How to spot hidden religious agendas in Science textbooks

[SkinWalker]

It appears that New Scientist has caved to legal threats by some unknown entity that was ostensibly upset that they ran an article on how to spot hidden religious agendas in science text books.

 

The article by Amanda Geftner was at this URL, but the message there says "New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate."

 

The question on the blogosphere among science bloggers is who would threaten such legal action? Obvious culprits are the wackos at Discovery Institute and Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian writer and blogger who defended Intelligent Design in her 2004 book By Design or Chance. O'Leary is a nutjob extraordinaire and goes on many anti-science, pro-superstition tirades on various science and pseudoscience blogs alike. Mostly the latter.

 

So what was in the article that was so controversial? Take a look for yourself. The internet, and skeptics blogs in particular, make such censorship and restriction of free speech near impossible.

 

This is clearly an example of conservative-religious extremists making every effort to oppress free speech where it is critical of their superstitions or daring to question their irrational claims. Ironically, these people are not above lying to scientists to get interviews for films like Expelled, where evolution is grossly mischaracterized as the cause of the Holocaust and where the claim is made that academic freedom is being oppressed.

 

So how do you spot religious agenda in science textbooks. If you didn't click the link to the article copy (and you should copy it to your hard drive for future reference), here's an excerpt:

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".

Clearly, what is objected to by the miscreant(s) that threatened legal action is the fact that someone is educating the public. Hopefully, New Scientist will have the article back online soon. If not, the internet will pick up the slack. In fact, I'll probably repost it on my blog.

[GarfieldJL]

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

[SW01]

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

 

But wait! What of freedom of speech?!?

 

I would say that, yes, the threat will be a suit of libel - but rather than the claimant (whomever it may be) having a strong case, it is more likely that the journal is attempting to limit any possibility of vicarious liability by publishing or endorsing it.

 

I can't really see how a person could sustain their cause here...and if it is utterly unfounded, I do not see why it cannot simply be rebutted with an article penned by an opposing scientist rather than resorting of legal action. If it is unfounded enough to warrant libel proceedings, it is unfounded enough for an educated scientist to rebut.

[SkinWalker]

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

 

I did consider that, actually. I just don't think its as likely as the alternative given the players involved and their previous track record of amoral and unethical behavior.

[GarfieldJL]

I did consider that, actually. I just don't think its as likely as the alternative given the players involved and their previous track record of amoral and unethical behavior.

 

In your opinion, seriously I would accuse atheists of immoral behavior and academic misconduct in an attempt to justify their discrimination of religious people.

[Samuel Dravis]

I was homeschooled and many of my textbooks were from religious organizations. The ones that had agendas were usually the biology books, although even one chemistry book I had felt it necessary to contain something about how evolution wasn't true. The agendas in these books weren't hidden, though. If I remember correctly, one biology book even had an entire chapter for debunking evolution, which I thought was odd at the time.

 

Personally, I don't see how the article was particularly offensive. The only people who would have an interest in removing it are those mentioned (The Expelled movie, James Le Fanu, Denyse O'Leary), and perhaps that one other movie, "What the bleep do we know?", since the article seems to take an obvious jab at it.

[SkinWalker]

In your opinion, seriously I would accuse atheists of immoral behavior and academic misconduct in an attempt to justify their discrimination of religious people.

 

This isn't an "atheist vs. superstitious" issue. Its a science vs. pseudoscience issue. The key players, "Expelled" (the movie), O'Leary, et al are pseudoscientific in their approach. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of many, many more who are actively working in science. And its the opinion of anyone who is educated in science to even a modest degree. The position of the pseudoscience proponent is one that is amoral and unethical.

 

Note also that I used the word "amoral" and not "immoral" as you do in your failed riposte. By amoral, I'm stating that they act without moral standards or principles in their anti-science efforts. Morality is a relative construct that varies depending upon the culture one is considered a member of. To be immoral within Denise O'Leary's culture, for instance, might not be the same as being immoral in your own. Apparently lying, cheating, and the like fit with her culture's morals which is why I used the more broadly appropriate term amoral since society at large frowns upon this sort of behavior.

[GarfieldJL]

This isn't an "atheist vs. superstitious" issue. Its a science vs. pseudoscience issue. The key players, "Expelled" (the movie), O'Leary, et al are pseudoscientific in their approach. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of many, many more who are actively working in science. And its the opinion of anyone who is educated in science to even a modest degree. The position of the pseudoscience proponent is one that is amoral and unethical.

 

Cut the bigotry SkinWalker, if atheism is a religion, I'd be calling it religious bigotry.

 

Note also that I used the word "amoral" and not "immoral" as you do in your failed riposte. By amoral, I'm stating that they act without moral standards or principles in their anti-science efforts. Morality is a relative construct that varies depending upon the culture one is considered a member of. To be immoral within Denise O'Leary's culture, for instance, might not be the same as being immoral in your own. Apparently lying, cheating, and the like fit with her culture's morals which is why I used the more broadly appropriate term amoral since society at large frowns upon this sort of behavior.

 

So being against murder is unethical for instance? Seriously, your constant defaming people whom are religious is bigotry plain and simple. There are some things that atheists cannot use their views to explain anything, like how life began for instance.

 

And having had a death in the family recently, I find I would much prefer the religious view, than the atheist one.

[SkinWalker]

Cut the bigotry SkinWalker, if atheism is a religion, I'd be calling it religious bigotry.

 

This is similar to your baseless "racism" claim against me. I demand that you either edit your post or demonstrate how I'm being "bigoted" by preferring science in the science classroom as opposed to superstition. If you fail to do either, none of your subsequent attempts to report other members for "flamebait" will be meaningful or deserving of review since this is clearly "flamebait" by your loose standards.

 

Seriously, your constant defaming people whom are religious is bigotry plain and simple.

 

I'm defaming no one because of their religious superstitions. I am, however, being critical of those who use deceit and unethical behavior to introduce and sneak superstition into science classrooms and discussions. O'Leary and her ilk do this. Again, this is flamebait and far more obviously so than the ambiguous reports you've provided in the past. If I were to defame other based on their religions, I might suggest that your own religious superstitions permit such hypocrisy. But this is the sort of thing I will refrain from.

 

There are some things that atheists cannot use their views to explain anything, like how life began for instance.

 

Why am I required to explain it to begin with? Why is it not okay to just accept that we don't know something? Not knowing an answer doesn't mean that I get to inject arguments from ignorance like "god did it," which tell us nothing about anything except the ignorance and superstition of the person making the claim.

 

And having had a death in the family recently, I find I would much prefer the religious view, than the atheist one.

 

I'm sorry for your loss. Everyone has deaths in families. I've recently had my own. This is part of being mortal humans with finite lives. My grandfather is now gone after 9 decades of life. His memory continues but his life is extinguished. His DNA is immortal and will continue. His molecules will find their way to the rest of the world (if they ever escape that abomination of a coffin). It would be nice if it were true that his "soul" (whatever that is) were to go on "living" in some after life, but there's absolutely no good reason to believe it to be true except for my own irrational fear of mortality and death.

[LordJhredmo]

Very well states, Skinwalker. Your rhetoric is to be applauded. I wholeheartedly agree with your eloquent and graceful text here. While I'm not as educated than you (obviously), I have this insisting urge to discuss and learn from you. If you have any sorts of newsletters that you have on your studies, I'd love to be tossed a link (simply PM me).

 

I, myself, am agnostic, in a way, since I'm rather indifferent to whoever caused creation, but I revere and respect them for their marvelous work and genius in what has come from it all. Some good, some bad, but in the end life is just a recycling system that ingests, digests, excretes and ingests again.

 

Anyway, I'd rather not waste more space in your topic. Keep up the good work, sir. I immensely enjoyed your articles and responses to this enigmatically disappointing Garfield.

 

Good day to you, sir.

[GarfieldJL]

This is similar to your baseless "racism" claim against me. I demand that you either edit your post or demonstrate how I'm being "bigoted" by preferring science in the science classroom as opposed to superstition. If you fail to do either, none of your subsequent attempts to report other members for "flamebait" will be meaningful or deserving of review since this is clearly "flamebait" by your loose standards.

 

For the record I didn't call you a racist, you took what I said way out of context.

 

 

I'm defaming no one because of their religious superstitions.

 

You just did it again...

 

I am, however, being critical of those who use deceit and unethical behavior to introduce and sneak superstition into science classrooms and discussions. O'Leary and her ilk do this. Again, this is flamebait and far more obviously so than the ambiguous reports you've provided in the past. If I were to defame other based on their religions, I might suggest that your own religious superstitions permit such hypocrisy. But this is the sort of thing I will refrain from.

 

Then tell me scientifically how life began on this planet and we evolved so quickly considering the allowable time frame for life to have taken shape on this planet, because evolution breaks down when we talk about how life began.

 

The Chemical Composition of Amino Acids when looking at the composition of the Atmosphere in which life began is extremely destructive to Amino Acids due to the fact that the chemicals that made up the atmosphere was more reactive to Amino Acid components, than the components of Amino Acids were to each other.

 

It's basic Chemistry.

 

 

Why am I required to explain it to begin with? Why is it not okay to just accept that we don't know something? Not knowing an answer doesn't mean that I get to inject arguments from ignorance like "god did it," which tell us nothing about anything except the ignorance and superstition of the person making the claim.

 

No, you're the one claiming there is no higher power, and I'm going to say flat out: "Prove it."

 

Fact is antimatter was considered to not exist at one time, and it exists.

 

There is all kinds of things on the subatomic level that you can't observe directly yet they exist.

 

 

I'm sorry for your loss. Everyone has deaths in families. I've recently had my own. This is part of being mortal humans with finite lives. My grandfather is now gone after 9 decades of life. His memory continues but his life is extinguished. His DNA is immortal and will continue. His molecules will find their way to the rest of the world (if they ever escape that abomination of a coffin). It would be nice if it were true that his "soul" (whatever that is) were to go on "living" in some after life, but there's absolutely no good reason to believe it to be true except for my own irrational fear of mortality and death.

 

Well, problem with your argument is that people have had near death experiences where they've seen various things that scientists can't quite explain. While many brain functions are the result of electro-chemical interactions, there are things that happen in the brain that cannot be explained even still.

 

 

I think I'm going to get out the book I have that was written by a former atheist whom started out writing a book trying to disprove God's existence and ended up becoming a devout Christian.

[True_Avery]

Then tell me scientifically how life began on this planet and we evolved so quickly considering the allowable time frame for life to have taken shape on this planet, because evolution breaks down when we talk about how life began.

No, it does not. Evolution does not address how life began.

 

The Chemical Composition of Amino Acids when looking at the composition of the Atmosphere in which life began is extremely destructive to Amino Acids due to the fact that the chemicals that made up the atmosphere was more reactive to Amino Acid components, than the components of Amino Acids were to each other.

How is this relevant at all?

 

No, you're the one claiming there is no higher power, and I'm going to say flat out: "Prove it."

Then learn to read. He said "Why is it not okay to just accept that we don't know something?", not "God doesn't exist".

 

You are the one that believes your christian god exists. Skinwalker has stated multiple times that he cannot prove or disprove the existance of a diety, but automatically saying "god did it" does not help the situation or problem.

 

The burden of poof is entirely on your shoulders, as you are the one that believes it.

 

Fact is antimatter was considered to not exist at one time, and it exists.

How is this relevant?

 

We may not know how life began, but just because we don't know does not automatically mean it was your concept of god. Like you said, we didn't even think anti-matter exist. Turns out is does.

 

Now, apply that to your theory. We do not know how life began, but that does not automatically mean it will never be proven.

 

Same with god. There is no proof of the existence or non-existence of god but that does not automatically assume that it exists.

 

There is all kinds of things on the subatomic level that you can't observe directly yet they exist.

So, you want to scientifically prove the existence of an intelligent, benevolent deity that gave you the bible?

 

Ok, go ahead. We're saying that it has not been proven or disproven, so to think absolutely that it exists is fallacious logic. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, so feel free to be the one that builds that super microscope that zooms in on god.

 

Well, problem with your argument is that people have had near death experiences where they've seen various things that scientists can't quite explain. While many brain functions are the result of electro-chemical interactions, there are things that happen in the brain that cannot be explained even still.

People have hallucinations that bugs are crawling out of their skin. In their mind it is real and they react, but in reality they are just in their bed having a panic attack.

 

Just because your mind sees it does not necessarily mean it is there. Take schizophrenics for example.

 

A lot of stuff happens in your brain when it starts to die. Lack of oxygen is well known for creating bursts of apparent light in the brain, and in the panic of injury the brain is known to do amazing things.

 

This does not mean, however, that these things are super natural. This does not mean that everything your brain sees when you are on LSD is 100% real.

 

And this by no means proves god. Prove that it does, or you are just supposing.

 

I think I'm going to get out the book I have that was written by a former atheist whom started out writing a book trying to disprove God's existence and ended up becoming a devout Christian.

I could also find you books of people who claim that Xenu blew an alien race up with hydrogen bombs around a volcano and their spirits live in us.

 

Like blogs, hallucinations, etc... just because someone says they think it is real does not make it proven fact. Until we can prove that the drunk sees a purple elephant in the room with him, then it is all in his mind.

 

So your book on an atheist-turned-christian is irrelevant. You can still share, however, and I'd be glad to link you to books about Christians turning to atheism.

[GarfieldJL]

How is this relevant at all?

 

It's relevent because technically life shouldn't exist if you throw that variable into the equation.

 

Then learn to read. He said "Why is it not okay to just accept that we don't know something?", not "God doesn't exist".

 

That's not what he said and you know it.

 

I'm defaming no one because of their religious superstitions.

 

Saying something is just superstition especially in the way SkinWalker used it, is used in a manner to insult people that believe in a deity, it usually is a means to call people uneducated, primitive, etc.

 

You are the one that believes your christian god exists. Skinwalker has stated multiple times that he cannot prove or disprove the existance of a diety, but automatically saying "god did it" does not help the situation or problem.

 

I actually believe that except for rare instances, God largely lets people live their own lives, it's something known as Free Will.

 

The burden of poof is entirely on your shoulders, as you are the one that believes it.

 

Which is why I brought up the environment in which life began, the problem here is we're dealing with something we can't see, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some subatomic particles are extremely hard to detect and barely interact with matter at all, but they exist.

 

How is this relevant?

 

We may not know how life began, but just because we don't know does not automatically mean it was your concept of god. Like you said, we didn't even think anti-matter exist. Turns out is does.

 

Now, apply that to your theory. We do not know how life began, but that does not automatically mean it will never be proven.

 

Same with god. There is no proof of the existence or non-existence of god but that does not automatically assume that it exists.

 

And you can't automatically assume that God doesn't exist either, science is built around testing things in order to disprove something. Can you disprove your existence, seriously prove that you don't exist.

 

So, you want to scientifically prove the existence of an intelligent, benevolent deity that gave you the bible?

 

Ok, go ahead. We're saying that it has not been proven or disproven, so to think absolutely that it exists is fallacious logic. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, so feel free to be the one that builds that super microscope that zooms in on god.

 

Oh you mean like how they thought the Exodus was made up, and there are the remains of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea?

 

Or that supposedly certain cities that were mentioned in the Bible were thought to have been made up, and their remains were actually found?

 

There was even something on the History Channel a few monthes ago concerning Jericho, and they may have found that city.

 

People have hallucinations that bugs are crawling out of their skin. In their mind it is real and they react, but in reality they are just in their bed having a panic attack.

 

Just because your mind sees it does not necessarily mean it is there. Take schizophrenics for example.

 

A lot of stuff happens in your brain when it starts to die. Lack of oxygen is well known for creating bursts of apparent light in the brain, and in the panic of injury the brain is known to do amazing things.

 

This does not mean, however, that these things are super natural. This does not mean that everything your brain sees when you are on LSD is 100% real.

 

And this by no means proves god. Prove that it does, or you are just supposing.

 

You can argue it either way, but the people I'm referring to were not on LSD nor were they schizophrenics. Seriously, if what you say is what happened, why don't people report seeing lights while they are sedated?

 

I could also find you books of people who claim that Xenu blew an alien race up with hydrogen bombs around a volcano and their spirits live in us.

 

Like blogs, hallucinations, etc... just because someone says they think it is real does not make it proven fact. Until we can prove that the drunk sees a purple elephant in the room with him, then it is all in his mind.

 

So your book on an atheist-turned-christian is irrelevant. You can still share, however, and I'd be glad to link you to books about Christians turning to atheism.

 

Again explain the things mentioned in the Bible that they have actually been found...

 

You're comparing apples to potatos.

[ET Warrior]

Saying something is just superstition especially in the way SkinWalker used it, is used in a manner to insult people that believe in a deity,

Actually, no. Calling a superstition a superstition is merely defining something appropriately.

Which is why I brought up the environment in which life began,

Except nobody actually knows for sure what environment life began in. Not only do we not know the exact makeup of the Earth's atmosphere at the time, we don't even know if it began near the surface, in the oceans, or somewhere else altogether (another planet, for example, hitching a ride to earth on one of the many many meteors early in Earth's history). It's still not relevant to the discussion at hand though.

Oh you mean like how they thought the Exodus was made up, and there are the remains of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea?

I would love to see your source of information for this assertion.

[True_Avery]

It's relevant because technically life shouldn't exist if you throw that variable into the equation.

With what variable? The assumption on how life and earth was at that time you pulled out of the air?

 

The point is that we don't know, and that includes you.

 

That's not what he said and you know it.

Please...

 

There are some things that atheists cannot use their views to explain anything, like how life began for instance.

Why am I required to explain it to begin with? Why is it not okay to just accept that we don't know something? Not knowing an answer doesn't mean that I get to inject arguments from ignorance like "god did it," which tell us nothing about anything except the ignorance and superstition of the person making the claim.

Yes, it is what he said. Before you make a false claim about someone's comment or character I suggest you actually read posts before doing so.

 

Here is more for your viewing pleasure.

Why would this even be necessary? There is no evidence to disprove the purple dragon in my garage or the celestial teapot orbiting the other side of the sun, yet I doubt you'd consider either has good reason for belief. By your flawed (very, very flawed) logic, you must, therefore believe in my dragon and the teapot simply because I claim them true.

 

Science doesn't care one way or another whether a god or a plethora of gods exist. The fact is, the universe behaves exactly as it should be expected to if gods did not exist, but this may be the subject of another thread topic.

 

Regardless, there is no attempt by science to insert or exclude any religious cult's god(s). Science observes the natural universe and attempts to explain the universe in natural terms. The doctrines of many religions and the cults of these religions, however, make empirical claims that aren't supported by empirical evidence.

 

Indeed, when compared and contrasted these religions and their individual cults are often inconsistent and even contradictory in their claims. The adherence of religious doctrine is nearly universally correlated (with the expected exceptions) to socio-cultural education: Anglo-saxon descendants tend to be Christian; those of Semitic ancestry tend to be Jewish or Muslim; Asian ancestry tends to give rise to Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc. -depending on the region; etc. If I were born in the 4th Dynasty Egypt, I'd likely worship Atun-Ra, Ptah, Horus, et al.

 

So, if a religion is going to make an empirical claim ("my god exists and you can't disprove it!"), then it must support that claim. Saying, "look at life on the planet" isn't evidence of your god or any other. And even if it were evidence of a god (or gods), there's no evidence that its your god. The Earth could just as easily be the result of goddess Tiamat's body split in half to form the sky and earth by the god Marduk. Or it could be the ejaculate of Ptah after all.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2585076&postcount=22

 

Saying something is just superstition especially in the way SkinWalker used it, is used in a manner to insult people that believe in a deity, it usually is a means to call people uneducated, primitive, etc.

su⋅per⋅sti⋅tion

   /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soo-per-stish-uhn] Show IPA

–noun

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

 

By definition, a belief in god is a superstition. If you'd like to take "primitive" or other definitions out of that, go ahead.

 

It would no longer be a superstition, however, if you proved the existance of said god. It would also no longer be a superstition if you outright said that you are not afraid of god in any way, shape, or form and your following of religious text was not based on any idea that god would punish you in any way.

 

So, here is your opportunity to clear that up.

 

I actually believe that except for rare instances, God largely lets people live their own lives, it's something known as Free Will.

Source? Evidence?

 

Which is why I brought up the environment in which life began, the problem here is we're dealing with something we can't see, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some subatomic particles are extremely hard to detect and barely interact with matter at all, but they exist.

Ok, first off we don't know when life truly began or what the earth was like in that state. Source if you please.

 

So God is a bunch of subatomic particles? Why would a bunch of subatomic particles care about you, or what you do?

 

And you can't automatically assume that God doesn't exist either, science is built around testing things in order to disprove something.

Oh for ****s sake.

 

Ok, go ahead. We're saying that it has not been proven or disproven, so to think absolutely that it exists is fallacious logic. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, so feel free to be the one that builds that super microscope that zooms in on god.

 

I have not automatically assumed. I've stated multiple times that I believe it has not been proven or disproven, but you being the one that believes that it does puts the burden of proof on your shoulders.

 

Can you disprove your existence, seriously prove that you don't exist.

What the **** does this have to do with proving god exists?

 

Oh you mean like how they thought the Exodus was made up, and there are the remains of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea?

Oh, you mean the divers that have went down, found coral, but when people go down to check there is nothing there?

 

Or how there are multiple land bridges there that could have easily been onced used as trade routes?

 

Or how one of the men that found a wheel apparently also knew the location of Noah's Ark, the "true" Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia and the Ark of the Covenant with the Ten Commandments near the site of Jesus Christ's crucifixion?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168

 

Or that supposedly certain cities that were mentioned in the Bible were thought to have been made up, and their remains were actually found?

Umm, I do not recall denying that cities never existed. New York exists, but just because I write down that Godzilla lives in New York does not make it fact.

 

Also, "supposedly" is not an argument. Either prove they exist, or don't. Don't "suppose" they are the same cities.

 

There was even something on the History Channel a few months ago concerning Jericho, and they may have found that city.

Ummm...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

 

You mean one of the oldest and well known cities currently surviving to this day? Why yes, it does exist.

 

You can argue it either way, but the people I'm referring to were not on LSD nor were they schizophrenics. Seriously, if what you say is what happened, why don't people report seeing lights while they are sedated?

Because sedation does not block oxygen from getting to the brain?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000565

 

And the people who have hallucinations or vivid dreams are also not on drugs or are schizo, but that still happens. Your brain does weird things, but that does not mean "god did it to my brain".

 

Again explain the things mentioned in the Bible that they have actually been found...

Jericho? We have known Jericho existed for 9,000 years. Hardly news. Also, History Channel puts stuff up like "Ghost Hunters" and "Monster Quest", so I would fact check what that channel tells you because it has posted bizarre and blatantly unreasonable shows on a regular basis.

 

Then you claimed we found cities that the bible mentioned. Really? Wow. We found a few of the thousands of cities that existed at that time that just happened to be mentioned in a biblical scripture written and spread around at those times. Big surprise there.

 

And no, there is no proof of chariots as far as I know. We have the claims of criminals and gold diggers who have -claimed- to have found wheels, but never brought anything up to prove it.

 

You'll have to do better than that if you are to convince me that women were made from the rib of men.

 

You're comparing apples to potatos.

And you are assuming just because it was written in a book that makes it true.

[EnderWiggin]

You just did it again...

 

Oh stop complaining. Nothing he did is defaming (or whatnot) to Christians.

 

Then tell me scientifically how life began on this planet and we evolved so quickly considering the allowable time frame for life to have taken shape on this planet, because evolution breaks down when we talk about how life began.

 

As one Christian to another, let me let you in on a little secret: no it doesn't.

 

It's basic Chemistry.

Explains how we know all about the origins of life then.... oh wait, we don't.

 

Perhaps you've forgotten that the atmospheric conditions of the earth at the time life began are not known? And how the theories of those conditions have changed drastically in recent years?

 

 

No, you're the one claiming there is no higher power, and I'm going to say flat out: "Prove it."

 

Burden of Proof is on You.

Fact is antimatter was considered to not exist at one time, and it exists.

I can do that too: Fact is a flat earth was considered to exist at one time, and it does not exist.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Oh stop complaining. Nothing he did is defaming (or whatnot) to Christians.

 

Except for the fact that it's using studies with the same level of scientific standards as experiments conducted by the Nazis...

 

 

As one Christian to another, let me let you in on a little secret: no it doesn't.

 

That's news to me, I thought you were an atheist.

 

Explains how we know all about the origins of life then.... oh wait, we don't.

 

Perhaps you've forgotten that the atmospheric conditions of the earth at the time life began are not known? And how the theories of those conditions have changed drastically in recent years?

 

They actually do have a pretty good idea of the atmospheric conditions, they can determine that information from sedimentary rock from that period.

 

Burden of Proof is on You.

 

You can't disprove a positive.

 

I can do that too: Fact is a flat earth was considered to exist at one time, and it does not exist.

 

It was disproven that's the key, they disproved something, but you can't disprove the Earth is round now can you?

[SkinWalker]

For the record I didn't call you a racist, you took what I said way out of context.

 

You implied it and this amounts to a claim. You still haven't demonstrated how I'm a "bigot."

 

I'm defaming no one because of their religious superstitions.

You just did it again...

 

Hello! Party of one! Your table is ready! :-) Just because you find criticism of your superstitions offensive or "defaming" doesn't imply actual defamation.

 

Superstition - An excessive reverence for, or fear of, that which is supernatural

 

Unless you're saying that gods are not supernatural (i.e. not part of nature) then you're demonstrating a bit of ignorance to which I hope I've elucidated.

 

Then tell me scientifically how life began on this planet blah, blah, blah...

 

Why? This is fallacious in three ways: 1) its a straw man argument -you can't compete with the argument at hand so you construct something that you believe you can defeat more easily; 2) its a red herring designed to misdirect from the topic which is how to spot religious agendas in science text books and the suppression of academic progress and the anti-science messages of dishonest religionists (note, this is not inclusive of all religionists) who prefer to inject their unfounded and irrational superstitions (i.e. the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; evolution doesn't happen; people didn't evolve; & other ignorant nonsense) in place of science; 3) it's an argument from ignorance -you feel that since you don't know the answer to something that it, therefore, must have been done by supernatural means. Pure poppycock.

 

If you want to start a thread on abiogenesis, feel free to do so. Further discussion of it in this thread is off-topic.

 

No, you're the one claiming there is no higher power, and I'm going to say flat out: "Prove it."

 

But I'm not claiming that there is "no higher power" (whatever that means). I'm countering the superstitious claim that such a power exists with the rational statement that there is no good reason to believe in that which you cannot verify or potentially falsify. You might as well say that mxphrvph created the universe and that mxphrvph is worshiped by watching Monty Python reruns twice a week -it makes exactly the same amount of sense and has just as much likelihood of being true as the Christian god, the Islamic god, the Peruvian god, the Hawaiian god, or the gods of ancient Egypt, Greece and Anatolia.

 

Any or all of these gods as well as mxphrvph might exist. I simply see no good reason to believe they do.

 

Well, problem with your argument is that people have had near death experiences where they've seen various things that scientists can't quite explain. While many brain functions are the result of electro-chemical interactions, there are things that happen in the brain that cannot be explained even still.

 

Yet another argument from ignorance. This time, the ignorance is totally yours and shame on you for it. Near death experiences are quite explainable and have been for some time. But again, this is another thread and a red herring. Please start a thread on NDE and I'll happily wipe the metaphorical floor of the Senate with you on it when I post these explanations and the empirical data that accompanies them. Further discussions of NDE in this thread are off-topic. The topic is how to recognize religious agendas in Science textbooks....

 

I think I'm going to get out the book I have that was written by a former atheist whom started out writing a book trying to disprove God's existence and ended up becoming a devout Christian.

 

Your inappropriate use of the dative case of "who" notwithstanding (the pronoun "whom" generally only follows a tacit or implicit preposition), this might make for interesting discourse. I would suggest starting a thread on it as I would be happy to know what influenced this person's choices and decisions to turn to superstition. If the author is Alister McGrath or Anthony Flew, I already have some comments to share.

[Rogue Nine]

I think I'm going to get out the book I have that was written by a former atheist whom started out writing a book trying to disprove God's existence and ended up becoming a devout Christian.

 

Calling it now, it's this book. I've read it, it's a laugher.

[SkinWalker]

That's not what he said and you know it.

 

Please link to the post where I made a statement that says your god doesn't exist. We'll accept the absence of such a link as implicit admittance that you are wrong.

 

Saying something is just superstition especially in the way SkinWalker used it, is used in a manner to insult people that believe in a deity, it usually is a means to call people uneducated, primitive, etc.

 

See the definition of superstitious above.

 

I actually believe that except for rare instances, God largely lets people live their own lives, it's something known as Free Will.

 

Which god? Zeus? Apollo? Quetzacoatl? Ptah? Atun? Yahweh? Allah? One of the other thousands of thousands of gods humanity has created -many of which contradict each other in qualities and characteristics? I'm asking only so that we can know where you're coming from. In addition, does your god have the quality of omniscience (all-knowing)? If so, wouldn't that imply that your god knows everything about everything at any time? For instance, wouldn't your god (hypothetically speaking, of course) know that I'd be an atheist? -never mind, I think I'll create a thread on this in the next day or two.

 

And you can't automatically assume that God doesn't exist either, science is built around testing things in order to disprove something. Can you disprove your existence, seriously prove that you don't exist.

 

There's no good reason to inject any of humanities thousands of thousands of gods into the gaps of human knowledge. There are any number of things that we cannot assume exist -but this doesn't mean we get to assume these things exist either. Particularly when they aren't even potentially falsifiable. One of the many methods of science is falsifiability. To exist in reality means that something must at least potentially be falsifiable. If it isn't, then there's no point in inserting it into an hypothesis. If invisible, incorporeal and magical green yard gnomes are suggested as a reason for fairy circles in the back yard, this isn't an hypothesis of how fairy circles are made but a fantasy since invisible, incorporeal green yard gnomes cannot potentially be falsified. If, however, it is suggested that an underground mycelium is responsible, this is an hypothesis since one could, in theory, falsify the claim by showing that a mycelium doesn't exist.

 

Oh you mean like how they thought the Exodus was made up, and there are the remains of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea?

 

This is pure poppycock. I'd like to see you try to cite a source for this claim. Fair warning: the last time it was claimed on this forum and I debunked it, someone retorted something along the lines of "what are you? An expert on Egyptian Chariots." Well... as a matter of fact...

 

I'm an archaeologist, by the way.

 

Or that supposedly certain cities that were mentioned in the Bible were thought to have been made up, and their remains were actually found?

 

Which cities and "supposed" by whom (note the preceding preposition)?

 

There was even something on the History Channel a few monthes ago concerning Jericho, and they may have found that city.

 

The History Channel, a.k.a. the Pseudoscience Channel, or so it seems these days with their ghost hunters, UFO specials, and "psychic" programs. I'm fairly knowledgeable about Jericho. There's no "may have" about it, Jericho has been known for decades. There were no "walls" in existence at the time Jewish myth and legend holds that trumpets brought them down. In fact, there wasn't much of a city there at that time. There was a really cool silo or tower at the site and a wall, both in a period much, much earlier than the Jewish story alleges, but the wall wasn't a fortification but a short one designed either for flood or animal control.

 

Again explain the things mentioned in the Bible that they have actually been found...

 

Like what? Does mention of the Mississippi River by Mark Twain imply that there really was a Huck Finn and that his river raft adventures are factual? Does the existence of Troy imply that cyclops and sirens actually exist because Homer wrote of them? What, specifically, of biblical mythology is found to be true which implies that a deity stopped the planet from rotating for 24 hours?

[kipperthefrog]

What, may I ask, would count as evedence of a deity and biblical stories true?

[EnderWiggin]

That's news to me, I thought you were an atheist.

 

That's because you don't ****ing pay any attention. I said just last week (or so) in that other thread re: atheists being descriminated against that I was Christian, and that was after you called me an atheist over there! Also, I've repeatedly said that I'm a Christian who believes that God used Evolution as his tool, and that I'm a Protestant.

 

_EW_

 

Proof for ya:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2600588&postcount=29

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2600985&postcount=42

 

and countless others, but they were the ones from the last 2 weeks.

[Q]

Ender just isn't a dogmatic Christian. I do remember that he has said elsewhere that he believes that everything that Jesus said was and is divine.

[jonathan7]

I love my brother Ender

 

dogmatic Christian.

 

Dogmatic Christians tend to remind me of Pharisees - people Jesus had interesting things to say about.

 

I also think Jesus may well have interesting things to say about people who lie in science books. (Exodus 20:16 (New International Version - "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.)

 

In otherwords I don't think Jesus would of been too impressed with people attempting to make something which isn't science, or has no basis in science appear to be science.

[Darth InSidious]

dogmatic Christian.

 

Dogmatic Christians tend to remind me of Pharisees - people Jesus had interesting things to say about.

 

O hai.

 

Extra ecclesia nulla salus, et ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia.

 

kthxbai.

 

But seriously, since when did 'dogmatic' come to mean 'creationist'?