# Least Trusted Minority



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

Atheists Identified as America's Most Distrusted Minority, 
According to Sociological Study

Washington, DC-American's increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to those who don't believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota's department of sociology. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that *Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in "sharing their vision of American society." *Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. "Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years," says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study's lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today's atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past-they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. "It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common 'core' of values that make them trustworthy-and in America, that 'core' has historically been religious," says Edgell. Many of the study's respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. "Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens-they share an understanding of right and wrong," she said. "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one's exposure to diversity, education and political orientation-with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It's the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States.

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/pr ... distrusted

What do you think? Agree/disagree?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just finished watching a movie by Ben Stein called "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". It's about how the evolution scientists politically squash any research that even uses the term Intelligent Design. One reputable scientist from the Smithsonian lost his job because a peer reviewed and published paper simply had the phrase. He did not push the idea, he just mentioned it. The movie is full of that type of example. The first thing they call these people is creationists. They are brutal in their attacks.

I always thought science was to be open minded and explore all possibilities, but it has been tainted by politics. Many compete by destroying the opposition, not by offering leading science of their own. I think it's despicable of people when they try to rise above others not by excelling themselves, but by tearing others down.

I have read often of this discrepancy in science, I have watched videos, and I have experienced it first hand. I would trust Bin Laden before I trusted an atheist. I don't offer that statement in jest, or hyperbole, but rather in all sincerity. Those I know personally are viciouse people with little concience. I am sure some good ones exist, I just have not met them.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

One of my best friends is one of the "good ones". Morals exist in the absence of a belief in a supreme being. I know several of them that I trust quite a bit.

There are plenty of smug atheists who think that because they read Dawkins' book they have carte blanche to talk town to people... Those people are idiots.

That Bin Laden statement is INSANE! The dude wants to kill all of us. He'd have no qualms whatsoever about lying to you if it accomplished his goal of getting more Americans killed.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

> I am sure some good ones exist, I just have not met them.


You probably have. Thing is, there's no 'sign' a person is an atheist or not. Unless you ask each person you meet what their religion is...



> I always thought science was to be open minded and explore all possibilities


Creation isnt science, though.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Creation isnt science, though.


It is if your looking for all possibilities. It isn't if your closed minded. That's nearly what Ben Steins movie was about. It was about intelligent design. 
huntingdude, I responded to your PM, and will share a couple of thoughts here.


> intelligence and trust are not related. I didn't see that video as any defense for atheists. There are extremely intelligent atheists, extremely intelligent Christians, extremely intelligent Muslims. The video meant nothing.


and the other:


> It's a huge universe with infinite possibilities. Carl Sagan does have to be a fool to say their can be no God. I believe there is a great possibility of life far more advanced than ours somewhere in the universe. We may just be stocked on this planet like fish in a wetland. A painter calls a painting his creation. I would imagine an advanced being capable of genetic engineering 10,000 years ago may be capable of creating life and a life force that goes beyond what we see as death. The possibilities are endless. In that light I see people of faith far more intelligent than the average atheist. Ask yourself which mind is really closed.


I might add to that: As children the whole universe is our family. As we get older we discover that there is a city, then a state, then a nation, then the world, then many people stop because they do not possess the imagination to carry them beyond that. Carl Seagan may have been able to envision billions and billions of stars ( you need to say that with a nasal tone) but in all his wisdom he lacked vision.



> Plainsman wrote: I am sure some good ones exist, I just have not met them.
> 
> huntingdude responded: You probably have. Thing is, there's no 'sign' a person is an atheist or not. Unless you ask each person you meet what their religion is...


I would bet any amount of money your right.



> There are plenty of smug atheists who think that because they read Dawkins' book they have carte blanche to talk town to people... Those people are idiots.


Don't you think saying creation, or intelligent design isn't science is the same thing? If you close your mind to one possibility how many possibilities are you willing to close your mind to?

That is one thing that has left a very bitter taste in my mouth. That and knowing people who were strong atheist who were very degrading to me. At the same time they took shear joy in destroying the lives of other people. I'll give you a quote from one: "people who let other people know they have gotten even with them are fools. Better to shaft them and not let them know. With any luck they will think it's someone else and screw them. Then you have a new ally". They guy was proud of this. That example is one of the milder of his attitudes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, ya, I forgot.



> That Bin Laden statement is INSANE! The dude wants to kill all of us. He'd have no qualms whatsoever about lying to you if it accomplished his goal of getting more Americans killed.


That's right I know the intentions of Bin Laden. An atheist may come off as a friend and be just as dangerous to an individual. The subject is trust. I know Bin Laden wants to kill all of us. He would never catch me off guard. The atheist may. I know a lot of people who have no qualms about lying to me if it accomplishes their goal.

Still I would make no judgement on a personal basis. Each individual deserves to be judged individually and not stereotyped.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Creation is NOT science. No matter how you poison the well by labeling such a statement as "closed-minded".

I'm going to borrow from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, renowned astrophysicist, author, and host of "NOVA scienceNOW": Science seeks to understand how and why life is the way it is. ID just throws its hands up and says "Some designer did it" and leaves it there. Leaving a "how" or "why" that you have no intention of probing is, by definition, not science. There are many questions science can't answer, but it's because of a technical challenge, not an unwillingness to do so. His statement was that if you want to teach ID, just don't pretend it's science. Teach it in some other course.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Also, let me get this straight: Because a person doesn't believe in a supreme being, they're more apt to have some sort of nefarious intention than someone who does? Are you basing this on something, or is it strictly anecdotal?

Even if the atheist's intention you didn't know about was to steal from you, this is worse than Bin Laden's intention to kill you because you don't know about it? The odds of the hypothetical atheist's true intention being worse than Bin Laden's intent to commit genocide against all westerners are pretty small...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Even if the atheist's intention you didn't know about was to steal from you, this is worse than Bin Laden's intention to kill you because you don't know about it?


The idea of trust is the unknown, and what it can do to me. I think we are a bit off track and maybe I didn't use a good example. My idea is that Bin Laden would never catch me off guard, therefore was not as dangerous to me. Perhaps I should use an example of a person who was atheist and I knew nothing of him, and a person of faith who I likewise knew nothing of. I would not want to offend either, but if someone put a gun to my head and said I must trust one my life experiences with atheist would make me pick the person of faith. 
Look at this thread for example. I would guess it was started to lure in a person of faith because they thought they could chew them up and spit them out. Somehow that gives a feeling of superiority to some.
Also, as far as someone stealing from me or killing me the seriousness of the crime has no bearing on trust only the propensity to commit the crime does.
In California the Church of Scientology puts it's faith in science. All other Churches put faith in God. We work with the brains we have looking for truth to further our understanding of the world we live in and expand technology to better our lives. When science gets into other realms it's simply to satisfy our curiosity. When science comes to a fork in the road both of which are unknown I am surprised that some who see themselves as more sophisticated than others would want to explore only one path. It's like Lewis and Clark traveling up the Missouri and completely ignoring the Yellowstone.
Humanity has come from a period of no recorded history. We can look back using carbon dating, ion interpretations, geologic evidence, and all that science has to offer yet not prove anything. Atheist and religious people will spend billions in money, years in debate, and in the end will never know. That's when faith begins. You have it or you don't. What's to argue about? Once your as old as I am, and have made thousands of mistakes humility will not be so much a burden. I know I am not the pinnacle of humanity and will leave it to those younger than I to play intellectual king of the hill.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I've never felt threatened by atheists, I really believe muslims are evil


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm said:


> I've never felt threatened by atheists, I really believe muslims are evil


I don't feel threatened, I just feel irritated when they look down their arrogant noses at me.  I agree fully about the Muslims. 
The trust thing is like this quote:


> "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
> -Albert Einstein


We are a sorry lot. Discipline one child and give another no discipline and see what you get. As a wise man once said give a pig and a boy everything they want and you get a good pig and a bad boy.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

You just dislike smug people... I'm 100% with you on that one. Cut atheists some slack. You've probably met quite a few that didn't make it an issue.

I refuse to argue with anybody about their religion or lack thereof. It's the nature of faith that you believe it without any absolute proof. So, arguing with somebody about it is foolish. There's no argument you can make that is going to be convincing enough to overcome an acceptance of that which cannot be proven.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I consider myself an atheist. I hold no ones religious beliefs against them. It's unfortunate that most of the worlds conflicts originate from religion. I say believe what ever you want.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You just dislike smug people... I'm 100% with you on that one.


  You mean I couldn't hide that?  



> I consider myself an atheist. I hold no ones religious beliefs against them. It's unfortunate that most of the worlds conflicts originate from religion. I say believe what ever you want.


I agree with most of that. I think the statement about religion being the cause of most of the worlds conflicts is simply a popular thing to say with some people. If we give it a second thought some religions have not been around long enough to be the reason for most of the worlds conflicts over the past few 100,000 years. Further there are many religions that are very meek such as the Hindu. I don't think they have caused many problems, some foolish Christians have, but they are a small minority. When we get to the Muslims my mind is still being made up. It's disappointing that when Hamas shot missiles into Israel most Muslims said nothing. However, they became very vocal when Israel started fighting back. That tells me that the average Muslim is contributing to world conflict.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

omegax said:


> Creation is NOT science. No matter how you poison the well by labeling such a statement as "closed-minded".
> 
> I'm going to borrow from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, renowned astrophysicist, author, and host of "NOVA scienceNOW": Science seeks to understand how and why life is the way it is. ID just throws its hands up and says "Some designer did it" and leaves it there. Leaving a "how" or "why" that you have no intention of probing is, by definition, not science. There are many questions science can't answer, but it's because of a technical challenge, not an unwillingness to do so. His statement was that if you want to teach ID, just don't pretend it's science. Teach it in some other course.


Exactly. In addition, if you cannot test something (and it is impossible to test ID), how does that belong in science? There is nothing smug or close-minded about that, it's just that it's hard to design an experiment on things that are un-testable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Both evolution and intelligent design are untestable. If that was not true it would be the law of evolution, not the theory of evolution. Simply because you can not prove something isn't a reason to stop looking. In the end we may find how they fit together. We don't know, and I guess that's my whole point. That's why those who laugh at intelligent design and promote evolution are just smug elitists. People who are religious normally mind our own business until we are asked or insulted.

I'll leave out the political names in this joke.

A little girl comes home and tells her mother she is confused. She says "mom dad says we were made by God, and I was watching television and (fill in the blank) said we came from monkeys". Her mother said that's simple honey. Your father was telling you about your ansestors, and (fill in the blank) was telling you about her ansestors.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I don't think they have caused many problems, some foolish Christians have, but they are a small minority.


Is that really true that Christian wars are a small minority? Did Hitler think he was doing something divine by exterminating the jews? I would have guess that the history of Christianty is rife with wars and conflicts, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Both evolution and intelligent design are untestable. If that was not true it would be the law of evolution, not the theory of evolution. Simply because you can not prove something isn't a reason to stop looking. In the end we may find how they fit together. We don't know, and I guess that's my whole point. That's why those who laugh at intelligent design and promote evolution are just smug elitists. People who are religious normally mind our own business until we are asked or insulted.
> 
> I'll leave out the political names in this joke.
> 
> A little girl comes home and tells her mother she is confused. She says "mom dad says we were made by God, and I was watching television and (fill in the blank) said we came from monkeys". Her mother said that's simple honey. Your father was telling you about your ansestors, and (fill in the blank) was telling you about her ansestors.


Evolution of course is testable. It's being tested every day. Look up molecular clocks, look up carbon dating, etc. etc. I bet there are 25 papers a day published on evolution.



> Simply because you can not prove something isn't a reason to stop looking.


Plainsman, unless God comes down here and explains how ID works, we will never be able to test it. Period. I just dont' know how you can get around that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, unless God comes down here and explains how ID works, we will never be able to test it. Period. I just dont' know how you can get around that.


I'm not saying we can get around that. What I am saying is that the people on the evolution side are giving it credability beyond what we have been able to prove. Of course it is tested every day, but they are testing something they can not prove. Show me the publication that says evolution is now a law of science. Until it gets beyond theory it should not be treated as law. I have no idea how to prove either one, but neither can anyone else. I just like things in proper perspective. I can't prove there is a God, atheist can not prove my ancestors were from primordial soup. 
I'm not going to relegate myself to primitive idiot to make someone else who can not prove their theory feel like supreme intellectuals. That's why atheists normally start these debates.


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

Well I don't believe in God or the bible, and I do not consider myself an atheist. IMHO it is the so called "christians" that look down their noses' at ppl that don't share their beliefs. If you want to believe good for you, but no one has the right to claim their belief is right and yours is wrong.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

That's not why _I_ started this debate. I'm not an aethist.

I will conclude here by saying there a LOT of things that are not "scientific law" that are pretty hard to not believe anymore. For example, the ability of DNA to encode protein is still considered a theory, but you won't find many people who argue against this theory. We get new bits and pieces each day, in the form of research, of how DNA encodes proteins and taken together, form a pretty cohesive idea. Same with evolution. If you take all the data together over decades of research, the idea that evolution exists in practice is very logical. We cannot even generates bits and pieces of research on ID because that is impossible.

Huntingdude, you can have your thread back.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> For example, the ability of DNA to encode protein is still considered a theory,


I was reading the other day that they really got a surprise. They found there are far fewer genes in our DNA than first though. It turns out that each one can produce multiple protein types and physical characteristics. Not back to square one, but it was a surprise.



> Well I don't believe in God or the bible, and I do not consider myself an atheist.


 :rollin: OK, but do you have a dictionary handy?



> IMHO it is the so called "christians" that look down their noses' at ppl that don't share their beliefs.


 They shouldn't do that. Anyone who looks down their nose and thinks they are supperior are only fooling themselves. Sorry you have had that experience.



> If you want to believe good for you, but no one has the right to claim their belief is right and yours is wrong.


Well you believe what you want, and I am not going to look down my nose at you. However, I will disagree. Anyone has the right to think I am right or wrong, and anyone has the right to think your right or wrong.

I'm not starting this argument to say that everyone is stupid who believes in evolution. I am saying we can't prove it, and we are limited to our abilities to find many truths. I believe that the human species is in the infancy of it's knowledge. Some arrogant people think they know it all, but I prefer people who think we know very little. I know who I would rather spend the day with fishing in a boat. We know so little, and the possibilities are so great that we should never count anything out. Sometimes even when we think we can prove it's existence or non-existence.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Im no atheist, I believe in god, believe good people are rewarded at the end, bad people are punished. But I also have severe reservations about organized religion and dont affiliate myself with any organized religion. How many people have died BECAUSE of organized religion? How many wars and battles have been fought over the belief that one religion is "better" than the other?

There are plenty of evil, horrible people who hide BEHIND religion, who hide behind god. My motto is dont trust anybody you dont know. I dont care how "devout" they may or may not be.

As far as the intelligent design/evolution/science thing. I work in a science related field, took MANY science based classes in college. Heres the funny thing about science. Its constantly changing. I had college chemistry books, biology books, genetic books, that were new, but outdated. Not that they discovered something new, but that they discovered something that they thought they knew, but turned out they werent correct (I forget what scientific law is was, but it had to do with chemistry, we had to pull out a whole chapter, as the "law", wasnt "law" anymore). I put alot of "stock" in science though. If it werent for science, some of you may not be here today. You cant argue that science hasnt helped explain ALOT about the world we live in.

We cannot prove evolution, but we have alot more evidence to support some sort of evolutionary plan than we do in creation. I just dont see how both sides of the argument can be so blind as to not think that 'intelligent design' may be a possibility. It seems, their more concerned with proving the other side wrong than they are of proving their side right. Sounds kind of like politics. :lol:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> I just dont see how both sides of the argument can be so blind as to not think that 'intelligent design' may be a possibility.


It's a possibility. My argument is that since it is un-testable, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I only argue the (lack of) scientific merit in ID.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I guess since neither can be proven that doesn't mean they are not important. If a scientist wants to pursue something I think he should be able to. I think it borders on hysteria when a scientist at the Smithsonian is fired because he mentions ID in a published paper. If we accepted what is the popular opinion we would still think the world is flat.

My idea is not that we don't use the knowledge we have about evolution, my idea is that we do not discount anything. The reason I think that way is because we humans tend to be very arrogant. Years ago my fathers doctor insisted that he use hydrogenated vegetable oils after he had a heart attack. Now we find they may be just as bad as butter or worse. We find mistakes often, but seldom do we really learn from them.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> > I just dont see how both sides of the argument can be so blind as to not think that 'intelligent design' may be a possibility.
> 
> 
> It's a possibility. My argument is that since it is un-testable, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I only argue the (lack of) scientific merit in ID.


But it can be argued that the future scientist that proves/disproves the theory may be sitting in that classroom. And if its not put out (it doesnt have to be "taught", but mentioned) your taking away from that opportunity.

Im just saying, there are many things talked about in a science classroom already that arent proven (and which we may never be able to prove), and that are "proven" just be to disproved later as science progresses.

And who says its un-testable? Do you know what science will prove to us in the next 50 years, or the next century? No, none of us do. Thats why we need to keep open minds. Im sure there were individuals back in Columbus' day that thought proving the world was round was "un-testable."


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

But your argument (and plainsman's) that things get "disproven" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Intelligent Design, by definition, can never be proven unless, as I said, God comes down and helps us out. We are learning more and more about evolution every day, which taken together makes a good argument for it. The fact that theories with evolution for example may be disproven only shows that it belongs in a science classroom. We build on our mistakes. Theories on ID can never be proven or disproven since they aren't based in scientific logic (i.e. cannot design an experiment to test it).

You don't see the difference between thinking the world is flat and some ID proponent stating that since a euglena's tail is so elegant that it was designed directly from God? We can build a boat and sail until we either hit land or fall off (either way we get an answer). We cannot, on the other hand, design an experiment that proves God made the Euglenas tail, right? How would you go about that? You can't unless we get help from God himself and at that point no one probably much cares anymore...


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

> Huntingdude, you can have your thread back.


No, continue! :beer:

Discussion like this is the point of this topic, and this forum! :wink:

"If we all agreed, we wouldnt need this forum!"


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

All I have to add here, is that as mentioned, new discoveries are constantly being made; and despite this, evolution has yet to be disproven.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

seabass said:


> But your argument (and plainsman's) that things get "disproven" has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Intelligent Design, by definition, can never be proven unless, as I said, God comes down and helps us out.


Who says he wont? :lol:



> You don't see the difference between thinking the world is flat and some ID proponent stating that since a euglena's tail is so elegant that it was designed directly from God? We can build a boat and sail until we either hit land or fall off (either way we get an answer).


Actually, at the time, it was thought to be un-provable as one simply "dropped" off the face of the planet, so one would never be able to report their findings.

But I do see your point.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

ID or lack of it is being tested every day. If we can supposedly see back to a fraction of a second before the big bang (as shown on the The Universe) are we not testing for ID? If all the sudden scientists hit a brick wall and can't find any thing else, maybe ID does come into play, maybe a supreme being did have a hand in things, and we mortals don't have the ability to go any farther. As for right now, we are testing it every day.

You can't deny evolution. We did have tails at one point, we are getting taller, our body hair is becoming less prevalent(in some people). Come on, look at the developement of a human. We start off in the womb with the same features and even look like other creatures. We are evolving all the time. Just because we haven't found the "missing link" doesn't mean we can close our eyes and pretend it isn't happening. If you build a 5000 piece puzzle of hot air balloons you can't say it isn't really hot air balloons because 2 pieces are missing from the middle.

Years ago religious types would not even entertain the idea of ID. Science has proven many things, and discovered many possibilities, but it isn't infallible. Maybe the big bang stuff was the plan of a supreme being. Now, why can't the religious folks take a step back and do the same thing with evolution? Why can't that be part of the "supreme plan"?

I personally think organized religion is BS. I can't believe people should be told how and when and where to worship a supreme being. If there is a god, and I am very skeptical, you would think you could worship any way you wanted, not how the church tells you.

I am married to a wonderful Catholic woman who is very into her faith. It has never been an issue with us for the 8 years we have been together, so I don't know why it is such a problem for others.

If some thing works for you and helps you live your life.....great, but don't try to push it on others.

Every History class I have ever taken tells us the majority of wars or "conflicts" ARE caused by some form of religion and the beliefs therein. I am not sure if that is 51% or 99% but it sure seems to be true. There seems to be "conflict" right here right now over it!!

Plainsman, would you really trust osama over me??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, would you really trust osama over me??


No, but I trust people to read only half my comments before they make a comment. 

Do any of you really think your going to change someones mind about who they trust? The question was asked, and I am afraid that's something people will have to live with. Debate will take us no where. Trust is based on every persons experience in life. A few words are not going to change that persons history. All that can be accomplished here is to offend each other.

There is one thing I can trust. That is, to win this argument atheists will try to destroy a religious persons faith. Many just can't stand to have people believe.



> Science has proven many things


 I don't think they have proven as many as you think. For example they have not proven that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. So far the technology isn't there. We base further study on that assumption, but as a theory. Not a law, not proven. I guess if you think there is no question you have faith. If you have faith you have religion. Your religion is just different.

If you don't understand the trust thing I will make one last comment. I keep getting this quote from huntingdude:


> "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
> -Albert Einstein


Now ask yourself what would happen if we had no game laws at all. How many deer would be left, how many people would stop shooting ducks at four or five etc. All Einsteins quote proves is that we are a sorry lot indeed.
Now lets take 100 atheists and 100 Christians. They could be any religion, but I am familiar with Christian.
So the 100 atheists think anything that isn't against the law is ok. Some do some don't. Now most of the Christians will think there are many things that are wrong but legal (again some do some don't). Now lets say a local business has forgot a 100 dollar bill laying on a counter and all 200 people walk past it and see it. There is no person watching. The atheist believes no one is watching and no one would ever know. The Christians all believe God sees them and would know they are a thief if they take it. Christians believe they do many things wrong, that's why we always go to communion. Do you think more atheists or more Christians would pick up that money? 
So the subject was trust. That is my idea why the study would have turned out that way. The subject was not question Christian faith, nor was it evolution. It simply morphed because atheists can't stand the idea they are not as trusted as anyone else so it's strike out at the religious. The lack of trust is not the fault of religion, it's simply the way society perceives atheists.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> So the 100 atheists think anything that isn't against the law is ok. Some do some don't. Now most of the Christians will think there are many things that are wrong but legal (again some do some don't). Now lets say a local business has forgot a 100 dollar bill laying on a counter and all 200 people walk past it and see it. There is no person watching. The atheist believes no one is watching and no one would ever know. The Christians all believe God sees them and would know they are a thief if they take it. Christians believe they do many things wrong, that's why we always go to communion. Do you think more atheists or more Christians would pick up that money?


bah. Just because aethists don't believe in an organized religion doesn't mean they aren't principaled Plainsman. I honestly believe it would be the same ratio of Christians to aethiests. I know too many so-called "Christians" that would happily grab that money and not say a word.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

seabass said:


> > So the 100 atheists think anything that isn't against the law is ok. Some do some don't. Now most of the Christians will think there are many things that are wrong but legal (again some do some don't). Now lets say a local business has forgot a 100 dollar bill laying on a counter and all 200 people walk past it and see it. There is no person watching. The atheist believes no one is watching and no one would ever know. The Christians all believe God sees them and would know they are a thief if they take it. Christians believe they do many things wrong, that's why we always go to communion. Do you think more atheists or more Christians would pick up that money?
> 
> 
> bah. Just because aethists don't believe in an organized religion doesn't mean they aren't principaled Plainsman. I honestly believe it would be the same ratio of Christians to aethiests. I know too many so-called "Christians" that would happily grab that money and not say a word.


I agree. I know alot of Catholics who are immoral or unethical and think nothing of it, as long as they go to confession they will be saved! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I know too many so-called "Christians" that would happily grab that money and not say a word.


I don't know any, but that doesn't mean I am not realistic. I am sure there are a lot who wuld happily grab it. I think I know some, but I'm not willing to relegate them to guilty without cause.

So on one hand we have people who think no one will see them take the money, and on the other hand we have people who think they will be punished by God and you think it would be equal. That boggles my mind.

So what do you think about my question about game laws. Am I out of line to think if there was no laws, no punishment, that the resource would not suffer?

Here is my thought process:
Some people will not do anything wrong simply because they know right and wrong.
Some people will not do anything wrong, because they know they will be punished. 
Now remove the punishment.
Group A (the atheist) no one is watching, you will not be caught, hence there will be no punishment.
Group B (the Christians) no person is watching, but God is. Man may not punish you, but God may punish you more severely.

I think this is a logical conclusion based on human response.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

Plainsman, i've showed you this statistic before but i'm not sure why you are ignoring it.

I remebered a few things wrongly from the video, so I may have stated stats previously that were incorrect. Still, it's the same idea.

This information was taken in 1997; 12 years ago. Today Atheists/Agnostics make up 14-16% of the population.

Chrisians made up 75% of the United States population. Christians made up 75% of the prison population.

Atheists made up 10% of the U.S. population. Atheists made up *.2%* of the prison poulation.



> Group A (the atheist) no one is watching, you will not be caught, hence there will be no punishment.
> Group B (the Christians) no person is watching, but God is. Man may not punish you, but God may punish you more severely.


I'm not sure what the stats are today, but it appears that in 1997 the Christian would be more likely to take the money.

I've sent an e-mail to the BOP asking if they have any more recent statistics.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I think this is a logical conclusion based on human response.


It's logical only if you believe every Christian would never do such a thing and if you believe that every aethiest doesn't have principles. Then it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I've never understood why intelligent design and evolution are considered to be opposition thought personally I believe in both, whats time to God if hes eternal?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm said:


> I've never understood why intelligent design and evolution are considered to be opposition thought personally I believe in both, whats time to God if hes eternal?


Well that's where I am at to Bobl, but most atheist I have met are not happy if they can't convince you to deny God. I guess it gives them some perverted action.

Swampbuck, I simply think the statistics you have may be swayed. The bigger possibility though is that those who don't believe in God have more years in college. The jump to the conclusion that if evolution is right it means there can be no God. It means no such thing. I thought science was based on data, and not jumping to conclusions. The more college the more evolution, the higher image of self, the better paying job, the less likely to commit crimes, and if they do the less likely to be caught. You gave us raw data, and there is no explanation to the study. It may be real and lacking any background, or it may be total bias. What a surprise that would be. Most studies today try to make Christians the villains.



> It's logical only if you believe every Christian would never do such a thing and if you believe that every atheist doesn't have principles. Then it makes perfect sense.


It's as logical as data into a computer and data out. Your simply bias if you can't see it. I'm not even close to saying none of the Christians would take the money. I'm not even close to saying all of the atheist would. Your a smart man, so the misinterpretation can not be accidental. Your not trying to think, your simply trying to win a debate. If I had changed it to X and Y , we didn't have this debate, and you didn't know which was which I am absolutely sure you would have come to a different conclusion. -------remember, we are talking about trust.  not just serious crimes like stealing etc, but not bs-ing each other on serious matters.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

That just isn't so. I do not feel that I am the one that is biased. Considering that if you ask a random person at West Acres if they are Christian, 90% will say yes, right? I simply believe that if take that "average" Christian that responded yes, and do your $100 test, they will take the money something on par with what the aethists would do. You have a different view of people who are aethists than I do, it really just boils down to that.

The aethists I know choose this personal belief not because they don't know right from wrong, but because they feel that organized religion just doesn't suit them.

As far as BobM's point goes: I also have no problem in believing in both, or aspects of both. But ID just doesn't belong in a science classroom, IMO.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I simply believe that if take that "average" Christian that responded yes, and do your $100 test, they will take the money something on par with what the aethists would do.


OK, I can live with that. I don't think Christians are without fault. As a matter of fact I have a lot of faults. Most Christians do, but most real Christians will admit it. Maybe the difference is of that 90% that say yes, 60% really are not Christian because they don't even understand it. I think Christians are a very real minority, not a majority. Most say they are, but it ends there.

As far as how many? I don't know, but if they are sincere Christians I think fewer would take the money. I don't think that the average, like you say, and we are actually talking about would result in a great difference, perhaps only slight.

Maybe one of my old professors at NDSU made me cynical. He once said go out after a rain and scoop up a clean Mason jar full of water. Then bring it in and sit it on the kitchen table and watch it for a few hours. It's just like society and if you watch closely you will see how slowly the scum rises to the top. Maybe that's my trust problem. I have always been around highly educated people, and it's very evident that many made their way to the top on the backs of others. Since I see most atheists getting their attitudes in education and being better educated I perhaps link education, willingness to shaft others, and atheist as related.


```
As far as BobM's point goes: I also have no problem in believing in both, or aspects of both. But ID just doesn't belong in a science classroom, IMO.
```
I agree with part of that, but my curiosity will not let me be exclusionary. If Columbus had listened to every one we would still think the world was flat. I guess it all comes down to I don't think we know as much as we think we do. Humanity is just to impressed with itself. I didn't see much humility in my profession. Practically none. I always had a hard time filling out a job application because I just couldn't blow myself up that much. People I worked with could brag about themselves for hours on end, and wanted you to listen. Some were offended if you tried to talk. No fooling.

I just don't want science to get so arrogant that it stops looking because it thinks it has all the answers. If a scientist has a valid reason to pursue knowledge that steps beyond artificial bounds should we tell him no?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> I don't think they have proven as many as you think. For example they have not proven that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny


Ok, that is ONE thing. Science has proven MANY things. Can you deny that, Plainsman? On the flip side, many "proven" things have been changed when we find more info.

Like you said, just because the scientists are having trouble with some thing they shouldn't stop trying. Also, I didn't say the human in the womb goes through its evolutionary history in the womb, I said it because we do know we share the same features when we are very very young as "lower" animals(not my term), but since we have evolved into what we are we come out as humans.

I am not one of those highly educated folks you have so little trust in, so I did some checking.

ONTOGENY: The developement of an individual from a fertilized ovum to maturity.
RECAPITULATE: to repeat stages from the evolution of the species during the embryonic period of an animals life.
PHYLOGENY: the developement, over time, of species, genus, or group, as contrasted with the development of individual ontogeny.

I am all for blending the ideas of ID into science classes. You can easily teach the same science they are teaching now, and throw in the idea that we really have no clue as to how it began, and a supreme being is one possiblity. You don't have to go into any specific religious beliefs to do that. The fact that I don't really believe there is a supreme being doesn't alter the idea that it is a possibility. I have a bro-in-law that is a devout catholic and also a science teacher. I will have to ask him how he goes about teaching that stuff.

As far as the athiest thing goes, it seems a lot of the religious types are just plain SCARED. I don't try to make people believe what I do, and those people I know that don't have faith don't either. The only problems I have ever encountered is when a person of faith wants to make me believe what they do. They are SCARED of me because they have been force fed from the time they are small the "good people go to heaven the bad people go to hell" thing. I don't believe it and that scares the hell out of them. :wink:

To try to say athiests are bad, or more likely to steal money or any thing that has come up on this forum is plain stupid. That is not based on any thing other than bigotry.

I bet very few people on here would say that openly about any other "minority" group, so why can you say it about athiests?



> Some people will not do anything wrong, because they know they will be punished.
> Now remove the punishment.
> Group A (the atheist) no one is watching, you will not be caught, hence there will be no punishment.
> Group B (the Christians) no person is watching, but God is. Man may not punish you, but God may punish you more severely.


Right there you are supporting my postion on religion. Religion has always been a way of trying to explain how we got here, and what purpose we have in being here. It is also used to explain things we don't understand, and serves as a means to CONTROL behaviors. We really don't know how the universe was created so a supreme being must have done it. Kinda funny that what we term MYTHOLOGY served the EXACT SAME PURPOSE. So is the christianity and isalm and what have you of today the mythology of tomorrow?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Some people will not do anything wrong, because they know they will be punished.
> Now remove the punishment.
> Group A (the atheist) no one is watching, you will not be caught, hence there will be no punishment.
> Group B (the Christians) no person is watching, but God is. Man may not punish you, but God may punish you more severely.


I don't think I am that tired, but I could find no match between this and your response. I don't understand your response.

OK. does punishment work? If there is no punishment are children more likely to do something wrong. Look at what I said above again. Atheists would think they would not be punished, Christians would believe they are going to be punished.
Now take ten kids put cookies in front of them tell them they can't eat any but they will not be punished if they do.
Now take ten kids put cookies in front of them and tell them your going to smack them up side the head with a 2X4 if they eat one. 
So which group will eat the most cookies? Now do you understand what I am saying? There is no fear of punishment for the atheist, but there is for the Christian. It isn't as much the underlying personal behavior of the people, it's the fear of punishment altering the behavior.



> I am all for blending the ideas of ID into science classes. You can easily teach the same science they are teaching now, and throw in the idea that we really have no clue as to how it began, and a supreme being is one possiblity. You don't have to go into any specific religious beliefs to do that.


I think I have said that and people still want to debate.



> Ok, that is ONE thing. Science has proven MANY things. Can you deny that, Plainsman? On the flip side, many "proven" things have been changed when we find more info.


Now were getting somewhere. You see we agree on some things you just don't know it. I agree science has proved many things just not as many as we think. You state above that proven things have been changed when we find more info. As an example doctors pushed the first vegetable oil margarines when they first came out. Now we know that hydrogenated vegetable oils are as bad or worse than butter. So you see when things change that means science didn't prove it. As a matter of fact it perhaps killed a lot of people prematurely in the case of hydrogenated vegetable oils. Like they say doctors kill more people than guns.

Ancient people proved the world was flat. Rome thought no other nation would ever be as advanced as they were. Every generation that exists has it's elitists who think that those in the future will look back and be amazed at their intelligence. At the rate of new knowledge increasing exponentially it will take less than 100 years for people to look back and be amazed at how primitive we were. The ones that will look the most primitive are those who think they know it all. I would rather be counted among those willing to keep searching. If you think you have answers you can not learn as much as those who still search for answers. It's ironic, but the most intelligent among us are often the most over confident. I think they are to impressed with themselves.

Can you just see it 100 years from now. Some duffus so dumb he can just barely tie his own shoes will read about us and scratch his head wondering how we could have be so dumb.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> But ID just doesn't belong in a science classroom, IMO.


Not any more than global warming does, both are not controlled by worldly beings, yet that doesn't stop the "suedo scientists" that fervently claim we do.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> I don't think I am that tired, but I could find no match between this and your response. I don't understand your response.


Plainsman, you are a very smart guy, you know where I was going with that. I am not the best with putting my ideas into writing.

Religion = CONTROL. It is positive and negative reinforcement, it is punishment and reward, and all that. That is why I don't believe in it. That is what I was getting at. You were just reinforcing my views with your GOD IS WATCHING YOU bit. Just like big brother is watching you, another form of control. I am not saying right or wrong, just that it is what it is. If some people need it to control themselves great, but don't say those that don't believe a god is watching us will be more apt to be horrible, dangerous people.

Also did you really agree with bobm that muslims are evil, or was that just an oversight? It doesn't seem like some thing you would say being a good, tolerant religious guy.

Isn't global warming a natural part of the earth's cycles? Doesn't it happen regularly over this history of the earth? We are just accelerating the rate this time, so why shouldn't it be talked about in schools? I may be wrong on that, but that is what the History and Discovery channels have told me.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> You see we agree on some things you just don't know it.


I would have to say we probably agree on more than we disagree. I will change my statement to "Science has temporarily proven MANY things."



> It's ironic, but the most intelligent among us are often the most over confident. I think they are to impressed with themselves.


This is all too true! Who was it that said the smartest man is the one who realizes he knows nothing at all? Socrates or Plato maybe?

I don't mean to direct all my questions and thoughts toward you alone. Just putting my thoughts and ideas out there as every one else is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I understood what you were saying, but I thought it was in response to the quote in front of it. That's what confused me. I guess it didn't look related because it wasn't. Imagine that. 



> Who was it that said the smartest man is the one who realizes he knows nothing at all? Socrates or Plato maybe?


Crap, does that mean I can't claim it?  Good quote, that is exactly how I think. To often I hear people who are so sure of everything, they know absolutely everything, they think the rest of us are sub intelligent, then we find out they are full of bs. :rollin: We both know these types don't we?  Ya, ya, you know, you know. Not only that we agree again. :beer:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> > But ID just doesn't belong in a science classroom, IMO.
> 
> 
> Not any more than global warming does, both are not controlled by worldly beings, yet that doesn't stop the "suedo scientists" that fervently claim we do.


That's not correct. Pseudo science or not, global warming is testable, at least in theory. ID can never be tested.

I think there is some confusion here between ID and creationism. Creationism basically states one obvious thing in that we were created by a higher being. ID states that certain things here today are created by God, period. That is the only explanation given. Again, the euglena's tail is one of things they state is so perfect, that it would have been impossible for it to evolve to what it is today because there are no "more-basic" precursors that it could have evolved from. ID trys to act like it is science, when in fact it is just stating that God did things for which we do not now have the answer.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a science teacher stating something like Laite said; that creationism is a theory and so is evolution for how earth began. True, they are both theories. But I would pull my kids out of class that "taught" ID because fundamentally it is not scientific.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But I would pull my kids out of class that "taught" ID because fundamentally it is not scientific.


I don't think it could be taught, we don't know anything about it. I think a five minute introduction to the idea would be enough.
As for pulling your kids out mine had to endure all kinds of liberal crap like Tommy has two daddies and crap like that.


----------



## Grumann (Dec 21, 2008)

This topic has made me laugh a little.

If you don't believe ......... Put your a$$ in a plane and have it over taken by Muslims with a radical idea..

You will learn to pray, atheist or not, and you will realilze Muslims are the scum of the earth.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Grumann said:


> This topic has made me laugh a little.
> 
> If you don't believe ......... Put your a$$ in a plane and have it over taken by Muslims with a radical idea..
> 
> You will learn to pray, atheist or not, and you will realilze Muslims are the scum of the earth.


Nice post. :eyeroll:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I guess I may pray, but I hope I am too busy fighting for my life!

HUNTNFISHND, I agree!

While terrorists are pathetic scum, all muslims are not terrorists, and terrorists are not all muslims. Think about it.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

A much better analogy: gravity.

Gravity is a theory, just like evolution. It is impossible to prove that gravity exisits, we can see only the effects of this hypothetical force. The theory of gravity simply organizes a huge number of observations (some scientific, some not) into a useful mathematical function that affects everything in your life.

However, things could just as reasonably "fall" because God is pushing these two objects together in a precise proportion to the mass that God give to these two objects - from atoms to solar systems.

Reasonable?

Great - lets meet on the bridge and see if you actually trust science or religion. Surely God wouldn't push you into the ground at 9.8 m/s/s. Religion is all about faith. Show some faith.

***

As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - holy @#$%^& - look around. One can see evidence of this everywhere, even in the little tail that you had before you were born.

Here's a few more that I came across a couple days ago:
http://listverse.com/science/top-10-sig ... odern-man/

M.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MRN, you have many things 180 degrees.



> Gravity is a theory, just like evolution.


At least do a little google, and you will find pages and pages on Newton's law of gravity.



> Sir Isaac Newton: The
> Universal Law of Gravitation


Also:


> Along with his laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity led directly to mathematical explanations of Galileo's falling object experiments (See Galileo And The Leaning Tower of Pisa), and Kepler's Laws concerning the motions of the planets. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states:
> 
> F=Gm1m2/d2


Further:


> May 28, 2001 ... Newton's Law of Gravity ... He used these laws and Kepler's laws to derive his unifying Law of Gravity.





> As for "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - holy @#$%^& - look around. One can see evidence of this everywhere, even in the little tail that you had before you were born.


Many embryos go through odd external/internal morphological phases. It does not mean that is what they looked like in evolutionary history. That is simply theory, not provable science. We also have gills that close a couple of months before birth, that doesn't mean we were fish. 
Speaking of fish why is it that evolution scientists think that most life on land came from the sea, and most life in the sea came from land. If things were so great in the sea why would they leave. Surely they could adapt to the habitat they were in more easily than the racial shift to land and vise versa. 
Tails and gills are interesting, but they are not hard evidence they are educated guesses ie theory.
I guess when I look at the billion to one statistical chances of life beginning by chance and the idea of intelligent design ---- well actually they may somehow combine. Being a retired scientist and active in church I have thought long and hard about how to hold on to both. I have worked that out in my mind. I have come to the conclusion that intelligent design satisfies both creation and science.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

PM

Sorry, but your quotes are pretty meaningless on their own.

Gravity is just a theory. You can call the mathematical formulas/functions governing the motion of objects due to the hypothetical force of gravity a law. It's a mathematical law because everything obeys it. Even God??

Just as with evolution, no one has "proven" gravity. (Science actually can't prove anything, only falsify, but that's pretty hard to understand.) The problem is generating the putative mechanism for gravity. There are different theories (e.g., string theory) for gravity that folks are studying. I've never seen a "string". Or, we could just say God pushes things together and feel good about it.

However, in comparison the mechanism for evolution - that mechanisms is natural selection - is pretty easy to understand, and likewise organizes a whole lot of observerations into a meaningful and testable form.

****
The first problem - gills don't mean we were fish. That shows a willful misrepresentation. We are human. Fish are fish. The best explanation we have for gills (tails, etc) is that some prior species, from which we are decendents, a species that no longer exisits and is probably not even known from the fosil record, had gills and we still maintain that DNA that is activiated and deactivated in our development (onotogeny). It is silly to say that we are fish, or monkeys, or whatever.

***
I'm sorry, I can't provide a class in evolutionary biology. The Cliff Notes is that things leave and return to the sea because of 1) changing pressures (survival & sex), 2) mutations, 3) natural selection, and 4) advantage. The goal is to survive, breed, and have your genes in the next generation. If you have some functional mutation that improves the odds, your genes (carrying that mutation) are into the next round of the competition. If you have a mutation that interferes, no mouth or sex organ, your genes fail to make it to the next round (without tax-payer help).

***
Sensing your next objections - Not all homologies connote a phyogentic connection. Color vision has arisen separately in different genetic lines because it helps so much in surviving and getting layed. Again, evolution and natural selection in action, or we could say it was just ID and feel good about it.

***
Next objection - just read about antibiotics. Evolution and natural section in action.

***
I wonder if the height of said bridge will be commensurate with the faith.

M.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Very well written posts MRN. I agree 100%.



> Next objection - just read about antibiotics. Evolution and natural section in action.


Exactly. I've stated here before that one just needs to look at a farmer's field to find evolution and natural selection in action. When a farmer applies herbicides or pesticides, the selection pressure selects for those individuals that have what it takes to survive, be it a point mutation or thicker cuticle.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > Well I don't believe in God or the bible, and I do not consider myself an atheist.
> 
> 
> :rollin: OK, but do you have a dictionary handy?


I do. Why don't you try looking up *Agnostic*? It can be your 'new word of the day' Plainsman. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > Well I don't believe in God or the bible, and I do not consider myself an atheist.
> ...


Yup, that's the word I was looking for. I don't need to look it up, but I didn't want to explain it either, because it might turn into another debate like this which was supposed to be trust. If people look it up they might see where they fit in better than me trying to explain it.



> Gravity is just a theory. You can call the mathematical formulas/functions governing the motion of objects due to the hypothetical force of gravity a law. It's a mathematical law because everything obeys it. Even God??





> Just as with evolution, no one has "proven" gravity. (Science actually can't prove anything, only falsify, but that's pretty hard to understand.)


Touche.  Years ago I think it was generally accepted, and I have noticed more and more other theories related to it. I just read some on the internet that made my head hurt. It certainly has changed since I went to college 40 years ago. I guess I have kept up with the field of entomology and wildlife a lot better than I did physics. When it comes to physics what I remember most is the guy putting two springs on that gun that shot the ball bearing and measured force and trajectory. He shot it through the sheetrock and it dropped into the wall. 

I don't disagree that things are mutating and we have evolution currently going on. I also agree that it happened in the past, but am reluctant to go along with the extent. I am reluctant because science thinks something is law (like I just did) and later find out that it's untrue. To put to much faith in science isn't wise. I respect science more than jumping to a conclusion and I think much of evolutionary theory has jumped to conclusions. Without proof we need to keep in mind that it's only slightly better than a SWAG (in this case Scientific Wild *** Guess).

Your critical thinking was excellent, and thanks for the lesson, I am rusty on some things. You know what they say about specialists. They know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. My expertise since college has evidently narrowed to the biological sciences. AS far as scientific law vs theory I think more and more of what we consider laws will be challenged as our knowledge grows. It's like that quote about the smartest men are the ones who understand how little they know. Likewise I guess my whole point is the more knowledge we gain the more we understand how little we know.

I think what we are debating about evolution is more personality than science. I am a sceptical person that believes science is often arrogant and many of us think we know more than we actually do. Maybe it's my age and having watched science have to eat crow a little to often. I don't like crow. 

Normally I enjoy a good debate, but since none of us can prove what we are talking about I sometimes wonder if we are all just beating our heads. I often think it would be fun to see into the future a 1000 years and get some answers. Maybe it will take 2000 years to get real answers if we keep thinking we already have them.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

So what is going on with the gravity? Do we have gravity or not? Was the key phrase about god having to follow the law of gravity?????
Please explain!!!!

If gravity might just be god pushing things together, is the wind god sighing every time he sees the stupidity of man?


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

> Normally I enjoy a good debate, but since none of us can prove what we are talking about I sometimes wonder if we are all just beating our heads.


This thread doesn't seem like a debate. PM you just keep bashing everyone else's ideas or beliefs. It has become very clear that you are in fact very opposed to anyone questioning the church or god. I am glad you have such a strong tie to your faith but the rest of us are not gonna sit here and be labeled "not trustworthy" because we don't sit next to you at church. The same freedom that allows you to pratice your faith allows the rest of us to do our own thing.

Nothing personal but that is my interpretation of this thread. :beer:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I am a sceptical person that believes science is often arrogant and many of us think we know more than we actually do.


Quite the opposite in my opinion - science helps folks realize we can't understand/explain /control a whole lot of things. Science, like death, helps keep folks humble. It is religion that offers the quick simple answers to keep the people from being frightened.



Plainsman said:


> Normally I enjoy a good debate, but since none of us can prove what we are talking about I sometimes wonder if we are all just beating our heads. I often think it would be fun to see into the future a 1000 years and get some answers. Maybe it will take 2000 years to get real answers if we keep thinking we already have them.


I think it will take 1000 years just to get folks to understand/beleive the few answers that we do have. How long did that heliocentric thing take?



laite319 said:


> So what is going on with the gravity? Do we have gravity or not? Was the key phrase about God having to follow the law of gravity????? Please explain!!!!


There ain't no easy answers. Do you think there is gravity? I think it is just God hugging us tight. And he obviously loves us big fat people more, as he hugs us tigher to the earth.



M.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

As far as evidence of our past is concerned, another example is birds and dinosaurs. I watched a show on the Discovery channel, and when looking at an embryonic chicken they found evidence of their link to dinosaurs. They found that an embyonic chicken actually has something like 13 vertebre. As the development progress's though, they fuse and by the time the chicken is developed, there are only 3-4. By adding a certain protein to the base of the tail, they were able increase the number of tail vertebre later in development(they didnt let it hatch, though). Along with this, they also found ridges in the beak, which appear to be the beginings of teeth. Also, if you look at the structure of a birds wing, they still have vestigil bones representing the 3 fingers.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> There ain't no easy answers. Do you think there is gravity? I think it is just God hugging us tight. And he obviously loves us big fat people more, as he hugs us tigher to the earth.


Come on, that doesn't cut it. Are you saying that the law of gravity isn't a law because god doesn't have to abide by it? Is that the line of thought on this, or is there more to it?


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Atheist, agnostic, secular humanism! OK guys, without looking anything up, what are the similarities and differences? Lots of differences....

First off, we are Christian or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu or Mormal almost always because our parents were! Nothing more or less! Hardly profound! Any of us thought about it and made a choice or blindly accepted whatever we were told in Sunday School kindergarten?

One thing I do like about agnostics and secular humanists is that invariably these are people who have actually thought about their faith, research it, asked questions about it, discussed beliefs rationally and have come to the ultimate conclusion that at this moment in time they are unable to believe the existence in a supreme being or a God, etc. and therefore are unable to consider themselves Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else. How can you rationally choose if you can't accept some metaphysical supreme being?
BUT, unlike atheists these people invearably say "I personally at this time don't believe it having looked into it at good as I am able to, but certainly respect people of other religions who do! But I remain open minded about this supreme being thing, and though I can't accept it now, I am open minded and objective about it enough that I could change my mind in the future!" In other words "I'm not convinced or unconvinced in any kind of Supreme Being and its ramifications."
The atheist says "BS! Can't and will never believe it" Most atheists do their thing quietly, but there are a few yelling about their legal rights and stuff like that, but other agnostics and secular humanists and most other atheists believe in their rights to do so, though don't agree with them doing it! 
Trust an aethist, agnostic, secular humanist, Christian, Muslim, Morman, Hindu, etc>?? You will find crooks and thieves and dead beats in every religion, and in every religion you will find some who wish to make everyone fit THEIR religion and believe what they believe. These guys are wrong no matter what religion they claim to be! They call everyone else followers of "False Religions" though if any of these follow their own chosen religion, the'd find all have plenty of room to accept the other guy. 
Nope, every religion, even agnosticism has their ultra conservative far right groups who tries to impose their beliefs on everyone else!
Lets face it, the ONLY reason that 99% of people end up in the religion or church that they do is becasue their parents happen to be that religion! Nothing more! Very few people actually closely examine their own religion, or even their supposed belief in a supreme being, and then decide whether they can believe it or not. Doesn't happen!

There has been interesting polls and studies out there that have concluded though the majority of people consider themselves "Christians" in the USA, by strict definitions of what a Christian is suppose to believe, when plled with a bunch of questions with key questions imbedded in them, that at minimum 30 - 35% of self described Christians" are more correctly pigion holed into the agnostic pigionhole! And these polls were done by reputable Christian institutioon, too. They were as surprised as anyone else with their own results.

Because of misunderstanding of agnostics and secualr humanists and aetheists too, yes it has been proven that any politician whe would ever describe himself as an agnostic has NO chance for public office, rightly or wrongly. Yet, how many bible waving politicians do we have out there who undoubtedly would be reclassified as agnostics or even atheists wre it no more advantageous to them to self describe as "Christians?" Probably about a third. 
Some of these legal hair splitting agnostics should lear tolerance, as shoudl right wing conservatives of every religion. There's plenty of room for us all. Even if everyone would just follow SOME of the ten commandments Don't kill, steal, chase your neighbor, lie, and even leave out the god fearing god believeing ones, etc. THAT's what Einstein was referring to - what was quoted earlier. 
Lots of refrences available on all this stuff........I personally respect anyone and evryone's religion, as long as it's teachings aren't taken out of context and spun around to provoke wars, hate, etc. Historically that has happened way too often, and it doesn't seem like it's misuse will stop very soon, either.....:>)
I'd encourage everybody to look at the other guys' religions, or lack of, with open minds as objectively as possible. It's fascinating!!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Laite 319. Yes, you are right with positive and negative reinforcement.!

When you start to study all religions, not just Christianity you will find that a common thread to all is the basic message "Be a good guy and do it my way and you'll be rewarded forever in some kind of a heaven, but if you don't you'll burn in hell or hell lookalike forever!" Pretty vindictive and narrow minded for a loving supreme being.....
After years of seeing this in every religion, I decided that I could be a good, honest, forthright, generous person WITHOUT the carrot on a stick in front or butt kicking threatened from the rear! As some one misquoted Einstein, why do we need the threat of punishment (like laws) that to be good honest people? (That's what he was saying, not that we had to believe in God or a supreme being, etc.! That one is widely quoted wrongly. Einstein's life story is fascinating if anyone cares to read it! Good place is on a deer or bear stand!) 
I'm quite happy believing that when I die, it'll be like Shakespeare's "dreamless sleep!" I personally don't need the reward or threat thing to be a good person, which I sure try to be for its own sake!

If I'm wrong and there is a heaven, then I hope that God is half as loving and understanding as everyone claims, and I'll still have more positive points from being a good guy than negative points for not being able to believe in him/her and he/she/it will have St. Peter let me in the door! If not, well, I'll probably see lot of you guys where I'll be going then! LOL

And yes, I went to Sunday School and Church till I was in mid 20's at least. Heck, till I was an adult I didn't even realize that there was any option to trotting to church every Sunday, etc. WWHHHAAATTTTT? You can go fishing on Suday morning???? WOW!

So falling into the pigeon hole category of secular humanism, I guess I won't bother to run for president! LOL :>D You guys would never vote for me, so I'll stay home in ND and run to the hunting and fishing grounds instead! 
But categorizing everyone by a name or label reminds me of overhearing a 50 year old lady loudly utter when Corey Fong was running for state office "I'LL NEVER VOTE FOR AN ORIENTAL!" I'm still laughing over that one! And yes, she is allowed to vote!! LOL Hopefully she didn't!
For some of you guys who don't understand, I should say that the name FONG is a common Norwegian or Danish or Finnish name or something, NOT oriental! I'll be there's lots here that didn't even know that! LOL


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

laite319 said:


> Come on, that doesn't cut it. Are you saying that the law of gravity isn't a law because god doesn't have to abide by it? Is that the line of thought on this, or is there more to it?


Cut it? Do I owe you something?

This is all atheist stuff, so don't trust it. I hear they are the least trustworth folks around.

Newton's "law" of gravity provides a good mathematical description of the forces acting on two objects, but doesn't explain the "why" or "how". In trying to explain why and how, general relativity, then quantum theory, then string theory (and others) show that the "law" doesn't work when you're dealing with subatomic forces or things like a change in the rate of expansion of the universe.

I beleive that Newton's law is good enough if you want to put someone on the moon, but don't care that their clocks will be off.

M.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Cut it? Do I owe you something?


Damn right you do! You have a lot more knowledge than I do and I think it is your place to share that with me. You come on here and tell me the law of gravity isn't a law, which I have been told to believe for 31 years, then you don't tell me why. You can't leave me hanging like that!!! 


AHH!!! You mention some thing I have heard about with the expansion of the universe. All the good things I learn on the History Channel!!! What do you mean about the clocks being off on the moon? And what does that have to do with gravity?

Thanks to Habitat Hugger, I have found that I must be agnostic not athiest. WOO HOO!!!! I am trustworthy again!!! RIGHT?

Wow, HH, you said a lot of the exact same things I am thinking. I made the choice pretty early on. 5-6th grade, after having church every sunday and sunday school shoved down my throat constantly. I figured if this religion thing was so great it should be self evident, and I shouldn't be forced or shamed into believing. Since then I have kept an open mind, still joined youth groups to gain info, took a class or two in college, and even attended catholic classes so I could marry my wife. A lot of people tell me I will believe when I see my first child born. I guess I will find out in early Aug. I will keep an open mind, but I won't hold my breath!!!


----------



## headshot (Oct 26, 2006)

> I made the choice pretty early on. 5-6th grade, after having church every sunday and sunday school shoved down my throat constantly. I figured if this religion thing was so great it should be self evident, and I shouldn't be forced or shamed into believing.


Amen brother. lol IMO all the "christians" that don't trust ppl that don't believe in God should concern themselve's with their own affairs and stop being so JUDGEMENTAL.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

laite319 said:


> You come on here and tell me the law of gravity isn't a law, which I have been told to believe for 31 years, then you don't tell me why. You can't leave me hanging like that!!!
> 
> 
> AHH!!! You mention some thing I have heard about with the expansion of the universe. All the good things I learn on the History Channel!!! What do you mean about the clocks being off on the moon? And what does that have to do with gravity?


I only mention gravity because it is a theory (much like evolution), and "Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."- Isaac Asimov

You'll have to get together with PM and google some of this stuff. Gravity has an effect on time, and as you travel away from earth's gravity it effects time as predicted by general relativity. There is also something about the earth dragging spacetime with its rotation, but I'd have to think too hard to try to explain any it.

M.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

One of my favorite things to do is fish for suckers and leave bait purses on curbs.

Let me tell you a little bit about who tries to pick these purses up. Most of the time they are old and if they are in their car they all drive at least a mile before looking inside them. The elderly always look inside. Younger people who pick these bait purses will almost always take them to the nearest store and almost always never look inside.

What does this say? I do not know but when my GF drags me to Church the place is full of old people. Maybe the younger users know there maybe a turd in it. lol

Side note I have many hours of video of these games and it is always funny no matter who picks them up or tries to.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> One of my favorite things to do is fish for suckers and leave bait purses on curbs.


 :rollin: oh my gosh, that sounds like something that would put me in stitches laughing. I always thought it would be fun to let one of those stinking purse snatchers grab a bag then have a remote detonator for a chunk of C4. Oh, I'm sorry is that politically incorrect?


----------



## 10-2 (Jan 30, 2009)

Some of these things have probably been said already but I want to state my opinions.

Science can not prove anything because we can not replicate every set of variables in universe. What it can do is provide endless amounts of emperical evidence through testing of ideas (i.e. newton's "law" of gravity)

Being a christian does not automatically make you a good person. Being athiest does not make you a bad person although it seems that many christians think this way.

since some people have mentioned terrorists so lets consider this: when a terrorist kills a bunch of innocent americans they think they are pleasing their god. If they were athiest they would probably be at home drinking a beer and thinking about evolution or somthin. :beer:


----------

