My church handled this in a smarter manner stating that neither Creationism nor Evolution can be proven conclusively and so remain theories. They also taught that it was all created by God, but the manner in which it was done is not known. They never gave a specific range for the age of the earth (there's no mention of such things in the Bible), just that the earth was created with the appearance of age. More crucially, they always make sure to point out that days as used in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, are metaphorical and the actual length of a day is not the same literal time as what we know to be a day now.

I remember in high school they taught Creationism, evolution, and brief mention of some other origins of life theory I can't remember. They were pretty balanced with it and stresses the theory status of all of them. Of course, they left it with "Would you feel better knowing that someone was in control and carefully created you and everything around you or that your very existence is due to some random accident?"

What if I told you that I knew Moses from a distance, met up with Jesus (and what a bastard he was), talked philosophy with Julius Caesar, and was there to watch Anastasia die.

Would you believe me?

Then tell me why you believe that Creationism is real?

The line I like best comes from Conan O'Brien:

"Developers in Kentucky plan on opening a creationist theme park. Yeah. When asked what the creationist theme park would look like, developers said it's still evolving."

I agree completely that this is all complete nonsense. However, the title of the video bothers me. Not your title, the videos: "Religious child abuse..."

People will and should teach their children exactly how they see the world. I'm an atheist and have always taught my children what I believe. Before anyone asks, their mother is also an atheist.

I didn't see any reason to qualify my beliefs by presenting the other side of the story as a viable alternative.

There are many, many people that would consider my teachings child abuse and think that I've somehow committed their "souls" to Hell. Christians have told me many times that I've done them a disservice at best and probably doomed them to an eternity of torture (you know, as prescribed by a loving God).

These people believe just as strongly in their beliefs as I believe in mine and guiding their children toward what they believe to be truth is anything but child abuse.

Calling this abuse is bullshit. It is an insult to those who experienced actual abuse. If they were raped or beaten and told that it was the will of God and thy had to submit to one person or the other then yeah that would make sense.. They were singing songs and doing corny stuff adults thought they would think was fun. That is not abuse by any real standard..

And I am with whistle dick.. They are my kids. I don't believe in evolution or creation I Believe in God. I also believe he can create things however he pleases.. Calling what I teach my kids abuse is absurd.

It's as if some atheists and others have made up a little world where everything the religious do to their kids is abuse. From circumcision to talking to them about God and singing songs with them to their diets. It is an attempt to demonize what we do. There is only one reason we demonize things and that is to see it stop being done, whether by public shaming or passing a law making it illegal.

They demonized pot in order to demonize the people who did it. That is why no one cares if you raid their houses, shoot their dogs and scare the hell out of their kids. Its why the Jews were led to the gas chambers en mass. They were literally called devils. All because someone disapproved of what they did in the case of pot heads and disapproved of them existing in the case of Jews.

Calling Christians child abusers for teaching their kids what they believe is wrong. And it isn't child abuse it is just something you disapprove of. And frankly its none of your business.

"Calling what I teach my kids abuse is absurd."

Bingo! What would one call it if you didn't teach your children what you believe? Neglect, that's what.

I"m glad you doubt that 75% nonsense, at least. Teaching your child your religion is not abuse, just because you don't agree with them. Are you being abusive when you counsel people not to be religious? Oh no, I remember, it's not abuse when YOU teach because you have "proof". Yippee. If christians are wrong, big whoop. If you are, it's going to be very bad. Also, fundamentalists are the ones who think hell is torture and burning. Most of us think it's merely eternity without god's presence. I'll admit to wishing for the burning, for some people. Rapists, child molesters......

Creationism nor Evolution can be proven conclusively and so remain theories.

Wrong. Somebody please decimate this; I'm on deadline and have to write my column.

Here, here's a little something from a link:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

...Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.

Do you not believe in the theory of gravity, either?

Oh, and feel free to read that 50 Proofs above, and refute every one of them -- or admit that your beliefs are founded on nothing more than your desire to believe; not on evidence.

A world filled with irrational people who will believe anything is a worse world, and I'd like to live in a better world. If you convince people to believe in things without evidence, they can be your pawns: to hate others who don't believe as they do, to force religion on other people, or to kill them because they don't believe in your particular Great Pumpkin. For example: http://www.rferl.org/content/sweden_bombing_jihad/2246751.html

Um, not for nothing JosephineMO7, but it was religious christians pushing for the 'demonization' the jews, and of drugs and alcohol her in the states. It wasnt the atheist germans claiming the jews killed jebus.

And if you dont think needlessly tearing the skin of a childs penis is abuse, why dont you try ripping the skin off of one of your fingers and get back to us on whether or not doing that to somone against their will is abusive.

Because otherwise female circumcison done for religious reasons is also none of our buisness, and neither is the driving of school girls into a burning building to die becuase the shawls used to cover their faces for 'modesty' already went up in flames. Right?

Oh wait I forget, YOUR religious traditions are sacrosanct and expemt form the contempt we show other religions 'traditional' barbarism - and why is that? Becuase you worship the real god?

And what proof do you have that your god exists? And even if he dopes exist you still need to prove that he is the right god.

I'm going to reiterate a point here, it's a double post:

"Calling what I teach my kids abuse is absurd."

Bingo! What would one call it if you didn't teach your children what you believe? Neglect, that's what.

==============================

Any comment about the title of the video?

JosephineMO7 is a Christian. You can go bananas about that all day. I don't agree with her, you don't agree with her, science doesn't agree with her.

However, can we agree that a parent would be mournfully neglectful in not teaching his children what he believes and why he believes it? What the hell is the point of being a parent if not to mould an adult out of a child in the way that you want that child to guide his life?

Josephine's children will grow up to think for themselves, just as my children, who were raised as atheists, will grow up to think for themselves. However, each family will be guided by parents that love them. There is no "abuse" going on here.

If christians are wrong, big whoop. If you are, it's going to be very bad.
So, yyour faith in God is like insurance? Kinda makes it seem cheap when you put it that way.

Also what happens if you die and it turns out Vishnu, Tash, or Lloth is the supreme being?

Also, fundamentalists are the ones who think hell is torture and burning. Most of us think it's merely eternity without god's presence.

Gee an eternity of not sitting around and kissing the ass of teh guy who set up a test that everyone fails and in order to skate by you have to beg for special favor - doensnt sound so bad.

I'll admit to wishing for the burning, for some people. Rapists, child molesters......

Sorry, but according to Jebus himself everyone who asks for forgivness before final judgemnt get ino heaven, and as final judgement is slated to happen AFTER the world ends - it means logically everyone gets into heaven

It all seems to stem from a fear of being dead and what happens after we are no longer alive.

People forget that they have been dead. Heck, I wasn't alive for all of universal History right up until 1970. It didn't hurt at all. I wasn't sitting around somewhere thinking how horrible it was and it didn't even tickle.

Isn't the miracle of being alive for a little while enough? Why does anyone need more of a miracle than that?

"Also, fundamentalists are the ones who think hell is torture and burning. Most of us think it's merely eternity without god's presence."

You go to Heaven for the weather and Hell for the company -- Mark Twain

Job didn't ride a dinosaur. He rode a Harley, until he wiped it out on the 405. And that was just the start of his troubles...

Careful, Whistledick: You just said "miracle." That's enough to get you in trouble with some folks 'round here.

My church handled this in a smarter manner stating that neither Creationism nor Evolution can be proven conclusively and so remain theories.

This is destructive. Amy covered this above, but Creationism is not a theory. It's a fantasy with no scientific evidence to support it. If Christians want to teach their children that that fantasy represents reality, whatever. There's nothing I can do about it anyway, so I'm not going to sweat it too much.

But calling Creationism a theory changes how people think of "theory." It's not just a guess about how the world works. It puts strong scientific evidence and fantasy on equal footing, and it gives a scientific weight to Creationism that it doesn't deserve.

It all comes down to the fact that people don't grasp the difference between the colloquial and scientific definition of "theory".

In common conversation, a "theory" is a guess, a personal opinion, a wild shot in the dark, is usually paired with the word "Clever" and usually refers to what the person thinks is going to happen on their favorite TV show. They are usually without evidence or any semblance of testing or verification. To the average person, any idea, damn-fool or no, that you can come up with is a "theory".

In science,the term "Theory" is only awarded after an astounding series of testing and experimentation. Scientifically, "Theory" means "As close to a fact as we can get because we checked the hell out of it, but we're not so pompous as to suggest we're perfect, so we're leaving the door open to the idea that future generations might invent technology that shows us up as fools, but RIGHT NOW we're pretty damn sure it's right".

Creationists use the colloquial theory, and attempt to suggest that the decades of investigation into evolution has as much chance of being right as Larry From Accounting's idea as to how LOST was gonna end.

That. right there, is where they lose me.

Bear in Mind, I'm a (cafeteria) Catholic, and choose to believe in the existence of God, simply because it brings me comfort. I wen to parochial school for 11.5 / 12 years of basic education, and was taught hard science at the same time as bible studies. I was, and am, able to hold two conflicting thoughts in my head at once. I am able to believe that the Big Bang happened as scientists have described, based on the ample tests and observations presented. I am also able to believe that God (be he Hairy Thunderer of Cosmic Muffin) attached the wires to the contacts of the primal atom and pressed the plunger, solely because it makes me feel good to do so.

It is entirely possible to be a religious person (or the famous "Not religious but spiritual" dodge that a lot of politicians try to go with) and still be sane. Please try to remember that.

You spend too much time calling religious people names. It makes it seem like that's your motivation.

> My church handled this in a smarter manner
> stating that neither Creationism nor
> Evolution can be proven conclusively
> and so remain theories.

Evasive, backhanded, and self-corroding: If the basis of your morality is "theory", don't be surprised when people aren't impressed.

> days as used in the Bible, especially the
> Old Testament, are metaphorical and the
> actual length of a day is not the
> same literal time as what we know
> to be a day

So it's comfortably murky, which sells space in pews... But it's not instructive. It doesn't answer the question, it just fails to do so inoffensively.

Young earth creationism is dumb and an affront to the logical process. The amount of science you have to throw out and the amount you have to twist around is depressing.

Now that being said, I am a Christian and I do believe that God created everything. But I also "believe" in evolution (in much the same way I "believe" in gravity). I find nothing about the two to be incompatible. Humans are given free will and I see no theological reason why nature can't be allowed the same free reign. And the description of man being formed out of earth seems like a pretty good description of evolution as a well-educated shepherd could make five thousand years ago. Hugh Ross and Francis S Collins have both written really good books on how modern astophysics (Ross) and genetics (Collins) compare with the first chapter of Genesis. Lots of juicy math, physics, and biology.

And if 75% of kids raised Christian leave the faith their first year of college and about 75% of the country identifies as Christian . . . . Argh, I hate it when anyone uses nonsensical numbers like that.

The idea of trying to convince the faithful their wrong is an act of futility. The definition of faith is the belief in something (God) sans evidence.

Any grown adult who blindly follows anything without any compelling supporting facts, will never be able to have honest and open discourse in reference to God and or religion, hence the term "faith".

I find it very interesting that christians, muslims, jews etc... flatly deny scientology (as an example but just as ridiculous) as a credible religion because the have zero evidence to support their claims. Irony at it's highest form.

I ask what is the difference between the belief in thetians or the belief in God? It is absurd for major religions to dismiss any religion, as opposed to there own, because all religions are faith based. Since there is no evidence that their religion in fact exsists reason requires by extension that all religions and or beliefs exsist.

Here in lies the conundrum for faith based individuals. Either you're all wrong or you're all correct but you can't have it both ways.

For atheists (me included) why in the world would you even attempt to have a open minded discussion with people who are by definition closed minded to the topic. How do you have a debate with anyone when facts and/or any imperical evidence what-so-ever is not required. It's akin to arguing with a 3yr old that his/her imaginary friend is a figment of his/her imagination. Pointless to say the least.....

"The idea of trying to convince the faithful they're wrong is an act of futility."

True enough, it's an automatic tie. But in a case like this, it's not as much a case of proving them wrong as seeing if they'll accept a slightly different definition of "right".

Assuming you allow the belief in a Deity into the argument, such belief does not automatically preclude the ability to think rationally and scientifically. It is possible to accept science, and still choose to privately believe "but God knocked down the first domino".

Not that religion hasn't crept into science. Isaac Newton deliberately added indigo to the spectrum so that it would have the Divine number (seven) of colors. But I don't know of any scientific (see above definition) theories that include "Because of God" in their premise. At least, none that have made it past the first level of challenge.

"I find it very interesting that christians, muslims, jews etc... flatly deny scientology (as an example but just as ridiculous) as a credible religion because the have zero evidence to support their claims. Irony at its highest form."

As a rule, every religion works under the assumption that they are right and the others are wrong. Some are more amenable to each other where their dogmatic Venn diagrams overlap (single God, common dietary laws, etc) but when the odeas stray, that's where the problems start. Some (many) people are able to discuss these ideas, some just start shaking their head and saying "nopenopeNOPEnopenope...".

The very core of religious tolerance is the idea that since I get to have my beliefs (even if said beliefs are "there's nothing up there") you get to have yours. Sadly, that is not how it's interpreted by many; they read it as "I get to have MY beliefs because they are right"

Now, I could discuss Scientology, but I fear that would cause the thread to veer off course, so I shall refrain. Like any other religion, there are people who claim it's a scam from soup to nuts, but there are also absolutely people who it has helped. So singling out any one religion as MORE ridiculous than any other is at best, a challenge.

"it all seems to stem from a fear of being dead and what happens after we are no longer alive."

I don't fear death. It's merely another transition. I know there's something out there in the same way Amy knows Gregg loves her today. I neither worry about that nor hell. I live as well as I can and am grateful to my creator for the opportunity to do so. Praising him (kissing his ass, if you prefer, luj) is little enough I can do, and no more to ask than thanking your parents for doing a good job raising you and being grateful they did so.

"flatly deny scientology (as an example but just as ridiculous) as a credible religion because the have zero evidence to support their claims. Irony at it's highest form."

If you didn't think your belief was right, you wouldn't have it. Personally, I rather imagine most religions have it some right, and methodists don't have the only key to heaven's lock. But by all means, mock away people who feel spiritually fulfilled by their belief if it makes you feel bigger, Amy et al.

How do you explain some of the brilliant scientific minds that believe in god? or are they all inferior to your intelligence, too?

So did this 50 Proofs guy actually talk to any theologians or is he just using what "everyone knows" about Christianity? Because there is some . . . . truly mystifying leaps in logic he makes. Fleming didn't attribute the antibacterial properties of penicillin to God therefore this is proof that God doesn't exist? (Proof #4) That's just stupid. Really stupid.

Some of the points he raises are good debate fodder, but some of them are just bizarre. Like using a line from the Doxology to prove that God doesn't exists because it says "Praise God from whom all blessings flow" and then pointing out that God is imaginary because these blessings aren't distributed evenly. One, it's a praise song - not a Bible verse. Two, even the song says nothing about equal distribution of blessings. Three, a doxology is a type of song. It'd be like me saying the Ballad is proof that you shouldn't name your boat Edmund Fitzgerald because then it will inevitably sink.

About half of these proofs are littered with the same bizarre conclusions, what I almost hope are deliberate misunderstandings, and sophmoric attitude.

Amy, I know you hold people trying to sell you on something to a higher standard than this. Don't let them off the hook just because they agree with you.

"They shut off their rationality and compartmentalize one part of their life in which they allow themselves to behave like children."

Must be! I mean, it couldn't possibly be anything else, could it?

Ah -- a meeting of the future non-biologists of America.

"there's no physical evidence that Job existed, but plenty of evidence the dinosaurs did -- carbon-dated too!"

Nope. Carbon dating is useless for anything older than 60,000 years or so. For dinosaurs you need uranium-lead/potassium-argon dating & stratigraphy. Not just being pedantic here - creationists would jump up & down with glee over little things like this. "Aha! You don't know what you're talking about! You just have blind faith in what scientists tell you, the way you think we have blind faith in the Bible! See?"

Having got that out of the way, the voice that screams "religious child abuse!" is not the voice of reason. You've posted more than once that when you come across a mom with exceptionally well-behaved children, you try to make a point of letting her know how much you appreciate her good parenting. What if you found out she was a creationist? Would you take it back, and call her a child abuser? Under Communism, parents really were convicted of child abuse & locked up in labor camps & insane asylums for teaching their kids to believe too passionately in God for the State's liking. The evidence speaks for itself. Hysterical accusations of child abuse will never persuade anyone to see the light of reason.

"Either you require evidence for your beliefs or you don't."

There are endless things that happen in a day that you don't question or demand evidence to support. Maybe if they tried, those fries could be ready in FOUR minutes, but very few people challenge that.

Yes, for important things, evidence should be required, but people tend to accept things that seem to make sense, or if they are to their benefit or positive well being. People read a news story that says Thing-X, which they don't like, is dangerous, and accept it without question; often without even reading past the jump. Those who like said thing look into the way the tests were performed, inconsistencies, and either accept the outcome, choose to dispute it because of poor practices, or just cause it disagrees with their choices.

" I could discuss Scientology, but I fear that would cause the thread to veer off course, so I shall refrain. Like any other religion, there are people who claim it's a scam from soup to nuts, but there are also absolutely people who it has helped."

Interesting, so it's O.K. so long as it has helped people (ie: any religion)?

The very idea that if there's good in it, it automatically outweighs the bad is absurd. Your argument has zero merit that's why it's a pointless conversation.

"Must be! I mean, it couldn't possibly be anything else, could it?"

No it couldn't. How credible would you find anyone who had faith in the Flying Spaghetti Moster?

Like I asked before, how do you have a debate with anyone when facts and/or any imperical evidence what-so-ever is not required.

Answer: you don't

"But by all means, mock away people who feel spiritually fulfilled by their belief if it makes you feel bigger, Amy et al."

I absolutely mock you and anyone with such a child like blind faith mentallity. Same as I would if you still believed in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny etc.....

> I could discuss Scientology [...] there are
> also absolutely people who it has helped.

Absolutely?

List their names, with a short paragraph describing their improvements, and how their tax exemption is therefore worthwhile:

1. ______________
2. ______________
3. ______________
4. ______________
5. ______________
6. ______________
7. ______________

> Same as I would if you still believed in
> Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the
> Easter Bunny etc.....

And when was the last time you chastised anyone for believing in those things?

Never, you say?

Then it's a safe bet you're dealing with a different sector of human nature, isn't it?

That's what bugs me about Amy's taunts. It gets to be about expressing one's inner child more than calling the bluffs of the faithful.

"> Same as I would if you still believed in
> Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the
> Easter Bunny etc.....

And when was the last time you chastised anyone for believing in those things?"

Never, why? because the only people that believe in such things are below the age or 7 or have severely diminished capacity. I might also add that there is far more compelling evidence for the existence of Santa then there is God and yet you don't believe in Santa.

"Then it's a safe bet you're dealing with a different sector of human nature, isn't it?"

Yes it is, you're dealing with naïveté, because those that would believe in such things are small children or adults with developmental problems.

"That's what bugs me about Amy's taunts. It gets to be about expressing one's inner child more than calling the bluffs of the faithful."

You cannot, repeat cannot, call the bluff of the faithful. When you endeavor to believe something sans evidence or even a smidgen of fact there is no bluff to call. You are the one taunting Amy. Because she refuses to believe in God without any supporting evidence she's expressing her inner child. Laughable to say the least.

I told you before Amy, you can't have a resonable argument with people who believe in fairy tales.....

"They shut off their rationality and compartmentalize one part of their life in which they allow themselves to behave like children."

Yes. You are BETTER than they, you see. So much more rational and less deserving of scorn. They can't possibly have thought about this rationally, using their formidable brains, and come to a different conclusion than you. Nope, it's just that they're kids, you see. That's all. Planck, Mendel, Faraday, Boyle, Newton-all simply childish compared to you!

"I absolutely mock you and anyone with such a child like blind faith mentallity. Same as I would if you still believed in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny etc....."

Frankly, life without a little magic and mystery is sadly lacking, and I'll take someone with a little childlike faith in ANYTHING over perma-mockers like you, any day. The scorn you heap smacks of bitterness and a desperate need to feel better than someone, anyone.

"Because she refuses to believe in God without any supporting evidence she's expressing her inner child."

Last I read, crid was an atheist. He's mocking her hysterics- CHILD ABUSE! -and her utter refusal to even acknowledge the possibility that any rational being could come to a different conclusion about god than she.

If you want to believe that religion is detrimental, fine. Feel that way. No one's asking you not to.

Oh, and that 50 list is childish, lacking severely in logic, not to mention fact. You can do better.

Yes it is, you're dealing with naïveté, because those that would believe in such things are small children or adults with developmental problems.

Kids believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy because the belief is fun. You take them away, and a child's basic worldview stands intact. I don't know many kids who have had angst-ridden crises of self over the loss of Santa. Even the most dramatic kids cried a little, then it was over.

Fa la la la la, la la la la!

"Frankly, life without a little magic and mystery is sadly lacking, and I'll take someone with a little childlike faith in ANYTHING over perma-mockers like you, any day. The scorn you heap smacks of bitterness and a desperate need to feel better than someone, anyone."

Did I offend you, sorry, didn't want to crash your magic kingdom to the ground. Thanks for making my point. Believe in magic all you want, teach your children that a magic man in the sky will make everything OK. War, pestilence, starvation, disease etc... The magic man in the sky is doing a bang up job. Thanks but no thanks.

I don't have scorn or bitterness towards anyone. I have a lack of patience for otherwise intelligent adults to believe in such frivolity.

Momof4, do you believe in the tennents of your own faith or do you pick and choose the ones that simply fit what you want to believe? If you truly believe in God then you must accept he is infallible. Which by definition means you cannot pick and choose. So then I can assume that you believe all women are subservent to men as all major religions teach, do you fast, only eat fish on Friday, observe the sabbath without fail, etc...

My guess is the answer is no. You yourself don't believe in all your own religious tennents and adhere to them without fail. You, like all moderate American faithful don't even believe your own God is infallible because it gets in the way of your comfy life. But chastize others for not believeing in your fallible God. The hypocripsy completely astounds me.....

> because the only people that believe in such
> things are below the age or 7 or have severely
> diminished capacity.

Right. And if you spoke to them in the tone you (anonymously) describe as appropriate, they'd split your lip. And then they'd get pissed off. And the ones who didn't would nonetheless know that the childishness was your own...

> Because she refuses to believe in God
> without any supporting evidence she's
> expressing her inner child.

No, because she's pretending that this nearly-universal human quality authorizes her to call other people "whack-jobs". I mean, y'know, ya gotta wonder how she'd respond to some REAL human diversity... Or if she's ever called someone that to their face.

92% of Americans believe in God. Their are a lot more believers than gays.... But surely she'd defend them if someone called it a development problem or "naïveté", no? Again, this is all about you wanting to be as (anonymously) snotty to a vast number of your fellows.

Whelp, Okey-fine, but no tears when you finally go public, and people respond, y'know, directly. Don't come cryin'.

Ed, your assumptions (quite without evidence) about the beliefs of the commenters you ridicule don't astound me a bit.

"Because there's evidence for dinosaurs, and none for Job?"

The Bible is the evidence. Are you saying the Bible has NO evidentiary value. Can we believe Moses existed? How about David? Paul? Peter? Solomon? Herod? Sure, pick on Job, just because he only had one book.

And, if you are going to say that the Bible has NO evidentiary value, what about Herodotus? Or, Homer? Do they have any evidentiary value?

There are true things in the Bible. There are also errors. How do you tell the difference? It may provide the only EVIDENCE of the 10 Plagues of Egypt. Did those happen? How do you weigh that evidence? If the plagues did not happen, does that mean that Moses never left Egypt? Does that mean there was no Moses?

It is not as simple as you make it seem.
-Jut

God is infallible, Ed, man is not. The bible did not arrive from heaven via fax, ergo there are errors in it. CHristians follow the new testament, and yes I do try my best to follow christ's teachings as explain by MAN. Jesus does say women should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives as god loves the church. Meaning, I shouldn't be a harpy (you arguing with that?) and my husband should love me above all else but god. Seems like a good deal personally. Jesus didn't care what people ate or wore, either.

"magic man in the sky will make everything OK."

I don't recall seeing that in any portion of the bible. In fact, it states quite clearly that war pestilence famine poverty will always be with us. Mankind has free will, so trying to blame god for our actions is, I don't know, rather childish!

You aren't upsetting my magic kingdom a whit. My faith is something no human can shatter. But keep trying desperately to feel superior to SOMEONE. You'll get there.

"But chastize others for not believeing in your fallible God. The hypocripsy completely astounds me..... "

I've not chastized a person on here for doing anything but mocking those who do believe. Have fun with that strawman, though-or do you just need reading comp lessons? Nor am I a hypocrite. I say I follow christ as well as I can, and I do. I know I'm a sinner, we all are. I do not pick and choose through the new testament, nor am I the sort that thinks ___ is bad, unless I'm the one doing it. Do you need to look up the meaning of hypocrisy?

Thanks for taking me out of context to make your point. I have never chastized them, because they are children or adults with diminished capacity. Children are naive they haven't the education or life experience to make an informed decision. Normal adults do however. As an educated adult to still believe in a imaginary man in the sky is silly.

If someone still believed in the Greek Gods and tried to convince you that they were real you'd laugh at them. As would any rational person.

Religious belief gave us the dark ages which retarded the progression of man for hundreds of years. Wake up and smell the coffee because we have another religion doing everything in there power to do the samething. All over a complete fabrication taking to it's very frighteningly logical conclusion. How long exactly should I keep my head in the sand and my mouth shout? Just wondering.

Sometimes the truth is painful but it still remains truth.

By the way over 92% of people thought the world was flat and they to were wrong too.....

> I have never chastized them, because they
> are children or adults with diminished
> capacity.

Oh... None of them are smarter than you, or better attuned, or more courageous, or more patient, or otherwise admirable. 92% of the population deserves your pity in person and your mockery when anonymous, huh?

I wonder how impressed you are with the remaining 8 percent.

(Not really! That was rhetoric.)

"By the way over 92% of people thought the world was flat and they to were wrong too....."

Sorry, Ed, that's wrong.

The "flat Earth" notion was fed by fundamentalist Christians, who took no notice whatever of the rest of the world's ability to navigate by the stars - or even neighbor Eratosthese's calculation of the diameter of the Earth - properly, with method - 200 years before Christ.

Religious belief gave us the dark ages which retarded the progression of man for hundreds of years.

Actually, a number of causes gave us the Dark Ages.
- The fall of the Roman Empire and the loss of Rome's somewhat heavy-handed civilizing influence.
- A volcanic eruption in 535 caused global climate changes that disrupted agriculture and led to social breakdown.
- Viking raids from the 8th to the 11th centuries led to the militarization of Europe.
- The end of the Viking era left Europe with large bodies of unemployed and heavily armed fighting men. These men began to organize and contest among themselves for control of castles and land.
- Expanded trade routes brought diseases into Europe for which the population was unprepared. Bubonic Plague, The Black Death, and other pandemics wiped out more than half the population in many parts of Europe (estimates are as high as 80% in some places). Communities isolated themselves to avoid contamination. Ironically, the decreased population led to a shortage of workers which led to higher wages which helped usher in the Renaissance.

By the way, much of the view of the Dark Ages as an epoch of Catholic corruption and tyranny came from Protestant writers during the Reformation. No bias there.

"Jesus does say women should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives as god loves the church."

There is a huge difference between submission to someone and loving them. Your husband can love you but never submit to you, however you must submit to him regardless if you love him or not, Sounds like a shitty deal to me.

"Jesus didn't care what people ate or wore, either."

Wrong again, fish on Fridays, fasting during lent giving up your favorite food during lent, (although he didn't care what food)so I guess it does matter.

Also doesn't your christian belief require that you accept Jesus as your lord and savior or you don't get into heaven. Guess the jews, muslims, buddists, hindus etc... are just screwed by the all loving god, nice.....

The "flat Earth" notion was fed by fundamentalist Christians

I am aware of this I was refering to christians at the time since we are discussing religion.

Conan, during this time is also when the muslims and christians dug there feet in and tried to take control. Despite the religious conflicts, the period of the Dark Ages was seen as an age of faith. Men and women sought after God; some through the staid rituals of the Catholic Church, others in Protestant forms of worship. Intellectuals view religion in any form as, itself, a type of “darkness.” These thinkers assert that those who followed religious beliefs lied to themselves, creating a false reality. They were dominated by emotions, not fact. Religion was seen as contrary to rationality and reason, thus the move towards enlightenment -- a move away from “darkness.” Science and reason gained ascendancy, progressing steadily during and after the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment..

Karl Marx was one of those intellectuals. He was absolutely convinced he had a complete scientific theory of history, politics and economics. You know how that turned out. If you think having an open-minded debate with religious folks is hopeless, try having one with a true believer in Marxism. Irrationality and religion are not synonymous.

And you might want to read up on the Carolingian Renaissance, when art & knowledge of all kinds flourished under the patronage of the 9th century Church, before you conveniently divide Western history into Christian Dark Ages and post-Christian Enlightenment. If it wasn't for all those monks toiling away studying, copying, and pondering the Greek & Roman classics, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Jesus didn't care what people ate or wore, either. - Wrong again, fish on Fridays, fasting during lent giving up your favorite food during lent....

Jesus didn't order people to eat fish on Fridays. The early church did. And the tradition was observed through Vatican II. Interstingly enough, that tradition is why McDonald's has a Filet-o-Fish sandwich.

And Jesus didn't order fasting during Lent. Jesus didn't observe Lent (at least not the way we do ... he lived the events believers commemorate). Jesus observed Passover (he was Jewish ... but only on his mother's side). Lent is the period when believers prepare to commemorate the death and resurrection of Jesus at Easter. It's a church-instigated holy period.

> If it wasn't for all those monks toiling
> away studying, copying, and pondering the
> Greek & Roman classics, we wouldn't be
> having this conversation.

It's my hope that you will continue pummeling Eddie's brittle, snarky, self-regarding skull with verve and good cheer.

But for the record....

Marx was right about something (and only this): Man is an economic animal. Ya gotta eat. The way you give monks time to copy and ponder is to sustain them with wealth taken from others, people whose hands are busy pulling life out of the soil. The church was the first enterprise with the power to do that, to set aside a platoon of goofballs and say "Let's give them some time". Eventually, they stumbled upon some good insights, truths which couldn't be suppressed even though they insulted the sustaining technocracy (i.e., the heliocentric universe, etc.).

Yeah, the church got there first, but it didn't arrive through purposeful innovation or decency. Perhaps the best comment ever to appear on Amy's blog went like this:

even as an atheist I have to respect religion as the crazy hippie mother of science, law and philosophy

Fabulous wording... Especially if you had or know someone who had a difficult mother. You've gotta respect what the source meant to you, even if you've since found better sustenance elsewhere.

We'd have come upon modernity eventually. It's a shame that human nature allowed (or perhaps compelled) the church to lead the way.

"Jesus didn't care what people ate or wore, either. - Wrong again, fish on Fridays, fasting during lent giving up your favorite food during lent...."

I simply adore it when nonreligious people try to tell us what our religion says, and get it so terribly wrong. What was that you've been spouting about it being impossible to have a rational conversation with us? It is hard to have a rational conversation with someone who is either uninformed on the subject or a liar, true.

" Intellectuals view religion in any form as, itself, a type of “darkness."

So, Descarte wasn't an intellectual. Nor Copernicus, nor Faraday, nor Kelvin, nor Francis S. Collins. But YOU are, right? Sure. I guess we'll be reading about you in textbooks for millenia to come, aye?

You're a poor thinker, with false "facts" to support yourself. Go do some reading and get back to us in a few years.

I am not religious. I lack a critical element called "faith". I often wish that I had some because a little faith in something might make my life a lot simpler. I would be a more trusting and possibly a happier person. At the same time, as a history major in college, I know where the major religions come from and how little historical evidence there is for any of their claims. That said, fanatics about anything are dangerous people. These people, (and a lot of fanatics are fundamentalists) have decided that when their emotions and beliefs conflict with reality, they will reject reality, not just compartmentalize it as a rational moderate religious person will do. Sadly this world view and lack of rationality is not restricted to the religious. You will find it in atheists, who will reject evidence and rational thought for impossible conspiracy theories. I have talked to a few atheists who believe that the world trade center was brought down by explosive charges under the building and a massive government conspiracy rather than several Muslims flying airplanes. Why do they believe these things? Because it meets an emotional need of theirs to believe this in spite of all the evidence. My father in law is one such irrational atheist. He believes a lot of things there is simply no evidence for. Several of these beliefs are more bizarre than a simple easily compartmentalized belief in a higher power. At the same time, I know he feels intellectually and morally superior to religious people because he cannot recognize those areas where he himself has accepted absolutely preposterous claims as fact simply because he had an emotional bias in that direction.
Amy seems to think that atheism is some sort of badge of sanity. In my experience it is anything but. :-)

Wrong again, fish on Fridays, fasting during lent giving up your favorite food during lent, (although he didn't care what food) so I guess it does matter.

There is actually a historic reason for lent. The 40 days and 40 nights is actually a reference to a time longer than a month. It might mean 32 days or 6 years -- the point being it is longer than a month. The time frame of lent -- it is the late winter, early spring time. By then you were down to your seed stock and the base number of animals you needed to birth the next generation. If you eat your wheat/potato/rye/rice seed stock -- you are not going to have anything to plant when the ground defrosts. So it makes sense to give up bread and similar things for a period of time. You then plant your field to the most that it can take. That is when you find you have an extra five pounds of wheat seed that can now be ground into flour.

You now can have a spring festival and eat the flour from leftover seed.

Everybody is bouncing around this topic, without saying it:
Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

Put yourself into the appropriate quadrant, then live your life accordingly.

I guess that makes me an agnostic theist. Not mainstream. But neither is liberterianism. Regardless, I can't prove or disprove the existence of god, so I move on. And it's not the giant spagetti monstor bringing the Kinect to my son for Jebus's birthday, he watched me order it on Amazon.

And on topic, the abuse issue is stupid re: teaching kids (not a scientific argument, but true to most everyone here).

And, if you are going to say that the Bible has NO evidentiary value, what about Herodotus? Or, Homer? Do they have any evidentiary value?
Posted by: JutGory

So just to be clear going on just 'The Oddessy', you belive that wind can be kept in a bag? Or that women can attain eternal youth by devouring the flesh of men? Or that some witches have the power to turn people in to pigs? Or that the cycolps is real? Or that certin cows on a certiaan island are sacred because they are the pets of the sun? You belive in sirens as well?

Elle said this regarding the 50 proofs link, "...truly mystifying leaps in logic he makes. Fleming didn't attribute the antibacterial properties of penicillin to God therefore this is proof that God doesn't exist? (Proof #4) That's just stupid. Really stupid."

That would be stupid if that was what he was saying. It wasn't. He was putting forth the notion that a belief in God is not harmless and is often dangerous.

He is saying that had Fleming practiced the religious habit of attributing everything to God, humanity would have been denied the benefits of penicillin.

If you applied any critical reading skills at all, you already knew this. Instead, perhaps the article was making you so angry because it asked you to question your core beliefs that you started reading to debunk rather than reading to understand.

"He is saying that had Fleming practiced the religious habit of attributing everything to God, humanity would have been denied the benefits of penicillin."

That sounds awfully binary. Does that mean that religious people have absolutely no scientific curiousity?

Depnds on how severe their religiosity is - look at muslims. Didnt contribute a damn thing to science from inception until now - and most of, if not all of, todays muslim scients are just doing rote work rather than research

That sounds awfully binary. Does that mean that religious people have absolutely no scientific curiousity?

It means that in order for science to progress, we have to assume that any phenomena we are studying aren't caused by God. If we assume things like fire and Vicodin come from God, then we can never reproduce these things.

If we dig deep enough, we may find out that everything really is created by God at its most fundamental level, and if that happens, boy, will my face be red, but we need to operate under the assumption that we CAN understand the universe around us if we develop the proper means of observing and recording it.

If we eventually find scientific evidence of God, I will be happy to acknowledge His existence.

lujlp,
No, I do not think the Odyssey is necessarily a historical document. However, there have been attempts to locate Scylla and Charybdis and there are theories that Homer was talking about giant squids that we have finally identified. And, looking at the Iliad, there has been a tremendous amount of research that tried to locate Troy. Do I think Poseidon built the walls of the city? No, but was there a Trojan war, or a city named Troy? Likewise, Herodotus provides the most prominent account of the Persian War, but he also talks about a man (I forgot his name) riding a dolphin (maybe a turtle) through the sea. The description of the plague in Thucydides has also been studied by the medical profession to determine what afflicated the Greeks at that time.

So, my point was that these old texts have historical value and cannot totally be written off as fantasies (even if we do not believe (without contrary evidence) parts of them). So, when Amy asked for the evidence of Job, I simply pointed out that the Bible is the evidence. And, it is evidence of lots of things. You may not believe everything in it, but it would be foolish to write it all off as fiction, unless you are prepared to do that with many ancient writings.
-Jut

"That sounds awfully binary. Does that mean that religious people have absolutely no scientific curiousity?

It means that in order for science to progress, we have to assume that any phenomena we are studying aren't caused by God."

Religion can absolutely hold science back if you value dogma over everything else. (There's that whole Copernicus debacle after all). But the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't have to believe "God did it" as the final reason in cases of lightning, illness, or dinosaur extinction. I'm not going to be damned to hell because I'm curious about quantum physics.

"Instead, perhaps the article was making you so angry because it asked you to question your core beliefs that you started reading to debunk rather than reading to understand. "

Believe me. It will take a lot more than that to make me question my core beliefs. And of course I read to debunk - and part of that is reading critically. I don't stick my fingers in my ears and go la-la-la

The author is saying that science requires rational thought and curiosity. You can't have science if your answer for everything is "because God did it." This is all true. But it is *not* a proof that God doesn't exist. Unless you start with the premise that it is impossible for people who believe in God to be rational or curious about the world around them. The author of course, does believe this, as he maintains Science is impossible unless God is imaginary. Now, it's all very well and good for him to have this opinion; but unless he's secretly trying to continue the argument to the conclusion "therefore, because we have Sceince God must not exist" it is still not proof that God doesn't exist.

And I'm not angry. On the contrary, this is good practice for Christmas dinner with my extended family.

Those monks I was talking about weren't stumbling blindly in the dark. They were guided by the convictions that God is a God of reason, that His Creation reflected this, and that it wasn't blasphemous to follow the example of the ancient Greeks, who first dared to believe that the universe could be understood through reason. Galileo, Newton and company shared these convictions. To them, a deeper understanding of nature and a deeper understanding of God were one and the same. The laws of motion & gravity they formulated weren't man-made laws. They believed that by using their God-given powers of reason & observation, they had come across God's laws - the laws He used to create the universe & set it in motion. The Church punished Galileo when his conclusions threatened its authority, but by then it was too late. The evidence could not be denied.

It's not a coincidence that almost all of the mathematical laws of nature were discovered by Western Christians, rather than Muslims. Allah is a God of will, not reason. His will cannot be bound by any laws. If an infidel & a Muslim jump off a cliff side by side, you know that they will both plunge screaming through the air and go splat, because of the law of gravity. But in classical Islamic thought, the infidel plummets to his death because he's an infidel, while the only reason the Muslim falls is because Allah wills it. If Allah willed otherwise, he could just as easily soar through the air & fly to the moon. For Muslims, the only law is sharia law, and sharia law is for man to follow, not God.

While those monks were busy in Rome & Paris, Islamic scholars in Baghdad & Damascus were translating the Greeks & Romans into Arabic. They came up with some useful insights - that's why algebra, alcohol, alchemy and so many other words are Arabic. But when they went so far as to try & formulate mathematical laws of nature, or to wonder if perhaps the Greeks were right and the mullahs were wrong, they were condemned & silenced. In the West, there's a step-by-step progression from the Carolingian Renaissance to the Space Age. In the Muslim world, everything came to a dead stop 800 years ago. Galileo was punished because his reasoning led to conclusions that threatened the authority of the Church. Islamic scholars were punished for daring to reason in the first place.

> They were guided by the convictions that
> God is a God of reason

And the were fed by bishops who were guided by the conviction that there's a sucker born every minute.

Which was the better judge of character?

Two things martin

1. 1992 was the year the catholic church offically recognised that the earth revolves arund the sun - let that sink in a moment

2. Algerba and geometry were known by thr hindu, romans, greeks, chinees, egyptians, mayans, assyrians, phonecians, in other words for hunnereds and thousands of years before western civilization discovered them.

The rise of the catholic church as a political power within failing rome retarded the advance of science for more than 500yrs

Those bishops were concerned strictly with maintaining their authority over every sphere of life, particularly the acquisition & dissemination of knowledge. They were convinced this could only enhance the stature of the Church. That was very bad judgment on their part.

Modernity wasn't inevitable, like the sun rising in the east tomorrow. 1200 years ago, Somalia was a shit-hole full of illiterate savages hacking off their daughter's clits & murdering each other over their camels & goats. Today, Somalia is a shit-hole full of illiterate savages hacking off their daughter's clits & murdering each other over their camels & goats. Left to their own devices, they will wander the desert for eternity without ever stumbling upon anything of lasting value to mankind. Monks & Islamic scholars were working with identical source materials at the same moment in time. Only one path led to the Space Age. The other led to suicide bombers (and they can't build even the simplest bomb from scratch. Every last component has to be begged, borrowed, or stolen from the modern world). Profoundly different concepts of God & reason had something to do with this.

Romans & Greeks WERE Western civilization, lujlp. The West was the West long before it was Christian. Go watch "300".

And I'm not singing the praises of the Catholic church. I'm just saying that it left open a breathing space for reason that other religious institutions, Islamic ones in particular, slammed shut.

There is a key to all this. First, you recognize how people form beliefs and why -- but then, you teach the difference between fact and fiction. I've had fun with this.

Lumos!
The seven volumes about Harry Potter are actually true. J.K Rowling, a destitute single mother living on the dole, was discovered by the real Hermione Granger - played in the movie by Emma Watson - and Hermione recognized a way to do some real good. Ms. Rowling could tell the world Harry's story using Muggle technology and reach an audience much larger than that available under wizarding law. If presented as a fantasy play, it would be wildly popular.

This was a win-win situation. Hermione, already acknowledged as the best witch of her year, sold the idea to the Ministry of Magic because, in addition to the tellling of young Mr. Potter's triumph, it would ease tensions between wizard and Muggle wherever the secrecy of the wizarding world was breached.

Far-fetched, is it? Consider this:
Muggles routinely ascribe the formation of unusual weather and the occurrence of unusual events to "a miracle". These are actually magical acts, committed by deranged, evil or otherwise irresponsible wizards. Sometimes, a Muggle is saved by an Auror on the scene. This is where you get those amazing stories of survival against impossible odds. One of my favorites is the tail gunner who landed alone, upright and unharmed, in the sheared-off tail section of his B-17 during WW2.

Magic cannot be dismissed by religious argument. Muggles widely acknowledge as TRUE the magical stories of religious icons throughout their history. Many of these figures demonstrated their magical powers, such as Apparition (Jesus), Transfiguration (Jesus again), the power of flight (Jesus, Mohammed) and the ability to survive apparent death, although the Horcrux used by Jesus has not been identified (these things are usually heavily shielded from detection, for obvious reasons).

Since the Harry Potter story was released, public notice of autism and Asparger's Syndrome has taken off. This unfortunate side effect is the result of improvements in Muggle communication and reporting networks detecting the Ministry's effort to suppress underage magic. You will notice that many autistic children still possess unusual skills. Parents are eager to point this out.

If you don't believe this, it's just because you choose not to believe.
Hmm. Where have I seen that before?

Nox!

> Modernity wasn't inevitable

And the Church did quite a bit to retard it. You might as well argue that it delayed the progress of civilization more than it nurtured it. The fact that discoveries and progress eventually DID happen in Catholic realms in no way proves they wouldn't have happened elsewhere. You might as well argue that all the horrors are somehow forgivable.

The Church has always acted in its own interests, and its # 1 interest has always been maintaining its power & authority, not the good of mankind. But like you said, the Church was the first & only Western institution with the power to gather so many learned men together, the authority to command them to salvage & study the West's classical inheritance, and the wealth to pay them to do it. Every great Western thinker depended on the body of work those monks put together. This had momentous consequences the Church never intended. The Church started something it couldn't stop (it can't stop the fallout from pedophile priests either).

> The Church started something it couldn't stop

Or: Eventually, human dignity was able to power through the burdens and firewalls by which the church had contained it.

Not sure if dignity is the word I would use, damn dirty apesthat we are. But the sentiment of your statement, absolutly.