Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

To LW & Mish re: tax exempt status: I wasn't attacking religion. I was pointing out how religion is given special status. In direct answer to a question. Sorry you find the answer uncomfortable.

Funny, noone here has actually answered MY question, whether you think that education & science research is less deserving of EQUAL TREATMENT by our government. I never said that charity shouldn't be given a tax break, where did I say that? I mean it, show me where I actually said that Mish, or prove that you are deliberately taking me out of context.

I SAID that its unfair that other, equally worthy organizations are also not afforded this same break. Again, religion should not afford any SPECIAL status. If it deserves a tax break, so should all the other things I mentioned. It is EQUALITY I am striving for, and choice as I have always said.

And Mish, sorry dear, but you are speaking from a position of ignorance here. Public funded laboratories are NOT tax exempt (we pay tax on our reagents for example), nor are school PACs (all funded with after-tax dollars, even worse). I have the receipts for both as proof.

OVs point about religions building castles is an incredibly potent point, thank you for that reminder. Lot of ppl could be fed on that tax-free money...

[IndiReloaded]

Ah but it is. This is not a mathematical question you are dealing with, you are dealing with people's definition of life as we know it, with who they are. You are stepping way beyond simple "correct and incorrect". It leads us back to.

Sorry Mish, you are wrong. I am referring directly to your comment about natural selection.

Whether ppl choose to be depressed or not about the theory has NOTHING to do with its validity. The theory is either right or it isn't and nothing about how we FEEL about it will change that. No more than whether you FEEL happy or sad about throwing a ball in the air will change the fact that gravity will bring it back down eventually. Your logic circuits are failing.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay Mish, I am sorry to do this to you, but this has gone on long enough. You insulted OV by claiming 'victory' when its clear he had you balls over a barrel. Your rhetoric is getting nasty. I know you feel threatened, but still, try to have some 'grace' as you put it. OV is too big to call you on it, but I think it needs addressing for your own sake b/c I think you will run into problems w/this false superiority complex you project. I understand it comes from insecurity & superficial knowledge, but its something you should take a look at sometime. Actually, I suspect you already have had problems in this regard but I understand if you don't want to admit it.

Now, as to this:

I already said my son is well aware of the concept of God & the bible. We take him to church even for the xmas service when visiting relatives. His choices about life philosophy will be made with the fullest experience of ALL that we can expose him to, as best we can. After that, its up to him & his reasoning brain.

I'm surprised that you do this. But I agree, it's the right thing to do.

And the fact that you are surprised says a LOT about your biased mindset Mish, lol. I already said that science has nothing to fear from religion. Pity that religious ppl don't give the same nod to reason & science. Know thyself & then try not to pass too many of your personal neuroses onto the next generation, Mish. Have FAITH in their ability to sort things out for themselves.

Is that before or after they went to prison? Because a lot of rehabilitation programs ran in US prisons are run by Religious groups. They actually claim that because Godless criminals find God that they become better people and strive for better things in life.

As fas as unbiased study for meaning of life goes, sorry Indi I didn't run a study like that. If the fact of psychology I posted earlier is not enough, then use your common sense. Ask yourself why you would advocate a positive life perspective over a non perspective or a negative one?

Nope, Mish, sorry your 'fact' of psychology isn't enough. Esp to someone w/a degree in psychology who is familiar w/the literature. Peer reviewed study from a reputable journal or I call bullshit on your so-called 'common sense' (I could get you several about about religiousity in prisons, lol). This is the same type of poor argument ID ppl resort to when scientists call BS on the crap posted on places like creationmuseum.org.

Mish, you continue to make the mistake of trying to justify your belief w/research. You would do much better if you simply didn't try. You don't seem to get that I, and other scientists, don't care if you simply say 'that is what I believe, but I have no proof'. Again, I am NOT trying to 'take away' your belief. But I will strongly oppose anyone or any group who tries to make it sound scientific b/c they understand that in doing so it provides dubious credibility to a skeptical public.

What's happening tho, is that there's a certain amount of embarrassment associated w/having one's beliefs held up to the cold light of reason where someone says "See, this can't be true b/c we have x,y,z that proves otherwise". But, again, this is not a scientists problem. Our world view is internally consistent. The fact that this isn't the case for many religious believers is just something that they must come to terms with. Just remember that there are two types of lies: those you tell others & those you tell yourself.

A scientists says: lie to yourself all you like. It is your right to do so & I don't frankly care. But don't **** up everyone else (esp our kids) by lying to them also.

And before you get all uppity & say there's no lying going on, here's a list of the lies that creationists openly tell:

We came from monkeys.

The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.

There are no contradictions in the bible.

The bible has been proven through fulfilled prophesy.

Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

Evolution has been proven false (aka - is only a 'theory').

Atheists have no morals.

This United States is a country founded on Christianity.

1,000,000 animals lived and survived on a boat that couldn't fit them. (In fact this whole list could be Noah's Ark related).

"Creationism" is a proven scientific theory.

Archaeopteryx isn't an example of a fossil intermediate.

Same for Traidobatrachus, therapsids, Icthyostega, Ambulocetus, ... etc.

There ARE no fossil intermediates supporting evolution (or course not, see above).

A.aferensis (aka Lucy) was just an ape (LOL!) & doesn't support evolution.

Evolution violates the fundamental laws of physics (themodynamics).

Entropy makes it impossible for any new genetic information to appear (thus invalidating evolution).
(like I said, I KNOW ppl who are doing molecular evolution in a test tube--I assure everyone reading this they are NOT doing these experiments in another dimension w/different laws of physics)

Oh, and the best one: Life is too improbable.

For anyone who understands Darwins theory, this is readily (and beautifully!) explained in Origin of Species, which has only been strengthened by the subsequent discovery of the changable nature of nucleic acid chemistry & structure. And never even mind classic experiments like the Miller-Urey one (where they made basic amino acids in a test tube using electricity under conditions that could *easily* have existed on a young earth). Even better, we now know that things like RNA (a simple information system, simpler than DNA even) had the ability to make its own building blocks and copy itself & perform simple chemistry (the first catalytic 'organisms') so that basic life-giving chemistry and evolution could occur. Ppl are reproducing these conditions TODAY in labs all over the world. In fact, they are close to recreating the first cell, de novo, from basic chemicals (not from using preexisting 'designer created' cells).

So, Mish, if you want to believe in a creator, despite all these INTENTIONAL lies, fine. That is your right. But then just say so & stop trying to sound like your decision is based on reason. It isn't. Sorry man, its blind faith all the way & the longer science progresses and makes more discoveries, the more obvious this is going to be.

Or, as one scientist put it (when asked what would provide proof of God & creationism): Show me rabbits in the precambrian & I too will believe.

Later everyone, gotta work.

[Only-virgins]

I will. Have fun loosing with indignity then

If it's so useless then why does it continue OV? Using your own words, Isn't it an insult to human race to think of them so useless that they will continue doing a useless activity over and over again? Unless the activity isn't so useless?

I have already answered all of these questions before. I told you that it continues as long as you teach your young to do so. The need for a religion isn't an "if", there might have been a need for it, no longer though it is necessary for anything like it. Sorry, there is no in-dignified way to lose this debate until you start calling people names. You keep repeating yourself even though we have answered all your question already and proven what you said wrong.

Existentialism.

We are all individuals and born open-minded. Isn't there something to think about now? We are either fed what we know or pick it up around us.

Whether ppl choose to be depressed or not about the theory has NOTHING to do with its validity. The theory is either right or it isn't and nothing about how we FEEL about it will change that.

Exactly, why is this so hard to understand for some?

I already said my son is well aware of the concept of God & the bible. We take him to church even for the xmas service when visiting relatives. His choices about life philosophy will be made with the fullest experience of ALL that we can expose him to, as best we can. After that, its up to him & his reasoning brain.

That is not giving him a choice. You are FORCING him to go to church. What reasoning? A child's mind is susceptible to a lot of false information and for sure the information coming from their parents. The first years are so crucial in a person's life and what they are forced to do. I'm not going to be doing that with my child just as I am not going to be feeding him any science...as a child he should be playing legos and having fun with with friends who hopefully will not be harmful influnces on him though that is always a risk...building up his critical thinking slowly would be the point. That is the thing about kids, they can't think for themself completely yet and depend on a lot of answers from their parents. He can go to school and learn ideas of great men once he has developed a larger and more logic brain making him wiser and thinking on his own . Once he is there if he decides that religion makes sense than he will be old enough to drive himself to church all he wants too...though I am sure you already know it in your mind that he won't...because like I said...a person who listens to the logic behind religion with out being brain washed first sees that there is no logic behind it at all.

This is the same type of poor argument ID ppl resort to when scientists call BS on the crap posted on places like creationmuseum.org.

Haha the creationist museum.

Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

Evolution has been proven false (aka - is only a 'theory').

Atheists have no morals.

I already have heard this before but wow, everytime I read it .... it is just all so ... claims such as those make me fear for my children's mental well being in the future.

For anyone who understands Darwins theory, this is readily (and beautifully!) explained in Origin of Species, which has only been strengthened by the subsequent discovery of the changable nature of nucleic acid chemistry & structure. And never even mind classic experiments like the Miller-Urey one (where they made basic amino acids in a test tube using electricity under conditions that could *easily* have existed on a young earth).

I have tried to explain to people before that we have already recreated the original earth's environment in a controlled experiment.
That includes methane which some don't believe was the original element in the atmosphere. The Nucleotides formed as monomers of nucleic acids...which are formed themself from the natural tendency that amino acids have to bind through hydrogen binding. Thymine with Adenine and Guanine with Cytosine in Deoxyribonucleic acid or more know as DNA. Life began to cultivate in a controlled environment. That experiment blew me away when I first heard about it. The beginning of new life was created in a test tube, you would thank that would have been the nail in the coffin in anti-evolutionary theories but people are just so stubborn.

[IndiReloaded]

That is not giving him a choice. You are FORCING him to go to church.

Not at all, OV. We don't make him go. We ask if he would like to go & explained what would be happening. His grandfather is an unapologetic atheist and refuses to go & he was given the choice to stay & play w/him (and lego) both of which he loves. It was no enforced hardship & he understood we were primarily going b/c of the importance to older family members. He enjoyed the singing & the service.

What reasoning? A child's mind is susceptible to a lot of false information and for sure the information coming from their parents.

I completely agree w/this. And in our case, we happen to believe that a lot of 'truth' comes from direct experience. If he ever does decide to accept or reject religion, we want him to do so w/as much data possible. We didn't take him to church when he was young, only once he became capable of reason (the last few years). He's been reading books like Dune, Ender's Game, for the past several years, so we figure he can handle the odd (lol) foray into religion. We are carefully neutral on the subject, except to tell him we did the same thing when we were his age.

...building up his critical thinking slowly would be the point. That is the thing about kids, they can't think for themself completely yet and depend on a lot of answers from their parents. He can go to school and learn ideas of great men once he has developed a larger and more logic brain making him wiser and thinking on his own . Once he is there if he decides that religion makes sense than he will be old enough to drive himself to church all he wants too...though I am sure you already know it in your mind that he won't...because like I said...a person who listens to the logic behind religion with out being brain washed first sees that there is no logic behind it at all.

I know its unusual, but my 8 year old son is better at critical thinking than most adults. In our opinion he's ready, in small controlled doses, to see first hand what religious ppl are like. Otherwise, we run the risk of him only being able to relate to 'rational' ppl like us. Religion motivates a large fraction of the world, for good or ill, and we are not doing our children a service to insulate them from it. As I say, I believe in rescuing children from our OWN biases & neuroses.

I already have heard this before but wow, everytime I read it .... it is just all so

I know what you mean, but it NEEDS saying. The fact that it makes ppl uncomfortable is a GOOD sign that the message is hitting home. You may suspect by now that this isn't the first time I've had this type of argument (hence my facility w/turning the phrases you admire--thanks--its just long practice, btw). As you can see, sometimes it pays to wait & see what kinds of arguments are generated. You will encounter all kinds of variants & I would encourage you to challenge them when the time & inclination permits.

For example, just to save time, I predict the following response about my last post (about creationists) to go something like: "but WE ('moderate' religious believers) aren't like THEM". The response is as follows (I wrote this a while back):

Even ‘moderate’ religious ppl such as yourself are still permissive of these types of extremists. Don’t say you aren’t b/c thus far I have yet to see a statement from you where you say: ‘I would argue just as strongly against a creationist for his irrational beliefs in light of scientific proof as I argue w/you for my moderate ones’. When I see that then I will have hope for this ‘new’ moderate form of religion you espouse. You don’t tho. Instead, you say ‘well, its understandable they lie, they are left with no other choice’. But they DO have another choice: to give up their irrational beliefs that fly in the face of good, solid fact. To adapt, to EVOLVE with the knowledge that those old tenets that used to serve are just simply outdated & need to be relegated to the annals of history.

That’s a big difference b/t science and religion. Science has a working mechanism for weeding out the nutbars & we absolutely don’t accept their ideas until there is reasonable proof. We might find it an amusing intellectual exercise (which is how I view religion & much of philosophy, FYI) but it gets no more weight than that in terms of explaining how the universe works until there is at least some supporting data. Not all ideas are created equal. Not all beliefs are created equal. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating b/c this point seems to elude you.

(sound familiar, Mish? These aren't new arguments you present, lol).

NOTE: This is again where Gribbles earlier comment (“when are theists going to come around?”) would apply.

Religion holds no more special status than any other belief system. If certain subsets of that group want to claim science is wrong & they are right, there are ppl like myself and others who will challenge them to explain. And blow them out of the water w/logic & make them angry and upset and force them to lie & make their situation even worse. You bet.

And some fraction of those ppl will just become entrenched & they are a lost cause. BUT there are some, who have yet a glimmer of sense in them that there is *something* wrong w/the reasoning. That there might be a better path for them to find. And if they are reached, then its all worth it.

(Just like religious priests/pastors/evangelists/monks do, lol, except we have the power of reason on our side & they don't. Its no wonder they are upset & too bad, I say.)

For OV (and Gribble & the like): you may be interested to know I view the ability of individuals to 'throw off' the ties of religion, esp when indoctrinated early, as a form of mental 'natural selection'. Without exception, the ppl I know who have been able to do this are all brilliant individuals. Its something Dawkins doesn't mention as a possible 'use' for faith, but one that I have thought has some very interesting implications for the development of alternative & rational thought pathways. Think about it.

[Only-virgins]

For OV (and Gribble & the like): you may be interested to know I view the ability of individuals to 'throw off' the ties of religion, esp when indoctrinated early, as a form of mental 'natural selection'. Without exception, the ppl I know who have been able to do this are all brilliant individuals. Its something Dawkins doesn't mention as a possible 'use' for faith, but one that I have thought has some very interesting implications for the development of alternative & rational thought pathways. Think about it.

Thanks. I don't need to think about it. I was born in Poland, where I was raised in a extreme catholic family. The town was built around a church in the middle. My parents unfortunately forced me to go to church and didn't allow me to question that faith. At 15 I came forward with it, they had a hard time excepting that I just didn't buy all that silly nonsense but they got over it.

By the way, If you kids go to church on their own than that maybe different. Though he may just be trying to live by taking an example of Grandpa there. I was never given the option.

[Kiechi]

**** me, people get a life.

[Only-virgins]

**** me, people get a life.

I have a life.

[misombra]

you guys have beaten this subject to death.

[DoesntMatter]

For OV (and Gribble & the like): you may be interested to know I view the ability of individuals to 'throw off' the ties of religion, esp when indoctrinated early, as a form of mental 'natural selection'. Without exception, the ppl I know who have been able to do this are all brilliant individuals. Its something Dawkins doesn't mention as a possible 'use' for faith, but one that I have thought has some very interesting implications for the development of alternative & rational thought pathways. Think about it.

I doubt it. There's nothing brilliant about accepting or denying religion starting from anywhere because religion itself is already so ****ing simple to begin with. Religion is a matter of taste, not intelligence

[Mish]

Sorry Mish, you are wrong. I am referring directly to your comment about natural selection.

Whether ppl choose to be depressed or not about the theory has NOTHING to do with its validity. The theory is either right or it isn't and nothing about how we FEEL about it will change that. No more than whether you FEEL happy or sad about throwing a ball in the air will change the fact that gravity will bring it back down eventually. Your logic circuits are failing.

First of all, I don't entirely believe that notion "Survival of the fittest" is valid. I think it's a gross generalization which doesn't represent evolution in its entirity at all. Second, I believe that even if certain facts are uncovered by Science, if these facts are harmful to our society they shouldn't be revealed. What we talked about earlier, postive perspective over negative one.

For example, let's say tomorrow we find out that being selfish and trampeling everyone in your wake is the mechnism by which all life survives, would you advocate this to be taught in Schools? If yes, it means you would want to see this practiced in real life. If no, why not? It would be a valid fact, it would have nothing to do with how we feel about it?

[Only-virgins]

I doubt it. There's nothing brilliant about accepting or denying religion starting from anywhere because religion itself is already so ****ing simple to begin with. Religion is a matter of taste, not intelligence

Color and music is a matter of taste. Logic vs faith is a matter of intelligence and stupidity.

[Kiechi]

Don't make me wave my weiner at this thread, because I will you know

[Mish]

To LW & Mish re: tax exempt status: I wasn't attacking religion. I was pointing out how religion is given special status. In direct answer to a question. Sorry you find the answer uncomfortable.

Funny, noone here has actually answered MY question, whether you think that education & science research is less deserving of EQUAL TREATMENT by our government. I never said that charity shouldn't be given a tax break, where did I say that? I mean it, show me where I actually said that Mish, or prove that you are deliberately taking me out of context.
I SAID that its unfair that other, equally worthy organizations are also not afforded this same break. Again, religion should not afford any SPECIAL status. If it deserves a tax break, so should all the other things I mentioned. It is EQUALITY I am striving for, and choice as I have always said.

Indi, I already answered your question. I believe they should be tax exempt as well. By all means. I showed you an extract from US law that states these institutions are exempt already. Maybe not in Canada though. Yes, yes and yes Indi. Any altrusitic organization deserves special status in my books.

I pointed out that mane organiztions (Including any individual or charity who donate) have the same status as Religion, they are not really "special" just following the rules of the land.

OVs point about religions building castles is an incredibly potent point, thank you for that reminder. Lot of ppl could be fed on that tax-free money...

You are calling Churches and Mosques castles? They are the homes for their congregattions. They are the places where the Religious followers donate. Where they worship. Would you rather they did that on the street?

I agree with you that, castles of Grandeur like at Vatican are gross wastes of donated money. But simple churches? These people need to have a place to be in.

[IndiReloaded]

I doubt it. There's nothing brilliant about accepting or denying religion starting from anywhere because religion itself is already so ****ing simple to begin with. Religion is a matter of taste, not intelligence.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. I happen to disagree based on my own personal observations of ppl I know, hence my hypothesis. Hope you don't take it personally.