Need to believe in God to be good?

[yojimbo7248]

If you learn to shut off your mind and listen to your spiritual side, however, it's all still in there.

this is what I believe above all else when it comes to religion, spirituality.

[yojimbo7248]

If they returned to simplicity, yes.

Like I said, all major religions teach this.

Jesus said to be like a child.

Taoism says to returned to being an uncarved block of wood.

but Christianity believes in Original Sin and I think that makes many people not trust their instincts when it comes to religion.

[GregoryJoseph]

this is what I believe above all else when it comes to religion, spirituality.

It's funny how so many different religions have the same answers. Their deeply spiritual forefathers put it all down, with slight variations based on their culture and lore.

The crux of it, however, does not vary.

The mistake the masses make is the classic "finger pointing to the moon" story.

The followers worship the finger and never look to the moon.

[yojimbo7248]

I know many Christians that criticize Zen, Taoism by saying, "what you just trust your inner voice? so, whatever you feel that's right, is right?" They always imply that what you feel will be selfish and bad. I believe the opposite. If you shut down your chattering thoughts and really listen to your instincts, it will challenge you to be a good person.

[GregoryJoseph]

but Christianity believes in Original Sin and I think that makes many people not trust their instincts when it comes to religion.

Original sin merely means we are flawed.

How are we flawed?

Because Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge.

They decided to worship their minds instead of their spirit.

I'm not preaching stupidity and ignorance. I'm saying that people who believe they are more intelligent than anyone and anything else in the universe are incredibly egotistical and will out-think themselves and never really get the answers they're seeking.

[yojimbo7248]

deep down, we know what is right. it is the distracted, conscious parts of our brains that fool ourselves into thinking that externals like money, sex, drugs, status, etc. make us happy.

[GregoryJoseph]

deep down, we know what is right. it is the distracted, conscious parts of our brains that fool ourselves into thinking that externals like money, sex, drugs, status, etc. make us happy.

Bingo.

Apache spirituality speaks of the battle between the logical mind and the spiritual mind.

One should not dominate the other, but in our world it obviously does.

They're supposed to work in harmony.

Reminds me of a famous symbol...

[yojimbo7248]

I'm saying that people who believe they are more intelligent than anyone and anything else in the universe are incredibly egotistical and will out-think themselves and never really get the answers they're seeking.

Deep down we have access to a collective higher self that sees things as connected, as they truly are. listening to this voice isn't relying on your own intellect. it is tapping into something deeper and more shared with every other living being.

[GregoryJoseph]

Deep down we have access to a collective higher self that sees things as connected, as they truly are. listening to this voice isn't relying on your own intellect. it is tapping into something deeper and more shared with every other living being.

PRECISELY!

That's why I say that those who think they can study and reason in order to find these higher truths are egomaniacs.

They believe their intellect is the highest power in the universe.

In essence, they worship themselves.

[yojimbo7248]

PRECISELY!

That's why I say that those who think they can study and reason in order to find these higher truths are egomaniacs.

They believe their intellect is the highest power in the universe.

In essence, they worship themselves.

couldn't agree more. that's why I like Zen so much. Koans are designed to reach a truth that the intellect can't.

[TheMojoPin]

Atheism is not the disbelief in religion, it is the disbelief in a deity. There are religions that do not believe in God. Most forms of Buddhism do not recognize a God. Atheism could be a religion becuase it is an opinion on existance.

What I've been saying repeatedly is that atheism is the rejection of the belief in a higher power. Nowhere did I say it was the disbelief in religion.

I think this is the root of the disagreement we are having.

I don't see how it is. I think atheists reject the idea of a higher power. Belief in a higher power is inherrent to a religion. I don't see how one could call forms of Buddhism without a higher power of any kind a religion because they're clearly not: at that point they become a philosophy and not a religion. You cannot have a religion without a higher power of some kind, be it deity or a human manifestation of some kind of deity or consciousness.

Furthermore, you are acting like there being no God is the fact, therefore you cannot have a religion based on a fact of science. However, there not being a God is an opinion based on faith, just like the notion of there being a God.

Both are based on degrees of faith, but one is based on a whole hell of a lot more faith than the other. It's like one is based on the faith that you have in your car that it won't break down and it will get you to work each morning and the other is based in the faith that your car is powered by God's will.

[spankyfrank]

Ok I'll support the other side seeing how you two are destined to be soul mates :wink:

I don't think any scientist worships themselves. They just don't trust what they cannot see. That's why they cling to logic because it is backed up with math which is concrete.

The main thing about it is, science will NEVER be able to figure out everything in the universe. But what they do they try to hold on to it because they can. Religion just isn't concrete for some.

[TheMojoPin]

absolute belief that there is no god isn't conceptually the same as absolute belief that there is one? they do have a god, which is that there is no god.

No, those are completely different concepts. The belief in a god of some type usually accompanies the idea that that god is somehow impacting or changing or influencing or whatever the world or even one's own life specifically. Atheism rejects such thinking, making it a completely different concept. Saying that someone not having a god is their god is like saying that a vegetarian is just a different type of meat eater.

[GregoryJoseph]

Ok I'll support the other side seeing how you two are destined to be soul mates :wink:

I don't think any scientist worships themselves. They just don't trust what they cannot see. That's why they cling to logic because it is backed up with math which is concrete.

The main thing about it is, science will NEVER be able to figure out everything in the universe. But what they do they try to hold on to it because they can. Religion just isn't concrete for some.

Many, many scientists will tell you that the more they know the more convinced they are that this universe is a magical place.

They still have a sense of wonderment.

I'm not just talking about scholars when I speak of those who worship themselves and their own intellect.

[TheMojoPin]

Ok I'll support the other side seeing how you two are destined to be soul mates :wink:

I don't think any scientist worships themselves. They just don't trust what they cannot see. That's why they cling to logic because it is backed up with math which is concrete.

The main thing about it is, science will NEVER be able to figure out everything in the universe. But what they do they try to hold on to it because they can. Religion just isn't concrete for some.

Which is why it's good that we have both people who are spiritual and those that are not. Besides, you talk to many in the scientific fields and they are still spiritual despite their studies and their professions. It's not an either or type of deal. I think the rejection of someone who trys to work purely in the realm of human intellect as doing something "wrong" would be as foolish as rejection someone who works purely in the realm of philosophy.

[TheMojoPin]

Gvac, can you give us an example of someone who worships themself through their intellect?

[A.J.]

Gvac, can you give us an example of someone who worships themself through their intellect?

Obama.

[TheMojoPin]

Well, now you're just being silly.

[yojimbo7248]

I might have missed it somewhere, but has anyone defined "atheist" yet? I see two main categories: 1) a rejection of the Judeo-Christian God but an openness to the existence of a higher power or sacredness in things or some spiritual dimension to life; 2) someone who only believes in the material world as we currently measure it. I find very few of type 2) out there. Most people that I know are open to a form of higher power, even if it is a George Lucas-like Force without personality.

[boosterp]

Karma told me you're a dork :tongue:

Why yes, yes I am.

Bingo.

Apache spirituality speaks of the battle between the logical mind and the spiritual mind.

One should not dominate the other, but in our world it obviously does.

They're supposed to work in harmony.

Reminds me of a famous symbol...

Buhddism teaches the difference between inherent and dependent existence. Once we realize that all things are dependent then we are on the right path. My happiness depends on my actions, this desk depends on it's legs, my cat depends on the water I provide; this is an over simplified view but illustrates our our existence is a series of dependencies. Thus, to live a meaningful good life I need good thoughts and actions, this I strive for.

[sailor]

No, those are completely different concepts. The belief in a god of some type usually accompanies the idea that that god is somehow impacting or changing or influencing or whatever the world or even one's own life specifically. Atheism rejects such thinking, making it a completely different concept. Saying that someone not having a god is their god is like saying that a vegetarian is just a different type of meat eater.

not it's not.

[yojimbo7248]

Buhddism teaches the difference between inherent and dependent existence. Once we realize that all things are dependent then we are on the right path. My happiness depends on my actions, this desk depends on it's legs, my cat depends on the water I provide; this is an over simplified view but illustrates our our existence is a series of dependencies. Thus, to live a meaningful good life I need good thoughts and actions, this I strive for.

and you can believe this without any belief in deities, afterlives, higher powers. Most Buddhists that I know are read about do believe in some spiritual realm but you can be a Buddhist and not believe. The Buddha stressed that he was only a man who had woken up.

my only problem with atheists who believe that reality is only what we can measure right now is how narrow-minded they are. Jeez, look at how many times throughout history humans have been completely unaware of things that we now take for granted.

[foodcourtdruide]

I might have missed it somewhere, but has anyone defined "atheist" yet? I see two main categories: 1) a rejection of the Judeo-Christian God but an openness to the existence of a higher power or sacredness in things or some spiritual dimension to life; 2) someone who only believes in the material world as we currently measure it. I find very few of type 2) out there. Most people that I know are open to a form of higher power, even if it is a George Lucas-like Force without personality.

Atheism is simply the disbelief in a deity.

[yojimbo7248]

Atheism is simply the disbelief in a deity.

thanks. In that case, it is very easy to be religious and an atheist. many religions don't believe in deities...I lost track, what is the main point of contention here?

[GregoryJoseph]

I lost track, what is the main point of contention here?

Ha!

You're the one who started the thread!!!

[GregoryJoseph]

Gvac, can you give us an example of someone who worships themself through their intellect?

The vast majority of people, especially those who aver without question that there is no such thing as a higher power of any kind and mock and belittle those who believe otherwise.

[yojimbo7248]

Ha!

You're the one who started the thread!!!

yeah, got confused there!

I started the thread in response to Christians angry at atheists for their holiday messages. I was amazed at a couple of quotes that clearly showed they thought atheists are horrible human beings. that made me want to ask whether you need to believe in God to be good. No one that I saw came out and said, "yes, you need to believe in the Judeo-Christian god to be good". But you, Greg, said that you need to believe in a 'higher power' to keep from being a selfish prick. Now it seems we are wrangling over what counts as believing in a 'high power'. Is this a fair summary or am I missing something?

[GregoryJoseph]

yeah, got confused there!

I started the thread in response to Christians angry at atheists for their holiday messages. I was amazed at a couple of quotes that clearly showed they thought atheists are horrible human beings. that made me want to ask whether you need to believe in God to be good. No one that I saw came out and said, "yes, you need to believe in the Judeo-Christian god to be good". But you, Greg, said that you need to believe in a 'higher power' to keep from being a selfish prick. Now it seems we are wrangling over what counts as believing in a 'high power'. Is this a fair summary or am I missing something?

I think you've just about covered it!

[Ritalin]

And just how do you know what is "good" in this life?

Socialization, parenting, peer pressure, education.

Why wouldn't the concept of "good" be subject to change and evolution just like everything else is?

If it were 250 years ago, wouldn't my concept of "good" include treating my slaves well?

And just for background, I'm your typical went-to-catholic-school agnostic. But I'm not going to turn my back on whatever good I was taught simply because the church said it. That would be stupid. Thou shall not kill is a good idea with or without the frilly language and incense.

[GregoryJoseph]

Why wouldn't the concept of "good" be subject to change and evolution just like everything else is?


I don't think so.

I believe good and evil are universal concepts.



If it were 250 years ago, wouldn't my concept of "good" include treating my slaves well?

Again, I believe there are those who KNEW it was wrong to be a slave owner and never partook in that practice.

The ones who did also knew deep down, but chose to ignore their "spiritual side" or "conscience" or whatever you want to call it.

[foodcourtdruide]

What I've been saying repeatedly is that atheism is the rejection of the belief in a higher power. Nowhere did I say it was the disbelief in religion.


Here's Kat's definition of a religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

It doesn't say that a higher power is needed.


I don't see how it is. I think atheists reject the idea of a higher power. Belief in a higher power is inherrent to a religion. I don't see how one could call forms of Buddhism without a higher power of any kind a religion because they're clearly not: at that point they become a philosophy and not a religion. You cannot have a religion without a higher power of some kind, be it deity or a human manifestation of some kind of deity or consciousness.


Buddhism is not a religion?


Both are based on degrees of faith, but one is based on a whole hell of a lot more faith than the other. It's like one is based on the faith that you have in your car that it won't break down and it will get you to work each morning and the other is based in the faith that your car is powered by God's will.

The vast majority of people believe in a God. I think it actually takes more faith to NOT believe in one. Again, I think you're treating disbelief in God as the fact.

[foodcourtdruide]

yeah, got confused there!

I started the thread in response to Christians angry at atheists for their holiday messages. I was amazed at a couple of quotes that clearly showed they thought atheists are horrible human beings. that made me want to ask whether you need to believe in God to be good. No one that I saw came out and said, "yes, you need to believe in the Judeo-Christian god to be good". But you, Greg, said that you need to believe in a 'higher power' to keep from being a selfish prick. Now it seems we are wrangling over what counts as believing in a 'high power'. Is this a fair summary or am I missing something?

You forgot to mention my awesome, insightful and inspiring observations.

[foodcourtdruide]

I don't think so.

I believe good and evil are universal concepts.





I don't get when people adhere to the unversal concept of "Good", then refuse to recognize something exists greater than themselves.

[GregoryJoseph]

I don't get when people adhere to the unversal concept of "Good", then refuse to recognize something exists greater than themselves.

The thing greater than ourselves is good.

[yojimbo7248]

You forgot to mention my awesome, insightful and inspiring observations.

sorry, man! yes, forgot to mention interesting, insightful comments from you, Ritalin, Boorstep, Mojo, Kat, Angrymissy, etc. I just mentioned Greg by name because he seems to be the only person sticking with the idea that you need to believe in a higher power to be good. For the most part, it seems to me that the rest of us are agreeing that you can still be good without believing in a higher power.

Now I see that he has a wider definition of 'higher power' than I was initially thinking so I am finding myself agreeing with him too. So, I am now looking for an opinion that I disagree with. I with a Christian would chime in and say that we are all horrible human beings and will roast in hell for not believing that the Lord Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God.

[TheMojoPin]

Here's Kat's definition of a religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

It doesn't say that a higher power is needed.

I'm saying a higher power is needed for atheism to become a religion in the "classic" sense. To me the first criteria right there is backing that up. If tis topped before the bolded part I'd agree with you, but the first point as a whole is basically saying that there needs to be an accepted belief amongst the group in regards to a higher power or consciousness that is "involved" in our lives. Points 2 and 3 be applied to any "permanently" organized group of people.

Buddhism is not a religion?

If certain sects of it have no belief in any kind of higher power as described above then no, they're not a religion. That said, however, I think you're leaving out religious figures like the Lamas. Even if there is no singular "god" there's still the Earthly "manifestations" of a greater consciousness, thusly making those figures themselves "higher powers" that are looked to for guidance and so on because of their divine nature.

The vast majority of people believe in a God. I think it actually takes more faith to NOT believe in one. Again, I think you're treating disbelief in God as the fact.

It's not a fact. It's just something you can better argue if you have to subtract faith from the equation. I'm not saying religion is bad because it relies almost totally on faith: that's just what it is.

And I feel it takes more faith to believe in something with the idea that it can help you or protect you or guide you as opposed to someone who has come to the personal relaization that that's not what's happening. You're stripping faith from your life to become an atheist, which is why I personally could never be an atheist.

[TheMojoPin]

The thing greater than ourselves is good.

But can't you argue that good can't exist without us?

[TheMojoPin]

not it's not.

Yes, it is. Atheism is the rejection of the idea of a higher power. That doesn't in turn make the concept a atheism itself a "higher power." Atheism doesn't "do" anything for people as those with faith expect or hope their god to do. You don't pray to atheism or ask it for help or guidance. Atheism simply does not exist as a higher power. It's a philisophical concept.

[yojimbo7248]

Even if there is no singular "god" there's still the Earthly "manifestations" of a greater consciousness, thusly making those figures themselves "higher powers" that are looked to for guidance and so on because of their divine nature.

Tibetan Buddhism is a unique from of Buddhism since it combined with the old Tibetan Bon religion. Buddha was never considered a manifestation of a higher power. He made it very clear that he was a man with a method for awakening and not a deity to be worshipped. Vast majority of Buddhist leaders and teachers say the same.

[GregoryJoseph]

But can't you argue that good can't exist without us?

I don't see how you can.

[IamFogHat]

This is a rediculous and frankly insulting question. We all have the capacity for good without a higher power. Stop selling humanity and yourselves short.

[Son of Muta]

If the roles were reversed, and Christians were putting up billboards mocking (hyperbole or accurate?) Atheism, you wouldn't think those Christians were extreme?

Why is my scenario absurd? Do you think the lord's prayer was part of Catholicism the minute Catholicism began? As time goes on, it's completely plausible that there will be ritual amongst Atheists, especially if Atheism blends in more with the main stream. What is my leap in logic? There are groups of people who share a belief on the creation of the universe, why is it impossible to think this group could organize into a religion?

Look at this
http://atheists.meetup.com/

Don't you think these people probably meet up and talk about being atheists and the issues Atheists face? I agree 100% that there is no "sacred" text recognized, but I believe one day there will be. I respect your opinion that there will not be, but to say my opinion is absurd, is absurd!

And religions DO crop up all the time. There are only a handful of major religions, but many religions exist. I'm having a difficult time finding a ballpark number, but do you disagree with that statement?

First off, an Atheist will never need a fairy tale filled book to justify themselves, but what would be so bad about a like minded group of people that believe in science, logic and rational thinking getting together? If your faith is so goddamn shaky that someone questioning "god" upsets you that much, you might need to reevaluate said faith.

[GregoryJoseph]

This is a rediculous and frankly insulting question. We all have the capacity for good without a higher power. Stop selling humanity and yourselves short.

Why do you think it's selling us short to think we're not the greatest thing in the universe?

[IamFogHat]

Why do you think it's selling us short to think we're not the greatest thing in the universe?

We're not the greatest thing in the universe, we're just part of nature, the universe is gonna go on without us when we die and it won't bat an eye.

[TheMojoPin]

Tibetan Buddhism is a unique from of Buddhism since it combined with the old Tibetan Bon religion. Buddha was never considered a manifestation of a higher power. He made it very clear that he was a man with a method for awakening and not a deity to be worshipped. Vast majority of Buddhist leaders and teachers say the same.

I'm not saying Buddha is a higher power, but he is a representation of a higher consciousness that is arguably "divine," as I have clarified along the way.

That said, if you're truly seperating Buddhism from the concept of higher power, I think it is very valid to question whether it is a religion or not as opposed to a philosophy. It would seem that you argue someone like Socrates and his followers were a religion along those lines.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't see how you can.

How does the concept of good exist without someone who recognizes what good and evil are? Do you think animals run around with a sense of good and evil?

[GregoryJoseph]

Do you think animals run around with a sense of good and evil?

NOW YOU UNDERSTAND!!!

They don't have to reason it out.

They are "good" because they follow their nature.

[TheMojoPin]

So you think someone who follows and stays true to their own nature is inherrently good?

[GregoryJoseph]

So you think someone who follows and stays true to their own nature is inherrently good?

Not someone, humanity as a whole.

[sailor]

Yes, it is. Atheism is the rejection of the idea of a higher power. That doesn't in turn make the concept a atheism itself a "higher power." Atheism doesn't "do" anything for people as those with faith expect or hope their god to do. You don't pray to atheism or ask it for help or guidance. Atheism simply does not exist as a higher power. It's a philisophical concept.

i meant your vegetarian nonsense.

[sailor]

NOW YOU UNDERSTAND!!!

They don't have to reason it out.

They are "good" because they follow their nature.

what if a person has an evil nature?

[BlackSpider]

what if a person has an evil nature?

What if all people do...?

[sailor]

What if all people do...?

what if you do?

[GregoryJoseph]

what if a person has an evil nature?

Not someone, humanity as a whole.


Catch up.

[Son of Muta]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o6oYe1Zb9oA/SSHpbARdKLI/AAAAAAAAAJs/8S_DlxhaDJw/s320/christian_billboard7.jpg

http://www.bored.com/billboards/images/atheist_billboard.jpg

http://matadornetwork.cachefly.net/bravenewtraveler.com/docs//wp-content/images/posts/20090601-gun.jpg

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/25/jesus_billboards.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o6oYe1Zb9oA/SSHpOvTd6iI/AAAAAAAAAJM/sEaWcsIsWv4/s320/christian_billboard3.jpg


Yeah..Atheist billboards are so much more offensive.

[IamFogHat]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o6oYe1Zb9oA/SSHpbARdKLI/AAAAAAAAAJs/8S_DlxhaDJw/s320/christian_billboard7.jpg

http://www.bored.com/billboards/images/atheist_billboard.jpg

http://matadornetwork.cachefly.net/bravenewtraveler.com/docs//wp-content/images/posts/20090601-gun.jpg

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/25/jesus_billboards.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o6oYe1Zb9oA/SSHpOvTd6iI/AAAAAAAAAJM/sEaWcsIsWv4/s320/christian_billboard3.jpg


Yeah..Atheist billboards are so much more offensive.

I don't understand the one with the kid and the gun. The others made me laugh though:thumbup:

[TheMojoPin]

i meant your vegetarian nonsense.

How is it nonsense? You're claiming that a philosophy that exists based around the rejection of a very specific concept will in turn actually embrace that concept. It would thusly negate itself.

[TheMojoPin]

Catch up.

How does that apply to anything but humanity? That seems to confirm that good and evil are uniquely human constructs.

[sailor]

Catch up.

mustard.

[GregoryJoseph]

How does that apply to anything but humanity? That seems to confirm that good and evil are uniquely human constructs.

Not at all.

Every species has its defects.

[TheMojoPin]

You mean psychologically or genetically?

[A.J.]

Every species has its defects.

Humanity's can be seen at the Jersey Shore.

[GregoryJoseph]

You mean psychologically or genetically?

Either.

[BlackSpider]

Not at all.

Every species has its defects.

You're not implying that "evil" is a defect, are you...?

[TheMojoPin]

Either.

Isn't that different than the philisophical ideas of good and evil?

[GregoryJoseph]

You're not implying that "evil" is a defect, are you...?

No, I just saw where Mojo was going with the argument.

Isn't that different than the philisophical ideas of good and evil?

See?

[BlackSpider]

No, I just saw where Mojo was going with the argument.



See?

That's why they call him "Sailor"...

[TheMojoPin]

I'm not trying to trap you, Gvac, I honestly don't understand how you equate these things.

[ChrisBrown]

I'm not saying Buddha is a higher power, but he is a representation of a higher consciousness that is arguably "divine," as I have clarified along the way.

That said, if you're truly seperating Buddhism from the concept of higher power, I think it is very valid to question whether it is a religion or not as opposed to a philosophy. It would seem that you argue someone like Socrates and his followers were a religion along those lines.

I'm comfortable saying Buddhism is not a religion (this is yojimbo and I'm using my iPhone account).

[ChrisBrown]

I'd say many Buddhists don't believe in a higher power so lump them in with the others. I disagree, Greg, that you need to believe in a higher power to be good.

It's hard to read through this iPhone so I mght have missed something.

[spankyfrank]

Buddhism is a total religion.

Again religion isn't just believing in a deity it's believing in something which you have no proof otherwise known as faith.

Buddhists believe in Karma much like the Hindus

[TheMojoPin]

Buddhism is a total religion.

Again religion isn't just believing in a deity it's believing in something which you have no proof otherwise known as faith.

Buddhists believe in Karma much like the Hindus

Karma is an example of a higher power.

[spankyfrank]

Karma is an example of a higher power.

Exactly my point.

[booster11373]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjO4duhMRZk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjO4duhMRZk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Furtherman]

We're not the greatest thing in the universe, we're just part of nature, the universe is gonna go on without us when we die and it won't bat an eye.

This is precisely what it is all about. The rest is just hippy talk.

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly my point.

I agree with you. I think Buddhism is a religion as well.

[GregoryJoseph]

We're not the greatest thing in the universe, we're just part of nature, the universe is gonna go on without us when we die and it won't bat an eye.

Exactly.

We're a part of it.

Not better than it.

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly.

We're a part of it.

Not better than it.

Who is saying that we're "better" than nature or the universe?

[spankyfrank]

Exactly.

We're a part of it.

Not better than it.

But you propose that we don't need to seek anywhere else in the universe to find out about the universe. You say all we need to know is already inside of us.

That to me seems a bit egotistical.

[sailor]

I'd say many Buddhists don't believe in a higher power so lump them in with the others. I disagree, Greg, that you need to believe in a higher power to be good.

It's hard to read through this iPhone so I mght have missed something.

why is it hard to do? are you using landscape mode?

[sailor]

But you propose that we don't need to seek anywhere else in the universe to find out about the universe. You say all we need to know is already inside of us.

That to me seems a bit egotistical.

not greg. you must have misread something. he'll tell you how you're wrong shortly.

[spankyfrank]

not greg. you must have misread something. he'll tell you how you're wrong shortly.

Oh my bad, i get confused sometimes..........

[GregoryJoseph]

But you propose that we don't need to seek anywhere else in the universe to find out about the universe. You say all we need to know is already inside of us.

That to me seems a bit egotistical.

It's not egotistical if you accept that it's there without any input from YOU.

[spankyfrank]

It's not egotistical if you accept that it's there without any input from YOU.

Would you just admit that you're a priest in disguise? :tongue:

[TheMojoPin]

Who is saying that the universe exists becuase of their "input?" If anything, isn't that an issue your going to find more with some religions as opposed to those thinking "outside" of them? What with the creation stories and all that are centered on Earth and mankind.

[GregoryJoseph]

Who is saying that the universe exists becuase of their "input?"

That's not what I said.

Spanky asked how we could know the answers and not be egotistical.

I said the ANSWERS to the universe are within us. I never said we created the universe.

[SonOfSmeagol]

When you get to the edge of the universe, then step forward, where do you go?

[GregoryJoseph]

Can we humans truly comprehend infinity?

If we can't grasp that the universe is endless, how can we grasp a power that is endless?

And universal?

We can't.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[spankyfrank]

When you get to the edge of the universe, then step forward, where do you go?

there's actually a really cool answer to that question.

It's the next big scientific theory they are trying to proof which is string theory. basically it says that there is an infinite number of universes strung together. So when you step out of one universe you go into another larger one.

They are trying to proove this by going backwards and seeing if there are things smaller than protons.

[TheMojoPin]

That's not what I said.

Spanky asked how we could know the answers and not be egotistical.

I said the ANSWERS to the universe are within us. I never said we created the universe.

That doesn't seem to be what was asked in what you quoted, and it was difficult to take that away from your response, hence my confusion, but I appreciate the clarification.

That said, I think your use of the term "the universe" in such a statement is too vague and limiting.

[TheMojoPin]

there's actually a really cool answer to that question.

It's the next big scientific theory they are trying to proof which is string theory. basically it says that there is an infinite number of universes strung together. So when you step out of one universe you go into another one.

They are trying to proove this by going backwards and seeing if there are things smaller than protons.

Now that's blowing my mind, man.

[spankyfrank]

Now that's blowing my mind, man.

Thats why they need that Large Halidron (sp?) collider. It's fascinating stuff....

...and it gives pot smokers hope

[SonOfSmeagol]

Then what was there before the "big bang"?

[disneyspy]

Then what was there before the "big bang"?

large fore play

[GregoryJoseph]

Then what was there before the "big bang"?

Exactly.

Scientists say absolutely nothing.

Then the nothingness exploded.

Can we comprehend nothingness?

And how can nothingness explode?

For some reason people are willing to accept this, though. :surrender:

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly.

Scientists say absolutely nothing.

Then the nothingness exploded.

Can we comprehend nothingness?

And how can nothingness explode?

For some reason people are willing to accept this, though. :surrender:

Some people are afraid of nothingness. They cannot quiet their minds or their spirits to attempt to understand such a concept.

[TheMojoPin]

Thats why they need that Large Halidron (sp?) collider. It's fascinating stuff....

...and it gives pot smokers hope

I just love that thing because it actually looks how I always want "big science' to look. That mofo actually looks like something Mr. Fantastic would build to journey into the Negative Zone.

[spankyfrank]

Then what was there before the "big bang"?

The materials needed to make another universe....in another universe.

I have a feeling that this universe is a small spark that hasn't gone out yet.

[GregoryJoseph]

Some people are afraid of nothingness. They cannot quite their minds or their spirits to attempt to understand such a concept.

Ha!

I just wonder why people are willing to accept a theory that sounds more bizarre than a giant man in the sky making everything.

[TheMojoPin]

Ha!

I just wonder why people are willing to accept a theory that sounds more bizarre than a giant man in the sky making everything.

Part of is that you overgeneralized the theory to the point that it's basically incorrect. There wasn't (in theory) truly nothing when there was "nothing."

[GregoryJoseph]

Part of is that you overgeneralized the theory to the point that it's basically incorrect. There wasn't truly nothing when there was "nothing."

So what was there?

And how was it created?

And what was there before it was created?

See what I mean?

[spankyfrank]

Exactly.

Scientists say absolutely nothing.

Then the nothingness exploded.

Can we comprehend nothingness?

And how can nothingness explode?

For some reason people are willing to accept this, though. :surrender:

It wasn't just nothingness, there were swirling gases that combined and produced a giant explosion that is still going on.

[GregoryJoseph]

It wasn't just nothingness, there were swirling gases that combined and produced a giant explosion that is still going on.

Where did the gases come from?

How were they created?

What was there before the gases?

I could go on and on...

[TheMojoPin]

So what was there?

And how was it created?

And what was there before it was created?

See what I mean?

You seem to be under the conclusion that people are generally saying that they definitively know what came before "our" universe. By and large we do not. We have some rough ideas and theories, but that's about it.

I sometimes think you give more credit to the certainty and conclusive mentality of scienctific thought than actual scientists do. Science exists to ask questions such as these and to keep asking them over and over again.

[spankyfrank]

Greg look it up this isn't some bizzare theory without evidence to support it.

Scientific theory doesn't mean it's just an idea, it's something that has been tested constantly over a period of time with results pointing to a certain conclusion.

[GregoryJoseph]

You seem to be under the conclusion that people are generally saying that they definitively know what came before "our" universe.

Of course no one can know definitively.

And the "answers" or more accurately theories, that science provides answers nothing.

That's my point.

[spankyfrank]

Where did the gases come from?

How were they created?

What was there before the gases?

I could go on and on...

String theory my friend, there was another universe. Look it up, I wouldn't shit you

[GregoryJoseph]

Greg look it up this isn't some bizzare theory without evidence to support it.

Scientific theory doesn't mean it's just an idea, it's something that has been tested constantly over a period of time with results pointing to a certain conclusion.

I know the theories well.

I'm just asking where the gases came from and what was there before the gases existed?

It just shows our inability to truly grasp nothingness and the concept of infinity.

[GregoryJoseph]

String theory my friend, there was another universe. Look it up, I wouldn't shit you

Where did the other universe come from?

[TheMojoPin]

Of course know one can know definitively.

And the "answers" or more accurately theories, that science provides answers nothing.

That's my point.

Your broad dismissals of science as if it's the enemy of philosophy or spirtuality are incredibly close minded.

[TheMojoPin]

Where did the other universe come from?

The universe before that.

[GregoryJoseph]

Your broad dismissals of science as if it's the enemy of philosophy or spirtuality are incredibly close minded.

I never said they were.

I'm merely saying it provides no more answers than any other school of thought.

[GregoryJoseph]

The universe before that.

INFINITY!!!

[spankyfrank]

Where did the other universe come from?

From another universe.

Everything goes in cycles there is no definitive beginning or end.

Now how existence started we don't know and thats where you get your religious beliefs.

[TheMojoPin]

I never said they were.

I'm merely saying it provides no more answers than any other school of thought.

That's easily debatable.

And yes, I think that is what you're saying since you pop into nearly every significant discussion here that veers towards science to naysay the academic studies and theories in regards to "the big questions." It's honestly seems like you have some kind of fear of science, as if it may rattle your faith because you can't reconcile one with the other as many others can.

[GregoryJoseph]

From another universe.

Everything goes in cycles there is no definitive beginning or end.

Now how existence started we don't know and thats where you get your religious beliefs.

Again, we cannot comprehend the concept of something existing FOREVER.

It's beyond us.

Space does not just "end" at a brick wall.

If it did, what's behind the wall?

Before there were any gases, elements, stars, rocks, asteroids, comets, planets, etc. what was there?

It's unknowable.

[TheMojoPin]

INFINITY!!!

Exactly. Seems some people can grasp the concept of infinity just fine.

[TheMojoPin]

Again, we cannot comprehend the concept of something existing FOREVER.

It's beyond us.

Space does not just "end" at a brick wall.

If it did, what's behind the wall?

Before there were any gases, elements, stars, rocks, asteroids, comets, planets, etc. what was there?

It's unknowable.

There is no "before."

[GregoryJoseph]

It's honestly seems like you have some kind of fear of science, as if it may rattle your faith because you can't reconcile one with the other as many others can.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I love science.

I study astronomy as a hobby among other things.

I fully realize that we'll never comprehend it, though.

[spankyfrank]

Again, we cannot comprehend the concept of something existing FOREVER.

It's beyond us.

Space does not just "end" at a brick wall.

If it did, what's behind the wall?

Before there were any gases, elements, stars, rocks, asteroids, comets, planets, etc. what was there?

It's unknowable.

I agree with you and so does science actually.

My whole problem with religion in general is that it is way too specific with nothing to back it up.

[TheMojoPin]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I love science.

I study astronomy as a hobby among other things.

I fully realize that we'll never comprehend it, though.

That's essentially a cop-out when you potshot basically every scientific discussion here as being futile because we won't "comprehend everything."

[GregoryJoseph]

That's essentially a cop-out when you potshot basically every scientific discussion here as being futile because we won't "comprehend everything."

I'm just saying that the current favorite theory answers NOTHING as far as how the universe began.

"There was a big bang."

What caused the explosion?

What exactly exploded?

Where did these elements come from?

No one has a clue.

Never will.

It doesn't mean to stop studying it, but to accept it as gospel truth is asinine.

[spankyfrank]

It doesn't mean to stop studying it, but to accept it as gospel truth is asinine.

Accepting that theres a great spirit to guide us in our lives is just as asinine.

[GregoryJoseph]

Accepting that theres a great spirit to guide us in our lives is just as asinine.

The Native Americans called it "The Great Spirit" or "The Spirit That Moves Through All Things" among others.

You can call it whatever you wish.

Scientists can tell you it's because we have common molecular structure that we're somehow tied to one another and all living things.

I don't care how you justify it.

Just accept it.

[TheMojoPin]

...

Gvac, are you going to accept that scientific THEORY is not the "gospel truth" in the scientific community? It's not like after the Big Bang theory was proposed everyone threw evereything down and went, "well, we can stop working on THAT one now! We've figured it out!" It just means that right now, at this moment, with the evidence and understanding available, it's the theory that best stacks up with the scientific method. That does not mean that it's set in stone or that researchers are looking at it that way. To say definitively that we'll never know these things is foolish.

[spankyfrank]

The Native Americans called it "The Great Spirit" or "The Spirit That Moves Through All Things" among others.

You can call it whatever you wish.

Scientists can tell you it's because we have common molecular structure that we're somehow tied to one another and all living things.

I don't care how you justify it.

Just accept it.

Why should I accept it? How would it be different than accepting the big bang theory?

[GregoryJoseph]

Why should I accept it? How would it be different than accepting the big bang theory?

Then don't accept it, even if science proves it.

What can I tell you?

[Furtherman]

Then what was there before the "big bang"?

Another universe. It expands then either collapses or rips apart. Either way, the act creates another one, over and over. It's just existence. Then again, it's what our best minds believe. It makes the most sense at this time.

[sailor]

There is no "before."

there is no spoon.

[badmonkey]

There is no "before."

there is no spoon.

ThereIsNoRadio

[boosterp]

The Dali Lama actually teaches that we accept science too even if it goes against ancient writing as part of enlightenment. For example: science has yet to prove/disprove rebirth but science has proven evolution so it is accepted.

[midwestjeff]

ThereIsNoRadio

Suburban Shakedown!

The Dali Lama actually teaches that we accept science too even if it goes against ancient writing as part of enlightenment. For example: science has yet to prove/disprove rebirth but science has proven evolution so it is accepted.

The Dali Lama teaches us to accept retweeting.

[Son of Muta]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FrPLupGdKKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FrPLupGdKKQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xXud0GAKmgM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xXud0GAKmgM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Qn5MdRYKLY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Qn5MdRYKLY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

[A.J.]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/buSpGWq9aS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/buSpGWq9aS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Hottub]

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one -- big hitter, the Lama -- long, into a ten-thousand foot crevice, right at the base of this glacier. And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

[yojimbo7248]

So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one -- big hitter, the Lama -- long, into a ten-thousand foot crevice, right at the base of this glacier. And do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga...gunga -- gunga galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

:clap:

[SonOfSmeagol]

Where did the other universe come from?

The universe before that.

But between those universes, in space and time, they say there was an infinitely small “singularity” of infinite mass. Yes, infinite.

As if that weren’t enough to blow your mind, what was there “around” the infinitely small pre-universe? And if it’s “nothingness”, who or what was there to deem it “nothing”?

[Bob Impact]

I hear "So how do you explain the order of the universe" and I say "the only order you know is the order man has given it." You only know that an atom is an atom because a scientist said so, the order you see is really just our pattern matching brains cleaning up what we perceive as chaos into a recognizable pattern so that we can build on that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, i'm just saying that it is... all the order you know is generated BY MAN.

[TheMojoPin]

I hear "So how do you explain the order of the universe" and I say "the only order you know is the order man has given it." You only know that an atom is an atom because a scientist said so, the order you see is really just our pattern matching brains cleaning up what we perceive as chaos into a recognizable pattern so that we can build on that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, i'm just saying that it is... all the order you know is generated BY MAN.

Everything being discussed in this thread can be summed up thusly, scientific or spiritual or otherwise.

[KatPw]

I think we are going in circles. I think the belief that there is not a God is a belief. Atheists share this belief, hence they are lumped into the group known as "Atheist". If they did not organize and did not have texts dedicated to their theories, I would agree that Atheism is not a religion more easily. I agree with the 3 criteria you posted (by the way, where did you get that from?) and I submit atheism adheres to this partly. What it does not adhere to is that there are no practices associated with atheism, though I think that could potentially change. Atheism seems to be a reaction to Christianity/Islam/Judaism, and as it gains in popularity and influence I think rituals will begin (ie. if you are an atheist you wear some type of pendant). So upon further thought, I change my original statement. I think atheism is heading TOWARDS becoming a religion.

What texts do Atheists have dedicated to their theories? There are non-fiction books written by Atheists but they do not have a text akin to the bible, Koran, book of Mormon or the like. Those books are opinions put forth by non-believers they are not a manual laying out what Atheists should believe. There are no tenets of Atheism. There are atheists out there that believe in something called the oversoul, atheists that believe in a universal energy, and there are atheists that think all that stuff is bullshit. the only thing they agree upon is that they do not believe in a supreme being.

And as an aside, here's a news story regarding an elected official that is being refused his post due to him being an atheist.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

[KatPw]

I might have missed it somewhere, but has anyone defined "atheist" yet? I see two main categories: 1) a rejection of the Judeo-Christian God but an openness to the existence of a higher power or sacredness in things or some spiritual dimension to life; 2) someone who only believes in the material world as we currently measure it. I find very few of type 2) out there. Most people that I know are open to a form of higher power, even if it is a George Lucas-like Force without personality.

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?db=dictionary
foodcourtdruide was correct on the definition of Atheist, but that is very different than an agnostic or a skeptic. Atheists (what I am) do not believe in anything supernatural. No judeo-christian gods, no norse gods, egyptian gods, hindu. None of them. I also do not believe in fairies, vampires, werewolves, the yeti, etc. No heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no before birth limbo, no reincarnation. I believe I only exist from the time I am born until the time I die. That is what it means to be an atheist.

The other types you have described are agnostics and skeptics. Those are not true atheists. And then there are nihilists, who don't believe in anything including the physical world they are currently inhabiting.

[foodcourtdruide]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?db=dictionary
foodcourtdruide was correct on the definition of Atheist, but that is very different than an agnostic or a skeptic. Atheists (what I am) do not believe in anything supernatural. No judeo-christian gods, no norse gods, egyptian gods, hindu. None of them. I also do not believe in fairies, vampires, werewolves, the yeti, etc. No heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no before birth limbo, no reincarnation. I believe I only exist from the time I am born until the time I die. That is what it means to be an atheist.

The other types you have described are agnostics and skeptics. Those are not true atheists. And then there are nihilists, who don't believe in anything including the physical world they are currently inhabiting.

Here's a better definition of a Nihilist:
http://tuesdaymidnight.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/big_lebowski_nihilists.jpg

[foodcourtdruide]

What texts do Atheists have dedicated to their theories? There are non-fiction books written by Atheists but they do not have a text akin to the bible, Koran, book of Mormon or the like. Those books are opinions put forth by non-believers they are not a manual laying out what Atheists should believe. There are no tenets of Atheism. There are atheists out there that believe in something called the oversoul, atheists that believe in a universal energy, and there are atheists that think all that stuff is bullshit. the only thing they agree upon is that they do not believe in a supreme being.

And as an aside, here's a news story regarding an elected official that is being refused his post due to him being an atheist.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327

I agree that they don't have a bible or koran, persay, but wouldn't you say that there are any texts that Atheists revere?

[TheMojoPin]

I agree that they don't have a bible or koran, persay, but wouldn't you say that there are any texts that Atheists revere?

In the sense of the major holy texts? No, not even close. There's no "per se" about it: there's no equivalent in atheism to the major holy texts.

[KatPw]

Here's a better definition of a Nihilist:
http://tuesdaymidnight.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/big_lebowski_nihilists.jpg
I haven't watched that in the longest time. I need to drag out the VCR.
I agree that they don't have a bible or koran, persay, but wouldn't you say that there are any texts that Atheists revere?

No, that's kinda the point. You don't revere anything.

[foodcourtdruide]

In the sense of the major holy texts? No, not even close. There's no "per se" about it: there's no equivalent in atheism to the major holy texts.

What do you think? You're better than me because you spelled "per se" right?

[foodcourtdruide]

I haven't watched that in the longest time. I need to drag out the VCR.


No, that's kinda the point. You don't revere anything.

Do you think not revering anything is common amongst atheists or unique?

Do you think most atheists revere Darwin's research?

[KatPw]

Do you think not revering anything is common amongst atheists or unique?

Do you think most atheists revere Darwin's research?

I don't think reverence would be the correct word to use in regards to the theory of evolution. I work in the dental field so I'll use this as an example. A man named W.D. Miller came up with the theory that acids break down enamel and cause cavities. I agree with this assessment because there have been countless studies regarding the matter throughout the years and the theory is a scientifically sound one. But I am not in awe of Miller or the other scientists nor do I revere them. They have furthered the science of Dentistry through thought, observation, experimentation and analysis. I admire their work but I do not revere them.

[TheMojoPin]

Do you think not revering anything is common amongst atheists or unique?

Do you think most atheists revere Darwin's research?

Not as a higher power. If they "revere" anyone it's the way someone who is into literature "reveres" certain writers' work or historians "revere" certain other historians' work and so on. There's a huge difference between seeing something as a higher power and respecting and considering someone's works on a subject.

[TheMojoPin]

What do you think? You're better than me because you spelled "per se" right?

Just lending a helping hand.

[keithy_19]

I'm watching the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a Ben Stein piece where he examines professors who have lost their jobs for promoting or exploring the possibility of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and Darwinism within their classrooms.

It's very interesting and a scientific way to look at intelligent design.

[Serpico1103]

I'm watching the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a Ben Stein piece where he examines professors who have lost their jobs for promoting or exploring the possibility of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and Darwinism within their classrooms.

It's very interesting and a scientific way to look at intelligent design.

I watched some of it. Part I saw was them trying to Blame Darwinism for Nazism. Like blaming the Wright Brothers for Hiroshima.
I would guess the professors were fired for disregarding the curriculum, regardless of the topic.

[keithy_19]

I watched some of it. Part I saw was them trying to Blame Darwinism for Nazism. Like blaming the Wright Brothers for Hiroshima.
I would guess the professors were fired for disregarding the curriculum, regardless of the topic.

I've been watching it for about an hour and that has not come up. It's been focusing on science and how complex it is and how people have been silenced for reporting on intelligent design.

[booster11373]

I've been watching it for about an hour and that has not come up. It's been focusing on science and how complex it is and how people have been silenced for reporting on intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not science

[Serpico1103]

I've been watching it for about an hour and that has not come up. It's been focusing on science and how complex it is and how people have been silenced for reporting on intelligent design.
I don't know where it is, but they visit Nazi camps. Lost all credibility at that moment.
I guess religion caused 9/11, ergo all religion is bad.

Ben Stein is a DICK! Anthony (from O&A) was interviewing him and asked if he "chewed someone down." Ben thought he said,"Jewed someone down." Got mad and hung up. They tried to explain, but he was irrational.
He loves Nixon. Yeah Nixon was such a sweetheart.

[keithy_19]

Intelligent design is not science

They can go together.

[yojimbo7248]

They can go together.

well, they can go together in the same high school if intelligent design stays in social science, humanities classes, far away from the science building

[Serpico1103]

They can go together.
The worst thing to happen to religion is to be proven scientifically correct. That eliminates faith. Without faith religion has no meaning.

well, they can go together in the same high school if intelligent design stays in social science, humanities classes, far away from the science building

NAZI!

[underdog]

They can go together.

Where do you stop with the teaching of "science" then? Every class should teach about the flying spaghetti monster, as well then.

ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

[keithy_19]

Where do you stop with the teaching of "science" then? Every class should teach about the flying spaghetti monster, as well then.

ID is not science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

You teach evolution. But you don't rule out any particular idea of how the earth and life was started. I took a biology class in high school and the teacher on the first day of class said, 'at the end of this course I will disprove the excistence of God'. THAT kind of statement is what puts people off to science.

I believe in evolution. I know that things evolve. I just hold the belief that there is something more that caused all this than a chance encounter.

[Syd]

Intelligent design is a nice way of trying to reconcile creationism and evolution, but when it comes down to it a lot of things are poorly designed. Humans are junk designs but lucked out to have struck it rich, survival wise.

[spoon]

You teach evolution. But you don't rule out any particular idea of how the earth and life was started. I took a biology class in high school and the teacher on the first day of class said, 'at the end of this course I will disprove the excistence of God'. THAT kind of statement is what puts people off to science.

I believe in evolution. I know that things evolve. I just hold the belief that there is something more that caused all this than a chance encounter.

Fuck me, this is hard for me to say, but ud is right. Teach that stupid shit in Theology, leave the science to scientific principles.

[underdog]

You teach evolution. But you don't rule out any particular idea of how the earth and life was started. I took a biology class in high school and the teacher on the first day of class said, 'at the end of this course I will disprove the excistence of God'. THAT kind of statement is what puts people off to science.

I believe in evolution. I know that things evolve. I just hold the belief that there is something more that caused all this than a chance encounter.

None of that is intelligent design.

[underdog]

Fuck me, this is hard for me to say, but ud is right. Teach that stupid shit in Theology, leave the science to scientific principles.

Finally you've come around to me.

[Furtherman]

I'm watching the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It's a Ben Stein piece where he examines professors who have lost their jobs for promoting or exploring the possibility of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution and Darwinism within their classrooms.

It's very interesting and a scientific way to look at intelligent design.

That movie was universally panned. Even god believers dismissed that trash.

[Son of Muta]

Kirk Cameron is a fucking douche. These clips are great. Enjoy.

1/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kENWGkRRjrY

2/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54RWoTS1nc

3/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9U_fQ6f2hg