Great religious falsehoods

One example, restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. For the sake of clarity, allow me to speak from the perspective of an involved doctor/scientist/researcher, which I am not.When I combine a human egg cell and a sperm cell in a Petri dish, the fertilized egg is now considered, by many, a human life. I am restricted from growing them, cultivating them, attempting to grow stem cells and possibly make significant medical advances. The government is a primary financer of these studies and to prevent the government forbidden from providing grants in this field is the direct result of the behavior of religious fanatics.I have a project I want to work and need to back off here for a bit. This has been a good conversation and I will continiue.

Re: iano: et al.I am getting the impression that you feel religion and a person’s faith are not subject to science. My position is obvious. I request that you go on record with your position, per the following paragraphs. Obviously, this request is extended to all readers that care to respond.Keeping things simple, and starting with the concept of god,
Do you believe that god and his characteristics and behaviors are subject to science?
I request you answer that with a simple yes or no. Obviously, you may expand on your answer, but I ask for a simple declaration from you.If yes, we are in agreement and the next section is not intended for you.If not, then consider this. Prayer is a request to god to hear what I say. It is a request that something be considered and done. For example, “Dear lord, please help my child to overcome this disease.”The result of these prayers can be tested in a scientific manner. This has been done repeatedly. The results are that there has never been evidence that any prayer has been acted upon by any being or entity that belongs in the general classification of deity or god.That a test like this can be generated and performed verifies, and indeed proves, that god can be tested.Some may argue that point. I counter with this: I can test if this piece of glass can be broken with this hammer. I swing the hammer, and break the glass. I have proven that a test can be derived to determine if the glass can be tested with the hammer. I have also proven that the glass can be broken with the hammer. In the same manner, a test on prayer is valid. If anyone claims that god is above and beyond testing, then that person has the obligation to support their claim. If they do not support the claim, then to continue to make that claim is not only incorrect, but also dishonest.If you wish to disagree, support, or refine my position, I respectfully request that we separate the discussion into two concepts.
1. Can prayer be tested?
2. What are the results of those tests?
I ask that we begin with 1 and postpone 2 for some period of time.

You bet your bippy I do. Have you followed any of the newspapers and magazines articles about the Supreme Court and the first amendment over the past 10 to 50 years on this?I further hold that that first phrase of the first amendment (and there is a reason it is the very first) is one the most important corner stones of this country. That phrase in our constitusion is one of the primary reasons this country has done as well as it has.I found a web page with the text or a letter that is in the National Archives from George Washington, first president, talking about the importance of the “separation of church and state.” We can indeed say this was the purpose of the authors of our constitution.

Yes, it is a problem. It is a huge problem. Are you aware that the impostiion of christian doctrine into the governments was a primary cause of the dark ages? Are you aware of the unmitigated brutality of the Taliban in the name of their religion?The evidence I read shows all governments that have been based on religious belief have subjugated, tortured, killed and other wise mistreated the citizens who take a view opposing that of the dominant church. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has repeatedly demonstrated this. A small example, they continue to this day by restricting birth control in places where it is desperately needed.Have you ever heard of Malleus Malefactorum? It is part of YOUR catholic history. It is the document that CATHOLICS wrote to justify burning witches at the stake. Possibly hundreds of thousands of people were killed under this religious horseshit. That is what happens when laws are based on religious principles.And that is indeed what the writers of our constitution sought to prevent in the very first phrase of the very first article of what is known as the Bill of Rights.

Well, yes, they are unconstitutional. I do not agree in the religious position that I should not be allowed to buy a beer or a glass of wine in any given county. Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer? Wine is acceptable in the bible. Why do religious zealots stagger to the polls to vote dry?Just because there are enough people to make and enforce a law, does not make it right.You are not knowledgeable of our constitution. You have not taken the time to make yourself aware of the circumstances of its creation and of the people that wrote it. Yes, the purpose of the first amendment is to keep religion out of our laws.I want to repeat that question and set it as the only point of this post:Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer?

By that statement you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of our constitution.

Well, so far this has been an interesting thread. The starting premise was one of the great falsehoods of religion claim: god is not subject to science.God is subject to science. Example: Prayer can be scientifically tested. So can many other aspects of religion.Referring back to the OP, There have been no statements of evidence showing that any deity has been exerting any effect upon this world or anywhere in the universe.We have seen again that the many (well, in this particular thread, a few) in the religions faction can not support their positions and are not knowledgeable in either science or law. But claim they are. And all the time, they think it right to force their religious doctrine down the throats of others. When asked pointed questions, they dodge the point, ignore the question, then give themselves points for being right.Witness: They claim the right to tell me I cannot buy a beer in many counties. When asked why, effectively, because they said so.And when we protest, they claim we (we being anyone that does not subscribe to their beliefs) are trying to assume god like powers and attempting control them.And now a summary question: How can rational people deal with those of faith that will not and indeed cannot justify their positions yet have an overwhelming desire to force the world to live by their standards?

That sounds good. And it reminds me, in all the recent turmoil about our government torturing people, I did think of a valid reason for torture.Every day, someone should take a pair of shoes, enter Richard Reid's cell, and beat the tar out of him. (That's not serious, but I do think it is humerous)

That post was in response to: (just on the slight chance, Richard Reid is the "Shoe Bomber" that tried to blow up a jet over the Atlantic with a bomb in his shoe. The result is that we must all take off our shoes at the airport for screening.)You also need remedial lessons in comprehensive reading. The behavior you have exhibited in this thread is some of what rational people have such difficulties dealing with, and a large part of why our society is having such difficulties. I have seen some of your posts in other threads and the behavior is consistent what the posts here. I’ll not respond to any more of your posts until they demonstrate a reasonable comprehension of reality.

Duplicate post. Edited by Admin, : Add note at top, hide content.

Was this particular thread a problem? I had trouble the other thread I have been posting to.
Thanks for the attention.Edit: Well, that posted right away. Major improvement.
Thank you.Edited by jag, : verify operation.