don't think you "got it." The "Moslem" reference was intended to echo a common, classless, ignorant (but, hopefully, not offensive) reference to the Muslim faith.
Allow me to be the one to inform you that it is indeed offensive.
quote:I also apologize for not knowing more about the Hebew faith. But I stand by my statement that there is no Jewish push to teach Jewish "science" in secular schools (and I'd love to hear of pushes for Old-Testament Creationism in shuls).
Um you only just began making this assertion. The original point of conflict was you saying other religions didn't have schools of scientific thought in any official capacity.
quote:The reason I pick on the Christian faith is that the Christian faith, specifically among the other faiths, has had the financial ability to support research into the sciences, but has usually chosen not to pursue them.
Are you seriously saying you believe that? Not all Christians (or even whole denominations) are extreme creationist theory pushers (and some don't even support it). Perhaps you should look into the number of schools where much research is done, and find out how many are either a religious(ly based) school, or how many get funding from religious institutions. You display vast amounts of ignorance if you truly believe what you say.
quote:What research projects is the Vatican currently pursuing (besides how to safely restore old paintings)?
You mean outside of the historical research? You mean outside of the Vatican-endorsed research around the world? I know you'd like to believe that the Catholic universities are not the Catholic church, but they are endorsed and supported (in part) by the Vatican itself. To assume otherwise is the height of ignorance.
quote:I will incorporate that into my dogma, however. For next time.
I have a suspicion you already have. Your blatant ignorance in spite of the evidence to the contrary shows you refuse to accept facts contrary to your preconceived notions.
quote:That the Islamic faith has supported scientific studies, there are no doubts. Heck, I'm sure that there are lots of Muslims pursuing scientific studies even now--but where is there support coming from? From religious/cultural centers? Not from madrassas, certainly. From governments? I'm sure the Saudi Arabian government is supporting a lot of petroleum research. Do you want to make a case for it being a religious thing? I think not.
First, you have a serious problem not understanding how Islam is not some church entity like the Vatican or the Baptist Convention or the JW Watchtower or the LDS bishopry. Second, I already showed you a link with books for sale on Islam-based science. Get over it, admit you are in error, and move on. The only thing you have to lose is your self-centered pride.
quote:If a [place religion here] University is supporting of the sciences, is that sufficient representation of the religion itself? Or is that just because the University has chosen to pursue both? I honestly do not have an answer.
If that religion created that university and continues to support it, you have a serious problem if the answer is not evident.
quote:Since I can both support and refute my statements, I would ask the same of you, Leto; for the sake of open communication.
Since repeated evidence showing the error of your claims has been shown, and the fact that outside of your references to Galileo and DaVinci you have shown no real evidence and vague innuendos, I would ask that you finally admit that you were previously unaware of what I have shown you, and admit that you were wrong in your assumptions. However, since I have the suspicion you will not, I'll have to assume that you're going to continue to disregard what's being shown and post continually more trollish posts.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I asked for information, stating my lack of it, and you respond by calling me ignorant.
I mention and acknowledge that there are Catholic universities with strong scientific research going on, and you just happen to quote my statements before and after, but not that one--the one that screws up the point you want to make (the point, I believe, that I'm an ignorant troll).
By your stating that "a religion created the university and continues to support it" do you mean the people who follow that religion, or the central representation of that religion (in other words--was Notre Dame created and is it now supported by donations from businesses and individuals, or by the Vatican or major US and international Roman Catholic churches?). "Religion" in and of itself is not an "acting" entity.
quote:Allow me to be the one to inform you that it is indeed offensive
To also quote you, "get over it." I apologized.
quote:The original point of conflict was you saying other religions didn't have schools of scientific thought in any official capacity
You know, I think we're discussing two different things. I'm not saying that religions and their representatives (and representative bodies) are not capable of scientific thought, or scientific pursuits. What I thought I was saying (and I'll go back over my previous posts to determine if I was clear or not about this) is that the Christian religion (and again, what I haven't said and should have is that it's primarily Christian fundamentalists) is the only one I'm aware of (please, have fun!) that is trying to dress up religion in the guise of science ("Creation Science" for instance), and force it upon the supposedly secular political, intellectual and educational environment.
I've never had a problem with--nor have I posted that I have any problem with--religious or any other institutions supporting legitimate scientific research.
And, you know what--I really don't have any difficulty (not that anyone really cares about what difficulties I have) if they even go and pursue "illegitimate" research, such as finding a real basis for "Creation" Science" or "Intelligent Design" or paranormal phenomena.
I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it! If they can figure out how or why it works, even better. But first, let them show that it's real. Because, you see, in my foolish DOGma, I firmly believe that stuff isn't even real.
BTW, I also believe that "Creation Science" is an oxymoron, and is bad science, if it is "science" at all. I know you know this, and I know you disagree. Strongly. If you want to start or reopen an appropriate thread for that particular dead horse, let me know--I'll meet you there. I'm not going to derail this thread any further by going off onto that tangent here.
quote:I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!
You've been given proof of the existence of the different schools of thought. You refuse to acknowledge them. I'm not going to argue whether or not creation science Jewish science or Islamic science is true or not, because I don't belong to the faiths. I'm saying the sciences exist.
And I'm not calling you ignorant without basis. You (basically) said first that religion had no science, more specifically Buddhism (which does), Judaism (which does), and Islam (which does). You kept changing what you "meant" with your argument to sidestep your ignorance. You still refuse to accept that religions outside of Christianity have science communities.
Your lame username puns aside, your dogma is astounding. I feel it's necessary to thank you for showing exactlty what I mean when pointing out the religious fervency of atheism, though.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Leto, thank you for the links to the Islamic/Science books. The look interesting, and I'll look into them some more.
From reading some of the sample pages, I can't say that I agree with them wholeheartedly, but they make some interesting philosophical stamements---even some that I may consider as valid (or truthful, whatever--let's not get into a fight over that).
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
The purpose of this particular username is to point out the fervency of atheism. Hello!
quote:Tell me, what other religions make serious, competing serious claims regarding scientific thought?
Buddhism? I'm no expert (I'm sure you won't argue with me there), but I don't think that they make any real claims as to the origin of the world, or the origin of species.
Judaism? Mohammedism? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witness? (And, even if they do, then you'll just expand your claim against my statement to "Judeo-Christian bashing")
Earth-on-the-back-of-a-million-turtleism? You'll find I'm a strict A-Turtlist, too.
The only religion foolhardy enough to compete for scientific bragging rights is (certain sects of) the Judeo-Christian religion.
I think that's where I started my descent, eh?
Re-read it, if you please, from the point of view of a person who is thinking about various religions trying to impose their world views (origin of the universe, the world, the species) on secular society by claiming "scientific" backing for their belief systems. That's what I meant by "Scientific bragging rights."
You'll find that most of my other threads follow this train of thought. There is some Church-bashing going on, admittedly (re. Galileo, and later Da Vinci--sorry for overusing them), but the kernel of my presentation has always been the fight against religious imposition of faith-based doctrine or dogma upon what I thought was supposed to be a primarily secular public environment.
[added in edit] I'm not saying that they don't have science. I never did. Or, if you thought I did, then I didn't present my ideas very well (and I will always apologize for that!). What I am saying is that, of all the religions out there, most of them do not attempt to portray their belief systems (such as origins of...) as "fact" or "scientific truth" and try to get them taught as "fact" or "scientific truth/theory" in the secular school system. Christianity--specifically Fundamentalist Christianity--does.
[end edit]
quote:
quote: I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!
You've been given proof of the existence of the different schools of thought
I don't get it. For a really bright guy, you continue to miss the point. I NEVER said that there was no proof of the existence of the different schools of thought. What I said (re-read it; calmly now...) was:
quote:And, you know what--I really don't have any difficulty ... if they even go and pursue "illegitimate" research, such as finding a real basis for "Creation" Science" or "Intelligent Design" or paranormal phenomena.
I'd LOVE to see real scientific proof for the existence for any of it!
Proof for the existence of paranormal phenomena, for instance...get it!?
And if I can't make fun of my chosen username, who will? You? I think not--you're too busy calling me contemptuous, dogmatic and ignorant to have any real fun!
posted
I wasn't arguing whether or not any of the divine was real or not, and your demand that I show you proof of something I have no faith in is silly and divergent from the topic that was being discussed. If you're so adamant about debating the proofs within these other beliefs, make a thread about it. This thread is discussing whether atheism is a religion, and the many things that qualify it as such. That's been my single point from the get-go.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I invite you to return to the alt.origins FAQ and look at the instances of natural selection enumerated therein. But, just to shut you up, let me list the bedrock layers of evolutionary theory, each of which creationism or whatever else has to explain away, falsifying scientists' current theory as to how these elements tie in together
1) fossil record showing gradual changes over long periods of time, trending toward more complexity and diversity 2) genetic relationships between organisms that can be best explained by postulating a common ancestor and gradual mutation 3) bauplan similarity, i.e., similar bone structures (even number of bones) even in creatures with widely divergent superficial characteristics (humans, bats and whales all having nearly identical appendage bone structure, with bones adapted to each environment) 4) ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny... a human fetus recapitulates evolution over the course of nine months of development. 5) artificial selection- the ease with which humans have altered through breeding hundreds of animals and plants
And so on. Bah, I don't even know why I bother. Enjoy your dark-age sillines, Tres.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All we need is for God to create another animal, from scratch, like he did when he created the world.
That just proves God could do such a thing. But it wouldn't disprove evolution. It is entirely possible that both God can create things from scratch and that life evolved from single-celled organisms.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I can see that little vein pulsing brightly on the left side of your temple again. Glenn, you're not helping any.
What proofs were (was?) I demanding from you again?
And, as to the original question: Atheism is *not* a religion (I go with the "definitional" approach on that one: no deity, no religion).
It is a belief system, however (and, must I add, obviously). IMNSHO, it's a more self-consistent belief system, and therefore better than theism. It certainly relies on far fewer assumptions to operate than theism.
And, for some reason, I have come to believe that it's important to (1) possess a self-consistent set of beliefs that (2) involve a minimum number of assumptions to operate, and (3) hold together well enough to incorporate--or, if need be, accomodate--new facts as they are introduced.
BUT THAT'S JUST ME. YOUR ACTUAL BELIEF SYSTEMS MAY VARY.
--DOG
Unmaker,
quote:4) ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny
Except for the fact that it's incredibly fun to say, I have never understood why that one's important. It's interesting, and all; and I'd be frightened if we passed through a larval or lobster phase during our prenatal development, but it always reminded me of the Subway Train theory of evolution--get off at whatever stop you want.
quote:It is entirely possible that both God can create things from scratch and that life evolved from single-celled organisms
And it's equally possible that flaming barnacles can shoot out of me pants!
Really, you're not allowed to just make this stuff up as you go along.
And please, let's not go into the "Everything not proven impossible is therefore possible" thread again. That world's a world of pure chaos, and trust me--you don't want to go there.
quote:But, just to shut you up, let me list the bedrock layers of evolutionary theory, each of which creationism or whatever else has to explain away, falsifying scientists' current theory as to how these elements tie in together
David,
All of those are just as consistent with forms of Creationism as they are with Evolution. All the Creationist has to do is say "God made it like that" or some variation of that. Thus this evidence is just as easily used as proof for certain types of Creationist theories as it can be used for Evolutionary theories.
So, if this evidence makes Evolution scientific, it makes Creationism scientific too.
Science can't just decide on an arbitrary best way of interpretting the same evidence, and say that is science and everything else is not. Science is not supposed to be arbitrary (although the scientific community may be just that sometimes).
And you can call this "dark-age silliness" if you want, but it may be something impacting schools around the country - and I doubt calling it names is going to do much to convince those wishing to add Creationism to the curriculum. They're gonna expect a reason why one theory should be called science and the other should not, and I don't think there's gonna be one.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And please, let's not go into the "Everything not proven impossible is therefore possible" thread again. That world's a world of pure chaos, and trust me--you don't want to go there.
But we are there. I'm not going to write off possibilities for no reason just to fit your argument - ESPECIALLY when you consider the fact that many Christians probably DO believe that both God can create things from scratch, yet chose to allow things to evolve. Those that believe in evolution believe this.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Welcome to debate on teh intarweb.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) becomes time consuming and inconvenient. I don't really expect anyone who feels atheism isn't a religion to change their mind, any more than I expect any atheist who doesn't already (there are a few who do) have respect for other religions as valid beliefs to change their mind. I'm just pointing out the obvious errors in "knowledge" and "logic" within atheist arguments.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
