Log in

View Full Version : The Ultimate Poll!



Kaiser of Arabia
14/06/05, 23:23
Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

Tribesman
14/06/05, 23:35
Capo , evolution is taught as a theory not as a fact . The title normally given to it "The Theory of Evolution" is a bit of a giveaway . ~;)
Since many creationists consider their views to be a FACT because it is written in a heavily edited book that has undergone many translations with all the possibilites for errors that occur in that process I don't think they would be willing to agree to have it taught as a theory .

Grey_Fox
14/06/05, 23:45
In Ireland, evolution is taught in science class while creationism is taught in religion class. There has never been a controversy or clash between the way it is done here and it has always worked (in a deeply Catholic nation mind you), and for the life of me I just cannot understand what the problem is with it in the US.

Goofball
14/06/05, 23:52
Capo, it is impossible to answer your poll. You have asked an "either/or" question, but the response options are "yes" or "no."

At any rate, evolution should coutinue to be taught in science classes, and mythologically-based theories like creationism should be taught in religion classes.

BTW, creationism is not, as you called it, a "scientific" theory. It is based on mythology, not science.

Skomatth
15/06/05, 00:02
The question does not fit with the poll choices. You gave two options in your post and saying "yes" to both of them would convey a contradictory opinion.

Since the class in question is a science class, only evolutionary theory should be taught since it is the only scientific theory. The other theories you mention are metaphysical ones and belong in a philosophy or possibly a history class. I also don't see why theories shouldn't be taught in science class, otherwise nothing would be taught in science.

Alexander the Pretty Good
15/06/05, 00:23
Oi. This is getting a gah. :help:

Steppe Merc
15/06/05, 00:35
Only evolution. All that other religous stuff belongs in the home, at church and at religous schools.

wait... Would that be a no? Or a yes..? :help:

Pindar
15/06/05, 01:03
Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

Kaiser of Arabia
15/06/05, 02:28
Capo, it is impossible to answer your poll. You have asked an "either/or" question, but the response options are "yes" or "no."

At any rate, evolution should coutinue to be taught in science classes, and mythologically-based theories like creationism should be taught in religion classes.

BTW, creationism is not, as you called it, a "scientific" theory. It is based on mythology, not science.
er the yes is to the first part, and the no is to the second lol

_Martyr_
15/06/05, 02:41
Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

Nicely put! ~:cheers: ~:)

Papewaio
15/06/05, 02:55
Shoe on the Other Foot:

Howabout making it compulsory in Friday/Saturday and Sunday (Islam/Judaism and Christian) religous group meetings to teach the Theory of Evolution along side the respective Creation viewpoints.

Kaiser of Arabia
15/06/05, 03:12
Shoe on the Other Foot:

Howabout making it compulsory in Friday/Saturday and Sunday (Islam/Judaism and Christian) religous group meetings to teach the Theory of Evolution along side the respective Creation viewpoints.
because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.

Productivity
15/06/05, 03:26
because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.

So you are happy with making religous lessons mandatory by law?

Kaiser of Arabia
15/06/05, 03:28
So you are happy with making religous lessons mandatory by law?
Darwinism is against quit a few religious beleifs, and it's only a theory as well, therefore, either teach every side of the story or don't teach any at all. it's not like knowing how the world was created has ANY effect on your life whatsoever.

Plus I have yet to see anything evolve except my headaches.

Uesugi Kenshin
15/06/05, 03:32
No, creationism can be taught in churches, mosques, temples and other religious buildings. If you want to tell your child to approach it with the knowledge that it is a widely backed scientific theory go ahead, but that does not mean that everybody must be brainwashed into believing it is pure prattle. It may be wrong, but most of the arguments for teaching creationism or ID or having theory disclaimers make it seem like a scientific theory is loosely based on reality or a hunch, not heavily researched and backed by credible facts.

ichi
15/06/05, 03:57
Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.

Stating Evolution is only a theory suggests this is somehow a bad thing or insufficient. This is a mistake. Theories do not become facts. Facts exist within theories. Theories provide the intellectual context through which facts become meaningful.

Challenging Evolution or pointing out its limits is perfectly appropriate. This does not mean extra-scientific models therefore are appropriate in a science setting.

It pleases me to no end to be in complete agreement with Pindar , knowing that he won't be parsing out my replies in an attempt to rip my logical framework to shreds.

He's right (this time)

ichi :bow:

bmolsson
15/06/05, 04:16
Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. Whatever appeal one might feel for them, these ideas do not fit under scientific schema.


Sure they can be seen as science. You can make a scientific litterature study on the bible and establish a scientific result on what creationism is based on the study. Science today is much more than the classic view of it. I am pretty sure that a statistical study on creationism would result in scientific facts that can be used for a "God created Earth in Seven Days" theory.
With the above said, if this science would have any relevance or not, that is another issue....... ~;)

Papewaio
15/06/05, 04:28
Darwinism is against quit a few religious beleifs, and it's only a theory as well, therefore, either teach every side of the story or don't teach any at all. it's not like knowing how the world was created has ANY effect on your life whatsoever.


Oil.

Dating the ages of the rocks helps find oil. Evolutionary changes are used to date the different layers as different versions existed at different times.

Note that how the world was created is separate from the Theory of Evolution.

Also note that the Theory of Gravity is another scientific theory. However in science class the story of Icarus is generally not taught. Science is theories not absolute untestable truths.

kiwitt
15/06/05, 05:22
GAH!

Both can be taught. One at a secular school and one at religious home. However, if it is a religious school both can and should be taught at school.

Pindar
15/06/05, 06:47
It pleases me to no end to be in complete agreement with Pindar , knowing that he won't be parsing out my replies in an attempt to rip my logical framework to shreds.

He's right (this time)

ichi :bow:

Me, parse? Parish the thought. ~;)

and I never rip logical frameworks that don't deserve a good ripping: somebody has to defend sound thinking. Speaking of which:




Sure they can be seen as science. You can make a scientific litterature study on the bible and establish a scientific result on what creationism is based on the study.

Alas, no. Creationism has an inherent metaphysical appeal. This places it beyond the scope or interest of science proper.

Pindar
15/06/05, 06:49
Nicely put! ~:cheers: ~:)

Thank you sir. :bow:

Sasaki Kojiro
15/06/05, 07:23
Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories

You lost me right there.

bmolsson
15/06/05, 08:47
Alas, no. Creationism has an inherent metaphysical appeal. This places it beyond the scope or interest of science proper.


I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree. ~;)

Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science. Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences. Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism, but in reality this is more a created conflict mainly in US among scientists and religious scholars. Evolution doesn't oppose creationism and vice versa. Another example would be Newtons law versus Einsteins relativity theory. Newton works just fine until you reach higher velocities where it's no longer is valid.

All science evolve itself and its always better to be tolerant and open minded. Creationists have a tendency to be very narrowminded, but that doesn't make creationism as such scientifically un-interesting....... :book:

Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

Papewaio
15/06/05, 09:04
I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree. ~;)

Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science. Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences. Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism, but in reality this is more a created conflict mainly in US among scientists and religious scholars. Evolution doesn't oppose creationism and vice versa. Another example would be Newtons law versus Einsteins relativity theory. Newton works just fine until you reach higher velocities where it's no longer is valid.

All science evolve itself and its always better to be tolerant and open minded. Creationists have a tendency to be very narrowminded, but that doesn't make creationism as such scientifically un-interesting....... :book:

Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

Creationism has already been resoundly discredited along the spectrum of the Physical Sciences.

As for Religion, language, psychology being sciences that is a bit of a linguistic stretch. Parts of it them may use the scientific method, but no where to the level of rigours of the physical sciences and none to the level of physics. Physics has a tendancy of having a single point of failure disproving a theory / narrowing the boundaries of that theory.

The basis of calling most things science nowadays is a desire for reflected glory not a basis in facts, hypothesis and scientific theory. It is the same trend in calling Janitors, Cleaning Technicians and Garbage men, Environmental Cleanup Engineers.

Samurai Waki
15/06/05, 09:16
I went to a Private Catholic School, we were taught to believe that Creationism is not science at all, and likewise The Theory of Evolution is not Religious. We were also told that neither should be taken as fact, but if one were to be more astute, that The Theory of Evolution is less confounding, and not riddled with loop-holes. We were also taught that Creationism was more or less a stolen belief from other Religions, before the Scientific evolution of our later history, humanity needed to find a way to answer the question "why are we here?" Because our ancient ancestors knew almost nothing about pre-humans (Homo Hablis etc.) it was the best way to interpret our existance by our thoughts. By the time the Christian bible was written, it had been well around 3000 years in Christian science terms since the first humans (aka Adam and Eve) had been born. We were also taught that most people within the hierarchy of the Catholic Faith believe that when the Bible was written it, specifically the tale of how the world was born and how the first human's came into existance was not even very believed by the monks who had written it. But because there was no better explanation, they thought that there was no other way it could have happened.

Modern Christian Scientists are not stupid mind you, most are not dogmatic, or try to perverse Science with myths, or Christianity with Facts (thats what makes religion unique, all the unanswered questions that humanity wants to find, but nobody really wants the truth.) In Fact, most Christian Scientists are trying to figure ways of how to tie in Christian mythology with the theory of evolution. Christians scientists biggest question they are trying to uncover is not so much "is the theory of evolution wrong?, or is Christian mythology wrong?" but instead is "how did God create the Earth? or How did God Create Humanity". "was God unpleased by the first 'semi-human' that he created? "How does our DNA link us to God?" "why did God destroy the Dinosaurs?" etc. etc.

I still personally think it's BS, but thats just me. Theory of Evolution all the way.

Pindar
15/06/05, 09:31
I am not sure Andrew Marwell would agree. ~;)

Andrew would be wrong.


Even if there is an appeal on higher powers, it doesn't go beyond science.

Science is necessarily confined to the physical arena. This is the case both historically, in the rise of science out of natural philosophy, and methodologically. Postulations that move beyond the physical sphere are not subject to the criteria science operates under and cannot therefore be considered scientific.



Religion, language, psychology etc are accepted as science today even if its not always possible to put logic or empirical values on results from research in these sciences.

I agree with the honorable Papewaio assumption of a vernacular does not a science make.


Creationism is always assumed to contradict evalutionism

That is true, but that is separate issue. Metaphysical assumptions may or may not contradict science. Agreement does not mean such become scientific through that agreement.


Note: No, I don't believe in a supreme being, but can't dispute the possibility that there is one...

I thought you were Muslim.

doc_bean
15/06/05, 09:39
Like I said before, kids should be thought as much as possible, let them make up there own mind.

However, as Pindar and a few others noted, only the theory of evolution is science, the rest can be taught in a non-science class, or possibly mentioned in science class as a side note, but they are not science.

Intelligent design uses the exact same scientific basis as the theory of evolution, mutation, cross-over etc., they just INTERPRET them in a religious way.

Creationism is a different beast, especially since there are so many sub-theories.
Is evolution within a species possible ? If so, teaching the theory of evolution still has value (incidentally, the real innovation C Darwin brought was that he said evolution could lead to different species, evolution within a species had been thought up before.)

BTW it wasn't until the 1920s that creationism was thought up, and only had a small community of followers, most christians since Darwin didn't have a problem with evolution.

bmolsson
15/06/05, 09:47
Creationism has already been resoundly discredited along the spectrum of the Physical Sciences.


Because someone discredited something, doesn't make this someone right.... ~:)



As for Religion, language, psychology being sciences that is a bit of a linguistic stretch. Parts of it them may use the scientific method, but no where to the level of rigours of the physical sciences and none to the level of physics. Physics has a tendancy of having a single point of failure disproving a theory / narrowing the boundaries of that theory.


It's called social science and it is widely accepted. :book:



The basis of calling most things science nowadays is a desire for reflected glory not a basis in facts, hypothesis and scientific theory. It is the same trend in calling Janitors, Cleaning Technicians and Garbage men, Environmental Cleanup Engineers.


This comment is a linguistic stretch..... ~D

Efrem
15/06/05, 09:47
Evolution is the only theory with evidence to back it up, so I say go for it.

bmolsson
15/06/05, 09:52
Science is necessarily confined to the physical arena. This is the case both historically, in the rise of science out of natural philosophy, and methodologically. Postulations that move beyond the physical sphere are not subject to the criteria science operates under and cannot therefore be considered scientific.


No. :bow:




I thought you were Muslim.


I am, but belonging to a earthly religious administration doesn't automatically mean that you be believe in what it originates from. ~;)

Samurai Waki
15/06/05, 09:52
Most Christians still don't mind. My former Science Teacher was a Catholic monsienier (basically a Senior Priest), and I remember he once said "I feel like spitting on anyone who interprets the bible as fact".

bmolsson
15/06/05, 09:57
Most Christians still don't mind. My former Science Teacher was a Catholic monsienier (basically a Senior Priest), and I remember he once said "I feel like spitting on anyone who interprets the bible as fact".

I even once heard a guy equal it to Washington Post so I guess he was not alone...... ~D

Pindar
15/06/05, 10:05
Originally Posted by Pindar
Science is necessarily confined to the physical arena. This is the case both historically, in the rise of science out of natural philosophy, and methodologically. Postulations that move beyond the physical sphere are not subject to the criteria science operates under and cannot therefore be considered scientific.


No. :bow:

Science to maintain meaning must be constrained by the base concepts that give it meaning. To challenge this is to fail to understand the base meaning of science.





I am, but belonging to a earthly religious administration doesn't automatically mean that you be believe in what it originates from. ~;)

An atheist Muslim is a contradiction.

Ja'chyra
15/06/05, 10:14
Science is for science RE is for religion!!!!!

Now, the ultimate poll would be "What is the best flavour of ice cream?"

Al Khalifah
15/06/05, 10:19
Both theories should be taught side by side in school. It would then be up to the children to draw the obvious parallels between the two so that they can see that science shows the Bible to be an extended metaphor rather than the big book of lies that the I've Read Dan Brown Books Brigade will have you believe.

Drisos
15/06/05, 10:23
Yes. Children should know both and then form an opinion. If they don't get one of them, they will just see it as 'normal' to believe in that one.

~;)

Idaho
15/06/05, 12:57
Evolution is the only theory with evidence to back it up, so I say go for it.

Yeah - that's all it is!

~D

JAG
15/06/05, 15:03
Impossible to vote in a poll which does not reflect the question, so I voted GAH.

But clearly I think it would be absurd for creationism and other such loony beliefs to be treated as science.

bmolsson
15/06/05, 15:11
Science to maintain meaning must be constrained by the base concepts that give it meaning. To challenge this is to fail to understand the base meaning of science.


In social science you have a different base concept. You are locked in to physics and non-abstracts. Your thesis is therefore based on the wrong reference.



An atheist Muslim is a contradiction.


Not in social science......

A persons behavior in flock doesn't have to be based on the original reason for the flock. The desire to be a part of the flock as a flock is enough.....

Pindar
15/06/05, 16:51
In social science you have a different base concept. You are locked in to physics and non-abstracts. Your thesis is therefore based on the wrong reference.


Social science's base noun remains science. This means there must be a conceptual continuity. This is the case with the historical development of such as well as the theoretical appeal. Science is necessarily tied to physical phenomena and must have a verification schema.



Not in social science......

A persons behavior in flock doesn't have to be based on the original reason for the flock. The desire to be a part of the flock as a flock is enough.....

No, Islam revolves around the singularity and supremacy of Deity. Any system that denies this theistic assertion cannot be considered Muslim. Islam begins with the pronouncement of faith the Shahadah: There is no god, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet. If you claim to be an atheist you cannot be a Muslim any more than a square can be a triangle. Behavior is not the defining trait.

Kaiser of Arabia
15/06/05, 17:08
Impossible to vote in a poll which does not reflect the question, so I voted GAH.

But clearly I think it would be absurd for creationism and other such loony beliefs to be treated as science.
At least creationism wasn't made up by a psychopath like Darwin :bow:
Take that atheists!

On the other hand, I can see how it could be taught in religion classes, and that is actually a really good idea IMHO. But the thing is, if it's religious in American schools it's out. Immediatly. More proof of the radical lefts control of our nation...

Big King Sanctaphrax
15/06/05, 17:09
At least creationism wasn't made up by a psychopath like Darwin :bow:
Take that atheists!

On the other hand, I can see how it could be taught in religion classes, and that is actually a really good idea IMHO. But the thing is, if it's religious in American schools it's out. Immediatly. More proof of the radical lefts control of our nation...

So you don't have RE classes then?

Al Khalifah
15/06/05, 17:16
If we purely seek to teach our children the scientific facts, surely we will kill their senses of immagination, creativity and moral standards. Science can teach us what is possible, but it rarely teaches us what is right.

I dislike the idea of schools where children are only taught science and practicality.

English assassin
15/06/05, 17:44
At least creationism wasn't made up by a psychopath like Darwin

Psychopath : A person suffering from chronic mental disorder esp. with abnormal or violent social behaviour. [OED]

Any evidence, or did you just like the sound of the word?


If we purely seek to teach our children the scientific facts, surely we will kill their senses of immagination, creativity and moral standards. Science can teach us what is possible, but it rarely teaches us what is right.

On the contrary to be a good scientist you need a good imagination. No one yet saw an enzyme, and as for what electrons are supposed to do... *

And even if you were right I don't think the answer is to teach a pack of lies.

(* I apologise for making reference to enzymes and electrons, whose existence is of course only a theory and not a fact. Unlike the existence of God, apparently.)

DemonArchangel
15/06/05, 19:08
Yes. Luckily we're (barely) left enough to keep the Christian nuts from interfering with education.

Creationism is a religious theory with nothing backing it other than the words of a long dead writer. Said writer fits the definition of psychopath more than Darwin did. No one without a chronic mental disorder can write what's contained in the Bible and keep a straight face.

Ser Clegane
15/06/05, 19:25
:stop:

We do not want this thread to derail into Christian bashing, do we?

Kaiser of Arabia
15/06/05, 19:48
Psychopath : A person suffering from chronic mental disorder esp. with abnormal or violent social behaviour. [OED]

Any evidence, or did you just like the sound of the word?



On the contrary to be a good scientist you need a good imagination. No one yet saw an enzyme, and as for what electrons are supposed to do... *

And even if you were right I don't think the answer is to teach a pack of lies.

(* I apologise for making reference to enzymes and electrons, whose existence is of course only a theory and not a fact. Unlike the existence of God, apparently.)
just like the word ~:cheers:

Tribesman
15/06/05, 21:25
because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.
Attending school is not mandatory by law . Parents can educate their children at home .

DemonArchangel
15/06/05, 21:48
Yes, Ser Clergane, but I still have a point.

There is no factual basis for creationism or intelligent design, other than what else someone wrote down in a book that was not meant to be taken as scientific doctrine.

Samurai Waki
15/06/05, 22:29
Yes, Ser Clergane, but I still have a point.

There is no factual basis for creationism or intelligent design, other than what else someone wrote down in a book that was not meant to be taken as scientific doctrine.

You are absolutely correct, the bible was written for people to use as a moral reference, not as a scientific journal. The Monks who had written the bible knew this full well, after all at the time of the Bible's creation, the Library of Alexandria was already full keel in scientific studies, the monks left the facts to the scientists. What the monks needed was a good "story" on how to make Christianity appealing to the masses, they had no reference, and wanted to make their religion Parallel to Polytheists, namely Romans. Roman and Greek Mythology, especially the creation of the world goes almost hand-in-hand with Christianities creation of the world. Adam and Eve are parallels of Prometheus and Man, Kane and Able are Parallels of Saturn and Jupiter. Many things like this can be pointed out from an astute observation. So having that said, Bible=Not True... but a good moral compass.

bmolsson
16/06/05, 03:01
Social science's base noun remains science. This means there must be a conceptual continuity. This is the case with the historical development of such as well as the theoretical appeal. Science is necessarily tied to physical phenomena and must have a verification schema.


If take a look at diachronic linguistics and for example the works of Chomsky, you will see that the verification schema has been created based on more or less a litterature study on writings, fables, poems etc with no connection to a physical phenomena. Why did the Chinese language develop as it did compare to English ? Is the difference a physical phenomena or a creation of a higher being ? Maybe somebody taught them the signs instead of the alphabet ?
In a creationistic science setup, you would be able to create a similar set of verification schema. Today there are a great amount of work to put the bible in to a historical perspective and use the events as anecdotical descriptions of at that time un-known events.
Example, 7 days for the creator to make earth, might not be the same as the days we have today. These days might be from another satellite or planet, since earth was at that time created and not inhabitable. Suddenly you have created your self a new reference for time. ~D



No, Islam revolves around the singularity and supremacy of Deity. Any system that denies this theistic assertion cannot be considered Muslim. Islam begins with the pronouncement of faith the Shahadah: There is no god, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet. If you claim to be an atheist you cannot be a Muslim any more than a square can be a triangle. Behavior is not the defining trait.


You don't have to vote Bush to be an US citizen, do you ? Same thing with an Islamic society. As long as you follow the rules and participate in the administrative system, you are a muslim.
Further more I have never stated that I am a atheist. I stated that I don't believe in a higher deity, but can't dispute the existance of one. I guess you could say that I am a lost soul or in a president election, I don't vote..... ~;)

Papewaio
16/06/05, 03:46
Efrem and Idaho-sama-who should be a mod agree.

And Pindar and I.

It is indeed the ultimate poll. :bow:

GoreBag
16/06/05, 03:58
You don't have to vote Bush to be an US citizen, do you ? Same thing with an Islamic society. As long as you follow the rules and participate in the administrative system, you are a muslim.

I agree. A man who thinks and acts like a Christian is still fundamntally a Christian.

On the science note.. could magickal practice be considered science? It has its rules and is seen by magicians to be a great deal like more mainstream sciences.

Fragony
16/06/05, 08:44
Our minister of education tried to start this debate, and it wasn't very well received. I am not sure, I don't see why it shouldn't be per se, science shouldn't be the next religion. Nature baffles me, I saw a shrimp on discovery that knocks outs it's pray with compressed water, it hits like a .22 bullet instantly killing it's prey. Now how did evolution figure that one out, so the shrimp thought 'hey this works pretty good' and was more succesfull, and he passed this knowledge onto his offspring. Shrimps are incapable of rational thought so how. the. hell. did. this. happen.

doc_bean
16/06/05, 10:54
Our minister of education tried to start this debate, and it wasn't very well received. I am not sure, I don't see why it shouldn't be per se, science shouldn't be the next religion. Nature baffles me, I saw a shrimp on discovery that knocks outs it's pray with compressed water, it hits like a .22 bullet instantly killing it's prey. Now how did evolution figure that one out, so the shrimp thought 'hey this works pretty good' and was more succesfull, and he passed this knowledge onto his offspring. Shrimps are incapable of rational thought so how. the. hell. did. this. happen.

Evolution is a good theory, it's the best we have anyway, but it certainly doesn't explain everything. Self-consciousness, air-bullet shrimp, electric eels, birds (really, why would you evolve wings before you could fly ? What use are half wings ??) and a whole lot of other stuff.

But just because one theory is wrong (or incomplete in this case) it doesn't automatically make another theory right, which is what some creationists would want people to believe.

Al Khalifah
16/06/05, 11:45
Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in schools as theories - because that is what they are, neither is proven beyond all doubt. Teach the theories, teach the facts to back them up and the arguments against them and let the children make up their own minds.

Samurai Waki
16/06/05, 11:59
I kind of agree with Al Khalifah, but the problem is that Children are very persuasive, so a teacher that believes more in one theory will probably teach his/her children to believe in that theory. I'd say teach them both as simple theories, don't even let people make up their minds as to which one is correct... just say "heres one way of looking at it and heres another way... but opinions aside, neither have been proven beyond a doubt." and leave it at that.

Meneldil
16/06/05, 14:00
Since when is Creationism a theory ?
Let's be serious, I'm not against teaching it in religious class (though if people asked me, I would answer "NO !!"), but it is simply not equal to Darwin's theory.

Right now, there's like *nothing* that supports creationism.
The evolution theory OTOH is based on rational claims, not on a tale written thousand years ago when science was almost non-existant, and *badly* translated in several languages. It may not be fully accurate, it may be understood in a bad way (ie : people claiming they are superior to others thanks to evolution), but it can be observed.

The Bible is not, and has never been meant to be read as 'The Truth : Or What Really Happened'. Its goal was to teach moral values such as tolerance, kindness, but also steadiness, etc., kinda like Mao's Red Book, or like the French Human Rights Declaration.

When someone is using it as a science basis, he's doing the same kind of crap that Muslim extremists are doing in their Afghanistan or in Iran.

Religion is based on tales, while Science is based on facts, and although science is not always right, it has proven itself to be much more reliable than the Bible or the Koran when it cames to explains how does our world works.
You seem to be mixing moral values and real facts, and that's kinda disturbing, and IMO, it can only leads to bad things.

zelda12
16/06/05, 15:04
When I think of evolution I like to notice that it is insane, its riddles with holes and is only just substantiated by the fossil record. On the other hand Creationism is just one gaping hole with no evidence and even less reason to be correct.

Guess which one I prefer, yep that’s right!

Evolution is not perfect and it is still a theory and is likely to remain so for a long time, but the thing with this theory is that its being refined and redefined all the time, with new evidence mounting up in its favour all the time as well.

Creationism is just a bunch of misinterpreted tales that were written in a book that was badly translated and was in a large part taken from a book (old testament) that was originally written to shock and awe people to gain converts and allow the power class of the priests to retain their power over the people.

The Bible altogether is also something of a propaganda tool, its a book for a religion that is new and has enemies all around, its being faced by adversity and needs followers who will be fanatically loyal and be prepared to become martyrs for the cause. Its not going to say, "Yeah well this God Bloke, we're not entirely sure about the whole thing." What they want to do is shock and awe the people into uncompromising belief. The medieval church didn't really want this to change as it gave them power. I wouldn't put it past them to have edited the text to suit their purposes.

Simple fact, religion and religious dogma is propaganda first spiritual guidance second.


Then again as we don't know everything and the universe is a huge place and we are only insignificant specks of dust in the great scheme of things we may all be wrong, maybe God does exist, maybe he doesn't maybe none of our current theories are correct. We don't know everything.


Evolution is a good theory, it's the best we have anyway, but it certainly doesn't explain everything. Self-consciousness, air-bullet shrimp, electric eels, birds (really, why would you evolve wings before you could fly ? What use are half wings ??) and a whole lot of other stuff.

Chances are that the dinosaurs found themselves in a forest and began to adapt to their surroundings over millions of years by developing a lighter bone structure (leading to hollowed bones that birds use) to allow quicker navigation of the forest to avoid predators. Then they found their arms useless but kept them there for balance. Eventually they grew smaller and smaller and as they did they started living exclusively in the tree tops and developing feathers for warmth. Hoping from tree to tree like monkeys or the flying squirrel. Possibly using their previously useless arms now light and feather covered to allow them to glide short distances. After that point it’s quite easy to imagine how they developed wings.


I believe that Creationism should be taught in school but only in the RS (Religious Studies) lessons and as theories. Science is already presented as a theory, always.

bmolsson
17/06/05, 09:04
Religion is based on tales, while Science is based on facts, and although science is not always right, it has proven itself to be much more reliable than the Bible or the Koran when it cames to explains how does our world works.
You seem to be mixing moral values and real facts, and that's kinda disturbing, and IMO, it can only leads to bad things.


Actually religious doctrines are based on social science. The rules around food, marriage, hygien etc are all based on experience gained through hundreds of years of studies of human behavior. Further more, it is a large portion of real politics in to it as well.

Did God create humans ? Or indirect by creating bacterias or organic chemistry ? Actually we don't really know if there is a higher deity or not. We can of course believe in it or not, but still the fact remains, we don't really know, since we can't describe the shape.

Our mind is limited to a certain level of complexity. If you try to describe eternity or the beginning of the beginning, we are stuck. It doesn't mean there is a God, but on the other hand, it is today out of our reach......

Pindar
17/06/05, 18:13
If take a look at diachronic linguistics and for example the works of Chomsky, you will see that the verification schema has been created based on more or less a litterature study on writings, fables, poems etc with no connection to a physical phenomena.

Literature is a physical phenomena. Chomsky's work is hardly the end point of linguistic studies. Regardless the permutations of linguistics, your answer, which I take is meant as a defense social science, is rather far a field of the more central concern: religion. Religion is not social science. Anthropology is a social science. Sociology is a social science. Anthropology and sociology may both include religion as part of their work in the study on man or society, but religion proper is not science. Science cannot delve into the metaphysical as it is beyond the bounds of science by definition.





You don't have to vote Bush to be an US citizen, do you ?

No, but you do have to be a U.S. citizen to vote.


Same thing with an Islamic society. As long as you follow the rules and participate in the administrative system, you are a muslim.
Further more I have never stated that I am a atheist. I stated that I don't believe in a higher deity, but can't dispute the existance of one. I guess you could say that I am a lost soul or in a president election, I don't vote..... ~;)

No, to be Muslim one cannot be an atheist or an agnostic or any other variation other than a theist. The first principle of Islam remains the Shahadah. This is an exclusive position that flat out declares the existence of God. You can believe whatever you wish, but you cannot believe whatever you wish and still be Muslim.

bmolsson
18/06/05, 08:29
Literature is a physical phenomena.


Why ?




Chomsky's work is hardly the end point of linguistic studies. Regardless the permutations of linguistics, your answer, which I take is meant as a defense social science, is rather far a field of the more central concern: religion. Religion is not social science. Anthropology is a social science. Sociology is a social science. Anthropology and sociology may both include religion as part of their work in the study on man or society, but religion proper is not science. Science cannot delve into the metaphysical as it is beyond the bounds of science by definition.


Creationism is a science based on religious litterature. If litterature is a physical phenomena, then so is creationism.






No, but you do have to be a U.S. citizen to vote.


Similar to that I have to be a moslem to go to the mosque. Has nothing to do with my actual faith.....



No, to be Muslim one cannot be an atheist or an agnostic or any other variation other than a theist. The first principle of Islam remains the Shahadah. This is an exclusive position that flat out declares the existence of God. You can believe whatever you wish, but you cannot believe whatever you wish and still be Muslim.


So how do you explain me then ? Or the American Taliban, who doesn't believe in the US, yet he is a US citizen ?

Colovion
18/06/05, 10:48
teach everyone everything

Pindar
18/06/05, 18:15
Why ?

Because literature involves writing, this means there is a physical product.





Creationism is a science based on religious litterature. If litterature is a physical phenomena, then so is creationism.

Literature is a physical phenomena, but it doesn't follow that the content of the writing is therefore physical. If one writes about unicorns they do not suddenly become real or a viable object of scientific study. If one writes on Deity the same applies. The notion of Deity is an idea. Whether this idea signifies an actual signified would require knowledge that can pierce the gates of Heaven. Heaven is metaphysical. Science only deals with the physical. The gates remain closed.



Similar to that I have to be a moslem to go to the mosque. Has nothing to do with my actual faith.....

I don't know that only Muslims are allowed into mosques (that doesn't sound right), regardless: being Muslim has everything to do with your faith. Being Muslim is based on a pronouncement of faith.


So how do you explain me then ?

I wouldn't presume to explain you, but I can say that if you are an atheist or agnostic you are not Muslim.


Or the American Taliban, who doesn't believe in the US, yet he is a US citizen ?

U.S. citizenship is a legal category. It is derived by birth or naturalization. Any one born in the U.S. is a U.S. Citizen as declared by the U.S. Constitution the founding legal document of the nation. This legal standing is not based on a metaphysical appeal. Even so, any responsible citizen can renounce that citizenship at any time.

You have equivocated in the use of belief. An American Taliban may not believe in the U.S., but this does not mean he denies the existence of the U.S. Rather it means he rejects the values of the nation.

bmolsson
19/06/05, 10:59
Because literature involves writing, this means there is a physical product.


You mean like a internet link in this forum make a post true.... ~;)

This is a straw man, nothing more nothing less.....




Literature is a physical phenomena, but it doesn't follow that the content of the writing is therefore physical. If one writes about unicorns they do not suddenly become real or a viable object of scientific study. If one writes on Deity the same applies. The notion of Deity is an idea. Whether this idea signifies an actual signified would require knowledge that can pierce the gates of Heaven. Heaven is metaphysical. Science only deals with the physical. The gates remain closed.


In a litterature study you use the content in litterature, either it's history, or any other science based on older writing. With your thesis, history would not be a science, since it is based on contents in writings. Well, if you put science like history, law, politics etc behind the closed gate, I guess I would agree, but I know that you don't. Therefore I can't agree....



I don't know that only Muslims are allowed into mosques (that doesn't sound right), regardless: being Muslim has everything to do with your faith. Being Muslim is based on a pronouncement of faith.


You miss the whole application of religion. Islam, Christianity, Buddism etc doesn't require the subjects to have any faith. Therefore they have created a legal system with punishments if the rules, based on faith, is not followed. Religion isn't always metaphysical......



I wouldn't presume to explain you, but I can say that if you are an atheist or agnostic you are not Muslim.


I didn't say I was an atheist or an agnostic. If you would like to explain me, it's rather simple since I am not metaphysical...... At least not last time I checked..... ~D



U.S. citizenship is a legal category. It is derived by birth or naturalization. Any one born in the U.S. is a U.S. Citizen as declared by the U.S. Constitution the founding legal document of the nation. This legal standing is not based on a metaphysical appeal. Even so, any responsible citizen can renounce that citizenship at any time.


So is Islam for 99% of it's followers.



You have equivocated in the use of belief. An American Taliban may not believe in the U.S., but this does not mean he denies the existence of the U.S. Rather it means he rejects the values of the nation.


Which is what I have argued..... ~:cool:

Pindar
20/06/05, 00:35
You mean like a internet link in this forum make a post true.... ~;)

This is a straw man, nothing more nothing less.....

A straw man? You stated diachronic linguistics works with writings, poetry etc and had no connection to physical phenomena. This is incorrect. Literature is by definition a physical product.





In a litterature study you use the content in litterature, either it's history, or any other science based on older writing. With your thesis, history would not be a science, since it is based on contents in writings. Well, if you put science like history, law, politics etc behind the closed gate, I guess I would agree, but I know that you don't. Therefore I can't agree....

Neither law, politics or history require metaphysical appeals. They do not really fit with the discussion on religion which is metaphysical in orientation.



You miss the whole application of religion. Islam, Christianity, Buddism etc doesn't require the subjects to have any faith. Therefore they have created a legal system with punishments if the rules, based on faith, is not followed. Religion isn't always metaphysical......


Both Islam and Christianity are tied to faith based positions since both are centered on a deity. Buddhism does not have the same theoretical posture, but remains, like Islam and Christianity, highly metaphysical. Religion is metaphysical by definition.

Your views on religious moral edicts is a separate discussion.




I didn't say I was an atheist or an agnostic.

You stated: "I don't believe in a higher deity, but can't dispute the existence of one." That sounds agnostic. Whether you classify yourself as an agnostic or an atheist or anything other than a theist you cannot be Muslim.



So is Islam for 99% of it's followers.

You are saying being Muslim is a legal category determinable by birth or naturalization for 99% of Muslims?




(the good guys;)You have equivocated in the use of belief. An American Taliban may not believe in the U.S., but this does not mean he denies the existence of the U.S. Rather it means he rejects the values of the nation.


Which is what I have argued..... ~:cool:

You reject the values of the U.S.? This doesn't change the base meaning of beng Muslim.

Papewaio
20/06/05, 01:23
When I think of evolution I like to notice that it is insane, its riddles with holes and is only just substantiated by the fossil record. On the other hand Creationism is just one gaping hole with no evidence and even less reason to be correct.


Bit more then the fossil record.

One the acting of breeding traits into animals/plants etc is using the same mechanisms that they use to evolve.

DNA evidence backs up evolution on at least two separate sides. One being a mechanism for change of the genes through change in DNA. The second being a historical evidence of change, the DNA is a bit like a library card showing prior uses. By looking at DNA you can see not only where creatures diverged you can use it as a clock based on rate of DNA change.

bmolsson
20/06/05, 04:33
A straw man? You stated diachronic linguistics works with writings, poetry etc and had no connection to physical phenomena. This is incorrect. Literature is by definition a physical product.


So what is the physical part of the English language ?
The word language must have a physical and scientific explanation. Please let me know.



Neither law, politics or history require metaphysical appeals. They do not really fit with the discussion on religion which is metaphysical in orientation.


Marriage. Why do we have that ? What is the physical reason for this ? Why should we only have one wife ? And why has it to be of the same sex ? Some empirical evidence in the matter would be interesting to see....



Both Islam and Christianity are tied to faith based positions since both are centered on a deity. Buddhism does not have the same theoretical posture, but remains, like Islam and Christianity, highly metaphysical. Religion is metaphysical by definition.


The faiths are, but the theocracy all the religions are built upon are not metaphysical. They are social structures built upon experience and evolution.



Your views on religious moral edicts is a separate discussion.


A more amoral separate discussion I assume.... ~D




You stated: "I don't believe in a higher deity, but can't dispute the existence of one." That sounds agnostic. Whether you classify yourself as an agnostic or an atheist or anything other than a theist you cannot be Muslim.


First of all, I don't classify myself as anything. The environment here does. If I go to Sweden and participate in the family traditions, I am a protestant. The thing is that the classification is made based on your acceptance in the society you reside in.



You are saying being Muslim is a legal category determinable by birth or naturalization for 99% of Muslims?


Yes. So is most of all other religions, ethnic groups, nationalities and in most cases even political orientation. It just feel so much better to believe something different, reality is something totally different.



You reject the values of the U.S.? This doesn't change the base meaning of beng Muslim.


I don't, but the taliban American did. He was called a traitor I recall.....

Pindar
20/06/05, 07:51
So what is the physical part of the English language ?
The word language must have a physical and scientific explanation. Please let me know.

There are several "physical" parts to English: from the sounds uttered when pronouncing words to the formal grammar as written down. Regardless, you are moving rather far a field. None of this furthers the discussion on religion.




Marriage. Why do we have that ? What is the physical reason for this ? Why should we only have one wife ? And why has it to be of the same sex ? Some empirical evidence in the matter would be interesting to see....

Where are you going with this? In the Modern World people marry because they desire to do so. There is no physical requirement. Marriage is a legal standing that's qualifications and boundaries are dependant on the particulars of society.




The faiths are, but the theocracy all the religions are built upon are not metaphysical. They are social structures built upon experience and evolution.

You are confused. A theocracy is not the foundation of religion nor is it a requirement. Most of the major religions have theocratic histories which may or may not persist into Modernity, but none of these political encroachments are foundational. Islam may be an exception to this, but most would cite the birth of the faith as prior to the Hijra. Moreover, even in traditions where there is a standing theocracy, as with the Papal See, this does not speak for the faith as a whole, but rather one aspect of it and even in these cases the prior and foundational metaphysical appeal remains.




First of all, I don't classify myself as anything. The environment here does. If I go to Sweden and participate in the family traditions, I am a protestant. The thing is that the classification is made based on your acceptance in the society you reside in.

This is again wrong. If you go to Sweden and enjoy the wonders of Scandinavia, regardless of the traditions that you may participate in, those traditions do not make you a Protestant unless you personally adhere to the tenets of Protestantism which in Sweden's case most likely would be of the Lutheran variety. There are a host of Swedes who may celebrate Christmas, or attend weddings, or funerals that have a religious air, but would not then feel compelled to classify themselves as Christians because of it. Faith is defined by personal belief.




Yes. So is most of all other religions, ethnic groups, nationalities and in most cases even political orientation. It just feel so much better to believe something different, reality is something totally different.

Alas, while there are nations that have required a formal religious standing and there may still be some today i.e. Saudi Arabia, this is not the standard. Most states do not compel religious affiliation or demand some legal qualification of faith. Let's take two simple examples. France has been a traditionally Catholic nation. At present, some ten percent of the population is Muslim due to North African immigration. There is no legal requirement to convert to Catholicism nor does religious affiliation require registration or marking on passports as one religion or another etc. A second example Egypt: here the reverse is the case, over ninety percent of the population is Muslim, but another roughly ten percent are Coptic Christians. In the past these Christians were Dhimmi and therefore had to pay the jizya, but that is not the present reality. Copts do not have to register or get special visa standing nor do any other non-Muslim persons living in Egypt. Islam has a long tradition of mixing religion and politics under the Umma maybe this is the reason you are confused on this point, but even within Islam there are sects that are extra-politcal i.e. the Sufis. Moreover, with other faiths these distinctions coincide with the rise of Modernity.




I don't, but the taliban American did. He was called a traitor I recall.....

I don't know what you are referring to, but typically if someone takes up arms against their own nation they are considered a traitor by that nation. (this again seems to be moving away form the topic at hand).

bmolsson
20/06/05, 10:05
There are several "physical" parts to English: from the sounds uttered when pronouncing words to the formal grammar as written down. Regardless, you are moving rather far a field. None of this furthers the discussion on religion.


Actually I am not moving away from the subject. The English language is based upon traditions, writings and a social structure. There are no physical in the sounds, pronounciations or the size of the letters. There is no reason for a certain word to have a certain meaning. You can not give me empirical evidence that a certain word should look in a certain way. It's a social science without any appearant physical evidence. We read about them in and try to put a logical framwork on them. In the case of written Chinese it's more complicated for no reason what so ever.

It's the same thing with creationism. Based on traditions, writings, fables, sightings etc a theory is built. The theory is based on social science, similar to for example a language.



Where are you going with this? In the Modern World people marry because they desire to do so. There is no physical requirement. Marriage is a legal standing that's qualifications and boundaries are dependant on the particulars of society.


Marriage has a religious and metaphysical origin. Yet, family law is seen as a science........




You are confused.


Redleg, Pindar is not nice to me....... ~D



A theocracy is not the foundation of religion nor is it a requirement. Most of the major religions have theocratic histories which may or may not persist into Modernity, but none of these political encroachments are foundational. Islam may be an exception to this, but most would cite the birth of the faith as prior to the Hijra. Moreover, even in traditions where there is a standing theocracy, as with the Papal See, this does not speak for the faith as a whole, but rather one aspect of it and even in these cases the prior and foundational metaphysical appeal remains.


You assume that the faith came before the theocracy. There is nothing that says that so is the case. You also assume that the faith is a requirement for the religion to exist. I challenge these assumptions.
The reaction from for example Martin Luther was exactly this. He could not see that the faith was given enough place in the theocracy and was used as a network of rules and enforcements to keep the people oppressed.



This is again wrong. If you go to Sweden and enjoy the wonders of Scandinavia, regardless of the traditions that you may participate in, those traditions do not make you a Protestant unless you personally adhere to the tenets of Protestantism which in Sweden's case most likely would be of the Lutheran variety. There are a host of Swedes who may celebrate Christmas, or attend weddings, or funerals that have a religious air, but would not then feel compelled to classify themselves as Christians because of it. Faith is defined by personal belief.


Faith is defined by personal belief, yes. But religion and the belonging to a certain religion is not. It's a romantic and beautiful assumption that your faith is what actually means something. So is not the case.
A muslim born and raised with an arabic name will be treated differently when he enters US, regardless if he believes in Allah or not. This is a fact, which in the case of entry to US can be proven with the science of personal profiling...... ~;)




Alas, while there are nations that have required a formal religious standing and there may still be some today i.e. Saudi Arabia, this is not the standard. Most states do not compel religious affiliation or demand some legal qualification of faith. Let's take two simple examples. France has been a traditionally Catholic nation. At present, some ten percent of the population is Muslim due to North African immigration. There is no legal requirement to convert to Catholicism nor does religious affiliation require registration or marking on passports as one religion or another etc. A second example Egypt: here the reverse is the case, over ninety percent of the population is Muslim, but another roughly ten percent are Coptic Christians. In the past these Christians were Dhimmi and therefore had to pay the jizya, but that is not the present reality. Copts do not have to register or get special visa standing nor do any other non-Muslim persons living in Egypt. Islam has a long tradition of mixing religion and politics under the Umma maybe this is the reason you are confused on this point, but even within Islam there are sects that are extra-politcal i.e. the Sufis. Moreover, with other faiths these distinctions coincide with the rise of Modernity.


There is legal requirements to convert to Islam before you can take governmental jobs in Saudi Arabia. You are not welcome as a civil servant if you don't belong the the right religion.
In France you are forced to follow the rules set up by the French authorities, for example you can not use a burka in the school.
The rise of modernity have created a identity conflict for many people, just due to the mix of faith and religion. Religion as well as societies are judgmental, while faith is not. Faith is like love, it makes you happy, but it doesn't necessariely have be there for you to do what you have to do........




I don't know what you are referring to, but typically if someone takes up arms against their own nation they are considered a traitor by that nation. (this again seems to be moving away form the topic at hand).


And that regardless his faith ?? ~;)

Boohugh
20/06/05, 11:01
DNA evidence backs up evolution on at least two separate sides. One being a mechanism for change of the genes through change in DNA. The second being a historical evidence of change, the DNA is a bit like a library card showing prior uses. By looking at DNA you can see not only where creatures diverged you can use it as a clock based on rate of DNA change.

Why does DNA change?

Is it not possible that it isn't random mutations, but is, in fact, orchestrated changes by one or more higher beings?

bmolsson
20/06/05, 11:18
An interesting thing with random is the roulette theory.

Statistically, a perfectly balanced roulette would make ALL numbers come up an equal amount of times. The interesting part here is that there is NOTHING that says that so should be the case, since every time you spinn, it's a totally unrelated event compare to the others.

Random is therefore something metaphysical.... ~;)

Pindar
20/06/05, 18:14
. There are no physical in the sounds, pronounciations or the size of the letters.

Yes there are. Pronunciation is a physical activity. Writing and formalized grammar are also physical in that they take up space.


There is no reason for a certain word to have a certain meaning. You can not give me empirical evidence that a certain word should look in a certain way.... We read about them in and try to put a logical framwork on them. In the case of written Chinese it's more complicated for no reason what so ever.

It's the same thing with creationism. Based on traditions, writings, fables, sightings etc a theory is built. The theory is based on social science, similar to for example a language.

Of course there is no necessity behind any overall language system. It is a construct. That is neither here nor there: English or any other language is not a science.

Creationism is not a science either: it makes metaphysical appeals. This is not a standard of science.

Do you understand the base meaning of science?




Marriage has a religious and metaphysical origin. Yet, family law is seen as a science........

Law is not a science.

Marriage may have religious overtones , but not for the purposes of the state and public contracts. Getting married does not require any religious affiliation.





Redleg, Pindar is not nice to me....... ~D

~:grouphug:




You assume that the faith came before the theocracy. There is nothing that says that so is the case.

You are wrong.

Hinduism: There is no formal hierarchy or established governmental system. Typically Hinduism is traced to the Aryan invasion circa 1500 B.C.E., but the Vedas are ritual focused and not political texts. Further the Upanishads are from the Forest Tradition and therefore developed independent of any political control.

Buddhism: After achieving Enlightenment the Buddha taught as a wandering teacher for some forty years in the 5th Century B.C.E. Buddhism would not have political standing until King Asoka adopted it as his kingdom's faith in the 3rd Century B.C.E.

Judaism: the base tenets of Judaism are tied to Moses and his return from Mt. Sinai. This occurred prior to the entry into the Promised Land. Prior to there being any formal government. Further Moses did not claim a new faith, but placed himself within the larger tradition of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob none of whom were kings or rulers.

Christianity: the Jesus movement has its origins in the 1st Century of the Common Era. Christianity was adopted as the Official Creed of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century.

Islam: Muhammad received his prophetic call prior to his flight out of Mecca and having any political power.



You also assume that the faith is a requirement for the religion to exist. I challenge these assumptions.

If you mean faith in the sense of practioners having confidence that the teachings they follow are correct then yes religion is faith based.


The reaction from for example Martin Luther was exactly this. He could not see that the faith was given enough place in the theocracy and was used as a network of rules and enforcements to keep the people oppressed.

No, Luther was an Augustinian Monk. The sole fides position he ultimately took was already present in the writings of St. Augustine which predated Luther by more than a thousand years. Further, the theology Luther was reacting against did not reject faith, quite the contrary,it remained a central tenet.




Faith is defined by personal belief, yes. But religion and the belonging to a certain religion is not.

Belonging to a certain religion may very well involve participating in certain pronouncements or rituals i.e. baptism in Christianity, but none of this requires political affiliation.



A muslim born and raised with an arabic name will be treated differently when he enters US, regardless if he believes in Allah or not. This is a fact, which in the case of entry to US can be proven with the science of personal profiling...... ~;)

A Muslim by definition believes in Allah.

Profiling is a legal expedient it does not force people to join a particular faith, nor does it require special religious status.





There is legal requirements to convert to Islam before you can take governmental jobs in Saudi Arabia. You are not welcome as a civil servant if you don't belong the right religion.
In France you are forced to follow the rules set up by the French authorities, for example you can not use a burka in the school.
The rise of modernity have created a identity conflict for many people, just due to the mix of faith and religion. Religion as well as societies are judgmental, while faith is not. Faith is like love, it makes you happy, but it doesn't necessariely have be there for you to do what you have to do........

As I said, Saudi Arabia may still retain certain penchants from a former age. Even so, living in Saudi Arabia does not require conversion to Islam. France's new law on religious apparel in schools is not faith specific, but applies to all : Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is a prohibition, not an endorsement or religious/political requirement.





And that regardless his faith ?? ~;)

Yes.

doc_bean
20/06/05, 21:24
Why does DNA change?

Is it not possible that it isn't random mutations, but is, in fact, orchestrated changes by one or more higher beings?

Genetic algorithms work pretty well with random mutations.

What about birth defects ? Down Syndrome ? Does God make these too ?


An interesting thing with random is the roulette theory.

Statistically, a perfectly balanced roulette would make ALL numbers come up an equal amount of times. The interesting part here is that there is NOTHING that says that so should be the case, since every time you spinn, it's a totally unrelated event compare to the others.

Random is therefore something metaphysical....

Well, if each number has the same chance of being chose, it would have a chance =1/#numbers. So if you role a ball a lot of times every square will probably be chosen (notice the probably) =# spins/# numbers. So they would have been chosen the same amount of times. The amount of times each number has been chosen probably has a Gaussian distribution around # spins/# numbers, so if you add up the chances for all the numbers, the most likely scenario is that all numbers are picked an equal amount of times. I really don't see the metaphysical aspect here.

bmolsson
21/06/05, 04:44
Yes there are. Pronunciation is a physical activity. Writing and formalized grammar are also physical in that they take up space.


If so, so is writing a bible, receiving the 10 commendments on 2 bricks of stone etc..... ~D



Of course there is no necessity behind any overall language system. It is a construct. That is neither here nor there: English or any other language is not a science.


Still you can become a doctor on it.... ~;)



Creationism is not a science either: it makes metaphysical appeals. This is not a standard of science.


It's a theory.



Do you understand the base meaning of science?


Well, let's see...



There are different theories of what "science" is.

According to empiricism, "scientific" theories are objective, empirically testable, and "predictive" — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify what "things" in the world, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.


I would assume that this is what you see, Pindar.



Even in the empiricist tradition, we must be careful to understand that "prediction" refers to the outcome of an experiment or study, rather than to literally predicting the future. For example, to say, "a paleontologist may make predictions about finding a certain type of dinosaur" is consistent with the empiricist's use of prediction. On the other hand, sciences like geology or meteorology need not be able to make accurate predictions about earthquakes or the weather to qualify as sciences. Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper also argued that certain verification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification).


Here we comes to the science border land. A gentleman like Nostradamus could be seen as a prophet or/and as a scientists.

Interesting to mention is Brouwer and his Intuitionism on Mathematics:
- mathematical objects are constructions of the human mind; before their construction they are neither real nor true, but once constructed they exist independent of and are irreducible to our use/knowledge of them; futhermore is it possible -and even necessary to assume- that some constructions will never come to a finished end, thus never will be finally constructed at all


This imply that science can actually be a construct.



According to Bhaskar, science is knowledge of the real, and empiricism makes a crucial error of reasoning — the epistemic fallacy. This is the mistake of confusing the limits of human knowledge with the limits of reality itself.


The interesting part here is that if you apply objectivism, which does not require any metaphysical approach, you do have a social science where the perception of reality, based upon the history, traditions and even archelogy and geology give you the theory of creationism. Creationism, which is the original question, is actually a theory (and not the science it self), just like evolutionism.

Bottomline is, creationism should not be ignored as a theory, since there are scientific elements talking for it. This does not make it a good or true theory, but it gives it the right to respect as on of the possible theories.

Furthermore, the earth could have been created by a physical deity. There is nothing that tells us that a supreme deity have to be metaphysical. He might just be different.... ~;)



Law is not a science.


Maybe you are right. It seems pretty close to science to me....



The question that has received the most substantial attention from philosophers of law is What is law? Three schools of thought have provided rivals answers to this question:

Natural law theory asserts that there are laws that are immanent in nature, to which enacted laws should correspond as closely as possible. This view is frequently summarized by the maxim: an unjust law is not a true law, in which 'unjust' is defined as contrary to natural law.
Legal positivism is the view that the law is defined by the social rules or practices that identify certain norms as laws. Historically, the most important legal positivist theory was developed by Jeremy Bentham, whose views were popularized by his student, John Austin. Austin's version of legal positivism was based on the notion that the law is the command of the sovereign backed by the threat of punishment.
Legal realism is the view that the law should be understood as it is practiced in the courts, law offices, and police stations, rather than as it is set forth in statutes or learned treatises.




Marriage may have religious overtones , but not for the purposes of the state and public contracts. Getting married does not require any religious affiliation.


Not anymore, mostly due to the fact that the purpose has changed.



You are wrong.

Hinduism: There is no formal hierarchy or established governmental system. Typically Hinduism is traced to the Aryan invasion circa 1500 B.C.E., but the Vedas are ritual focused and not political texts. Further the Upanishads are from the Forest Tradition and therefore developed independent of any political control.

Buddhism: After achieving Enlightenment the Buddha taught as a wandering teacher for some forty years in the 5th Century B.C.E. Buddhism would not have political standing until King Asoka adopted it as his kingdom's faith in the 3rd Century B.C.E.

Judaism: the base tenets of Judaism are tied to Moses and his return from Mt. Sinai. This occurred prior to the entry into the Promised Land. Prior to there being any formal government. Further Moses did not claim a new faith, but placed himself within the larger tradition of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob none of whom were kings or rulers.

Christianity: the Jesus movement has its origins in the 1st Century of the Common Era. Christianity was adopted as the Official Creed of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century.

Islam: Muhammad received his prophetic call prior to his flight out of Mecca and having any political power.


The raise of the religions you mentioned where due to political desire and not because of the faith itself. I would argue that it's more a question of coincidence that the faith is a part of the religions. At the time the religions raised, the political life was based upon faith and a new political wing would mean a new faith. The argument that the five religions mentioned is based on faith and faith alone is pure utopian.



If you mean faith in the sense of practioners having confidence that the teachings they follow are correct then yes religion is faith based.


I disagree. The faith is a tool and a part of the religion, not it's base. You can see that through the differences of the same religion throughout the world.



No, Luther was an Augustinian Monk. The sole fides position he ultimately took was already present in the writings of St. Augustine which predated Luther by more than a thousand years. Further, the theology Luther was reacting against did not reject faith, quite the contrary,it remained a central tenet.


He reacted against the use of faith.



Luther's first public challenge of papal power came in 1517, over the selling of indulgences. The question at hand was whether the Pope (or any man besides Christ) had the power or authority to apply the merits of Jesus Christ and the saints to those in purgatory (as purgatory itself was not the doctrine in question), thereby freeing them from the pains of purgatory.

Luther hated the practice, since he believed that indulgences did nothing to save souls and only lined the pockets of the clergy. Because he believed that they also exonerated deeds not yet committed, they also encouraged sin. He had taken a trip to Rome in 1510, and was disgusted at the Papacy's greed and corruption.





Belonging to a certain religion may very well involve participating in certain pronouncements or rituals i.e. baptism in Christianity, but none of this requires political affiliation.


Christianity itself is for me a political affiliation.



A Muslim by definition believes in Allah.


No. He is not allowed to reject him though.



Profiling is a legal expedient it does not force people to join a particular faith, nor does it require special religious status.


Profiling assumes criminal behavior with a particular faith and create suspects based on religious status. Of course the religious part can be argued to be clues to psychology in order to aid in capturing criminals. ~;)



As I said, Saudi Arabia may still retain certain penchants from a former age. Even so, living in Saudi Arabia does not require conversion to Islam. France's new law on religious apparel in schools is not faith specific, but applies to all : Jews, Christians and Muslims. It is a prohibition, not an endorsement or religious/political requirement.


Getting Saudi citizenship, requires conversion to Islam. Residence there without citizenship is temporary at best.

France new law prohibits religious apparel and can easily be seen as an ateistic statement against religion. Ateism can then be argued to be a religion of itself, a new political movement with an aquired faith.......

GoreBag
21/06/05, 04:54
Well, Islam does mean "subservience before Allah", does it not? Therefore, one might reason that if one does not accept Allah as his master, he cannot be a Muslim. There is nothing to do with rejection anywhere within that reasoning.

bmolsson
21/06/05, 06:03
Well, Islam does mean "subservience before Allah", does it not? Therefore, one might reason that if one does not accept Allah as his master, he cannot be a Muslim. There is nothing to do with rejection anywhere within that reasoning.

Allah is free to discuss the details with me any day....... ~;)

Pindar
21/06/05, 08:56
That was a long post.


If so, so is writing a bible, receiving the 10 commendments on 2 bricks of stone etc.....

Yes, of course. Any text is physical, whether the same is divinely inspired or not is a separate question: a question not amenable to science.




Still you can become a doctor on it....

Yes, doctor as derived from Latin, it means 'teacher'. In this case, such a title would be a under the category "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD). This is not a science position.





Originally Posted by Pindar
Creationism is not a science either: it makes metaphysical appeals. This is not a standard of science.

It's a theory.

Yes it is, but a theory is not thereby scientific, rather it is theoretical meaning it is an idea. Ideas in and of themselves are not scientific.




Originally Posted by Pindar
Creationism is not a science either: it makes metaphysical appeals. This is not a standard of science.

Well, let's see...

You didn't answer my question, but if you note the three base approaches none of them allow for religion or creationism to fall under the category science.

1) "predict(s) empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted."

2) "science attempts to identify..."things" in the world"

3) Popper: "scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification)."





Interesting to mention is Brouwer and his Intuitionism on Mathematics:

Mathematics is not science.



This imply that science can actually be a construct.

Science is a construct.




The interesting part here is that if you apply objectivism, which does not require any metaphysical approach, you do have a social science where the perception of reality, based upon the history, traditions and even archelogy and geology give you the theory of creationism. Creationism, which is the original question, is actually a theory (and not the science it self), just like evolutionism.

Bottomline is, creationism should not be ignored as a theory, since there are scientific elements talking for it. This does not make it a good or true theory, but it gives it the right to respect as on of the possible theories.

The above does not follow. Creationism is a theory. It is not a science. It is not a social science. It is not the natural conclusion of history, tradition, archeology and geology. It is not the same as evolution: it makes a supernatural appeal. That alone places it outside of the scientific arena.


Furthermore, the earth could have been created by a physical deity. There is nothing that tells us that a supreme deity have to be metaphysical. He might just be different.... ~;)

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If you are implying that Deity could have a physical component, that may be, but it doesn't follow from that assertion that Deity is then in the natural sphere. If you are implying that Deity is on the earth then such localized perfection should be producible. If such cannot be put forward then there is no reason to accept the premise.




Originally Posted by Pindar
Law is not a science.

Maybe you are right. It seems pretty close to science to me....

It is not close. Law is a theoretical exercise.






The raise of the religions you mentioned where due to political desire and not because of the faith itself. I would argue that it's more a question of coincidence that the faith is a part of the religions. At the time the religions raised, the political life was based upon faith and a new political wing would mean a new faith. The argument that the five religions mentioned is based on faith and faith alone is pure utopian.

My post has nothing to do with the success or failure of any religion. It is an answer to the core teachings. Those teachings are not derived from a theocracy which seemed to be your view.





Originally Posted by Pindar
If you mean faith in the sense of practioners having confidence that the teachings they follow are correct then yes religion is faith based.


I disagree. The faith is a tool and a part of the religion, not it's base. You can see that through the differences of the same religion throughout the world.

I don't know how you are using faith. So far there seem to be two uses: one, as noted above: a belief in the correctness of the system proscribed to. Two, a belief in a metaphysical super structure i.e. that God exists, some other reality exists etc. Regardless, however you wish to rank or order the elements of religion: faith in either sense applies and there are no faiths where these do not apply.




(Luther) reacted against the use of faith.

Luther's rejection of Indulgences is separate from the sole fides position. Sole fides involves a positive theological stand. Luther was not simply concerned with critique. Regardless, Luther did not reject faith as an operative and neither did the Catholicism he responded to.







Christianity itself is for me a political affiliation.

Then you do not understand Christianity.




Originally Posted by Pindar
A Muslim by definition believes in Allah.

No. He is not allowed to reject him though.

That is not correct. The first principle of Islam, the Shahada, is a positive affirmation about Allah's existence.




Profiling assumes criminal behavior with a particular faith and create suspects based on religious status.

So?



Getting Saudi citizenship, requires conversion to Islam. Residence there without citizenship is temporary at best.

That may be, but Saudi Arabia is not 99% of the Arab world. Your own homeland is a lovely counter example. To be Indonesian does not require conversion to Islam.


France new law prohibits religious apparel and can easily be seen as an ateistic statement against religion. Ateism can then be argued to be a religion of itself, a new political movement with an aquired faith.......

France's law may be anti-religious, but that is separate from the point. Atheism cannot be argued to be a religion. It is incoherent to suggest such.

Papewaio
21/06/05, 09:24
Why does DNA change?

Is it not possible that it isn't random mutations, but is, in fact, orchestrated changes by one or more higher beings?

DNA changes because a type of DNA that cannot change will overtime make the line out of date and hence that type of DNA will die out.

Given that normal physical processes cause DNA change why add a layer of complexity that has no proof to it?

bmolsson
21/06/05, 10:42
That was a long post.


It shows I care.... ~:grouphug:



Yes, of course. Any text is physical, whether the same is divinely inspired or not is a separate question: a question not amenable to science.


So in with litterature you mean books, paper, ink etc and not the actual content ? Isn't that really a strawman.... ~D



Yes, doctor as derived from Latin, it means 'teacher'. In this case, such a title would be a under the category "Doctor of Philosophy" (PhD). This is not a science position.


I won't argue that with you. You are right there.



Yes it is, but a theory is not thereby scientific, rather it is theoretical meaning it is an idea. Ideas in and of themselves are not scientific.


A theory is based on science by definition. Ideas is not. They are therefore not the same thing.



You didn't answer my question, but if you note the three base approaches none of them allow for religion or creationism to fall under the category science.

1) "predict(s) empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted."

2) "science attempts to identify..."things" in the world"

3) Popper: "scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification)."


I didn't know you asked a question. :book:

The three points are points on the science on which creationism is based. I maintain that creationism is a theory based on social science. Your critisism against creationism are listed in the three points above and they are valid also for any other theory based on science, hence they being mentioned here.



Mathematics is not science.




Albert Einstein referred to the mathematics as the Queen of the Sciences in his book Ideas and Opinions, a phrase first used by Carl Friedrich Gauss. Both followed by centuries St Thomas Aquinas' "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology and theology is queen of the sciences". If one considers science to be strictly empirical, then mathematics itself is not a science. That is, mathematical knowledge exists separate from the physical world.

Mathematics shares much in common with the sciences. Experimentation plays a large role in the formulation of reasonable conjectures, and therefore is not by any means excluded from use by research mathematicians. However, theorems are only accepted if proofs have been found for them.


I guess that me and Albert disagree a bit with you there.... ~;)



Science is a construct.


You must have more faith in science..... ~D



The above does not follow. Creationism is a theory. It is not a science. It is not a social science. It is not the natural conclusion of history, tradition, archeology and geology. It is not the same as evolution: it makes a supernatural appeal. That alone places it outside of the scientific arena.


Creationism is a theory based on social science. Yes, it's not the same as evolution, I never made them equal. Evolution is a theory based on natural science. The super natural appeal is confused with an intelligent design. Of course the problem would be to describe the origin of the physical deity and that question would go on for ever, while in evolution the beginning is purely random. I disagree that your arguments puts creationism outside the scientific arena, if one include social science.



I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If you are implying that Deity could have a physical component, that may be, but it doesn't follow from that assertion that Deity is then in the natural sphere. If you are implying that Deity is on the earth then such localized perfection should be producible. If such cannot be put forward then there is no reason to accept the premise.


There are scenitific evidence of alien life forms. There are also scientifically documented events in history which confirms many of the writings in religious scripts. New cults, like scientologs etc are trying to put a physical format on a deity. Our current natural sphere does not have any determined border and therefore it's not really logical to call anything outside your current knowledge reference metaphysical. This assumtion can't be proven.



It is not close. Law is a theoretical exercise.


And amoral ?? ~D

Actually law is something similar to religion. Used to control and organize a population. Your point is taken....



My post has nothing to do with the success or failure of any religion. It is an answer to the core teachings. Those teachings are not derived from a theocracy which seemed to be your view.


The teachings are constructs. The constructs are made to build up a homogen political structure.



I don't know how you are using faith. So far there seem to be two uses: one, as noted above: a belief in the correctness of the system proscribed to. Two, a belief in a metaphysical super structure i.e. that God exists, some other reality exists etc. Regardless, however you wish to rank or order the elements of religion: faith in either sense applies and there are no faiths where these do not apply.


The faith is a doctrine to keep a population homogen and makes it possible to steer the population in the direction you desire. It's purely a political tool for the religion. You refer to the individuals. Some idividuals will not be able to see the big picture and for them the faith means something more abstract. Fact remains that the faith is used to police the religion as such and is not the base for the religion as such.



Luther's rejection of Indulgences is separate from the sole fides position. Sole fides involves a positive theological stand. Luther was not simply concerned with critique. Regardless, Luther did not reject faith as an operative and neither did the Catholicism he responded to.


True, but he did object the use of the faith as a tool in keeping the people at bay.



Then you do not understand Christianity.


I would argue that I do understand it, but it's not something that everyone want to hear. The conclusions I have are purely empirical..... ~;)



That is not correct. The first principle of Islam, the Shahada, is a positive affirmation about Allah's existence.


And where does it state that you will be excluded if you don't have a strong faith ? Nowhere..... A born muslims is always a muslim. It's not accepted that he converts. Jews don't accept conversions in to their religion as another example. The faith itself is secondary for these religions.



So?


Are you republican ? ~D



That may be, but Saudi Arabia is not 99% of the Arab world. Your own homeland is a lovely counter example. To be Indonesian does not require conversion to Islam.


Actually in Indonesia you have to belong to one of 5 defined religions. If not, you are not even allowed to enter Indonesia.



France's law may be anti-religious, but that is separate from the point. Atheism cannot be argued to be a religion. It is incoherent to suggest such.

It's only incoherent if you insist that the faith is the base for the actual religion. Here we disagree. ~:grouphug:

Pindar
21/06/05, 21:06
So in with litterature you mean books, paper, ink etc and not the actual content ? Isn't that really a strawman....

No, it is not. You stated literature was not physical. This is wrong. Literature necessarily includes the actual texts themselves. If you want to focus on content then you are concerned with ideas. Ideas are not physical. They are not exclusive to literature either. What is relevant here is the need to make critical distinctions. I don't think you tend to do that and consequently end up with wooly conclusions.

As our discussion has continued it seems the gap has increased rather than the opposite. I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings regarding basic concepts like science, religion and some of their surrounding notions. I am happy to discuss any or all of these with you, but I fear the way things are moving it isn't allowing the proper focus to reach conclusion on these issues. Even so, I will answer your relevant points below, but you may want to consider narrowing the focus of discussion. The original point concerned whether 'creationism' qualifies as a science or not. I have explained that science does not allow metaphysical appeals. Creationism involves a metaphysical appeal therefore it is not science.




A theory is based on science by definition. Ideas is not. They are therefore not the same thing.

Theory is derived from the Greek theoria which means contemplation or speculation. This typically includes observation, but it doesn't follow from that all theories are therefore scientific. Science is a distinct methodology and putting forward a theory does not require adherence to that methodology.




I didn't know you asked a question. :book:

I asked: "Do you know the base meaning of science?"


The three points are points on the science on which creationism is based. I maintain that creationism is a theory based on social science. Your critisism against creationism are listed in the three points above and they are valid also for any other theory based on science, hence they being mentioned here.

No, creationism is based on the idea of a Creator. Thus, the name of the position. This is metaphysical at its core and not science. Creationism cannot answer any of the three points noted. It is not verifiable. It is not focused on the world. It is not falsifiable.





Originally Posted by Pindar
Mathematics is not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Albert Einstein referred to the mathematics as the Queen of the Sciences in his book Ideas and Opinions, a phrase first used by Carl Friedrich Gauss. Both followed by centuries St Thomas Aquinas' "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology and theology is queen of the sciences".




I guess that me and Albert disagree a bit with you there.... ~;)

Then you and Albert are wrong, and at a basic level.

I actually don't think Albert is suggesting what you think he is. I think he is working off of the base notion of science in Latin: scientia which means knowledge. He is therefore saying mathematics is the prime vehicle to knowledge.




Creationism is a theory based on social science. Yes, it's not the same as evolution, I never made them equal. Evolution is a theory based on natural science. The super natural appeal is confused with an intelligent design. Of course the problem would be to describe the origin of the physical deity and that question would go on for ever, while in evolution the beginning is purely random. I disagree that your arguments puts creationism outside the scientific arena, if one include social science.

There is a supernatural appeal in both Creationism and Intelligent Design. Neither is science. The physical deity comments don't seem any clearer. If you want to argue that the Creator is part of the creation then there is another incoherency problem.




There are scenitific evidence of alien life forms. There are also scientifically documented events in history which confirms many of the writings in religious scripts. New cults, like scientologs etc are trying to put a physical format on a deity. Our current natural sphere does not have any determined border and therefore it's not really logical to call anything outside your current knowledge reference metaphysical. This assumtion can't be proven.

The natural sphere does have a border: the physical arena. What is metaphysical refers to that which is beyond that boundary.



Originally Posted by Pindar
My post has nothing to do with the success or failure of any religion. It is an answer to the core teachings. Those teachings are not derived from a theocracy which seemed to be your view.

The teachings are constructs. The constructs are made to build up a homogen political structure.

This again is wrong. Religion as a system does not require political appeal.




The faith is a doctrine to keep a population homogen and makes it possible to steer the population in the direction you desire. It's purely a political tool for the religion. You refer to the individuals. Some idividuals will not be able to see the big picture and for them the faith means something more abstract. Fact remains that the faith is used to police the religion as such and is not the base for the religion as such.

Your assuming intent is flawed. Faith under the two standards I put forward have nothing to do with politics. If you wish to define faith as a population control then that again is flawed as none of the religions mentioned use that definition or are limited to politics. Many religions have theocratic histories and possible theocratic present realties, but that, as I have already indicated, is not endemic to the beliefs.






True, but (Luther) did object the use of the faith as a tool in keeping the people at bay.

Based on the way you seem to be using faith. This is also wrong.




I would argue that I do understand it, but it's not something that everyone want to hear. The conclusions I have are purely empirical..... ~;)

Go through the New Testament for me and tell me what the required political affiliation is.




And where does it state that you will be excluded if you don't have a strong faith ? Nowhere..... A born muslims is always a muslim. It's not accepted that he converts. Jews don't accept conversions in to their religion as another example. The faith itself is secondary for these religions.

The strength of one's faith is a separate question. The Shahada remains a statement of faith and is the foundational belief that defines a Muslim.

No one is born a Muslim.

Judaism does accept converts. People move in and out of Judaism all the time.




Are you republican ? ~D

Of course, I believe in rationality.




Actually in Indonesia you have to belong to one of 5 defined religions. If not, you are not even allowed to enter Indonesia.

I don't believe you. I don't believe atheists are barred from entering the country. Given I know a host of people of a vast array of beliefs and its opposite that have been to Indonesia your statement appears false.




It's only incoherent if you insist that the faith is the base for the actual religion. Here we disagree. ~:grouphug:

No it's incoherent because it's completely at odds with the base meaning of religion.

Brenus
21/06/05, 21:53
Why only the Christian point of view? Let speak about the Great Crocodile, the Big Anaconda the Beautiful Turtle, and what ever the mankind invented to explain, as much they could, the creation... Don't be shy, they are all as good as the creation in 6 days and the rest the 7th. No?

Skomatth
21/06/05, 22:11
Pindar, would you kindly endeavour to explain the base meaning of religion? I myself am unclear as to its precise meaning.


The word religion is used nowadays in a very loose sense. Some people, under the influence of extreme Protestantism, employ the word to denote any serious personal convictions as to morals or the nature of the universe. This use of the word is quite unhistorical. Religion is primarily a social phenomenon.

So what would you call someone who belongs to the social phenomenon as it seems bmosslon does, but does not accept its metaphysical and ethical tenets? In my own case I attended a Catholic church for 18 years, but didn't believe a bit of it for the last several. During those years I don't think I could rightly be called a Roman Catholic, just as bmolsson could not be called a Muslim though a merely external analysis of our behavior would classify us as such.

Pindar
21/06/05, 22:53
Pindar, would you kindly endeavour to explain the base meaning of religion? I myself am unclear as to its precise meaning.



So what would you call someone who belongs to the social phenomenon as it seems bmosslon does, but does not accept its metaphysical and ethical tenets? In my own case I attended a Catholic church for 18 years, but didn't believe a bit of it for the last several. During those years I don't think I could rightly be called a Roman Catholic, just as bmolsson could not be called a Muslim though a merely external analysis of our behavior would classify us as such.

I agree, I don't think you could be called a Catholic just a bmolsson is not a Muslim. I think it's easy for people to confuse the cultural/social manifestations of religion with religion proper.

If I were to break religion down to its core element: the principle that qualifies a system as a religion as opposed to something else, I would say is its soteriology or the salvatory model. Not all religions defer to a Deity, but all religions recognize the possibility to move from a lower to a higher order of being. It is this recognition with its typically attending methodology that is religion.

bmolsson
22/06/05, 05:03
No, it is not. You stated literature was not physical. This is wrong. Literature necessarily includes the actual texts themselves. If you want to focus on content then you are concerned with ideas. Ideas are not physical. They are not exclusive to literature either. What is relevant here is the need to make critical distinctions. I don't think you tend to do that and consequently end up with wooly conclusions.


Literature is about what is written and nothing else. What media used is irrelevant. That can hardly be a wooly conclusion. :balloon2:



As our discussion has continued it seems the gap has increased rather than the opposite. I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings regarding basic concepts like science, religion and some of their surrounding notions. I am happy to discuss any or all of these with you, but I fear the way things are moving it isn't allowing the proper focus to reach conclusion on these issues. Even so, I will answer your relevant points below, but you may want to consider narrowing the focus of discussion. The original point concerned whether 'creationism' qualifies as a science or not. I have explained that science does not allow metaphysical appeals. Creationism involves a metaphysical appeal therefore it is not science.


Creationism is a theory built on social science. That is what I claim and you disagree with.




Theory is derived from the Greek theoria which means contemplation or speculation. This typically includes observation, but it doesn't follow from that all theories are therefore scientific. Science is a distinct methodology and putting forward a theory does not require adherence to that methodology.


A theory and an idea is still not the same thing.




I asked: "Do you know the base meaning of science?"


Yes, and I have posted references to it earlier. Our disagreement is in regards to soft or social science. Surely there are split opinions on this also among scientists and not only us cyber dwellers... ~;)



No, creationism is based on the idea of a Creator. Thus, the name of the position. This is metaphysical at its core and not science. Creationism cannot answer any of the three points noted. It is not verifiable. It is not focused on the world. It is not falsifiable.


Wrong. It explains the creation with an intelligent design. The origin is not the idea of the creator, but the conclusion on that random doesn't cut it. Evidence are brought forward through historical documentation, social structures and even some natural evidence, also used by evolutionism.
The main difference lays in the existence of a soul or consiousness, today not explained by natural science.
The fundamentalistic view of a deity and a supreme being is only brough forward by people who have lost their tolerance and patience due to excessive faith.



Then you and Albert are wrong, and at a basic level.


Albert and I bow to the master...... :bow: ~D



There is a supernatural appeal in both Creationism and Intelligent Design. Neither is science. The physical deity comments don't seem any clearer. If you want to argue that the Creator is part of the creation then there is another incoherency problem.


New spieces are today created by human hand. New materials, complex machines etc are designed by human hand. This is intelligent design.
New discoveries of spieces, places, stars etc are done every day. Inventions are being created by the thousands.
With your idea of science and current human knowledge, do you challenge the possibility of spieces more intelligent than us ? Do you challenge the possibility of higher intelligence being present without our knowledge ?
If you dismiss this, on what scientific basis do you do this ?



The natural sphere does have a border: the physical arena. What is metaphysical refers to that which is beyond that boundary.


You limit yourself to the senses you are equipped with. Atoms where not in the natural sphere 1000 years ago. Neither was the psychology. Human behavior is now considered a science and as such it can be used to expand the scientifical arena, which is not limited to the traditional physical arena anymore.




This again is wrong. Religion as a system does not require political appeal.


Religion is a political system in itself. There are no religions that does not have a political appeal and agenda. This is the problem through history. If it was only about faith, a lot of suffering through history would never have appeared.



Your assuming intent is flawed. Faith under the two standards I put forward have nothing to do with politics. If you wish to define faith as a population control then that again is flawed as none of the religions mentioned use that definition or are limited to politics. Many religions have theocratic histories and possible theocratic present realties, but that, as I have already indicated, is not endemic to the beliefs.


We just disagree on what religion is. You, as a republican, base most of your political faith in Christian values. I understand that this would be a credability problem to accept. US politics today is very much religious, even though it is denied by everyone.



Go through the New Testament for me and tell me what the required political affiliation is.


Christianity.



The strength of one's faith is a separate question. The Shahada remains a statement of faith and is the foundational belief that defines a Muslim.


Well, here is another view on Islam:



The message was the same one which Allah had sent down to the earliest humans. It contained a description of the way of life which Allah had established for people to follow while they lived here on earth. By agreeing to follow this way of life, people would essentially be submitting themselves to Allah. The name of this way of life was simply 'submission'. In Arabic, this is Islam (pronounced "Isslaam"). Today, Islam is found in all parts of the world, and its adherents are known as Muslims.


(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/)

A way of life is for me more political than a faith. :bow:



No one is born a Muslim.


The same way you became a Christian, most muslims are brought to the world.... By birth...



Judaism does accept converts. People move in and out of Judaism all the time.


You are right, modern Judaism accept converts. The old school did not, as per a good friend of mine that is a Rabbi. Furthermore, interesting notes in Wikipedia on being born in to the religion and not having to believe in a God. ~;)



What makes a person Jewish?

According to Jewish law, someone is considered to be a Jew if he or she was born of a Jewish mother or converted in accord with Jewish Law. (Recently, the American Reform and Reconstructionist movements have included those born of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers, if the children are raised practicing Judaism only.) All mainstream forms of Judaism today are open to sincere converts.

A Jew who ceases to practice Judaism is still considered a Jew, as is a Jew who does not accept Jewish principles of faith and becomes an agnostic or an atheist; so too with a Jew who converts to another religion. However, in the latter case, the person loses standing as a member of the Jewish community and becomes known as an apostate. In the past, family and friends were said to often formally mourn for the person, though this is rarely done today.

The question of what determines Jewish identity was given new impetus when, in the 1950s, David ben Gurion requested opinions on mihu Yehudi ("who is a Jew") from Jewish religious authorities and intellectuals worldwide. The question is far from settled and occasionally resurfaces in Israeli politics.





Of course, I believe in rationality.


With that foreign policy.... ~D





I don't believe you. I don't believe atheists are barred from entering the country. Given I know a host of people of a vast array of beliefs and its opposite that have been to Indonesia your statement appears false.


Unfortunately most writings are in Indonesian, which I assume you don't read. Never the less, wikipedia has a bit on the Indonesian constitution:

Pancasila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_Indonesia)




No it's incoherent because it's completely at odds with the base meaning of religion.


No.

bmolsson
22/06/05, 05:08
Not all religions defer to a Deity, but all religions recognize the possibility to move from a lower to a higher order of being. It is this recognition with its typically attending methodology that is religion.


You mean like being elected Senator as the higher order of being... ~D

Pindar
22/06/05, 08:48
Literature is about what is written and nothing else. What media used is irrelevant

I agree: key to the above is 'written' thus physical.



Creationism is a theory built on social science. That is what I claim and you disagree with.

Creationism can claim to be built on whatever it wishes, that does not change the fact it makes a metaphysical appeal and therefore is not a science.




A theory and an idea is still not the same thing.

All theories are ideas. Theories are by necessity theoretical. This means thought. The content of thought are ideas. A theory is a subset of idea.





Yes, and I have posted references to it earlier. Our disagreement is in regards to soft or social science. Surely there are split opinions on this also among scientists and not only us cyber dwellers... ~;)

I have not attacked the soft sciences. I have denied that creationism is any kind of science hard, soft or slightly firm. The social sciences attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of the human condition. Part of the scientific method includes some kind of verification or at the least a falsifiability. This is not possible with creationism. It is not science.




Originally Posted by Pindar
No, creationism is based on the idea of a Creator. Thus, the name of the position. This is metaphysical at its core and not science. Creationism cannot answer any of the three points noted. It is not verifiable. It is not focused on the world. It is not falsifiable

Wrong. It explains the creation with an intelligent design. The origin is not the idea of the creator, but the conclusion on that random doesn't cut it.

This is completely wrong. Creationism is as I stated it. You seem fond of wikipedia, note the following:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen as either ex nihilo or order from preexisting chaos (see demiurge)." Creationsim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)

Creationism is not an arbitrary name. It refers to the central thrust of the position which is a Divine appeal.





Albert and I bow to the master...... :bow: ~D

I wise choice. Albert was a top notch physicist, but his thoughts on other disciplines, particularly more philosophical fare were often times simplistic. Genius in one area does not mean genius in all areas.





New spieces are today created by human hand. New materials, complex machines etc are designed by human hand. This is intelligent design.
New discoveries of spieces, places, stars etc are done every day. Inventions are being created by the thousands.
With your idea of science and current human knowledge, do you challenge the possibility of spieces more intelligent than us ? Do you challenge the possibility of higher intelligence being present without our knowledge ?
If you dismiss this, on what scientific basis do you do this ?

None of this really ties in with discussion of creationism. Creationism is not simply a techne. It is appeal to an Absolute to explain creation. If you try and place the Creator inside the creation then the position is logically incoherent.



You limit yourself to the senses you are equipped with. Atoms where not in the natural sphere 1000 years ago. Neither was the psychology. Human behavior is now considered a science and as such it can be used to expand the scientifical arena, which is not limited to the traditional physical arena anymore.

This seems connected to the above. Creationism is about tracing the created order to its source: the source of Being. It is not about filling in the particulars of the universe.



Religion is a political system in itself. .

Religion does not require community to exist. Nor does it require legislation or a party system.




Originally Posted by Pindar
Your assuming intent is flawed. Faith under the two standards I put forward have nothing to do with politics. If you wish to define faith as a population control then that again is flawed as none of the religions mentioned use that definition or are limited to politics. Many religions have theocratic histories and possible theocratic present realties, but that, as I have already indicated, is not endemic to the beliefs.


We just disagree on what religion is. You, as a republican, base most of your political faith in Christian values. I understand that this would be a credability problem to accept. US politics today is very much religious, even though it is denied by everyone.

What you have written doesn't fit with what I wrote above. The base meaning of religion is independent of me or the Republican Party or the U.S. Religion is a concept. As a concept it has a base meaning. That meaning does not include or require political appeal.




Originally Posted by Pindar
Go through the New Testament (NT) for me and tell me what the required political affiliation is.

Christianity.

You failed in your assignment. Despite sectarian divisions within Christianity all Christian bodies appeal to the NT as canonical. If there is something that effects all of Christianity as you claim it should be should there. There is nothing in the NT that requires political affiliation. Your claim has no grounding.




Well, here is another view on Islam:

(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/)

A way of life is for me more political than a faith. :bow:

Nothing in that quote undermines the Five Pillars of Islam, the first of which is the Shahada. If you do not agree with the Shahada then you are not a Muslim. Sorry.



The same way you became a Christian, most muslims are brought to the world.... By birth...

No one is born a Christian.



You are right, modern Judaism accept converts. The old school did not, as per a good friend of mine that is a Rabbi. Furthermore, interesting notes in Wikipedia on being born in to the religion and not having to believe in a God. ~;)

Old School Judaism also accepted converts and was in fact evangelical. There are references to this in the Bible.

I understand many Jews like other persecuted minorities often adopt the terminology of their persecutors. In the case of Jews this many times entails a type of eugenics argument. Given its long history there are certain cultural overhangs that some may cling to irrespective of actual devotion, but in real terms if one is an active member of another faith they are not a Jew, If one is an atheist they are not a Jew. If one is an agnostic they are not a Jew. The fact remains Judaism is a religion.




With that foreign policy.... ~D

Definitely.



Unfortunately most writings are in Indonesian, which I assume you don't read. Never the less, wikipedia has a bit on the Indonesian constitution:

Pancasila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancasila_Indonesia)

I didn't see anything in there that said atheists cannot enter the country.





No.

yes.

Pindar
22/06/05, 08:54
You mean like being elected Senator as the higher order of being... ~D

You wouldn't make that claim if you knew the Senators for California: particularly Barbra 'dumb as a box of rocks' Boxer.

bmolsson
22/06/05, 11:55
You wouldn't make that claim if you knew the Senators for California: particularly Barbra 'dumb as a box of rocks' Boxer.

So if you have lived a sinfull life you are reborn as a California Senator.... ~;) Makes perfect sense.... ~D

bmolsson
22/06/05, 12:15
I agree: key to the above is 'written' thus physical.


So research on the Bible or the Quaran is actually a physical science in your view ??



Creationism can claim to be built on whatever it wishes, that does not change the fact it makes a metaphysical appeal and therefore is not a science.


It's a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not the core.



All theories are ideas. Theories are by necessity theoretical. This means thought. The content of thought are ideas. A theory is a subset of idea.


No




I have not attacked the soft sciences. I have denied that creationism is any kind of science hard, soft or slightly firm. The social sciences attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of the human condition. Part of the scientific method includes some kind of verification or at the least a falsifiability. This is not possible with creationism. It is not science.


It's a theory based on social science, hence it is falsifiable.



This is completely wrong. Creationism is as I stated it. You seem fond of wikipedia, note the following:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen as either ex nihilo or order from preexisting chaos (see demiurge)." Creationsim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)

Creationism is not an arbitrary name. It refers to the central thrust of the position which is a Divine appeal.


You must be referring to the Big Bang.... ~D Never the less, the deity does not necessarily have to be metaphysical. There you have the large difference. You assume that a supreme being or an intelligent design is metaphysical. I claim that it might not be that.
Further more, the creationism itself doesn't identify the deity and you will find the same theory with different deities.....






I wise choice. Albert was a top notch physicist, but his thoughts on other disciplines, particularly more philosophical fare were often times simplistic. Genius in one area does not mean genius in all areas.


I will refrain from making a comment on this. Don't want to upset Redleg. ~D

None of this really ties in with discussion of creationism. Creationism is not simply a techne. It is appeal to an Absolute to explain creation. If you try and place the Creator inside the creation then the position is logically incoherent.
[/QUOTE]

It does connect if you don't assume the deity being metaphysical.



This seems connected to the above. Creationism is about tracing the created order to its source: the source of Being. It is not about filling in the particulars of the universe.


Not the modern form of creationism. It has evolved... ~D




Religion does not require community to exist. Nor does it require legislation or a party system.


Religion is a legislation and a party system. It's origin is the community and nothing else.




What you have written doesn't fit with what I wrote above. The base meaning of religion is independent of me or the Republican Party or the U.S. Religion is a concept. As a concept it has a base meaning. That meaning does not include or require political appeal.


The Republican Party is a religion..... ~:cheers:

Only way to explain Bush winning the election.....




You failed in your assignment. Despite sectarian divisions within Christianity all Christian bodies appeal to the NT as canonical. If there is something that effects all of Christianity as you claim it should be should there. There is nothing in the NT that requires political affiliation. Your claim has no grounding.


The whole European feodal system is grown out of Christianity. Claiming that Christianity doesn't have a political affiliation is absurd.



Nothing in that quote undermines the Five Pillars of Islam, the first of which is the Shahada. If you do not agree with the Shahada then you are not a Muslim. Sorry.


It's not a question of agree with Shahada, it's a only a question of obey it. Your faith is irrelevant as long as you obey. That is religion at its best.




No one is born a Christian.


I was.




Old School Judaism also accepted converts and was in fact evangelical. There are references to this in the Bible.


I will tell that to my dear friend the Rabbi..... :bow:



I understand many Jews like other persecuted minorities often adopt the terminology of their persecutors. In the case of Jews this many times entails a type of eugenics argument. Given its long history there are certain cultural overhangs that some may cling to irrespective of actual devotion, but in real terms if one is an active member of another faith they are not a Jew, If one is an atheist they are not a Jew. If one is an agnostic they are not a Jew. The fact remains Judaism is a religion.


Yes, Judaism is a religion, yes, you are born a jew and yes, you will always be considered a jew. I think you need to give this one up. People are born in to their religions and they have to exit them if they want to leave. It has nothing to do with the faith. It's a choice of the parents.



I didn't see anything in there that said atheists cannot enter the country.


If you don't accept Pancasila you are not allowed to enter. Nowadays, since red China started to invest in infrastructure in Indonesia, nobody will check it. Apply for a residential Visa and you tell them that you don't belong to one of the approved religions, you will be denied entry. It has been tested.




yes.


No ?

Pindar
22/06/05, 18:55
So research on the Bible or the Quaran is actually a physical science in your view ??

No, but the object of study is a physical thing. Physical science or Hard Science is the study of nature.




It's a theory based on social science. The metaphysical appeal is not the core.


It's a theory based on social science, hence it is falsifiable.


You must be referring to the Big Bang.... ~D Never the less, the deity does not necessarily have to be metaphysical. There you have the large difference. You assume that a supreme being or an intelligent design is metaphysical. I claim that it might not be that.
Further more, the creationism itself doesn't identify the deity and you will find the same theory with different deities.....

I have put three of your quotes together. Your idea seems to be that Creationism is a science for two basic reasons: one, it makes appeals to social science. Two, the Creator might be other than a metaphysical object. Now I think I have given fairly straight forward rebuttals to both of these approaches. Let me try again. We have laid out some simple criteria for science which you appear to agree with. One of those was verification and the another falsifiability. Now under a Creationism schema what is the verification or falsifiability standard? The view doesn't appear able to answer either question without begging the question. How does one prove or falsify the idea the universe has a Creator?

All Creationists I have ever met have understood the approach centers around a Divine appeal. We also noted this in the Wikipedia citation. You seem to have a different standard and believe the Creator could be included in the physical universe. The problem with this unique approach is logical. The position is an attempt to explain what 'is', the material realm, the physical universe. If the creative source is itself an object of creation then you have failed to provide an explanation for the object under scrutiny and again beg the question. This is why I said the view is incoherent.





Religion is a legislation and a party system. It's origin is the community and nothing else.

I have already demonstrated this notion is false. None of the major faiths' beginnings were political. In fact, the source of several was an individual:

Buddhism: The Buddha
Judaism: Moses (or Abraham)
Christianity: Jesus
Islam: Muhammad

Hinduism's origins is more amorphous and one could argue some kind of community standard except for the fact there is a long tradition of asceticism and the Forest Tradition which is individualistic.





The whole European feodal system is grown out of Christianity. Claiming that Christianity doesn't have a political affiliation is absurd.

Do you mean the Feudal system? If so, there are a couple problems with this view: one, feudalism was tied to military obligation and was not strictly speaking Christian concept (though the Lords and Bishops etc. involved were no doubt Christian). But, even were one to grant your whole view here, the other problem is Medieval Western Europe was not the source of Christianity nor its full representation. Christianity predates the Medieval Period and extended beyond Western Christianity.

So you are clear: the above attempted point would suggest you might not be. I have not argued there is no or hasn't been any theocratic element in Christianity or other faiths. Quite the contrary, what I have argued is that any attending theocratic tradition is not inherent to the religion. I demonstrated this both through historical appeal and in the case of Christianity to the precepts of the faith. I could do the same with other faiths, but one counter-example is enough to show the view is incorrect.




It's not a question of agree with Shahada, it's a only a question of obey it. Your faith is irrelevant as long as you obey. That is religion at its best.

I know Islam does have some history of forced conversion, but most Muslims would argue that was not the standard. It is not the standard in other faith traditions either.

Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.




Originally Posted by Pindar
No one is born a Christian.


I was.

If so then you are a part of a new Christianity here to for unknown in the world. The standard to become Christian traditionally involves a baptismal rite. For some sects this is done while still a baby.





I will tell that to my dear friend the Rabbi..... :bow:

Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history.




Yes, Judaism is a religion, yes, you are born a jew and yes, you will always be considered a jew.

One can only hold that view if one buys into the rhetoric of racism which is flawed. Judaism is a religion. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore belief is the primary element.



If you don't accept Pancasila you are not allowed to enter. Nowadays, since red China started to invest in infrastructure in Indonesia, nobody will check it. Apply for a residential Visa and you tell them that you don't belong to one of the approved religions, you will be denied entry. It has been tested.

You didn't mention residence, you said one cannot enter the country. This would mean an atheist could not enter Indonesia. Are you backing off that claim?



No ?

Definately so.

bmolsson
23/06/05, 07:24
I have put three of your quotes together. Your idea seems to be that Creationism is a science for two basic reasons: one, it makes appeals to social science. Two, the Creator might be other than a metaphysical object. Now I think I have given fairly straight forward rebuttals to both of these approaches. Let me try again. We have laid out some simple criteria for science which you appear to agree with. One of those was verification and the another falsifiability. Now under a Creationism schema what is the verification or falsifiability standard? The view doesn't appear able to answer either question without begging the question. How does one prove or falsify the idea the universe has a Creator?


The theory of creation is based upon fables, literature and traditions where evidence from history, literature studies and human behavior verify and of course can be falsified the theory. In natural science there are evidence for a creation as well, some also used in evolution. It's here important to note that creationism doesn't exclued evolution and vice versa.

The creator is in a similar way verified. The orginial creatrion theory did not include universum as we know it today and what was "outside the natural spehere" are today included in it. There is nowhere stated that the creator would not be a part of this universum.

For example, there are several documented sightings of UFO, today as well as through history. What was this really ? An alien ? Higher force ?
Today several sects have replaced the traditional deity with an alien super race. Regardless who or what the creator was or might be, the fact remains that there are scientific evidence you can build a theory on.



All Creationists I have ever met have understood the approach centers around a Divine appeal. We also noted this in the Wikipedia citation. You seem to have a different standard and believe the Creator could be included in the physical universe. The problem with this unique approach is logical. The position is an attempt to explain what 'is', the material realm, the physical universe. If the creative source is itself an object of creation then you have failed to provide an explanation for the object under scrutiny and again beg the question. This is why I said the view is incoherent.


Again you base your logic on your own physical capacity. What you note as a "natural sphere" is not at all given to be the limit to the metaphysical. Universe is without borders. It expands in to eternity. This is the scientific theory on the size of universum. But in natural science it would not be possible. There has to be a measurable beginning and end. If there now are a limit beyond our current capacity, what would be beyond this limit etc.
Imagine our universe being somebody else molecular system.
I maintain that there is a possibility that our world as we know it is a creation by a more intelligent force. The possibility might be small, but should not be ignored.



I have already demonstrated this notion is false. None of the major faiths' beginnings were political. In fact, the source of several was an individual:

Buddhism: The Buddha
Judaism: Moses (or Abraham)
Christianity: Jesus
Islam: Muhammad

Hinduism's origins is more amorphous and one could argue some kind of community standard except for the fact there is a long tradition of asceticism and the Forest Tradition which is individualistic.


Buddha was no religion. Jesus was actually a jew. Muhammad and Moses where political leaders if anything.
Again your fundamentalistic view on faith misses the actual content of religions.



Do you mean the Feudal system? If so, there are a couple problems with this view: one, feudalism was tied to military obligation and was not strictly speaking Christian concept (though the Lords and Bishops etc. involved were no doubt Christian). But, even were one to grant your whole view here, the other problem is Medieval Western Europe was not the source of Christianity nor its full representation. Christianity predates the Medieval Period and extended beyond Western Christianity.

So you are clear: the above attempted point would suggest you might not be. I have not argued there is no or hasn't been any theocratic element in Christianity or other faiths. Quite the contrary, what I have argued is that any attending theocratic tradition is not inherent to the religion. I demonstrated this both through historical appeal and in the case of Christianity to the precepts of the faith. I could do the same with other faiths, but one counter-example is enough to show the view is incorrect.


The feudal system was using Christian faith as a tool to create a structure in a society. The whole western Christianity is nothing more than a political and economical structure. The faith is irrelevant for the structure itself. Today the faith is replaced with a voting system instead, hence the faith is not necessary to create a structure of leadership.



I know Islam does have some history of forced conversion, but most Muslims would argue that was not the standard. It is not the standard in other faith traditions either.


Islam is a way of life. It's a set of rules that are enforced upon the subjects. In a secular society with muslims, nobody is forced to anything. In a islamic society everyone is forced to follow this set of rules. Plain and simple.



Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.


That was not very nice to say.



If so then you are a part of a new Christianity here to for unknown in the world. The standard to become Christian traditionally involves a baptismal rite. For some sects this is done while still a baby.


My birth certificate states Protestant. My 4 childrens birth certificates states Islam. Again, your thing for faith takes you from the real world.



Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history.


This was pretty racist, don't you think.

A friend of mine (jewish) wanted to marry a Hindu girl. She couldn't convert to Judaism, but he could become a hindu. He now have 2 religion and is happy with that.....



One can only hold that view if one buys into the rhetoric of racism which is flawed. Judaism is a religion. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore belief is the primary element.


I never disputed that Judaism is a religion. Also the views are from Judaism itself. If your view is that Judaism is a racist religion, it stands for you.
Faith is not the core in any religion. There are not control or enforcement on the faith as such, while there are a long range of other rules on your daily life, strictly enforced in most religions.



You didn't mention residence, you said one cannot enter the country. This would mean an atheist could not enter Indonesia. Are you backing off that claim?


No. I suggest you try to apply for a Visa to enter Indonesia and attach a letter claiming your atheism.
Currently you only have to answer the question on religion in a residence Visa, since they want tourists to enter. Still the fact remains that if you don't believe in Pancasila, you are not welcome on Indonesian soil.

Pindar
24/06/05, 00:19
The theory of creation is based upon fables, literature and traditions where evidence from history, literature studies and human behavior verify and of course can be falsified the theory. In natural science there are evidence for a creation as well, some also used in evolution. It's here important to note that creationism doesn't exclued evolution and vice versa.

The creator is in a similar way verified. The orginial creatrion theory did not include universum as we know it today and what was "outside the natural spehere" are today included in it. There is nowhere stated that the creator would not be a part of this universum.

I think you have misunderstood the full import of what I wrote. A fable or literary appeal is not a proof that the subject matter, in this case a Creator, actually exists. If someone argued: "God created the world" as a scientific point and was then challenged, appealing to the Bible or Koran would not be a proof God exists. Creationism fails to meet a scientific standard on this point.

Actually the Genesis account (which perhaps should be our focus, given Creationism advocates are basically Christian groups) does make a distinction between the source of creation and the product:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Here Deity is clearly distinguished from the creation and that creation is the natural order and all that surrounds man.

As far as whether a Creator can be contained inside his creation. This is a logical point. It is important only if you recognize logic. Creationism is attempting to work within a rational milieu so they would have to recognize this distinction.


For example, there are several documented sightings of UFO, today as well as through history. What was this really ? An alien ? Higher force ?
Today several sects have replaced the traditional deity with an alien super race. Regardless who or what the creator was or might be, the fact remains that there are scientific evidence you can build a theory on.

UFO's being God is problematic for the reasons mentioned above and explained before. Further, this is not the position of Creationism proponents. If this is your view that you want to put forward or some modification say: that aliens created the earth, life on earth etc. that's OK, but it needs to be distinguished from the standard theory. Further, if you want to be taken seriously then you would need to met the truth standard of all scientific theories namely: verification. Where is the proof? Seeing a light in the sky does not equal a proof that aliens created the world.




Again you base your logic on your own physical capacity. What you note as a "natural sphere" is not at all given to be the limit to the metaphysical. Universe is without borders. It expands in to eternity. This is the scientific theory on the size of universum. But in natural science it would not be possible. There has to be a measurable beginning and end. If there now are a limit beyond our current capacity, what would be beyond this limit etc.
Imagine our universe being somebody else molecular system.
I maintain that there is a possibility that our world as we know it is a creation by a more intelligent force. The possibility might be small, but should not be ignored.

Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.





Buddha was no religion. Jesus was actually a jew. Muhammad and Moses where political leaders if anything.
Again your fundamentalistic view on faith misses the actual content of religions.

Most people would classify Buddhism as a religion. If you want to argue this was not The Buddha's intent that may be an interesting point to look into, but for our purposes it is irrelevant. He is considered the founder of the movement and he did not create a theocracy.

Jesus was a Jew, this does not change the fact Early Christianity was not a theocracy.

Moses assumed his prophetic mantle prior to the Exodus and it was his second, Joshua who actually founded the Jewish homeland. Further, while Moses is typically seen as the founder of Judaism, we should note this would not be his own point of view. He claimed to be a representative of Deity as was his ancestor Joseph and would trace it, at the very least, all the way back to Abraham who was the source of the Hebrew Covenant (the Abrahamic Covenant) from which their identity was drawn. Abraham didn't form a theocracy either.

Muhammad did become a political leader, but as I already noted: his prophetic call was prior to his flight from Mecca.

Now I think one could argue that Judaism and Islam have nearly from their traditional beginnings been theocratic, but the charge was that all religion is so, This is not the case. There is also the bugbear that both faiths exist in present non-theocratic settings and there are faithful advocates that claim this is in keeping with the central teachings of the faith.




The feudal system was using Christian faith as a tool to create a structure in a society. The whole western Christianity is nothing more than a political and economical structure. The faith is irrelevant for the structure itself. Today the faith is replaced with a voting system instead, hence the faith is not necessary to create a structure of leadership.

The feudal system is not Christianity.

The whole of Western Christianity is not simply political and economic, not only because this branded "Western Christianity" is not the source of the faith, but also because the very tenets of the belief extend beyond and reject the base principles you charge. You may want to read St. Augustine's "City of God". Augustine is perhaps the major thinker of Western Christianity and one of the central thrusts of the work is exactly counter to your understanding.




Islam is a way of life. It's a set of rules that are enforced upon the subjects. In a secular society with muslims, nobody is forced to anything. In a islamic society everyone is forced to follow this set of rules. Plain and simple.

If you restrict the discussion to a theocracy: "an Islamic society" then Islam is going to dictate the "rules" by definition. However, this doesn't really fit with the point surrounding the Shahada. Islam did not typically force conversion. Noting the politics of the various Caliphates demonstrates the basic point. While political control was maintained that was separate from individual conversion. Should one wish to become Muslim agreement with the Shahada was/is fundamental. This is a pronouncement of faith.


Originally Posted by Pindar
Perhaps there is some inner hostility toward religion that has clouded your view.



That was not very nice to say.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to offend. It simply seems to me that your general views on religion are not very charitable. You seem to assign the basest of intent to religious questions.




My birth certificate states Protestant. My 4 childrens birth certificates states Islam. Again, your thing for faith takes you from the real world.

Christian communities do not typically determine their membership based off of a birth certificate. They determine one's Christian status off of a rite (baptism). Further, most democratic states do not list any religious affiliation on birth certificates. It appears you judge the whole off of a particular. Now ask yourself: did the government assign you to be Christian? Probably not, my guess is they asked your parents who said he is faith X. This was marked down for whatever government purpose they have. I imagine if you really were Christian your parents took you to a church and had you baptized at some point. Latter on, I guess you decided to be Muslim. Unless this was forced on you, I can only assume this is because you thought Islam was correct. Now you seem to be an agnostic, this again is because of your views about the nature of God. These basic identifications suggest a willed act either to join or sustain some belief system. If you didn't agree with any of these views then I don't think you should be held as part of that group.



Originally Posted by Pindar
Please do so. He should be aware of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the 9th Century as well as the examples of conversion and missionary work in both the Old and New Testament Periods.

Of course there is the old saying: "two Jews three opinions", but this is pretty standard religious history

This was pretty racist, don't you think.

I don't know what you mean? Are you talking about "two Jews three opinions"? Well since I've been told that by several Rabbis and other Jews I know, I would say no.

I also don't think being a Jew is a racial catergory so I would say no, again.




[I never disputed that Judaism is a religion. Also the views are from Judaism itself. If your view is that Judaism is a racist religion, it stands for you.
Faith is not the core in any religion. There are not control or enforcement on the faith as such, while there are a long range of other rules on your daily life, strictly enforced in most religions.

I don't understand this.

What is your definition of religion?




No. I suggest you try to apply for a Visa to enter Indonesia and attach a letter claiming your atheism.
Currently you only have to answer the question on religion in a residence Visa, since they want tourists to enter. Still the fact remains that if you don't believe in Pancasila, you are not welcome on Indonesian soil.

I'm not an atheist.

"Not welcome" and "unable to enter" are not the same. Is it possible for an atheist to legally enter the country? If the government doesn't ask tourists about their faith, that would seem to undercut your view.

bmolsson
25/06/05, 02:38
I think you have misunderstood the full import of what I wrote. A fable or literary appeal is not a proof that the subject matter, in this case a Creator, actually exists. If someone argued: "God created the world" as a scientific point and was then challenged, appealing to the Bible or Koran would not be a proof God exists. Creationism fails to meet a scientific standard on this point.

Actually the Genesis account (which perhaps should be our focus, given Creationism advocates are basically Christian groups) does make a distinction between the source of creation and the product:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Here Deity is clearly distinguished from the creation and that creation is the natural order and all that surrounds man.

As far as whether a Creator can be contained inside his creation. This is a logical point. It is important only if you recognize logic. Creationism is attempting to work within a rational milieu so they would have to recognize this distinction.


I think you have reached the core of our argument. You assume that God is a metaphysical deity. Assume it's not and the picture changes. Further more heaven today is something totally different from what it was 2000 years ago. Science has evolved, just like the theories it is based upon. My claim is very simple, it is wrong to discount Creationism as a theory based social science. It has flaws and many of its defenders refuse to have a objective view on to it due to their fundamentalistical and fanatical faith. Remove the faith factor and you get a rather interesting theory to work with. You refuse to give any credit what so ever to the scientists through history that has worked very hard on explaining the creation of our selves. I think that shows a certain lack of respect for history as well as the many people that has created the society we today are living in.



UFO's being God is problematic for the reasons mentioned above and explained before. Further, this is not the position of Creationism proponents. If this is your view that you want to put forward or some modification say: that aliens created the earth, life on earth etc. that's OK, but it needs to be distinguished from the standard theory. Further, if you want to be taken seriously then you would need to met the truth standard of all scientific theories namely: verification. Where is the proof? Seeing a light in the sky does not equal a proof that aliens created the world.


See it from the other side. God being UFO's instead. Further more, there is actually nothing that says that the aliens here are the aliens. Maybe we in fact are the aliens. Seeing a light in the sky is just as much proof as determining a 10,000 year old culture based on a rock. Today we are analyzing planets and other solar systems on the lights from them. It's called science. You are now locking your self in to a subjective thinking where the theory itself have to prove itself scientifically, instead of letting the scentifical evidence build the theory.
This refusal of objectivity indicates a bias for some reason.




Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.


We are not talking about belief or faith. We are talking about objectivity, which is a very important thing in all science and theory building.




Most people would classify Buddhism as a religion. If you want to argue this was not The Buddha's intent that may be an interesting point to look into, but for our purposes it is irrelevant. He is considered the founder of the movement and he did not create a theocracy.

Jesus was a Jew, this does not change the fact Early Christianity was not a theocracy.

Moses assumed his prophetic mantle prior to the Exodus and it was his second, Joshua who actually founded the Jewish homeland. Further, while Moses is typically seen as the founder of Judaism, we should note this would not be his own point of view. He claimed to be a representative of Deity as was his ancestor Joseph and would trace it, at the very least, all the way back to Abraham who was the source of the Hebrew Covenant (the Abrahamic Covenant) from which their identity was drawn. Abraham didn't form a theocracy either.

Muhammad did become a political leader, but as I already noted: his prophetic call was prior to his flight from Mecca.

Now I think one could argue that Judaism and Islam have nearly from their traditional beginnings been theocratic, but the charge was that all religion is so, This is not the case. There is also the bugbear that both faiths exist in present non-theocratic settings and there are faithful advocates that claim this is in keeping with the central teachings of the faith.


Wrong. Buddha did not create Buddhism. Buddism created Buddha. Same thing with Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Jesus was created by Christianity and it is only a coincidence that it was Jesus and not Petrus or Judas. A religious structure need a leader to rally around with a direct connection to a source for selection of the power structure. Faith is purely needed to give creditability to the power structure. Nothing else.
Again if you try to be more objective and see beyond the faith, you will see that the religions of today are structures far beyond faith alone. There are hundreds of failed religions, with their own selected faith, deities, profets and writings.



The feudal system is not Christianity.

The whole of Western Christianity is not simply political and economic, not only because this branded "Western Christianity" is not the source of the faith, but also because the very tenets of the belief extend beyond and reject the base principles you charge. You may want to read St. Augustine's "City of God". Augustine is perhaps the major thinker of Western Christianity and one of the central thrusts of the work is exactly counter to your understanding.


It doesn't change the fact that it actually is the political and economical structure of the west. This structure remains even if the faith is fading away. I think that is a rather strong argument for my thesis.



If you restrict the discussion to a theocracy: "an Islamic society" then Islam is going to dictate the "rules" by definition. However, this doesn't really fit with the point surrounding the Shahada. Islam did not typically force conversion. Noting the politics of the various Caliphates demonstrates the basic point. While political control was maintained that was separate from individual conversion. Should one wish to become Muslim agreement with the Shahada was/is fundamental. This is a pronouncement of faith.


It's not more fundamental than swearing aligency to the American flag and constitution when entering an American citizenship. It's in reality purely symbolic and has absolutely nothing to do with faith in any God or system.



Sorry, it wasn't meant to offend. It simply seems to me that your general views on religion are not very charitable. You seem to assign the basest of intent to religious questions.


Apology accepted. I only separate faith from religion, based on logic and scientific observations. Faith is something beautiful and I envy those who have a true faith. Must make life must easier to live.



Christian communities do not typically determine their membership based off of a birth certificate. They determine one's Christian status off of a rite (baptism). Further, most democratic states do not list any religious affiliation on birth certificates. It appears you judge the whole off of a particular. Now ask yourself: did the government assign you to be Christian? Probably not, my guess is they asked your parents who said he is faith X. This was marked down for whatever government purpose they have. I imagine if you really were Christian your parents took you to a church and had you baptized at some point. Latter on, I guess you decided to be Muslim. Unless this was forced on you, I can only assume this is because you thought Islam was correct. Now you seem to be an agnostic, this again is because of your views about the nature of God. These basic identifications suggest a willed act either to join or sustain some belief system. If you didn't agree with any of these views then I don't think you should be held as part of that group.


Again, you miss the point. A child receive it's citizenship based on marriage, which is still today based on religion. The reality is something totally different from what you want it to be. Faith is irrelevant, regardless what you want it to be.



I don't know what you mean? Are you talking about "two Jews three opinions"? Well since I've been told that by several Rabbis and other Jews I know, I would say no.

I also don't think being a Jew is a racial catergory so I would say no, again.


I will drop this, now when there is a separate thread for it.



I don't understand this.

What is your definition of religion?


Religion is a political and social construct to organize people in to a society.





I'm not an atheist.


Good for you... ~:grouphug:




"Not welcome" and "unable to enter" are not the same. Is it possible for an atheist to legally enter the country? If the government doesn't ask tourists about their faith, that would seem to undercut your view.


The Indonesian constitution forbids atheists on Indonesian soil. Plain and simple. When entering as a tourist, it is assumed that you believe in one of the accepted religions. If you in fact are an atheist you do break the law regardless if you get caught or not.

Pindar
25/06/05, 08:59
I think you have reached the core of our argument. You assume that God is a metaphysical deity. Assume it's not and the picture changes.

Indeed it would change, but not necessarily in a coherent way. If you argue Deity is part of the physical universe then you do need to answer the base incongruity of the physical universe being created: having a beginning (which is the standard notion) and the uncreated nature of Deity. Deity, to be Deity, cannot be created and be Divine. This revolves around the base definition of God which is a necessary Being. This means God cannot, not be. God is self -existent. The physical sphere is considered contingent. This means it could be otherwise. Thus, the two operate along different orders of logic. This is one simple problem. Another is what I mentioned before about Deity being a part of His creation which is a logical absurdity. A third would be, entropy. Entropy is a state that effects all physical properties. Deity as a necessary, self-existent, self-sustaining Being cannot be subject to entropy by definition. These sorts of problems are legion. The reason no one familiar with logic or the history of Western Thought argues that God is part of the physical world is because it is so fraught with logical quandaries. If you want to argue your definition of Deity allows for these absurdities, then others would not recognize that thing as God.

Both Christianity and Islam were influenced in their theology by Greek philosophy. Christianity primarily by Neo-Platonism and Islam by Aristotelianism. Both of these views made common appeal to the logic of perfection. Under that standard Deity cannot be a part of the physical world and be logically coherent.



My claim is very simple, it is wrong to discount Creationism as a theory based social science.

If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.



See it from the other side. God being UFO's instead. Further more, there is actually nothing that says that the aliens here are the aliens. Maybe we in fact are the aliens.

So you are saying God could be Aliens or perhaps we are God? There are singular/plural issues here. Refer to some of the points I made above.

One additional thing you should note is making claims in and of themselves does not constitute science. If I say the moon could be made of blue cheese at its center. One would ask for proof. If the reply was: "well, until we dig to the center of the moon's core we don't know, so it could be" This in logic is called an appeal to ignorance. It is a fallacy. It cannot serve as the basis for a knowledge claim.




Logic is a formal exercise. It is not dependant of physicality. Believing in a Creator is fine, but the discussion is centered around a specific kind of belief: one claiming that belief is science. This means certain criteria must be met. This has not occurred.

We are not talking about belief or faith. We are talking about objectivity, which is a very important thing in all science and theory building.

I don't think you caught the point being made. If you claim a scientific perspective you need proof. This does not exist. There is no proof of a Creator. The position fails.





Wrong. Buddha did not create Buddhism. Buddism created Buddha. Same thing with Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Jesus was created by Christianity and it is only a coincidence that it was Jesus and not Petrus or Judas. A religious structure need a leader to rally around with a direct connection to a source for selection of the power structure.

Of course the texts of the three faiths you list do not agree. Neither do the advocated principles of the faiths or believers agree with this view.



Faith is purely needed to give creditability to the power structure. Nothing else.
Again if you try to be more objective and see beyond the faith, you will see that the religions of today are structures far beyond faith alone. There are hundreds of failed religions, with their own selected faith, deities, profets and writings.

I have never argued religion is solely a "faith alone" endeavor. I have argued that for practioners faith (belief in) is the primary determiner of a devotional life. A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things. Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.




It doesn't change the fact that it actually is the political and economical structure of the west. This structure remains even if the faith is fading away. I think that is a rather strong argument for my thesis.

If the 'it' here is Christianity then you idea is completely wrong. Democracy is not the creation of Christianity. Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism are not the creation of Christianity.




It's not more fundamental than swearing aligency to the American flag and constitution when entering an American citizenship. It's in reality purely symbolic and has absolutely nothing to do with faith in any God or system.

You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

Swearing allegiance to the Constitution when becoming a U.S. Citizen is not simply symbolic. It has real political/legal ramifications which do not apply if coerced or not freely given.




Apology accepted. I only separate faith from religion, based on logic and scientific observations. Faith is something beautiful and I envy those who have a true faith. Must make life must easier to live.

I really don't think you have any understanding of religion. Your statements thus far, have utterly failed to take the respective faiths mentioned on their own terms and therefore have violated one of the central points of any sincere analysis seeking understanding. In their place you have offered a social/political amalgam that is not representative of the larger metaphysical elements of their teachings or true to the devotional life of adherents. It is flawed.




. A child receive it's citizenship based on marriage, which is still today based on religion..

What does this mean? One becomes a citizen of Indonesia only after marriage? Or, is it only the children of married Citizens are given citizenship?

Where is this written?

State recognized marriage is actually the religious rite? There is no public license?

If what you say about Indonesia is correct, you homeland operates completely differently form any other nation I have had dealings with.





Religion is a political and social construct to organize people in to a society.

Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.







Originally Posted by Pindar
I'm not an atheist.

Good for you...

I think so.




The Indonesian constitution forbids atheists on Indonesian soil. Plain and simple. When entering as a tourist, it is assumed that you believe in one of the accepted religions. If you in fact are an atheist you do break the law regardless if you get caught or not.

Well, I read through your Constitution. I found this:

RELIGION

Article 29

(1). The state shall be based upon belief in one god.
(2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.

It doesn't state atheists are forbidden on Indonesian soil. It does say there is a guaranteed freedom of religion. This guarantee is not qualified.

bmolsson
26/06/05, 07:31
Indeed it would change, but not necessarily in a coherent way. If you argue Deity is part of the physical universe then you do need to answer the base incongruity of the physical universe being created: having a beginning (which is the standard notion) and the uncreated nature of Deity. Deity, to be Deity, cannot be created and be Divine. This revolves around the base definition of God which is a necessary Being. This means God cannot, not be. God is self -existent. The physical sphere is considered contingent. This means it could be otherwise. Thus, the two operate along different orders of logic. This is one simple problem. Another is what I mentioned before about Deity being a part of His creation which is a logical absurdity. A third would be, entropy. Entropy is a state that effects all physical properties. Deity as a necessary, self-existent, self-sustaining Being cannot be subject to entropy by definition. These sorts of problems are legion. The reason no one familiar with logic or the history of Western Thought argues that God is part of the physical world is because it is so fraught with logical quandaries. If you want to argue your definition of Deity allows for these absurdities, then others would not recognize that thing as God.


Not at all. I have not argued that the creator is a deity. In fact I have only argued that there is a possibility that there might be a creator of some kind, based on evidence in historical writings as well as evidence on intelligent design. The actual question in creationism is actually if or not it's possible to randomly create life.
Again you insist on looking fundamentalistic on the faith based view of creationism. Look at it in a scientific way instead. Let the evidence speak.
Is the writings in the Bible based on something ? The Quaran ? Why was the pyramids created ? How could the stone faces and the stone henge be placed at the time they where placed ? Why is all DNA in all living creatures the same ? If life is a random creation, why don't we have alternatives ? Or do we have alternatives ?
Bottomline, I don't argue that God is the creator. I argue that Creationism is a theory worth looking at.




If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.


I claim that Creationism is a theory based on social science. There are still no conclusive proof how life itself appeared, still Evolution is accepted as a theory.



So you are saying God could be Aliens or perhaps we are God? There are singular/plural issues here. Refer to some of the points I made above.


Not if you put the faith aside....



One additional thing you should note is making claims in and of themselves does not constitute science. If I say the moon could be made of blue cheese at its center. One would ask for proof. If the reply was: "well, until we dig to the center of the moon's core we don't know, so it could be" This in logic is called an appeal to ignorance. It is a fallacy. It cannot serve as the basis for a knowledge claim.


If you interviewed all the astronauts that have visited the moon and they all claimed that the moom was made of blue cheese. Their claim was made on the fact that they tasted and smelled it. Would you consider the possibility that the moon was made of blue cheese ?



I don't think you caught the point being made. If you claim a scientific perspective you need proof. This does not exist. There is no proof of a Creator. The position fails.


The proof can be found in the historical writings as well as there are a large portion of cases with unexplained sightings. Further more, it is accepted that we are not the only life form in universe as well as not by far the most advanced. I think that is a pretty good start.




Of course the texts of the three faiths you list do not agree. Neither do the advocated principles of the faiths or believers agree with this view.


The texts you refer to also argue that a deity created the world..... ~:grouphug:




I have never argued religion is solely a "faith alone" endeavor. I have argued that for practioners faith (belief in) is the primary determiner of a devotional life. A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things.


Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.


You are starting to get my point now.... ~D

Just rethink the truth claims a bit.




If the 'it' here is Christianity then you idea is completely wrong. Democracy is not the creation of Christianity. Capitalism, Socialism and Marxism are not the creation of Christianity.


All the isms you mention are all products from the western christianity (not created by). The values are based and evolved from the religious structure that has built Europe. There are morals as well as practical approach crucial for the existence of them.



You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

Swearing allegiance to the Constitution when becoming a U.S. Citizen is not simply symbolic. It has real political/legal ramifications which do not apply if coerced or not freely given.


No it's not absurd. It's reality.

The swearing of allegiance to the constitution is purely symbolic. A child born in to American citizenship never have to do it, hence it has no other value than symbolism.



I really don't think you have any understanding of religion. Your statements thus far, have utterly failed to take the respective faiths mentioned on their own terms and therefore have violated one of the central points of any sincere analysis seeking understanding. In their place you have offered a social/political amalgam that is not representative of the larger metaphysical elements of their teachings or true to the devotional life of adherents. It is flawed.


My understanding of religions are practical. Faith can't be proven and is therefore not a parameter..... ~D
Religion is a reality, metaphysical belief is not...... :bow:




If what you say about Indonesia is correct, you homeland operates completely differently form any other nation I have had dealings with.


There are very few nations in the world that grant citizenship based on where you are born (might only be US). Most countries will grant the citizen ship after the fathers citizenship based on his citizenship. If the woman is unmarried, it will follow hers. Further more, the child will, with very few exeptions, receive the same religion as the father (or mother if unmarried). I have seen this in real life.




Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.


No it doesn't. Extremism and fanatism is a social failure and irrelevant for this discussion. Societies without practical application of its political, religious, nationalistic or patriotic structure will fail, regardless how much the believe in a higher power.
Further more, political parties are actually proof of my thesis rather than the opposite.



It doesn't state atheists are forbidden on Indonesian soil. It does say there is a guaranteed freedom of religion. This guarantee is not qualified.


Atheism has been tested in court during the 50ies. Nothing has changed since.

Pindar
26/06/05, 23:56
Not at all. I have not argued that the creator is a deity.

Then, you are not arguing Creationism. Creationism, as already demonstrated, does make a Divine appeal.




Originally Posted by Pindar
If you want to claim Creationism is a social science you still must meet a proof condition. Where is this proof of a Creator? You need that proof just to start things off.


I claim that Creationism is a theory based on social science. There are still no conclusive proof how life itself appeared, still Evolution is accepted as a theory...

The proof can be found in the historical writings as well as there are a large portion of cases with unexplained sightings. Further more, it is accepted that we are not the only life form in universe as well as not by far the most advanced. I think that is a pretty good start.

Regardless the subject matter, if you claim a scientific basis, you need proof. Appeals to ignorance do not constitute proof, a text is not proof, a light in the sky is not proof, assumptions about life elsewhere is not proof.

If you claim aliens created the earth and all life on the earth you need to proof aliens exist and that they were the casual agents. Proof?

Evolution is a theory about the development of life, not its origin. As a theory evolution assumes life is already a present condition.





If you interviewed all the astronauts that have visited the moon and they all claimed that the moom was made of blue cheese. Their claim was made on the fact that they tasted and smelled it. Would you consider the possibility that the moon was made of blue cheese ?

Sure.



The texts you refer to also argue that a deity created the world

Yes. I have already pointed out religion makes metaphysical appeal.



A religious system, as a system, involves making a whole series of truth claims about reality and the nature of things. Believing in those things is up to the individual adherent.

Whether a faith succeeds or fails is irrelevant to the question.


You are starting to get my point now.... ~D

Just rethink the truth claims a bit.

So, you admit belief is an element of religious devotion?





All the isms you mention are all products from the western christianity (not created by). The values are based and evolved from the religious structure that has built Europe. There are morals as well as practical approach crucial for the existence of them.

This is historically false. Democracy predates the advent of Christianity by roughly half a millennia. Marxism is atheistic and makes no appeal to Christian precept. Socialism is a child of Marxism. Capitalism makes no appeal Christian sentiment.


Posted by Pindar
You're saying a basic statement of faith: the Shahada, that asserts the existence and primacy of Allah has nothing to do with faith in God. I'm sorry, but this is absurd. It undercuts the whole point of the pronouncement.

No it's not absurd. It's reality.

It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.


The swearing of allegiance to the constitution is purely symbolic. A child born in to American citizenship never have to do it, hence it has no other value than symbolism.

A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities.




My understanding of religions are practical. Faith can't be proven and is therefore not a parameter..... ~D
Religion is a reality, metaphysical belief is not...... :bow:

Religion is not science. You do not understand either if you conflate two separate theoretical stances.



There are very few nations in the world that grant citizenship based on where you are born (might only be US). Most countries will grant the citizen ship after the fathers citizenship based on his citizenship. If the woman is unmarried, it will follow hers. Further more, the child will, with very few exeptions, receive the same religion as the father (or mother if unmarried). I have seen this in real life.

The nation's legal strictures I am familiar with typically trace citizenship to any child born of a citizen. Religious standing is irrelevant and not noted.





Originally Posted by Pindar
Your definition cannot distinguish between religion and political parties.
Your definition cannot account for asocial religious devotion as in Hindu ascetics or Christian desert monks.
Your definition cannot account for the truth claims religion makes: particularly in regards to ultimate reality.

Your definition fails.

No it doesn't. Extremism and fanatism is a social failure and irrelevant for this discussion. Societies without practical application of its political, religious, nationalistic or patriotic structure will fail, regardless how much the believe in a higher power.
Further more, political parties are actually proof of my thesis rather than the opposite.

Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.




Atheism has been tested in court during the 50ies. Nothing has changed since.

So, your actual claim is based on a legal ruling, not the Constitution itself. This ruling barred atheists from entering Indonesia? Yet, they do. What does this say? The nation is unable or unwilling to enforce its bigotry or is comfortable with hypocritical legal positions.

bmolsson
27/06/05, 03:59
Then, you are not arguing Creationism. Creationism, as already demonstrated, does make a Divine appeal.


Creationism argues a creator, not that it has to be a diety.



Regardless the subject matter, if you claim a scientific basis, you need proof. Appeals to ignorance do not constitute proof, a text is not proof, a light in the sky is not proof, assumptions about life elsewhere is not proof.

If you claim aliens created the earth and all life on the earth you need to proof aliens exist and that they were the casual agents. Proof?

Evolution is a theory about the development of life, not its origin. As a theory evolution assumes life is already a present condition.


Why would you listen to an astronaut, but not to one of the authors to the bible ? Isn't that a bit biased ?
The studies conducted and documented in old writings should be written off just like that ?
In reality your logic would also discredit Astronomy as a science.
Again, you base your view on a fundamentalistic assumption on the creationism.




Yes. I have already pointed out religion makes metaphysical appeal.


Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure. It is not created around the metaphysical appeal.




So, you admit belief is an element of religious devotion?


I have never argued anything else. My argument is that belief is not crucial for the religion as such.






This is historically false. Democracy predates the advent of Christianity by roughly half a millennia. Marxism is atheistic and makes no appeal to Christian precept. Socialism is a child of Marxism. Capitalism makes no appeal Christian sentiment.


The democracy we live by today is based on Christian values. Marxism as well as socialism, only points out what I have said and is a reaction on a power structure based on metaphysical appeal. Neither Marxism nor Socialism would exist without religion, in our case Christianity. Capitalism is based on a christian moral base. We have already discussed that earlier.



It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.


Only in a fundamentalistic mind. With objectivity and reality it's not so.



A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities.


Just like with religion... ~D





Religion is not science. You do not understand either if you conflate two separate theoretical stances.


Religion is a part of political science.




The nation's legal strictures I am familiar with typically trace citizenship to any child born of a citizen. Religious standing is irrelevant and not noted.


Not for all nations.





Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.


A very large portion of the western political parties have it's base out of Christianity. Most countries have their consitutions based on a metaphysical appeal. Religion is politic.





So, your actual claim is based on a legal ruling, not the Constitution itself. This ruling barred atheists from entering Indonesia? Yet, they do. What does this say? The nation is unable or unwilling to enforce its bigotry or is comfortable with hypocritical legal positions.


It could be compared with the persecution of communists in US during the 50, correct. It's there and nobody want to do anything about it.

Pindar
27/06/05, 06:37
Creationism argues a creator, not that it has to be a diety.

You seem to have forgotten your own wikipedia quote:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity."




Why would you listen to an astronaut, but not to one of the authors to the bible ? Isn't that a bit biased ?
The studies conducted and documented in old writings should be written off just like that ?
In reality your logic would also discredit Astronomy as a science.
Again, you base your view on a fundamentalistic assumption on the creationism.

I don't know what any of this means. Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.





Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure. It is not created around the metaphysical appeal.

Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.





I have never argued anything else. My argument is that belief is not crucial for the religion as such.

Belief is crucial for a devotional life.





The democracy we live by today is based on Christian values. Marxism as well as socialism, only points out what I have said and is a reaction on a power structure based on metaphysical appeal. Neither Marxism nor Socialism would exist without religion, in our case Christianity. Capitalism is based on a christian moral base. We have already discussed that earlier.

Alas, democracy will reflect the values of the participants. The system itself is not Christian based. Marxism and its children are reactions against capitalism in the 19th Century and misreadings of Hegel. Capitalism is based off of systemic competition and government restraint.



Posted by Pindar
It is absurd. You need to distinguish between contrived notions on religion (Islam) and the position itself. The position is determined by the advocated principles.

Only in a fundamentalistic mind. With objectivity and reality it's not so.

This doesn't make sense. If you want to understand a religion you need to study the principles advocated, not make up ulterior motives.



Posted by Pindar
A natural born citizen is already beholden to U.S. law and the upkeep of the nation. This is why they can be drafted. An immigrant must assume these responsibilities

Just like with religion...

Religions don't draft.




Religion is a part of political science.

Not in any university in the States or anywhere else I know of.




Posted by Pindar
Your reply doesn't fit with the failures of your definition. Extremism, fanaticism, politics or practicality have no bearing on the base meaning of religion. Political parties do not speak to questions of ultimate reality or salvation. They are not the same. You are confused, again.


A very large portion of the western political parties have it's base out of Christianity. Most countries have their consitutions based on a metaphysical appeal. Religion is politic.

A political party may or may not appeal to Christian values. Such is not necessary to be a political party or a religion.

Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics.




It could be compared with the persecution of communists in US during the 50, correct. It's there and nobody want to do anything about it.

There was no government persecution of communists in the 50's.

bmolsson
27/06/05, 12:57
You seem to have forgotten your own wikipedia quote:

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity."


Of course not. A supreme being isn't the same as a deity. The central in Creationism is intelligent design. In the early days it was assumed that this has to be a deity. Our knowledge has increased and creationism evolves...



I don't know what any of this means. Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.


It means that you only credit the evidence and testamonies you have faith in. That is wrong. ~;)




Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.


I don't condemn anything ?? :dizzy2:




Belief is crucial for a devotional life.


Which has nothing to do with religion....




Alas, democracy will reflect the values of the participants. The system itself is not Christian based. Marxism and its children are reactions against capitalism in the 19th Century and misreadings of Hegel. Capitalism is based off of systemic competition and government restraint.


I disagree.



This doesn't make sense. If you want to understand a religion you need to study the principles advocated, not make up ulterior motives.


I am not trying to understand the principles of religion, I study the actualities and its place in our society.



Religions don't draft.


Yes, they certainly do...



Not in any university in the States or anywhere else I know of.


They are yet to be objective.



Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics.


It's a chosen way of building up your society. Just like anarchism, not all movements makes sense.



There was no government persecution of communists in the 50's.


Really ? Did McArthur know that ?

Pindar
27/06/05, 18:49
Of course not. A supreme being isn't the same as a deity.

Supreme Being and Deity are synonyms.



Writers of the Bible were not making scientific claims.

My "logic" is not hostile to Astronomy. Astronomy works off of empirical data, not whimsy.

It means that you only credit the evidence and testamonies you have faith in. That is wrong. ~;)

Ahh, no. Science and religion are not the same. The methodology is different. The subject matter is different. A simple example is symmetry. In science symmetry refers to the base repeatability that underlies any scientific research. A viable experiment should be repeatable given the same method and subject matter regardless of place or performer. Biblical prophets were not scientists. Prophets are those whom the Divine has disclosed truth to. It is not the prophet who forces the Gates of Heaven open, but Deity who reveals himself. It is an asymmetric relation.





Posted by Pindar
Your charges of intention reveal more about yourself than what you condemn.


I don't condemn anything ?? :dizzy2:

You stated: "Religion uses the metaphysical appeal to create a power structure." The verb and the nominative indicate intent.



I am not trying to understand the principles of religion...

That is clear.


Yes, they certainly do...

Really, where?



They are yet to be objective.

So speaks the collective study of Indonesia. :bow:



Really ? Did McArthur know that ?

MacArthur was a WWII/Korean War General. I think you meant the Wisconsin Senator: McCarthy

bmolsson
28/06/05, 04:00
Supreme Being and Deity are synonyms.


No

Supreme Being does not have to be divine. It was actually a concept that Robespierre came up with as an alternative to the Christian deity.




Ahh, no. Science and religion are not the same. The methodology is different. The subject matter is different. A simple example is symmetry. In science symmetry refers to the base repeatability that underlies any scientific research. A viable experiment should be repeatable given the same method and subject matter regardless of place or performer. Biblical prophets were not scientists. Prophets are those whom the Divine has disclosed truth to. It is not the prophet who forces the Gates of Heaven open, but Deity who reveals himself. It is an asymmetric relation.


Prophets was as close to scientist you could come at the time they did their work. Put things in perspective and stop insisting to use your own time and place as the reference. It's all about objectivity.




The verb and the nominative indicate intent.


Not at all.



Really, where?


Example, Jihad and Crusades.



MacArthur was a WWII/Korean War General. I think you meant the Wisconsin Senator: McCarthy


Yes, thanks. I mean McCarthy.

Navaros
28/06/05, 05:25
Should Intellegent Design, Creationism, and other scientific theories explaining the birth of the world be taught alongside evolution as other theories, or should evolution remain the unchallenged theory that, although it is only a theory, is taught as a fact nationwide?

evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.

Auctoritas
28/06/05, 05:32
evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.


Trolling....trolling...trolling ~;)

Papewaio
28/06/05, 05:34
evolution should not be taught in any public school, period. because evolution is neither theory nor fact. it's just absurd, baseless atheistic propaganda

hence this Poll is inherently flawed since it has no option to vote for the only proper choice: ban evolution from being taught, period.

It is actually a stronger theory then Newtons Theory of Gravity.

Revelation
28/06/05, 13:44
Never debate the values of religion or politics. Your just asking for a war ~D
The bible/church/religion is the greatest money making scam in history. Wish I could think up something a fraction as profitable.
Bible.All time best selling ficticious novel!
Leave the creation lessons to the fanatics, save the non fiction for the scholars, and those of a sensible disposition.

Pindar
28/06/05, 18:30
Supreme Being does not have to be divine. It was actually a concept that Robespierre came up with as an alternative to the Christian deity.

Robespierre's issues with Christianity aside, his "Supreme Being" was a pantheistic deity: a god. Your idea fails historically and in present day usage as well. If you look up supreme being it will refer to an divine status. The word itself should be clear enough: supreme is a superlative that allows no further designation.

Your idiosyncratic approach to religion is removing you farther and farther from normative discussion.





Prophets was as close to scientist you could come at the time they did their work. Put things in perspective and stop insisting to use your own time and place as the reference. It's all about objectivity.

Objectivity does not support your view. The objects: prophets and scientists are involved in different projects. The one is concerned with the nature of the Divine and salvation. The other is concerned with the natural order without reference to any Deity. The objects are also involved in different methodologies. The one has truth revealed from God and then conveys that to others (suggesting the prophet occupies a unique position) The other attempts to uncover the nature of things via a strict methodology that requires multiple outside verification. In short, one deals with the sacred the other the mundane.





Example, Jihad and Crusades.

Crusades were not compulsory.

bmolsson
29/06/05, 03:51
Your idiosyncratic approach to religion is removing you farther and farther from normative discussion.


Actually it's your refusal to see anything further than your peculiar view on faith as the core tenants of religion.



Objectivity does not support your view. The objects: prophets and scientists are involved in different projects. The one is concerned with the nature of the Divine and salvation. The other is concerned with the natural order without reference to any Deity. The objects are also involved in different methodologies. The one has truth revealed from God and then conveys that to others (suggesting the prophet occupies a unique position) The other attempts to uncover the nature of things via a strict methodology that requires multiple outside verification. In short, one deals with the sacred the other the mundane.


The time of the prophets did not have your definition of scientists. The prophets where most of the time appointed prophets after their death. The use of objectivity would allow you to evaluate the writings at the time when they where written instead of using a current reference base. A sighting, incident or investigatio 2000 years ago would be seen differently today. What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved.



Crusades were not compulsory.


It was close enough though, most of the people participating was ordered by their respective "owner"....

Pindar
29/06/05, 04:51
Actually it's your refusal to see anything further than your peculiar view on faith as the core tenants of religion.

My "particular view" as it were, is fairly standard fare. Understanding belief as intrinsic to a religious life is not a revolutionary claim. Understanding that Creationism is concerned with Deity is what the vast majority of people (advocates or no) would agree with. Understanding that science requires some verification of any claim made is part and parcel of the discipline.



The time of the prophets did not have your definition of scientists.

Of course not. Science is a product of the West in the 17th Century. This does not change the fact that the object of study, the respective methodology and theoretical posture is quite different.


The prophets where most of the time appointed prophets after their death.

Not really, but even were one to grant this idea it doesn't have any impact of the larger issue: prophetic calling and scientific investigation are distinct activities.


The use of objectivity would allow you to evaluate the writings at the time when they where written instead of using a current reference base.

When something was written is not relevant to the discussion.


What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved.

This is flawed. Aristotle had developed logic by the Fourth Century B.C. and a fully "secular" methodology and approach to knowledge claims was fully established by the time of the New Testament. Yet, this very Period saw the rise of Christianity.




It was close enough though, most of the people participating was ordered by their respective "owner"....

This is not correct. The call to Crusade was voluntary. Those who attended a lord were not soldiers and would serve their function independent of location or any Crusade.

bmolsson
29/06/05, 12:37
My "particular view" as it were, is fairly standard fare. Understanding belief as intrinsic to a religious life is not a revolutionary claim. Understanding that Creationism is concerned with Deity is what the vast majority of people (advocates or no) would agree with. Understanding that science requires some verification of any claim made is part and parcel of the discipline.


Belief is no longer equal to religious affiliation. Definition of deity today is different from when the initial text where written.
You can with scientific precision show that this is the case.
Not realise this indicates a fundamentalistic view on religion as well as creationism.



Of course not. Science is a product of the West in the 17th Century. This does not change the fact that the object of study, the respective methodology and theoretical posture is quite different.


The inability from the mainstream defenders of creationism to leave a fundamentalistic view doesn't automatically make the theory of creationism less possible. The fact remains that the basis of creationism originates from a time with a different referens level. Translating the theory in to modern terms is something that would give a totally different status for the theory.



Not really, but even were one to grant this idea it doesn't have any impact of the larger issue: prophetic calling and scientific investigation are distinct activities.


You don't find prophetic calling today and you didn't find scientific investigation 2000 years ago. You compare something that has 2 milliniums in between. I would call that comparation abstract.



When something was written is not relevant to the discussion.


Wrong.



This is flawed. Aristotle had developed logic by the Fourth Century B.C. and a fully "secular" methodology and approach to knowledge claims was fully established by the time of the New Testament. Yet, this very Period saw the rise of Christianity.


Calling Endoxa scientific would actually be an argument for my thesis, rather than your.... ~D
The science we know today was developed many centuries later. Usually Francis Bacon in the mid 1600 are seen as the father of modern science.



This is not correct. The call to Crusade was voluntary. Those who attended a lord were not soldiers and would serve their function independent of location or any Crusade.


Slavery have never and will never be voluntary.

Pindar
29/06/05, 19:05
Definition of deity today is different from when the initial text where written.
You can with scientific precision show that this is the case.
Not realise this indicates a fundamentalistic view on religion as well as creationism.

How has the Muslim definition of Allah changed since the Seventh/Eighth Century? How has the Catholic definition of God changed since the Fourth Century?



The inability from the mainstream defenders of creationism to leave a fundamentalistic view doesn't automatically make the theory of creationism less possible. The fact remains that the basis of creationism originates from a time with a different referens level. Translating the theory in to modern terms is something that would give a totally different status for the theory.

The possibility of Creationism is not my concern. Whether Creationism qualifies a science is. It is not science. It fails according to subject matter. I fails according to verification schema.

Creationism as a distinct position is relatively new. It has precursors in the 19th Century, but became an actual stance in the 20th I believe.




You don't find prophetic calling today...

Actually you do.


...and you didn't find scientific investigation 2000 years ago. You compare something that has 2 milliniums in between. I would call that comparation abstract.

Calling Endoxa scientific would actually be an argument for my thesis, rather than your.... ~D
The science we know today was developed many centuries later. Usually Francis Bacon in the mid 1600 are seen as the father of modern science.

As I already noted: science is a product of the 17th Century. Even so, a secular approach to knowledge claims existed from the 4th Century B.C. This includes the rise of philosophy and the development of logic. The Levant was under Hellenistic influence from the Alexandrian Conquest forward, yet Christianity developed irrespective of this.



Slavery have never and will never be voluntary.

Crusaders weren't slaves.

bmolsson
30/06/05, 03:47
How has the Muslim definition of Allah changed since the Seventh/Eighth Century? How has the Catholic definition of God changed since the Fourth Century?


It has changed by people getting additional sources of education, beside the holy texts within each religion. The reformed parts of the religions are the parts that is growing.



The possibility of Creationism is not my concern. Whether Creationism qualifies a science is. It is not science. It fails according to subject matter. I fails according to verification schema.

Creationism as a distinct position is relatively new. It has precursors in the 19th Century, but became an actual stance in the 20th I believe.


Creationism is a theory based on social science.



Actually you do.


Where ?



As I already noted: science is a product of the 17th Century. Even so, a secular approach to knowledge claims existed from the 4th Century B.C. This includes the rise of philosophy and the development of logic. The Levant was under Hellenistic influence from the Alexandrian Conquest forward, yet Christianity developed irrespective of this.


So you claim that philosophy is a science ?



Crusaders weren't slaves.


Neither where the majority of them free men.

Pindar
30/06/05, 18:34
It has changed by people getting additional sources of education, beside the holy texts within each religion. The reformed parts of the religions are the parts that is growing.

So, in Islam Allah is conceived as something other than thee God by 'reformed' Muslims? Reformed Muslims are polytheists? I don't think this is correct. I don't know of any theological reformulation of the basic Muslim position on Deity. If you do, cite the text or author. For this to be credible the text or position should have some recognized standing within Islam in general: I mean some following should accept this reformulation.

From my reading of Islamic theology it appears formal attempts to explain Allah took an Aristotelian tack. Sufi strains appear to follow a variant of the via negativa model. Neither rejects the base singularity of Allah. Other than these, I don't know any other major tradition.

In Orthodox Christianity, all sects accept the Nicean formulation of the Trinity which dates from 325 A.D.




Creationism is a theory based on social science.

I know this is your assertion. The difficulty remains: science has a proof standard, where is the 'proof'?




Where ?

The Mormon Church is a simple example. The head of the Church is considered a prophet.





So you claim that philosophy is a science ?

No, philosophy is theoretical whereas science has a practical focus. Regardless, both are secular and make knowledge claims.

You should also note however, that before science was considered a separate discipline the basic area of study was called natural philosophy. This is how fellows like Newton referred to themselves : as a natural philosopher. Aristotle and Ptolemy etc. were involved in making knowledge claims about the world or physical strata before the advent of Christianity or Islam.




Neither where the majority of them free men.

None were citizens of democratic states true enough, but Crusaders were not compelled to take the cross and that is the relevant point. There was no "draft".

bmolsson
01/07/05, 04:35
So, in Islam Allah is conceived as something other than thee God by 'reformed' Muslims? Reformed Muslims are polytheists? I don't think this is correct. I don't know of any theological reformulation of the basic Muslim position on Deity. If you do, cite the text or author. For this to be credible the text or position should have some recognized standing within Islam in general: I mean some following should accept this reformulation.

From my reading of Islamic theology it appears formal attempts to explain Allah took an Aristotelian tack. Sufi strains appear to follow a variant of the via negativa model. Neither rejects the base singularity of Allah. Other than these, I don't know any other major tradition.

In Orthodox Christianity, all sects accept the Nicean formulation of the Trinity which dates from 325 A.D.


They don't have any opinion. They just live their lives and call themselves muslims since they where born in to it. This is the thing, people don't go around and worry so much as you do Pindar..... ~:grouphug:




I know this is your assertion. The difficulty remains: science has a proof standard, where is the 'proof'?


In the documentation of human behavior through history.



No, philosophy is theoretical whereas science has a practical focus. Regardless, both are secular and make knowledge claims.

You should also note however, that before science was considered a separate discipline the basic area of study was called natural philosophy. This is how fellows like Newton referred to themselves : as a natural philosopher. Aristotle and Ptolemy etc. were involved in making knowledge claims about the world or physical strata before the advent of Christianity or Islam.


So science was philosophy before it became science. Actually totally in line with what I am saying.



None were citizens of democratic states true enough, but Crusaders were not compelled to take the cross and that is the relevant point. There was no "draft".


The serfs where forced to follow their master in to war. Their masters power position was determined based on the Christian laws ruling at the time.

Pindar
02/07/05, 18:51
They don't have any opinion. They just live their lives and call themselves muslims since they where born in to it. This is the thing, people don't go around and worry so much as you do Pindar.....

Such are not then religious and the label has no real value.



In the documentation of human behavior through history.

If someone writes a thing, that in no way quarantines such is actually the case. If I write bmolsson is a woman: your gender does not change. Science is concerned with the actual world, not opinion.




So science was philosophy before it became science. Actually totally in line with what I am saying.

The formal criteria and method that determine science did not yet exist, but science is a child of philosophy.

This doesn't support your claim which I took to be: What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved. Your view seems to have been that there was a progression from religion to science. What I have indicated is that two of the great faiths actually developed after the rise of a formal secular system of inquiry.




The serfs where forced to follow their master in to war. Their masters power position was determined based on the Christian laws ruling at the time.

Serfs were tied to the land. They did not leave it. Crusaders joined voluntarily. The masses i.e. 'The Peoples' Crusade' under Peter the Hermit were also volunteers.

A knight or Lord's position was based on noble status or martial prowess.

bmolsson
03/07/05, 05:19
Such are not then religious and the label has no real value.


I disagree. With your definition, most of our large religions would be reduced to insignificant cults.....



If someone writes a thing, that in no way quarantines such is actually the case. If I write bmolsson is a woman: your gender does not change. Science is concerned with the actual world, not opinion.


Again a rather long fetched analogy. The science in question is to analyse the writings and the human behavior that made text written. That is why we have social science. It is the real world we are talking about.



The formal criteria and method that determine science did not yet exist, but science is a child of philosophy.

This doesn't support your claim which I took to be: What is considered as sacred today, was the only thing available at that time. Human race have evolved. Your view seems to have been that there was a progression from religion to science. What I have indicated is that two of the great faiths actually developed after the rise of a formal secular system of inquiry.


The two great religions have taken some writings as a base in their system. The bible was not written in order to create Christianity. The old formal system you refer to was philosophy and they did not have access to the methods today used in your definition of science.
Further more, your thesis on science origin is based on writings, which you already discarded as evidence of any significance. With your view on archeology, we can't even prove that Aristotles actually did exist at all. Your hardline view falls on your own thesis.



Serfs were tied to the land. They did not leave it. Crusaders joined voluntarily. The masses i.e. 'The Peoples' Crusade' under Peter the Hermit were also volunteers.

A knight or Lord's position was based on noble status or martial prowess.

Once again, I disagree. Any country in Europe had it's population oppressed and with religion as the determinator of the power structure. With modern views, the Crusaders would have been seen as insurgents and terrorists, brainwashing and forcing innocent people in to horrible deeds......

Pindar
03/07/05, 18:05
I disagree.

I know, and I'm sure you would defend with equal fervor any law stating green as the national favorite color of Indonesians as equally correct.




Again a rather long fetched analogy. The science in question is to analyse the writings and the human behavior that made text written. That is why we have social science. It is the real world we are talking about.

Creationism rests on the claim there was a creative force: God, who brought things to be. You will recall your own wikipedia example of the standard definition. As a science this view requires proof that this Being exists and that the creative act was His doing. Writings do not equal a proof. They may equal a belief, but belief is not verification.




The two great religions have taken some writings as a base in their system. The bible was not written in order to create Christianity. The old formal system you refer to was philosophy and they did not have access to the methods today used in your definition of science.
Further more, your thesis on science origin is based on writings, which you already discarded as evidence of any significance. With your view on archeology, we can't even prove that Aristotles actually did exist at all. Your hardline view falls on your own thesis.

You have missed the point. The point is chronological. A secular approach to knowledge predates both Christianity and Islam: therefore one cannot claim a pattern where religion 'evolved' into a secular model.

I don't discount writings, but treat them as they are: written material. In a historical context this is not definitive, but may be suggestive. This is the case with all science given it operates off of induction. Thus, if we have multiple references to a Jesus in Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius etc. it is not unreasonable to assume a fellow with that name did exist. The same would apply to other historical figures. The more as opposed to less period documentation that exists assists any such conclusion. Now going from that marker to saying this Jesus was in fact the Christ is a different proposition. Claims about Messiahship involve metaphysical notions that a text cannot answer. The same applies to notions about God. Because something was written about Deity does not mean Deity then exists: only that something was written on the topic and possibly believed by the writer.




Once again, I disagree. Any country in Europe had it's population oppressed and with religion as the determinator of the power structure. With modern views, the Crusaders would have been seen as insurgents and terrorists, brainwashing and forcing innocent people in to horrible deeds......

Questions of oppression are different from claims the Crusaders were drafted. Crusaders couldn't be insurgents: they came from Europe to the Middle East. I think you word you want is invader or conqueror.

bmolsson
04/07/05, 02:36
I know, and I'm sure you would defend with equal fervor any law stating green as the national favorite color of Indonesians as equally correct.


As a matter of fact, green is seen a Islams color here and muslims are assumed to like green better for that reason. Maybe you are a rectionary muslim after all..... ~:grouphug:



Creationism rests on the claim there was a creative force: God, who brought things to be. You will recall your own wikipedia example of the standard definition. As a science this view requires proof that this Being exists and that the creative act was His doing. Writings do not equal a proof. They may equal a belief, but belief is not verification.


Not at all. When the old testamente was written, people did not know anything about aliens or had any ideas on intelligent design. Again you assume a reference base from today applied on people several milleniums ago. Further more, what proof do we have that Aristotle existed ?
Writings are documentation on events, research and sightings. Work needs to be done to understand the writings and put them in to a realistic context. We have to understand the people that wrote a text in order to really understand the text.



You have missed the point. The point is chronological. A secular approach to knowledge predates both Christianity and Islam: therefore one cannot claim a pattern where religion 'evolved' into a secular model.

I don't discount writings, but treat them as they are: written material. In a historical context this is not definitive, but may be suggestive. This is the case with all science given it operates off of induction. Thus, if we have multiple references to a Jesus in Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius etc. it is not unreasonable to assume a fellow with that name did exist. The same would apply to other historical figures. The more as opposed to less period documentation that exists assists any such conclusion. Now going from that marker to saying this Jesus was in fact the Christ is a different proposition. Claims about Messiahship involve metaphysical notions that a text cannot answer. The same applies to notions about God. Because something was written about Deity does not mean Deity then exists: only that something was written on the topic and possibly believed by the writer.


Being Christ doesn't mean that there is a metaphysical notion. Michael Jackson is not a deity, even if many believe so. Neither is Bush or was Mao. They did/still exist and their writings will be around for a very long time.
The whole Messias culture doesn't necessarily have to have a metaphysical base, you assume so and in there our opinions differ.



Questions of oppression are different from claims the Crusaders were drafted. Crusaders couldn't be insurgents: they came from Europe to the Middle East. I think you word you want is invader or conqueror.


Being drafted is a form of oppression, so is taxation. You are forced to do something against your will. Period.

Pindar
04/07/05, 09:38
As a matter of fact, green is seen a Islams color here and muslims are assumed to like green better for that reason. Maybe you are a rectionary muslim after all.....

Maybe.




Not at all. When the old testamente was written, people did not know anything about aliens or had any ideas on intelligent design. Again you assume a reference base from today applied on people several milleniums ago. Further more, what proof do we have that Aristotle existed ?

Creationism isn't a product of the Old Testament. It is a product of the 20th Century (basically) and is a direct attempt to cast Christian teaching about a Divine creative act into scientific terms. It fails.

We have no 'proof' that Aristotle existed.


Writings are documentation on events, research and sightings. Work needs to be done to understand the writings and put them in to a realistic context. We have to understand the people that wrote a text in order to really understand the text.

I agree.




Being Christ doesn't mean that there is a metaphysical notion.

Christ is derived from the Greek rendition of the Hebrew for Messiah. The Messiah in Christian terms is the Son of God and Divine: a member of the Trinity. He took on HImself the collective sins of all mankind, rose from the dead of His own accord and will descend from Heaven to cast Judgement on the earth. This is metaphysical.




Being drafted is a form of oppression, so is taxation. You are forced to do something against your will. Period.

Back to the point: religions don't draft.

bmolsson
04/07/05, 13:04
Maybe.


:bow:





Creationism isn't a product of the Old Testament. It is a product of the 20th Century (basically) and is a direct attempt to cast Christian teaching about a Divine creative act into scientific terms. It fails.


Sigh....

Creationism according to Genisis is far older than 20th century. The more realistic evolutionary creationism is of 20th century.



We have no 'proof' that Aristotle existed.


:bow:



I agree.


:bow:



Christ is derived from the Greek rendition of the Hebrew for Messiah. The Messiah in Christian terms is the Son of God and Divine: a member of the Trinity. He took on HImself the collective sins of all mankind, rose from the dead of His own accord and will descend from Heaven to cast Judgement on the earth. This is metaphysical.


Messiah means king..... A king is the son of God. I have shaked hand with more than one king in my life and they didn't feel metaphysical at all, except maybe the Sultan of Brunei....... ~D




Back to the point: religions don't draft.


From Wikipedia:
Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad.

Navaros
04/07/05, 13:14
Creationism according to Genisis is far older than 20th century. The more realistic evolutionary creationism is of 20th century.





there is nothing at all realistic about thinking that apes turned into men. the very idea is ludicrously absurd. laughably so. it is bewildering and mind-boggling that any intelligent person could believe such nonsense.

bmolsson
04/07/05, 13:26
there is nothing at all realistic about thinking that apes turned into men. the very idea is ludicrously absurd. laughably so. it is bewildering and mind-boggling that any intelligent person could believe such nonsense.

You should see some of the jungle peoples found in the deep jungles of Kalimantan (Borneo) and Sumatra..... ~D

Pindar
04/07/05, 18:32
Creationism according to Genisis is far older than 20th century. The more realistic evolutionary creationism is of 20th century.

A creation account i.e. Genesis or Hesiod is not Creationism. Creationism is a specific position that claims a scientific basis.



Messiah means king..... A king is the son of God. I have shaked hand with more than one king in my life and they didn't feel metaphysical at all, except maybe the Sultan of Brunei....... ~D

Actually Messiah means "anointed one" and in Christian theology it refers to the Redeemer of Mankind who is Divine.



From Wikipedia:
Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims are attacked, then it becomes obligatory for all Muslims to defend against the attack; to participate in jihad.

Quite right. There also appears to be an offensive obligation in early Islam, to expand the Umma, as well. I noted this obligatory character at the beginning of this tangent. Whatever the obligation, which one could take as a duty of a pious Muslim, I don't know of any accounts of Caliphs conscripting for Jihad.

bmolsson
05/07/05, 00:46
A creation account i.e. Genesis or Hesiod is not Creationism. Creationism is a specific position that claims a scientific basis.


Similar to Aristotles ?? ~;)



Quite right. There also appears to be an offensive obligation in early Islam, to expand the Umma, as well. I noted this obligatory character at the beginning of this tangent. Whatever the obligation, which one could take as a duty of a pious Muslim, I don't know of any accounts of Caliphs conscripting for Jihad.


Conscription was not invented at the time at the Caliphs. Religious pressure was enough. Just like with the Crusades...... ~D

Pindar
05/07/05, 08:51
Similar to Aristotles ?? ~;)

No, Aristotle's metaphysic operates off of a deductive logic. It is formal and has no empirical appeal.




Conscription was not invented at the time at the Caliphs.

Exactly, there was no draft.

bmolsson
06/07/05, 13:06
No, Aristotle's metaphysic operates off of a deductive logic. It is formal and has no empirical appeal.


So he is an abstract ?



Exactly, there was no draft.


So there where no political systems either then. I guess that logic must be scientific.... ~D

Pindar
06/07/05, 19:56
So he is an abstract ?

No.




So there where no political systems either then. I guess that logic must be scientific.... ~D

No, there were political systems, just no draft.

bmolsson
07/07/05, 03:41
No, there were political systems, just no draft.


So why is draft a must to be called a political system ? I think you passed me as the master in transcend logic..... ~;)

Pindar
07/07/05, 09:26
So why is draft a must to be called a political system ? I think you passed me as the master in transcend logic..... ~;)

A draft refers to the military. The military is a government force. The government is by definition political. Therefore any draft is necessarily a political act. It doesn't follow however, that just because all drafts are products of political systems that all political systems therefore draft.

bmolsson
08/07/05, 07:27
A draft refers to the military. The military is a government force. The government is by definition political. Therefore any draft is necessarily a political act. It doesn't follow however, that just because all drafts are products of political systems that all political systems therefore draft.

So the draft done during Jihad would then make Islam a political system ? ~D

And any religion without draft would still be able to be a political system ? ~D ~D

Transcend logic ??

Pindar
09/07/05, 06:58
So the draft done during Jihad would then make Islam a political system ? ~D

No, but the Caliphate was a political system.


And any religion without draft would still be able to be a political system ? ~D ~D

No.

bmolsson
09/07/05, 13:07
No, but the Caliphate was a political system.


Jihad was not a part of the Caliphate system though.



No.


Strange. You stated that religion could not be a political system since it didn't include draft. Then you stated that not all political systems include draft.

Pindar
09/07/05, 20:45
Jihad was not a part of the Caliphate system though.

Right, and the Caliphate didn't draft. Jihad appears to have been considered a duty. Pious Muslims may have responded to that duty. This is not a draft.




Strange. You stated that religion could not be a political system since it didn't include draft.

Really, where?


Then you stated that not all political systems include draft.

Of course. Politics doesn't require conscription.

bmolsson
10/07/05, 13:48
Really, where?


Post 99.....

The Stranger
10/07/05, 15:58
post 135

Pindar
10/07/05, 16:43
Strange. You stated that religion could not be a political system since it didn't include draft.

Me: Originally Posted by Pindar
Really, where?



Post 99.....

I re-read post 99. I don't see me stating anything of the kind. I did state:

"A political party may or may not appeal to Christian values. Such is not necessary to be a political party or a religion.

Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics."

Sorry you are wrong ~:grouphug:

bmolsson
11/07/05, 03:17
I re-read post 99. I don't see me stating anything of the kind. I did state:

"A political party may or may not appeal to Christian values. Such is not necessary to be a political party or a religion.

Constitutions may make metaphysical appeals. Not all metaphysics are religious. Constitutions that appeal to specific religion's metaphysic are not required to do so. Religion isn't simply politics as I have already demonstrated with two examples: Christian hermits and Hindu forest ascetics."

Sorry you are wrong ~:grouphug:

You also stated: Religions don't draft. in the same context.

Even though it doesn't matter any more since you agreed that a political system doesn't necessarily have to draft it's subjects to be a political system.

bmolsson
11/07/05, 03:24
To get back on track:

bmolsson claims that Creationism is a valid theory to consider, based on social science and historical writings.

Pindar claim that it's not.

bmolsson claims that religion is a political system, using the metaphysical approach to justify the power structure. The faith of the individual member of the religion is irrelevant and most members are actually born in to their religion.

Pindar claim that this is incorrect.

I think that is the summary of the whole discussion. Am I correct Pindar ?

bmolsson
11/07/05, 05:56
No.. just.. No. Creationism is junk science. Natural Selection and examples of evolution are all around us. Next they'll be calling outter space a "Theory" and a round earth a "Fabrication".

Enough is enough, let logic win the day. The world has suffered enough religious ignorance.

Evolutionary creationism fits in your examples above. See beyond the long history of oppression of open minds. Nobody have argues against evolution, or a round earth in this thread. :bow:

Quietus
11/07/05, 08:18
Evolutionary creationism fits in your examples above. See beyond the long history of oppression of open minds. Nobody have argues against evolution, or a round earth in this thread. :bow: bmolsson, explain 'Evolutionary Creationism' as best as you can. Is this the same as 'Intelligent Design'? ~:)

bmolsson
11/07/05, 13:15
Evolutionary Creation.. jesus christ. They'll grasp at any straw, won't they?

There are viable theories for the formation of the planet, and the appearance of life. The only thing that cannot currently be explained by science is the Big Bang--something out of nothing, and I will gladly keep an open mind about that.

But, we have a history of finding the REAL answers to suppsedly unexplainable things.. so it's only a matter of time.

Please explain to me how life started. Base it on known scientific facts.

bmolsson
11/07/05, 13:44
bmolsson, explain 'Evolutionary Creationism' as best as you can. Is this the same as 'Intelligent Design'? ~:)

Actually it's evolution and "creationism" used for the addition of life itself. A more modern approach to the merger between creationism and evolution.

Actually a even more modern variation is the "soul" theory. This argues that all life, except the soul is natural. Humans are the only "animal" that has been given a soul, which is a part of a higher intelligence.

In this thread, the only thing I actually is arguing is to see objectively on the creationism and see why it has appeared. It's more than one author and the sightings are more than just a coincidence. This doesn't necessarily mean there is a God, just that there has been something more than pure random.......

Pindar
11/07/05, 22:21
To get back on track:

bmolsson claims that Creationism is a valid theory to consider, based on social science and historical writings.

Pindar claim that it's not.

bmolsson claims that religion is a political system, using the metaphysical approach to justify the power structure. The faith of the individual member of the religion is irrelevant and most members are actually born in to their religion.

Pindar claim that this is incorrect.

I think that is the summary of the whole discussion. Am I correct Pindar ?


That sounds basically right. I argue Creationism is not science because it doesn't meet the standards of science: there is no verification schema and it necessarily appeals to a God which is not a topic of science.

I argue religion is not simply political as there are counter-examples like Christian desert monks and Hindu forest ascetics that practice their faith without reference to others.

bmolsson
12/07/05, 02:42
That sounds basically right. I argue Creationism is not science because it doesn't meet the standards of science: there is no verification schema and it necessarily appeals to a God which is not a topic of science.


Do you then argue that Evolution is science as well or is it a theory based on science ?



I argue religion is not simply political as there are counter-examples like Christian desert monks and Hindu forest ascetics that practice their faith without reference to others.


Is anarchists political ?

Pindar
12/07/05, 03:28
Do you then argue that Evolution is science as well or is it a theory based on science ?

I'm not sure I understand how you are parsing your terms. Science itself is a theory. Do I consider evolution a position within science? yes.




Is anarchists political ?

Make sure you are clear on your terms: politics is concerned with governance. Anarchism is anti-political as it rejects such superstructure.

Papewaio
12/07/05, 03:32
:book: tally ho lads :charge:

Its like tennis for the mind. Pindar is Sampras...

Pindar
12/07/05, 03:38
:book: tally ho lads :charge:

Its like tennis for the mind. Pindar is Sampras...

But not as hairy. ~;)

Big_John
12/07/05, 03:50
who is federer? :shifty:

Papewaio
12/07/05, 03:55
Don't worry about him, worry about who is McEnroe... ~:handball:

bmolsson
12/07/05, 05:46
I'm not sure I understand how you are parsing your terms. Science itself is a theory. Do I consider evolution a position within science? yes.


So science is a theory and evolution is a theory as well? I thought science was reality and not just a theory. Evolution was a theory based upon natural science.



Make sure you are clear on your terms: politics is concerned with governance. Anarchism is anti-political as it rejects such superstructure.

So anarchism is not politics ?

bmolsson
12/07/05, 05:48
But not as hairy. ~;)


I knew it... Pindar is BALD..... :charge:

Big_John
12/07/05, 06:26
Don't worry about him, worry about who is McEnroe... ~:handball:well surely we can all agree that bmolsson is fischbach.

:wall:~:handball:

Pindar
12/07/05, 15:21
Don't worry about him, worry about who is McEnroe... ~:handball:

Now there was a terror of the court.

Pindar
12/07/05, 15:25
So science is a theory and evolution is a theory as well? I thought science was reality and not just a theory. Evolution was a theory based upon natural science.

Science is a theory. It is a human construct used to help men understand reality. Evolution is a subset of science: using the scientific model it attempts to explain the development of species.




So anarchism is not politics ?

Depends on whether you consider an anti-political position politics.

Pindar
12/07/05, 15:26
I knew it... Pindar is BALD..... :charge:

Perish the thought. :stunned:

Papewaio
13/07/05, 05:14
You would be able to swim faster... how many hairy sharks do you see after all...

bmolsson
13/07/05, 14:24
Science is a theory. It is a human construct used to help men understand reality. Evolution is a subset of science: using the scientific model it attempts to explain the development of species.


Ah... Similar to social science and creationism then..... ~D



Depends on whether you consider an anti-political position politics.


I do.

Pindar
13/07/05, 23:40
Ah... Similar to social science and creationism then.....

No.




I do.

Thought so.

bmolsson
14/07/05, 04:05
Thought so.


You are a real thinker .... ~:cheers: