SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Elok]

Nothing, I'm asthmatic. I just remember the difference between observation and inference. Even if every frigging scientist in the world has forgotten.

On a side note, I am not "endorsing creationism," in case somebody wants to pull that particular attack dog out. I think the whole question of how life arose on this planet is beyond our ability to ascertain at this time. Any explanation we come up with might be truth...or it might be a new mythology in the making. And since the belief doesn't matter except for the psychological security of the person or persons believing it, it's not really as vital to science, or as destructive to religion, as it's been made out to be.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
Nothing, I'm asthmatic. I just remember the difference between observation and inference. Even if every frigging scientist in the world has forgotten.

Wow -- you claim to know more than every scientist in the world today.




not buying your ego trip

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok


Can you spot the enormous assumption, boys and girls?

Yes, that you have the faintest idea what you're blathering on about.

From one of his earlier posts:

'Atheism is an entirely negative belief'

Aside from the fact that, if the atheist philosophy is correct...'

and from a later post:

'Atheism is also in the unique position that it is NOT a religion. There are no "atheist values" to be raising kids by except general contrariness to the god crowd. Atheism is a philosophy. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be a violation of church and state if atheism were a religion.'


So apparently it's not a religion (or 'belief') but it is a philosophy - a system of theories on the nature of things or of rules for the conduct of life.

And apparently there are no atheist values, except when Elok thinks there are, in which case they are entirely negative values, based only on contradicting the god botherers.

What a crock.

Guess what Elok?

It's not a religion, it's not a philosophy, it's not a system of theories:

ITS DISBELIEF IN A GOD OR GODS!!!!!!!!!


" I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline......

....every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. "

letter of Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, dated January 23rd, 1808

As for his science- well....

'This may be called "evolution," but it is not an example of the rise of a new species. It is merely survival of the fittest, which is not unique to evolution. '

Someone doesn't understand evolutionary theory either, as well as having problems with defining atheism.

'Adding to the challenge, microorganisms continue to adapt and evolve, often increasing their degree of virulence. For example, in 1990, the U.S. Public Health Service identified E.coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter jejuni as the four most serious foodborne pathogens in the United States because of the severity and estimated number of illnesses they cause. Of these, Campylobacter, Listeria and E.coli O157:H7 were unrecognized as sources of foodborne disease 20 years ago. '


Avian flu:

Wild birds are affected by a large number of flu viruses, just as humans and other animals are, but they are usually exclusive to birds. The viruses can, however, infect humans if they mutate or "jump the species barrier."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/flu/avianflu.html

Clearly, when these bacteria and viruses mutate or evolve, Elok thinks they stay exactly the same, they've just been to the gym, is all.

"It is very disgraceful and mischievous, and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian ... should be heard ... talking such nonsense that the unbeliever can hardly restrain himself from laughing."

Oh yeah, thanks again St Augustine. My sides have stopped aching now.

[Elok]

It's not a matter if "claiming to know more" than scientists. The very technique used to justify evolution is flawed. I assume you have heard the old "a flea without legs cannot hear" joke? Same basic story. Now stop treating the scientific establishment as an infallible priesthood. Any group can get into stupid ruts and refuse to move. Aside from "the pHds say so," can you provide any reason why natural selection *must* be the origin of our species?

NOTE TO MOLLY BLOOM: You might be alone on it, but you're still on the ol' ignore list until such time as you post something that doesn't read like it is quoting Woody Allen trying to play the role of a prosecuting attorney. Looks like you're not there yet. You can keep posting if you want, but bear in mind that unless somebody quotes you you're not getting a reply. Have a nice day.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok


NOTE TO MOLLY BLOOM: You might be alone on it, but you're still on the ol' ignore list

NOTE TO ELOK

Unlike you I'm not sufficiently intolerant to put anyone on an ignore list. Perhaps it's the lack of religious belief that does it.

Still, it is quite enjoyable watching you get one thing after another wrong, wrong, wrong.....

Alfred Russel Wallace:

". . . Mr. Bennett next returns to the laws of variation, and, because Mr. Darwin says that we are profoundly ignorant of these (although he himself has done so much to elucidate them), maintains that we cannot really know anything of the origin of species. As well might it be said that, because we are ignorant of the laws by which metals are produced and trees developed, we cannot know anything of the origin of steamships and railways. Spontaneous "variations" are but the materials out of which "species" are formed, and we do not require to know how the former are produced in order to learn the origin of the latter. But though we may not know the laws which determine each variation in detail, the general causes which lead to variation are not difficult to perceive. "

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm

--from 'Natural Selection- Mr. Wallace's Reply to Mr. Bennett,' 1870, 'Nature' 3: 49-50, on page 50.

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun -

Atheists are not being discriminated against in present society to the extent that racial, religious, ethnic, sex orientation minority groups and women are discriminated against today.

Depends on where you live, but that's irrelevant. Coercion doesn't disappear for one group just because soemone else is facing greater coercion.

For most people in contemporary society in western nations -- even one as conservative as United States -- I don't think anyone cares if you're atheists (beyond the missionaries who actively seek converts).

When it comes to atheists today, most people (who have a sense of decency) seem to have the attitude, "live and let live."

Decency isn't all that common.

John T -

I'd hate to see what would happen to this thread if the debators realized that our official national motto is:

Public school children aren't being asked to stand and pledge allegiance to that "motto", if they were it would also violate the 1st Amendment.

On July 30, 1956 a law was passed stating that "the national motto of the United States is hereby declared to be 'In God we trust'."

Right around the time "under God" was put into the pledge. This all was an effort by "Christians" to highlight the distinction between Christian America and those atheists in the USSR.

Note the word "reasonable." I highlighted it for those not wanting to read the text.

We're debating whether or not the pledge violates the 1st Amendment, not "In God We Trust". There's a difference between some words on a quarter and coercing children to pledge their allegiance to someone else's god.

[Berzerker]

no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government.

But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from....

Bingo! And he's arguing the 10th Amendment there - since Congress and the President weren't given the power to prescribe or even recommend a religious exercise, Congress and the President don't have the power...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Coercion doesn't disappear for one group just because soemone else is facing greater coercion.

And I agree with you on that, since that was not my claim.

[Berzerker]

It seemed to be your claim, why else would you compare the relative discriimination of other groups to atheists?

Atheists are not being discriminated against in present society to the extent that racial, religious, ethnic, sex orientation minority groups and women are discriminated against today.

See?

Bet you weren't expecting such a quick retort

[Berzerker]

Would you tell ethnic minorities to live with it by pointing to the greater discrimination against homosexuals? That seems to be your argument when it comes to atheists...

[Elok]

On further reflection, it's amazing my sorry butt isn't in Mingapulco after last night...sorry for the rant, all. I just don't get along with MB. Should have left his/her posts unread, but let's not bring that up again. There are some people who just sorta rub me the wrong way.

Moving along, my challenge stands in less confrontational terms. I honestly do think that the broad acceptance of evolution as *the* truth is an overly hasty embrace of one idea that might be true but has no specific merit beyond the fact that nobody can think of a story that sounds better. But maybe I should just start a new thread instead of threadjacking. Or just say screw it and leave the argument alone for now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Would you tell ethnic minorities to live with it by pointing to the greater discrimination against homosexuals? That seems to be your argument when it comes to atheists...

no

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
What are you smoking, Elok?

He's absolutely correct. We have no evidence whatsoever that the past actually occured.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Moving along, my challenge stands in less confrontational terms. I honestly do think that the broad acceptance of evolution as *the* truth is an overly hasty embrace of one idea that might be true but has no specific merit beyond the fact that nobody can think of a story that sounds better.

Despite the fact that everything you've said is true, this misses a fundamental point - everything is accepted because nobody can think of a story that sounds better.

[Elok]

No, other things have actual proof due to their applicability. Gravity, for example, can be proven by throwing a rock into the air and seeing what happens. Similar story with thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, what-have-you. Evolution is rendered useless by the same set of circumstances that make it unprovable, that it deals with a set of concepts totally removed from interaction with human life. Because we cannot affect the past the way it affects us, all we can do is stick together might-have-beens that fit the evidence available. They can never be systematically tested. "Just So Stories" for the egghead crowd. Again, the actual scientists probably disagree with me, but when I think of science, I think of the scientific method. You control variables and test the hypothesis, then get to the fun part where you stick your tongue out at the people who said you were wrong. If you can't control the vast majority of the variables, you can't test, right?

Also, modern science doesn't seem to exist for its own sake. Most breakthroughs are made by R & D labs sponsored by corporations, not universities. Science in our time appears to be a fuel for technology and not much else. The only application I have heard for evolution is as a model for computer algorithms, which is dependent on the system as an abstract idea rather than whether it actually happened. So evolution as a vital part of education is dubious to me. Which I guess is all I'm saying. No point in getting everybody's pantyhose in a knot over an unusually sensitive bit of trivia. Which sort of ties in to the original point of this thread, whatever that was.