Originally posted by lemon limeNo objections. Science is a tool and it accomplishes a specific purpose. It is a tool for leaning about the universe, and it has proven very effective at doing just that.
Tools accomplish a specific purpose. If science isn't a tool then it doesn't accomplish a specific purpose. If science doesn't accomplish a specific purpose then what good is it?
any objections to that?
1 edit
As an atheist, let me give my own experience with evolution. I first learned about it from my Christian parents. I later learned about it at school and in university. I later studied it in more detail by reading books and online material and courses.
I became an atheist in my early teens. For the next 20-30 years or so I saw no connection whatsoever been my atheism and evolution. The only time evolution came up in connection with atheism, was on this forum when creationists in the US were trying to get ID taught as science in schools. And I still don't see evolution as an atheist theory. It is just part of biology. A very large part of biology.
Similarly, I don't see geology as an atheist science. Yet geology contradicts the claims of YECs just as much as evolution does. Similarly, I don't see astronomy as an atheist science. Yet astronomy contradicts the claims of YECs just as much as evolution does. I have a Christian family member with a degree in biology, and another who is into astronomy - to the point of flying to other continents to witness an eclipse. None of my Christian family members dismiss biology, geology or astronomy as fake science.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonshipSo the issue with Muehlenberg here is not actually about same-sex marriage per se but about perceived restrictions of freedoms supposedly coming after granting same-sex marriage. First of all, from my perspective as a gay man who also resides in the US as a foreigner, let me first state the case for same-sex marriage. Before the repeal of DOMA, it was not possible for me to gain residency rights even if I lived with my partner and was married. It affected taxes, health insurance, inheritance, and immigration rights. What a cruel country that those who move their temporarily to work or study, fall in love and are willing to make a lifelong commitment would be denied legal recognition - cruel especially on its own citizens. Imagine marrying in one state, adopting a child and then not being recognised in another state or by the federal government. It was a cruel and onerous situation for same-sex couples and families. But even now with the repeal of DOMA and the recognition of same-sex marriage, there are still states that have no protections for same-sex couples. A gay man or woman can in some states be arbitrarily fired or evicted.
The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."
Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afDZPivGIo4
Now obviously there has to be some protections for freedom of speech and conscience. Religious organisations and persons should have some right to promote their beliefs (however odious and cruel I might find them). I do not think anyone disagrees with that (and Kennedy in his ruling explicitly acknowledged that the verdict on same-sex marriage would not affect these rights). The question is about the limits of such rights Religious groups should not be able to vilify; they should not be able to promote reparative treatments which have been proven to be psychologically harmful; they should not be able to discriminate in housing or employment unless it pertains to things central to their religious mission. It was not so long ago when Catholics would be banned from certain jobs in Protestant countries because of similar claims to religious freedom, but this was an unworkable situation that only aggravated religious segregation. It is ironic that such rights for discrimination are now being claimed by religious communities again.
Now Muehlenberg claims that religious people have lost their jobs or been fined because of their anti-homosexual views. The problem here is a broader one about the balance between a right to freedom of speech and a concern for anti-vilification. The issue is not really about same-sex marriage at all and is really an alarmist non sequitur (Australia for example has similar antivilification laws but does not have same-sex marriage, as Muehlenberg ought to know). I would point out that many gay students have been expelled from religious schools or not allowed to graduate; gay people have been fired and evicted, not to mention a history of oppression for decades. The supposed persecution of Christians by homosexuals does not compare against the psychological and physical harm that gay people have suffered. I for one can remember as a child the decriminalisation of sodomy in my own state, and I can remember the people waving placards saying that the pedophiles had won - imagine then years later coming to terms with your sexuality and knowing that other people in the world think you are a pedophile. This kind of hateful speech needs to be curtailed.
Now Muehlenberg does not provide much of the specifics of the cases he discusses. It would be interesting to know exactly why some people were penalised. I would like to know what these people said and did (rather than just 'person x simply said marriage is between a man and a woman'.) I am very skeptical that all these cases are quite so simple.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell... I suppose I could be persuaded into answering your question, but only if you can first provide a valid reason for why you think I should explain myself to you.
Can you present your reasoning behind that conclusion? Is it something you can put in writing, or is it just a feeling?
I'm generally put off by people who think they can successfully extract personal information from me that I haven't already volunteered by simply copping an attitude of personal entitlement and superiority. Believe it or not (I'm guessing not) an attitude of objectivity that doesn't wreak of self important entitlement can go a long way toward getting someone like myself to open up and reveal the information you're looking for.
But to be clear there's no actual guarantee of that happening or working in the Pavlovian sense, and so I'm not suggesting that simply finding and inducing the correct stimulus for getting the desired response will work. However, I am fairly confident anyone truly possessing a superior intellect and knowledge of science would not have a great deal of trouble finessing the sort of answer they're looking for from an unsophisticated and ignorant backwoods hick such as myself.
Originally posted by lemon limeI was merely curious as to whether you have a formal reason for the belief, or whether it is just a feeling you have.
Well... I suppose I could be persuaded into answering your question, but only if you can first provide a valid reason for why you think I should explain myself to you.
I'm generally put off by people who think they can successfully extract personal information from me...
Its 'personal information'? How so?
If I were to say: Einstein got relativity all wrong, his equations for gravity just don't work. Then when you ask for details, would it make sense for me to say: "sorry, its personal"?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI like your sense of humor, and appreciate how you're able to disagree without being a dickhead about it. You appear to know how to get and keep someones interest in a product by paying attention to the person rather than the product, but at the same time you don't seem to be overly concerned with 'closing the deal'... in other words, the soft sell approach.
In the interest of reciprocal sharing, i am currently toying with the idea that as an atheist my existence as the 'chosen one' has been foretold in secular fiction. For example, is it a mere coincidence that in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything is 42, the age i am due to reac ...[text shortened]... Skywalker (another chosen one).
The pieces are starting to fall into place. But i digress...
(sorry if I'm being overly inquisitive)
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIn your opinion, who do you think has more to gain if evolution can successfully supplant the idea of God creating life... theists, or atheists? I don't know why any atheist would need (or want) to ask a question that essentially answers itself.
[b]Evolution is one of those sacred cows that nearly every atheist on the planet will rush in to defend.
Do you believe that evolution is a "sacred cow" to anyone who defends evolution be it atheist or theist?[/b]
The value of evolution to atheism is self evident, so what does atheism (as a belief) have to gain by not being completely upfront and honest in regard to their support of evolution theory?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou did a somewhat adequate job of muddying the waters, but if you really are much more intelligent than I am (as you have claimed) then you have yet to prove it.
As an atheist, let me give my own experience with evolution. I first learned about it from my Christian parents. I later learned about it at school and in university. I later studied it in more detail by reading books and online material and courses.
I became an atheist in my early teens. For the next 20-30 years or so I saw no connection whatsoever been ...[text shortened]... ipse. None of my Christian family members dismiss biology, geology or astronomy as fake science.
As an atheist in my late teens and early twenties there was a lot of buzz over how evolution was able to dismiss God as a religious fantasy. And because of this there were even headlines in newspapers proclaiming "God is dead". If you believe your personal experiences growing up somehow has the power to cancel out and invalidate mine, you are sadly mistaken.
You tossed in YEC as though it had something to do with what I was saying. Ghost tossed that in too, I'm supposing as a wild card. But seeing as how I don't have an opinion to share with you on that subject I'm assuming you simply tossed it in to fluff up a specious argument to follow.
And sure enough, there it was! First of all, I didn't say or even imply that evolution is an atheist theory (nice try). Just because an atheist might use evolution for supporting his "no God" argument in no way means the theory itself is an "atheist theory"... so your presumption of stupidity in an opposing view is just plan stupid.
But then it gets worse... you go on to mention geology as an atheist science, as well as astronomy and biology. So again you pulled some inventive specious argument from your nether regions and posed it here as though this is what I believe. None of this has anything to do with what I was talking about, and your (not so subtle) suggestion of this being something I might believe is what it is.
And then you delivered your final knock out punch when you said...
None of my Christian family members dismiss biology, geology or astronomy as fake science.
Seriously dude, I think you knocked yourself out with that one... no comment from me is needed for examining that little jewel.
Good Job.
Originally posted by lemon limeForums tend to attract strong minded people who are unlikely to buy someone else's 'product.' (They might sample it out of politeness or curiosity, but are unlikely to abandon their own product in favour of it). That in mind, a 'hard sell approach' of one's product is a waste of energy and is more likely to push people away. (Hinds is a good example of this). Also, if someone is truly happy with their held beliefs, i wouldn't want to take that away from them.
I like your sense of humor, and appreciate how you're able to disagree without being a dickhead about it. You appear to know how to get and keep someones interest in a product by paying attention to the person rather than the product, but at the same time you don't seem to be overly concerned with 'closing the deal'... in other words, the soft sell approach.
(sorry if I'm being overly inquisitive)
Softly softly, catch the evolved monkey.
Originally posted by lemon limeWe obviously grew up in different countries.
As an atheist in my late teens and early twenties there was a lot of buzz over how evolution was able to dismiss God as a religious fantasy.
If you believe your personal experiences growing up somehow has the power to cancel out and invalidate mine, you are sadly mistaken.
I never claimed any such thing.
You tossed in YEC as though it had something to do with what I was saying.
It has everything to do with the supposed connection between evolution and atheism in this forum.
Ghost tossed that in too, I'm supposing as a wild card. But seeing as how I don't have an opinion to share with you on that subject I'm assuming you simply tossed it in to fluff up a specious argument to follow.
No, I didn't 'toss it in', I mentioned it as the specific reason why I connect atheism with evolution when it comes to this forum. Practically all posters here who dispute evolution do so specifically for religious reasons and do so because they are YECs.
First of all, I didn't say or even imply that evolution is an atheist theory (nice try).
And I never said you did. You said it was a sacred cow of atheists.
Just because an atheist might use evolution for supporting his "no God" argument in no way means the theory itself is an "atheist theory"... so your presumption of stupidity in an opposing view is just plan stupid.
Calling someone stupid for something they didn't say or do is just plain stupid.
But then it gets worse... you go on to mention geology as an atheist science, as well as astronomy and biology. So again you pulled some inventive specious argument from your nether regions and posed it here as though this is what I believe. None of this has anything to do with what I was talking about, and your (not so subtle) suggestion of this being something I might believe is what it is.
Again, I did not say any such thing. Please learn to read.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI do, especially in certain cases:
Also, if someone is truly happy with their held beliefs, i wouldn't want to take that away from them.
1. If they wish to force their beliefs on others via the legal system or school system.
2. If they engage in hate speech or otherwise wish harm on others.
I generally do want to see the end of religion as I believe it is generally harmful, but I would like to see it end via education rather than by force.