Why are people afraid of atheism?

[plain 12]

Wow, everybody has been busy lil' beavers posting over the weekend. It takes me a little bit of time to play catchup, Wasa, because I rarely peruse and post on this board on the weekends. Kids trying to hog all my time, dontyaknow. But I will attempt to answer all your previous posts.

I didn't really think you'd be afraid of me per se.....you just said something like "Damn right we're afraid of Christinas", and I am a Christian, so I was just applying the statement to its logical end.

I think we're getting wires crossed on the ACLU thing. I don't want specific religious prayer in school (for the reasons you've mentioned), but I see nothing wrong with a moment of silence, which is what the Ill case centers on. Why would the ACLU fight a moment of silence? Why did they in Va. when that state tried to pass a "moment of silence" law (that's the one that went to the supreme court.....oh, I can post links if you want)? And why has the ACLU not filed a brief on the Muslim public school in NY?

I don't even want creationism taught in public school, McMadam. But I don't want evolution or the big bang theory taught as a fact, either, since they're both only theories, as is creationism. What my ideal teacher would say, basically, is "that as of right now, many scientists believe X, or that the evidence supports Y....but some people believe that the universe was created by a higher power. But since this is school and not church, we'll focus on X and Y". See, I don't mind if a teacher doesn't teach creationism, as long as she doesn't mock it in front of the class. Again, I don't see all the fuss there, as long as both sides are mentioned fairly.

And, I've taken away some education from here. I thought that atheists didn't believe in the concept of a higher power (and therefore an afterlife) in any way, shape, or form. This is kind of a hot button issue, and I would remind my fellow Christians to try and temper their passion a little ('cause we're not going to change somebody's mind on the R&R forum of LBT).

[gadgetlady 4]

Actually, many believed that the main purpose was to practice their religion, whatever religion that may have been including paganism.

Roots? What roots? Native American roots? If you really want to be clear about it we should be smoking peyote and doing Native American dances. Perhaps when speaking of roots you should refer to your own and not those of everyone else. You are free to worship the Cookie Monster if you wish, you may not use tax dollars to push it on others or force it on innocent school children. That really is not asking too much.

While people are certainly free by virtue of the US Constitution to worship whomever they choose, including the Cookie Monster, let's be clear that the Founding Fathers overwhelmingly worshipped the God of the Bible -- not the Cookie Monster, and not pagan gods. The Pilgrims did not originate from Native Americans, but rather saw it as one of their purposes to be missionaries to the Native Americans.

I read a study once which indicated that over 90% of the political documents of the time were based on the Bible, and something like 30-40% had direct quotations from the Bible.

Here are a few quotes from some famous men that many of us recognize:

Horace Greeley: It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

Patrick Henry: The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.

Thomas Jefferson: I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.

In early schools, the Bible was often the only or one of the few texts used in the public school system.

If you look at the history of the major college institutions that are acknowledged as some of the best in the world (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc.), you will find Christianity at their roots. Yale was founded by 10 Congregationalist ministers to train ministers. Princeton was founded to train Presbyterian ministers. Harvard was named for a minister who left his library and half his estate to the institution. The list goes on and on and on.

There's a reason that courts and legislatures all across the country open with prayer -- as they have since their inception. This isn't rocket science.

My point was and remains that we cannot and should not obfuscate our roots (and by "our" I mean the great men who founded this country). I understand and believe in freedom of religion, which is what the First Amendment guarantees. What it does NOT guarantee is freedom FROM religion.

Until then this is more proof that we are not doing a good job of teaching basics in school, such as basic science. We have adults that don't understand scientific theory. That is a shame.

I think it's a tribute to the American people that we don't buy evolution hook-line-and-sinker despite all of the attempts to the contrary. It might be a great little diversion for you and those who don't believe in Intelligent Design to poke fun at those you feel inferior in knowledge to you, but there are a great number of learned non-scientists and scientists alike who have serious issues with the theory of evolution. And I say this full well understanding what scientific theory is.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadget - you stunning lady that i banter w/ - i have a face ; while your still get my big lab to look at.

Why thank you, luluc. That's nice to hear, especially when my weight loss is so stalled (due entirely to my own eating habits). And I would love to look at your face rather than a big lab

[gadgetlady 4]

And, I've taken away some education from here. I thought that atheists didn't believe in the concept of a higher power (and therefore an afterlife) in any way, shape, or form.

You really need to see Expelled. At the end of the movie, Ben Stein was interviewing Richard Dawkins and Dawkins offered the theory that the earth might have been "seeded" by external beings (the implication was aliens).

[MacMadame 81]

While people are certainly free by virtue of the US Constitution to worship whomever they choose, including the Cookie Monster, let's be clear that the Founding Fathers overwhelmingly worshipped the God of the Bible -- not the Cookie Monster, and not pagan gods. The Pilgrims did not originate from Native Americans, but rather saw it as one of their purposes to be missionaries to the Native Americans.

To which I say: so? What does that have to do with the fact that Creationism is a crackpot theory with no scientific basis? It's not even something that most Christians believe in and there is no evidence that the majority of Founding Fathers believed in it either.

OTOH, they did believe in slavery. So, by your logic, we should all go out and buy a slave in honor of our Founding Fathers! Only I think not because slavery is wrong just as Creationism is not a scientific theory.

[plain 12]

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Correct, it's not a scientific theory. But it is a theory nonetheless. And you'd be hard pressed to find even a few Christians that don't believe in some form of creationism!

But....here's the thing. A belief in creationism doesn't, IMO, rule out the big bang theory. I don't have any problem thinking that it maybe God created the world in a big cosmic *poof*. I do have a question about how somebody could look at the complexity of the human body and of the world and just think it happened by "coincidence". But like somebody posted earlier, I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[gadgetlady 4]

To which I say: so? What does that have to do with the fact that Creationism is a crackpot theory with no scientific basis? It's not even something that most Christians believe in and there is no evidence that the majority of Founding Fathers believed in it either.

Two separate issues. I was not saying Creation Science should be taught in school because the Founding Fathers believed in it. My discussion about Christianity and the Founding Fathers was speaking to the general topic of the mixing of religion and politics. I only mentioned Creation Science / Intelligent Design because someone else had.

That being said, Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design may not be what you believe, but there are many learned scientists who do have serious questions about evolution. I don't have a problem with your not believing it, but I think you do yourself a disservice by calling it a crackpot theory with no scientific basis.

Edited May 6, 2008 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

Correct, it's not a scientific theory. But it is a theory nonetheless.

plain, are you aware of the depth of scientific study on the issue? There are graduate-level science degrees offered in the subject. I'm sure they will be pooh-pooh'd by those who doubt the theory (and haven't more than given it a cursory glance), but the depth and quality of scientific research devoted to the topic isn't insignificant by any stretch of the imagination.

[MacMadame 81]

That being said, Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design may not be what you believe, but there are many learned scientists who do have serious questions about evolution. I don't have a problem with your not believing it, but I think you do yourself a disservice by calling it a crackpot theory with no scientific basis.

First of all, there is a difference between questioning some aspects of the Theory of Evolution and believing in Intelligent Design. ID requires you to believe that the earth is much younger than we know it is based on real science, such as carbon dating. Therefore, by definition, it is a crackpot theory because it contradicts known facts. No credible scientists believe in it.

Credible scientists do question aspects of the Theory of Evolution and are trying to refine it. But this is more like Einstein coming up with the Theory of Relativity, which seemingly contradicted some aspects of what we knew about the physics of the universe at the time, but didn't throw it all out the window and reality actually compliments and extends what we know.

Fundamentalist Christians try to dress "Intelligent" Design up and make it seem scientific, and repeat over and over that the Theory of Evolution is "just a theory" and Intelligent Design is "just a theory" so that makes them equally valid, but that doesn't make it so. The same thing with their "many learned scientists" believe it.

As for most Christians believing in it, as another poster stated... most Christians believe the universe was created by God. But that is not the same thing as believing in Intelligent Design. ID says that the earth was literally created in 7 days, for example, and I don't know many Christians who believe that. Most Christian faiths don't take the Bible quite that literally.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

While people are certainly free by virtue of the US Constitution to worship whomever they choose, including the Cookie Monster, let's be clear that the Founding Fathers overwhelmingly worshipped the God of the Bible -- not the Cookie Monster, and not pagan gods. The Pilgrims did not originate from Native Americans, but rather saw it as one of their purposes to be missionaries to the Native Americans.

Well, you are the one that was talking about "roots" and the roots of the US are Native Americans.

And yes, missionaries they were! They abducted small children from their homes, forced them into religious training, kept them until they could no longer remember their family members, beat the hell out of them with straps and such, hired them out as cheap labor, and then sent them home with clear instructions to convert their family. They called this wonderful process assimilation. When you call it missionaries it tends to take away from the horrors that actually did happen.

Such loving people!

I read a study once which indicated that over 90% of the political documents of the time were based on the Bible, and something like 30-40% had direct quotations from the Bible.

I have some quotes of my own:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

--Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, January 1774

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."

--James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

". . . no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

—Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter, 1787

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see, but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."

--Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

--John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813

"Man is fed with fables through life, and leaves it in the belief he knows something of what has been passing, when in truth he has known nothing but what has passed under his own eye." —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1823

I don't know, maybe it was like Hitler. Hitler was no more Catholic than I am but if he would have told people his true beliefs, he would have never been put in a position of power. Perhaps the same holds true for some of our founding fathers.

[gadgetlady 4]

First of all, there is a difference between questioning some aspects of the Theory of Evolution and believing in Intelligent Design. ID requires you to believe that the earth is much younger than we know it is based on real science, such as carbon dating.

That's not true. There are old-earth Intelligent Design proponents, just as there are old-earth Creation Scientists. I don't agree with them, but there are quite a few out there.

Therefore, by definition, it is a crackpot theory because it contradicts known facts. No credible scientists believe in it.

Credible to YOU. It is certainly credible to a lot of other people. And the age of the earth is NOT a "known fact".

ID says that the earth was literally created in 7 days

That's just plain wrong. From the Discovery Institute in Seattle, http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php:

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Addressing the question whether Creation Science = ID:

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

And as to whether ID is a scientific theory:

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Edited May 6, 2008 by gadgetlady

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Correct, it's not a scientific theory. But it is a theory nonetheless. And you'd be hard pressed to find even a few Christians that don't believe in some form of creationism!

But....here's the thing. A belief in creationism doesn't, IMO, rule out the big bang theory. I don't have any problem thinking that it maybe God created the world in a big cosmic *poof*. I do have a question about how somebody could look at the complexity of the human body and of the world and just think it happened by "coincidence". But like somebody posted earlier, I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I remember when I was a kid, my Catholic (yet opened minded Catholic mother) was answering questions about Adam and Eve. I'll never forget it, I was in 6th grade. Science class... teacher starts off explaining that there is a great controversy about evolution but she was going to teach it because this was science class. I didn't get what the big issue was, who cares? I just wanted to get good grades. She made it clear it was theory, what a theory was based within science, etc.

She asked that we all go home and discuss this with our parents in case our parents had a problem with her teaching this. (this was in the late 60s/early 70s).

I did, went home and told my Mom and she shrugged her shoulders. She said that maybe Adam and Eve were the first humans from evoluation.

I think some Christians are very closed minded, they throw out facts because they want to believe.

My nephew is a newbie atheist, and yes... I couldn't be more proud. He's thinking for himself vs. referring to the bible to come up with his opinions on the world around him. He commented that it takes a lot of guts to be an atheist in this world. While I knew what he meant I responded that it probably takes more guts to be a Christian and believe in the impossible while covering your eyes and not seeing facts and common sense. I don't want him feeling sorry for himself because he's going against the majority, or sitting on a pity pot because someone points a finger at him with a raised eyebrow. He believes what he believes, he should be proud that he's questioning the world around him. If there is a god, and I lack belief that there is, then this god gave him a bit of common sense. He needs to use it.

And by that I'm referring to the extreme nutjob types, not your typical Christian.

BTW, Plain... if it takes a God to create a baby because a baby is so amazingly spectacular, who created your God? ;o)

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I didn't really think you'd be afraid of me per se.....you just said something like "Damn right we're afraid of Christinas", and I am a Christian, so I was just applying the statement to its logical end.

No, I think I wrote that "many" are afraid of Christians.

I think we're getting wires crossed on the ACLU thing. I don't want specific religious prayer in school (for the reasons you've mentioned), but I see nothing wrong with a moment of silence, which is what the Ill case centers on. Why would the ACLU fight a moment of silence? Why did they in Va. when that state tried to pass a "moment of silence" law (that's the one that went to the supreme court.....oh, I can post links if you want)? And why has the ACLU not filed a brief on the Muslim public school in NY?

All they have to do is take the "prayer" part out of the moment of silence and the ACLU goes away. But nooooo, the school thus far insists on having that one word in there, prayer. I don't think the ACLU is out of line in this case at all. The school is free to have a moment of silence, isn't that the issue?

I'm not familiar with the other cases, you'd have to give me more info or links.

And, I've taken away some education from here. I thought that atheists didn't believe in the concept of a higher power (and therefore an afterlife) in any way, shape, or form. This is kind of a hot button issue, and I would remind my fellow Christians to try and temper their passion a little ('cause we're not going to change somebody's mind on the R&R forum of LBT).

Many assume the same thing. But the concept of an afterlife existed long before Christianity so the two concepts (afterlife and Christianity) don't necessarily go hand in hand.

[plain 12]

Ok, now we're talking! I like the more civil tone!!

Gadgetlady, I mean intelligent design is not a "scientific" theory because it can never be absolutely proven (although it can never be dis-proven, either). You either believe it or you don't.

Macmadame, I don't get where you're referencing the age of the Earth. Why would Christians (and actually Jews and Muslims, since we share those books of the Bible) claim the Earth was younger than it actually was? Nobody thinks the Bible was literally written on day 6. *edit* Ok, I was googling and saw where some nutjobs came up with the "young Earth" theory. It goes like this: they traced the genealogy from Jesus back to Adam and tallied up the years. Oooooookaaaaaaaay..........BTW, this group states unequivically that dinosaurs lived with people. Right. Ah well.....there's some in every group. Regardless, I think intelligent design should at least be mentioned (that term covers every conceivable religion, past and present, right?)

Wasa, there has to be a "start point" to creation, no matter how you believe it started, right? I mean, where did the cosmic dust and radiation come from before it all collided together to form the universe?

I'm glad your nephew is questioning things, both secular and spiritual. I hope he keeps his open mind. Ya never know where it might possibly lead him one day.

The main "perk" I get from my Christianity is peace. What ultimately gives you a sense of peace, Wasa? MacM? (BTW, not a "loaded" question. I really want to know)

[TommyO 5]

My 2 Cents, ......... Forget it, I know I can only say something sarcastic so I won't say anything.

Oh except, Gadget, your Hot, don't worry I'm am extremely happily married. Just thought I would be civil after your last note to me on another thread.

TommyO