ICR Sues Texas

My guess is Arch would love a theocracy as long as his gang was in charge.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, it's not a big enough issue, and not one that really runs on left/right/centre political lines. Groups like secular humanists campaign for it, and individuals, like R. Dawkins, needless to say.As for the public, about 85% think that children from all the different religions should be educated together. You're welcome! Actually, the census in which lots of people put Jedi as a joke (there was an internet campaign) was a couple of years before the survey I mentioned.In that census, 70% described themselves as Christians. What people do is fill in whatever religion their family uses for weddings and funerals, regardless of what they actually believe.So, work it out, and we have a lot of cultural Christians who don't really believe in God!Not only that, half the country cannot even name one of the four gospel writers!!!!!And, on one survey with the question "why do Christians celebrate Easter", more than half either stated that they didn't know or got the answer wrong!That's what I mean by a nation of apatheists. Most people just aren't really interested in religion, and probably don't have any fixed beliefs.Go across the channel, and the French are even less religious than we are, unless you count food as a religion.As for the Swedes, they're a nation of baby eaters.

Richard Dawkins did a great show on it:

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Sounds a lot like down here. The schools get some public funding in exchange for teaching the public curricula. They end up with a little extra time to do the religious stuff they want; there's several optional standards on religious education that you can do which are also part of the national standards.And everybody is quite happy with the arrangement. Lol. We seem to have a neighbouring country* much like this... {this would be Australia I refer to. Long story.}Edited by Nij, : Just in case they dun't geddit.

It's pretty much the same over here, although I think we've got a higher percentage that identify themselves as atheists. Although, what you see mostly here is the woo belief of "there probably being something more". And that's about as far as it will ever e taken, which for all intents and purposes, to me at least, is atheism.Our government also spends money on religious schools (catholic, protestant, islamic, for example), but they all have a curriculum they need to abide to. Which pretty much is the secular curriculum. Although, of course, you will be taught about the religion of the school you go to.I myself went to a catholic school (being from the south and all), but the only thing you would notice about this is that once a week a priest would come over to talk about the catholic faith an hour or so. I don't think anyone from my class is ever going to church these days (well, perhaps with Christmas, but that's a bout it).In summary, even though quite a few people will identify themselves as "believers" here, it's not the kind of belief people like archie will appreciate.

quote:

---

I myself went to a catholic school (being from the south and all), but the only thing you would notice about this is that once a week a priest would come over to talk about the catholic faith an hour or so. I don't think anyone from my class is ever going to church these days (well, perhaps with Christmas, but that's a bout it).
  —"Huntard

---

Likewise. 13 years of Catholicism-supplemented education, and not a single desire to ever have more of it. We had mass around once a week, REST once a day (sometimes less), and I'm quite sure nobody in my school actually believes in any of it.It's awesome to live in a truly free country. As far as I can tell from his rambling, that would include anyone not in direct agreement with all of his idiosyncracies. Which also includes himself, it would seem from the contradictions he manages to weave.

I always wondered how things would go on a census that asked the question in a form such as:

quote:

---

When purchasing a house and deciding where your family should live, what is the largest factor in influencing your decision:

​

A) Prayer results from the Christian God
B) Guidance obtained from an alternative Higher Power (Please provide answer, if possible ________________ )
C) Your own life experience and knowledge about demographics and economics that you have gained through empirical methods

---

I think that would be a representative census on "Who Lives Their Life as an Atheist"

You seem to be assuming that people would give honest answers to that kind of question.

You could find out who lives life as a smartass atheist by including the option:D) Used the Force.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hiding off topic portion of text. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide.

Sounds like the history of Christendom. Apart from being made up, of course. That's why back when people took it seriously they spent so much time burning one another alive. They all had an objective standard telling them who to burn. Of course, they all had a different objective standard ... funny how that works, isn't it? But without ever saying or doing anything to bring it about.I guess it's a subtle form of nonexistent anarchy, which can only be seen with the eyes of faith ... like God.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

archaeologist responds to me:

quote:

---

scientists, especially secular ones, need to learn that there are boundaries and morals they can't not violate.

---

What are these "boundaries" and what makes you think morality has anything to do with physical reality?On top of that, what makes you think that there is no such thing as ethics in science?

quote:

---

i have done my homework that is why i do not use google

---

Who said anything about Google? I know I didn't. My question to you is what was the last science journal that you read: Title, volume, and issue, please. What was the article you read in it: Title, author, and subject, please.

quote:

---

i only use AIG when i have to, usually i seek out other sources first.

---

Then since it is clear that I don't know what you're referring to, I respectfully ask you to guide me in finding your source. Who are these "many scientists" you claim think evolution isn't the sole conclusion from the available evidence and where did you find that information?So far, given a search of PubMed, I can't find a single paper that comes to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Now, PubMed isn't the end-all/be-all of journal repositories, but it's a good place to start for the biological sciences. Would you be so kind as to let us know who these "many scientists" are?

quote:

---

so? this doesn't mean a thing nor proves evolution true or that it actually exists.

---

I never said it did. Instead, I brought it up to make a point about your own reasoning. You said: Your justification relies upon these "many scientists." Well, there are many more who disagree with your "many." So if you're going to justify your claim with argumentum ad populum, then your argument falls when there are more against your claim than for it.Thus, it is insufficient to simply point out that there are those that disagree. You need to explain why they disagree...and even more importantly, why they are incapable of providing the evidence for their claims. Again, I can't find a single journal article that concludes that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Why is it that these "many scientists" can't seem to get published?Take Michael Behe, for example. He is an actual biochemist. He's had many papers published, but none of them regarding evolution. He has tried to get his "irreducible complexity" through peer review, but he has been unable to do so. In response, he avoided the entire process in order to publish a popular-press book, Darwin's Black Box, wherein he claimed that there had been absolutely no studies on evolutionary methods of biochemical pathways.Of course, he was wrong. A simple search of PubMed showed that there were more than 1000 papers published on the very subject he claimed didn't exist.The problem is not any conspiracy against him but simply that his work cannot survive scrutiny.

quote:

---

it jst means that these people decided to follow a different path than the Biblical one.

---

Huh? Where in the Bible does it say that evolution isn't the method by which life diversified? I don't seem to be able to find any verse anywhere that explains how life diversified. It simply states that there is a great diversity of life.Perhaps you will be kind enough to quote the chapter and verse that you think describes how god did it.As I asked you: If I told you that I put dinner on the table, would that mean that I cooked it or would it mean that somebody else did and I just served it? How does the fact that knowing that I put it on the table tell you anything about how I did it.

quote:

---

links?

---

I am not here to do your homework. This is common knowledge. If you don't know who Richard Sternberg is, why did you reference a source that talks about him? If you don't know the actual specifics regarding his relationship with the Smithsonian and the National Institutes of Health, why did you reference a source that talks about him?It would seem that all you did was find a website that had information that coincided with your preconceived views of how the world is supposed to be and then parroted it here.Go look it up and come back when you've done your homework. We'll still be here.

quote:

---

i think you are confusing the facts

---

How would you know if you haven't done your homework? Rather than remembering the actual results of Sternberg's relationship with the Smithsonian and the NIH, you are asking for more information, so clearly you do not know the facts.We are not here to do your homework for you. Why don't you look for the Smithsonian's and the NIH's official statements regarding what happened.

quote:

---

but i saw that movie and thought it was great.

---

Even though most everything in it was false? It portrayed Sternberg as having been fired for his beliefs when that is factually incorrect. He wasn't fired but instead had his contract extended.

quote:

---

one thing is the man they highlighted about the smithsonian or whoever that were upset by the publication

---

"Upset"? I do not think that word means what you think it means. He wasn't fired and had his contract extended. How is that indicative of them being "upset"? If continuing to be gainfully employed is an example of my employers being "upset" with me, perhaps I should make them "upset" with me more. Who knows...maybe I can piss them off so much they'll give me a raise.

quote:

---

i do not respond to these or logical fallacies as they are worthless and written by those who do not believe.

---

In other words, you've been caught and rather than admitting your error, you're going to ignore all commentary regarding it and will no doubt repeat it in your next post.Are you saying the Catholics don't believe in god or aren't Christian? Because the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have to explain the diversity of life.If you don't think so, what is your justification for saying that your interpretation is the only legitimate one? Remember, every other believer has just as much evidence as you. Why is your claim to be accepted over everybody else?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

i would have no problem with this as long as the teacher was honest and did not slant the teaching to highlight just one faith. yes i know but i thinkit is worse to compell only one part of the population to pay more than the other for the education they want. if atheists want evolution then they should start their own private schools like christians and others are forced to do.i know how a theocracy works and the middle east is not a true one. it is a human led one and i wouldn't want many evangelicals leading a christian either. if God were truly in charge then I would be fine but with humans leading, it would go bad quickly. [/qs]The US Constitution forbids it.[/qs]where? if you are thinking of the seperation of church and state, that is not in the constitution. no it is not. the government can change any rule they want.

you had it easy. in college i had chapel 3 times a week, class prayer meeting once a week, fridays was missionary prayer bands and friday night was missionary meeting. then sundays we had to go to church both in the morning and evening.not that most of it was bad, it just got tedious, boring, and interruptive at times. i mena some sundays you just wanted to go nowhere but you couldn't stay away or you would be given an absence which after a certain number they started to count against you.

So you didn't go to a real college? By real I mean one that taught actual science.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts