There is one little simple question atheism can't answer...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am talking about science in general and not a particular study that got closed down, I am talking about a society losing scientific potential due to religious beliefs. If a section of society is restricted from science due to religious belief then the society as a whole suffers.

As a specific case I would guess stem cell research but something tells me you already have considered this.

tenaka2

I have backed it up, if 40% of people in america think the world was created less then 10,000 years ago it means that 40% of Americans can't study a vast range of scientific disciplines.

I don't understand why your not accepting that figure... can you imagine if 100% of americans thought the world was less then 10,000 years old? The detriment to science would be absolute, obviously 40% is still a massive number 120 million + people.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] how many Athiests have tried to get me to somehow denounce religion , both as a whole, or the Jewish religion (ie my religion) specifically ? plenty how many times have I personally told Atheists to believe in God or any organised religion? not even a single time.Darkman2007

That's irrelevant considering I was talking about the public sector, as in teaching kids LIES like creationism. You being lectured to by Mr. Joe Atheist on the street corner isn't even relevant.

NO.

We teach science, in science class rooms. We do not teach your creation story, derived from your religion in a biology class room. It is not science. What a complete and utter waste of tax payers money. I'll quote a bumper sticker I saw "Can I teach evolution in your CHURCH?"

and there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism , as long as evolution is also thought and the two are presented as two opposing views.Darkman2007

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] how many Athiests have tried to get me to somehow denounce religion , both as a whole, or the Jewish religion (ie my religion) specifically ? plenty how many times have I personally told Atheists to believe in God or any organised religion? not even a single time.Darkman2007

That's irrelevant considering I was talking about the public sector, as in teaching kids LIES like creationism. You being lectured to by Mr. Joe Atheist on the street corner isn't even relevant.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

That's irrelevant considering I was talking about the public sector, as in teaching kids LIES like creationism. You being lectured to by Mr. Joe Atheist on the street corner isn't even relevant.

HoolaHoopMan

It isn't an opinion or a point of view when the age of the Earth and origin of life are involved, there's an answer to both. Creation and ID are complete lies, unfounded, and unscientific. I have no qualm calling such "beliefs" lies as they deserve no respect.

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"] No actually they don't. Religion makes claims that have absolutely no scientific backing that it postulates to be true. For instance the seven day creation of the Bible is in stark contradiction to science, creation of plants before there's sunlight to allow for photosynthesis is in direct contradiction of science. Humans walking on water is in direct contradiction with science. A global flood is in direct contradiction with science and on and on. These are supernatural claims made by religion that science says are physical impossible, this is not co-existing, this is a complete disagreement on how laws operate. What these are, are extra supernatural claims made by religion that are not supported by anything other than a holy book. I'm tearing up on the Bible here for starters. Also, what do you think randomly happened? Please enlighten us.LJS9502_basic

But you don't know that, that's only what you claim. The symbolic cop out you're making was only made after sciencetific discoveries were made that completely contradicted what the Bible said for isntance. Many religious people would disagree with you as well as let you know there's a special place in hell for you. You stated that religion does not contradict science, and I have pointed out where it specifically does for at least a very large portion of the population (considering the examples I gave). This point still stands.

Please try to be more clear about what you're saying in the second bold.

1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is. what you think is scientific now, might be outdated . so why should your views get any respect? also whats "ID" ?Darkman2007

First off, the world has been known to be round far longer than 1000 years. Secondly, the scientific method we use today is relatively new thus any view held 1000 years ago stating the Earth was flat wouldn't be scientific. Plus the view of a flat Earth wouldn't even be scientific because a simple observation would prove it to be false.

ID stands for Intelligent Design aka Creationism with a new name.

Lastly, these aren't my view as they aren't subject to belief. They are verifiable and repeatedly shown to be truths.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I have backed it up, if 40% of people in america think the world was created less then 10,000 years ago it means that 40% of Americans can't study a vast range of scientific disciplines.

I don't understand why your not accepting that figure... can you imagine if 100% of americans thought the world was less then 10,000 years old? The detriment to science would be absolute, obviously 40% is still a massive number 120 million + people.

LJS9502_basic

My logic does not state that, my logic states that 40% of a population cannot study several sciences due to religious belief, that is all.

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"]

So if I believed that insible blue sloths created the universe from nothing, and then when I heard about evolution I refined my beliefs to be that invisible blue sloths guided evolution, is that co-existing with the science? Or is that just riding on the back of science like mole and waiting for it to make the discoveries for me so I can then agree but also add that my invisible blue sloths were behind it, while simeltaneously claiming that these sloths suspend the physical laws of the universe I'm claiming to be in agreement with on semi regular occassion to preform miracles among other things but that science will never be able to test that?

LJS9502_basic

No, I've just provided you with an example that illustrates how merging your religious beliefs with science only after it makes its discoveries, considering your previous beliefs were wildly contradictory to it, is more riding on the back of science, but you can call it "co-existing" if it makes you feel better.

For the bold; LOL WOW. I wonder how many lmgtfy links I'm going to have to give you in this thread? You sure do dislike doing your own research huh? Bit of laziness? Btw, you still didn't address my last lmgtfy link. Anyway, here's this one, can you please spend 10 SECONDS on google for once?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationism+debate+high+school

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] 1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is. what you think is scientific now, might be outdated . so why should your views get any respect? also whats "ID" ?HoolaHoopMan

First off, the world has been known to be round far longer than 1000 years. Secondly, the scientific method we use today is relatively new thus any view held 1000 years ago stating the Earth was flat wouldn't be scientific. Plus the view of a flat Earth wouldn't even be scientific because a simple observation would prove it to be false.

ID stands for Intelligent Design aka Creationism with a new name.

Lastly, these aren't my view as they aren't subject to belief. They are verifiable and repeatedly shown to be truths.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is. what you think is scientific now, might be outdated . so why should your views get any respect? also whats "ID" ?Darkman2007

Thats the point of science, if something is proven to be incorrect or false, science accepts this and changes its view. However religion is fixed, the book says things are so, so religion is unable to change or adapt.

Science is happy to be wrong if it bring more knowledge, religion is not.

youre missing the point , if any scientific theory is subject to change or even thrown out altogether, what gives it more espect then any theory not based on science? also I still don't understand how being religious means a person is unable to enjoy of fruits of science in the technological and medicinal fields for example.Darkman2007

It wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't scientific, that's by definition. In order for something to be a theory it has to follow the scientific method.

Bolded: It would just mean you're a hypocrit. You enjoy the full fruits of a methodology that you reject when it interferes with your faith.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] 1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is. what you think is scientific now, might be outdated . so why should your views get any respect? also whats "ID" ?Darkman2007

First off, the world has been known to be round far longer than 1000 years. Secondly, the scientific method we use today is relatively new thus any view held 1000 years ago stating the Earth was flat wouldn't be scientific. Plus the view of a flat Earth wouldn't even be scientific because a simple observation would prove it to be false.

ID stands for Intelligent Design aka Creationism with a new name.

Lastly, these aren't my view as they aren't subject to belief. They are verifiable and repeatedly shown to be truths.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"] No it can not. How can they?

dreDREb13

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] youre missing the point , if any scientific theory is subject to change or even thrown out altogether, what gives it more espect then any theory not based on science? also I still don't understand how being religious means a person is unable to enjoy of fruits of science in the technological and medicinal fields for example.HoolaHoopMan

It wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't scientific, that's by definition. In order for something to be a theory it has to follow the scientific method.

Bolded: It would just mean you're a hypocrit. You enjoy the full fruits of a methodology that you reject when it interferes with your faith.

youre not getting the point, Im not saying that in 1000 years someone will say the world is not round, what Im saying is that any scientific theory is changing , therefore its just that , theory.Darkman2007

Then you obviously don't understand science in the slightest. That's the entire point of science, it's self correcting and you can always add upon existing work. Every theory will most likely be modified, but usually to fine tune it. Evolution changes all the time but this doesn't mean the core tenants are moot, it means that it's being strengthened.

Saying "it's just a theory" is a dead give away that someone is scientifically illiterate. A theory is the closest to truth that one can come across, it's a feat to actual get to the level of theory.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KeitekeTokage"] No actually they don't. Religion makes claims that have absolutely no scientific backing that it postulates to be true. For instance the seven day creation of the Bible is in stark contradiction to science, creation of plants before there's sunlight to allow for photosynthesis is in direct contradiction of science. Humans walking on water is in direct contradiction with science. A global flood is in direct contradiction with science and on and on. These are supernatural claims made by religion that science says are physical impossible, this is not co-existing, this is a complete disagreement on how laws operate. What these are, are extra supernatural claims made by religion that are not supported by anything other than a holy book. I'm tearing up on the Bible here for starters. Also, what do you think randomly happened? Please enlighten us.KeitekeTokage

But you don't know that, that's only what you claim. The symbolic cop out you're making was only made after sciencetific discoveries were made that completely contradicted what the Bible said for isntance. Many religious people would disagree with you as well as let you know there's a special place in hell for you. You stated that religion does not contradict science, and I have pointed out where it specifically does for at least a very large portion of the population (considering the examples I gave). This point still stands.

Please try to be more clear about what you're saying in the second bold.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] youre missing the point , if any scientific theory is subject to change or even thrown out altogether, what gives it more espect then any theory not based on science? also I still don't understand how being religious means a person is unable to enjoy of fruits of science in the technological and medicinal fields for example.Darkman2007

It wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't scientific, that's by definition. In order for something to be a theory it has to follow the scientific method.

Bolded: It would just mean you're a hypocrit. You enjoy the full fruits of a methodology that you reject when it interferes with your faith.

No, I'm saying you would be a hypocrite to use modern medicine and simultaneously reject Evolution. The laws of nature don't stop working based on ones beliefs, that would be moronic.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="xaos"] Spurious analogy is spurious. OMG science doesn't deliver answers on immutable stone tablets, LOL!tenaka2

Thats the point of science, if something is proven to be incorrect or false, science accepts this and changes its view. However religion is fixed, the book says things are so, so religion is unable to change or adapt.

Science is happy to be wrong if it bring more knowledge, religion is not.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

It wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't scientific, that's by definition. In order for something to be a theory it has to follow the scientific method.

Bolded: It would just mean you're a hypocrit. You enjoy the full fruits of a methodology that you reject when it interferes with your faith.

HoolaHoopMan

No, I'm saying you would be a hypocrite to use modern medicine and simultaneously reject Evolution. The laws of nature don't stop working based on ones beliefs, that would be moronic.

That is because it is the only way to interpret it. :|dreDREb13

I still don't understand how does belief in creationism make it hypocritical for you to enjoy things like modern medicine. it actually sounds like a pretty authoritarian view to me "you must agree with me 100% or youre damned"Darkman2007

If you reject Evolution then you're basically rejecting the entire field of Biology. Biology as you may have guessed is the study of life, a pretty crucial thing to medicine, epecially with regards to Evolution.

Taking advantage of a plethora of medical advances that rely upon something you view to be false would fall into the realm of "hypocrisy".

[QUOTE="dreDREb13"]That is because it is the only way to interpret it. :|foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dreDREb13"]That is because it is the only way to interpret it. :|dreDREb13

1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is.Darkman2007

Um, no, in fact the idea that the world was flat was never considered scientific, and scholars have known that the world was not flat for millenia now.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I still don't understand how does belief in creationism make it hypocritical for you to enjoy things like modern medicine. it actually sounds like a pretty authoritarian view to me "you must agree with me 100% or youre damned"HoolaHoopMan

If you reject Evolution then you're basically rejecting the entire field of Biology. Biology as you may have guessed is the study of life, a pretty crucial thing to medicine, epecially with regards to Evolution.

Taking advantage of a plethora of medical advances that rely upon something you view to be false would fall into the realm of "hypocrisy".

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="dreDREb13"]That is because it is the only way to interpret it. :|LJS9502_basic

rejecting evolution doesn't mean youre rejecting biology, youre simply rejecting how we got to our present state of things.Darkman2007

Evolution is foundational to the entire field of modern biology; without evolution biology would have gotten nowhere. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is.GabuEx

Um, no, in fact the idea that the world was flat was never considered scientific, and scholars have known that the world was not flat for millenia now.

Yes, I understand that. You can say God created us, but through evolution. That, I understand. I'm just saying that when people are arguing that creationism be kept out of schools, they mean that intelligent design--at least the definition we know today--is what should be kept out, not a philosophical look at the world. Creationism is, at least by today's standards, a belief that the world and everything in it was made in 7 days. There is no room for interpretation, because that would not be Creationism, just as if I were to say atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. To say it is anything else would not be atheism.dreDREb13

rejecting evolution doesn't mean youre rejecting biology, youre simply rejecting how we got to our present state of things. heck there were several religious leaders in history who were also doctors, Maimonades comes to mind on that list.Darkman2007

Firstly I'm talking about Creationism, or the belief that evolution doesn't happen and that the Earth is young. I'm not talking about the notion of "Theistic Evolution" or mere deism. I'm well aware that there are scientists out there that believe in God, their beliefs aren't conflicting with science (unless they don't believe in Human evolution, that would conflict).

The thing about Biology is that it doesn't make sense with out evolution. By rejecting evolution you in essence disregarding an entire field of science. That would be the equivalent of saying that rejecting the existence of atoms wouldn't comprimise your view on the field of chemisty. It's impossible.

Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]rejecting evolution doesn't mean youre rejecting biology, youre simply rejecting how we got to our present state of things.GabuEx

Evolution is foundational to the entire field of modern biology; without evolution biology would have gotten nowhere. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]1000 years ago, the idea that the world was flat was considerd scientific, that doesnt mean it is.Darkman2007

Um, no, in fact the idea that the world was flat was never considered scientific, and scholars have known that the world was not flat for millenia now.

The fact that you said something provably false doesn't matter? :?

If your argument rests on an analogy that is factually incorrect, your argument might be in trouble.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]rejecting evolution doesn't mean youre rejecting biology, youre simply rejecting how we got to our present state of things.Darkman2007

Evolution is foundational to the entire field of modern biology; without evolution biology would have gotten nowhere. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.

It has everything to do with modern medicine. Evolution is a core principle behind modern medicine. Superbugs are a good example: without the theory of evolution, we would have no hope of understanding how they arise and what to do about them.

Well both events defy logic and are physically impossible. Why not consider both of them figurative? HoolaHoopMan

Wait people are still rejecting evolution? It's a proven fact. :|

What's not (properly) proven is the origin of man.