Topic awaiting preservation: Same Old Shit, Different Court Room...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

Let's all hope this goes well, eh?

quote:

---

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

---

The important distinction to be made here, is that nobody is trying to limit what scientific inquiries are made.
What is being done is stopping such inquiries that have no actual science behind them from being taught as science in our public schools.

Hopefully that distinction, among others, is noted during this episode.

quote:

---

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution.

---

I had no idea it was that wide-spread. Very troublesome.

It amazes one that this sort of ignorance can be so prevalent in a supposedly "modern" country.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

While I understand the principle that this is non-science and thus has no place in a science class, am I missing another element that makes this so troubling?

I mean, so you teach kids about intelligent design. What are the negative side-effects in the long term of doing so that makes this so important to you guys? Is it simply the fact that it doesn't belong or acknowledgment of a God or something else?

Trying to understand.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

^ You're joking, right?

No, not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that it is a problem, government controlled schools mandating and teaching religion and all that, but I just don't see this as quite the same level of problem as you do. Compared to some of the other unjust and troubling things in the world it just does not seem that important.

Avian flu mutating into a person to person disease, the corporatocracy that is taking hold at a global level, Bush picking two SCOTUS judges, Wolfowitz -- one of the founders of PNAC -- heading the world bank, Hurricanes destroying American cities, a projected $10 trillion in national debt by the time Bush leaves office, the privatization of our military to a point where transparency and public inquiry is dissappearing, a situation that is only getting worse in the ME, the fact that we will all have National ID cards in a matter of years, the surveillance states being built around us, etc, ect.

Just wondering if I was missing another element in this issue to make it so important.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

The indocrination of future generations into the religous flock, so that most of what you have listed as concerns (and they are, of course) will not be questioned.

How's that?

The thing is,the Religious Right in America has been trying to get its foot in the door of public schooling since time immorial (ok, well, probably not that long, but you get the picture ). We all know that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You sure you want to give them that inch?

My biggest concern, is the "downgrading" of Science to one that is just a process based on Faith, and nothing more.

Ramasax: I realize the U.S. are completely different from France and Europe but I don't see the problem with having a National ID card. It's just a mean to prove your identity. Not everybody has a driving licence or a passport. In France the National ID card is free. For a passport the administrative fees are 60? though IIRC it has a duration of 10years, not to talk about passing the driving licence ( which if you live in a big city is rather useless btw ). Of course my view of the National ID card is also based on the fact that it's all you need to travel and work in any country of the Shengen area.

As for the problem of 'teaching' ID in public school, WebShaman summed up the long term impact.

quote:

---

It's just a mean to prove your identity

---

Where do you draw the line? And barring exceptional circumstances....why should you have to 'prove' who you are?

NoJive: In many circumstances, i.e. : in the public transports to prove that you are the person nominated on your monthly subscription, in an airport for the check-in ( for countries and people of the Shengen area, but also for interior flights ), to prove you are old enough to buy some cigarettes or watch a XYZ-rated movie alone in a cinema, to see if you already have a judiciary case during a control of police ( for suspected drug detention/abuse, disturbing the public order, roding late, ... ).

Ok I must admit I'm almost never asked my ID card, but I'm good chap. The only time some police officers asked my ID was ~8 year ago, it was late, some friends and I were going back home. The policemen wondered what we were doing in the streets at night and made sure were not known from their services.

Ramasax: there are two main parts of the problem -

1) It's NOT scientifically sound. Period. Therefore, it has no business whatsoever being in a science class.

2) This is a very blatant attempt to push a biblical-creationist agenda into our public schools. Yes, this is a *very* big problem.

If we take this step, it opens something that can't be contained, and before we know it, we have a theocracy.

Teaching blatantly religious, unscientific "theories" in our science class, soley because so many religious people don't want to accept the scientific truth, or feel that evolution somehow undermines their beliefs, is a horrible horrible thing.
The fact that such a large number of Americans are too ignorant to differentiate between evolution and ID, find it so hard to reconcile their faith with reality, is truly frightening.

The other isues you mention are obviously big ones, ram. But don't let the significance of this one get lost on you...

Because the religious tend to walk and think in lock-step, I believe this movement is closely related to some of the issues Ram raises.

When you have a pliable populace like that and the titular and elected head of the country claims to have a direct line to some diety, it is a whole lot easier to get such things past the real thinkers and to shout them down.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

---

Truely disturbing!

Another article -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/26/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

quote:

---

Intelligent design supporters "seem to have shifted virtually entirely to political and rhetorical efforts to sway the general public," Scott said. "The bitter truth is that there is no argument going on in the scientific community about whether evolution took place."

---

Let's just reiterate, while we're at it, that ID is NOT an alternative to evolution.

And, as said in the quote, there is no argument in the scientific community regarding this issue.

Why is there any kind of debate about this at all? ID is a religious matter - it has no place in the science classroom. It just has no scientific basis whatsoever.

quote:

---

WS: The indocrination of future generations into the religous flock, so that most of what you have listed as concerns (and they are, of course) will not be questioned.

How's that?

---

I guess that works.

To my knowledge though, ID does not specify any one religion, just that there was a greater force behind everything. I really can't see this as an indoctrination to any specific belief. Also, just because one has beliefs in a higher power does not necessarily mean that they will not question, although I must concede this is usually not the norm unfortunately.

Other than that I can see where you are coming from and how it ties in with some of the concerns I mentioned.

As an aside, I'd like to think that with modern marvels of the information age such as the Internet, the effects of anything like this will be greatly diluted. I hate to say it, but we are sure to find out considering the support it has garnered.

quote:

---

WS: The thing is,the Religious Right in America has been trying to get its foot in the door of public schooling since time immorial (ok, well, probably not that long, but you get the picture ). We all know that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You sure you want to give them that inch?

---

The religious right is an entirely different matter. If they have a say in this -- which I am guessing is the case -- that does up the stakes.

quote:

---

DL: 1) It's NOT scientifically sound. Period. Therefore, it has no business whatsoever being in a science class.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

The other isues you mention are obviously big ones, ram. But don't let the significance of this one get lost on you...

---

Don't worry, it's not. It just seems like this issue is a 'bastard child' of a much larger problem; that of undue influence and control by government and religious movements worldwide. All to one single end; control and maniplation of thought/behavior. It is not a root problem.

In any case, thanks for the insight guys.

Poi: There is a fundamental difference between ID cards in France and the US. As far as I know, you are one state, we are fifty.

We have the 10th Amendment which protects state sovereignty. The Feds have no business forcing the states -- which are to be treated as indepentdent Republics -- to comply (which they are doing, under threat of funding cuts).

That aside, other reasons for my opposition include the following. An NID system would not solve the problem that is inspiring it, namely terrorism and immigration; it will add to the slippery slope of surveillance and monitoring of US citizens; it mandates the creation of a national database on all citizens; and they would function as internal passports which can be used to monitor our movements.

WS said above that if we give the religious right an inch, they will take a mile. The same rule applies to government.

Out of curiosity, and not to sidetrack the thread too much, how would you feel if the EU decided that you were to scrap your French ID and have one of theirs, which would include -- but not be limited to -- biometric information, fingerprints, iris scans, an EU ID#, along with all the other information curently on your ID and then be compiled into a multi-national database?

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-26-2005 22:02)

quote:

---

just that there was a greater force behind everything

---

Well that's just it Ram. Nobody knows... there is no proof... but they would have our children sit there in a science class and be told there's a 'greater force behind everything.' I think not. Unless of course it's that prognosticating penquin here abouts. =)

I know, I know. We're on the same team... for the most part.

My belief in God gives me a different perspective I suppose. Not in condoning this behavior, but what it will mean in the future.

In thinking this through, beyond this specific issue and into the realm of everything the religious right is working toward, I fear that down the road there will be a great backlash against all people of belief because of religious extremists, and I hate to think of that happening. Discrimination, harrassment, etc. is likely to pervade society as things get worse. A sort of reversal in roles. There has to be a balance, or else it just flips the other way and someday someone will tell me to renounce God or else.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Ram, no specific religon may be overtly mentioned, but the fact it is; right-wing xian groups prompting this silliness may give one reason to suspect it is fundamentalist xianity behind it all.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Ram, I don't think that necessarily will happen here in America, because of our religious history. However, I can concieve of something entirely different and terrifying sweeping across America. Some new form of discrimination that Satan can conjure up. I am thinking it is going to start with apathy and lead to Christianity being somthing "unpopular" or even a "religion of the uneducated." I hate to be a doomsayer, but if something doesn't happen soon, America could become even more spiritually dead than it is now.

Something interesting I found in your article DL:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/26/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

quote:

---

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

---

quote:

---

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

---

Huh? Is is just me or did one source comment that there is no debate in the scientific community, and the other did?

(aside note: something learned back in sophamore chemistry; theories of any sort cannot be proven, they can only be disproven)

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Huh? Is is just me or did one source comment that there is no debate in the scientific community, and the other did?

---

Yes. The proponent of ID, who would like people to think that ID is a valid scientific argument, stated that there is "controversy" in the scientific community.

This, like the idea of ID being a scientific issue, is a blatant falsehood. The only controversy comes when the religious and politically motivated attempt to push religion into science class.

There is no debate, among the scientific community, regarding this issue.

There are fringe groups, claiming to be based in science, who would like there to be.

quote:

---

theories of any sort cannot be proven, they can only be disproven

---

Very good, Gid! Now complete the thought...how do you disprove a "greater force behind everything" ?

You cannot.

That makes ID not even a theory, by definition.

And that is one of the many reasons that the scientific community is not "boiling over" about it. Most scientists are puzzled as to why ID is even being considered being taught alongside real science. It makes no sense. ID has nothing to do with science!

And in light of the new discoveries about the evolution of the eye, ID clearly has failed, at least in that area (things are much to complicated to have evolved; there must be a greater force behind everything) - but those religious kooks just ignore that (as they always have before - ignore that which you cannot discredit; ignore the facts ). It has been proven that the eye can evolve from simpler processes.

No "greater force" needed. For other examples, we just haven't discovered the actual mechanism that leads from point A to B. But we will, as other sciences advance (remember, it took major advances in genetics, to really start refining some of these processes for Evolution).

quote:

---

...we just haven't discovered the actual mechanism that leads from point A to B.
But we will...

---

Keep the faith! Hold the line!

Why do I get the impression that you *want* a particular outcome so much? And if you do, how can you call that good science? This is exactly what's wrong with the scientific community at large. It has become more about maintaining the ranks and holding fast to the same old thoughts and stifling anyone who dares to come up with different ones. If you want a description of that then read "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow.

Science should not be making the data fit your views but letting the data dictate our understanding. Just as so many are correct in pointing out how ridiculous it was for the authorities of Galileo's day to shut him up, so it should be for all of this talk of shutting up the mere mention that an intelligent force could have been involved in the origin of life.

I'm in complete agreement with Ramasax and others here that ID shouldn't be taught in science class. But to prevent it from being mentioned anywhere in the cirriculum? How can that be anything but blatant censorship? Face it, many of the should-be-called secular left want to maintain their monopoly on brainwashing our kids every bit as much as the other side wants it back.

I do not consider myself to be part of either extreme. I want more dialogue and discussion on this topic in our schools, not less. I want good sound scientific principles taught and valued, but I want this insane phobia of religion and our cultural heritage to stop. The Founders wanted to prevent the government from establishing any specific religion and I'm so thankful they set it up that way. Philosophical rationalism, for many, has become just that, a religion; and it should no more be forced onto our children as any other belief.

Of course, I do concede that many in the religious right see ID as a means to force creationism onto students. I also understand and share the concern that they will harm the proper teaching of science in our schools. But that is no excuse for denying:

quote:

---

From the first article:

...that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life.

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I want good sound scientific principles taught and valued, but I want this insane phobia of religion and our cultural heritage to stop.

---

I feel you very distinctly miss the real point here, Bugs.

It is *not* about a phobia of religion.

It is rather a very real and very warranted phobia of the religious, and their agendas.

While I understand your approach to the equation of Galileo, this is in *no* way a comparable situation (and let's not forget - it was the church that condemned Galileo...).

The concept of ID is simply not supported by scienctific evidence. It is *purely* conjecture by people who whish for their religious beliefs to hold true, and to be able to be taught as science to our children.

It is also essential to clarify: ID is NOT simply saying that god was behind all of what has happened in nature. ID states very specifically that science shows us that life is so complex that god *must* have been behind it. This is blatantly false.

This does not mean that god could *not* have been behind it. But the "scientific" claims of the ID movement are plain wrong, or are purely personal conjecture and opinion, unsupported by evidence.

Evolution, on the other hand, has a mountain of evidence behind it. While we don't know everything, we know a GREAT deal. The more we find, the more the idea of evolution is supported. Yes, many people *want* this to simply all fall into place. That is natural, no matter what side of anything you are on.
But in the case of evolution, the data is not being made to fit the view - the data supports the theory.
If the proponents of ID (or anyone else) comes up with something that contradicts the theory of evolution, I am sure there will be plenty of people up in arms. But you will most certainly see that the scientific community at large will take the information and continue with it like they always have.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

The Founders wanted to prevent the government from establishing any specific religion

---

1) ID is nothing more than biblical creationism dressed up.

2) Let's remove religion from the equation for a moment. Let's look at ID on its merits: it states conclusions that are simply not supported by any science whatsoever. Given this, why on earth would we push this into our science classes? It is absolutely baffling. Until....we put religion back into it. The ONLY reason ID is being pushed into school systems is promote religion. And it is very clear which religion is being promoted, even the language has been reduced to as little specificity as possible.

ID in our science class is nothing short of the bible in our science class.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-27-2005 20:51)

Right! It is a religious theory and religion does not belong in the schools, period.

Let them teach it all they like in the churches.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I did not read every word of this thread, so I may have missed where someone already said this.

The real threat of ID is not that it is religeous indoctrination disguised as scientific theory (which it is).

The real danger is that if we allow it into the school system, it opens the door for anyone of any belief (religeous or not) to say, "I have a belief that is not backed up by any kind of scientific experiment or rational thought, but because I believe it you must teach this in the schools as a valid alternative to everything else that is taught or accepted."

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

and a fitting comic today:



http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/

=)

quote:

---

Why do I get the impression that you *want* a particular outcome so much? And if you do, how can you call that good science?

---

Errr...what outcome?

All I want (would like, would find interesting) is discovering how the process, the mechanism, that explains a bit of the unknown and makes it therefore known. Just like the eye, and how a "simple eye" can progress to a "complicated eye" (btw - this was one of the "keystones" of ID, and the mechanism has been found - that alone "disproves" ID - that which the IDers had said was "too complicated to explain through Evolution so there must be a Greater force behind it" proved to be false. It turns out that there is indeed a process, a mechanism behind it, and yes, it is an Evolutionary one).

I haven't said anything about an outcome. I'm talking about processes, mechanisms.

Evolution is already a fact. I'm interested in the mechanisms, the processes that drive it. How they work, how they came to be, and how they are developing.

If it was possible to prove that there was something behind Evolution (a Greater Force), I'm absolutely sure that Science would do so.

Problem is, it isn't possible.

I just want to let you all know I'll be working now for the Discovery Institute as an Intelligent Design researcher.

Can you believe someone's going to pay me to walk around going "Nope don't understand it.... must be god."

Cushiest Job in the world.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Would you be needing an assistant bitd? I mean Mr.bitdamaged, sir? =)

Not quite an update, but -
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/28/evolution.trial.ap/index.html

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

If have seen others post about the irony of the, " The Scopes Monkey trial ", some 80 years later.

Are there similiarities or differences?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

^ Same... just in new packaging.

Yet that "New Packaging" stretches reality then, compared to the reality now.

Not to mention that the facts known then were minimal, compared to today's day & age.

Similarities abound, he was found guilty, and he did pay the fine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

Just to make sure we're on the same track here. When I say 'new packaging' ... I'm referrring to creationism now being hawked under the guise of 'intelligen design.' Science has made great strides but creationism, now called intelligent design, is based on 'faith' that a god of some description is responsible for everything, including the internet I suppose... which surely pisses of Al Gore I'm sure.

quote:

---

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

And that sums it up in a nutshell.

Amen!

I don't even have a problem with topics such as Intelligent Design being taught in the school as long as they are clearly labeled as opinion and not an alternative proof to the scientific method of thinking.

It seems to me that these kinds of topics belong under the subject of Philosophy, not Biology, but if a science teacher wanted to take the time to expose students to ID (or TV advertising) as an example of non-critical thinking, that would work for me.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

quote:

---

Just to make sure we're on the same track here. When I say 'new packaging' ... I'm referrring to creationism now being hawked under the guise of 'intelligent design.

---

Yup I see that, and I am glad we see it the same way.

quote:

---

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools? Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

quote:

---

And that sums it up in a nutshell. Amen!

---

Is this sarcasm? WS, you don't really believe this dribble?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

Zynx said:
Is this sarcasm? WS, you don't really believe this dribble?

---

So, you're saying this:

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools?

Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

Is dribble??

Could you elaborate on that please?

It is drivil. ID is a religious concept, not a scientific theory and as such has no place in schools.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Did you read what I actually said, Dio??

DL

Um , misread...apologies.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Yes, I truly believe that alternatives to the Theory of Evolution should be taught in our public schools if they are valid scientific alternatives.

I don't see anything shocking about that.

ID, however, is nowhere near to being scientifically valid.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-30-2005 07:35)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I feel you very distinctly miss the real point here, Bugs.

It is *not* about a phobia of religion.

It is rather a very real and very warranted phobia of the religious, and their agendas.

---

siiiiiiigh

I'm very conflicted on this one. I am caught in the middle most of the time. On one side there are plenty in your camp who most certainly are phobic about religion anywhere in the public square and yet the other side I'm sorry to say want religion to be taught in place of science. I detest both extremes.

That is why I scream so loudly for an outcome I know I will never see in our society.

I do understand your concern. I really do.

I guess I am hoping for the right amount of religion to get back into our schools but only as much as is appropriate but I realize just how difficult it will be to stop it at the right amount.

When I say religion back in school I'm not talking about replacing science with it nor am I a talking about compulsory prayer. I'm talking about every community to allow religious expression and celebrate the people's culture and heritage. I categorically reject the idea that someone being religious violates the rights of someone else who doesn't share that religion. We are to be a country of tolerance and inclusiveness. FWIW, I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from a bit more on this one.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

If there were a course on comparative religions...taught in a free and open (unbiased in either direction) manner, I could support the idea of religions in schools.

But never just ONE religion.

I am quite confident, if kids were allowed to make up their own minds, relatively few would choose a religious path.

Which is one sure reason you won't see "Comparitive Religion 101" in your local school in the forseeable future.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

The funny thing is, as Dio has posted - most "non-religious" people have nothing in principle against teaching such studies, as long as it is fair, across the board!.

The problem, Bugs, comes from your side - the Religious side. You and your side don't want equality among the Religions - you have stated such, just in other words - you are either for Christ, and "saved" or against Christ - and damned. Any other Religion is against Christ - and therefore the followers are damned. That is not equal.

I'm not fooled by your words in this one, Bugs. I know you consider it a war - a real war, and one of values and belief, of morals. So does the Religous Right. That is what this is - a full assault, on Government, the Schools, and in Society.

Thankfully, there are those who are more than willing to fight against this and are aware - like me.

Dio, the idea of comparative religion courses has never been an issue as far as I know. I wasn't actually talking about that. I was referring to celebrating Christmas, for instance, and other religious Holidays in our schools as determined by the local populations. In predominantly Jewish communities one would see more of that religion and predominantly atheist communities one would see much less.

Let's take my community as another example. There is a large Vietnamese population where I'm from, in fact, Little Saigon is just down the street from where I live. Vietnamese are basically Catholic or they're Buddhist and not much in between. I would have no problem with our local school system honoring both religions equally. In fact, I would expect it in a pluralistic society such as ours.

WS, you really kill me sometimes!!! It's a good thing I'm hear to help you sort these details out. Take heed. Many on *MY* side don't want equality in our schools, you are quite correct. But *I* do. I am not one to believe my religion can be forced on anyone. I just don't want it banned from the public arena. It must have a chance to be heard along with all the rest.

I am not trying to fool you in the least. When I refer to a war, I am referring to the battlefield of ideas. I believe in the free exchange of ideas to let the people decide which have the greater merit. As long as religion is not forced on any students in our schools, then I have no problem with it being expressed freely by the students who hold them.

The other reference to war is the "cultural war". There is definitely a cultural war going on but that is cultural. We, as a society, must work out our differences in the political process to decide how we, as a society, are going to live together. This is normal and healthy process. We basically have a cultural civil war that is ongoing, but what is the greatest testament to the wisdom of our forefathers is that this war is not requiring us to fight in the streets. As long as we continue to persuade others and work within the political structure it can remain that way.

You must understand that I firmly hold that you are either saved or you're not but that does not mean I believe our government should legislate religion. I hold our founding documents quite dearly in that regard. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I believe the most practical formula for a successful society is a secular government combined with an highly ethical populace.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

I am quite confident, if kids were allowed to make up their own minds, relatively few would choose a religious path.

---

When you're talking about young children, you've got a problem as a previous thread illustrated. You don't think you influenced your kid away from religion but that is quite impossible. As a father your influence is axiomatic.

But as long as we're talking about young adults and up, then it sounds like we agree there is no problem allowing people to freely choose. Dio, I am just as confident in the world view I'm pushing as you are with yours Let's allow competing ideas to stand or fall on their own merits. I'm quite comfortable with that arrangement

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

In fact, I am obligated to my Dutch-xian asshole in-laws for turning my daughter away from religion. They preached at her every chance they got, I merely answered any questions she had in a neutral manner and encouraged her to look into all religions and make up her own mind. She has.

I think history might suggest the way to a highly ethical society does not necessarily include religious instruction or bent.

Your cultural war Bug, is between a culture which claims it knows how everyone should live and wants everyone to be forced to live that way and a culture of freedom which suggests no one has the right to impose their will on another.

The only way the former can win, is to change that clause you quoted and that is what they are trying to do.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

whoops! double post glitch correction

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-06-2005 04:51)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

I think history might suggest the way to a highly ethical society does not necessarily include religious instruction or bent.

---

I'm listening. Where and when?

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Your cultural war Bug, is between a culture which claims it knows how everyone should live and wants everyone to be forced to live that way and a culture of freedom which suggests no one has the right to impose their will on another.

---

I think there are plenty on both the right and left who want to force their views onto the majority. There are also those on both sides who favor the freedoms you suggest.

Libertarians are not left wing and there are quite a few in and near the right wing in the US. There are plenty of Republicans who are fiscally conservative and quite liberal on social issues.

Many on the left favor higher taxes, more restrictions on business, stricter safety laws like seat belts and helmets for motorcyclers, etc. These are politicians and people who *know* better and make laws to force the public to conform.

I don't think the cultural war that is commonly mentioned these days is just as you say. I will agree that certainly part of it is. But it is much broader than that as I've tried to point out in the above examples.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

The only way the former can win, is to change that clause you quoted and that is what they are trying to do.

---

I would fight any such attempt with the core of my being. I cannot believe there is any significant number of people who would support such a thing in this country. I would want to see proof of that with demographics and hard data before I could accept that is a serious possibility any time in the near future. You can always find quotes here and there from fanatics and fringe groups but that can be found for just about any harebrained idea out there.

P.S. There is absolutely no way you will ever convince me that you as a father could be a neutral party in your child's development. The way you live your life speaks far louder than any question you could have possibly answered with neutrality.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Why thanks Bug, I am kind, considerate, thoughtful, generous and open-minded. So is my kid, so I guess you are right...oh, notice the absence of any religious influence.

As for society not requiring religious instruction, the best I can provide for you on short notice is encompassed in this article:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_and_society.html

The Polynesian gods concerned themselves with high matter like controlling the planets. The only religious instruction common, it seems, was regarding sex.

Enter the xians and paradise lost.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Well, Bugs, we could talk about...the Republican Party in Texas - and if you examine the demographics there, you will see a sharp "bend" to the Religious Right Extreme - and it is pretty widespread. I think DeLay is being grilled about happenings there...

But maybe that is a topic for another thread.

Studies have shown, that in lands where Religion is dominant, that Violence and Disease tend to be higher. There was a link to such around here somewhere - I'll have to look it up when I have more time.

quote:

---

Many on *MY* side don't want equality in our schools, you are quite correct. But *I* do. I am not one to believe my religion can be forced on anyone. I just don't want it banned from the public arena. It must have a chance to be heard along with all the rest.

---

If you are for equality, then why do you have a problem with it being omitted from a public arena like public schools? All religions are omitted. That is equal. In fact, it is as equal as one can get, realistically speaking. There are more than enough private efforts to advance your religion.

quote:

---

Let's allow competing ideas to stand or fall on their own merits. I'm quite comfortable with that arrangement

---

When you say this, it seems to contradict the previous statement, Bugs. First your religion should not be "banned" from the public arena (very loosely phrased - that includes either a large area, or not, according to what we define as the public arena - I'm including public schools here), but then you go on to say that your religion should stand or fall on it's own merits and that you are comfortable with it.

The two just don't mix.

If creationism is taught in *public* schools then other religions should be allowed to put forward their notions on same in *Sunday* schools.

Just to be clear, I do not advocate Creationism being taught in public schools. I just don't want religious expression of students and community members prohibited. For instance, I think schools should be allowed to have religiously based clubs, Muslim students should be allowed to do their daily prayers, atheist children can sponsor debates on why believing in dieties is hogwash, etc.

NoJive, everyone should be allowed to express themselves in public whereas individual groups should be allowed to do what they want in private. I prefer to keep that distinction solid.

I noticed in that last article you posted, DL-44, it mentions that ID should be allowed in classes other than science or biology classes. I am much more comfortable with that. It should not be taught as science.

Dio, I have never said that atheists cannot be moral. I've stated just the opposite on several occasions. I have no doubt you and your daughter are nothing but what you describe. I know for a fact that NoJive is since I have first hand proof of that

But just as I do not think a father's influence on a daughter can be neutral, you are a product of your society. We all are. And both our societies are intricately intertwined with religious concepts. It is simply inescapable and undeniable. So it is difficult to use you or I as proof that a society at large can result in what you say without religion of some kind.

The polynesian society you cite wasn't devoid of religion, so can it really be used to support your supposition? Are you saying that *some* religion is ok?

I am not aware of any society that was devoid of religion for us to examine for this question. However, Europe is quickly becoming a secular society. It may well be the first time in human history that we will have a secular society on a grand scale to see how it turns out. I am very interested in seeing how that plays out over my lifetime. I will wait to see, I am not going to make any hard predictions at this point.

WS, I do not think religion in and of itself results in a society that you or I would want to live in. I am not saying that it will guarantee utopia by any stretch. Religion is just like anything else, depending on how it's applied it can result in good and bad outcomes. I advocate a particular religion that I think is not just better, but true and most beneficial for us and God.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

If you are for equality, then why do you have a problem with it being omitted from a public arena like public schools?

---

Because I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe religion is a crucial thread in our society's fabric. Omitting it from our schools sends a message to our children that religion is not important.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The two just don't mix.

---

I honestly don't see any contradiction in those two concepts I mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something there?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Omitting it from our schools sends a message to our children that religion is not important.

---

Well...it isn't. From the standpoint of a public school, religion is not important and shouldn't be.

Now, the history of Religon, and it's impact on our civilizations and history, that is a different matter - that is obviously important, because it is a part of Mankind's history.

The main point being that there is no way to treat and present all religons equally within one schooling system - how would you teach such? You would need those who deeply believe in said religion, to explain it properly, and of course that brings automatic bias into the equation, to begin with. We don't even NEED to get into the disagreement parts, right?

In the end, it brings more problems with it, than anything else. But by prohibiting all religion from public schools (which is the "great equalizer"), one can then concentrate on more important matters - Reading, Writing and Math.

If you are saying that your religion is strong enough to stand as it is, then it doesn't need to be presented in public school.

But the fact that you say it should be (because it is somehow "crucial" - which it is obviously not; take it away, and life goes on), gives me the impression that the way you consider religion is not strong enough to stand as it is.

Why aren't private efforts enough? Why do you consider religion to be so important, that it needs to be included in public schooling? Anything taught under a Religiion that is of a positive influence, can be taught without the Belief structure to go with it.

quote:

---

But *I* do. I am not one to believe my religion can be forced on anyone. I just don't want it banned from the public arena. It must have a chance to be heard along with all the rest.

---

First you say you want equality. Well, not allowing any Religion in public schools is equality, and one of a perfect nature. All are treated equally, and there is no bias. And if your religion is so strong that it can stand on it's own, then why does it need a chance to be heard along with all the rest, in a public school!?

Bugs - Bottom line is, religion is personal, and should be taught at home. We also have insitutions in place specifically for religion.

There is no need for it, and no place for it, at school.

There is an obvious danger of things going too far, and the religious being persecuted and the like. I think that danger is much further removed than the danger that can come from religion being represented in school. It simply opens too many doors, and the pleasant view that you have of how it would work is simply not going to happen, IMO.

The biggest part of the problem comes from the ingrained desire of the religious to preach/proselytize. To them it's a good deed. To me it's harassment.
We already have to much of this problem going on. If there were sanctioned religious activities in our public schools, it gives far too much lattitude for those who feel such needs.

quote:

---

And of course, the question: Should alternatives to the theory evolution be taught in our public schools? Absolutely! If anyone can offer a valid scientific alternative, I'd be happy to have it taught.

---

If you've read the posts he's not saying that ID should be taught but if there are alternative evolutionary theories that have passed some form of rigourous scientific process that teaching these would be totally acceptable.

ID passes no scientific barriers.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The main point being that there is no way to treat and present all religons equally within one schooling system - how would you teach such?

---

I didn't say that I want *all* religions treated equally in *every* school. I'm suggesting that every school would reflect the views of the local community. I mentioned this above, but in a predominantly Buddhist district you would see more of that type of expression along with the other religions that make up that district.

[edit]
...and I never said that I wanted religion *taught* in our schools! Jeez watch what you're having me say You almost snuck that one in
[/edit]

The idea that *all* have to be presented equally or none at all is just radical egalitarianism run amok. I definitely don't want that. It's almost as disturbing as these "zero tolerance" policies we see so much of in schools where if a kid brings an aspirin to school she gets expelled as a junkie.


DL-44,

I know my view is a long shot. But I'm not willing, personally, to stop advocating it on that basis alone.

When you speak of institutions for religion, are you referring to churches, relief organizations, 12 step programs and the like? Or are you referring only to secular institutions designed to replace religious ones?


My bottom line: I will just have to agree to disgree on there being no value in allowing religious expression in our schools. I think it is a very important part of education that is currently missing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-07-2005 01:45)

quote:

---

Bugs - Bottom line is, religion is personal, and should be taught at home.

---

This hammer has hit the nail on the head!

Bugs, I too have seen a decline in my local schools ever since I was a young Zynx. The major holidays, X-mas, Easter, Thanksgiving, I have loving memorys of my school days. We had themes galore through these holidays. During that time us kids, were more friendly, and tolerant of others. It was a time to be closer to your friends, family, teachers, and even the prinicipal. Life's evil was the occasional bully. And even back then there was only 1 or 2 of them. And even they knew their place. Back then a bully could only bully so far. If he went beyond his reach, we grouped ourselves together, stayed strong, and put that bully in his place!

My point: Too many parents have squeezed their way into the schools, and the schools ways of upbringing their children. I think I have said this before, that U parents should just get over yourselves! I perceive a dinner time with john, and julie, and the parents hear opposition from their children. This gets the parents in a fervor! So where do they aim their angst? No not upon themselves, but on the establishment!

Now back to DL's wisdom.

quote:

---

Bugs - Bottom line is, religion is personal, and should be taught at home.

---

Here I'll B rude. If you can't keep your own child in line, simply because the schools teach something, NOT to your liking,..............................................F U!

Ya Pukes!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

quote:

---

I perceive a dinner time with john, and julie, and the parents hear opposition from their children. This gets the parents in a fervor! So where do they aim their angst? No not upon themselves, but on the establishment!

---

HUH???

quote:

---

Here I'll B rude. If you can't keep your own child in line, simply because the schools teach something, NOT to your liking,..............................................F U!

---

You're just not getting this, are you. This has NOTHING to do with keeping your kids in line.

Bug:

Just to be clear, I do not advocate Creationism being taught in public schools. I just don't want religious expression of students and community members prohibited. For instance, I think schools should be allowed to have religiously based clubs, Muslim students should be allowed to do their daily prayers, atheist children can sponsor debates on why believing in dieties is hogwash, etc.

Well, as mentioned earlier, I agree. But it will never happen and largely because the xian right just wouldn't stand for it. You are in a minority of xians who would support such a program.

NoJive, everyone should be allowed to express themselves in public whereas individual groups should be allowed to do what they want in private. I prefer to keep that distinction solid.

But they are not and increasingly so in the US. There is the story of the young woman kicked off an aircraft because the staff didn't approve of her T-shirt, which poked fun at Dumbya. Free speech?

I noticed in that last article you posted, DL-44, it mentions that ID should be allowed in classes other than science or biology classes. I am much more comfortable with that. It should not be taught as science.

Nope! All religious views or none!

Dio, I have never said that atheists cannot be moral. I've stated just the opposite on several occasions. I have no doubt you and your daughter are nothing but what you describe. I know for a fact that NoJive is since I have first hand proof of that.

No-Jive? Moral? You leave out a couple of letters at the beginning of that word?

But just as I do not think a father's influence on a daughter can be neutral, you are a product of your society. We all are. And both our societies are intricately intertwined with religious concepts. It is simply inescapable and undeniable. So it is difficult to use you or I as proof that a society at large can result in what you say without religion of some kind.

Why? I developed into a rational, considerate individual without the influence of religion in my young life and ny daughter, despite it. There is absolutely no reason, aside from wishful thinking, to assume a religion-free society would be much different than the one we know...possibly, with a bit less violence.

The polynesian society you cite wasn't devoid of religion, so can it really be used to support your supposition? Are you saying that *some* religion is ok?

Nope, the religion it had didn't dictate sexual mores, but rather, recognized and embraced those natural inclinations. When the xians came upon the scene they were in fact,the snake in the garden of eden. So you can see how negative a force such a silly bit of denial can be. I suggest the religion of that time and place impinged very little on the people and was mostly a concern of the priests. Would it were so today.

I am not aware of any society that was devoid of religion for us to examine for this question. However, Europe is quickly becoming a secular society. It may well be the first time in human history that we will have a secular society on a grand scale to see how it turns out. I am very interested in seeing how that plays out over my lifetime. I will wait to see, I am not going to make any hard predictions at this point.

It would be difficult to imagine a strictly secular society as worse than those which have been poisoned by xianity over the centuries.

WS, I do not think religion in and of itself results in a society that you or I would want to live in. I am not saying that it will guarantee utopia by any stretch. Religion is just like anything else, depending on how it's applied it can result in good and bad outcomes. I advocate a particular religion that I think is not just better, but true and most beneficial for us and God. Well, so far, there are far more negtive examples of the effect of religion, than positive ones. Again, you are very much in a minority among those of your faith.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WebShaman said:

If you are for equality, then why do you have a problem with it being omitted from a public arena like public schools?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I believe religion is a crucial thread in our society's fabric. Omitting it from our schools sends a message to our children that religion is not important.

It is not important. If it were anything other than power brokering, ALL religions would be welcome at all schools. When that happens, perhaps one might make a febrile argument suggesting religion is important to society, regardless of how vital certain adherants feel it to be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WebShaman said:

The two just don't mix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I honestly don't see any contradiction in those two concepts I mentioned. Perhaps I'm missing something there?

Yup and it has been pointed out to you by several people on several occasions. You simply seem incapable of or unwilling to accept the truth of it.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

But they are not and increasingly so in the US. There is the story of the young woman kicked off an aircraft because the staff didn't approve of her T-shirt, which poked fun at Dumbya. Free speech?

---

The worst cases of free speech infringement occur in our left wing dominated universities under the banner of PC, IMHO. Yes, I heard about the T-shirt incident and I think it is outrageous. But hasn't that been the case for many years about airline flights? I've heard that you can't even say the word bomb on a flight without getting busted.

Another place that where freedom of speech is prohibited is in the corporations. In that case, since they are private organizations, I don't think freedom of speech laws apply. I suppose it is the fear of law suits that drives that and its guidebook again is PC. It makes me want to puke actually because in many ways freedom of speech is under attack in this country. In my opinion the left is far more to blame than the right but both sides are actively involved.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

You leave out a couple of letters at the beginning of that word?

---

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

There is absolutely no reason, aside from wishful thinking, to assume a religion-free society would be much different than the one we know...possibly, with a bit less violence.

---

No reason whatsoever except the lack of proof. We've never seen such a thing yet on the type of scale that we're discussing. Seriously, until we've seen it occur it really is speculative. Do you find it at all ironic that you're trying to convince me of something you *believe* to be true but cannot prove?

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

I suggest the religion of that time and place impinged very little on the people and was mostly a concern of the priests.

---

Perhaps that is true, but that is hardly enough evidence to be conclusive. It also is *not* and example of a society *free* of religion. I did not take your original point to only be referring to Xianity. I rather assumed you meant any religion. Isn't your position that all religions are bogus and harmful to humanity?

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

It would be difficult to imagine a strictly secular society as worse than those which have been poisoned by xianity over the centuries.

---

I believe that when left to our own devices, we are wicked to the core. If it were not for forces outside ourselves, we would be in an even more serious world of hurt. All of the abuses of religion that you cite are the result humanity's evil tendencies going against the law of God. That law in a nutshell is to "love God and love everyone else". If God and his prophets constantly preached for people to do good and they chose to ignore that and do evil, how can you blame the preaching? No, you must blame the people who commit the evil deeds.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Well, so far, there are far more negtive examples of the effect of religion, than positive ones.

---

I couldn't disagree more strongly with you on this point if you're referring to Xianity in that statement. There are far more good things that have resulted than bad and that continues to be the case today. You don't hear about the multitudes of good things that are done in Christ's name because they are not sensational. Of course, it's far easier to focus on the abuses. Just take a look at any news organization to know that negative stories have more legs than positive ones. Heck, I almost forgot who I was talking to. You know this first hand.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Yup and it has been pointed out to you by several people on several occasions. You simply seem incapable of or unwilling to accept the truth of it.

---

I think I see the confusion now. I do not want religion in school *because* I think my religion needs extra help. I want religion in school because generally speaking it is much healthier for our society. That is the key difference between those two points. If my religion were actually outlawed tomorrow, I wouldn't worry one iota for its survival. Please tell me you can see the distinction. If not, then I'll be happy to try again.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 10-07-2005 19:08)

quote:

---

I believe that when left to our own devices, we are wicked to the core.

---

Errr...we have been left to our own devices, since the "birth" of Mankind, Bugs - or do you have direct evidence to the contrary?

I see no evidence, whatsoever of this "wickedness" you speak of. We go on. Life goes on. What more do you expect?

Yah, I have been left to myself many times and only been wicked to the skin...and perhaps the stomach.

Point is Bug, the very statement

quote:

---

I believe that when left to our own devices, we are wicked to the core.

---

is enmgendered and sustained by a religious viewpoint, not a secular or relistic one. Of course if you are speaking strictly for yourself...

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WS, "left to our own devices" means when we choose to do things contrary to God's way.
I hope we can leave the debate as to whether God's way was invented by man for another thread. But just assume for this discussion God's way refers to some of the biggies like do not murder, do not lie, love one another, etc.

Perhaps you're both hung up on the term "wicked". In the cases where you have human beings committing unspeakable evils upon other human beings, what do you guys call it? And to make sure you don't get confused with any religious terminology, specifically think of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot who were atheists and were responsible for tens of millions of murders.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I hope we can leave the debate as to whether God's way was invented by man for another thread.

---

Certainly not!

It is an absolute integral issue.

For kicks: to understand the way I see your statement, substitute "the easter bunny" with "God" in your statement.

Yes, to me it *is* that silly.

From all of the resources we have available to judge from, "God's way" is rather ambiguous, often completely contradictory, violent, apathetic, jealous, childish, entirely fabricated by man's whim, etc.

Your perception of "God's way" is something I might like the sound of. But other than your perception, I have nothing to suggest that it is in any way a real thing. In fact everything I know runs contrary to the idea of it being a real thing.

And we might as well head straight back to the anal-dwelling-weather-penguins if "God's way" is going to be the basis of discussion...

No intent to offend, but that is the way I see it.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

nd to make sure you don't get confused with any religious terminology, specifically think of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot who were atheists and were responsible for tens of millions of murders.

---

Yes, we have atheist leaders who have committed atrocities - there is no question whatsoever that such things are human nature. None whatsoever.

Religion, however, is a pure boost for such tendencies, by giving the offendor a free license while comitting actions inthe name of any given diety. Clearly, christianity is *not* the sole offendor.

Religion in general inherently supports such behavior, by enablign mankind to believe that some force outside themselves is actually in charge of it all, the some mandate that no mere mortal can contradict is the real issue at stake.

That is undeniable.




(Edited by DL-44 on 10-08-2005 07:41)

quote:

---

Perhaps you're both hung up on the term "wicked". In the cases where you have human beings committing unspeakable evils upon other human beings, what do you guys call it?

---

Evil doesn't exist, either, Bugs.

I call behavior that we find to be of an almost universal abhorence, atrocities. But make no mistake here - they are still "jsut" human behavior, nothing more, nothing less.

I still see no connection between that, and "left to our own devices" - there is no other way; we have been "left to our own devices" since the beginning. We also have done great things "left to our own devices".

DL-44, for the purpose of making my point to Dio and WS, I would have no problem with you subsituting the Easter Bunny with God, assuming there were people who believed the Easter Bunny told them to follow the behavior described by what I'm calling "God's way".

The point I was making was that human behavior is repleat with what most of us would call "wicked, sin, atrocity, transgression, evil, cruel". It is simply a fact of our existence as I know you accept. It was unclear to me why WS and Dio would not acknowledge it. I figured it was because I used a religiously loaded term to describe it.

I agree with your point about religion emboldening evil minded people to commit even greater evils. That is the dangerous side of religion to be sure. The reason it's so vital that "good" religion prevails is that it can also spur on even greater benefits for mankind.


WS, after reading your response, I perceive that if I had used the word "atrocity" my point would have been better received?

WS, I have another question then if it is all *just* human behavior. Why do you say some of that behavior is universally abhorred? That makes no sense to me unless it can be somehow judged against other behavior that doesn't fit that description. So in your world you often say there is no good and no evil. So is it all the same? How in the world do you judge either way? Is it pain based? Is it simply up to each individual? What is the measuring stick?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WS, after reading your response, I perceive that if I had used the word "atrocity" my point would have been better received?

---

Yes. And the avoidance of the terms "good" and "evil" - since you use these terms differently than DL or Dio does, for example.

quote:

---

Why do you say some of that behavior is universally abhorred? That makes no sense to me unless it can be somehow judged against other behavior that doesn't fit that description.

---

I said "almost" universally humanly abhorred - Nature doesn't care. There are some atrocities that come close to being recognized by all peoples and cultures (human ones) as an atrocity. However, this is measured by us humans as being so - from another standpoint, outside of our own, it may not be, dependingly. Most cultures would recognize the extinguishing of their own culture completely, as an atrocity against them, if done by others (and certainly something negative, if done by Nature, or themselves).

quote:

---

What is the measuring stick?

---

Nature is the measuring stick. It always was, still is, and may continue to be so, in the future.

Though Nature doesn't really care if an entire ecosystem is wiped out (however, the effects of such will be felt by others), when we as humans wipe out an entire culture, it does tend to have a detrimental effect on us, and our own. We certainly are the poorer for the loss.

quote:

---

So in your world you often say there is no good and no evil. So is it all the same? How in the world do you judge either way? Is it pain based? Is it simply up to each individual?

---

And I would tend towards Society based - that is normally the basis on which laws are formed (and enforced), etc.

I do find it puzzling that you continue to cling to notions of "good" and "evil", even though these are highly subjective terms. I know you profess to believe in universal definitions of the terms, as well. What I don't understand is, how can you believe in such, when it is plainly obvious that this is not so? That the terms "good" and "evil" are subjective, human terms - and "good" and "evil" are mutually interchangable, depending on the viewer.

The settlers of the new West in America saw the "racial cleansing" of my People as something "Good" (positive) - but for my People, this was "Evil" (negative). No trace of universal terms here.

If the terms are universal, according to you, then your god must also be measurable by them - and the bible is full of examples of your god being "evil" (negative to us humans). I wonder how you deal with this?

(Edited by WebShaman on 10-08-2005 20:42)

Yah, it is a fine and loving god indeed;

"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..."

Christian god-Ezekiel 32:5



"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'"

Christian god-Ezekiel 9:5



"Behold, I will corrupt your seed and spread dung upon your faces..."

Christian god-Malachi 2:3

Overall, it appears there is more good done than evil in the world no matter how you define or use either word. There is no credible evidence that the religious are inherantly any 'nicer' than anyone else.

Hitler was a xian. Every Wermacht soldier's belt buckle had embossed upon it; "Gott Mit Uns"...they were talking about your god bug.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Wehrmacht, Dio. Wehr = Defense, to defend. Macht = Power, force. Wehrmacht - a Force that defends.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled disagreement.

wehrmacht=army, thanks for the spelling correction

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)