Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[SpiritMeadow]

Janet, I share your concern, but I remain optimistic that genuine faith will perdure. It could be that the new atheism is a virulent response to the resurgence of a vigorous “religious right” initiated in the Reagan years, and that if society swings back to a more moderate position, that virulent atheism will fade into the background. But maybe not.

Petrus

I agree. The fact of the matter is that when the reactionary right first came on the scene, they were very upfront about their agenda. It was soundly rejected by the citizenry of this country. They then began the nefarious projects they are now engaged in, developing their own “law schools” training their people to run for school boards and town councils. Once these people were entrenched they tried to bring in through the back door what they had failed to get in the front. That is when science, not all of which is atheistic in their orientation by a long shot, sat up and began to get involved. Before that, they remained above the fray. If indeed the reactionary right would withdraw from its sneaky tactics to gain control of institiutions and change them against the will of the people, I imagine the radical left would back off as well. They have no particular reason to push God out of the arena, they are just trying to protect rational scientific investigation.

 

[drpmjhess]

That is when science, not all of which is atheistic in their orientation by a long shot, sat up and began to get involved. Before that, they remained above the fray. If indeed the reactionary right would withdraw from its sneaky tactics to gain control of institiutions and change them against the will of the people, I imagine the radical left would back off as well. They have no particular reason to push God out of the arena, they are just trying to protect rational scientific investigation.

SpiritMeadow, are we too entrenched in the culture wars to call a truce? Get both ID Creationists and new atheists to back off? Mutually recognize the legitimacy of spirituality and methodological naturalism in science?

 

[mmortal03]

“What would Jesus say” or want me to do. He made it so easy for us with only two rules. 1. Love God with all of your heart and soul. 2. Love your fellow man as you love yourself. For the last I do not see any caveats of… unless you are are Arab or black or what ever…

Come again?

and there is also no…**except those you do not believe as I do. How many times did Jesus tell us not to judge others. **Remember…“Forgive my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me.” “Take the beam out of your own eye and then you can see the speck in your brothers eye.” “Judge not, unless you be judged also”. on and on…and to me for a easy reason. We can not look into anothers heart and know his soul.

I know you said you left this thread, so it probably doesn’t make a difference what I say now, but unless you made a mistake, or I am misreading the previous quote, shouldn’t you also not be judging people of other races and cultures, like I think you have just done? I have family members who are near your age who are lifelong Americans, and who hold terrible stereotypes about blacks and Arabs. These family members of mine are the nicest, most caring people you would ever meet, and then, on occasion, you hear them say the most bigoted things about other races and cultures, like they missed the boat for “diversity training”.

I mean, maybe people have just unfortunately never had the opportunity to meet people who didn’t fulfill their preconceived stereotypes, and I happen to be lucky to have been exposed to enough people to have learned that stereotypes are almost always a bad thing. You MUST treat every person as an individual human being…period. You just CANNOT stereotype people, or they will only ever fit your stereotypes.

I believe that you can have an intellectual augment without the need to belittle other peoples view. For one thing, when you cause rancor in your opponent there is nothing else you can say that will change his option, so why bother except for your own satisfaction, or for the game.
I am so sorry if I also hurt anyone because I love all of you and I hope we are all children of one god. I do enjoy the intelligent repartee that is on these boards. It is just the rancor that I can not handle, I have been in every state and 40 countries and have seen rancor and hate all my life in all of these places and I guess I am just sick of it. I am just waiting to go to my Lords house where the lamb lays next to the lion.
My love to all.

You posted your message directly after a string of my own, so I hope that that is just a coincidence, and that it wasn’t my posts that you thought were belittling others. My best wishes to you.

 

[drpmjhess]

The dogmas concerning our first parents.

Right. These and other “dogmas” present interesting opportunities for theology to engage with science. I’m intrigued, for example, with the issue of Jesus’ genome and Y chromosome – where these came from, and how they related genetically to the genetics of first century Jews.

Petrus

 

[mmortal03]

I don’t understand why belief that life arose naturally upon earth, if indeed it did, is somehow incapatible with faith. Such is utterly not true and simply belies an very strong lack of understanding of both their faith and science IMO.

Exactly. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

It will be interesting to see what the world will be like if these activist atheists (such as Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) are successful in bringing about the further suppressing of religious people and their influence in society. Will we finally have heaven on earth?-- so to speak.

Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, I am going to make the following point: I wouldn’t say that Harris, Dawkins, or Hitchens want to suppress the freedoms of religious people to believe what they want. That isn’t their intent at all.

But, yes, they do want to suppress the religious influence of the imposing of certain non-universal beliefs onto the rest of us, by way of government. And I do fully support that.

Now, I realize that there are arguments on both sides.

Certain religious people make certain not-specifically-religious moral claims that a more secular society would be dangerous to those who are helpless, say in the case of abortion (pro-lifers believe it is unequivocally no different than murder of a new born child or even an adult).

Certain atheists think that certain fundamentalist religious ideologies are also dangerous to those who are helpless, say children who are being raised in strict, unilaterally fundamentalist religious household (atheists call this a form of psychological child abuse).

To me, the latter claim is at least a bit more empirically verifiable. It isn’t a denunciation of all religious beliefs, but things that can go along with fundamentalist ideologies (for instance, that extreme Mormon sect that is in the news who may have even been physically abusing their children.)

Now, I know these examples aren’t equivalent matters, even logically speaking, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that there are relative pros and cons on each side, and on very specific, detailed issues, and we must educate ourselves on these different points of views. I see a lot of blanket claims that atheists are going to bring the downfall of society, and I just want to show people logical examples of why this is a completely far-fetched claim.

 

[mmortal03]

SpiritMeadow, are we too entrenched in the culture wars to call a truce? Get both ID Creationists and new atheists to back off? Mutually recognize the legitimacy of spirituality and methodological naturalism in science?

I’m not SpiritMeadow, but I have to comment on this. These “new atheists” have no nefarious goals in what they want to see happen in America. They may be saying some perceptively belligerent things about religion, which is their personal choice in how they choose their words, but their focus is on religious extremism. People often mix up these individuals’ divisiveness, which is sometimes required for the sake of logical argument, with their derisiveness (which they also sometimes are). However, they don’t have in their goals some sort of Neo-Nazi-esqe dystopian-like-society, with secret plans in the back of their minds and ulterior motives to end all religion and to bring the downfall of Western society or the end of the world. It’s not like they don’t support lawfulness, freedom of religion, and the good of mankind.

Some of what they have said is over the top, but even they have said that much of it was purely chosen for them for the sake of marketing, and doesn’t necessarily best represent their views. (for example, Dawkins’ documentary that was called “The Root of All Evil”). Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” is not something he wants to impose on others with laws. Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great” is, again, something he doesn’t want to legally impose. It is philosophical ideas that you can choose to agree with or not.

The only “bad” thing that can happen with them succeeding in doing what they want to do is that you will have more people with a multifaceted education in science and philosophy, and less mass ignorance and unilateralism. They seek to do so with as little legal action as possible. So maybe some individuals will hear what they have to say and like it enough to convert to atheism? That is their freedom to do so, and isn’t the end of the world.

However, hatred toward every permutation of religion is something that they do not support at all. They support diversity (within the realms of reason), whereas the Creationists support inserting their particular, extremist beliefs into the laws of our society. It is just shouldn’t even be a debate that creationism should be taught in a philosophy class, and evolution be taught in a science class, but these Creationist extremists try to make people think that there is a controversy.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not SpiritMeadow, but I have to comment on this. These “new atheists” have no nefarious goals in what they want to see happen in America. They may be saying some perceptively belligerent things about religion, which is their personal choice in how they choose their words, but their focus is on religious extremism. People often mix up these individuals’ divisiveness, which is sometimes required for the sake of logical argument, with their derisiveness (which they also sometimes are). However, they don’t have some sort of Neo-Nazi-esqe dystopian-like society secret plan in the back of their minds to counter religion with and to bring the downfall of Western society or the end of the world. It’s not like they don’t support lawfulness, freedom of religion, and the good of mankind.

The only “bad” thing that can happen with them succeeding in doing what they want to do is that you will have more people with a multifaceted education in science and philosophy, and less mass ignorance and unilateralism. They seek to do so with as little legal action as possible. So maybe some individuals will hear what they have to say and like it enough to convert to atheism? That is their freedom to do so, and isn’t the end of the world.

However, hatred toward every permutation of religion is something that they do not support at all. They support diversity (within the realms of reason), whereas the Creationists support inserting their particular, extremist beliefs into the laws of our society. It is just shouldn’t even be a debate that creationism should be taught in a philosophy class, and evolution be taught in a science class, but these Creationist extremists try to make people think that there is a controversy.

Right - they are a minority and will be so in the future. However, some atheists have made drastic changes in our culture. Madeline O’Hare comes to mind.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/madalyn_ohare.htm

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, are we too entrenched in the culture wars to call a truce? Get both ID Creationists and new atheists to back off? Mutually recognize the legitimacy of spirituality and methodological naturalism in science?

If you have ever had the misfortune to try to hold off two dogs from each other, then that is the place we find ourselves in. Two slathering camps, often mistating the truth at each others throats and we stand in the breech, hoping they don’t turn on us! LOL. I do tend to find the skeptics a tad more rational most of the time, but not always. The religious right continuously oversteps so badly that they cannot even convince the moderates. I’d like a solution, I’m so tired of this nonsense. Does one have to move to Europe to find a sane conversation about religion.?

 

[mmortal03]

Right - they are a minority and will be so in the future. However, some atheists have made drastic changes in our culture. Madeline O’Hare comes to mind.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/madalyn_ohare.htm

What are these drastic changes that you speak of?

Hopefully, though, you don’t think that she is anywhere near what “the average atheist” might, hypothetically, be like. Her son, a “born again Christian”, even said the following about her:

"My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

She wasn’t evil because she was an atheist. Being a bad person and living a libertine lifestyle (not the freethinking definition of libertine, but the others) are in no way normal qualities of being one. Also, her being a bad person doesn’t disprove any of her logical claims regarding certain laws and rights of individuals. That would be ad hominem.

 

[Janet_S]

Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you, I am going to make the following point: I wouldn’t say that Harris, Dawkins, or Hitchens want to suppress the freedoms of religious people to believe what they want. That isn’t their intent at all.

But, yes, they do want to suppress the religious influence of the imposing of certain non-universal beliefs onto the rest of us, by way of government. And I do fully support that.

Now, I realize that there are arguments on both sides.

Certain religious people make certain not-specifically-religious moral claims that a more secular society would be dangerous to those who are helpless, say in the case of abortion (pro-lifers believe it is unequivocally no different than murder of a new born child or even an adult).

Certain atheists think that certain fundamentalist religious ideologies are also dangerous to those who are helpless, say children who are being raised in strict, unilaterally fundamentalist religious household (atheists call this a form of psychological child abuse).

To me, the latter claim is at least a bit more empirically verifiable. It isn’t a denunciation of all religious beliefs, but things that can go along with fundamentalist ideologies (for instance, that extreme Mormon sect that is in the news who may have even been physically abusing their children.)

Now, I know these examples aren’t equivalent matters, even logically speaking, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that there are relative pros and cons on each side, and on very specific, detailed issues, and we must educate ourselves on these different points of views. I see a lot of blanket claims that atheists are going to bring the downfall of society, and I just want to show people logical examples of why this is a completely far-fetched claim.

The Catholic Church is in support of religious liberty and has stated this authoritatively at least from the time of Vatican II (Dignitatis Humanae.) And, yes, laws must be based on the common good of society or the natural law. There are a number of issues people can agree about no matter what religion they are. But often times people can’t agree about the concept of “good” or even if there is something we can call “good” (or if everything is relative) let alone what is for the common good. This, of course, has presented some big problems. Beliefs and laws that have long been considered for the common good (marriage laws, anti-abortion laws) are being tossed out the window without careful consideration of the consequences or of the reasons why they were established in the first place. Yet I agree with you that not all religious practices can be defended on the basis of religious liberty–for example human sacrifice cannot be justified.

There’s a definite conceit or arrogance to the atheistic humanist movement. They like to see themselves as open-minded heralds of a new message, but actually they are every bit as dogmatic as the religious, backward people they try so hard to enlighten. All of us see with our eyes, but don’t perceive our lens; in like manner we think with our minds, but don’t perceive our ideolgies or philosophies. So it is for the atheistc humanists. They don’t passively infuse the knowledge of science into their unbiased minds, though this is what they may believe. They interpret science in light of their ideology, and then present their ideology as “just science.”

And sorry, atheists as the champions of liberty, I’m not buying it.
That’s very considerate of the atheist activists to tolerate religious people who keep their superstitious, nonsensical beliefs to themselves. But maybe they should consider, if religious people in the USA always had this attitude of “religion as a private matter, to be believed, but not acted on” we might still have slavery in the USA today.

We Christians have a right to liberty, just like the enlightened atheists do. How much freedom does a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist have when they are told they must dispense or prescribe an abortifacient drug or, if they refuse, lose their job?

We also have a right to object when our children are taught atheistic humanist philosophy in the public schools (we pay for), under the guise of science or sex education or whatever else you want to call it.

And, as far as child abuse, religious people don’t have a monopoly on that one either. I’m sure any fundamentalist would think children brought up without belief in God suffer from “psychological child abuse” as well.

 

[drpmjhess]

We also have a right to object when our children are taught atheistic humanist philosophy in the public schools (we pay for), under the guise of science or sex education or whatever else you want to call it.

Janet, what do you mean “under the guise of science”? When is atheism taught “under the guise of science”? Can you please clarify this?

 

[drpmjhess]

The religious right continuously oversteps so badly that they cannot even convince the moderates. I’d like a solution, I’m so tired of this nonsense. Does one have to move to Europe to find a sane conversation about religion.?

Expelled flunks the test

www.ExpelledExposed.com finds new creationist “documentary” lacking accuracy on many levels

Oakland, California, April 15, 2008 * Millions of dollars have been spent promoting Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to fundamentalist church groups, but that money would have been better spent on fact checkers. www.ExpelledExposed.com, a website launched today by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), reveals the truth behind the creationist movie’s misrepresentations.

“Creationists have been making the same arguments for decades,” says Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. “They’ve gotten better at marketing these claims, but they’re no more valid now than during the Scopes trial of the 1920s. Creationists have been predicting the death of evolution for over a century, yet it is constantly affirmed by evidence from fields Darwin could never have imagined.” Given the damning assessment at www.ExpelledExposed.com, Scott adds, “Perhaps the filmmakers should have spent more time hitting the books, instead of beating up on hardworking scientists.”

Throughout the movie, Ben Stein claims that “Big Science” represses intelligent design to advance an atheistic agenda, but NCSE doesn’t buy it. “There are many successful evolutionary biologists who are also people of faith, and a host of people of faith who regard intelligent design as a misconceived and harmful rejection of science. In attempting to pit Christianity against science, Expelled misrepresents both.”

“We reviewed public records and reports on the intelligent design promoters who were supposedly discriminated against, and we discovered that the claims that they lost their jobs over intelligent design are unsupported,” explains Josh Rosenau, a biologist at NCSE. “That said, professors who aren’t making advances in their field, editors who disregard their journal’s established practices, and lecturers who repeat creationist falsehoods shouldn’t be surprised if they have trouble holding jobs. These people weren’t expelled; they flunked out.” www.ExpelledExposed.com contains information about the “martyrs” from Expelled, and also of real scientists who successfully challenged established science. “The difference,” NCSE researcher Carrie Sager observes, “is that real scientists back their challenges with experimental results. Results are what changed minds, forced textbook revisions, and earned Nobel Prizes.”

More insidious are the movie’s attempts to link evolution to the Holocaust. Susan Spath, a historian of science at NCSE, comments: “The implication that Darwin led to Nazism and the Holocaust is an irresponsible misrepresentation of a terrible history. Hitler abused many things, including science, and Expelled is wrong to shift blame off his shoulders and onto evolution.” www.ExpelledExposed.com quotes the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, who described similar claims in a previous creationist movie as “an outrageous and shoddy attempt … to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.”

The National Center for Science Education is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The NCSE maintains its archive of source material on the history of creationism at its Oakland, California, headquarters. On the web at www.ncseweb.org. www.ExpelledExposed.com is a resource for journalists, teachers, and curious moviegoers who want the full story behind Expelled.

Contacts:
Eugenie C. Scott, scott@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Josh Rosenau, rosenau@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Susan Spath, spath@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Carrie Sager, sager@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Expelled flunks the test

www.ExpelledExposed.com finds new creationist “documentary” lacking accuracy on many levels

Oakland, California, April 15, 2008 * Millions of dollars have been spent promoting Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to fundamentalist church groups, but that money would have been better spent on fact checkers. www.ExpelledExposed.com, a website launched today by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), reveals the truth behind the creationist movie’s misrepresentations.

“Creationists have been making the same arguments for decades,” says Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education. “They’ve gotten better at marketing these claims, but they’re no more valid now than during the Scopes trial of the 1920s. Creationists have been predicting the death of evolution for over a century, yet it is constantly affirmed by evidence from fields Darwin could never have imagined.” Given the damning assessment at www.ExpelledExposed.com, Scott adds, “Perhaps the filmmakers should have spent more time hitting the books, instead of beating up on hardworking scientists.”

Throughout the movie, Ben Stein claims that “Big Science” represses intelligent design to advance an atheistic agenda, but NCSE doesn’t buy it. “There are many successful evolutionary biologists who are also people of faith, and a host of people of faith who regard intelligent design as a misconceived and harmful rejection of science. In attempting to pit Christianity against science, Expelled misrepresents both.”

“We reviewed public records and reports on the intelligent design promoters who were supposedly discriminated against, and we discovered that the claims that they lost their jobs over intelligent design are unsupported,” explains Josh Rosenau, a biologist at NCSE. “That said, professors who aren’t making advances in their field, editors who disregard their journal’s established practices, and lecturers who repeat creationist falsehoods shouldn’t be surprised if they have trouble holding jobs. These people weren’t expelled; they flunked out.” www.ExpelledExposed.com contains information about the “martyrs” from Expelled, and also of real scientists who successfully challenged established science. “The difference,” NCSE researcher Carrie Sager observes, “is that real scientists back their challenges with experimental results. Results are what changed minds, forced textbook revisions, and earned Nobel Prizes.”

More insidious are the movie’s attempts to link evolution to the Holocaust. Susan Spath, a historian of science at NCSE, comments: “The implication that Darwin led to Nazism and the Holocaust is an irresponsible misrepresentation of a terrible history. Hitler abused many things, including science, and Expelled is wrong to shift blame off his shoulders and onto evolution.” www.ExpelledExposed.com quotes the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, who described similar claims in a previous creationist movie as “an outrageous and shoddy attempt … to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust.”

The National Center for Science Education is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The NCSE maintains its archive of source material on the history of creationism at its Oakland, California, headquarters. On the web at www.ncseweb.org. www.ExpelledExposed.com is a resource for journalists, teachers, and curious moviegoers who want the full story behind Expelled.

Contacts:
Eugenie C. Scott, scott@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Josh Rosenau, rosenau@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Susan Spath, spath@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006
Carrie Sager, sager@ncseweb.org, 800-290-6006

good post Petrus. I saw something about some of the science people asked to participate in it. One guy said that they were told it was a “fair and balanced” account, but after being asked the same question again and again, he finally asked," do you intend to ask me this until I give you the answer you are looking for? " It’s the usual trash trying to fake its way before the public as facts.

You got my question for Janet, What exactly is being taught under the “guise of science?”

 

[drpmjhess]

good post Petrus. I saw something about some of the science people asked to participate in it. One guy said that they were told it was a “fair and balanced” account, but after being asked the same question again and again, he finally asked," do you intend to ask me this until I give you the answer you are looking for? " It’s the usual trash trying to fake its way before the public as facts.

You got my question for Janet, What exactly is being taught under the “guise of science?”

SpiritMeadow:

(1) Janet’s question: that’s what I want to know. I don’t remember atheism being taught as part of the curriculum in my high school math, physics, biology, chemistry, or computer classes. We just learned the science, not how to hate God or sneer at religious believers.

(2) Mark Mathis and the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed are big-time liars, deceivers, and cheats, in addition to being atrocious “film” makers. They arranged last June to film some of our scientists, under what turned out to be entirely false pretenses. At the last minute, we pulled the plug on the filming when we found out what they truly were up to. I don’t understand how Catholic or other Christian creationists can justify such gross immorality in light of their professed religious devotion.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[DLC]

You all need to visit the move out today called Expelled. It will show how the truth of intelligent design is being cover up.

 

[mmortal03]

Beliefs and laws that have long been considered for the common good (marriage laws, anti-abortion laws) are being tossed out the window without careful consideration of the consequences or of the reasons why they were established in the first place.

I don’t think it hasn’t been carefully considered. People can use their brains and make judgments about the issues and identify the possible problems involved whether they are Catholic or not. It is arrogant to imply that the Catholic Church has some perfect, universal answer for these issues you bring up. For example, it isn’t like I can’t consider the ideas about these issues from a Catholic perspective. I don’t just ignore what Catholicism has to say. But I don’t think these issues are so clean cut. Furthermore, there are other reasons for why traditions like marriage, were held in the past, besides your implied notion that there must be unique practical ones.

There’s a definite conceit or arrogance to the atheistic humanist movement.

I think you are painting with very broad strokes here and mixing up what it means to be an atheist with things that it doesn’t mean. There are many very open-minded individuals on both sides. The ones who have conceit and arrogance among the atheists are that way not because of their atheism, but because of their individual dispositions. People aren’t saints on either sides of the aisle, my friend.

They like to see themselves as open-minded heralds of a new message, but actually they are every bit as dogmatic as the religious, backward people they try so hard to enlighten. All of us see with our eyes, but don’t perceive our lens; in like manner we think with our minds, but don’t perceive our ideolgies or philosophies. So it is for the atheistc humanists. They don’t passively infuse the knowledge of science into their unbiased minds, though this is what they may believe. They interpret science in light of their ideology, and then present their ideology as “just science.”

First of all, atheism isn’t a new message. Furthermore, I’ve had this discussion with believers in the past, where the believers were saying that atheists were just as dogmatic. I argue that there are many levels of dogmatism, and atheism has a much smaller number of dogmas than any religion requires. But don’t confuse strongly held, high-probability-type “dogmas” of an atheist, with inarguable dogmas of a religious person. If you are an atheist, and new evidence comes along that shows your “dogma” to be wrong, there is nothing keeping you from changing your perspective. However, with, for example, a Catholic, there is a long list of dogmas that you cannot disagree with, even if you find new evidence that goes against it.

And sorry, atheists as the champions of liberty, I’m not buying it.

No, not all atheists are, but the concepts are not mutually exclusive. Of course there are atheists who are misanthropists, but that isn’t the point. I’m sorry that you can’t buy the fact that people don’t need religion to be moral, freedom-loving, caring individuals. You continue to lump atheists all into one basket, which just shows your ignorance.

That’s very considerate of the atheist activists to tolerate religious people who keep their superstitious, nonsensical beliefs to themselves. But maybe they should consider, if religious people in the USA always had this attitude of “religion as a private matter, to be believed, but not acted on” we might still have slavery in the USA today.

Oh, come on! That is a very contemptuous statement to say that without religion, slavery would be tolerated. There are completely secular arguments for human rights, freedom, and liberty. Your attributing of slavery and whatever other scourge of the earth you can type about here to atheism is just a lame attempt of misrepresentation.

We also have a right to object when our children are taught atheistic humanist philosophy in the public schools (we pay for), under the guise of science or sex education or whatever else you want to call it.

I’ve always wondered why I didn’t have the opportunity to take a philosophy class in my high school. It was you!

But of course we should leave the philosophy discussion for one class, and the science discussion for another. No science teacher should be allowed to peddle his personal philosophical viewpoints to his students; I completely agree with that. He should only be allowed to teach science to them.

And, as far as child abuse, religious people don’t have a monopoly on that one either. I’m sure any fundamentalist would think children brought up without belief in God suffer from “psychological child abuse” as well.

I’m glad you brought this up, but I hope you don’t think I implied that only religious people can abuse their children.

On the surface, your argument may seem consistent to you. However, I just can’t seem to determine what would be wrong about letting the child determine for himself what to think. I just can’t picture in my mind how a lack of taking advantage of the impressionability of a young child’s formative years, by not forcing on to them a particular belief in God, could be rationally considered child abuse at all. I’m sure the fundamentalists would think it to be rational to them, but that doesn’t make it so.

There is nothing in a child’s life where a forced belief like that is a requirement or a necessity, and I think it would be better left to when they have adult judgment to consider it for themselves. There are many other facts that kids need to be learning. And as for teaching them morals, an unaffiliated, golden rule or nonaggression principle type of morality is all that they need for those years.

 

[mmortal03]

We Christians have a right to liberty, just like the enlightened atheists do. How much freedom does a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist have when they are told they must dispense or prescribe an abortifacient drug or, if they refuse, lose their job?

Let’s take that question and move it to one of the other threads about abortion, please.

 

[drpmjhess]

You all need to visit the move out today called Expelled. It will show how the truth of intelligent design is being cover up.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a complete fraud, made by half-educated simpletons who are also liars and cheaters. I know this from direct experience, having been lied to by Mark Mathis of Premise Media. Whatever your feelings about science – and admittedly, some people do hate science! – lying and cheating are things I doubt Catholics should be supporting.

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

You all need to visit the move out today called Expelled. It will show how the truth of intelligent design is being cover up.

I saw it this evening. I thought it was excellent. Ben Stein did a beautiful job in exposing the fraudulent ideas that masquerade as science from some of the leading Darwinists.

I really enjoyed it. The animations on the life of the cell were spectacular. Dawkins, PZ Meyers & Michael Ruse come across as foolish and pompous as can be – merely by giving their unfiltered comments. The Darwin-Nazi connection was frightening and convincing. I only wish the film was longer and gave more time to Stephen Meyer (he is obviously brilliant). The David Berlinski segments were riveting – he’s another brilliant Darwin-doubter - ID proponent.

It was enought to make a modest case for the integrity of ID scholarship and put aside some of the distortions about ID theory itself. The film also focused on the academic repression of scientists who wanted to explore ID ideas - and that was handled very well. I really enjoyed the whole film.

 

[drpmjhess]

It was enought to make a modest case for the integrity of ID scholarship and put aside some of the distortions about ID theory itself. The film also focused on the academic repression of scientists who wanted to explore ID ideas - and that was handled very well. I really enjoyed the whole film.

What academic repression? Is there any?