Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:I can answer sebs question regarding "aggressive" atheism.

Its defensive atheism.

I have religious friends, I wont go near a church cos it bores me, most of us (non believers) arent interested in rallys, placards, marches and fething.... non believer festivals. I think if your that sad you need a proper hobby.. like 40k or something.

But the reason I speak out is public policy. I would never dream of not sitting through Grace at a meal, or bowing my head when a believer prays, or any of the stuff that atheists get accused of doing, frankly I dont believe 99% of it. Most non believers are like me, you just happen to be one, your not an "Activist" who tries to spread the word of nothing.

But I feel I must open my mouth when it (religious belief) affects public policy and affects how my taxes get spent. Or if we go to war, you know, a big deal!

If the NHS are spending 80million a year on priests, I want to know why its not being spent on better medical care. If your schools are teaching nonsense, I want to know why. If I cant get a pint when i fancy one on a Sunday, your damn stright I want to fething know why. How is this aggressive?! Defending myself against unfair rules made by people who i have a different world view to?

I would leave them alone if they left me alone. But they dont. They bother me, they lobby parliament and knock on my fething door when im watching cartoons with a hang over. So we must speak. If they affect my life, than ill open my yap. I dont see how thats being "agressive" and i dont for a second believe thats the case. I believe that Religious people purposely do their best to be offended because they dont want to answer our questions, because they know their position is difficult to defend. If it made perfect sense, it wouldnt matter what people like me said about it, the truth would shine through undimmed, because the truth always come out in the end.

But thats not what happens. They are ultra easy to offend, ultra prickly, ultra defensive. And its because they cant disguise that fact that under a bit of scrutiny their religious belief is about as substantial as a merangue.

I am more than polite when im around a religious person, ill prey, ill kneel, ill say grace, ill even read the bible to stop ruffling anyones feathers. gak, Id even join in a carol service! But if they fethers are trying to bend me to their will, and force me to play by their rules, then I aint bending.

And again, before you went off on your tangent, thats not happening and its also not relevant to the actual topic.

Whats not happening?

you don't just pull out the bloodthirster and show them they are right Fritzz?

Hey Relevancy police: I think the perception of atheists view on teaching non-factual things as fact is pretty relevant. I agree with Mattrym, and it is perfectly relevant. The only ones in any position to question religious teachings without bias are the non-religious.

Guitardian wrote:you don't just pull out the bloodthirster and show them they are right?

I never thought of that..

Actually it was a Daemon Prince of Slaanesh that I was painting that started the whole discussion...apparently,according to the individual I was talking with,the "graven image of a demon invites daemon to enter your home and posses you."...I guess you learn something new every day.

I guess gargoyles on churches don't count though.

Asrodrig wrote:I think Tyrannosaurus was a pretty cool guy. Eh ate coconuts and doesn't afraid of anything.

Well you have to be pretty secure in your masculinity to eat coconuts with arms that can't even reach your face.

mattyrm wrote:I can answer sebs question regarding "aggressive" atheism.
Its defensive atheism.

OK. I accept that, because this goes both ways you know. So it would be wrong for me not to.

mattyrm wrote:
I have religious friends, I wont go near a church cos it bores me, most of us (non believers) arent interested in rallys, placards, marches and fething.... non believer festivals. I think if your that sad you need a proper hobby.. like 40k or something.
But the reason i speak out is public policy. I would never dream of not sitting through Grace at a meal, or bowing my head when a believer preys, or any of the stuff that atheists get accused of doing, frankly i dont believe 99% of it. Most non believer are like me, you just happen to be one, your not an "Activist" who tries to spread the word of nothing.


I am more than polite when im around a religious person, ill prey, ill kneel, ill say grace, ill even read the bible to stop ruffling anyones feathers. gak, Id even join in a carol service! But if they fethers are trying to bend me to their will, and force me to play by their rules, then I aint bending.

Sounds like you try your best to be civil.

mattyrm wrote:
But i feel i must open my mouth when it (religious belief) affects public policy. If the NHS are spending 80million a year on priests, I want to know why its not being spent on better medical care. If your schools are teaching nonsense, i want to know why. If i cant get a pint on a Sunday, your damn stright I want to fething know why.

The 80 million on priests is fair and makes sense. Many people die in hospital now Matty, and many of them think about their future before their end. The figure sounds plausible allowing for the number of religions the NHS will try and cater for. I doubt much (if any) of the cost is salary for priests, most priests are priests elsewhere too, transport organisation etc those cost. I bet most of that money goes on tiers of managers that could be knocked into a a database and a handful of clerks who can call out priests on the network as needed. You shoukld be riling at the inefficiency of the NHS not that they see fit to call out priests. Even taking an atheistic state perspective, so long as a religious preference is not out and out banned then providing access to priests to comfort the dying and lonely helps. I am sure that humanist speaker can be provided out of that funding for people who don't believe they are going anywhere but don't want to be alone when they face the void. In some cases this is important, a Moslem is expected to profess Allah with their last breath, a Catholic is encouraged to make a final confession and absolution. This is important to them, and their families, and should not be denied just because you dont like the idea.
Is this hospital care? Yes I think it is?

mattyrm wrote:
I would leave them alone if they left me alone. But they dont. So we must speak. If they affect my life, than ill open my yap. I dont see how thats being "agressive" and i dont for a second believe thats the case. I believe that Religious people purposely do their best to be offended because they dont want to answer our questions, because they know their position is difficult to defend. If it made perfect sense, it wouldnt matter what people like me said about it, the truth would shine through undimmed, because the truth always come out in the end.

We cannot account for everyone who believes, but many of these people are frightened, some with good reason. New Labour shafted the church a lot, and shafted church schools out of misplaced secularism. a lot of people notice this and get defensive. It took a long time to clamp down on militant Islam, some churches got clamped down on simply for being too big, mostly pentecostal churches. I remember one the Acton Tabernacle, seats 3000 and usually full, run as an offshoot of Kensington Temple, a pentecostal church. It got shut down, government removed license of use from the place after two years. No extremism, they were just too big for them to handle. This was in early 2001 when al-Mouhajiroun was in full flow and doing all the funky shi'ite, and getting away with it. 'Jesus is lord' = shut them down there are too many, 'Kill the Infidel' = its nice to have multi culturalism.
Camerons lot are far less aggressive, they dont have the anti-church dogma New Labour had, but there is still a lot of tension because the civil service was New Labourised and it will take some time to neutralise that. It doesnt help that Blair practiced lay investiture, putting wishy washy yes men into every bishop position that came available. This above else has been noticed in the churches and has some worry. Moves were underway to try and eliminate the CoE schools on no stronger grounds than a dogmatic belief in secularising everything to be 'fair' and I think you understand New Labours definition of fair.

Poking at the churches especially over the last decade has been like throwing rocks at a castle under siege, the reaction is noticed over the reason for the reaction.

mattyrm wrote:
But thats not what happens. They are ultra easy to offend, ultra prickly, ultra defensive. And its because they cant disguise that fact that under a bit of scrutiny their religious belief is about as substantial as a merangue.

Now now Matty, some of us can handle a it, some find it more difficult. Will atheists leave some person alone who loves God (pick one) but doesn't understand much about science or is a poor debater. Not everyone is a silver tongued apoliogist the likes of CS Lewis, yet often the attacks come in thick and fast with no room to parry, whether you are or not. Mostly its points scoring, but faith is for anyone and many just cant handle the dialogue well.

Guitardian wrote:I guess gargoyles on churches don't count though.

Evidently not...however,the "church" the individual attends looks less like a "church" and more like a sports stadium...no gargoyles on the roof there.
Apparently this is a common belief amongst her congregation,which I've heard is somewhere around 6,000 people.

I saw a Tyrannosaurus skeleton last week at the chicago Field Museum. Its as long as a bus and it's arms are about the same size as mine. Obviously a flaw in either god or evolution there.

mattyrm wrote:Your entitled to your opinion KK, its each to their own.

It's not an opinion. It is a scientific principle called the Placebo Effect.

It's very interesting.

As always Orlanth I am happy to discuss the issue with you because your sensible, and i fully agree with regards NU-Labs bizarre anti Church sentiments, and I really do like singing carols whenever we had our obligatory Christmas service, but I will have to retort more fully in the morning cos im off to bed.

Nighty night!

Guitardian wrote:I saw a Tyrannosaurus skeleton last week at the chicago Field Museum. Its as long as a bus and it's arms are about the same size as mine. Obviously a flaw in either god or evolution there.

At the San Fran museum when you walked through a doorway there was an Allosaur RIGHT THERE reaching for you. You got to see the 8 inch claws up close - kind of a "here's what your last moment would look like if you teleported back in time" way cool. Besides, according to Calvin and Hobbes, they can fly F15s. You don't with multiton predators they can blast you at Mach 2.5.

KK, i know exactly what the placebo affect is, and ive read studies about patients being given sugar pills in place of medication and the facts being taken down, but surely thats not the same thing is it? I mean, it may work with a pill that is intended to be medication, but the priests dont go in and say "we can make you better with God" they go in to make them feel better mentally, not cure them of their illness, as they still use conventional medicine right?

Anyway, bed time yes? Im an early riser!

Making someone feel better mentally helps them physically.

Guitardian wrote:I saw a Tyrannosaurus skeleton last week at the chicago Field Museum. Its as long as a bus and it's arms are about the same size as mine. Obviously a flaw in either god or evolution there.

Labeling a derived characteristic as a "flaw" is a very 1800's way of going about things. The reason Tyrannosaurids had such reduced forelimbs at the adult state was because their bodies grew proportionately larger than other Coelurosaurids. A juvenile T. rex would have looked very similar to a Dromaeoraurid (or a "raptor", for those of you getting your education from Hollywood), but as it grew up, its body and skull would have increased in size, while its arms would stay small. It wasn't a problem, you see, because their mouths were very large, had incredibly strong muscles attached to them, and their teeth could be replaced if lost, like a modern-day Crocodile.

Kilkrazy wrote:Making someone feel better mentally helps them physically.

That is true, and a lot will be placebo. But I don't think its the primary role of the priests. Priests are there first and formost for the non emergency terminal cases. Emergency cases are covered in doctors, trying to save them, but there comes a time when people can only be 'made comfortable' and are left alone with a nurse checking in intermittently, a priest is often part of that process.

To be harsh you could say its placating the relatives, by ensuring that their particular religious terminal rites were observed properly , so they don't kick off.

Time to make some enemies...

My honest oppinion on it all? (this isn't aimed at anyone specific, nor is it my intention to insult anyone, it's just the way I perceive it)

I perceive it as weakness when people can't live without a greater power holding it's hand over them.

I don't try to turn believers over or none of that crap, but I just honestly don't understand why anyone would believe in the first place.

Ah, feels good to get that out of my system

Asrodrig wrote:

Guitardian wrote:I saw a Tyrannosaurus skeleton last week at the chicago Field Museum. Its as long as a bus and it's arms are about the same size as mine. Obviously a flaw in either god or evolution there.

Labeling a derived characteristic as a "flaw" is a very 1800's way of going about things. The reason Tyrannosaurids had such reduced forelimbs at the adult state was because their bodies grew proportionately larger than other Coelurosaurids. A juvenile T. rex would have looked very similar to a Dromaeoraurid (or a "raptor", for those of you getting your education from Hollywood), but as it grew up, its body and skull would have increased in size, while its arms would stay small. It wasn't a problem, you see, because their mouths were very large, had incredibly strong muscles attached to them, and their teeth could be replaced if lost, like a modern-day Crocodile.

Yeah but it didn't evolve a rocket launcher, and god din't gift it with the ability to make one. I bet I could still take him in armwrestling.


btw Soladrin. +1 for making sense so simply.

Element206 wrote:The most humorous part of this protest is the fact that Rich People are targeted....as if being poor white trash automatically buys you a ticket to heaven. I guess sacrificing for an education, wanting to have something beyond a 3rd grade reading level, and being successful in life is a sin?

The bible is pretty specific about wealth, and that the poor are it's special people.

Needles, camels, rich men and eyes, all that stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:So what you mean is Killkrazy 'doesnt understand what Intelligent Design is'.

No, Killkrazy's definition was fine.

The problem here is that you're inventing your own definition of intelligent design to fit an idea you like, but that isn't what it means. Intelligent design refers specifically to the idea that there is irreducible complexity in organisms that cannot be accounted for random mutation.

It was developed by groups looking for a new approach to addressing the teaching of evolution in school. I explained this my earlier post to you, with references to the specific legal cases involved, but you didn't respond.

To put it briefly Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism (I prefer to just say creationism and omit ID) that believes that God was a presiding force in creation and that evolution is a tool of creation.

That's called guided evolution and similar terms. It is not intelligent design.

Remove the atheist hijacking of evolution and you remove the need to teach intelligent design.

There's no atheist hijacking of atheism. That's a fantasy. Highschool biology class doesn't end the lesson on evolution with the statement 'and all this proves there is no God'.

You can teach ID as part of evolution simply by adding evolution is considered scientifically sound, people differ on opinions of the purpose of evolution. Some people think it is a truly random event sequence, other believe that a divine being or beings are overseeing the process.

No, you just don't mention of that at all. Science doesn't, and can't, form any opinion on whether there is any kind of purpose to it all. It doesn't, and can't, form an opinion on whether mutation is truly random of guided by some kind of creator.

So none of those things should be mentioned in science class at all. At most, because of the invented contraversy, a science teacher should explain that evolution is a study of the natural processes by which animals evolve over time, and that it doesn't in any way address spiritual questions of any nature, and that an understanding of evolution is in no way opposed to religious belief.

If it is god's plan for evolution to work the way it does then so be it. God also evidently made me sneeze just now too, which blew some dust which triggered a reaction and livened up some microscopic stuff that will one day take over and enslave us all once it evolves enough. Free will did not make me sneeze, and everything is either free will or god's will, including evolution right?

Whether or not there is a god or that said god has a plan for evolution does not make ouija boards or ranting madmen or magical apples any more or less believable though. I can say "yes" to intelligent design at its premise, all the while still knowing that I don't and can't really know, and all the while still saying "heck no" to all of the specific tenets of any faith that tries to expand past that.

Evolution does not suffer a boon or a blow from atheism, it is just the most rational conclusion of observations made so far. It does get challenged however, and ludicrously, by some religious dogma and young earth nonsense which, despite all evidence, insist upon trying to reshape hard facts around the unquestionable 'truth' of their sacred book.

Atheism is not attacking religion with evolution by criticizing young earthers and such, it is just shaking its head at obvious falacies.

sebster wrote:

Element206 wrote:The most humorous part of this protest is the fact that Rich People are targeted....as if being poor white trash automatically buys you a ticket to heaven. I guess sacrificing for an education, wanting to have something beyond a 3rd grade reading level, and being successful in life is a sin?

The bible is pretty specific about wealth, and that the poor are it's special people.

Needles, camels, rich men and eyes, all that stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:So what you mean is Killkrazy 'doesnt understand what Intelligent Design is'.

No, Killkrazy's definition was fine.

The problem here is that you're inventing your own definition of intelligent design to fit an idea you like, but that isn't what it means. Intelligent design refers specifically to the idea that there is irreducible complexity in organisms that cannot be accounted for random mutation.

It was developed by groups looking for a new approach to addressing the teaching of evolution in school. I explained this my earlier post to you, with references to the specific legal cases involved, but you didn't respond.

To put it briefly Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism (I prefer to just say creationism and omit ID) that believes that God was a presiding force in creation and that evolution is a tool of creation.

That's called guided evolution and similar terms. It is not intelligent design.

Remove the atheist hijacking of evolution and you remove the need to teach intelligent design.

There's no atheist hijacking of atheism. That's a fantasy. Highschool biology class doesn't end the lesson on evolution with the statement 'and all this proves there is no God'.

You can teach ID as part of evolution simply by adding evolution is considered scientifically sound, people differ on opinions of the purpose of evolution. Some people think it is a truly random event sequence, other believe that a divine being or beings are overseeing the process.

No, you just don't mention of that at all. Science doesn't, and can't, form any opinion on whether there is any kind of purpose to it all. It doesn't, and can't, form an opinion on whether mutation is truly random of guided by some kind of creator.

So none of those things should be mentioned in science class at all. At most, because of the invented controversy, a science teacher should explain that evolution is a study of the natural processes by which animals evolve over time, and that it doesn't in any way address spiritual questions of any nature, and that an understanding of evolution is in no way opposed to religious belief.

yea,+1 to pretty much all this : )

Interesting Discussion, but I have one question:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

That says it all.

Also, I like George Carlin's view:
THANK YOU FOR NOT VIOLATING THE RULES BY EMBEDDING A PICTURE OR IMAGE CONTAINING PROFANITY. HOWEVER IF YOU ARE GOING TO LINK TO ONE, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A NSFW LABEL. PLEASE OBSERVE THIS RULE GOING FORWARD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

DeathReaper wrote:http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Wow. If I wanted to alienate half the people I know, I'd show them this

What I think most people fail to recognize about this whole creationism/ID v. atheism/science arguement is that the most vocal participants are a small minority on BOTH sides.

It isn't all atheists v. a small minority of religious wackoes, and it's not all religious people v. a small minority of rabid atheists.

It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

rubiksnoob wrote:What I think most people fail to recognize about this whole creationism/ID v. atheism/science arguement is that the most vocal participants are a small minority on BOTH sides.

It isn't all atheists v. a small minority of religious wackoes, and it's not all religious people v. a small minority of rabid atheists.

It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

Word.
As I noted, this is all about telling this to teenagers. Who cares? They sure don't.

DeathReaper wrote:Interesting Discussion, but I have one question:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

My personal opinion is that although a supremem being(s) exists, said supreme being(s) simply have much more important things to care about than the prayers of some puny little human. Of course, I have no evidence for this position, only my personal beliefs.

Still, it's really fun to stand in the middle of a group of people yelling "you're going to hell" in a megaphone with a sign that says "nah, he's just kidding" while giving people hugs and candy Counter-protests ftw!

sebster wrote:
The bible is pretty specific about wealth, and that the poor are it's special people.
Needles, camels, rich men and eyes, all that stuff.

Good argument for teaching theology is schools then. Because you have a very thin explanation of the Biblical teaching.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:So what you mean is Killkrazy 'doesnt understand what Intelligent Design is'.

No, Killkrazy's definition was fine.

The problem here is that you're inventing your own definition of intelligent design to fit an idea you like, but that isn't what it means. Intelligent design refers specifically to the idea that there is irreducible complexity in organisms that cannot be accounted for random mutation.

Your long winded definition is the same as evolution with God not excluded. The idea simply put that 'we believe evolution isn't random but planned' explains evolution as well as randomness can because the 'designer' touch is non-detectable. It still remains a religious answer. The idea that randomness is guaranteed is also a religious answer because it is attributed within the system as atheism.
A neutral response would be to say that evolution does not disprove the existance of God and is not inherently atheistic.
Lawsuits get in the way of that because of dogmatic legislation regarding mentioning religious topics in the classroom. Consequently atheism is the only religious choice that gets a hearing, because even if the teacher is themselves teaching neutrally atheism will be attached elsewhere with impunity.

sebster wrote:
It was developed by groups looking for a new approach to addressing the teaching of evolution in school. I explained this my earlier post to you, with references to the specific legal cases involved, but you didn't respond.

Because its a needless side issue. The legalese aspect is that ID was rejected in a test case because it was another variant of creationism. This is correct in my view because ID is creationism. The dogma within the US legal system, places and unfair divider on religious teaching, ignoring the fact that evolution has been hijacked by atheism. ID is an attempt to restore a balance because atheism is taught in the classrooms veiled as science.

sebster wrote:

To put it briefly Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism (I prefer to just say creationism and omit ID) that believes that God was a presiding force in creation and that evolution is a tool of creation.

That's called guided evolution and similar terms. It is not intelligent design.

Take a closer look its the same thing. I dont like ID because it soils the topic, its all creationism. ID/guided evolution/Day Age creationism/neo-creationism they are all the same at the root, and it is this relgious root that is the point at which it is attacked and the sole point that matters. ID is an attempt to get past the legal loopholes that allow atheism to be proliferated in schools in the US without right of response. Frankly I wish it would go away and creationism can remain to do what its there to do: A point by which someone can reasonably say 'I believe' Gos is in control, now without discrimination from a pseudo-scientific argument for the non-existance of God. Even Dawkins cant disprove the existance of God, and we know he would like to if he could, best he can do is wave a hand and call all religious people deluded. Now there is a religious fanatic if ever I saw one.

sebster wrote:
There's no atheist hijacking of atheism. That's a fantasy. Highschool biology class doesn't end the lesson on evolution with the statement 'and all this proves there is no God'.

No, you just don't mention of that at all. Science doesn't, and can't, form any opinion on whether there is any kind of purpose to it all. It doesn't, and can't, form an opinion on whether mutation is truly random of guided by some kind of creator.

Point explained earlier, the teacher does not need to, science does not need to. Atheism hijacks the message with no right of reply within the schools system. Atheists get away with this by relying on the myth that atheism isn't a religion and can thus be propogated within the schools system.
I have been persistent on the point in several threads: atheism hijacks evolution, if you think its a buddy buddy relationship look up hijacking in a dictionary. Science is neutral, atheism is religion. The US education laws need a clean up in order to be fair and effective. Frankly this is one dogma we dont have over here.

The US needs to learn not to fear religious eduction, from a multi-point perspective. Do this and you will find dodgy preachers starved of dupes to recruit, and reduced counts of dogmatic ignorance from various fanatics, including atheist ones.
I am pretty sure that european relgious education is the reason we dont have a Bible belt problem, or a lot of militant atheism in the education system.
It's not perfect, in the Uk we do have some problems with relgious education but those are mostly due to ethnic divisions. I know a few teachers and they have great problems getting a certain group to attend or respect teaching on any religious matter except Islam, and that is putting it mildly. Any non Islamic mention, including Christmas I might add, causes the kids and their parents to kick off nastily, and its not a one off but a persistant obstacle. Although this is in Luton, which is pretty much a worst case scenario, by and large the system works. Anyway that is a problem that goes beyond eduction to solve.

I don't know about these days, but when I was at school we had Divinity or Religious Education classes. That is the correct place to be taught comparative religion. I remember it being all Christianity actually.

Religion deals with the supernatural world. Church is the place to be taught your own religion.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world. Science classes are the place to be taught science.

rubiksnoob wrote:It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

Asking that evolution is taught in schools and not creationism isn't about pushing beliefs upon others. To describe it as a minority of 'atheist nutjobs' is quite ignorant. Many people concerned about creationism in schools are academics and professionals working in science and education, regardless of their religious belief or lack of it, they aren't promoting atheism or religion, they are promoting the teaching of *fact*.

Evolution isn't a belief, it's factually correct as demonstrated by actual evidence. It's not a commentary on religion. Creationists attempt to paint evolution as being an 'atheistic belief' mainly so they can claim their 'religious belief' is and equally valid alternative and deserves equal attention.

That evolution is taught in science class is not a matter of a popularity contest between theists and atheists but because it is actual verifiable science. Promoting evolution is not pushing beliefs or lack of beliefs on anyone, it's about concentrating on teaching things that are scientifically and factually accurate in schools, instead of devoting valuable class time to nonsense theories just to appease certain religious groups and filling kids heads with conflicting and ignorant nonsense.