• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Modest Proposal

David Henson said:
You see, this is what the creationists are on about. They are delusional idiots for believing in a God to other delusional idiots who believe in science and probably don't even know how to define 'god.'
Click to expand...


You have created a false dichotomy. The vast majority of Christians in the U.S. believe in both God and evolution.

As for scientists not knowing how to define the God they don't believe in. Many are prepared to say, "I don't believe in the God of the Bible" (which is a very precise definition). Others say, "I cannot believe in a universal Creator that is interested in the lives of the billions of people alive today." Again, we have a precise enough definition for working within this topic.

Meanwhile, science, which can't test the supernatural and the theory of evolution which is constantly changing and correcting itself is considered not as a law or principle but as facts. "God can't exist because science has evolution and we choose science over that which we don't understand."

Deluded idiots call evolution unmistakable fact and the Bible superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...


I am unsure what you mean by science cannot test the supernatural. If someone says he has x-ray vision and can see the organs inside people's bodies, then yes science can easily test that. (that claim was in fact recently tested). If someone says there is a supernatural being that provides me with a level of comfort that no natural source can, then you are right - science cannot test that.

On the other hand, science can test the geological column and can conclude overwhelmingly that no world-wide flood has occurred in the past 20,000 years. Science can test the mitochondrial DNA of hundreds of species and show that there was no genetic bottleneck in the past 20,000 years. That is the reason scientists, and others, say that a literal interpretation of the Bible is nothing but superstitious nonsense.
 
Last edited:
A while back I was arguing with a person who, in typically strict Christian fashion, was arguing the evolution wasn't a theory, it was a hypothesis. He knew very well that a theory was a hypothesis that had withstood examination after the fact. He pointed to the nebular hypothesis, a pretty much completely accepted theory about how panets and smaller bodies accrete from a dust/gas disk. There are a few unexplained problems with it, but it is the only explanation that has any following, and after it was named in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg, the name just sort of stuck.

The point is that before this started being an issue with scientific creationism, no one really cared to draw a line between the two, and they seem to have been more or less used interchangeably. Now, explain that to a creationist.
 
AvalonXQ said:
There are a lot of things I don't want my tax dollars spent on, as well. The proper procedure for correcting this is a democratic one. This isn't abridging your basic freedoms, and so the Constitutional challenge should fail.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I also can think of other things which are put together through legislation. But this is not one of those, there is a straightforward prohibition in the constitution which can be applied to this. Now if it were a day of discussion with those who disagree, and if all sides where represented it might even be a constructive day. I might be OK with a day of prayer and reason. It would not exclude the non-believers.

You might probably argue that my basic freedoms aren't violated by having "in God we trust" on our money either. Yet those words not only don’t represent me and adding injury to insult non-believers, at least 14 percent of our population pay taxes for that money to be printed. But that’s mostly small stuff. The violation comes with the attitude of "In irrationality we trust." That is what I fear it is. In the faces of ever greater technological challenges and opportunities this will have ever greater consequences. And about half my countrymen figure “So what? Jesus will be back within 50 years or so. In fact, the worse things get the sooner he’ll be here. Yay!”

If our country is going to be run on woo-woo, I think that presents serious problems to us all unless others have real representation at the table to tell them, "Many of us think you are very wrong in these assumptions." In fact, all the Abrahamic traditions are based on the same escape clause, that messiah is coming for them. And as far as many are concerned we should be left behind. That's where I see them violating my basic freedoms, possibly making very stupid decisions for us all based on nothing. There could be many poor outcomes from this laissez faire attitude that allows superstition to guide the public discourse in government without a significant counterweight. Why not just toss bones in congress before a vote?

The real problem of violation is that there is a real oppression against free-thinkers. How many hold public office? Very few. One in the entire Congress. Religious bigotry is thick enough in this country that it's really hard for non-religious to get a political seat anywhere. The subtle religious affirmations promote the views of many that we are immoral because of a refusal to believe. We are held at arms length every day while the media promotes pseudoscience as fact. If we aren't invited join in fully at the table the government prohibits free expression of a groups belief while advocating a tacit religious litmus test. And doing so with my tax dollars.

I think a big deal sometimes needs to be made about the little things to get peoples attention of the lack of discussion on the bigger things.
 
Sorry. I mis-posted the above message. I have a message in to the mods to delete it.
 
Chucky said:
Sorry. I mis-posted the above message. I have a message in to the mods to delete it.
Click to expand...
However, it is a very interesting post, wherever it's meant to be! I've just read it via the e-mail notification.
 
David Henson said:
You see, this is what the creationists are on about. They are delusional idiots for believing in a God to other delusional idiots who believe in science and probably don't even know how to define 'god.' Meanwhile, science, which can't test the supernatural and the theory of evolution which is constantly changing and correcting itself is considered not as a law or principle but as facts. "God can't exist because science has evolution and we choose science over that which we don't understand."

Deluded idiots call evolution unmistakable fact and the Bible superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom