Religion In Public Schools

[chess123mate]

What you have expressed is known by some people as "Pascal's Wager"... namely, even if the probability of god is exceptionally small, if it costs you nothing then you're better to believe (and save your immortal soul), than not believe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

There are, of course, a couple of major problems with that argument:

- How do you know your soul will really be saved by your beliefs? Perhaps the real creator of everything is the Norse god Thor, who has a particular dislike for anyone believing in the christian god. Or even consider this: a god who endowed us with enough intelligence in order to reject is existence, and the only criteria he has for getting into heaven is enough intelligence and reasoning skill to reject any supernatural beliefs. So, your 'beliefs' could actually end up condeming you.

- Religion is never without cost. This cost can range from very high, explicit costs (suicide bombers, financial donations, lives 'wasted' in service to a non-existent god), to very minor, hard to quantify costs (impairment of reasoning skills, forgoing possible pleasures for religious purposes)

My Christian religion has absolutely no cost. None. If I went to church and never donated a penny, that'd be fine with them. The church might suffer financially, but I could still be part of the church.

As for your other arguments, I've never heard of those cults (alright, they're just religions, but they anger me the same way), though I had just made my point earlier about the concept of praying to different 'gods' being negative if you believe in just one.

The God that does exist is very jealous indeed, as the Holy Bible indicates -- he doesn't want people praying and sacrificing to other gods, which don't exist.

No I am not joking.

Not all prayer is silent. Some yell it... better to just keep it at home IMO.

And have those that don't pray be "singled out" and picked on by the faithful, no thanks.

No. It does not. Many people go through life without prayer and like it that way. Religion has no place in the public arena. If you want your child to have a religious education send them to a religious school. We don't send our atheist children to harass the kids at St. Mary's so why do you send the religious kids to our secular schools to force our secular children to pray (or be singled out by NOT praying)?

My coworker's daughter (age 8) is continually harassed by a bunch of Christian children that live on her block, they tell her in no uncertain terms that she is a sinner and is going to burn in hell. Nice Kids. Her mother is thankful that they do not attend her school.

As long as there is freedom OF religion, there is freedom FROM religion.

1. If someone has to pray out loud, then is their religion really worth it? That indicates that their "god" is so pitiful and dumb it can't even hear your thoughts.

2. If you weren't praying, then as it was said, read a book. At current, you'll be singling out all the people who pray by forbidding them to do so!

3. I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT: People should be forced to pray. The whole idea is that YOU ARE FORCING (theoretically) PEOPLE TO NOT pray! Forcing people to pray is stupid. Forcing people to not pray is just as stupid. So why are schools doing the latter?

4. Christians shouldn't be harassing anyone like that. I've heard a lot of true stories about that, and I agree that they shouldn't be doing that. However, the opposite is also true. People shouldn't be forbidding people to follow their religious beliefs, as long as it isn't against safety rules or against other people's beliefs (under the condition their belief doesn't limit everyone else's)

"As long as there is freedom OF religion, there is freedom FROM religion."

I agree with you 100%. But, don't try and wreck the first part of the sentence by saying people can't pray in schools.

"Religion has no place in the public arena. If you want your child to have a religious education send them to a religious school"

That is simply not true. Obviously there are times to pray, and times when you can't, say, if you're driving and you need every ounce of brain power to concentrate. However, there should be no time or location that forbids you to pray.

How would you like it if you were forced to go to a CHRISTIAN school or else your family has to PAY for a non-religious school?

The current problem with Christian or other religious schools is that they (at least in Canada) don't get funding from the government and so have to require others to pay instead. Of course, with a low budget, they can't fund the proper education, meaning that it is better to go to a public school.

Seriously, how would you like it if every time you had to go to a MALL, you had to pray a prayer that you disagree with? You were forced to do this in every public place, or else you'd be jailed? Don't like it? Nor do we Christians like the concept that we aren't allowed to pray in schools.

Freedom of religion applies everywhere. If it doesn't, then there will be trouble, because it needs to be.

[guyser]

The current problem with Christian or other religious schools is that they (at least in Canada) don't get funding from the government

Toronto Catholic School Board ring a bell?

[segnosaur]

What you have expressed is known by some people as "Pascal's Wager"... namely, even if the probability of god is exceptionally small, if it costs you nothing then you're better to believe (and save your immortal soul), than not believe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager)

There are, of course, a couple of major problems with that argument:

- How do you know your soul will really be saved by your beliefs? Perhaps the real creator of everything is the Norse god Thor, who has a particular dislike for anyone believing in the christian god. Or even consider this: a god who endowed us with enough intelligence in order to reject is existence, and the only criteria he has for getting into heaven is enough intelligence and reasoning skill to reject any supernatural beliefs. So, your 'beliefs' could actually end up condeming you.

- Religion is never without cost. This cost can range from very high, explicit costs to very minor, hard to quantify costs (impairment of reasoning skills, forgoing possible pleasures for religious purposes)

My Christian religion has absolutely no cost. None. If I went to church and never donated a penny, that'd be fine with them. The church might suffer financially, but I could still be part of the church.

Even if you didn't donate to your church, that does not mean your beliefs are without costs. You still likely pay for transportation to get to church. The fact that you have to wake up early on Sunday morning means that its costing you an extra few hours that you could be sleeping in. At the very least it indicates an impairment of reasoning, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no evidence.

As for your other arguments, I've never heard of those cults (alright, they're just religions, but they anger me the same way),

I think this is indicative of the thought process of many believers. They become convinced that theirs is the 'right' belief not because they've actually made a rational decision based on all facts, but because of the way they were raised, and the fact that they were never exposed to other belief systems. (Had you been raised in 9th century scandinavia, you would have been just as convinced in the existence of Thor as you are in your current christian god.)

The God that does exist is very jealous indeed, as the Holy Bible indicates..."

Is this the same Holy Bible that contains hundreds of contradictions and things that have been shown to be logically or scientifically flawed?

-- he doesn't want people praying and sacrificing to other gods, which don't exist.

God also doesn't want you to eat shrimp and lobster.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

3. I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT: People should be forced to pray. The whole idea is that YOU ARE FORCING (theoretically) PEOPLE TO NOT pray! Forcing people to pray is stupid. Forcing people to not pray is just as stupid. So why are schools doing the latter?

Students have every right to pray... during recess, between classes, after school, etc. But there should be absolutely no time set aside specifically for prayer. If the kids are there to learn, then they should be learning.

[Drea]

Freedom of religion applies everywhere. If it doesn't, then there will be trouble, because it needs to be.

"there will be trouble...."

What do you mean by this statement?

Personally I want my world to be free of religious interference and that includes forcing my child to bow his head for no good reason because of someone's belief in an invisible entity.

Prayer belongs at home or church -- or have your child go to the school's bathroom, sit in a private stall and pray there. Can't a child get through a six hour school day without prayer? The invisible entity (sorry but I refuse to call it a name as it is not real) apparently has lots of patience... can't it wait for the child to go home?

My coworker prays before she eats her lunch. She sits quietly in her cubicle with her eyes closed. Most of the time, no one even notices. Imagine if all those she works with were forced to bow their heads with her? How pathetic would that be?

Once again, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice no religion, to hold no beliefs.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Drea

[Kitchener]

Who is being "forced not to pray"?

Not officially endorsing prayer is very different from forbidding it. Silent prayers, private prayers at lunch or recess, you name it... all these things are permitted. So far as I can tell -- given that it's clearly false -- the idea that prayer has somehow been banned from schools circulates merely because it feeds the persecution complex of a certain (primarily fundamentalist) demographic.

[chess123mate]

"Even if you didn't donate to your church, that does not mean your beliefs are without costs. You still likely pay for transportation to get to church. The fact that you have to wake up early on Sunday morning means that its costing you an extra few hours that you could be sleeping in. At the very least it indicates an impairment of reasoning, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. "

I could walk.

An impairment of reasoning is thinking that "because scientists, who once that the earth was flat and would kill anyone who thought differently, don't have any scientific proof for or against, believe that God doesn't exist, I will whole heartedly listen to them".

And it costs less to go to church than it does to go to a hockey game, or play hockey, or play any other sport. It costs less than to go to the local coffee shop. It costs less than eating. Why don't you stop living, because it costs too much!

Besides, they've proven that the Bible is true in many accounts. And prove to me where the Bible contradicts itself. I'll prove to you you're wrong (or my dad will )

""there will be trouble...."

What do you mean by this statement?"

I mean that Christians won't sit around and let their religion fall if it's forbidden. They'll fight. Many will die for it. I suppose that is a cost, but it's worth it. Wouldn't you die for your children (or family or friends or whatever you have), if it was for the better? If it saved their life from a horrible thing?

" think this is indicative of the thought process of many believers. They become convinced that theirs is the 'right' belief not because they've actually made a rational decision based on all facts, but because of the way they were raised, and the fact that they were never exposed to other belief systems. (Had you been raised in 9th century scandinavia, you would have been just as convinced in the existence of Thor as you are in your current christian god.)"

Yes, I've often feared that to be true. I don't know how the system works, but I do know this. There are miracles done for me that wouldn't have happened if I weren't Christian. They've proven the Bible to be true. I've had spiritual feelings that I can't explain, not because I made them up, but because God was with me.

I am not saying that "schools are not allowing different religions", but they aren't accompanying for them, are they?

"My coworker prays before she eats her lunch. She sits quietly in her cubicle with her eyes closed. Most of the time, no one even notices. Imagine if all those she works with were forced to bow their heads with her? How pathetic would that be?

Once again, freedom of religion is the freedom to practice no religion, to hold no beliefs."

Once again, I totally agree with that. DO YOU HEAR ME? I AGREE!!!

My statement is that freedom of religion should accompany for as many religions as possible without forcing them to conflict.

"The invisible entity (sorry but I refuse to call it a name as it is not real) apparently has lots of patience... can't it wait for the child to go home?"

According to Christianity, The Lord is always listening, extremely patient, slow to anger, etc. (I'm sure you've heard it somewhere). Also, He does not force anyone to follow Him, he wants only those who are willing.

If only I could convince you! But of course, this statement alone will be quoted by someone and certainly used against me.

Also, you have no proof that God DOESN'T exist.

Want to know what I find interesting? I find it interesting that we have a whole bunch of Holidays: Christmas, Easter, etc. based on Jesus' human life. Yet no one believes where it came from.

Of course, many people saw Jesus' miracles and still didn't believe.

There are miracles happening today, yet everyone turns a blind eye to it, saying "they made it up" or "they staged it" or "that's pure fiction".

Here's one; I heard it from my dad a while ago, but it was perfectly true. The general story was "A man was on a plane, the plane crashed, it was on fire" etc. until he was trying to figure out how to get out, when "he saw a hole" and he was able to escape through that. He explained his story to the authorities, who were amazed, because when the plane was examined afterwards (the wreckage, obviously) there was no hole where he claimed to jump through it. Yet his story was believed because many others on that same plane had the same story.

Call it what you will, I call that a miracle.

I have a relative who took a picture and when it was developed, somehow pictures of angels appeared around her. Call it a glitch of technology, or a trick of the light. I call it evidence.

"the idea that prayer has somehow been banned from schools circulates merely because it feeds the persecution complex of a certain (primarily fundamentalist) demographic."

I didn't say this, I believe I indicated that I feared this could happen, not that it has.

"God also doesn't want you to eat shrimp and lobster.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/"

Wrong, as it says in the New Testament, He allows all of His food to be eaten, including all forms of meat.

Some branches of Christianity are confused by what the Bible says. But the rules changed; before, it was a sign of faith (and for their protection) that they weren't supposed to eat meat. In the New Testament, that changed. It was NEW. Not OLD.

I've got to go for lunch, please provide evidence against all this in the mean time.

chess123mate

[segnosaur]

"Even if you didn't donate to your church, that does not mean your beliefs are without costs. You still likely pay for transportation to get to church. The fact that you have to wake up early on Sunday morning means that its costing you an extra few hours that you could be sleeping in. At the very least it indicates an impairment of reasoning, if you're willing to believe in something with absolutely no evidence. "

I could walk.

Which still causes wear and tear on your shoes, causing them to wear out faster.

An impairment of reasoning is thinking that "because scientists, who once that the earth was flat and would kill anyone who thought differently, don't have any scientific proof for or against, believe that God doesn't exist, I will whole heartedly listen to them".

First of all, what 'scientists' actually threatened to kill anyone? (That sounds more like the act of the religious rather than science.)

Secondly, what 'scientists' believed prior to (lets say) the 1600s is pretty much irrelevant. We've only been using the scientific method for a century or 2... much of what science did before that was mixed in with religion and superstition that you can't really consider the knowledge of (lets say) a 10th century 'scientist' to be accurate.

And it costs less to go to church than it does to go to a hockey game, or play hockey, or play any other sport. It costs less than to go to the local coffee shop.

But that's not what I was comparing it to... I was comparing it to the cost of sleeping in, or just spending the time talking with your family, neither of which has any cost, and both of which can be very rewarding. The fact that you're getting up early to go listen to someone talk about god means that you miss out on those other possibilities.

Besides, they've proven that the Bible is true in many accounts.

Its been shown to be wrong much more than its been shown to be right.

Genesis? The flood? Both contradict our knowledge of the origin of the universe and evolution. Exodus? No proof (outside the bible) of the Jews being significant slave labour in Egypt.

And prove to me where the Bible contradicts itself. I'll prove to you you're wrong (or my dad will )

I suggest you peruse the 'Skeptics annotated bible'... lots of contradictions are posted there. (Admittedly, they do tend to 'overreach' in order to state some of their contradictions, but its still gives a good idea of some of the problems with the bible.)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

For example, how does Judas die? In Mathew 27, he hung himself. In Acts 1, he tripped and fell.

And here's an exercise... go through the 4 gospels of the bible, and try to come up with a consistent (and coherent) account of the resurrection. In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there. Sometimes one person goes to the tomb first, sometimes its a group. You'd think that, given the importance of the resurrection story that they could at least get it right.

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

Then there's the stuff which is just plain wrong... like Leviticus 11, which says that bats are birds (which we now know are mammals). Seems to me that if the bible were actually a creation of god, he'd know the biology of the creatures he created.

" think this is indicative of the thought process of many believers. They become convinced that theirs is the 'right' belief not because they've actually made a rational decision based on all facts, but because of the way they were raised, and the fact that they were never exposed to other belief systems. (Had you been raised in 9th century scandinavia, you would have been just as convinced in the existence of Thor as you are in your current christian god.)"

Yes, I've often feared that to be true. I don't know how the system works, but I do know this.

Well, this is how the system works... in the vast majority of cases, children inherit the religion of their parents. End of story.

There are miracles done for me that wouldn't have happened if I weren't Christian. They've proven the Bible to be true. I've had spiritual feelings that I can't explain, not because I made them up, but because God was with me.

And had you lived in 9th century scandinavia, there were probably people who had the same sort of 'miracles' and the same sort of spiritual feelings.

We're humans... we've got both a curiosity, and an inbred instinct to find patterns in our life. Your spiritual feelings are likely a result of those factors.

If only I could convince you! But of course, this statement alone will be quoted by someone and certainly used against me.

Also, you have no proof that God DOESN'T exist.

You're right, we don't. We also don't have proof that big-foot doesn't exist, that there isn't a flying spagetti monster, and that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn living in my sock drawer.

What we can do is give proof that the bible is flawed (which I've done). We can also give proof that many of the myths surrounding Jesus are incorrect. If you want to continue believing in a god based on all that, then by all means go ahead... but in order to make your beliefs fit the evidence, you'll have to assume that 'god' basically has no interaction at all with us down here on earth (kind of the position of the deist).

Want to know what I find interesting? I find it interesting that we have a whole bunch of Holidays: Christmas, Easter, etc. based on Jesus' human life. Yet no one believes where it came from.

Actually, Christmas was celebrated in many pagan cultures long before Christ was born... it was a mid-winter festival involving the solstice. The early Christian church likely adopted the holiday season as a way to convince the pagans to convert.

I have a relative who took a picture and when it was developed, somehow pictures of angels appeared around her. Call it a glitch of technology, or a trick of the light. I call it evidence.

I call it a lens flair.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/"

Wrong, as it says in the New Testament, He allows all of His food to be eaten, including all forms of meat.

Some branches of Christianity are confused by what the Bible says. But the rules changed; before, it was a sign of faith (and for their protection) that they weren't supposed to eat meat. In the New Testament, that changed. It was NEW. Not OLD.

Of course, it also says in Malachi 4 "Remember ye the law of Moses". It also says in Psalm 19 "every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Or in Luke 16: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Of course, I'm sure that you'll use the excuse "Oh, you're not interpreting it correctly". But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)

[chess123mate]

"Genesis? The flood? Both contradict our knowledge of the origin of the universe and evolution. Exodus? No proof (outside the bible) of the Jews being significant slave labour in Egypt. "

Evolution has been proven to be wrong. The origin of the universe is a UNPROVEN THEORY!!! For your information, many books have been written on the subject, proving it wrong (evolution). That proves that even today's scientists have errors. They can only prove what is based on observations and testing, but not all of it is accurate. If it was, we wouldn't have disputes about global warming. Different scientists are saying different things, so don't try and say "they're perfect". They're not.

Evolution. What in the world is it again? Belief that humans came from apes? From monkeys? From (...) single-celled organisms? Why then do we find no evidence of this transition? Why didn't all the single-celled organisms evolve into more sentient beings? Why do apes still exist?

Genesis indeed indicates how the universe came to existance. But you'll never accept that so long as you're holding on to science, which explains practically nothing compared to what is out there. They have only theories. Some laws, like gravity, sure, but we don't even know what's on our Earth right now, how can we think we know what existed billions of years ago? That's plain stupidity to think humans are that smart.

The flood -- what evidence is against that? It's not like a flood is going to leave a mark that'll last years...

"Which still causes wear and tear on your shoes, causing them to wear out faster."

So? Someone else might decide to go jogging in the morning, and then they'll have to replace their shoes that much more! Does that stop them? Not at all!

Your arguments are kind of stupid. Walking is a bad thing? Consider it exercise, if nothing else.

Sleep or a soul-refreshing hour? Hmm... I'd go for a soul-refreshing hour, myself.

"sleeping in, or just spending the time talking with your family, neither of which has any cost, and both of which can be very rewarding. The fact that you're getting up early to go listen to someone talk about god means that you miss out on those other possibilities."

Sleep in on a Saturday, or go to a service that isn't in the morning.

Talk to your family before and after; go to church with your family. That's more rewarding than ONLY talking to your family anyway.

"For example, how does Judas die? In Mathew 27, he hung himself. In Acts 1, he tripped and fell.

And here's an exercise... go through the 4 gospels of the bible, and try to come up with a consistent (and coherent) account of the resurrection. In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there. Sometimes one person goes to the tomb first, sometimes its a group. You'd think that, given the importance of the resurrection story that they could at least get it right."

You do realize that all these accounts are technically written by people? Yes, I'm sure God did have a major influence on it all, but still...

This has been said before, to me, and likely to you. Take a group of people (say 10) and have them watch something they've never seen before, and write down what they see in as much detail as possible. Likelihood is, you're going to get 10 different accounts.

If anything, that proves that this is real. That there are a few details they didn't remember perfectly, or perhaps they just omitted it. Why would they omit it? Easy! They were writing to a certain group of people! It was meant for a specific audience.

If you're talking to a group of people who like cheese, you're going to emphasize as many incidents of what you're talking about to cheese, not ham! Talking about ham all day isn't going to get through to them as well as if you related all your stories to cheese.

"In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there"

The tomb was empty. There were angels there, too. But Jesus' body wasn't there, (thus it was empty). If you stand in an empty closet, you don't consider yourself an object in the closet, you still believe that the closet is empty.

"Well, this is how the system works... in the vast majority of cases, children inherit the religion of their parents. End of story."

If that was true, then everyone would have one religion -- Christianity (or perhaps Catholic, but regardless it would've been different than any religion today). No one would've invented other religions. If it wasn't Christianity, then it'd still be the same religion, whatever that was.

"Actually, Christmas was celebrated in many pagan cultures long before Christ was born... it was a mid-winter festival involving the solstice. The early Christian church likely adopted the holiday season as a way to convince the pagans to convert."

Yes.. I've heard that technically Jesus was born in mid-September, so they believe. I guess it doesn't matter, that's the day we choose to celebrate His birth on Earth. However, your statement supports the concept that there was an "early Christian church", which could only have been formed after Jesus came.

"Of course, it also says in Malachi 4 "Remember ye the law of Moses". It also says in Psalm 19 "every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Or in Luke 16: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Of course, I'm sure that you'll use the excuse "Oh, you're not interpreting it correctly". But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)"

Junk. Your first quote is in and referring to the Old Testament. And as for your 2nd quote, judgments refer to Judgement Day, when God judges everyone, and as far as we know that's the point at which you find out whether you are going to Heaven or Hell. Of course, we should know that beforehand, but anyways...

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Yep. That's true.

"But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)"

More junk. Are you not already interpreting it for your own purposes? You've been interpreting it every time you quote.

That's like if I said "It's best to write a book when you're up to it", and one person interprets it one way, and another guy thinks I'm saying something else. I know that's not the best example, but hopefully you understand my point.

It's also like me saying something in French, and French-English translator translates it, and then you read it. Will it be perfect? No. After 2000 years of translations, will it be in perfect word-for-word condition? No!

"(If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)"

I'm sure he could. He already led people to write something, though. If that's not good enough for you, then no one can help you. It's your future you're dooming. Of course, you wouldn't believe me if I forecasted the future minute-for-minute (not that I could, of course). You wouldn't believe me if you saw an angel tomorrow! You might consider yourself crazy, but you'd never believe. Would you?

Just because science can't prove something, does that mean you want to bet your soul on it? ["Oh, I don't have a soul".] Of course not.. you wouldn't want to admit to having anything that would indicate you're wrong, after all.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you believe you do have a soul. Wonderful! What do you believe is going to happen to it after you die?

"First of all, what 'scientists' actually threatened to kill anyone? (That sounds more like the act of the religious rather than science.)"

I don't know the details, I never studied it. I'm not going to bother, either. But I do know people would kill you back then for trying to contradict scientific facts, or their beliefs, or whatever you want. If not kill, then at least look down upon you like you're crazy or something. As I said, I don't know the details, I've just heard scraps of information. Maybe you'd like to look it up or something? You seem very knowledgeable.

What do you believe in, anyway? Nothing?

The funny thing about believing in nothing is that you believe that the universe is formed on chance. Take a look at science. How can you explain the intricacy of it? Was it chance that made our life? What made that chance in the first place?

[guyser]

"What do you believe in, anyway? Nothing?

That the earth was formed 13 billion years ago , not 6000.

I believe tin hatters are nuts.

[M.Dancer]

Evolution. What in the world is it again? Belief that humans came from apes? From monkeys? From (...) single-celled organisms? Why then do we find no evidence of this transition? Why didn't all the single-celled organisms evolve into more sentient beings? Why do apes still exist?

Find someone who categorically dismisses the evolution and you generally find someone who doesn't understand or know what it mean or is. The above poster is a poster-boy for that.

1) Humans came from apes.

No we did not. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, in fact, we are a separate species of ape.

2)Why do apes still exist

See answer above.

3) Why didn't all the single-celled organisms evolve into more sentient beings

Why should they have? A common misconception of evolution is that evolution has a goal and the goal is to perfect a higher form. It doesn't. Like shit, evolution happens. Sometimes it can evolve a creature to the point of extinction. Sometimes the evolutionary traits that emerge produce no tangible benefits for the creature. Sometimes it produces a creature that is well adapted to it environment. It's a crap shoot....but with <carl sagan voice>billions and billions </carl sagan voice>of rolls of the dice, sometimes it does something startling.

[M.Dancer]

The flood -- what evidence is against that? It's not like a flood is going to leave a mark that'll last years...

1) No one is required to provide evidence to prove a negative

2) There is a wealth of evidence of great land shaping floods in pre-history. The Black sea, mediterranean, etc etc...they tend to leave evidence that lasts for 10s of thousands of years. There is no evidence though of kangaroos being able to swim from Australia to board the ark and I expect no one to provide any.

[segnosaur]

"Genesis? The flood? Both contradict our knowledge of the origin of the universe and evolution. Exodus? No proof (outside the bible) of the Jews being significant slave labour in Egypt. "

Evolution has been proven to be wrong.

Actually, no it hasn't.

The only people who deny evolution (at least in western society) are religious fundamentalists who seem to lack a basic understanding about science. (They use false claims like the "second law of thermodynamics is violated" without actually understanding what exactly the laws of thermodynamics are.)

The vast majority of scientists (>99%) accept evolution. This includes those involved in both the biological sciences, and those involved in areas such as astronomy (where the age of the universe is very relevant).

The origin of the universe is a UNPROVEN THEORY!!!

Keep in mind that the scientific definition of the word 'theory' is different than the definition of 'theory' that the average person might use In Science, a 'theory' is not just some random guess about what might or might not be true... its an explanation that's been repeatedly tested and has held up over time. The big bang theory explains our current observations (such as background microwave radiation, red shift, and hydrogen/helium ratios).

Not that science does not make mistakes. However, when mistakes ARE made, science picks itself up, incorporates the corrections into its body of knowledge, and continues on.

Evolution. What in the world is it again? Belief that humans came from apes? From monkeys? From (...) single-celled organisms? Why then do we find no evidence of this transition? Why didn't all the single-celled organisms evolve into more sentient beings? Why do apes still exist?

Actually, technically humans didn't "come from apes or monkeys". Instead, we both descended from a common ancestor. (Of course, someone could argue that technically we still are 'apes', since we're classified as being 'great apes'.) And we do have plenty of evidence that this has happened... transitional fossils (e.g. various species of australopithecus for humans), genetic similarities corresponding to fossil and anatomical appearances, etc.

As for why apes still exist... ask yourself... my ancestors came from Europe. Yet Europeans still exist. Why is that?

A more scientific way to view things... new species are created (or diverge from others) when part of the population becomes isolated. The lack of interbreeding allows genetic drift in both sub-populations (and if one of the sub-populations is small, or is subject to environmental pressures the change will be faster.) Eventually, the result of this genetic drift is that the 2 populations are no longer able to interbreed.

The flood -- what evidence is against that? It's not like a flood is going to leave a mark that'll last years...

Well, first there's the fact that there is much more variation in species than we would have had there actually been a flood which wiped out all but a few animals.

Secondly, there are all the technical problems with the story of Noah's ark, such as:

- How would fish survive? Many saltwater fish cannot survive in fresh. Many freshwater fish cannot survive in salt water. If there were a global flood you would have had fresh and salt water mixing... if the result was (overall) fresh, then the salt water fish would have died.

- How would cats survive? Cats require taurine (a chemical they cannot synthesize, but is found in the meat they eat). Had cats been forced to exist only on the ark (with no mice to eat), they would have died.

- Who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Rabies? Who had Ebola? Who had small pox? Many of these diseases require a living host to survive. And many of them kill or incapacitate quickly. Someone on the Ark must have been VERRRY sick indeed.

"Which still causes wear and tear on your shoes, causing them to wear out faster."

So? Someone else might decide to go jogging in the morning, and then they'll have to replace their shoes that much more! Does that stop them? Not at all!

Your arguments are kind of stupid. Walking is a bad thing? Consider it exercise, if nothing else.

Then instead of walking an hour to go to church, skip the church and walk 2 hours... you'll get more exercise. Or walk an hour, come home, and talk to your family.

"sleeping in, or just spending the time talking with your family, neither of which has any cost, and both of which can be very rewarding. The fact that you're getting up early to go listen to someone talk about god means that you miss out on those other possibilities."

Sleep in on a Saturday, or go to a service that isn't in the morning.

The fact that you're going to a service at ANY time means that you are missing out on whatever other enjoyable activities you COULD have been doing.

"For example, how does Judas die? In Mathew 27, he hung himself. In Acts 1, he tripped and fell.

And here's an exercise... go through the 4 gospels of the bible, and try to come up with a consistent (and coherent) account of the resurrection. In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there. Sometimes one person goes to the tomb first, sometimes its a group. You'd think that, given the importance of the resurrection story that they could at least get it right."

You do realize that all these accounts are technically written by people? Yes, I'm sure God did have a major influence on it all, but still...

So, your argument is that the bible isn't perfect because its not really the word of god.

First of all, its a cop-out. You asked for contradictions. I gave them to you. If you were going to dismiss any contradictions you should have said at the outset "I know there are problems with the bible but I'm willing to accept those flaws".

Secondly, if you really think the bible was written by people, why are you trusting any of it? After all, how do you know if Jesus actually existed? How do you know it wasn't all made up by someone on a drug trip? After all, you're willing to dismiss some of it because of flaws. Just how much are you willing to dismiss? Why dismiss some parts and not others?

"In some of the stories, when people go to the tomb its empty; in others there is an angle or 2 there"

The tomb was empty. There were angels there, too. But Jesus' body wasn't there, (thus it was empty). If you stand in an empty closet, you don't consider yourself an object in the closet, you still believe that the closet is empty.

The point is that there was either one or 2 angels there. The accounts aren't consistent. Being able to count to 2 isn't that hard. My 5 year old nephew can do that. So why can't the gospels come to an agreement over something so simple? One or 2 angels.

Of course, there's also the other problems with the accounts... in some cases one person came back to check on the tomb, in others more than 1 person; in some cases Jesus ascended from one location, in other accounts he ascended from a different location.

"Of course, it also says in Malachi 4 "Remember ye the law of Moses". It also says in Psalm 19 "every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Or in Luke 16: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Of course, I'm sure that you'll use the excuse "Oh, you're not interpreting it correctly". But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)"

Junk. Your first quote is in and referring to the Old Testament.

Yes, it was old testament. But there's no qualifications on that. It doesn't say "remember, until you get around to writing a new testament".

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Yep. That's true.

So, by that quote, the laws of the Old testament should be followed?

"But the problem is, when you start trying to interpret a "Holy book" then you can no longer say that its the inerrant word of god; after all, you are putting your own spin on things, and involving whatever attitudes and morality you have. (If there were some masterful god, couldn't he write a book that had no such flaws?)"

More junk. Are you not already interpreting it for your own purposes? You've been interpreting it every time you quote.

But I'm not the one claiming the bible is some sort of "holy book". I'm not claiming that there's some god who's existence is revealed by the writings. You (and many other christians) are the ones making that claim. So you're the one that is responsible for justifying your opinions about the book. All I have to do is show that the book is flawed, that it cannot be accepted in its current form.

It's also like me saying something in French, and French-English translator translates it, and then you read it. Will it be perfect? No. After 2000 years of translations, will it be in perfect word-for-word condition? No!

Except many of the problems in the book go far beyond what can be explained by translation errors.

Of course, you wouldn't believe me if I forecasted the future minute-for-minute (not that I could, of course). You wouldn't believe me if you saw an angel tomorrow! You might consider yourself crazy, but you'd never believe. Would you?

I go where the evidence leads. If you could really demonstrate that you could predict the future (under controlled circumstances) then I would accept that as evidence of the supernatural and possibly of god.

But you haven't demonstrated such abilities. In fact, nobody has. And criticizing me for not wanting to accept non existent evidence isn't really fair now, is it.

Just because science can't prove something, does that mean you want to bet your soul on it? ["Oh, I don't have a soul".] Of course not..

Again, this brings us back to Pascal's wager, and the problems associated with it. (Namely, you're assuming that your belief and system of worship will somehow give you a better chance at helping your long term soul... something that may not be the case, if your current understanding of god is flawed.)

you wouldn't want to admit to having anything that would indicate you're wrong, after all.

Hey, I'd love to find out that there is actually a soul and the prospect of everlasting life. But, I'm a skeptic. I believe in following the evidence. I see no evidence for a soul or for a god. Many of the things we observe today can be explained by science, and the trend has been to find more and more stuff that can be explained by science.

Wanting to believe in a soul just because you want some sort of immortality is, in my opinion, a form of self-deception. In fact, it makes me appreciate what we have here and now a little more, since its likely all we'll have. So, make the most of it.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you believe you do have a soul. Wonderful! What do you believe is going to happen to it after you die?

I'm going to be turned into soylent green.

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

"First of all, what 'scientists' actually threatened to kill anyone? (That sounds more like the act of the religious rather than science.)"

I don't know the details, I never studied it. I'm not going to bother, either. But I do know people would kill you back then for trying to contradict scientific facts, or their beliefs, or whatever you want.

If you don't know the details, and you never studied it, then why are you repeating it? You specifically criticized science for killing people who didn't accept their theories. Shouldn't you have proof of that? Otherwise, aren't you bearing false witness? (Seems there may be some sort of restricition against that. Of course it was in the old testament, so you no longer have to worry about that.)

What do you believe in, anyway? Nothing?

Belief implies that you accept something to be true, without evidence.

I am an athiest, with a slight leaning towards agnosticism. I accept evolution and the big bang theory as the best explaination of how we came to be at this point in our existence. I believe that Occam's razor is a very useful principle in understanding the world.

If there is a god, there is no evidence. A god might still exist, but it would have created the universe and left us to evolve with no interference.

[M.Dancer]

I am an agnostic leaning towards Scoliosisism

[chess123mate]

1) No one is required to provide evidence to prove a negative

2) There is a wealth of evidence of great land shaping floods in pre-history. The Black sea, mediterranean, etc etc...they tend to leave evidence that lasts for 10s of thousands of years. There is no evidence though of kangaroos being able to swim from Australia to board the ark and I expect no one to provide any.

1. So I can just say "You are NOT alive." and I don't have to provide evidence for that to be true? Cool!

I will post no more after this.

Evolution is stupidity. You believe in this yourself, though there is no proof. You claim 99% or higher of scientists believe in evolution. You are WRONG. This is not a valid fact. Maybe 99% of the scientists of YOUR DEFINITION do, but by your definition they have to meet tons of criteria that exclude many scientists.

I have not done the Bible justice, and I am sorry. If you want to argue properly, go to a local Bible expert. Usually ministers/priests can help you there. I'm not the person to ask about this.

Anyways, you're point doesn't make sense, about costs. You're basically saying that life costs, so don't live. Eating costs, so don't eat. That doesn't make sense, yet you are saying this.

Drinking water costs, so don't drink!

That's ridiculous! Not doing something because it's a living cost doesn't make sense unless you are in extreme circumstances.

I have faith. I have proof. If you don't believe the Bible, that's your own undoing. There might be inconsistencies, but as I said, it WAS written by different people. To different audiences. And want to know something? It WAS guided by God. Just look in the Bible. I don't think you've done that enough.

It's not enough to look at a few inconsistencies that don't make sense and say "that's it, the Bible is dumb".

I know you don't know what you're talking about, because you've offered the "beginner's argument", that it could've been some high person late at night writing the Bible. Say that again, to yourself, and actually READ the Bible, and try and figure out how anyone can do that. Better yet, get an NIV version and read the sidenotes. An NIV I've got even explains a point of proof.

Of course, my question is, why are you contradicting yourself? You've contradicted yourself with that argument. You've said that "the Bible is based on fact" yet "isn't possible". So, which is it? Both? Hmmm... something for anyone looking at these forums to think about.

Anyways, good-bye. I'm not likely to post on these forums again.

[Drea]

I am an agnostic leaning towards Scoliosisism

excellent!

[Oleg Bach]

excellent!

A little prayer in the public schools would be good..say like this - dear lord..I will be good and promise not to bring my piece to school or sell crack today - amen.

[segnosaur]

1. So I can just say "You are NOT alive." and I don't have to provide evidence for that to be true? Cool!

The difference is, I can actually provide evidence that I am alive.

Evolution is stupidity. You believe in this yourself, though there is no proof. You claim 99% or higher of scientists believe in evolution. You are WRONG. This is not a valid fact. Maybe 99% of the scientists of YOUR DEFINITION do, but by your definition they have to meet tons of criteria that exclude many scientists.

Ever hear of project Steve? Its a petition, run by the National Center for Science Education, which is signed only by people named Steve (or some variant, like Stephen, or Stephanie). The list has over 800 people who have signed the list. Only about 1% of the U.S. population is named Steve, so that works out to approximately 80,000 total scientists (most of whom work in biology or other fields where knowledge of the age of the universe is relevant).

On the other hand, creationists have published their own lists of people who deny evolution. The longest list I've ever seen has about 200 names. That works out to be 1/4% of the total. (And the creation list typically contain many engineers, mathematicians, etc. who do not actually work in any field where they would be exposed to actual research dealing with evolution.

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

I have not done the Bible justice, and I am sorry. If you want to argue properly, go to a local Bible expert. Usually ministers/priests can help you there. I'm not the person to ask about this.

Actually, the best bible experts are probably atheists. After all, many former believers become atheists after they read the bible and start to recognize the flaws in it.

Actually, I have talked to 'so called' experts in the past... most use the same types of excuse that you do, either "it was written by man" or "its something symbolic", yet none could ever actually point out any way that they could adequately differentiate the parts that were 'accurate' and what could be dismissed.

Anyways, you're point doesn't make sense, about costs. You're basically saying that life costs, so don't live. Eating costs, so don't eat. That doesn't make sense, yet you are saying this.

Actually, have you ever heard of the term 'opportunity costs'? It refers not to the absolute cost of something, but the cost of what must be given up. If you buy a new car, the price tag may be $20,000, but the true measure of the cost is what you WON'T be able to do when you spend that much money on a car... perhaps vacations or home renovations that you won't be able to do, or delaying retirement.

That's what I'm referring to with the 'cost' of religion... Many people wouldn't "enjoy" church if they found out there was no such thing as heaven, or a 'soul'.

I have faith. I have proof.

Contradiction. If you have 'proof', then you don't have faith. Faith implies belief with no evidence.

If you don't believe the Bible, that's your own undoing. There might be inconsistencies, but as I said, it WAS written by different people.

Of course, you do realize that at one point you made the claim that there were no inconsistencies? What exactly does it say about your ability to look at things logically when one of the central tenants of your belief (the bible is perfect) is demonstrated to be false? Do you look rationally at things? No, you assume your dogma is still correct and find some way to argue around the point.

To different audiences. And want to know something? It WAS guided by God. Just look in the Bible. I don't think you've done that enough.

Lets see... you claim that the bible is perfect; I point out the flaws in the bible. And YOUR telling ME I haven't looked at the bible enough? If you really looked at the bible, wouldn't you have known about those problems before you made your claim?

It's not enough to look at a few inconsistencies that don't make sense and say "that's it, the Bible is dumb".

Actually, its more than just a 'few inconsistencies'. There are literally hundreds of flaws in the bible. I just pointed out a few that would be less likely to be argued as "oh, that's just a misinterpretation".

Of course, my question is, why are you contradicting yourself? You've contradicted yourself with that argument. You've said that "the Bible is based on fact" yet "isn't possible". So, which is it? Both? Hmmm... something for anyone looking at these forums to think about.

Who claimed the bible was 'based on fact' (well, perhaps other than you).

The bible DOES mention real people and locations that actually existed in the bible. But then, so do the Harry Potter books. The authors simply incorporated stuff that was real when they were generating their myths and fantasies. That doesn't make the myths any truer.

Anyways, good-bye. I'm not likely to post on these forums again.

Amazing... just wonder what the poster here thought he'd get by posting on the forums to begin with. I guess his dogma was unable to handle being challenged, so he finds it necessary to run away.

[Melanie_]

Amazing... just wonder what the poster here thought he'd get by posting on the forums to begin with. I guess his dogma was unable to handle being challenged, so he finds it necessary to run away.

I think he was about 15 years old, and just trying to figure out how to rationally explain his irrational belief system. Maybe no one has ever really presented serious arguments to what he has always been taught is true. Oh well, I suspect he will be more comfortable in a forum where everyone agrees with him, at least until he grows up, anyway.

[jefferiah]

Should one be practicing religion in a government facility of a government seperate of the church?

Of course they should, if that is their choice. A student praying in school or a citizen praying on public property is not a violation of the seperation of church and state. They are not establishing a state religion by doing so. If the school itself were to mandate prayer then it would be a violation. But for an individual to pray of his own volition is not an example of a state religion.

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited May 21, 2008 by jefferiah