Quote:
Originally Posted by GasPasser
You say that belief in a creator opens up too many questions. As a young atheist, I found the Big Bang to be an incomplete answer. It only answers were we came from recently. Matter existed before the Bang, where did it come from? The eternal expansion and contraction of the Universe failed to give me an "origin." To me, it takes us much faith to believe the Universe "always was" and has no definite origin. It may be enough for you, hell its enough for a lot of intelligent people; but to veil your beliefs in Narcissism doesn't make you look any more intelligent.
This thread is about the Constitutional argument of merely discussing intelligent design, which is the only subject I discussed. It had actually become a thoughtful discussion on both sides without name calling (Quite a diversion for the "Pipe"). Instead of hijacking this thread, revive the "there is no God" thread.
|
Most religious people became so as children. (though there are some like yourself who developed religion later, which is respectable.) Religion thrives on teaching its stories to people too young to question them.
this is why teaching religious thoeries in public schools should be considred with extreme caution. you could say the same about scientific theories, but the difference is that science is OPEN TO CHALLENGES, and religion prohibits debate, despite what ben stein may say.
science, by default, welcomes a challenge because any challenge increases accuaracy and knowledge, which is after all what science is all about. the problem is that all challenges must follow the scientific method, which means evidence must be presented. this is where religion fails - it is a thoery without evidence. it's only selling point is that it satisfies the basic human need to answer hard questions. the need to answer a question is stronger than the need for the answer to be accurate or provable.
so you might say 'if science welcomes debate why am I against including religion'. because debate is for adults, and the debate must be done in a scientific, not emotional, way. and if the debaters decide religion has the same merits as science, then it can be taught to kids. but so far religion has failed to deliver scientifc evidence.
religion is for church. science is for school. that's how they coexist.
why the need by the church to gain more power by forcing its baseless beliefs into the public schools? this is purely political. it does not serve any other purpose.
dawkins' babbling interview does not make his views wrong. nor does he have an answer to every question. but
when you don't have an answer, you do NOT have the right to make up an answer.
evolution and creationism are not equal or even similar in weight. stein may present them larry bird and magic johnson playing one on one, but in reality, science is michael jordan, and religion is a 3 year old girl. there is no need to let them play on an even field, and what ben wants is not only to let them play, but to give the girl a handicap of 100 points. problem is, jordan still wins.
I really think this should settle both this and the god thread! unless anyone disagrees with me??? but why would you?
