I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

---

#resist

...
If you don't believe in 'science fact' as 'theory' IS NOT science fact then why believe in science at all?

No matter how many times believers claim otherwise, a theory is an explanation for facts.

Evolution is a fact. There are several theories of evolution of which Darwin's is the one currently accepted as explaining the most facts and is thus the best theory.

Creationists love Popper because he is not a scientist and introduced the red herring of reproducibility. Astrophysicists didn't take to kindly to the idea.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

...
If you are one who *believes* there are no absolutes and there is no right or wrong, then I'm beginning to understand why you don't *believe* in a higher authority. What makes me absolutely flabbergasted is why you then state (in other threads) that you want your equals to have power over you. THAT, in a nutshell, is where I stand... flabbergasted.

Anyone who believes in absolute right and wrong has never been in court. They have probably never watched Law&Order. In fact they have probably haven't started High School. In fact they are probably the kind who would decline to execute women who commit murder for hire in the matter of abortion.

As to higher authorities, as the gods are always notably silent, the people are left with their self-appointed priests and spokesrats to be themselves the higher authorities. When they all agree as to which represent the true higher authority they can get back me. Until I will happily hold their coats while they slug it out.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

You could explain what "truth" can possibly mean when, as you say, it depends upon which god or gods one chooses.

While some may find the idea of a smorgasbord of mutually exclusive truths attractive I really must insist upon having they present the definition of the word truth they are using.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

No matter how many times believers claim otherwise, a theory is an explanation for facts.

Really?

Have I expressed either?

Other than my accepting some theories as fact in my case.

I don't think I have tossed about any theories as fact other than my belief that without a creator, you would not be here to bandy about any factoids at all.

Meow.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

You could explain what "truth" can possibly mean when, as you say, it depends upon which god or gods one chooses.

While some may find the idea of a smorgasbord of mutually exclusive truths attractive I really must insist upon having they present the definition of the word truth they are using.

The Truth? You can't handle the truth. The truth is that there are no square circles. Apparently you missed that part of the talk around here?

Or simply suffered 'eyes glazed over' as you expounded on your faith as both the Truth and Science.

If you desisted in your efforts to convert folks to your Faith with its equivalence in your own mind to Truth and Science, I suppose folks would quit taking shots at you as if you were trying to convert folks.

The Truth? You can't handle the truth. The truth is that there are no square circles. Apparently you missed that part of the talk around here?

We can all explore this question by writing down the traits and functionings of a "God" of which we were taught and may now still believe in. We can then look around at the current and past happenings in this world.

One can then ask oneself if those traits (all seeing, all knowing, all merciful etc) are evident in his creation. We can then wonder about other people's gods as well. We can wonder about the Angels, the accounts written in the bible, how He runs Heaven, Hell, purgatory, Limbo.

And Satan: is there a ranking of supernatural beings including the Angels so then what must that be like and how should we see evidence of this on Earth ?

Why would God appear when he did and not during the time of the gods of the Egyptians, Babylonians or my Greek ancestors.

There is a preponderance of illogical constructs here and you must assume that your assumptions are false. I.e. if god is all merciful and compassionate and there is rank injustice in the world. Do you conclude that God is not all compassionate. I think that you must--I choose to believe there is no God at all. If you want to call science and Nature God then that's fine with me since many of our presumptions can be proven true or false.

Daddio, SJ

Prayer can work by putting someone in a positive frame of mind about achieving a wish or aim. E.g. if someone prays to their god hard enough that they will pass an important exam, then it is quite possible that they will sub-consciously try that much harder and achieve their aim. Wow, praying works they say, my god smiled upon me.

And I suggest it is completely reasonable to expect a double-blind test establishing that as a fact before taking such equivocations seriously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/#.T5xk1dkctfY
Seems it failed.

---

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

---

No matter how many times believers claim otherwise, a theory is an explanation for facts.

Really?

Have I expressed either?

Other than my accepting some theories as fact in my case.

Theories are never facts. If one accepts nonsense the acceptance is nonsense.

I don't think I have tossed about any theories as fact other than my belief that without a creator, you would not be here to bandy about any factoids at all.

A belief is neither a theory nor a fact.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I asked you if you believed in absolutes. Mainly because you seemed like you knew what you was talking about. Also because of the science that you believe in so strongly is nothing more then chance in some directions, only theory in other directions. Nothing, nothing based in the simple facts of there being only round circles and right angles with equal length sides. The truth is that science does tell us that there are absolutes. People are born, people live their lives, and then we hope in very old age--die. Once one understands the absoulte then trust can be formed. One only needs that gram of trust and the ounce of Faith comes later. I cannot place trust in something that isn't absolute. Nor do I place trust in science that isn't absolute. As I understand science it moves from theory to science fact. Mr. E had a theory that light would bend in the gravity well of our star. This has been proved over and over again. From this, science has told us that a whole galaxy will bend light that is being seen from behind said galaxy. Intelligent Design Theory is just another theory that has yet to move into science fact--fully. I happen to believe in ID and in time hope to see it move into science fact. I see no reason not to teach science of chance. I see not reason not to teach theory that has not been proven. I see no reason not to seek absolutes. I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

The whole problem with your ID as "science fact" is that there is still no supporting evidence to prove or disprove a Grand Designer. Such teaching would be similar to teaching faith, and therefore cannot be taught as science.

As for absolutes... well, I wish I could live in such a simple world.

Blank Man,

If you don't believe in 'science fact' as 'theory' IS NOT science fact then why believe in science at all?

So let me get this straight: you can't understand why anyone would want to follow science because it doesn't offer facts; only theories. Theories which must be based upon physical observation and provable/disprovable tests.

Intelligent Design makes a (very) simple observation and draws a specific (and very presumptuous) conclusion from that, and you want to call that conclusion just as valid as any other scientific theory.

Maybe when faith can start producing actual proof for its claims and pass the Scientific Method test, we'll let them play with the rest of the intellectuals.

I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

You could explain what "truth" can possibly mean when, as you say, it depends upon which god or gods one chooses.

While some may find the idea of a smorgasbord of mutually exclusive truths attractive I really must insist upon having they present the definition of the word truth they are using.

The Truth? You can't handle the truth.

Movie quote of the day? How about, Heeeere's Johnny!

The truth is that there are no square circles. Apparently you missed that part of the talk around here?

I asked for a definition of truth which allows for contradictory and even mutually exclusive truths depending upon which god or gods one chooses. I never did understand faith-based truth and since you are posting as though you know what you are talking about I thought I would take the opportunity to ask you.

Will you post the definition you are using? Thanks in advance.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

The design of the human eye is clearly defective in any objective standard. Eyeglasses are but one obvious example and perhaps the least important.

As it appears you are using a new and perhaps unique definition of random such that it can be equated with design perhaps you should take the time to make that definition public instead of keeping it secret.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

Several addition points.

What is this HE crap? What use does a god have with sex? How did you determine there was just one? How did you determine which one? Did you get its name?

How did you divine the principle used? Is "he" really stupid? Is that your preferred description in place of incompetent and malevolent? Or are you saying it or she or they is/are simple?

Did you get the method also?

Please define your usage of PURE. There are many kinds of random but I have never heard of that kind.

If WE humans cannot see it but you do see it are you declaring you are not human? Should I be surprised by that declaration? Would you like me to be surprised by that declaration of other than human knowledge?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

Several addition points.

What is this HE crap? What use does a god have with sex? How did you determine there was just one? How did you determine which one? Did you get its name?

How did you divine the principle used? Is "he" really stupid? Is that your preferred description in place of incompetent and malevolent? Or are you saying it or she or they is/are simple?

Did you get the method also?

Please define your usage of PURE. There are many kinds of random but I have never heard of that kind.

If WE humans cannot see it but you do see it are you declaring you are not human? Should I be surprised by that declaration? Would you like me to be surprised by that declaration of other than human knowledge?

Let the spelling and grammar flame wars begin.

---

Heck, I've been using Word to check my spelling before I've posted.... :D

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

I have lost any sense of what is currently being discussed in this thread.

When I see a specific topic and discussion happening, I'll join in. But for now it appears we [the two sides of this argument] have all agreed to disagree.

One side: Science is not religion, the two should not be mixed. A science class is no place for ideas that are seemingly of religious origin and have no scientific basis.

The other side: Religion is truth, we should all accept it and honor whichever god you believe in, even though there is a whole world of religions out there. And this religious material should be taught as fact in science and all facets of life.

What else is there to say.
<sigh>

You could explain what "truth" can possibly mean when, as you say, it depends upon which god or gods one chooses.

While some may find the idea of a smorgasbord of mutually exclusive truths attractive I really must insist upon having they present the definition of the word truth they are using.

The Truth? You can't handle the truth.

Movie quote of the day? How about, Heeeere's Johnny!

The truth is that there are no square circles. Apparently you missed that part of the talk around here?

I asked for a definition of truth which allows for contradictory and even mutually exclusive truths depending upon which god or gods one chooses. I never did understand faith-based truth and since you are posting as though you know what you are talking about I thought I would take the opportunity to ask you.

Will you post the definition you are using? Thanks in advance.

I gave you a truth. You asked for a truth. I gave you a axiom. NONE of you have dared to touch it. I have seen a theory offered but that is unproven. It is a absolute truth, no round squares. No circles that are squares. This is a starting point of placing a truth on top of a truth and so on. This is how we establish law and justice. This is also how we place fact into science. True blue is blue till we add yellow and then we have the fact of green. You think to hard. You place Faith where it does not belong. Thinking simple can and does lead to to thinking harder but I'll be dang if I can teach you how to think simple. Try it, it might help you in your thinking harder.

You're very welcome.

...I also don't see any reason not to teach Intelligent Design.

You have my apology but I'll stand my ground, thank you very much.

If that is your position then can you explain why your position is not taught honestly? Anyone reading this with glasses knows the designer was either incompetent or malevolent.

Actually he was brilliant. He followed the KISS principal. Pure random chance is the best possible design. We humans are just so daft we can't see that.

Several addition points.

What is this HE crap? What use does a god have with sex? How did you determine there was just one? How did you determine which one? Did you get its name?

How did you divine the principle used? Is "he" really stupid? Is that your preferred description in place of incompetent and malevolent? Or are you saying it or she or they is/are simple?

Did you get the method also?

Please define your usage of PURE. There are many kinds of random but I have never heard of that kind.

If WE humans cannot see it but you do see it are you declaring you are not human? Should I be surprised by that declaration? Would you like me to be surprised by that declaration of other than human knowledge?

Let the spelling and grammar flame wars begin.

It is a matter of semantics. Words have meanings. I inquire after the issues raised by the words that were used. I would do the same for any scientific declaration that used such a chaotic mix of words.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult