retired_jsammut

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Atheism is about there being no God. Those who state that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of God are not atheist. An atheist will state that there is no God to prove or disprove. A subtle, but definite difference.

retired_lapepe

This is how I have understood atheism, but it seems you are correct Veggie (why is this always so hard to say?). I thought that agnosticism could be included in the broad definition of atheism, but after some investigation I think that is incorrect.

Atheism is the disbelief in any gods. I don't see in any circumstances, however, how this can be called religion. In that case my disbelief in Santa Claus is also a religion. Agnosticism simply means "without knowledge". "A" means without, "gnosis" means knowledge. But it is most often used in the context of existence of gods. Agnostics say we don't have evidence in either direction, hence they are agnostic. Atheists don't believe in gods, hence they are atheists. Then there is the theists that believe in gods. In other words it's a variant of the "Yes/No/Don't Know" in questionaires.

If I tried to be more wrong I could certainly get it more wrong though

retired_jmeshew

Sorry for the absence lads! A squirrel or some other small mammal got under my house, chewed the phone line, and left without internet for a few days

All I've got to add at this point is: Panagea, I am with Turnip. saying you either believe something or you don't misses the obvious human equation. The question is not whether you believe, but how you came to believe it. When I say I chose religion, that is exactly what I did. I made a conscious and deliberate investigation, and then decided to accept the tenets of my faith. I did not simply "believe" and no one ever does. Even a small child raised in the church or the young pioneers for that matter, makes, at some point, a conscious decision to accept or reject the beliefs he has been taught. The one thing you cannot do to humans is force them to believe anything. At best, all you can do is force them to outwardly conform, and appear to believe.

My point here is not to argue for or against any particular brand of religion, but just to say that other points of view that are not based on religion are just as pervasive and biased in their point of view. To you, the biblical creation story might not make sense, but to others it does, and that is not necessarily a reflection of their intelligence, thoughtfulness, and lucidity. For others, the idea of a big bang, and the spontaneous emergence of life from the primordial soup makes sense, and again, holding this belief does not necessarily reflect anything about that person's mental or emotional abilities. No matter how much "evidence" anyone can marshall on either side of the ID or Evolution argument, there is much left to faith. Anyone that claims otherwise is being disingenous. So, humanists (in the modern sense of the word) and atheists (and perhaps deists and agnostics as well) who wish to only teach evolution in schools to the exclusion of anything else, are also operating to get at kids early. I won;t go so far as to say that there is a unified goal in mind, but some are definitely openly hostile to religion. If they weren't, then they wouldn't fight so hard against ID. Instead, they would welcome the debate, be able to prove why their view is far superior, and as a child's education progresses, this will become manifestly clear. Again, why fear ID and it's implications if it is so obviously silly? And for what it's worth, no serious ID proponent is pushing to exclude evolutionary theory from the classroom. Rather, they just seek academic freedom for a dissenting view. Evolution proponents are the ones who want to exclude any form of counter view, whether it be ID or some other theory (though I am not personally aware of others). They are doing the same things you are accusing religion of doing.

retired_babygirlgiggles

Oi. I would agree with you if the ID-theory would exist outside religion. It doesn't however as it's a result of religion. Therefore there is no basis for it at all and should not be teached in school.

Academic freedom is something different then telling stories from different religions.

retired_lapepe

As Giziar says, ID isn't based on a science, it is based on religion. ID is a euphemism for creationism. No serious scientists are in favour of getting ID into schools, but there are plenty of religious leaders etc that do. Evolution is the accepted theory behind life's development on earth, it is based on science and research, so it's only natural that is is tought in schools. Religious speeches and academic freedom is not the same thing.

The view of the Spaghetti Monster religion is an alternative view on evolution, and is quite similar to creationism (or ID if you will). If creationism gets into schools, so should also the Spaghetti Monster.

retired_duncan

Fair suck of the old debating guideline, pangaea. Ridiculing the opposition in a debate is only acceptable by politicians.

As for ID, I'm calling it creation from now on, I believe in allowing schools to teach both 'theories', creation and evolution. There may be more scientific proof for evolution, but there is no concrete evidence. Therefore, both teachings should be offered, especially to young kids.

I haven't been keeping up with the debate so what is someone who believes in nothing called? I mean no god, no absence of god, no after-life, no absence of after-life, basically nothing spiritual AT ALL. You wake up the sun's out, you go to work, you have no idea why you're here, how you got here, why it matters and when you die, you die. End of.

That's me :cool:

retired_jmeshew

I think both of you have just demonstrated how little you know actually know about the ID movement. First, even if it does receive the endorsement of religious leaders, that certainly does not disqualify it from being a serious scientific theory. Guilt by association is a nice trick, but it obscures the issue completely. Second, the statement that no serious scientists subscribe to the ID theory is rubbish. Just a small list of credible scholars who are associated with serious, peer-reviewed research and writing include: biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University. There are nearly 500 other degreed, working scientists that promote ID. Third, ID is NOT creationism. ID is agnostic as regards the source of the intelligence that made the design. It does not dispute the idea of changes in living organisms over time, or even the idea of a single common ancestor to all life on earth. Labelling it religious is simply a cheap and easy way for opponents to discredit it. Design was the predominant scientific theory in the world before Darwin, and it is re-emerging now. As someone observed in this thread, it is easy to be arrogant about our knowledge in our own times but the simple truth is that there is so much more to know about life, and the universe, and the world, and to simply discredit a serious, well-thought out theory that IS based on observable phenomena because of the fear that science will return to some sort of dark ages dominated by anti-intellectual churchmen is blind and silly. It IS about academic and scientific freedom.

retired_duncan

That is propaganda, at best, more likely a lie.

Without trying to poison the well, it always ****es me off when religious types back up their beliefs with scientist x and researcher y are among 500 qualified scientists who believe in this. Big ****ing Deal. If there's N scientists in the world then my mathematical knowledge tells me N-500 is something approaching N.

They always play the fear card as well. Ooooh, non-believers are scared of a world where there is a creator and a 'correct' way to live. No, they're not. They just don't believe it and would happily believe whatever is proven to be true.

retired_lapepe

I've not tried to ridicule anybody, but if anything has come across as that, then that was not my intention, and I'm sorry.

ID is creationism. The difference is that ID calls the creator "creator", while creationism calls it "God". This is supposed to make it neutral. It's not strange that people call ID and creationism based on religion when it so obviously is the case.

I've actually seen, or tried to see, some of the socalled documentaries that promote ID. I found it fantastically silly the stuff they tried to sell me. I honestly believe only people into religion will buy into that.

retired_duncan

It was your spaghetti monster comment that I was referring to