|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: The most obvious example that ID is a religious tenet is to simply ask its proponents what is this "I" that D'ed. Strange how none of them seem to think that it was aliens. It all comes back to god. As soon as one of these groups seriously considers the possibility that 2001: A Space Odyssey was inspired by the actual machinations of the aliens who altered our developmental path, then I'll seriously consider ID to be something other than religion. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes:
quote: Um...every single quote you mention is about abiogenesis, not evolution. There are plenty of questions regarding how life started. None of that is of any concern to evolution as evolution is compatible with every method of genesis you could care to imagine. Did life arise chemically through abiogenesis? Fine. Supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence? Surely god can create life that evolves. Extra-terrestrially through aliens or panspermia? No problem. Interdimensionally through a rift in space-time? Easy sailing. What you need to learn is that what happens to life after its creation is a completely separate question to how life came into appearance in the first place. Does the quarter you use in the vending machine behave differently if it was produced at the Philadelphia mint as opposed to the Denver mint? Is a molecule of water created through a biological process (such as the Krebs cycle) any different from a molecule of water created through the sparking of hydrogen and oxygen gas? There is absolutely no question that life evolves. We can watch it happen right before our eyes so we know it happens now. We can observe the fossil record and its absolute declaration that it happened in the past. None of that tells us how life began. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes in the Subtitle field rather than the post field:
quote: God, I hope so. The Constitution is not to be mucked with lightly. Religious sentiment is to be kept out of governmental activity. ID is nothing more than religion, and thus it has no place in a public school curriculum as some sort of claim to objective reality. I find it interesting that you find the ACLU to be a hindrance to our Constitutional protections. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes:
quote: Incorrect. Are you saying god can't create life that evolves? That whatever you seem to think "evolution requires" to be the first life, god couldn't have created directly? If I take a piece of metal and painstakingly carve out the obverse and reverse of a quarter, is it any different from a quarter that is minted? Why does evolution require abiogenesis? Be specific. Please explain why evolutionary theory requires anything particular about the method by which life originated.
quote: Incorrect. Do not confuse the difficulty of the task with impossibility. To be sure, showing evidence of abiogenesis will be extraordinarily difficult. It would be chemical processes of such a small scale that their remnants will be extremely difficult to find. And until we have some handle on how such a chemical process might happen, we don't have much of an idea of what to look for. That doesn't mean we never will. It may be that in the process of examining life, we will determine ways in which it can be created chemically that result in certain products being left behind. We can then look to see if those products were, indeed, left behind.
quote: You just contradicted yourself. Please explain how these two statements can be reconciled:
evolution presupposes life springing from non-life via some mechanism known surreptitiously as abiogenesis and
Yes, I know the argument that the theory of evolution does not deal with the theory of abiogenesis If evolution does not deal with abiogenesis (which isn't a theory, by the way), then how can it presuppose abiogenesis?
quote: But they don't. And that is precisely why you aren't being fair. You seem to think that evolution necessarily requires abiogenesis. Since it doesn't (are you seriously saying god cannot create life that evolves?) why do you persist in this ridiculous statement?
quote: And thus, you just relegated your "intelligent design" to the realm of the unfalsifiable. If every single possible outcome is consistent with the premise, then the outcome and premise are not logically connected. God can create life that evolves.God can create life that doesn't evolve. Therefore, nothing about the fact of life's evolution or non-evolution is evidence that god did it because no matter what outcome we find, "god did it" is still compatible. Unless and until you can come up with an experiment that could be conducted where there are two distinct possibilities, one of which much be "god did not do it," then ID is unfalsifiable. And thus, ID is not science.
quote: Strange. that "anti-theistic" organization known as the ACLU has been fighting for your right to practice your religion.
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004) After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (05/11/2004) Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church (04/19/2004) Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (10/21/2003) In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (04/17/2002) Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (12/29/2000) ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (09/22/2000) ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (03/16/2000) And those are just the ones that directly affect Christians. I've neglected to include the fights for religious freedom regarding those who aren't Christian. I find it quite interesting that you seem to think that the organization that fights for your constitutional rights is out to get you. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....
quote: Doesn't your holy book tell you to love thine enemy as you love thyself? Why does it even occur to you to commit violence upon them? Especially when they're doing so much to ensure that you are allowed to practice your religion without governmental interference? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: "Fruity"? And of course, there's the presupposition that those "super-leftist" claims aren't actually doing what the Constitution requires. I'm often reminded of this when people claim that the Ninth Circuit (you know...the ones that declared "under god" to be unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance) is a loopy, out-of-touch court since they are the most overturned circuit court. That assumes that the Supreme Court is a better judge of the Constitution than the Ninth Circuit. It is quite possible that the Ninth Circuit is the one that is more closely adhering to the Constitution and the Supreme Court is the one that is out of touch. After reading the opinions of Scalia, I think that's not such a bizarre notion. I definitely agree that the buying and selling of personal information is rephrehensible when not clearly delineated. The ACLU does provide the option to opt-out, though my personal opinion is that it should be an opt-in process. Always assume the customer does not want his information shared unless told otherwise. The point, however, is that the claim that the ACLU is "anti-theistic" is demonstrably false. They routinely come to the aid of mainstream theists whose rights are being denied. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
custard responds to me:
quote: Indeed, he did, but if we talk about it, we'll be sued. I'm not kidding. The "OT" levels of Scientology (what you have to pay even more money once you become "clear") start teaching you that you are actually the descendants of aliens that came to this planet approximately 75 million years ago, implanted in antifreeze, and blown up in thermonuclear blasts. In order to become an "Operating Thetan" ("OT"), you'll need to find out which blast site you were at and go through even more training to get rid of the Thetans that still cling to you (but wait...I thought I was already "clear"...no, you were "clear" of engrams...now you need to pay thousands of dollars for psychic A-200.) The Church of Scientology considers this information trade secrets and regularly sues those who try to reveal it. But, of course, there's a problem: It is now technically public domain. In one of their lawsuits against a reporter, the OT "bible" (for lack of a better term) was introduced into evidence...which makes it available to the public. The CoS has been unable to get the records sealed so they literally send a couple of people to the courthouse every single day to check out the court documents so that nobody else can see. More information can be found at Operation Clambake. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote: I am confident that I know more about the Constitution than you do. Your confusion about common methods of stating the date (i.e., "year of our lord") with comments about the legal standing of religion with regard to the government is what causes you to trip up.
quote: You're right. I do disagree. God is not Jesus. Jesus is the son of god. Haven't you read your own book?
quote: I never said they didn't. What I said was that the Constitution expressly forbids religious bases for governmental action. The document starts out by saying that the system of government is established by "we the people," not "by the grace of god." Religion is mentioned only twice and both times to expressly forbid its use in government: Once in Article VI and again in the First Amendment. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
quote: But that's precisely what it does do. No right is absolute. You do not have the right to say anything you want. There are times and places where you are to keep your mouth shut...not just on religion but about any topic you care to name. F'rinstance, you do not have the right to come into my home to make your speech. I don't care what you're deciding to pontificate about, it is my home and I get to control who has access and who does not. And yes, you are perfectly free to stand up in Congress and talk about your god. What you are not allowed to do is then write legislation that uses god for its justification. What do you think "establishment of religion" means?
quote: Incorrect. That would be the teaching of a religious ideology which has routinely been denied by the Constitution.
quote: Then you must not read very well. ID is religion. The Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion. Therefore, you are not allowed to teach ID as if it were connected to reality. What you want is the philosophy class. This is the science lab. Go out the door you came, two buildings down. Enter through the South door, go up the stairs on your left, it'll be the third door on your right. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote:quote: And how would you ever know? It is an exact duplicate in every respect except the method by which it came into being. Do you think that if it were dropped into a vending machine, an exact duplicate wouldn't work?
quote: You are a Christian, are you not? That makes the book commonly known as the Bible your holy book, does it not?
quote: Yes. That piece of nonsense you are claiming has some connection to reality and deserves to be taught alongside actual science.
quote: Yours. You seem to think that if you argue for something, you cannot be considered connected to it.
quote: Then you need to read my posts a little more closely. I directly stated that the links I provided were just for the times when Christianity was under attack. I didn't include the times when other religious traditions were under attack. The reason I did this was so that you couldn't then alter your original claim of "anti-theism" to something like, "They'll protect any religion so long as it isn't Christianity." You want a list of other cases the ACLU has taken up to protect non-Christian theists?
quote: As well they should. The acknowledgement of god is a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, otherwise it is meaningless. You seem to be heading toward a claim that if someone says absolutely nothing about god, then that is the same as actively denying its existence. The oral arguments before the SCOTUS in the Newdow case regarding the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance are quite appropos. It seems the SCOTUS is trying to say that the phrase "under god" is so innocuous as to be devoid of any religious meaning, but that only makes sense to someone who believes in god. To someone who does not believe in god, the mention of any god is an imposition of religious authority. Souter commented that the use of under god is "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He calls it "ceremonial deism" and says that any religious overtones are "close to disappearing." But as Newdow retorts, it's like "getting slapped in the face every time." So yes, Ohio needs to remove references to god from its motto just as the US needs to remove references to god from its motto. Atheists are citizens just like everybody else, aren't they?
quote: Our rights should not be subject to popularity contests. It is precisely because the vast majority of the population would not support it that the ACLU exists. You have a RIGHT to do something that most people would not like you to do. What is the point of having rights if you're not allowed to exercise them due to everybody else thinking it's icky? In the 1960s, fully 70% of the population thought that interracial marriage was wrong and should be outlawed. And yet, the SCOTUS seemed to think differently. Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong? That there is no right to marry another person of a different race? That if 70% of the people think it's wrong, then it should be criminalized the way Virginia had made it?
quote: Incorrect. They are quite for restriction of pornography from being exposed to children. However, they are also for an adult's right to view it without governmental interference. You do see the difference, yes? That a method of restriction that protects the children but violates the rights of adults is not valid, yes? You do understand the difference between the means and the ends, yes? And you do understand that the ends can never justify the means as a simple matter of logic, yes?
quote: Simple: Rights have meaning and cannot be violated. That's why they are called RIGHTS. The Constitution expressly forbids governmental establishment of religion, and therefore having governmental displays of the Ten Commandments are a violation of a person's right to have a government free of religious justification.
quote: Exactly where it needs to be. Again, you are headed in the direction of claiming that by saying nothing, that is equivalent to active denial. If you ask me if I believe in god and I respond with, "I am not at liberty to discuss that," have I professed a belief or a disbelief in god? By saying absolutely nothing, the government guarantees that all religious opinions are treated equally.
quote: Towards freedom and equality. Why do you seem to be insisting that's a bad direction to go?
quote: Incorrect. It is because of the aftermath of 9/11 that we need to be ever more vigilant to protect our freedoms so that our rights do not vanish in a wave of fear. Rights have meaning and they exist to be exercised, especially by those who hold unfavorable views. Otherwise, what's the point? If the only people who are allowed to exercise rights are people with whom you agree, it isn't a right, now is it? I seem to recall great speeches by politicos that the reason we were attacked was because of our freedom. So our response to being attacked is to take those freedoms away? That makes no sense. That means the terrorists won. If the goal was to destroy the freedoms we have, then they achieved their goal.
quote: Which is the absolutely correct position. There really is no other way to look at it. The Constitution expressly forbids religious establishment by the government. For the government to acknowledge god is to establish religion. The only recourse is to simply shut up about it. Don't say anything. Surely you aren't implying that saying nothing is equivalent to active denial, are you?
quote: But that's just it: You should be. They're protecting your rights, too. By taking your stance as you have that a person's rights should be subject to a popularity contest, you doom yourself for eventually, your opinions will be considered unpopular and you will be denied the right to hold them.
quote: Bullpuckey. Name a single religious liberty that has been eroded. Do not confuse an action that you once were able to get away with but never should have been allowed to do in the first place to be a "liberty." F'rinstance, it used to be the case that white people could discriminate against people who weren't white. But they never should have been allowed to do so and their loss of that ability is not an erosion of liberty. So be specific. Are you not allowed to pray whenever you want? Even in school. As the joke goes, so long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in school. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to crashfrog:
quote: While I can't speak for crash, you're right about me: I don't believe evolution happened. Instead, I have evidence that it did. I can watch it happen right in front of my own two eyes. There's no need to invoke belief at all. Belief is about things you cannot directly establish. Evolution does not fall into that category but instead is directly established through experimental evidence. You seem to be headed down the road to arguing that science is just as much a religion as any other.
quote:quote: Are you calling crash a liar? Strange how we've managed to discard so many other theories in favor of more accurate models...Aristotelian physics gave way to Newtonian which gave way to Einsteinian. The "plum pudding" model of the atom gave way to the orbital model. Caloric "theory" gave way to modern thermodynamics. The insistence that light is a wave or that light is a particle has given way to the idea that the distinction between a wave and a particle doesn't really exist. So if we're so willing to do this with everything else, why do you think that evolution would be any different? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote: Of course it is protected. But the government is not allowed to speak on matters of god. The laws which the government passes are not allowed to be justified by "god said so."
quote: How can it when it is the founding tradition of the country? The entire point was to separate church ideology from governmental authority.
quote: And all three are in violation of the Constitution when they do so. It really is that simple. By the way...Graham Forrester? You're using him as a reference for constitutional law?
quote: Incorrect. It would seem that I would be able to recognize that all three branches are in error. If the rules directly state, "The government is not allowed to acknowledge god" (what on earth do you think "establish religion" means if not acknowledge god?) then it doesn't matter how many branches of government do it or for how long they have been doing it. Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote: Bingo! They're all theists. They are all incapable of understanding what it means not to have god. Take a look at the Newdow case (in which the SCOTUS ducked, by the way). Souter was trying to say that the word "god" cannot possibly mean "god." He, as a theist, thinks that the word "god" is some sort of innocuous concept. But to an atheist, as Newdow pointed out, it is a slap in the face. For government to take the official stance that yes, god exists is to deny the theological opinion of all people who aren't willing to make that claim. While the use of "god" by the government is extremely vague and non-specific, it is still a direct statement that god does, indeed, exist. How is that not an establishment of religion? Therefore, since freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, the only possible way in which government can ensure that it does not endorse religion is to remain completely silent on the issue, neither affirming nor denying the existence of god.
quote: Why? We already have an amendment that explicitly states what I want it to say: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. And to make sure that everybody understands that, there's another amendment that indicates that the States are not allow to abridge the rights and privileges granted by the US Constitution. Why do we need another amendment when all we need to do is follow the ones we have? The First Amendment means something. Why are you so intent on violating it? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes:
quote: So you are championing moral relativism, then. There is no standard (the Constituion) and that whatever most people claim to be good and right and just, then that is what is good and right and just. If enough people break the rules, then it's the rules that are in error and not the people breaking them. You're damned right that the reason the ACLU hasn't gone up against the opening prayers of Congress and the SCOTUS is because there's no way they could possibly win. That doesn't mean that they're wrong. It simply means that the people who sit in judgement are all in error. Why do you think the SCOTUS punted in the "under god" case? Because they were faced with the choice of either committing political suicide or finding for a legally indefensible position. Newdow is absolutely right: The use of "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the First Amendment's right to freedom of religion as it is a governmental acknowledgement of a religious position as the official stance of the government. So rather than do the right thing or get crucified for doing the wrong thing, they punted: Newdow, according to the SCOTUS, didn't have standing and thus the case shouldn't even exist. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes:
quote: When the president of the United States says that atheists cannot be citizens (George Bush, Sr.), when a judge puts more faith in the Ten Commandments than the Constitution he is sworn to uphold (Roy Moore), just how much equal treatment under the law do you think an atheist is going to encounter? Do I need to give you the case references of people who have lost custody of their children because they were atheists and the judge decided that such was not a good environment in which to raise children? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote: I know. But since you proffered it as an argument, it doesn't really matter. Do you not agree with it? I will handily say that in the interest of clarity, I should have mentioned that you were quoting from an outside source. Now, respond to the point I made: The separation of church and state is actually a founding principle of this country and was considered so important that it was written into the Constitution.
quote: But Jesus says there is: Matthew 22:17: Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 22:18: But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 22:19: Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 22:20: And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 22:21: They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. So since Jesus understands that there is god and there is government and the two are separate, why are you contradicting him? I thought you were a Christian. If you're not, then that would make sense. If you actually followed a religion where government is derived by the will of god, then I could understand your statement. But that isn't a Christian religion, then.
quote: What does that have to do with religion? Morality and purpose are not the sole purview of religion. Surely you aren't implying that atheists have no morals, are you? Given that religion has caused more suffering to more people than any other idea in the history of humanity, I find it difficult to claim that religious leaders are better. They so often lead people to their deaths in the name of god. What do you think is going on in the Middle East regarding Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? In Ireland regarding Catholicism and Protestantism? In this country regarding the Christians and the non-Christians? Your argument against same-sex marriage is a religious-based one. That causes real harm to real people who do not share your religious attitude. If we were to seek a reduction in the suffering of humanity, wouldn't one of the first things we ought to do be to tell everybody to get over themselves when it comes to obsessing about other people's sins? Not that they shouldn't be religious...just that they should stop worrying whether or not other people are religious.
quote: On this one issue, yes. It wasn't just me, after all. Did you listen to the oral arguments in the Newdow case? Souter tried to say that everybody understands that when the government acknowledges the existence of god, it isn't really offensive. But to an atheist, of course it is. It is a direct statement that the government considers the theological opinion of an entire class of people unequal. The only solution, and the one mandated by the Constitution, is to simply shut up about it. Don't deny god, but don't affirm god, either. God may or may not exist. That isn't the concern of the government. You're an adult and you can decide for yourself. You don't need the government's help. Suppose Congress and the Supreme Court held a prayer where they invoked the devil, not god. Well, that's a universal concept, too. The devil shows up in most religions and is such an innocuous and secularized concept that it is merely ceremonial. Wouldn't you be upset over that? Wouldn't you respond that the government has no place invoking the incarnation of evil? So why does the incarnation of good get a pass? Especially when many people don't think such a thing exists? Shouldn't the government, in its duty to be accountable to all of the citizens it is in charge of, simply say nothing? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar writes:
quote: But that's just it. It isn't the tradition of this great country. This country (and I define "this country" as the creation of the United States with the ratification of the Constitution) was founded on the separation of church and state. It is one of the defining principles of this great country. How can it be a contradiction when it is the very basis for our existence?
quote: But that's just it. This country necessarily separates the two. It is the tradition of this great country to keep religion out of government. Therefore, there is always separation of god and government no matter how much people want there to be a connection. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar responds to me:
quote: Strange that you decided to quote the Declaration of Independence to support that statement since the DoI explicitly declares the opposite:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Notice that it doesn't say that governments are instituted by god. It recognizes that government is something that human beings create in order to establish ways in which the citizens can interact with each other and maintain a cohesive society. What more do you need? The DoI directly states that the only reason government exist is because you and I let it, not because of god. The government is beholden to the will of the people, not to the will of god. It's first and only responsibility is to the people, not to god. Amazing that you quoted the text and managed to miss the entire point, even when it slapped you right upside the face. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024