One reason some Atheists arecomplete ...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#43 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>BRONZE-AGE SPONGE-AGE* It could be someone else that is doing the stepping,and it IS teaching atheist beliefs to poor children.
Where? Don't just blow smoke. State exactly where and when this is happening?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#44 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>The government can not favor one religion over another I agree, but it also can not prevent any citizens free exercise of their religion either, and that is what they are doing to poor school children.
No it's not.

And remember there's poor atheists too.

But hey, if it's money you're after, remember that the creationist movement has TONS of it.(shrug)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#45 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>The government can not favor one religion over another I agree, but it also can not prevent any citizens free exercise of their religion either, and that is what they are doing to poor school children.
No, the teaching of creationism would be the favoring of a religion. The teaching of evolution is not. That is because creationism is a religious belief. The adherents of it do not use the scientific method as a basis for their belief or even to defend their belief.

Creationists claim that evolution is atheistic. And in a sense they are correct, but then all science is atheistic and that sort of atheism is not a religion. Atheism in this context is merely a refusal to believe in ideas that have no objective evidence that support them.

It seems that you are conflating what would best be called scientific atheism, which says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of gods with the sort of atheism that would be better termed anti-theism. That is an atheism with a strong statement that god's do not exist and that could be said to be a religion. That sort of atheism is not allowed in schools.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#46 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>What if the evidence suggests an intelligent designer, could this evidence be presented? If it can not be admitted, then opposing views should not be allowed either.
Yes, if there was actual objective evidence of an intelligent designer that could be taught in schools.

Of course science has a process. One cannot simply say "I have a theory" and have it taught in schools. The first step is to get a peer reviewed paper published. Peer review is a process where the most obvious errors are identified. When a paper undergoes peer review if an error is found the paper is sent back to the author for correction. If he cannot correct his errors his paper will not be published. Creationists cannot even get past the first step. And it is a relatively open process. If there was bias, which some creationists mutter, it could be shown.

But more power to you if you can find real evidence of an intelligent designer.

Now even if a peer reviewed paper is published that is only the first step. Then it is the turn of scientists around the world to test your idea. If it is correct then you are well on the way to forming a theory and getting your idea into schools. It is not an instantaneous process. It will take years of work.

But since creationists always fail step one they do not like this process that works for every science in the world.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#47 Jul 29, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if there was actual objective evidence of an intelligent designer that could be taught in schools.
Of course science has a process. One cannot simply say "I have a theory" and have it taught in schools. The first step is to get a peer reviewed paper published. Peer review is a process where the most obvious errors are identified. When a paper undergoes peer review if an error is found the paper is sent back to the author for correction. If he cannot correct his errors his paper will not be published. Creationists cannot even get past the first step. And it is a relatively open process. If there was bias, which some creationists mutter, it could be shown.
But more power to you if you can find real evidence of an intelligent designer.
Now even if a peer reviewed paper is published that is only the first step. Then it is the turn of scientists around the world to test your idea. If it is correct then you are well on the way to forming a theory and getting your idea into schools. It is not an instantaneous process. It will take years of work.
But since creationists always fail step one they do not like this process that works for every science in the world.
Now that was a good answer. If the facts support an intelligent designer, and if the designer is found to be the God of the Bible, can this evidence be shown to public school students?
The Dude

UK

#48 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>What if the evidence suggests an intelligent designer, could this evidence be presented? If it can not be admitted, then opposing views should not be allowed either.
If you can get it past scientific peer review then you should be fine.

Problem is ID doesn't pass the scientific method as what it really means is invisible Jew magic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#49 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Now that was a good answer. If the facts support an intelligent designer, and if the designer is found to be the God of the Bible, can this evidence be shown to public school students?
I would say yes. Because that would not be a religious belief. The problem is that ID proponents use very weak arguments for ID and then even weaker arguments that ID has to refer to the Christian God. Of course Christians are not alone in this. In Muslim countries the cleris there will use the same flawed arguments to try to support Islam.

And if an actual scientific answer could be found I would support it. Of course it does not look too good for any religion since they cannot even get off of the starting blocks of publishing a simple peer reviewed paper.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#50 Jul 29, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can get it past scientific peer review then you should be fine.
Problem is ID doesn't pass the scientific method as what it really means is invisible Jew magic.
Shhh! Don't tell. The creationists think it is still their little secret. They forgot that the transitional form of "Cdesign proponentists" was discovered during the Dover trial:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponen...
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#51 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Now that was a good answer. If the facts support an intelligent designer, and if the designer is found to be the God of the Bible, can this evidence be shown to public school students?
ONLY IF the facts are established by observations that meet scientific methodology, it could.
Scientific methodology: observations are either by experiments or controlled field observations and affirmed after peer review.

To give you an impression what this means:
- according to requirements of scientific methodology the causal factor (in your case: the creating agent) must be an observable phenomenon. Observable: either by experimental or controlled field observations
- this requires an empirically operational definition of that phenomenon (= a definition that enables us to acquire valid observations)
- it also requires the mechanisms by which the creative process works to be observed. In other words, you need to specify how the creation has been created by the creative agent. Observation = either by experimental or controlled field observations
- that evenly requires empirically operational definition of those mechanisms (= a definition that enables us to acquire valid observations)
- it also requires that all this is a better explanation than competing, alternative theories, either by empirical evidence again or by principles like Occam's razor.

Of course you start with the empirically operational definitions and go from their into the empirical research.

Very, very, very good luck.
Until now, creationism didn't even produced ANY decent definitions, let alone empirically operational ones.

i estimate your chances 0%.
Do yourself a favour, don't waste your time on it.
-
The Dude

UK

#52 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Now that was a good answer. If the facts support an intelligent designer, and if the designer is found to be the God of the Bible, can this evidence be shown to public school students?
Sure.

But that's not happened for THOUSANDS of years.
THE LONE WORKER

Fairfax, VA

#53 Jul 29, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
But that's not happened for THOUSANDS of years.
Yeah Dudey, and it could be kinda like the one about the poor little boy who got a chance to say something to the richest and prettiest cheerleader in his school, and he ask her what his odds were to get a date. She replied "one in a Billion" and he said "Oh you mean I've got a chance"?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#54 Jul 29, 2014
Oh what fun we could have with this!

http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#56 Jul 29, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah Dudey, and it could be kinda like the one about the poor little boy who got a chance to say something to the richest and prettiest cheerleader in his school, and he ask her what his odds were to get a date. She replied "one in a Billion" and he said "Oh you mean I've got a chance"?
Stop complaining to me because your position is impotent. I'm with the cheerleader on this one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#57 Jul 29, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
Oh what fun we could have with this!
http://www.says-it.com/churchsigns/
Cool! Plus a Westboro Baptist Church Sign Generator!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#58 Jul 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I usually try to stay off here for a while when I spend a few days here but I had to share this. """and that is a strike" lol
Court Rules Against Radical Atheists Wanting Cross Removed from Ground Zero.
A federal court ruled against radical anti-God atheists on Monday, stating that the historic cross miraculously formed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks can stay at Ground Zero.
The lawsuit was filed by an anti-God group known as “American Atheists,” which said in the suit:
“Many of American Atheists’ members have seen the cross, either in person or on television, and are being subjected to and injured in consequence of having a religious tradition not their own imposed upon them through the power of the state.”
“This bizarre legal challenge from an atheist group was exposed for what it was – a skewed legal challenge that had no merit,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ).
Sekulow said that,“This decision is a significant constitutional victory that protects the freedom to display religiously-themed artifacts of historical or artistic significance without running afoul of the Constitution.”
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/28/court-rules-ag...
Wh are you posting this in an evolution debate thread?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#59 Jul 29, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wh are you posting this in an evolution debate thread?
The answer can be found in the final word of his thread title.
wondering

Morris, OK

#60 Jul 29, 2014
so if the taliban want to erect something they praise at ground zero should they be able to? you can't just let one do and others not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
so if the taliban want to erect something they praise at ground zero should they be able to? you can't just let one do and others not.
Are they American citizens? If so, then yes.
But the Taliban already have a cross that's already there, don't they?
The Christian Taliban that is.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#63 Aug 5, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
Please provide an example of your personal right to worship as you please being restricted by the gobernment.
The religion of the goberment conflicts with my religion -- peace on earth, good will towards men.
http://everythingimportant.org

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64 Aug 5, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> The religion of the goberment conflicts with my religion -- peace on earth, good will towards men.
http://everythingimportant.org
The "goberment" (a.k.a.: "government") is not a religion, fruitcake.

This despite all attempts by those of your ilk to make it one in the same.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,607
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 80,071
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 163,801
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sep 23 ChromiuMan 222,780
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web