Anger Acceptable for Atheists

[JackC 0]

Quote

Compare that to the hundreds of posts on here and other places that, in basis, say that oneone who is NOT an atheist is mentally ill or delusional.

I was walking through my home town the other saturday and there were 3 different christian sects, at least one muslim team and a bunch of hari krishna folks all pushing their particular religion. Then there was the Socialist workers party, the anti-nazi league, the vegan hippy brigade and fuck knows who else all with competing PA systems and flyers. Among all these people trying to push their agenda, there was not one person spouting his mouth off about atheism. Not one. In fact, the god squad are there every week but in over 3 decades I have never seen an atheist there pushing his point, ever.

A few posts in a thread that is dedicated to the discussion of religion wouldn't even make a scratch in the saturation level of spamming that the god squad get up to. Threads like these are acceptable places where such discussions can take place among interested parties. You may voluntarily abstain from the discussion if you so wish.

Your comparison is massively unbalanced and you know it.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

As far as the origins of life, the claim made by evolutionary biology of " chance occurrence" defies statistical possibility....

Can you provide the specific statistical analysis that you did to support your claim?

I'm curious to see the math, thanks.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Compare that to the hundreds of posts on here and other places that, in basis, say that oneone who is NOT an atheist is mentally ill or delusional.

Can you provide links to 10 posts (that's only 10% of the "hundreds" you claim) from SC that assert pathology of anyone who practices any form of organized religion or expresses spirituality? That's a very different assertion than what DSE made. Thanks.

I went to church yesterday morning; I'd be very curious who's including me in their unauthorized armchair diagnoses.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

How can anything be "neutral" and only discuss one side of it?



See the difference?

Yes, altho' I see it from two additional perspectives as well.

Most introductory biology classes already *do* discuss other competing hypothesis that were eliminated, e.g., spontaneous generation and "vitalism," and *why* they were eliminated, i.e., the evidence. Showing why other hypothesis were eliminated is a powerful pedagogical tool that strengthens understanding of science and the process of doing science.

Most introductory biology (& chemistry) classes discuss the significance of the first synthesis of "organic" molecules from "inorganic" ones. I'm not refering to Miller's synthesis of amino acids but work that predates that by at least 100 years when Wohler synthesized urea (an "organic" molecule) from inorganic precursors.

Otoh, would you (general, not necessarily specific "you") advocate discussion or teaching -- they have different connotations -- of competing hypotheses to gravity?

Or competing hypotheses to germ theory, i.e., something contradictory to the theory that diseases can be transmitted by bacteria, virus, rickettsia & that washing your hands is important, especially before surgery?

Or competing hypotheses to the theory of electro-magnetism?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mirage62 0]

Quote

When someone tells me I'm going to hell, or that I'm an evil person, because I don't believe in god; yes.

I don't understand why you would even care, If you don't believe than what bearing could that have on you?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Royd 0]

but I do have a problem holding the "scientific orgins" myth as some
>how more true than the Intelligent Design explanation.

Quote

It is more scientifically valid. And since it was arrived at via the scientific method (i.e. hypothesis, experimentation, verification) it is taught in science class. Intelligent design/creationism, since they were arrived at by a completely different manner (oral tradition, biblical authors, scholars arguing over what God really meant, political angling to get God into school) it gets taught in religion class.

I just heard on the news this morning that two major cholestrol lowering drugs just aren't doing the job.
I think my scepticism about the scientific community is justified. It's more about the money than the truth.

[Royd 0]

Quote

For example, our solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life started on the earth about 3 to 4 billion years ago but only within the past million years has intelligent life developed on the planet.

Proof or supposition?
Let's hope when you go on a date, you're a little more precise with your timing.

[philh 0]

Its neither proof nor supposition, but dates given by science on the age of the solar system and the development of life on this planet are backed by evidence. This contrasts strongly with the myhts presented in the bible or other religious texts.

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Quote

For example, our solar system is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life started on the earth about 3 to 4 billion years ago but only within the past million years has intelligent life developed on the planet.

Proof or supposition?
Let's hope when you go on a date, you're a little more precise with your timing.

As I said that was a quote from a book by Michio Kaku. If you know anything about astrophysics, you would be familiar with his name. Sorry to tell you but it's harder to find out the true age of the universe or in this case solar system than it is to just make one up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Compare that to the hundreds of posts on here and other places that, in basis, say that oneone who is NOT an atheist is mentally ill or delusional.

Can you provide links to 10 posts (that's only 10% of the "hundreds" you claim) from SC that assert pathology of anyone who practices any form of organized religion or expresses spirituality? That's a very different assertion than what DSE made. Thanks.

I went to church yesterday morning; I'd be very curious who's including me in their unauthorized armchair diagnoses.

VR/Marg

You could start here

Then browse this

Pretty sure you'll find some examples here, as well.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Hausse 0]

Glad to see your last post mentions my favourit proof for atheism:

Do you need comfort? God is the Comforter.
Do you need guidance? He sends His Holy Spirit to show us the way.
Do you need righteousness? He provided it through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Do you need wisdom? He is our wisdom. Trust Him. He will always give you what you need. Always.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Compare that to the hundreds of posts on here and other places that, in basis, say that oneone who is NOT an atheist is mentally ill or delusional.

Can you provide links to 10 posts (that's only 10% of the "hundreds" you claim) from SC that assert pathology of anyone who practices any form of organized religion or expresses spirituality? That's a very different assertion than what DSE made. Thanks.

I went to church yesterday morning; I'd be very curious who's including me in their unauthorized armchair diagnoses.

VR/Marg

You could start here

Then browse this

Pretty sure you'll find some examples here, as well.

So you couldn't find any actual posts then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

ID SHOULD be discussed - not in science class but perhaps in civics. It sure as hell (no pun intended) should not be ignored.

ps - I notice that there are some who seem to think I am a PROPONENT of ID. I'm not. I don't belive a lick of it. But I think it should be discussed, thus to put critical thinking skills of kids to work.

I didn't think you were - but by calling it a competing theory you give it a credence it does not deserve.

Since you've now clarified your position, perhaps you could show me who has tried to ban the mention of ID in classes other than science? The only lawsuits I am aware of are in relation to ID in science classrooms.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You could start here

Then browse this

Pretty sure you'll find some examples here, as well.

So you couldn't find any actual posts then?

I'm sure I could, but I'm not going to re-read several thousand posts to find exact post numbers within the threads.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Doesn't that mean neither supporting nor denying the idea of ID? How can anything be "neutral" and only discuss one side of it?

Come on, folks - think CRITICALLY here. Analyze my statements and analyze yours. Explain to me how "neutrality" can mean "only talk about one side."

OK. You are equating the teaching of evolution with the teaching of one side of religion. This is a fatally flawed premise, which invalidates the rest of your argument. The teaching of evolution is nothing to do with religion, the teaching of evolution is to do with science and science alone. If ID had any scientific merit, it too would be taught in biology. It does not so it is not. Thus the two are being treated in precisely the same manner and neutrality is maintained.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

I'm sure I could

But you haven't.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,116]

>I just heard on the news this morning that two major cholestrol
>lowering drugs just aren't doing the job.

You heard incorrectly! They are doing exactly what they are designed to do - lower LDL cholesterol levels. They have not, however, significantly lowered heart disease in the population.

> I think my scepticism about the scientific community is justified.

I hear that a lot. But if you had cancer, and a religious leader said "your time has come; time to go back to the Father" I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd still go to a doctor for a second opinion.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You are equating the teaching of evolution with the teaching of one side of religion.

No, but since that is the perception I am apparently not explaining myself well enough.

ID is different from the Flying Spaghetti monsters or the moon landing conspiracy nuts. The difference is that it has taken hold. Say "ID" and people know what you are talking about. "ID" is easily the most glaring example of a battle between secularism and religion. It's the front line right now.

Thus, it should be addressed. Here's a thought:

How does a teacher address the issue of ID when a kid in the biology class asks about it?

I will admit that there has been some good reasoning by you all in this thread that's really got me thinking.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Quote

How does a teacher address the issue of ID when a kid in the biology class asks about it?

The same way a teacher deals with questions about geology in a biology class.

It's fairly obvious really. ID isn't science, it's religion. Deal with it in a religious studies class.

[billvon 3,116]

>ID is different from the Flying Spaghetti monsters or the moon
>landing conspiracy nuts. The difference is that it has taken hold.

?? So? The 45 degree angle separation thing has "taken hold", and just about every skydiver knows what you're talking about when you mention it. Does that mean it should be taught as an alternative method to distance-based separation methods? Or should the fact that it is provably and utterly wrong trump its popularity?

One of the things that students rely on in teachers is the ability to separate the valid and important information from the chaff. If teachers didn't have that skill, then students would be served as well by a library full of books (or the Internet) than by a classroom. It is a teacher's job to know that the 45 degree rule isn't valid, and that ID is a religious rather than a scientific theory.

>How does a teacher address the issue of ID when a kid in the biology
>class asks about it?

"Intelligent design is a religious theory that claims that God, rather than basic physical principles, guided the evolution of life on earth. Ask your religion teacher about it."

Same situation a history teacher might face if a kid asked him how an atomic bomb worked during their coverage of the end of World War II.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

How does a teacher address the issue of ID when a kid in the biology class asks about it?

The teacher says that there is no scientific evidence to support it and then gets back to teaching biology.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

ID is different from the Flying Spaghetti monsters or the moon landing conspiracy nuts. The difference is that it has taken hold. Say "ID" and people know what you are talking about. "ID" is easily the most glaring example of a battle between secularism and religion. It's the front line right now.

So what? That still has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be taught as a competing theory to evolution in a science class. It shoudn't.

Quote

Thus, it should be addressed.

In sociology, or civics, or marketing, or comparative religion.

Quote

How does a teacher address the issue of ID when a kid in the biology class asks about it?

Tell the truth.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

?? So? The 45 degree angle separation thing has "taken hold", and just about every skydiver knows what you're talking about when you mention it. Does that mean it should be taught as an alternative method to distance-based separation methods? Or should the fact that it is provably and utterly wrong trump its popularity?

No. I believe that's a great example. Bring it up and explain why it doesn't work. As I stated several posts ago, explain that there are many people who believe in ID, but that it has not withstood scientific method.

Quote

It is a teacher's job to know that the 45 degree rule isn't valid, and that ID is a religious rather than a scientific theory.

Exactly. Now, compare this to taking, "In God we trust" off of coins. That's where I was going with this.

I'm in 100% agreement with you, bill. And probably everyone else that has challenged me. But I do try to give some perspective for the other side.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As I stated several posts ago, explain that there are many people who believe in ID, but that it has not withstood scientific method.

It's not that it hasn't withstood testing via the scientific method. It's that it is not testable via the scientific method. That's why it has no place at all in science classes.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

It's not that it hasn't withstood testing via the scientific method. It's that it is not testable via the scientific method. That's why it has no place at all in science classes.

How is evolution--or indeed any scientific theory which makes hypotheses about processes that require many human lifetimes to complete--testable by the scientific method?

I have no doubt that small pieces of the theory of evolution can and have been tested by the scientific method. But it is not clear to me how the scientific method can fully validate--within a reasonable time period--evolution--or indeed theories in geology or astronomy about processes requiring millions or billions of years to complete.

Isn't there a strong element of faith on both sides of this issue?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014