Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 5:54 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, Taq (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,191 Year: 5,228/19,786 Month: 1,350/873 Week: 246/460 Day: 62/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Kansas ... AGAIN!
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 38 (259043)
11-12-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
11-12-2005 7:49 AM


Re: As some one from Kansas...
I've never understood how in any of these discussions at the govt level (boards, courts, commissions) critics have not simply read from Dembski and explained what this means for science.

Exactly. To me this means critiquing ID based on what it is rather than what it is not. Critiquing it on the basis of not being science is not enough as it doesn't show what it really is.

It is philosophy, metaphysical philosophy. For a political purpose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2005 7:49 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2005 9:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 38 (259047)
11-12-2005 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
11-12-2005 8:48 AM


Re: As some one from Kansas...
It is philosophy, metaphysical philosophy. For a political purpose.

ahem... and an ultimately *cough cough* religious *cough cough* end.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 8:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 10:07 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 18 of 38 (259055)
11-12-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Silent H
11-12-2005 9:15 AM


Re: As some one from Kansas...
But that is again ignoring the middle argument -- and the elephant in the room -- that ID is a valid philosophy.

There is no need to redefine science, just to position ID in the proper place, where it becomes virtually self-evident that it is not science per se (though it may make use of it) and certainly belongs more in a philosophy course than a science course.

Of course if one were to start a course on the Philosophy of Intelligent Design I would also have to complain that they need to teach both sides of the design controversy ... :D


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2005 9:15 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by wiseman45, posted 11-12-2005 11:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 38 (259241)
11-12-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
11-12-2005 10:07 AM


News Update
Well, it seems that this whole thing in my beloved state (don't come here, its not that special) might turn out okay after all. In a series of events that is inspired by the results of the Dover, Pennsyvlania, elections, 2 Kansas Board members have been challenged by people who have amazing credentials. The person challenging board member John Bacon is a former biology teacher at the prominent Blue Valley School District, and several others are also considering stepping up to the plate. Most are moderate republicans, and that's good news--Kansas is still a conservative state after all, and people are going to be reluctant about electing a board member full of democrats, even with the recent events.

In just a religion vs. secularism side-note, many here probably know that a backlash due to the disappointing performance of senate and congressional republicans is pretty imminent. I predict that the conservatives will most certainly lose control of the senate and lose several seats in congress if they don't lose that too, in 2006. However, it is my personal belief that this nation was founded on general Judeo-Christian values, and a lot of liberals may want to use their newfound power to secularize America. For starters, I'm fairly certain that this would not be a good thing. Just as conservatives can get out of hand, as they have, liberals can get overzealous about secularism. With toleration of lawsuits gaining footholds over a kid saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, if America is further secularized, where will we go next? I'm no slippery slope theorist--don't interpret me as such. But I'm just pointing out that you can't go too far, either way. Left or Right.

Wiseman45


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2005 10:07 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2005 7:55 AM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 11-13-2005 11:26 AM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 11-13-2005 2:31 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 8:28 AM wiseman45 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 20 of 38 (259284)
11-13-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by wiseman45
11-12-2005 11:36 PM


Re: News Update
inspired by the results of the Dover, Pennsyvlania, elections, 2 Kansas Board members have been challenged by people who have amazing credentials.

Great.

Most are moderate republicans,

Even better -- they have been somewhat absent in the last 5 years ...

However, it is my personal belief that this nation was founded on general Judeo-Christian values,...

Don't entirely disagree but don't agree either. The founding fathers came from a variety of backgrounds that included a general Judeo-Christian environment, but many of them were Deists and more liberal theists. They also were very familiar with the overburden of theology in the failed running of several colonies and the problems associated with them, based on Judeo-Christian values.

There is also the influence of the native people on the founders. Have you seen anything on the Forgotten Founders (click) about the influence of the way the Iroquois Nation was run?

... over a kid saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance ...

And the founders didn't need a pledge at all, to say nothing about a phrase that was inserted into the pledge during the height of the McCarthy era.

I think the pledge should be returned to it's original form with the full reading of the intent of the author. Google it.

... if America is further secularized, where will we go next?

Let's assume for starters that all the laws of America become fully secularized, that no law remains on the books that is based on a religious value but only on purely secular values.

(1) how can you "go further" than that?

(2) how does this not fully recognize the equality of the people?

(3) how does this prevent the practice of religion by anyone?

Now, rather than assume that, which laws on the books today in america would that affect?

Outside of the legal issue, if the society of america were "further secularized" what would this entail that is not already in american culture?

Do you mean we would become more like the english? (They exported all their religious fanatics after all).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by wiseman45, posted 11-12-2005 11:36 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by MangyTiger, posted 11-15-2005 2:55 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 38 (259328)
11-13-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by wiseman45
11-12-2005 11:36 PM


Re: News Update
I agree with pretty much everything RAZD said but I would like to add a bit more on a couple points...

it is my personal belief that this nation was founded on general Judeo-Christian values,

Well that really isn't quite true. That the culture was generally Judeo-Xian in nature I don't think is debatable. Even the Deists were Judeo-Xian in culture, though that meant different things when broken down at the local level of personal practices.

In any case, the GOVERNMENT and so the NATION of the United States was not FOUNDED on such values. It is essentially neutral value-wise, and if anything came from Pagan virtues dating back to the Greeks. This is about as equally beyond debate as the fact that the culture was Judeo-Xian.

All you have to do is look at the source material that they used to construct this nation's govt, and what period this came out of. The Enlightenment involved a rediscovery of many political and governmental concepts lost or supressed during the long reign of Xian tyrants.

That is why it is not surprising to see that it was deists more than other denominations that were championing this new (for that time) govt. They were more likely to have read the literature exploring different concepts of govt, and not worry of the implication.

In the end they created a govt sans any value system. They trusted the people to control and shape their own value systems, without interference of the govt, which dealt with secular (common physical/practical) issues.

With toleration of lawsuits gaining footholds over a kid saying "under god" in the pledge of allegiance

As RAZD said, there originally was no such concept as a pledge. Then the pledge was created and that I believe was a huge mistake in itself. Then the words Under God were placed right before "indivisible" in perhaps one of the most ironic touches that could have been made, to identify us as religious vs not.

I'm sorry but no matter how you look at religion, that is against the Constitution. There is no need for it and it is divisive and it is enforcing a religious view.

Unlike RAZD I'd say just plain get rid of the pledge. It was a bad idea anyway.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by wiseman45, posted 11-12-2005 11:36 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 22 of 38 (259364)
11-13-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by wiseman45
11-12-2005 11:36 PM


good question -- maybe
quote:
if America is further secularized, where will we go next?

I dunno. Where could we go? Where does your slippery slope lead to?

Oops. You asked us not to accuse you of that.

Well, then, let me rephrase: suppose that the US was a completely secular nation: religious belief was a matter of personal conscience; the religious beliefs, or lack of them, of our politicians were completely irrelevant in the elections; no state institution made reference to any deity or any religious mythological history, and so forth. What problems do you see in that?


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by wiseman45, posted 11-12-2005 11:36 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by bkelly, posted 11-15-2005 9:45 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 38 (259638)
11-14-2005 12:50 PM


Extreme Secularization and Evangelism are both REALLY BAD
Just to make a point: here's somethings that the extremes on both sides want, and why those things are bad:

For Evangelicals:
1. Most extreme evangelicals want to have pastors and ministers to be the only eligible candidates for President. Some even want them to be appointed, and have democracy totally abolished, and for the religious leader to have ultimate power.

2. The same kind of crowd (were talking about American Christian Militia folks here) wants to have it so that scientific thinking that goes against the Bible in any way shape or form doesn't exist in a public forum. Kansas State Board of Education Member Connie Morris is one of these people.

"Evolution is a fairy tale. Evolution is physically, chemically, biologically, and phenomenally impossible."--Morris.

3. They also want to have only Christians living in the country, and deport (or even kill) everyone else. They want the military to lead a campaign to exterminate all muslims and jews in the world, using nukes if necessary. They absolutely despise the U.S.'s support of Israel.

4. They want gays to be eradicated worldwide by any means necessary, and anyone who supports gays to be executed.

5. They're convinced that every natural disaster that has happened recently (I.E., the Indonesian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) is god's punishment on un-believers and sinners.

On the other hand, here's what extreme secularists/aethiests think.

1. Christians and every other kind of relgionist should be locked up in some prison where they can practice their beliefs but can't bother anyone.

2. They want legal action to be taken against missionaries across the world. Total destruction of religious aid efforts, like Christian Mission efforts in Africa to feed starving people. Now, I totally disagree with this whole equation that some African missions have been practicing: Bible+Love of Jesus=food. That's exploitation.

Well that's all I have to say. Just wanted to justify myself in front of the recent crticism I've recieved. Note: I did not want to imply that secularism is a bad thing: just too much of it (in a public forum) is a bad thing. Same thing with religion.

Just as another note, I think that the pledge of allegiance should be abolished, too. What I meant by the whole under god thing was I opoose it, because it was added during the Ike years. Well, we're not living in the 50's anymore right? No, Kansas isn't heading towards the 50's...It's headed towards the Dark Ages. I'm simply respecting peoples right to say "under god" on coins and such if the majority wants to. And, I bet they do.

I don't like to be redundant. I'm not being redundant.
Until Now.
Wiseman45

This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-14-2005 12:58 PM

This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-14-2005 12:59 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 11-14-2005 1:01 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 25 by kjsimons, posted 11-14-2005 1:01 PM wiseman45 has responded
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2005 1:39 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Lammy, posted 11-15-2005 7:07 AM wiseman45 has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2204 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 24 of 38 (259642)
11-14-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Extreme Secularization and Evangelism are both REALLY BAD
1. Christians and every other kind of relgionist should be locked up in some prison where they can practice their beliefs but can't bother anyone.

I have never heard anyone express this view. I have heard it suggested that they should ismply practice their beliefs and not bother everyone else, but that is a very different proposition.

It's not talking about the christian god. Could be the god that jews worship. Could be the Islamic Allah. Who knows? Its god.

So it's definitely the god of the abrahamic religions we are talking about here? Those are all essentially interpreatation and developments of one god. Why not go a little further afield to Ganesha, Vishnu or Thor?

want legal action to be taken against missionaries across the world.

I have never heard anyone advocate this either.

In fact looking at your evangelical list there are only maybe a couple of those that I have ever heard suggested either. You seem to be taking opinions from so far out on the fringes that they are practically meeting up again round the back.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 12:50 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

    
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 25 of 38 (259644)
11-14-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Extreme Secularization and Evangelism are both REALLY BAD
Nothing like creating a strawman of what secularization is. It does not mean removing religion from non-government areas or throwing religious people in jail. God should be removed from our money, pledge, and national/state mottos. In fact our national motto should be changed back to "E Pluribus Unum" as it is more unifying and better represents what our country stands for. As far as the missionaries go, they should be allowed help people but should not be allowed to change/influence the local people's religion. The Christian religion has no cleared title to the 'TRUTH' then any other religion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 12:50 PM wiseman45 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 1:36 PM kjsimons has not yet responded
 Message 28 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 1:40 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 38 (259648)
11-14-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kjsimons
11-14-2005 1:01 PM


Whoa Whoa Whoa
Okay, we're getting WAY off the main topic here. I don't want the admins to close this thread...

Meanwhile though, I was merely trying to show how the fringe right/left think. Most of the things I said about evangelicals and secularists might be a little over the edge. I agree with most of the anti-evangelical things I stated, but I do not agree with the anti-secularism. I'm fully for secularism in a lot of areas...didn't you read my last paragraph?

Before we jump to conclusions that I'm some sort of bible-thumper, folks, read my whole statement. Please. It prevents things from happening like this.

As for some the extreme things that evangelicals say, if you want proof of those statements, just watch the 700 club. 2 minutes of Pat Robertson and a whole bunch of nasty words will be flying out of your mouth. Unless you agree with him. That's fine too, I suppose...(???)

Wiseman45


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kjsimons, posted 11-14-2005 1:01 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6532
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 27 of 38 (259649)
11-14-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Extreme Secularization and Evangelism are both REALLY BAD
quote:
1. Christians and every other kind of relgionist should be locked up in some prison where they can practice their beliefs but can't bother anyone.

2. They want legal action to be taken against missionaries across the world.


Um, who want this?


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 12:50 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

  
wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 38 (259651)
11-14-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by kjsimons
11-14-2005 1:01 PM


Maybe I didn't make this clear
The FRINGE Secularists. Stop acting like I said all secularists are like this, please...If you interpreted it as such YOU MISSED MY INTENTION, OKAY?

But you know, I really want to end this NOW. I see I didn't get where I wanted, so somebody post something new, otherwise I'll see all you people soon and I'll post something else.

Meanwhile, I'd like to repeat that I'm all for secularism.

This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-14-2005 01:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kjsimons, posted 11-14-2005 1:01 PM kjsimons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 7:01 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2005 7:04 PM wiseman45 has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 38 (259745)
11-14-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 1:40 PM


Re: Maybe I didn't make this clear
The FRINGE Secularists.

What you mean are the anti-theists. Like Dawkins perhaps.

I wouldn't call him a secularist because he goes beyond that.

Extremists of any ilk think they have the right to tell other people how to live.

That is not secularism.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*14*2005 07:03 PM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 1:40 PM wiseman45 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 30 of 38 (259746)
11-14-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 1:40 PM


Re: Maybe I didn't make this clear
Stop acting like I said all secularists are like this, please

It appears to some like NO secularists have said the things you suggest. You have made it up. Taking it to that kind of extreme makes your points look silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 1:40 PM wiseman45 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by wiseman45, posted 11-15-2005 11:42 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019