Looking for advice on expanding horizonsFollow

Again, don't be an asshole, Shador. You were an asshole about trying to prove the bible right, now you're an asshole trying to prove Christians wrong. Like the poster formerly known as Quadkit said, evolution doesn't disprove god. Nothing disproves god. There's nothing wrong with merging your religion with fact. There's nothing wrong with being open minded.

But being a prick? Well... That doesn't make you edgy or cool. It just makes you a prick.

Oil and water mix perfectly fine via the use of emulsifying agents. Oil and water don't mix together normally, but the right oil and the right water(or water solution) makes for one hell of a dressing for the salad that is life if you just have the proper emulsifiers.

Edited, Oct 10th 2010 1:21pm by Poldaran

I wanted to take a moment to come back to this, to ask you something.

You say would fight Young Earth Creationism if someone wanted to teach it in public schools. How is it any different for people to indoctrinate and brainwash their children to believe YEC as the utter truth to the point where the child will, even as they grow up, refuse to even consider the evidence for evolution? Does that not do actual harm to the child, by stunting their willingess to learn? Why should the indoctrination and brainwashing of children into their parents religous faith be tolerated, when we would vigorously fight such a thing on a larger scale?

If only you knew how wrong that statement was....

Maybe you are right. I don't know. It is very hard to separate the two when so much religious belief is so blatently anti-science.

I want to return to this yet again. You clearly do not understand the power of indoctrination. When children are taught, especially from a very young age, that "x is right, because our holy book says so and to question this is a sin and an insult to God" (and this IS what religious parents almost invariably teach their children), it effectually makes it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for them to EVER examine evidence that conflicts with their religious faith.

Faith is the very opposite of science. Faith teaches unquestioning acceptance of ideas without ever examining them, whereas science teaches to examine the evidence carefully to determine whether something is so or, in the absence of a definative answer, whether something is more likely to be so than something else. For this very reason, faith and science ARE mutually exclusive.

Now, let's follow your "respect parent's right to teach children their religion" premise to it's full conclusion, shall we? Some religions (or religious sects) teach that all gays/people of another race/people of another faith/unbelivers in general (just to give a few examples), are evil and should be killed. Is it okay with you for parents to teach murderous hate to innocent children because it is, to them, a religious principle? Are you really saying that you are okay with that? If not, then where do you draw this arbitrary line about what religious precepts are okay to teach children and what ones are not?

I honestly suspect that you cannot have read TGD, as Dawkins presents rather clear evidence (evidence, not opinion or dogma) that religion, especially fundamentalist, absolutist religion, is not harmless but is, rather, an extremely dangerous force in the world. Further he shows how even "moderate" religion, by promoting still the idea of blind faith as a virtue, serves as a breeding ground for more fanatical religious extremism.

I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, one of the more extreme and persistent "Christian" cults in the world. However my "indoctrination" argument holds true for just about any "fundamentalist" Christian groups in the U.S. deep south (i.e. "The Bible Belt") as well as fundamentalist branches of Islam and Judiasim.

The Catholic faith is arguably the least "Bible-based" of the Christian faiths and Catholics in developed countries are probably far more likely to disagree, even publicly disagree, with some church teachings (i.e. contraception and clerical celebacy) than their Prostant counterparts. So I would say that, if your sample group consisted only of Catholics in a developed land, yes, it was quite biased.

Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:13am by ShadorVIII

Nor does saying "Nuh-uh" make it untrue. I am now even more certain that you have no @#%^ing clue how indoctrination works.



Parents have the right to teach their children murderous hatred? I have nothing to say but:





So, you claim he's not presented evidence when you haven't even read the @#%^ing book? Way to talk out of your ***.



No, I have not "traded one God for another". I have traded beliefs for which there is no evidence (and, in fact, much evidence against) for beliefs (though I hesitate to use that word, I cannot think of a better at the moment) for which there is clear and convincing evidence.



Bravo for him. If you think that experience is at all typical, however, you would be sadly mistaken. I also note with some interest that, while you do call the things you get "Christian crap" you refer only to your husband as an athiest, not mentioning your view.

Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:38am by ShadorVIII

Edited, Oct 12th 2010 11:40am by ShadorVIII

I presented the definition of faith and showed how that is completely opposite of the scientific method.



I never said that. If a grown adult wants to feel a murderous hatred for another, that is thier complete right. Acting on it, of course, is another thing.

However, children are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to critically evaluate such beliefs. Children inherently trust what their parents or others in authority tell them. (Dawkins, in fact, explains how this instinct is a Darwinian survival mechanism, and how religion is an insidious byproduct of it). Once parental attitudes and values have become an ingrained part of their personality, it becomes very difficult to break out of such thinking patterns, ESPECIALLY if one is surrounded by those who continuously re-enforce such values.



I'm not going to reprint an entire book and all it's references for your benefit. Get off your lazy *** and go read it. You didn't see people reprinting "Origin of the Species" on this message board for me when I was wrongheadedly defending creationism, did you?



Not unless you call "teaching people to examine evidence, think, and make a well-informed decision instead of gullably believing whatevery they're told" indoctrination.



Ok. What do you believe?

You're adorable, Shador.

Religion does not = anti-science. Mind you, the anti-science movement is mostly religious, but that's beside the point. Faith and science are opposites. People can believe in the Bible as an allegorical guide. Since I already KNOW what you're going to say to that... "If you pick and choose which is literal and which isn't, then why not say it's all allegorical? You're picking and choosing anyways!" It's a bad argument. Many of the moderate religious people I know accept evolution, except the current model of cosmology, accept Old Earth. They simply find comfort in their faith. There will ALWAYS be extremists of EVERYTHING.

On indoctrination: You say it's so powerful that they won't question things ever!? Oh no! Like yourself - you didn't question your faith at all... except you did. Do you really have the arrogance to believe that you're somehow special and you need to save all these other poor religious people from their indoctrination? You're being a complete ****.

Dawkins provides arguments for his opinions on faith, not evidence. Try to differentiate between the two, it'll be important.

See, this is the Dawkinite trap about which I warned you. Every last hint of "argument" you've had on this page has come from one book from one man. It's pathetic, it really is. Every time I read "Richard Dawkins says" or "in TGD, he" or anything of the sort, I just want to slap you. You're not thinking for yourself.

Yes, you dolt, but you haven't read those books. Before this thread, you hadn't heard of those people. You're parroting Dawkins' arguments... almost verbatim.

Agreeing with and parroting are two separate things. Try reading the other books before you comment on them, okay? You might expand your horizons a bit beyond "Dawkins says this! Dawkins says that!"