Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[FlyinGuy]

Shag and PBR,
This has been an interesting interchange between you two and I have enjoyed reading your responses. I am sure you both could out debate me...but that being said, I have to add one comment.

What the Atheist seems to leave out is that he is living under the laws that "religion" has established. That is apparent in any society under any theological/deistic leanings. For example, Why is it wrong to kill? Well in our "Christian" society, we say that it is wrong to kill because that is what God commanded (i.e. in the ten commandments).

When it comes to science, there is no morality. Science is just facts/theories. So when you base your entire existence on science, you have to conclude that there is no morality. If there is no morality, there is no right and wrong.

If someone wants something that you have, it should be ok for them to attempt to take it. The only means you have to stop them is "survival of the fittest". If they come into your home and you get to your .45 before they do, you are the fittest. That being said, the person entering your home is not wrong they were weaker in this instance.

Another example...Is it wrong for your spouse to be unfaithful to you? If she had an urge, why can she not fulfill that urge? At what point is she "unfaithful" or wrong?

I know that these two quick responses are not too complicated, but you have to realize that morality comes from religion not science.

 

[414Flyer]

Well in our "Christian" society, we say that it is wrong to kill because that is what God commanded (i.e. in the ten commandments).

Funny, I have lived in non-Christian countries were murder was illegal too. And I can think of lots of laws that we have, that were not passed down from religious decree. Its not in the Bible that anyone under 16 can not drive.

Morality does not require religion, it requires a thinking person who can discern between right and wrong, who can think of something besides just ones self.

 

[FlyinGuy]

I heard this discussion on the radio the other day and it might be interesting listening for all. It is an exchange between Dr. Barry Creamer and David Smalley. David Smalley is the editor of the American Atheist Magazine and Dr. Creamer is a professor at Criswell College.


http://criswell.barrycreamer.com/category/broadcasts/

You might have to go back through the archives to hear all parts.

 

[FlyinGuy]

Not all law is "religion" based. I am talking about morality. What is your guide? You cannot just discern or think about what is right and wrong...you have to have an absolute to start with. So what is your "Guide"? With no absolute truth, you cannot tell me what is right or wrong. So, why is it wrong to rape? Just because you think it is not ok? What if someone else has thought about it and decided it was best for them to pursue this act? What dictates can you point to that it is wrong?

Read the whole post. I said that even in non-Christian countries, they have their laws based on their religious beliefs.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

It is wrong to compare Science and Religion in the area of morality. Science is about studying how our universe works, and how we can improve our lives with technology. Ultimately, if our earth survives long enough, Science will prove that God exists, and that God created the universe.

I do not want any laws or legal code that is based on religion, because if I don't agree with the religion, I won't agree with the laws (like Sharia, based on the Muslim religion).

I want a legal code that is based on what my society decides will work best for itself.

Situation: Is it ok to kill someone to take something from them?
Answer: No. That negatively affects the society. It is undesireable, so it is illegal.
No religion involved.

cliff
NBO

 

[waka]

persucutions on crosses, resurections, poor man saviors, trinities, dieing for sins, etc etc....all happened well before Jesus Christ. Christianity is just another summation of other beliefs. Hell (no pun intended) had Constantine not declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, Chrisianity would have died along with the other lunatic fringe religions.

 

[shagadelic]

had Constantine not declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, Chrisianity would have died along with the other lunatic fringe religions.

We have a winner!!:smash:

 

[flyguy75000]

Just like gravity is "just a theory", or germ theory, or the theory of relativity. FYI, the term "theory" in science doesn't refer to a hypothesis like it does to a laymen. A "scientific theory" can be disproved, but hasn't been and continues to answer questions and is able to predict. If I drop an apple, I know the theory of gravity tells me it will fall, and does every time. If I look in a strata of rocks that date to the Jurassic period, I should find dinosaurs and their contemporaries, and guess what, I do, every time. You would think if evolution were not a fact they would find just one bunny rabbit in the Cambrian strata. They haven't because bunny rabbits didn't exist back then, just the bunny's common ancestor.

My experience with believers is they are in intellectually dishonest. You prove a point, and they say, well what about this, and what about that. So keep the debate narrow and I'd be happy to show you the science behind it. Beware, though, if you're getting your talking points from a christian website, I've seen just about all of the silly arguments and EVERY single one have been debunked with real science.

Oh, and science is not a religion. Religion is the belief in the supernatural. Something beyond the natural. I don't believe there is anything beyond the natural world, because I've seen no evidence for it. Therefore, by definition, I do not have faith in any "religion". I don't come in with some presupposed answer and try to make the evidence fit. I start with the evidence and see where it leads. There is a HUGE difference. But of course, you guys know the truth. Now, please dazzle me with how the evidence fits your truth.

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I dont want to read all 9 pages of this thread, but you are not quite correct in your "gravity is just a theory" mindset. Perhaps your 15 year old wunderkind can set you straight, and as a $200/hr Captain I would've assumed you'd have known this, but gravity is not a "theory" but rather one of Sir Isaac Newton's laws.

Just an FYI, Shag.

 

[AirCobra]

persucutions on crosses, resurections, poor man saviors, trinities, dieing for sins, etc etc....all happened well before Jesus Christ. Christianity is just another summation of other beliefs. Hell (no pun intended) had Constantine not declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, Chrisianity would have died along with the other lunatic fringe religions.

The only thing fringe here is your fringe opinions about history. I see you are back again posting the same misinformation. I will remind you...again, Judaism predates the religions you cited last time, and Christianity predates both Islam and Hinduism. Second point Constantine did not declare Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. I am not even sure what Roman Empire you are speaking of since there were two during much of Constantine's reign as Emperor. I find no evidence he declared Christianity the official religion of the Eastern or Western Empire. Try again to make a relevant point based perhaps in some historical fact or evidence.

 

[AirCobra]

We have a winner!!:smash:

How about you? You want to give it a shot and show me where Constantine made Christianity the "official religion of the Roman Empire" or even just the Eastern Empire. Its good to see the blind can still lead the blind.

 

[AirCobra]

Hi!

It is wrong to compare Science and Religion in the area of morality. Science is about studying how our universe works, and how we can improve our lives with technology. Ultimately, if our earth survives long enough, Science will prove that God exists, and that God created the universe.

I do not want any laws or legal code that is based on religion, because if I don't agree with the religion, I won't agree with the laws (like Sharia, based on the Muslim religion).

I want a legal code that is based on what my society decides will work best for itself.

Situation: Is it ok to kill someone to take something from them?
Answer: No. That negatively affects the society. It is undesireable, so it is illegal.
No religion involved.

cliff
NBO

Cliff,
If we talk about the American system, its laws and philosophies were based in Christian principle. Its just the way it is and it does not mean we live in a theocracy. In some societies it is okay for you to kill someone and take their things. In fact it is the entire basis for evolutionary theory is it not?, survival of the fittest. So how then do you overcome you natural instincts? It is our morals and sense of right an wrong that prevent most of us from killing to meet our needs. Those morals come from our culture, and Western culture has been based in Judeo-Christian morals for over a thousand years. The only thing inborn in all of us is not a sense of right and wrong, but an inborn survival instinct that makes us first want to act for our own benefit. Do you really think if you never disciplined a toddler that it is wrong to punch a kid and take his toy, that eventually he would just figure it out on his own? That natural inborn selfishness would just go away? What if you rewarded a toddler for punching a kid? would he then stop doing it because deep down inside he knows its wrong? Our society and culture dictate what is right and wrong, and we happen to live in a society based in Judeo-Christian morals and ethics. I don't understand why you find this disagreeable and would even equate it with Shiria.
John Adams said "Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue." I hope you can see the distinction in what Adams said. A Christian moral foundation does not mean a theocracy since there is a distinction between Christian philosophy and say a Christian denominational religion. I think our education system is so screwed up that people have confused the two to the point it appears that they don't understand their own society and government. America as the FF's created and understood and as we understand it today could not exist without a people rooted in a Judeo-Christian moral philosophy. If Biblical principle played no part in our law and society this would be an much different nation. Not necessarily an immoral nation, but certainly not "American" as we understand it.

 

[AirCobra]

Funny, I have lived in non-Christian countries were murder was illegal too. And I can think of lots of laws that we have, that were not passed down from religious decree. Its not in the Bible that anyone under 16 can not drive.

Morality does not require religion, it requires a thinking person who can discern between right and wrong, who can think of something besides just ones self.

Well what is right and wrong exactly? Where does your sense of right and wrong come from? Was your morality inborn?

 

[shagadelic]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I dont want to read all 9 pages of this thread, but you are not quite correct in your "gravity is just a theory" mindset. Perhaps your 15 year old wunderkind can set you straight, and as a $200/hr Captain I would've assumed you'd have known this, but gravity is not a "theory" but rather one of Sir Isaac Newton's laws.

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

 

[AirCobra]

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

Turns out perhaps you are both sort of right and both sort of wrong.

http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/newton.htm#law

Is [Newtonian] gravity a theory or a law?

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. In a scientific context, "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly put-down "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. A statement that cannot be disproved by experiment may still be highly respectable but it's simply not part of any experimental science (it could be mathematics, philosophy or religion, but it's not physics). Now that we have the basic vocabulary straight, we may discuss gravity itself...
Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is obvious all around us. As such, it's begging for a scientific theory to describe it accurately and consistently. The rules within a theory are called laws and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. Loosely stated:

Two things always attract in direct proportion to their masses and
in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. ​

However, the Newtonian laws are not the ultimate laws of gravity. We do know that General Relativity (GR) provides more accurate experimental predictions in extreme conditions (e.g., a residual discrepancy in the motion of the perihelion of Mercury is not explained by Newtonian theory but is accounted for by GR).
Does this mean Newtonian theory is wrong ? Of course not. Until we have a theory of everything (if such a thing exists) any physical theory has its own range of applicability where its predications are accurate at a stated level of precision (stating the accuracy is very important in Science; an experimental prediction is meaningless if it does not come with a margin for error). The Newtonian theory is darn good at predicting the motion of planets within the Solar System to many decimal places... That's all we ask of it.
Even General Relativity is certainly not the ultimate theory of gravitation. We know that much because GR is a classical theory, as opposed to a quantum theory. So, GR is not mathematically compatible with the quantum phenomena which become so obvious at very small scales...
Science is mostly a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it so nice and exciting. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory. Without such a framework, scientific discourse would be crippled into utter uselessness.

 

[flyguy75000]

Ahh, yet another dolt who doesn't understand what the term theory means. A theory is not a hypothesis. Do a little reading on how scientists use the term "theory", I'm not going to waste my time and hold your hand.

If you had done the slightest bit of research you would know that there are actually plenty of flaws in Newton's theory; Einsteins theory of relativity corrects much of those flaws, but the Newtonian theory is much simpler and easier to work with, so is defaulted to in most cases. In any event, they have not been dis-proven, they predict accurately, and have stood the test time of time through countless experiments....all necessary ingredients for a good "theory". Once again.....when you say "it's just a theory", you highlight you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes and at least read the wikipedia (if nothing else) on newton's theory of gravity before you pop off with stupidity.

Actually, shagafag, YOU were the one that said "gravity is just a theory". Re-read where I quoted you. So possibly I was illustrating to everyone here that YOU, yes you, shagafag, don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes away from being a c0cksmoker on flightinfo and go blow your boyfriend before you come on here and pop off with your gayness.