If your not interested in God, then why are you so interested?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like I said in the above post...I'm hip to the basis of their "interest".
I see my own motivation for being on this board...and how it kinda "bothers" me that those that think differently than others feel so compelled to bust on them.
Oh, yeah...they will say it's a "real threat"...but we all know very, very few of them have ever REALLY been effected by Theism/Religion in any way beyond their obsessive headtrips about it.
When I was young I was taught all about theology through the most prevalent local system...I learned about the Bible, and was taught prayers. I found it boring...but it didn't "hurt" me in any way. Not EVER...then or later on.
OTOH...I was taught in the school, where I got my initial "formal education", about the "Food Pyramid"...I learned that you should eat some meat with every meal, and drink lots of whole (4% fat) milk, and they verified that I had retained that information by testing me to make sure. Later in life I ended up with very high cholesterol and I found out it had made me very sick, and was on its way to KILLING me.
My experience with learning these things is probably typical of most.
But...ya know. I couldn't see myself on NUTRITION sites...getting on their case for causing so much PAIN and ACTUAL DEATH because of how wrong they were with the so-called "scientifically proven" misinformation they gave us.
WHY wouldn't I do that?! Because I KNOW it wouldn't do a bit of good to change anything.
BUT...I am here being intolerant over intolerance...biased about bias...and prejudiced about prejudice...and getting on the case of those that I feel are being that way. And WHY do I do it?...because, even though I know it won't change anything...I am interested in doing it, because I LIKE doing it.
To extend you analogy, aren't you glad that scientists/nutritionists didn't stop experimenting and testing after the food pyramid was established? Aren't you glad they decided not to simply state that regardless of the evidence we believe this and there is no more to discover about food and nutrition? What we atheists, (trying not to assume that I speak for us all) want is to ensure that the next generation isn't brainwashed into believing the same fairy tales we were told, hoping they will want to advance our understanding of our world, our lives, and the universe. One of the ways we can accomplish this is to debunk these baseless claims on the internet, in forums such as this, and at public debates, i.e. Richard Dawkins.
To extend you analogy, aren't you glad that scientists/nutritionists didn't stop experimenting and testing after the food pyramid was established? Aren't you glad they decided not to simply state that regardless of the evidence we believe this and there is no more to discover about food and nutrition? What we atheists, (trying not to assume that I speak for us all) want is to ensure that the next generation isn't brainwashed into believing the same fairy tales we were told, hoping they will want to advance our understanding of our world, our lives, and the universe. One of the ways we can accomplish this is to debunk these baseless claims on the internet, in forums such as this, and at public debates, i.e. Richard Dawkins.
Part of my point was that Atheists claim that a big portion of their interest is to prevent Theological concepts from being presented to students because they feel harm will come from them getting information that isn't "proven to be true".
I was illustrating how that is bogus, and just a diversion. The fact is, way more people have been harmed (ACTUAL harm...not just "headtrips") by poor science. Funny though...I don't see any protest about that.
That they later modify it when they find out they are wrong is little consolation...they might still be wrong.
So...if they "modified and tried to improve"...would you think religion to then be acceptable?
See...it has very little to do with shielding the world from the "harm" that comes from Reeeeeee-liiiiiii-giooooooon. It can be reasonably argued that as much, if not more, harm has come from science and technology.
It has to do with the headtrips the Atheists have over their bias, prejudice, intolerance, and for some, outright contempt, for anything that has to do with Theism/God/God Related.
Guys like Dawkins are veritable poster-children for that contempt filled, angst-ridden attitude. So it figures a insufferable chump like him would make mention.
It is typical of people to almost consumed with interest in the things they hate.
Unfortunately a lot of what people like you think is "poor science" has nothing to do with science at all. It is not Bad Science but Bad Media. You stray into one of my fields here of epidemiology when you mention bad nutrition advice for example.
The vast majority of "nutrition advice" in the world comes to us through the media. Unfortunately they get it themselves off Quack self appointed nutritionalists with mail order accreditation at best and entirely made up accreditation at worst. Or the articles we read in our papers on what food is good and bad for us is not coming to us as the result of clinical well run trials... but statements released and sponsored by the companies selling that particular food stuff who managed to brown envelope some phd or other to put their name to the claims.
So bad is it that some media outlets... such as the Daily Mail in the UK... have taken it upon themselves to divide the entire world into things that cause or cure cancer. They fall over themselves in their desperation to do this so badly that some things even appear on BOTH lists. They think coffee both causes and cures it for example.
That you see no "protest" against this can only be for want of the effort of even looking because protest against it is abundant. And just like the anti religion movement has it's recognized public figureheads like Richard Dawkins.... and anti charlatan nutrition movements has many such characters working hard such as Ben Goldacre.
That you were taught bogus science in school is unfortunate but not unheard of. It happens and there ARE people protesting it and working against it. Quite hard in fact. Changing school curriculum is a hard thing to do however. Or at least it should be. Alas some people with money can get bogus nonsense crap in there under the radar. If you want to see the true horror of just how easily patently transparent nonsense can get into schools just look into the UK phenomenon of the "Brain Training". Here vast sums of money are paid to train teachers... to then train children.... to perform totally nonsense things like making rings with their fingers to complete electrical pathways which in turn build brain matter. You could not make up something more nonsense if you tried... yet millions are spent teaching this to children and teachers alike.
And do not even get me started on the vast "fish oil tablet" canard in the UK which was exploitation by the fish oil pill industry on such a scale that I can only sit in awed bafflement wondering how the entire thing has not been described as criminal.
Unsubstantiated claims of ANY kind need to ousted from our class rooms. Be it nonsense about nutrition... nonsense about brain training exercises..... or nonsense about invisible non human entities responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. And as I said... if you think there is no protest and effort being put into ALL these areas then this is merely because you invested zero effort into looking for it. Which surprises me not a jot alas.
Unfortunately a lot of what people like you think is "poor science" has nothing to do with science at all. It is not Bad Science but Bad Media. You stray into one of my fields here of epidemiology when you mention bad nutrition advice for example.
The vast majority of "nutrition advice" in the world comes to us through the media. Unfortunately they get it themselves off Quack self appointed nutritionalists with mail order accreditation at best and entirely made up accreditation at worst. Or the articles we read in our papers on what food is good and bad for us is not coming to us as the result of clinical well run trials... but statements released and sponsored by the companies selling that particular food stuff who managed to brown envelope some phd or other to put their name to the claims.
So bad is it that some media outlets... such as the Daily Mail in the UK... have taken it upon themselves to divide the entire world into things that cause or cure cancer. They fall over themselves in their desperation to do this so badly that some things even appear on BOTH lists. They think coffee both causes and cures it for example.
That you see no "protest" against this can only be for want of the effort of even looking because protest against it is abundant. And just like the anti religion movement has it's recognized public figureheads like Richard Dawkins.... and anti charlatan nutrition movements has many such characters working hard such as Ben Goldacre.
That you were taught bogus science in school is unfortunate but not unheard of. It happens and there ARE people protesting it and working against it. Quite hard in fact. Changing school curriculum is a hard thing to do however. Or at least it should be. Alas some people with money can get bogus nonsense crap in there under the radar. If you want to see the true horror of just how easily patently transparent nonsense can get into schools just look into the UK phenomenon of the "Brain Training". Here vast sums of money are paid to train teachers... to then train children.... to perform totally nonsense things like making rings with their fingers to complete electrical pathways which in turn build brain matter. You could not make up something more nonsense if you tried... yet millions are spent teaching this to children and teachers alike.
And do not even get me started on the vast "fish oil tablet" canard in the UK which was exploitation by the fish oil pill industry on such a scale that I can only sit in awed bafflement wondering how the entire thing has not been described as criminal.
Unsubstantiated claims of ANY kind need to ousted from our class rooms. Be it nonsense about nutrition... nonsense about brain training exercises..... or nonsense about invisible non human entities responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. And as I said... if you think there is no protest and effort being put into ALL these areas then this is merely because you invested zero effort into looking for it. Which surprises me not a jot alas.
Must admit that I don't know about what other countries taught. But that "Food Pyramid" was "nutrition gospel" for decades here in the U.S.
"Eat lots of meat and drink lots of milk, for your good health" was what was taught that whole time.
Millions upon millions ended up with cardiac issues resulting from high cholesterol. Many died and many very sick and needing major surgery.
The "protest" I'm speaking of, is "protests" like what we see with teaching the FACT that 98% of the people that have ever lived believed a God exists.
I guess it is okay to teach them FALSE information that will surely hurt them physically.
But not okay to be taught FACTUAL information about the traditions, culture, and beliefs of most of the people that have ever lived...that has no potential to cause any real harm.
We don't see groups suing to prevent the government from disseminating ANY information to school children that has been shown to have the potential to be false and harmful...just information about theology.
If you say they put more pressure on them in other countries, I'll take your word for it...as you are accurate that I have not done much checking into what they do outside the U.S.
Your post taught me something Nozz...thanks for that.
Because the nature of 'god' and 'belief' goes beyond any one religion; it's more than 'believer vs. athiest', and larger than we can properly express.
I've known one very vocal athiest (though he was mostly so just for the chance to be a jerk about it), and a friend once encountered a man who thought god was a potato.
So, I put it to you, Mickiel: what makes a person see holiness in a vegetable? For what reason does a person come to devoutly believe in what is essentially an 'imaginary friend'? Is it something in a person's brain chemistry? Will we one day find a way to turn off some neuron that tells our brain to 'believe'? Is it an inherited characteristic that kept our ancestors from going bibbledy when they tried to think it through?
Whatever 'god' is -- whether the reason is biological, mental, or extra-terrestrial -- it's the search for the answer* that drives us.
*Yes, I know it's 42. I wasn't talking about that Answer.
Must admit that I don't know about what other countries taught. But that "Food Pyramid" was "nutrition gospel" for decades here in the U.S.
If you say so but that is not my point. The point is that there is all kinds of nonsense and outdated knowledge still taught in our schools. Sometimes it takes a LONG time to change these things. Sometimes if people throw enough money at it they can get nonsense added quickly or protect nonsense that should be removed from actually being removed. There are all kinds of reasons alas why our school curriculum are not perfect be it in the US or in Ireland or anywhere else.
This does not mean that there are not people protesting and working hard on getting nonsense taken out of our schools. Whether that nonsense be outdated and false nutritional facts or be it unsubstantiated nonsense about the existence of god. Both should be removed and there are people working hard at it, regardless of whether you personally have noticed them or not.
By the way small correction on my last post. It is not called "Brain Training". The real name escaped me so I just called it that. While having breakfast this morning the correct name came to me. It is called "Brain Gym" and is another example of the heinous nonsense that we teach our children in schools.
Because the nature of 'god' and 'belief' goes beyond any one religion; it's more than 'believer vs. athiest', and larger than we can properly express.
I've known one very vocal athiest (though he was mostly so just for the chance to be a jerk about it), and a friend once encountered a man who thought god was a potato.
So, I put it to you, Mickiel: what makes a person see holiness in a vegetable? For what reason does a person come to devoutly believe in what is essentially an 'imaginary friend'? Is it something in a person's brain chemistry? Will we one day find a way to turn off some neuron that tells our brain to 'believe'? Is it an inherited characteristic that kept our ancestors from going bibbledy when they tried to think it through?
Whatever 'god' is -- whether the reason is biological, mental, or extra-terrestrial -- it's the search for the answer* that drives us.
*Yes, I know it's 42. I wasn't talking about that Answer.
Belief is a human desire and choice that is normally backed by reason and facts. Belief in God can be different, but does not have to be. It too can be based on reason and fact, but also blind faith and emotional content. It can be based on family training and environment. One can have belief without certainty , because certainty is not required by some, then they can believe in a vegetable or potato. I think the root reason humans have always had belief in God, or gods, is because God himself implanted it into the human consciousness. Not anything physical in the brain , but in our conscuious thought; that is where it was imparted, in the spirit that is in humans, which is consciousness. That part of us appeals to the search for the spiritual; if that spirit is misdirected, it will believe in just about anything, or nothing.
God is or can be like a magnet, he just naturally draws attention, because he is the greatest. Its an inner pull to your consciousness. And Atheist are proof of the pull, because they are in essence " Pulling away from God", and are still drawn to him, still interested in him. Interesting, walking away from something, not believing in it, and yet still drawn to it. That is overwhelming evidence of God. The hidden interest in Atheist.
So just think what the pull would be like in Theist. And that is the true definition of Theist belief in God, they are " Pulled to believe", and had absolutely nothing to do with the pull. They were NOT pulled because of their righteousness, personal behavior, obedience, repentance- nothing they did was the cause of the pull; it was simply God. Something God did for his own reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
