This is just great, a 19 year old takes on the new establishment, and is fighting to remove religious ideology from the science classroom. Creationism is a personal choice, no doubt about that, but it should not be taught in place of, or with hard science. Faith is a personal value, and no two religions or often no two churches agree on what Creationism (or ID) actually means. Science offers what we know to be factual, current knowledge, one does not need sense of faith, there no need to disregard personal values to accept that science offers us a door way to what is known,
Thursday March 7, 2013, 12:18 pm
There is hope for the future after all. I was especially amused at his reaction to Bobby Jindahl's support given he is a biology major AND a Rhodes scholar. Just goes to show being republican kills brain cells, good judgment and the ability to think independently of ideology. But then I already knew that. Intelligent design perhaps, or just common sense, maybe intuition, but that might move a bit too close to ideology. Anyway, I just knew it. lol. :^)
Thursday March 7, 2013, 3:24 pm
Gene; why bring politics into this. BOTH parties are littered with members who believe in a certain religious idealism. Jindal is quite an intelligent man, and this is his belief. Sadly, he felt the need to bring his beliefs into the schools.Actually, in Louisiana, probably most of both houses feel this way.
The future lies in young men like this.
Friday March 8, 2013, 9:47 am
Kudos of high praise for this young man. I have recently joined a group of freethinking under 30's (yup I am old by comparison) here in my backwater town. Almost every day we gain a new member and sometimes I think I go to the meetings just for the sense of hope that these young people impart to me.
Have you seen the documetary "Revisionaries" ? I did this past weekend. And yup, overall, it is boring. However, it is also very enlightening about how our Texas "due process" for choosing textbook content for the state/nation (doesn't) works as we fight for control over what our children actually learn in school.
Allan...It is ALL very much POLITICAL. Controlling what people believe and accept as the truth very literally controls people which is POLITICS.
Friday March 8, 2013, 12:10 pm
How utterly sad that someone like Jindahl, a Rhodes scholar and Biology Major, can "sell his soul" to false political beliefs just to get into and stay in office. THAT'S THE SCARY PART! He knows damn well that the earth and our solar system is older than 6,000 yrs. and was not created in 6 days. I wonder if he would support the existence of the Easter Bunny if it were advantageous to his political career?
Friday March 8, 2013, 1:56 pm
Great guy - good for him. Well said, Darren. Kit, I think your statement on science is a little simplistic. Science is a process of investigation to see if the facts fit the theory, and even then it's not always 100% clear cut one way or the other. There are scientists who have a faith, some even find their faith through their scientific investigations, and there are theologians who are also scientists.
Friday March 8, 2013, 3:00 pm
Allan, it's true that both parties, and others who are farther out than both parties on the political spectrum (which isn't hard to do with the Democrats, they are so far to the right now) have people of faith. The difference - not the only difference, but the difference which is to the point - is that we on the left do NOT want our faith, or any faith, taught in public schools. And we feel this way at least as much for the protection of the faith as fot the protection of the state. Why would we (why would anyone, except obviously some do) want a bunch of morons pontificating on things they know nothing about and incidentally making us look equally moronic? Those who are pushing this appear to be on the political right. Period.
Lindsay I'm well aware of what science is what is required, it was an intentionally simple answer to not be confrontational or to pontificate and begin a discourse on science. Yes. There are many scientists I know that are people of faith others remain in a state of questioning and some are comfortable with leaving any form of religion or belief in deities out of their lives.
The point is not whether or not one makes personal choice that is religious or not, the is point is as Joanne illustrated so well, is that these ideas of creationism are completely religious. When taught as a part of general curriculum in a public school (funded by taxpayers) that is then - propaganda.
'People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss. '
Friday March 8, 2013, 6:14 pm
I could not see the video, but I think I've seen it before.
In any case, I again refer people to the book "Idiot America, how Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free," by Pierce.
Alexandra, this is just the kind of thing you are referring to!
Darren, many scientists are religious, as was Einstien, as he expressed in his famous "god does not play dice with the world!" comment regarding Quantum Physics, but, Shirley, religion, and spirituality are not reasons to teach creationism as an equal with Evolution, in public schools.
There is no evidence to support creationism, only culturally supported mythology, aka: religion.
For an intense, and dense, education on this latter, go read "Hamlet's Mill."
Friday March 8, 2013, 6:21 pm
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Friday March 8, 2013, 6:25 pm
"Gene; why bring politics into this. BOTH parties are littered with members who believe in a certain religious idealism."
The reason, Allan, I brought politics into the discussion is because it was not avoidable. Do you think this is really a religious debate? It may be true, well it is to a degree, that both parties espouse a particular religious viewpoint, it is hard for them not to as their constituencies, or rather their funders come with a sum certain set of principles, but the brave politician is the one who rejects junk science and accepts the reality of what this universe is. Thus my particular disgust with Bobby Jindahl. As a biology major, and a Rhodes scholar, he KNOWS the world did not pop into being 6,000 years ago, yet he is willing to sell his soul, the very core of his being, out, so that he can be a person of influence, a politician. That's why I brought politics in. Because he is a fraud who does not believe what he says because his training, his education, and the truth all tell him otherwise, yet he panders. And why? So he can be an important person in Louisiana, and perhaps nationally as well. That's known in my neck of the wood as selling your soul to the devil. And that, I think, he has done. Politically. So, that's why I brought it up. The youngster, on the other hand, is pure of heart, and true to the facts of science. He will go further than Bobby Jindahl because he has a soul and knows it.
Friday March 8, 2013, 6:31 pm
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)
Friday March 8, 2013, 10:44 pm
Great to see a young man who is so srticulate and intelligent and can think for himself without the brain washing which is so prevalent in some schools - logic and science will overcome fairy tales eventually - hope he gets his message across to all those denialists of anything other than religious dogma.
Friday March 8, 2013, 11:56 pm
I saw this young man last week on Bill Moyers and was extremely impressed! He is very intelligent and embodies what a free thinker is! He gives an eloquent and very persuasive argument on the need for separation of church and state and that what the creationist believe is simply not science and that no religion belongs in a school presented as science! I also that that he made a wonderful point when he said that if other religious views cannot be presented in schools (and there are many exclusive religions) than why should creationism be exempted? Good point. Clarence Darrow couldn't have argued these points any better! He's also a great example for other kids to follow in his footsteps- to stand up for your convictions and fight for a principal that you believe in! If you feel something is wrong, then challenge it and endeavor to get it changed. Great post Kit!
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:52 am
@ Kit who wrote: "Sound a bit contorted to me. Science, real science does not required "faith or belief" only facts."
Real science also requires PROOF ... which is why it is STILL called the "THEORY of evolution" -- THEORY, UNPROVEN premise!
I personally, choose to believe in something greater than myself or any other person or thing -- it creates a better human being! There have been too many DESPOTS & VILLAINS who have rejected the notion of a God. It made Genocide much easier to commit, since they didn't believe they would have to answer for their actions someday!
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and YES, HITLER -- who was NOT a Christian, by ANY stretch of the imagination! He was an OCCULTIST who used religion to promote his agenda -- but he tortured and killed many Christians who REFUSED to follow his dictates, and saw him for what he was!
Madalyn Murray O'Hair would have "loved this kid" too -- but the damage she did -- not only to her own children, but to the children of the United States, will not easily be undone! April 1st is a celebration of her birthday ;-) (Psalm 14:1)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 8:16 am
@ Craig Zimmerman who wrote: "I wonder if state atheism made the Soviet Union and other communist countries better places to live?"
The best people to ask this question are the dissidents and former religious/political prisoners who spent years in the gulags -- and lived to tell about it. Untold millions were silenced forever!
I never met my grandfathers. My mother's dad was shot in the back of the head; "official" cause of death -- "suicide". After surviving 10 years hard labor (for the "crime" of spending the night in a barn of a 'Jewish' "enemy of the state" -- he came home & did himself in 9 months later -- in the back of the head with a rifle, no less ;-)
My father's dad spent 10 years in a Siberian gulag; he heard that he was about to be arrested again and told my father he had to leave. He knew he couldn't survive another 10 year sentence! The authorities brought my dad his father's blood-soaked coat & told him his father was "torn up by wild beasts in the woods". My dad never saw or heard from his father again, and was left to raise 3 little brothers alone -- 3, 7 and 10 years old. He was 14 at the time. His mother had died giving birth to the youngest baby, while his father was serving his sentence.
Captured outside of Stalingrad & imprisoned by the Nazis in Germany, my father once again experienced the "morality" of atheism ... When the US Army liberated him, the Christian chaplain made a point of encouraging the broken men in my dad's compound. My father, who had been raised an atheist in the Soviet Union -- complete with Young Pioneers & Komsomolsk indoctrination, embraced Christianity and became a pastor!
He never could understand how and WHY so many Americans were Leftists and Atheists! He often said, "Isn't it enough to see the suffering of the Russian people? Why would ANYONE want that for their people and country? How perverse!"
Saturday March 9, 2013, 8:58 am
"Real science also requires PROOF ... which is why it is STILL called the "THEORY of evolution" -- THEORY, UNPROVEN premise! "
The scientific definition of Theory:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.
Your definition fall under the category of common usage, and is a tactic used by con men to assist in separating the gullible and uneducated from their resources.
The vast majority of educated religious believers have no difficulty with the scientific community and its fact based conclusions, known in science as Theories.
Atheism is a religion in the same way as non-stamp collecting is a hobby.
Thanks Mike, and excellent answer. All non-religious philosophies, Free Thinkers, Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, Naturalists, share one idea, that life is determined by the choices made by humans. That our lives and choices are not ruled by faith or belief systems, rather by own logical and intellectual conclusions. Why this concept brings such a threat to others who make different choices is a quandary to me.
Saturday March 9, 2013, 12:37 pm
@ Kit who wrote: "All non-religious philosophies, Free Thinkers, Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, Naturalists, share one idea, that life is determined by the choices made by humans. That our lives and choices are not ruled by faith or belief systems, rather by own logical and intellectual conclusions. Why this concept brings such a threat to others who make different choices is a quandary to me."
This is all good and well ... I and many other people of faith strongly believe that life "is determined by the choices made by humans". Indeed, this concept is recognized as "Free will" ... we all make choices, and they have consequences; some good, some bad.
The next statement I will paraphrase slightly ... "that our lives are ruled by logical and intellectual conclusions". Again, I have no problem with this statement. It is all about choice.
Finally ... "Why this concept brings such a threat to others who make different choices" -- Hmmm, indeed this is a quandary to me as well. WHY do atheists feel so "threatened" by those who make different choices, i.e., choose to believe in God. Choose to celebrate Christmas as a celebration of Christ's birth, hence the name CHRISTmas? Choose to pray, etc.?
Why do atheists fight to remove ALL references to God? START LITIGATION to remove creches from Christmas displays? Silence the singing of CHRISTMAS carols at Christmas -- and basically force PAGAN SYMBOLS of Christmas/Winter Solstice on believers? SUE schools for "allowing" any references to God, prayer, etc.? WHY IS THIS SUCH A THREAT? Wouldn't you think that they would recognize that they are in the MINORITY and therefore, should not be FORCING their views on the MAJORITY?!
Now THERE's the quandary! When atheists stop attacking people of faith for believing -- ridiculing us for being "backwards" and in essence, stating that we have "no logical, intellectual conclusions" -- then we will be able to coexist in peace! Until then, those of us who recognize a Higher Power will fight for our right to believe!
When you remove all mention of faith & God from the public domain -- that is STATE SPONSORED ATHEISM -- and the first Amendment to our Constitution forbids the government from establishing a state religion!
A gross exaggeration at best. I know no one who gives a second thought to any form of religious celebration as long as the public is not forced into participating. Atheists do not attack, we are not a formed group, we are individuals that happen to share a common set of ideas or philosophies. Though it sure makes for good fodder for Conservative "news" to rile the base, who like hungry fish, grab the bait.
It does me no harm if you believe in one or a hundred gods, so long as that belief is kept within the bounds of being a personal and private belief system that forces nothing on the public. Reminder - this article is about the forced use of the creationist version in public schools, in many to the point of not teaching actual science. Public schools, public tax money. Keep religion in church or in your home, not in public schools.
Saturday March 9, 2013, 2:43 pm
@Lydia, I don't see your response to Mike's explanation about why your description of scientific theory is wrong. Instead, you go on a diatribe against atheists that is equally ignorant. (BTW, calling you ignorant, meaning "lacking in knowledge or training" is not meant as a put down. It is a statement of fact about your obviously false misconceptions. (Everyone is ignorant about many subjects, but it is a treatable condition cured by education.)
The main point I want to make is that nothing you have said explains why what Zack is doing is a bad idea, nor does it explain how allowing religion into science classes would be a good one. There are hundreds, if not thousands of creation stories. Should they all be taught in science class?
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:11 pm
How refreshing to listen to an intelligent young man, who truly understands why we need complete separation of church and state. We should not be teaching creationism in our schools. Even our founding fathers who were Christians did not believe we should teach the Bible in our schools, even when they recommended the Bible for reading. It's hard for me to understand how people can take the Bible literally, especially the Old Testament, when it was passed down, word of mouth, generation to generation to generation, for who knows how long, before it was ever put into print. And then it was translated numerous times. People have studied the Bible for centuries, and they still don't know all the answers, so how can these jerk politions know?
Saturday March 9, 2013, 6:29 pm
Thanks for posting, Kit---and for your excellent comments. What an admirable and well-spoken young man.
I can only add something a bit "offbeat." Although I'm decades past my teenage years, if I were in a classroom where creationism was being taught, I would definitely propose that aliens developed this planet and put forth the supposition that we are their creation. Would certainly make for some interesting conversations, if the administration didn't insist that "creationism" had to mean a link with religion. My college-aged kids and I have discussed this at length....fodder for some great sci-fi.
Saturday March 9, 2013, 7:58 pm
There is hope for the future, if we're producing young people like this, who devote time they could be spending on parties and dating instead on efforts to counter the insinuation of religion into public education. I do hope he succeeds.
I once had a professor in college, a biology professor, who taught intelligent design as a way to mesh religion with science. I knew it was nonsense then, and it still is.
Are you saying Lydia's creationist theory, based on scientific facts, or to use your words: "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
and perhaps someone else's intelligent design theory, based on scientific facts, or to use your words: "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"
are both WRONG according to you, BECAUSE ..?
Yet your evolutionist theory, based on the exact same scientific facts as the scientific facts used by the 2 theories mentioned above simply with different conclusions/explanations of these facts (it is arguable which of these 3 theories have the most and most accurate observation and experiment to substantiate their explanation), is RIGHT according to you, BECAUSE ..?
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 2:35 am
Mike S. (70)
Saturday March 9, 2013, 8:58 am
Atheism is a religion in the same way as non-stamp collecting is a hobby.
This statement of yours is complete and unlogical nonsense imho.
I've yet to come across or 'observe' an atheist who is a blank slate without any value-system, set of ethics or void of morality. In other words, who holds 100% no beliefs.
Most of my experiments in probing and listening to atheists have confirmed that most atheists have a lot of ethics, value-system, morality in common with other atheists. In other words the same amount of commonality that can be found among Christians or Muslims or Jews each as a group as regards ethics, value-sstem, morality, viewpoint, beliefs can also be found among atheists as a group.
Thus according to my personal observations and experiences or experiments, atheists CAN logically/scientifically be viewed as simply another 'religion', albeit one without a deity (and atheism is not even the ONLY religion without a deity ..).
The dictionary definition of religion is at least twofold:
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
3. A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
It is under the second definition(possibly 3rd also) of religion that atheists and other non deity-based religions fall.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 2:55 am
'Atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 6:26 am
Alexandra, I guess you have never met a baby. All babies are atheists.
Atheism is not a belief to be taught or discussed...it is a non-belief, usually achieved by a fact based education.
Atheism is not an interest to be pursued, and no devotion is required for non belief.
Your opinion is irrelevant, as it is only your opinion, not a fact.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 6:32 am
As per your first comment Alexandria, as the Dover Trial more than proved, there is NOT a single scientific fact that substantiates creationism. It is religion, not science.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 6:51 am
Mike, babies are not atheists. You've no prove of this either, it is simply our opinion. Babies have no opinion as to whether there is a god or not. If you do wish to put babies in some sort of a box(classification), they would rather fit an agnostic box (someone who has neither an opinion on whether there is or is not a god). Atheists have an opinion, their opinion is there is no god. Babies don't have that opinion. They're opinionless at best.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 7:31 am
Mike S. (70)
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 6:32 am
As per your first comment Alexandria, as the Dover Trial more than proved, there is NOT a single scientific fact that substantiates creationism.
That's one study. There are plenty of scientific studies that proves quite the opposite. Some scientific studies even prove that creation theory or intelligent design theory have more substantial scientific evidence that backs them up than evolution theory.
It's a bit like the coffee is good vs coffee is bad for you studies. Often scientists seem to use the exact same scietific methods and basic facts but come to different interpretations explanations.
It all depends on which basic scientific facts were considered.
Here are a few studies that clearly show that creation theory or intelligent design theory are substantiated by numerous scientific facts.
I quote: "There are various forms of creationism, including old-earth creationism, progressive creationism, and young-earth creationism (some also label the Intelligent Design Movement as being a form of creationism). Most forms of creationism contend that an intelligence, not natural processes, created the universe and all life.
Creationism, like evolutionism (or naturalism), is an interpretive framework through which all data is processed. Both are based upon beliefs about the past and past events, but only one, creationism, relies upon an eyewitness account. Attempts to place naturalism outside the realm of belief are untenable."
Therefore the key difference between evolution and creation theory is: "an intelligence, not natural processes" created the universe and all life.
Which is simply a conclusion, belief on both accounts as there is no evidence that "natural processes" created the universe and life and the only observed evidence that creationists have is the recordings made in the bible by the people who lived at the time of creation.
By all means, I appreciate that many evolutionists or many others doubt the words of those who recorded their observations during and after the creation. Just like there are those who doubt the observations of those either for or against coffee being good/bad for human consumption.
However, you've not answered my question as to why that 1 study "Dover Trial" should be believed to be RIGHT and why other studies proving that creationist theory IS substantiated by scientific fact should be believed to be WRONG ..
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 7:37 am
Atheism is actually a mindset of assumption. Science can only be practiced when the "scientist" takes into account all evidence available, rather than discarding what lies uncomfortable that doesn't easily fit into "established methodologies"... it's quite surprising as well that most Atheists seem to rely on a literal interpretation of a religious text, rather than taking the time to study it in depth.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 10:12 am
Dover vs. Kitzmiller was a trial, not a study. Had you checked the provided link, you would know this. I, on the other hand, checked your link to "scientific facts" and found nothing but opinion, straw man arguments, non sequiturs, red herrings and zero facts.
Darren, atheism is not a mindset of assumption, it is a logical conclusion based on evidence. Scientists DO take into account all evidence available which is why it has no comment whatsoever on the supernatural, since no evidence for its existence has, as yet, been presented. The James Randi Foundation has a one million dollar prize up for grabs to anyone who has any such evidence. The prize remains unclaimed since it was first offered in 1964( it was originally $1000, but has grown since then). Good luck to all who try for it.
I have studied the bible in depth (all of my immediate family are evangelical) so could you please cite a source for what you assert it the second half of your comment.
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 11:13 am
Now to address my all babies are atheists assertion.
Lets apply a little logic.
If babies are born with a knowledge that there is only one true god, as all religions assert, there would be only one religion on this planet.
If, on the other hand, religion is an indoctrination process children are subjected to, one would expect to find that children born to Christian families will become Christian, Islamic children to Islam, etc.
Now lets examine the evidence....is there only one religion, or are there a multitude?
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 12:46 pm
“.."an intelligence, not natural processes" created the universe and all life.” ???? Alexandria, you can’t possibly be that scientifically ignorant. I’m seeing some pretty convincing evidence that you are a troll. ‘Prove’ to me you’re not?
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 2:39 pm
@ MJM who wrote: ."an intelligence, not natural processes" created the universe and all life.” ???? Alexandria, you can’t possibly be that scientifically ignorant. I’m seeing some pretty convincing evidence that you are a troll. ‘Prove’ to me you’re not?"
Hmmm, MJM, the only thing YOU have "proved" is that you ignore anything anyone else says, that you disagree with -- as "ignorant" ... and you therefore, resort to name calling. Troll? I think the name is most appropriate -- for YOU! ;-)
What I've always found amusing is that atheists can "believe" that an EXPLOSION, can "CREATE" anything, much less a magnificent world, such as the one we live in! Furthermore, "Science" is STILL unable to CREATE ANYTHING WITHOUT THE RAW MATERIALS PROVIDED BY GOD! To "create" a human being -- even "in vitro". requires the mother's egg and the father's sperm -- and even after the formation of the embryo -- for a "Child" to be born -- a HUMAN BODY is required, to allow a FETUS to grow & turn into a viable human being!
Not a single LIVING thing is "CREATED" by "SCIENCE" ... so a BIG BANG is INCAPABLE OF CREATING OUR WORLD AND ALL THAT LIVES ON IT!
Even Albert Einstein rejected atheism -- QUOTE: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
And: "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.
We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 3:16 pm
Look up ‘Multiverse’ and learn about how these ‘explosions’ are happening an infinite number of times in an infinite foam of bubbles, each bubble a universe of its own. I know, these concepts are clearly out of the realm of your ability to comprehend. It’s much easier to cling to fairytales, no thinking required.
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 1:08 am
@ Mike S. Your post and your science fails to convince. "I have studied the bible in depth (all of my immediate family are evangelical) so could you please cite a source for what you assert it the second half of your comment." What do you make of Genesis then?
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 1:58 am
Ha! You’re funny Darren. Science fails to convince you, but you’ll lap up the writings of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. Funny indeed.
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 2:17 am
Has anyone thought of the third possibility - that we arrived on this planet at various stages due to "planet collapses" in our vast galaxy? You know the "Chariot of the Gods" - ancient rock paintings by indigenous people etc. After all America went to the moon..lots of space programs by many countries..the hubble telescope and the current mission on Mars..what do these Scientist believe????????????
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 3:54 am
There are some physicists saying that the universe may have been created by an alien species so advanced, that it has become indistinguishable from nature itself. Of course this advancement would have evolved over many billions of years, and possibly crossed over from another universe that is a mere quark in an infinite multiverse. ???
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 4:27 am
So I could be a child evolved from the creation of a Universe i.e. A Child of the Universe. I can live with that.. Stargazing, well that's just heaven....Thank you MJM
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 6:35 am
Mike S. (69)
Tuesday March 12, 2013, 11:13 am
..is there only one religion, or are there a multitude?
A multitude, one of which is atheism.
To use your 'logic' I paraphrase:
Now to address [your] all babies are atheists assertion.
Lets apply a little 'logic'.
If babies are born with a knowledge that there is [no] god, as [you] assert, there would be only one [mindset] on this planet [- there is no god].
If, on the other hand, [mindset] is an indoctrination process children are subjected to, one would expect to find that children born to [Atheist families will become Atheist], Christian families will become Christian, Islamic children to Islam, etc.
Now lets examine the evidence.. [that's exactly what happens to the majority of offspring with a few exceptions where Atheists convert to Buddhism, Christianity or any other faith or someone born in a Christian family converts to Atheism, or someone born in a Muslim family converts to Judaism, etc, etc ..]
Your 'logic' in my mind only further proves my point that all babies are born opinionless and that is why we see variety, some remain opinionless as regards the existence of a deity (regardless of the religion of their parents or their lack of it), some come to the realisation that there is a deity (regardless of the religion or lack of it in their parents) and some come to the realisation that there is no god (regardless of whether their parents were atheist or whatever). None of these 3 mindsets have any physical proof for their realisation, it is a spiritual realisation. All 3 of these mindsets clearly show that parents have in the majority of cases the strongest influence as to whether an offspring believes there is no god, have no opinion on whether there is or is not a god or believe there is a god, but not an ultimate influence (evidenced by those who break away in all directions).
The fact that those offspring who break away, do so ‘in all directions’ in other words not all breakaways become Atheists, further proves that your assertion that ‘all babies are born atheist’ is a completely false one.
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 6:43 am
MJ M. (485)
Wednesday March 13, 2013, 3:54 am
There are some physicists saying that the universe may have been created by an alien species so advanced, that it has become indistinguishable from nature itself.