On the Sixth Day, God Made the Dinosaurs

[JohnOfSheffield]

What was there 1 trillion years before the big bang?

You're using the word "before" when there as no such thing as time and thus, no such thing as "before" either. It's kinda amusing because the answer is nothing, same as we have now, absolutely nothing.

The actual sum of mass in this universe is 0, the mass in the singularity was 0 and what made it unstable was just that, the equilibrium of matter and anti matter. If you're looking for magic, this is where you should look. Well that and the virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time just because they can (they are not bound by time-space).

Question: What irreparable harm is done to the child and society at large if a fundamentalist christian is allowed to send his own child to a PRIVATE religious school that rejects evolution? It is my understanding that the ONLY clash currently between fundies and science is with respect to the origin of species.

To the child? It's like keeping your kid in your own fantasy world, just because you slap the sticker "religion" on your ideas it doesn't make them any less benign than any other ideology and we'd never allow it if it wasn't for that "religion" sticker. I mean, these are kids who are brought up in a fantasy world where reality just doesn't exist at all except through perception that is false if the religion deems it to be.

Question: Why is evolution theory more important than reading, writing, computer, math, history, etc? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot interest by evolutionists in government monitoring of these vital subjects in private religious schools.

Why don't you try and answer my post before getting into that? It's the basis of all biology (which i see you now carefully avoid mentioning as a subject of any interest).

I went to a private religious school for a few years and I can tell you this, the school I attended was DREADFULLY lacking in math, english and science (chemistry and physics). It was a complete joke academically. I would rather the government force academic standards on the whole spectrum of subjects and give the private religious schools a pass on evolution theory.

PS. I was taught that homosexuality was a sin at the school too (LOL, like God created people who were attracted to other people of the same sex as some kind of cruel joke). I was also taught that when bad things happened, it was the judgement of God on us. Actually all kinds of stuff like this I was taught. I mean it was a fundamentalist Christian school after all.

I feel for you, the government should not give a pass on evolution, it's just too important to give a pass on.

There are LOADS of christians and churches that incorporate reality into their faith rather than to deny that reality is in fact real, you don't have to deny reality to be a christian, you can keep the mythology and function in the real world just fine.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ekimospy,

You're an atheist, right? If I would challenge on that, would it acceptable of I said the only reason you are one is because you were born to a certain set of parents? If you were raised by my parents, you'd be a Chrstian.

See how that works? It would be a stronger argument to challenge you why instead of based on where you were born or who your parents were.


Or, there is no more evidence that an atheist is right than there is that a Muslim is.

This is the same burden of proof fallacy that seems to be the reason the argument never dies. No one has to prove the non-existence of a thing just because someone says they believe in it. The fallacy is the assumption that theism and atheism are equal and opposite counter-parts. They are not. The non-belief in something requires no proof. If you want to argue for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God or any other deity, then present evidence.

As to parental influence, you're certainly correct that someone raised by theists is more likely to be a theist, while someone raised by atheists is more likely to be an atheist. The difference is that all one needs to do to produce an atheist is not teach them to believe in God. The parents need not argue against the existence of God to their child. Atheism requires no indoctrination. We get our beliefs from our parents. Our lack of belief in [fill in the blank] is the default condition we are born with.

 

[fskimospy]

Ekimospy,

You're an atheist, right? If I would challenge on that, would it acceptable of I said the only reason you are one is because you were born to a certain set of parents? If you were raised by my parents, you'd be a Chrstian.

See how that works? It would be a stronger argument to challenge you why instead of based on where you were born or who your parents were.

Or, there is no more evidence that an atheist is right than there is that a Muslim is.

Actually my mother (who raised me) is a devout Catholic. I spent many Sundays as a child going not only to mass but to sunday school activities afterwards. But yes, I'm an atheist for all intents and purposes. But yes, religion is usually transmitted from parents to children. There's a reason why most religious people born in America are Christian but most religious people in India are Hindu and it was not a sober examination of the evidence.

As wolfe said, atheism requires no evidence as it is not trying to prove anything. You claim that god exists, therefore the burden of proof is on you. I am not making a counter-claim that there certainly is no god, I am just saying that since there is no evidence for god's existence I don't give the abrahamic god any more credence than I would the flying spaghetti monster. They both have the exact same amount of evidence supporting them.

The most important thing to get out of this discussion to me relates to a previous thread you made. The burden of proof is almost NEVER on atheists as they are not making positive claims. If I claimed that I was CERTAIN god doesn't exist, then I would have the burden of evidence. Since I am simply noting your lack of evidence for god's existence, there's nothing for me to prove.

 

[Sonikku]

I'm getting the sense that you don't understand what a "theory" is in science? Do you?

In a sense "Gravity" is a "theory". Are you going to dispute it by leaping off a building?

 

[Moonbeam]

As to parental influence, you're certainly correct that someone raised by theists is more likely to be a theist, while someone raised by atheists is more likely to be an atheist. The difference is that all one needs to do to produce an atheist is not teach them to believe in God. The parents need not argue against the existence of God to their child. Atheism requires no indoctrination. We get our beliefs from our parents. Our lack of belief in [fill in the blank] is the default condition we are born with.

I think there are problems with this argument. First of all it presumes we know what an adult Tabula Rasa adult consciousness is or might be like as a matter of personal experience and secondly, it raises the question as to where belief in God came from in the first place if nonbelief is the ground state and no such faith existed within the parent culture. This also dismisses the facts that are already known about the brain, that you can experience God directly by wearing a helmet that stimulates a particular part of it.

If there is a part of the brain that can be stimulated in the faithless that causes God awareness in any human, then quite obviously God consciousness is a natural human ability that we were born with.

I have argued endlessly and I think to no avail, that the God that atheists don't believe in doesn't exist, because it is the God that the religious do believe in and there are millions of them. But the reality is that there is one truth and it covers us all, that the Real God we believe in or don't is the projection of the true self, the God that we were born as and was conditioned away or warped. The world is full of believers and nonbelievers and a few who know who they are.

This is why the spiritual path to awareness requires that we empty our cup of faith and doubt alike. God is when we are not, when we have left our conditioning behind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In a sense "Gravity" is a "theory". Are you going to dispute it by leaping off a building?

A further explanation is needed.

Evolution: A known natural phenomenon

Gravity: A known natural phenomenon

Theory of Evolution: the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind, it's tested daily. The explanation of how evolution occurs.

Gravity: A theory that is know to be wrong, gravity cannot be explained by this theory, quantum gravity is working on fixing this known to be false theory. It fails to explain gravitational forces in this universe.

In short, gravity is far to weak to fit the predictions of the theory, the theory is known to be wrong.

 

[sandorski]

Yes, this is exactly right! And when we have no evidence of it either way we take the null hypothesis. Why? Because we know that there are an infinite number of things that are untrue but a finite number of things that are true.
So, if we are presented with something that has absolutely no evidence to determine it's truth we know that it is more likely to be UNTRUE then TRUE.

:thumbsup:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes, this is exactly right! And when we have no evidence of it either way we take the null hypothesis. Why? Because we know that there are an infinite number of things that are untrue but a finite number of things that are true.
So, if we are presented with something that has absolutely no evidence to determine it's truth we know that it is more likely to be UNTRUE then TRUE.

That isn't the null hypothesis but ok, let's ride it out to the finality of what is being claimed.

Can the CLAIMS be proven true or untrue?

Well, i'm Jewish by heritage and i know, as do every Jew that King David and Moses never really existed, whether "historical Jeus" existed is still up for debate but historians as a group would say no.

So it's not just the unicorn against the claim of unicornas, there are actual claims that have been disproven here.

That goes for all religions BTW, not surprisingly almost all of texture of the four major religons can be found in pagan traditions.

Except for mormonism, that is just fucked up.. God was an alien in this universe that ascended into heaven and had two sons with his alien ascended(?) wife, Jesus and Satan?

A guy believing that almost won the elections, thank god a guy who believes in talking donkeys and snakes won instead.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think there are problems with this argument. First of all it presumes we know what an adult Tabula Rasa adult consciousness is or might be like as a matter of personal experience and secondly, it raises the question as to where belief in God came from in the first place if nonbelief is the ground state and no such faith existed within the parent culture. This also dismisses the facts that are already known about the brain, that you can experience God directly by wearing a helmet that stimulates a particular part of it.

If there is a part of the brain that can be stimulated in the faithless that causes God awareness in any human, then quite obviously God consciousness is a natural human ability that we were born with.

I have argued endlessly and I think to no avail, that the God that atheists don't believe in doesn't exist, because it is the God that the religious do believe in and there are millions of them. But the reality is that there is one truth and it covers us all, that the Real God we believe in or don't is the projection of the true self, the God that we were born as and was conditioned away or warped. The world is full of believers and nonbelievers and a few who know who they are.

This is why the spiritual path to awareness requires that we empty our cup of faith and doubt alike. God is when we are not, when we have left our conditioning behind.

I don't think anyone is born believing in "God" in the usual sense of that term, as a super-natural being outside ourselves. We are certainly born with the capacity to believe in God, but then we're born with the capacity to believe anything.

I'm not familiar with the helmet experiments you're talking about, but I suspect they trigger something physiological which in turn triggers an emotional response, which then plays in to the idea of "God" - which itself is a learned, social construct. Schizophrenia is also very likely of biological origin, but the fact that some schizophrenics wander the streets mumbling about God is neuro-chemistry interacting with socialized beliefs. That same schizo would have been mumbling about Zeus in ancient Greece, or anything else topical at that place and time.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't think anyone is born believing in "God" in the usual sense of that term, as a super-natural being outside ourselves. We are certainly born with the capacity to believe in God, but then we're born with the capacity to believe anything.

I'm not familiar with the helmet experiments you're talking about, but I suspect they trigger something physiological which in turn triggers an emotional response, which then plays in to the idea of "God" - which itself is a learned, social construct. Schizophrenia is also very likely of biological origin, but the fact that some schizophrenics wander the streets mumbling about God is neuro-chemistry interacting with socialized beliefs. That same schizo would have been mumbling about Zeus in ancient Greece, or anything else topical at that place and time.

You're exactly right.

God is the force for justice in the world of "never actually do anything" men.

Neurochemistry is what makes up everything, every single thought and memory so it would make sense that misfires can create god, as i have done when on peyote.

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually my mother (who raised me) is a devout Catholic. I spent many Sundays as a child going not only to mass but to sunday school activities afterwards. But yes, I'm an atheist for all intents and purposes. But yes, religion is usually transmitted from parents to children. There's a reason why most religious people born in America are Christian but most religious people in India are Hindu and it was not a sober examination of the evidence.

Well, I didn't say your parents weren't religious, but that's beside the point.

I was hoping you'd see why I think each argument for or against something needs to be argued on it own merit. I can't argue against your atheism by bringing up how another person who lives in India came to be a Hindu. I could, and would have, been WRONG if I tried to employ the genetic fallacy to discredit your athiesm -- this is probably why its called a "fallacy".

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think anyone is born believing in "God" in the usual sense of that term, as a super-natural being outside ourselves. We are certainly born with the capacity to believe in God, but then we're born with the capacity to believe anything.

I'm not familiar with the helmet experiments you're talking about, but I suspect they trigger something physiological which in turn triggers an emotional response, which then plays in to the idea of "God" - which itself is a learned, social construct. Schizophrenia is also very likely of biological origin, but the fact that some schizophrenics wander the streets mumbling about God is neuro-chemistry interacting with socialized beliefs. That same schizo would have been mumbling about Zeus in ancient Greece, or anything else topical at that place and time.

I only suggest that however we are born we may be born to create God or some other words for a different mental state and it is inevitable that we will. There is some sort of experience, I believe, that happens to human beings over and over again in any time or place, a transformative experience of unity with the universe that folk who experience it describe as peak. And far from causing the person to enter a mental hospital, that when that state is fully integrated creates unusually powerful people say, the billionaire Indian fisherman's daughter who has hugged millions of people.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're exactly right.

God is the force for justice in the world of "never actually do anything" men.

Neurochemistry is what makes up everything, every single thought and memory so it would make sense that misfires can create god, as i have done when on peyote.

A donkey loaded with books remains a donkey. What for you is neurochemicals was for Christ, I would say, an state of awareness that still influences the thinking of billions of people. Does what happens in the brain neurochemically really matter to you or is what matters how our experiences find expression.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

A donkey loaded with books remains a donkey. What for you is neurochemicals was for Christ, I would say, an state of awareness that still influences the thinking of billions of people. Does what happens in the brain neurochemically really matter to you or is what matters how our experiences find expression.

No, that remains a donkey loaded with books, it won't become a flying talking donkey that can decide what rights a woman should have to her own body or when love is just wrong and when it's so right it deserves the recognition of society.

Reality matters, but reality is what we percieve, take a shroom and you'll not only alter your perception of the state you're in, you will accept a ridiculous notion as being reality... It's the closest thing to being religious there is.

I don't respect religions, never have and i never will, you don't get to demand respect because you slap the religion sticker on your batshit insane ideas that are not rooted in anything that is real or can even be verified to be real, not from me.

IF IT HELPS YOU... which i know that it does for some people, have at it, but it's a PERSONAL faith and it has nothing to do with anything besides you, i can respect you as a person for understanding that but i cannot and i will NOT entertain insanity as "just as good as reality"

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I didn't say your parents weren't religious, but that's beside the point.

I was hoping you'd see why I think each argument for or against something needs to be argued on it own merit. I can't argue against your atheism by bringing up how another person who lives in India came to be a Hindu. I could, and would have, been WRONG if I tried to employ the genetic fallacy to discredit your athiesm -- this is probably why its called a "fallacy".

My argument in no way relies on the source of your faith, I was just showing you how much your faith has in common with other things you likely find absurd and unbelievable.

 

[Screech]

What does Thor have to do with Christianity? Genetic fallacies follow the same bad logic -- trying to attack a belief system on its origin instead of its merits.

[jump into thread]
The point he was trying to make, I believe, is that thor, fsm, christianity, etc all have functionally the same merits. The arguments for or against either are effectively, therefore, the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

JohnOfSheffield: No, that remains a donkey loaded with books, it won't become a flying talking donkey that can decide what rights a woman should have to her own body or when love is just wrong and when it's so right it deserves the recognition of society.

I would distinguish between religious belief and a spiritual awakening that has as a core experience a sense of unity.

JOS: Reality matters, but reality is what we percieve, take a shroom and you'll not only alter your perception of the state you're in, you will accept a ridiculous notion as being reality... It's the closest thing to being religious there is.

M: If reality is what you perceive then what you perceive on mushrooms is also reality. Why do you believe one to be more real than the other?

SOJ: I don't respect religions, never have and i never will, you don't get to demand respect because you slap the religion sticker on your batshit insane ideas that are not rooted in anything that is real or can even be verified to be real, not from me.

M: You don't respect the content of your experience, which of course, is profoundly limited as is the experience of everybody else.

SOJ: IF IT HELPS YOU... which i know that it does for some people, have at it, but it's a PERSONAL faith and it has nothing to do with anything besides you, i can respect you as a person for understanding that but i cannot and i will NOT entertain insanity as "just as good as reality".

M: This is what I mean by having a full cup. You believe in what you believe. I used to do that too.

 

[Retro Rob]

My argument in no way relies on the source of your faith, I was just showing you how much your faith has in common with other things you likely find absurd and unbelievable.

[jump into thread]
The point he was trying to make, I believe, is that thor, fsm, christianity, etc all have functionally the same merits. The arguments for or against either are effectively, therefore, the same.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern
X is true for A.
X is true for B.
X is true for C.
X is true for D.
Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

I mean, we're guilty of it from time to time, but each religion.. as does each person, has to be examined free of this sort of stuff.

 

[woolfe9998]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

I mean, we're guilty of it from time to time, but each religion.. as does each person, has to be examined free of this sort of stuff.

Each must certainly be viewed on its own merit. However, if you examine a religion and find there is no evidence to support it, then functionally it ends up being the same as everything else for which there is no evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

I mean, we're guilty of it from time to time, but each religion.. as does each person, has to be examined free of this sort of stuff.

I'm sure I'm guilty of it from time to time, but not here.

What I was describing was just a common attribute of anything that is believed without evidence. It opens the door to a lot of ridiculous things.

 

[Retro Rob]

Each must certainly be viewed on its own merit. However, if you examine a religion and find there is no evidence to support it, then functionally it ends up being the same as everything else for which there is no evidence.

Every white man must be examined on his own merit, however, I once examined a white man who is a resident of Arkansas, and found him to be racist...so functionally, it ends up being the same for all white men living in Arkanasa because they're all white, male, and live in Arkansas 🙄

What I said is absurd, right? Apply this to your example and you'd see why I find yours equally as absurd.

I am not saying that you have to examine every religion you critisize, but you need to understand how each arrives at said conclusions in order to make a valid judgment while not making potentially false generalizations.

Most religions have the same conclusion (God), as do some white people (racism). Having certain elements in common doesn't make them the same at all.

 

[sandorski]

Every white man must be examined on his own merit, however, I once examined a white man who is a resident of Arkansas, and found him to be racist...so functionally, it ends up being the same for all white men living in Arkanasa because they're all white, male, and live in Arkansas 🙄

What I said is absurd, right? Apply this to your example and you'd see why I find yours equally as absurd.

I am not saying that you have to examine every religion you critisize, but you need to understand how each arrives at said conclusions in order to make a valid judgment while not making potentially false generalizations.

Most religions have the same conclusion (God), as do some white people (racism). Having certain elements in common doesn't make them the same at all.

Yes, that is absurd, but it doesn't apply to this subject at all.

 

[fskimospy]

Most religions have the same conclusion (God), as do some white people (racism). Having certain elements in common doesn't make them the same at all.

They are not being judged on their conclusion, they are being judged on their evidence for that conclusion.

 

[woolfe9998]

Every white man must be examined on his own merit, however, I once examined a white man who is a resident of Arkansas, and found him to be racist...so functionally, it ends up being the same for all white men living in Arkanasa because they're all white, male, and live in Arkansas 🙄

In your example, you're not actually examining each individually. You're examining one then generalizing. That's not what my statement said or implied.

If you examine any one religion, lets say Christianity, and find that it lacks evidence, it's fair to compare it to anything else which also lacks evidence. Presumably you know the other things lack evidence because you've examined them as well. Though here, we use examples like a Flying Spaghetti monster precisely because we don't have to do any work to examine them. They're made up so of course they lack evidence. Christianity, however, only gets compared to the FSM after it first gets examined.

 

[ElFenix]

I would say that tests like this should be illegal, but if that was a public school it already is. (article didn't say) Any institution that's teaching that crap should be ashamed of themselves, regardless of legality though.

article does in fact say it's a private christian school.


edit: i could be well behind the conversation