Religious Right, right?

[Duke E. Pyle]

Gee, I wonder why that is.

You don't wonder that's the problem:mrgreen:

Its not up to us to prove anything to you, i see for some reason you can't comprehend that. Its up to your science to prove it, but only if they wish, you know like the Pharaoh's drowned army they've found, the spear hitler owned that killed Christ, Noah's ark. You tell these scientists how they can or cant prove it, you see the thing is If we had The DNA of jesus along with a video tape of him giving it to a room full of doctors, you would come up with a scientific reason to prove its all fake, because you don't want to believe it under any circumstance. Now waste a little time and type back saying there were no video's in jesus's time, since humor eludes you so well.

 

[moxdevil]

Gee, I wonder why that is.

You don't wonder that's the problem:mrgreen:

Its not up to us to prove anything to you, i see for some reason you can't comprehend that. Its up to your science to prove it, but only if they wish, you know like the Pharaoh's drowned army they've found, the spear hitler owned that killed Christ, Noah's ark. You tell these scientists how they can or cant prove it, you see the thing is If we had The DNA of jesus along with a video tape of him giving it to a room full of doctors, you would come up with a scientific reason to prove its all fake, because you don't want to believe it under any circumstance. Now waste a little time and type back saying there were no video's in jesus's time, since humor eludes you so well.

Which Pharaoh? Ramses II, the most attested to and documented. It changes with every version; try one doesn't work so try another, one that might actually fit their story. Its like the Shishak/Shoshenk debacle- hey they must be the same person- they sound so similar! Or what about the fabled Solomon and his reputation and palace? You know the one nobody can find, and the reputation and existence to which nobody attests to. Biblical scholars have had their hands slapped for this primitive linking together of 'real' history and biblical fairytales.

"i know the bible is fairy tales to enstill fear, but to others it makes sense, and i understand they are misled, wrong, and ignorant to scattered facts etc."

Which is it Duke? fairy tales or facts? You shouldn't leap from science to history- neither support the bible.

As for the spear- really come on. Look in any book on Christian relics and you'll find the spear, pieces of the 'real' cross etc... being claimed by anyone and everyone- in a lot of cases at the same time.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Thanks for proving my point mox! :lol:

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"Its not up to us to prove anything to you,..."

If you want religion taught in a science class then yes, you DO HAVE TO PROVE something. Science is based on fact, not beliefs.

"Its up to your science to prove it,"

Its up to science to prove religion? I don't think so. Its up to those advocating religion in a science class that must come up with the proof. You come up with the "proof" and then others will try and verify your "proof". If your "proof" withstands scrutiny then your religion is in the science classroom. But if it doesn't withstand scrutiny, then religion still has no place in a science class.

"but only if they wish, you know like the Pharaoh's drowned army they've found, the spear hitler owned that killed Christ, Noah's ark. You tell these scientists how they can or cant prove it, you see the thing is If we had The DNA of jesus along with a video tape of him giving it to a room full of doctors, you would come up with a scientific reason to prove its all fake, because you don't want to believe it under any circumstance."

Duke, this is exactly how science is supposed to work. Good scientists are, by nature, skeptics. The ultimate objective of every good scientist must be truth. People can, and do, make all kind of claims but very few pass intense scrutiny. Noah's ark is a good example. Many people have "claimed" to have found it but when whatever artifacts are analyzed, they don't pass scrutiny. And it is good that things do work this way. Just one example.

A few years ago, two scientists (I believe from the University of Utah) gained worldwide attention by claiming that they could get nuclear fusion from a jar of water (a holy grail of science as we could get cheap energy from a very cheap, widely available source). Their claim was initially verified by a team from Texas but then things fell apart as no one else could reproduce their claim.

What would have happened if their claim was taken at face value? People would have started investing lots of money only to find that their investments were worthess.

So there is a very good reason for skepticism.

 

[Red Horse]

Sorry, but again I have to weigh in on this subject...this might ramble, but I hope you'll bear with me lol...getting back to mindido's original topic, I think it's not a war (or it shouldn't be) about "I'm right, you're wrong"...I'm a spiritual man myself, but I won't have someone telling me how I should pray this way, observe certain things that way etc. Same goes with science...scientists have come up with theories that are reproduced over and over again...However! This is just Homo Sapiens coming up with what we know about our world...who's to say that it's the undeniable truth? Granted, I drink H2O, but could it be a different acronym if someone else came up with the Table of Elements? Yes, I know it doesn't matter what letters or numbers are used, yet it actually does...everything of import has an effect on our lives, whether we know it or not...I guess what I'm trying to say is that whether religious, scientific or political, listen to your own self...don't be a sheep...if you agree with what they say, cool, yet think for yourself.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Duke,

"Its not up to us to prove anything to you,..."

If you want religion taught in a science class then yes, you DO HAVE TO PROVE something. Science is based on fact, not beliefs.

"Its up to your science to prove it,"

Its up to science to prove religion? I don't think so. Its up to those advocating religion in a science class that must come up with the proof. You come up with the "proof" and then others will try and verify your "proof". If your "proof" withstands scrutiny then your religion is in the science classroom. But if it doesn't withstand scrutiny, then religion still has no place in a science class.

AHHHHHHH we know what science is. If a scientist can't prove or disprove it than who the hell will? How bout you come up with the disproof then? See the circles we keep going in? We've already went through the whole "faith" thing 2 times already!! I don't think the bones of Jesus had serial numbers. How many armies of the Pharoah's were drowned in the Red Sea. I wasn't there. Hopefully they will find some bar codes on the foreheads of the skulls of the soldiers. You say its not up to science to prove religion and yet the most watched shows on The Discovery Channel are scientists trying to do just this. In vain of course, since their names will be tossed to the mud for it no matter what.

 

[moxdevil]

Most of what is shown on the Discovery Channel should be ignored, any scientist worthy of the status would tell you this. Garbage is shown on that channel to entertain the masses, entertain only. Why you get engineers spouting Egyptology, or Mathematicians weighing in with views about biblical theology. All the show need do is to put an 'expert' or Professor of The University of Cleephorpes in and the show's got credibility. (University of Cleephorpes is a joke by the way, its a seaside town)

I watched a programme two days a go, it gave the resident authority the title of 'History expert'. It should be clear straight off what is wrong with this title.

Red Horse you're not a Post-modernist by any chance? :lol:

And Duke, I preferred your previous avatar. :lol:

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"How bout you come up with the disproof then?"

Ugghhh, OK, I think I get that. Noah's Ark, the earth being the center of the universe, and probably a million more if I had the time. There are just way too many.

"See the circles we keep going in?"

Of course, and this is the exact problem with any religious discussion. Any two or ten or 1,000 people can read the same passage in the bible, koran, etc. and come up with the same number of different answers. That is exactly why religion has no place in the science classroom!

"If a scientist can't prove or disprove it than who the hell will?"

You are correct here in that if anyone will do it, it will probably be a scientist of some type. And they will KNOW the type of scrutiny they will receive if they make such a claim.

"You say its not up to science to prove religion and yet the most watched shows on The Discovery Channel are scientists trying to do just this."

I don't know where you received your Discovery Channel info (maybe you'd want to share) but I just checked the Nielson site and they wanted $250 for the info.

"In vain of course, since their names will be tossed to the mud for it no matter what."

If they do a poor job and don't cover all their bases, what would you expect?

Red Horse,

"getting back to mindido's original topic, I think it's not a war (or it shouldn't be) about "I'm right, you're wrong"..."

This thread has turned into an argument about science in the classroom. Social conservatives in the US have launched an attack to include religion in science classrooms. To me, that cannot be allowed for all of the reasons mentioned above.

"I'm a spiritual man myself, but I won't have someone telling me how I should pray this way, observe certain things that way etc."

You'll get no argument from me on that. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to hold whatever spiritual or religious belief they want. But remember, the key word here is "belief".

"However! This is just Homo Sapiens coming up with what we know about our world...who's to say that it's the undeniable truth?"

Some things (2 + 2 = 4, or virtually whatever equation you like) are undeniable and other things need more data. No question. Homo sapiens certainly doesn't know everything and more than likely never will. The thing is, we know more now than we did 10, 100 or 1000 years ago and we keep learning every day. Science is the only thing that can ascertain if something is undeniable, maybe not today, but possibly in the future.

"everything of import has an effect on our lives, whether we know it or not...I guess what I'm trying to say is that whether religious, scientific or political, listen to your own self...don't be a sheep...if you agree with what they say, cool, yet think for yourself."

IF something is a truth then it doesn't matter if its true here on earth or in the Pleides. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, even in another language or culture.

And the rest I agree with but recent and ancient history tell us that religion, left in charge, can be catastrophic.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

I don't know where you received your Discovery Channel info (maybe you'd want to share) but I just checked the Nielson site and they wanted $250 for the info.

By watching the Discovery Channel!! The previews to these events state the info you're looking for. And when they show the previews to their evolution shows it shows the same thing, how watched they are. If this wasn't true then the title "Discovery" would be a bit misleading would it not? I mean you don't expect Batman to show on the Discovery Channel and receive higher ratings do you? You seem to be angered at the curiousity that people may have on the discovery of anything relating to the bible, why is that? Or am i wrong?

 

[mindido]

Cripes,

Duke, you do know what hype is? If not, here's part of the definition:

from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hype

1. Excessive publicity and the ensuing commotion: the hype surrounding the murder trial.

2. Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material: “It is pure hype, a gigantic PR job” (Saturday Review).

3. An advertising or promotional ploy: “Some restaurant owners in town are cooking up a $75,000 hype to promote New York as ‘Restaurant City, U.S.A.’” (New York).

4. Something deliberately misleading; a deception: “ [He] says that there isn't any energy crisis at all, that it's all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies” (Joel Oppenheimer).

"If this wasn't true then the title "Discovery" would be a bit misleading would it not?"

Your starting to get the picture.

"You seem to be angered at the curiousity that people may have on the discovery of anything relating to the bible, why is that? Or am i wrong?"

You are incorrect. If someone wants to study the bible, or anything else, thats fine with me. Go right ahead to your hearts content. That is not the point. The point is: Nothing in a science class that is totally based on a belief system.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

See how this goes? You ask a question, i answer it then you call bologna. Are you saying that discovery is lying, or that the programs are fake, or the scientists aren't real, i don't get what youre saying. Anyway cheers to your most popular thread to date min!!:beer:

 

[cableguy]

mindido, the problem we have here is that you, and others who think the same way, are rejecting out of hand anything you disagree with... "it must be wrong, because i dont agree with it" is a mindset best left to children... things you dont like, or dont agree with, do--and will continue to--exist... evolution as an origin is a belief, not a proven fact... so is creationism/intelligent design (which, by the way, covers the alien zoo theory).. you clearly have a problem with the word faith, and what it means, as it is a word that defies scientific description... this is another area that likely will remain unresolved...

the source isnt always a good way to judge content... even the new york times gets some things right... likewise discovery channel... should we reject a program about evolution, simply because of where it aired?? it is up to the individual viewer/reader to judge the accuracy and validity of what they are seeing..

in line with faith, some things cannot be proven or disproven... does this mean they are wrong, or dont exist?? certainly not... as such, they should not be rejected out of hand... most of what passes for science presently would better be labeled "theoretical," and, by your words, would also NOT belong in any science class... are you willing to go all the way on this??

 

[moxdevil]

Tell me Cable what is this thing you call 'faith'?

As for the other comments, well i can only assume there is some sort of immunity from intelligent thought patterns that you have adopted. Have you still not read anything that has been said to you? You really must start to read about science because whatever you are being fed is bullshit, stop reading the crap on the internet fed by the ID and creationist websites and go visit a book shop... no not the one with the sign 'Christian Science' above the door, a real bookshop that caters for all and not just the mutual support societies that you seem to frequent.

"in line with faith, some things cannot be proven or disproven... does this mean they are wrong, or dont exist??"

80% of the genuine scientists that work within the field of Evolution are Christians. They do not have the problem of confusing Evolution with a 'theory of everything'. They accept that Evolution is a theory and a fact, yet still retain their beliefs. You see they see Evolution not as a process of chance only, as the Creationists and ID'ers like to portray it. Tell me why is it that these people can see it as fact and a tiny minority of people who profess to the literal truth of the Bible see it otherwise?

Talk of children's mindsets and not liking realities, well you have what a psychologist would term 'projection'.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

You made a claim, "and yet the most watched shows on The Discovery Channel are scientists trying to do just this." So, since I didn't know the answer, I went to a site that I know has the data (Nielsen Media Research) and they wanted $250 for the info. I'm not spending that for this discussion.

Then you say, "By watching the Discovery Channel!!"

Come on Duke, you cannot be that dense. Every channel says this or that about their channel or programs. Virtually all of it is hype. You cannot believe that stuff or take it seriously. All of that stuff is developed by ad agencies to get you to watch. I can't even believe this needs to be explained.

"Are you saying that discovery is lying, or that the programs are fake, or the scientists aren't real, i don't get what youre saying."

The ads are ads, they are hype, they are trying to get you to watch whatever program so their Nielsen ratings are higher so that they can charge advertisers more. Are they lying? Look at the definition I provided and you decide. Many programs are fake, or at least walking a very fine line. As Mox said, "Garbage is shown on that channel to entertain the masses, entertain only." I personally wouldn't go quite that far as I have seen some interesting stuff on the channel, but there is a lot of garbage also.

The trick is to always look at an issue skeptically until you understand the issues, and then the data. If you can accomplish that then your halfway there. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), a college education is pretty much required today to be able to understand the issues as they are so complex.

Edit:

"Anyway cheers to your most popular thread to date min!!"

Why thank you Duke. I didn't realize until you mentioned it.

cable,

"are rejecting out of hand anything you disagree with... "

Specify. Your statement is far too broad. Where exactly did I say that?

""it must be wrong, because i dont agree with it"

Again, specify. Where did I say that?

"evolution as an origin is a belief, not a proven fact... so is creationism/intelligent design (which, by the way, covers the alien zoo theory).."

Again, specify. Your statement is too broad. There are now thousands of provable examples of evolution, but not one from "creationism/intelligent design". Unless YOU can now come up with one?

"you clearly have a problem with the word faith, and what it means, as it is a word that defies scientific description..."

Defies scientific description? I don't think so:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Seems pretty clear to me.

"should we reject a program about evolution, simply because of where it aired??"

That depends on the source materials. Is there validity or is it made up from whole cloth.

"it is up to the individual viewer/reader to judge the accuracy and validity of what they are seeing.."

Of course, heres hoping that the viewer has the capability to understand what they are seeing.

"in line with faith, some things cannot be proven or disproven... "

The typical preachers line when "Its Gods Will" doesn't work. Maybe something can't be proven now but its only a matter of time, brainpower and technology.

"most of what passes for science presently would better be labeled "theoretical,"

Maybe in your limited understanding of science but not with those that actually study it.

"are you willing to go all the way on this??"

On what? Your understanding of science? Sorry, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on that.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

"Come on Duke, you cannot be that dense"

Dude have you seen my avatar!

Actually raising the mammoth was the most watched, followed by raising the titanic, nerfertiti, and reconstructing Jesus. Evolution after the death of life on earth is really big right now, but anyway i don't see what point you're trying to make with the amount of viewers watching these programs. Are you angry that science wants to know more, or are you angry that the people want to watch? I bet Mel Gibson must urk you to no end with "millions" of people going to see his last day of Jesus movie. And the most sold dvd. Does it. If so why? Is this enough proof to show that people want to see these things? How about the controversy of the united states second term presidency, his religious openess did not hurt his re-election, do you agree? Is this proof that religion is alive and that faith is a part of people? Or are we missing the point that we're trying to make, personally i''m kinda swinging in the dark here since i don't know what you're asking. We'll have to be a little more specific.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"i don't see what point you're trying to make with the amount of viewers watching these programs."

Duke, basic economics. If no one is watching a channel, the channel doesn't last, it will be gone. If a channel (or program) cannot attract viewers, it cannot attract advertisers that actually wind up paying for the programs production. A common tactic for all in the television (and others) industry is to hype the channel or program (or whatever) in order to attract viewers. I'm sure you've seen this yourself. You hear about a particular program or movie or book, etc. and go to see it and its junk, a waste of your time and money. What got you in the door was hype. Is that clear? Its been going on for centuries.

"Are you angry that science wants to know more, or are you angry that the people want to watch?"

I'm not angry about anything other than religion being taught in a science class. What people want to watch is up to them, it makes no difference to me. Period.

"I bet Mel Gibson must urk you to no end with "millions" of people going to see his last day of Jesus movie. And the most sold dvd. Does it. If so why?"

I've never even thought of it as I didn't go see it. Not having seen it, only knowing what I've heard, I would think it would be inappropriate for a science class. It would probably be OK for a social studies class (if it fell within the curriculum) or a religion class but, without seeing it, thats about it. If Mel makes a million off it fine (although I think the kids at South Park had the best take on it).

"Is this enough proof to show that people want to see these things? How about the controversy of the united states second term presidency, his religious openess did not hurt his re-election, do you agree? Is this proof that religion is alive and that faith is a part of people? Or are we missing the point that we're trying to make, personally i''m kinda swinging in the dark here since i don't know what you're asking. We'll have to be a little more specific."

You're missing the point. My primary problem with religion is when it tries to rule. And it has done that in the past (ever study the Dark Ages or hear of the Taliban?) The human species, probably from its inception, has always looked to a "supreme being" when something happened that it couldn't explain. It has only been within the last couple hundred years (with a few exceptions) that science has started to answer problems that religion couldn't explain. If you doubt this, study the Dark Ages or the Taliban, or maybe even modern Iran. If you want to live like that, thats up to you. But most of us won't.

Does that make things any clearer?

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

I was wondering from all of you....you say religion is trying to take over, yet all i see is protests over religious scenes at christmas, prayer taken out of schools, commandments being taken out of courtrooms and offices and business places. I also see the mockery of religion and of god. Its no longer politically incorrect, as you mentioned South Park. I'm not mad at all about the humor behind the ideas, but of the hate behind the protests. Not the protest's but the hate. You obviously don't celebrate christmas, but do you use this day as an excuse to give as others do? Or to recieve. I personally will show my kids religion, but i would never force it to them as i believe there would be no need to in the 1st place. Will you or have you explained to your kids that evolution is scientifically correct and true and they must carry the torch? I ask out of curiousity only. I love my fellow man and would not judge their life, for who am i.

"Duke, basic economics. If no one is watching a channel, the channel doesn't last, it will be gone. If a channel (or program) cannot attract viewers, it cannot attract advertisers that actually wind up paying for the programs production. A common tactic for all in the television (and others) industry is to hype the channel or program (or whatever) in order to attract viewers. I'm sure you've seen this yourself. You hear about a particular program or movie or book, etc. and go to see it and its junk, a waste of your time and money. What got you in the door was hype. Is that clear? Its been going on for centuries."

The Discovery Channel is going nowhere as it attracts millions of viewers. Raising the Mammoth drawed more viewers than the sporting events of that year, so i don't understand where your going with all this, or why it matters. I've never watched anything because i've heard that alot of people have as im sure many are the same so this hype you speak of doesn't apply to me, and i too have not seen the Jesus film.

 

[Iceberg]

OK. Here is what happens in science:

-Someone has a hypothesis about a specific subject. He/she tests it to see if it works by conducting an experiment. If the hypothesis passes the test, it is considered a conclusion of the experiment. Then, they usually call it the "Scientist(s)'s Theory of Subject."

-Following this, other scientists test the theory themselves by conducting their own experiments. If they are unable to disprove this theory, or if their results mirror those of the theory, then the theory withstands the test.

-Following a certain number of failed attempts to disprove the theory, the theory becomes a law, which is defined in science as a proven aspect of a certain scientific discipline.

There! Science is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM!!!

 

[Red Horse]

I'll try a different tack lol...Here are two hypothetical situations from both sides of this discussion.
If a globally respected scientist, say a Nobel Prize winner, came out with a statement saying "Dive into the deepest part of a lake, go down as far as you can, then take a deep breath" everyone in their right mind would think the guy is completely crazy...but there would be the few who would do it because they believe (read: faith) in what he's come up with before.
The flip side: Cable and Duke, if a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door, do you invite them in? Or do you say "Sorry, not interested" because they're talking about something that you'll have no truck with? If you believe in one religion, why not tolerate all?

Moxdevil, am I a post-modernist? No, just Canadian lol.

*EDIT*
After some thought on what I've just written ("Doctor, me brain hurts!" lol), I'll say this...Yes there are undeniable scientific truths, and faith is an important part of everyday living. But I'm talking about (again, getting back to what I think was the original subject of mindido starting this thread in the first place) what might be labelled as the abuse of power, authority, responsibility or what have you. It's not necessarily the message, or even the messenger, you have to be wary of, it's to what end the intent of the message is being used for.

 

[moxdevil]

Right I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second-

Polytheism should be taught in Religious education classes, what is more a 'scientific' theory called 'Intelligent Designers' should be taught in all science classes.

There are better arguments for the existence of a triad of gods than the delusional belief in a single god.

Argument from popularity- For thousands of years man has believed in gods, for at most 4000 approx. select groups have believed in a single god, they have taken the majority position slowly over that time. Today many thousands if not millions subscribe to the belief in multiple gods- they cannot be wrong. Neither can the Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc... These were bright people! Moreover over the period of existence of the human man has more often than not chosen to worship many gods as opposed to just one. The theory of 'one-god' otherwise known as monotheism is relatively new compared to the theory of 'many-gods' otherwise known as polytheism.

Philosophical argument- Argument from first cause. god, who the monotheists worship, was created by his daddy- father god, who in turn was created by his daddy- granddaddy god, ad infinitum- proof that there is multiple gods.

Scriptural argument- god of old testament was either suffering from multiple personality disorder (in which case he's a nut case) or his dual aspect and remarkable transformation into the new testament god is proof that there is in reality more than one god. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” admits that there is other gods- this god simply got a bit full of himself and rightly his chosen people have been insignificant in world history- conquered and ruled over by other gods.

What is more the holy books of the polytheists attest to the existence of their multiple gods- thus proven by their faith.

Religious background evidence- Judaism and Islam adopted one god from a pantheon of gods- Jehovah started out as a warrior god- then got a good PR and had a face-lift. Allah too started out as a warrior god with his daughter-bride Allat amongst others- proof yet again that multiple gods is the reality.

Scientific argument- you cannot prove me wrong so there, its up to everyone else to prove their one-god theories and scientific-no god theories.

Wonder argument- look at the world, isn't it wonderful? No way can one god have created all of this on his own- therefore multiple gods did.

Current popularity argument- people are at present really interested in the ancient peoples of the world- look at the number of programmes and books about the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc... Look at the number of tourists flocking to the countries of these people. These ancient people worshipped multiple gods- proof of the reality of many gods.

Evidence everywhere for the prevailing popularity of multiple god worship- Lady Luck (Fortuna), fate (the fates) thus is proof that many of those who claim to worship one god are lying, they really believe in many gods.

Therefore I propose that warning labels be placed on every holy book of the monotheists reading 'this is only a theory of the existence of one god, there are multiple instances of evidence for multiple gods of which this one is simply a child of the others.'

Labels should be put on any material advocating Creationism, as this is only a theory of certain theists, 'Creators-ism' is a theological theory with greater probability and strength. Any minister should be attended by a representative of the 'Creators-ism' to put them right when they only allude to one god.

All prayers and mentions of 'god' should be either stopped or admitted with 'gods' as so not to give the impression that the theory of 'one-god' is proven and the only theory. :lol: