In total there are 43 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 43 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes) Most users ever online was 1000 on Sun Jun 30, 2024 12:23 am
There is continued pressure to teach Creationism in public schools, usually as an "alternative theory" to evolution. Eugenie Scott, among others, has worked for many years against the Creationist/Intelligent Design agenda in schools. In particular in the Dover school district a few years back which was defeated.
The upshot is that science teachers are sometimes intimidated by religious factions in the community and either put less emphasis on evolution or don't teach it at all. The idea that the bedrock of modern science is not being taught for fear of offending archaic religious beliefs should be of great concern to all of us. I have no doubt that this is happening in many communities in the U.S. and elsewhere.
There's a great PBS interview with Eugenie Scott, full text available here:
It's just tiresome stuff that Dawkins posted on his site, just pretty boring. There has to be a point at which you stop defining yourself in terms of not believing the stupid things other people believe. Don't you need to work on a positive case of your own? Someone has said, I forget who, that atheists are themselves quite stuck on religion, and I think there can be truth in that. Sam Harris has a good idea in disavowing the label atheist, because it makes as much sense as calling himself a non-astrologer. (Of course, that doesn't prevent him from pummeling religious people very hard.)
Edwards vs Aguillard no doubt was a victory for secularism - dressed up in scientific jargon that is.
For whatever its worth, the Creationsit position is more about what counts as authority - meaning, as ultimately referenced in the bible. For Creationists, science confirms religious belief. It does not express an anti scientific attitude. Their religion and science have a relationship that is void of conflict, much like that of Newton, Galeleo, Kant, etc etc.
The reality is that millions of Americans profess faith of some form or other.
A secular society set on demanding these millions of people seperate faith and Self can be an oppressive force. One that will stir reaction. Considering that the Bible is the hottest seller on the market, and has been for eons, further exemplifies where millions of Americans turn to for guidance and inspiration. That can not be denied. Nor can we deny the right these people have to make decisions influenced by their faith, which is to say, an exercise in autonomy.
These people are governing their conscience in a manner supported by liberal citizens.
Anything else would be totally illiberal.
(There's a difference between Creationist and Literalist)
Last edited by ant on Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
I think we are seeing the beginnings of each State settling the issue of marriage. Considering the constitution does not provide a definition, it should be each State that determines the issue.
I haven't been following it too closely, to be honest about it. However, I do support change on a national level regarding this issue.
What does the bible say about abortion? I don't really know.
Same with stem cell research. What does the bible say about that?
What legislation is it you are referring to that has been directly influenced by the Bible?
I am familiar with the whole Israel is the chosen people narrative, but again, I asked about legislation in particular.
You're angry at George Bush for his rhetoric?
Many presidents have propped themselves up with the Bible, including Democratic presidents.
Are you angry because he's a Republican doing it? I think you are.
I have no comment regarding your desire to champion sodomy.
ant wrote:
Many presidents have propped themselves up with the Bible, including Democratic presidents.
Are you angry because he's a Republican doing it? I think you are.
Once again, you are trying to make assumptions about people and how they think, and once again you'd be wrong.
Obama is as much of a warmonger as any of them. I suspect some of his religious statements are BS, but I don't know.
I have no comment regarding your desire to champion sodomy.
I "champion" keeping sexual behavior as a private matter if it doesn't harm others. Bible-thumping hypocrites tend not to agree. Do you?
What does the bible say about abortion? I don't really know.
Same with stem cell research. What does the bible say about that?
Nothing direct, it's a natural extension of "thou shalt not kill". Which begs the question of how you define life. If life begins at conception, abortions break a commandment.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Nothing direct, it's a natural extension of "thou shalt not kill". Which begs the question of how you define life. If life begins at conception, abortions break a commandment.
okay.., so, I say again..,
ant wrote:
The reality is that millions of Americans profess faith of some form or other.
A secular society set on demanding these millions of people seperate faith and Self can be an oppressive force. One that will stir reaction. Considering that the Bible is the hottest seller on the market, and has been for eons, further exemplifies where millions of Americans turn to for guidance and inspiration. That can not be denied. Nor can we deny the right these people have to make decisions influenced by their faith, which is to say, an exercise in autonomy.
These people are governing their conscience in a manner supported by liberal citizens.
Anything else would be totally illiberal.
I didn't have a point in answering your question ant, and I'm not sure of the point of your response. But I'll answer by saying that taking moral philosophy from a 2,000 year old document is bad for us. Yes, there's a great deal of good moral philosophy, but those good parts are corroborated by modern moral philosophy. Thou shalt not kill, for example.
The bad part is the inflexible attachment to certain parts of the bible when interpreted literally. People stretch parts of the book to be relevant. Some parts are beyond stretching, such as stoning your daughter to death at the front gate of the city. Other parts are borderline. What should the penalty be for adulterers when more than half the society is guilty? Other parts are agreed upon universally, but the part that is in disagreement, and one of my problems with religion, is the absolutist stance.
There are legitimate instances where I think we are justified in killing another human. Moral intuition pumps regarding past tyrants or mass murderers or killing someone in self defense when no other option is available. The simplified dogma of religion fails because it cannot account for the variety of the real world. I don't think abortion should be illegal for rape victims who cannot afford or take care of a child.
If millions of Americans are wanting Christian morality to be the rule of the land, I believe very strongly they are wrong. Someone should speak up against them. I think Dawkins is polarizing people and there may be better methods of educating people. But history has shown that nothing really works.
You speak of the oppressive force of people being told their beliefs are wrong... but what about me? What about being forced to live by other peoples rules, when I can see philosophically they are wrong. If the root cause of this disagreement is their dogma, then I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either I speak out and try to show them their beliefs are wrong, or their efforts creep forwards in putting religion-rooted laws into place that I strongly disagree will, thereby oppressing me.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
