CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
i believe that persons should have the right to go somewhere and be recognized for who they are religiously and not for what their brothers and sisters have done in the past
I think Nuclear made an important point of clarification: The mosque was NOT President Obama's idea. A more accurate question might be, "Do you support Obama's decision not to block/deny the construction of a Muslim mosque in New York City?"
Whoever framed this question needs to research the facts before contributing to further Islamaphobic fear-mongering.
The mosque is not really a mosque; it's going to be a community center (much like a New York City version of the Family Y): it's going to have recreational rooms and courts, offices, classrooms, fountains...and yes, rooms designated for prayer.
Also: the center is not going to be built on Ground Zero--but blocks away. Resilience to its construction is not acceptable, nor is denying its construction constitutional. The constitution of the United States protects freedom of religion in the 1st amendment. We cannot and should not, as Americans, resort to denying the presence and freedom to openly worship to ANY identifiable religious group--insofar as their practices do not impede on the freedoms of others. These people are legally purchasing property and using that property as a community space for their faith tradition. New York City is racially and culturally diverse; it is not remarkable that you'd travel one block and be in an Italian neighborhood, travel to the next one and be surrounded by Jewish schools. To deny the construction of the Muslim community center is racially motivated and unconstitutional.
This is a perfect opportunity for Americans (as WELL as Muslims) to give a new and positive definition to Islam as it is practiced in the United States. We should not respond with hatred and/or prejudice, but acceptance and bridges of understanding and open and respectful dialog.
I understand that there may be angry sentiments surrounding the attack on the WTC on 9/11, but keep in mind that these horrible acts were committed by Muslims who were part of a violent extremist group. When the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, no one seemed the least bit troubled to hear that Timothy McVay was associated with a violent extremist, Christian group. In fact, no one after that started saying we should stop building churches in Oklahoma City to encourage the terror! You see? Stop being bigots and embrace the freedoms you enjoy--and should extend!--of our Constitution.
3.) Supporting an issue doesn't necessarily mean actively building it, it could mean letting pass (which is what's happening here).
It is un-Constitutional for the State to bar any congregation of any denomination of any faith, that has not posed an active threat against the Nation or its people (this is NOT Al-Qaeda), from meeting at a place of its choosing so long as the land is their own, public property, or owned by those who condone the worship on their property. It's not "Freedom of Religion, except." It's "Freedom of Religion."
Yes, I do. I am the only person - liberals included - that I know who is of this view.
If they are not allowed to build a mosque wheresoever they want, then the precedent is set for all other future first amendment (or, perhaps, more specifically, Freedom of Religion) cases.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
as about over 9000 people stated, its not obamas idea, and only religious zealots would be against it, all religions are manmade anyway, but i dont deny that there is a god
Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
W. Wahid
Note: This list is as yet incomplete and unconfirmed. It has been compiled from the Islamic Circle of North America, the Newsday victims database, and reports from other major news organizations.
Why there? Because they have the legal and constitutional right to assemble and build on that property. The space probably provided the features for what they wanted to accomplish: a community center with many specs.
Why now? Who knows. Getting authorized for a loan can take time. Getting paperwork together and having all the officials in the organization signed (and all collateral appraised) takes a lot of time.
Where did they get the money? Probably the same way that churches get all of theirs: by people submitting a ridiculous tithe (i.e. a portion of their income) to their religious leaders, organizations, or instutitions.
Let me guess: you also want to deny them exemption from taxes? If so, be ready to show some consistency by turning that standard on all Christian and Jewish establishments as well.
If everybody was jumping off a bridge because it was their "constitutional right" would you do it? I wouldn't.
where did they get the money? Probably the same way that churches get all of theirs.
You don't have a definite answer. None of us do because they refused to disclose where they got their cash. For all we know, they could have gotten their money from a terrorist organization.
Let me guess: you also want to deny them exemption from taxes?
If they are American citizens and own private property then they should pay their taxes.
I am an atheist and I do not support nor subscribe to any religion.
I feel that this mosque disrespects the victims and their families and something about just don't sit right, so to speak. I am on the side of the victims families and not on any religion's side.
I don't follow your "bridge" analogy? Could you elaborate? It doesn't claim or argue anything and I don't see the relevance to the debate. Constitutional rights exist as matters of equality and freedom, not special interests, hobbies, etc. I also haven't suggested we all go erect establishments to offend people. However, I'll play your silly game to illustrate the seriousness of constitutional rights as they are/should be upheld:
No, I would not jump off a bridge if everyone whose right to jump off bridges started jumping off bridges. I would defend their right to do so! I'd remain consistent in my initial statement regarding constitutional rights to do so, because I have already set the standard by which a constitutional right is a guaranteed "freedom." Namely--these bridge jumpers would not be under any duress or obligation to jump from a bridge and they would not be impeding on anyone's freedom or civil liberties by jumping off a bridge. There.
Now let's make a mature examination of your response...
I may not have a definite answer, but the induction is more reasonable than your speculation. We're talking about an organized religion. Organized religions in the United States operate on private donations from their constituency and members. We can both agree on those base inferences without speculating (read: fear mongering) about ties to terrorist organizations. To suggest that the Muslim center has ties to terrorists--and to demand that they show their books to the public--is discriminatory and baseless. If you're actually worried about what "they" are doing on their property, perhaps you can have some peace of mind when you remind yourself that the Patriot Act gives the government observation, surveillance, and seizure powers over any public/private domain it believes to be an epicenter of terrorist activity (international or domestic). If nothing else, the fact that there are "concerns" isn't going to go unnoticed and you can expect the Muslim center to be under quite a bit of scrutiny.
I agree that the families of the victims of the WTC attack experienced great tragedy, but the country should not base public policy on their personal prejudices (I mean this in the most general sense: as a perspective or unfavorable opinion). If those victims are your utmost concern, then you should really be going to bat for their health benefits (which were voted down), a gift of the country for living through one of our nation's tragedies. But I should re-state my position: as tragic and hurtful these experiences were for these people, it is neither the purpose of law nor appropriate to legislate discrimination (i.e. violating religious freedom to organize, exist, and openly worship) to honor victims.
I'll repeat something others have said: this is a Muslim community center, not strictly a mosque. And should we extend your standard of condemning their practices and choice to live as Muslims to Christians, whose earlier institutions (or, to make it more relevant--their extremist groups) did terrible things/continue to do terrible things? If the basis of your argument is disrespecting victims, then why not also refuse Mormon Centers the right the exist in New York City, a thriving LGBT community who would be offended by all the anti-gay propaganda that the LDS group has produced?
Great, I'm an atheist too. But I'm a responsible and respectful atheist. I believe that a free-thinking society cannot and should not regulate free belief, representation, and access to justice.
To suggest that the Muslim center has ties to terrorists--and to demand that they show their books to the public--is discriminatory and baseless.
It's a reasonable piece of speculation given Saudi ties to sectarian violence and the large amount of wealth that Saudi Arabia donates to build Mosques in the west. Plus, we're at war with the Muslim world.
You have to remember these simple things.
If nothing else, the fact that there are "concerns" isn't going to go unnoticed and you can expect the Muslim center to be under quite a bit of scrutiny.
Apparently not given the guilt Americans have started to have towards Muslims, and desperate need to seek Muslim community approval.
It's almost become a blind spot to common sense, is what I'm saying.
I agree that the families of the victims of the WTC attack experienced great tragedy, but the country should not base public policy on their personal prejudices (I mean this in the most general sense: as a perspective or unfavorable opinion).
I disagree. Now more than ever we need to be prejudiced in favour of our Secular values and free society. We need to ask ourselves why it is so important to make allowances, favours and appeasements towards Islam and its followers when the values we are supporting in doing so are antagonistic towards secularism and freedom.
A Muslim group wishes to commemorate 9/11 with the opening of an Islamic cultural centre? Scorn it. Because our values of freedom and democracy are worth more than a few disgruntled worshiper's feelings and favour with a frankly barbaric ideology. You know that in the Islamic world, supporting western ideals gets you killed. They apparently value their ideals more than we value ours.
But I should re-state my position: as tragic and hurtful these experiences were for these people, it is neither the purpose of law nor appropriate to legislate discrimination (i.e. violating religious freedom to organize, exist, and openly worship) to honor victims.
Right. It's the purpose of the community.
And should we extend your standard of condemning their practices and choice to live as Muslims to Christians, whose earlier institutions (or, to make it more relevant--their extremist groups) did terrible things/continue to do terrible things?
Even though it is a double standard to have accepted Christian atrocities over the last centuries while condemning Islam, it is still the proper course of action. We are trying desperately to liberalise Christianity to the point that it ceases to exist in any meaningful form. Islam is like Christianity from three centuries ago. You want to include that in our nation? Are you mad? So you want two sets of fundamentalists seeking political power? You want not only abortion clinics to be bombed, but churches too and homosexuals beaten and killed, women raped for being immodest? That's what Muslim fundamentalism does, and importing Islam imports it as well.
Great, I'm an atheist too. But I'm a responsible and respectful atheist. I believe that a free-thinking society cannot and should not regulate free belief, representation, and access to justice.
It's good to be responsible, and respectful, however realise that you are dealing with an ideology that cares nothing for this. You are dealing with a mindset that sees you as an enemy that must be converted or killed. That is Islamic policy, there is no tolerance, only submission.
You need to realise that part of securing liberty, tolerance, and democracy for the future requires that we be intolerant towards ideology-religions like Islam in the present.
I actually agree with most of what you said, but I feel that building a Muslim community/cultural center is not the right thing to do. We wouldn't build a German community/cultural center near Auschwitz.
So it's not on ground zero, maybe? Do I have to spell this out for you? I mean, what, you're saying muslims are never allowed to worship in new york again? How far will satisfy your xenophobia?
>
"It's angering the American people and we are putting political correctness ahead of what we know is right."
First, most new yorkers are fine with the mosque and disgusted by how people are using it as a political tool. It's outsiders like you turning it into a federal fucking issue.
Second, "what we know is right"? Bullshit. It's what you think is right - and for the record, the founding fathers would disagree with you on that self righteous call.
Obama made a conscious effort NOT to take a side in this. All he did was state that we have no legal grounds for refusing to let them build there.
Do you know why he said this? Because we fucking don't. Because it's a privately funded religious building on private property.
He said this blindingly obvious fact because, constitutionally, it SHOULD have been the final word. Because he assumed the people opposed to the building would be smart enough to realize that banning the mosque would be akin to taking a steaming dump on the white house lawn and wiping with the bill of rights.
He said this to PREVENT it from becoming a federal fucking issue.
Clearly, he gave the American public too much credit.
As for the mayor, I have no idea what he's said on the issue and as of now I don't particularly care.
>
"61% of randomly selected people oppose the mosque near ground zero according to a recent Time poll."
Okay, it's what 61% of people think. That doesn't make them right. This is why democracy should never be left in the hands of the people.
(edit: that last bit was a joke by the way. My point before was that most New Yorkers don't care. Unless that poll was taken solely in NYC, my point stands. In fact, one could almost say that it's strengthened as a result)
"We do have grounds to revoke this building if we don't acknowledge Islam as a religion."
Why, yes. Completely ignoring common sense DOES present an interesting workaround.
>
"This is like building a German cultural center at Auschwitz."
First, Godwin's law.
Second, NEAR Auschwitz.
Third...that's actually a decent analogy. And you know what? I have nothing against German culture. I'm glad you didn't take the pants-on-head retarded step of making it a Nazi Center in your analogy, since that would have been effectively calling all Germans Nazis or all Muslims terrorists. Either way would have made a shitty argument.
>
"That's what a democracy is. Things are decided by popular vote- the majority."
Thank god we don't live in a democracy, then. Personally, I'm glad we have boundaries like the bill of rights to prevent the majority from shitting on the little guy.
The reason Germans don't build a cultural center near Auschwitz is out of respect for holocaust survivors and victims. I also have nothing against German culture, but I don't think they should build a cultural center near Auschwitz. Same with the mosque.
How is building a cultural center offensive? If the center doesn't deny the holocaust, doesn't cast the Jews in a bad light, or glorify Hitler...where's the problem? How could a center with no ulterior motives be offensive to any but the most violently oversensitive people?
I have nothing against holocaust survivors, but I think taking offense to a culture with no connection to the tragedy except that it was committed by radical members of it is nothing short of petty.
So let me get this straight. You have no problem with the culture - that is, you acknowledge that the people building this community center have no connection to the attacks. (I think this second bit is a safe assumption, as you would obviously have a problem with the culture if they DID have a connection with the attacks.
With this established...what's the problem? Without the terrorist angle, there is nothing harmful about building anything. It isn't a celebration of 9/11; once removed from that association it becomes just another building. A community center. The Muslim equivalent of the YMCA.
Which means that any offense taken to this - the Muslim equivalent of the YMCA - is a groundless offense, one without any base in reason or logic.
Which in turn means that you are asking the Muslims to relinquish their rights based on a ridiculous premise: that by building the center they might somehow offend people with no sense of distinction between Muslim and terrorist.
You are asking Muslims to cave to the demands of the people least likely to commend them for it.
You are essentially saying that a project should not go on if the ignorant object to it.
Now do you see why I have a problem with your logic?
The only thing that should be built at Ground Zero is a memorial for the victims
The only thing being built at Ground Zero is a small memorial and a huge amount of retail and office space.
(Should Muslims be allowed to own or work in those offices and shops??)
Is the Chinese cultural center ok, or is it a smack in the face to our necessary borrowing of money from a Communist country?
"The building's first lease was announced on March 28, 2009, as a joint project between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Vantone Industrial Co. based in Beijing, that will create a 190,810 sq ft (17,727 m2) "China Center", a business and cultural facility located between floors 64 and 69, that is said will represent business and cultural communities in China and serve as a hub for Chinese firms developing United States operations, as well as for US companies that wish to conduct business in China. The lease is for 20 years and 9 months"
(Should Muslims be allowed to own or work in those offices and shops??)
This is not the premise of this debate. Why don't you create a separate debate?
Is the Chinese cultural center ok, or is it a smack in the face to our necessary borrowing of money from a Communist country?
China has a more capitalist economy which allows them to trade and borrow and lend large sums of money. Once again this is not what this debate is about.
"The building's first lease was announced on March 28, 2009, as a joint project between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Vantone Industrial Co. based in Beijing, that will create a 190,810 sq ft (17,727 m2) "China Center", a business and cultural facility located between floors 64 and 69, that is said will represent business and cultural communities in China and serve as a hub for Chinese firms developing United States operations, as well as for US companies that wish to conduct business in China. The lease is for 20 years and 9 months"
Congrats on being able to copy and paste from Wikipedia.
the premise of this debate does rely heavily on the presence of muslims near ground zero - so it is relevant to ask whether the people here that think all Muslims wanted 9-11 and can't have a community center 2 blocks away would want to prevent them from working at ground zero itself. Or, whether muslim businesses like Halal eateries should be allowed to exits inside the new tower.
Is the Chinese cultural center ok - again this is not what this debate is about
testing the consistency of the xenophobia at the heart of this debate
Congrats on being able to copy and paste from Wikipedia
I can even read wikipedia, see the footnote link, and click on it to read the original source - Go me!!
testing the consistency of the xenophobia at the heart of this debate
It is not xenophobic if people don't want this one mosque built at this one certain area. If it was xenophobic, people would be saying that there should be no mosques allowed anywhere, when most of them just want this one to be relocated.
- deployed dogs to intimidate Muslims holding prayer services
- spray painted "Not Welcome" on a construction sign, then later ripped it apart
- Two years ago the Islamic Center of Columbia, Tennessee was torched with molotov cocktails and swastikas and "White Power" were painted on the front of the building
It is logical to be skeptical of Muslims because of 9/11, the Ft Hood shooting, the underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber
should white men not be able to build a community center because some of them were serial killers: Berkowitz, Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Rader (BTK), and many more
or, because some white men committed terrorism against the government:
- Timothy McVeigh - bombed Federal building in Oklahoma City
- Andrew Joseph Stack III - flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas
- Leon Czolgosz - killed President McKinley
should Quakers not be allowed in the south because of the activity of the KKK?
no Catholics near schools? no Christians near facilities that perform abortion?
it is irrational to infer the stupidity of a couple dozen people upon more than 1.5 billion
.
build their centers in places where they are more likely to be accepted
where exactly is it acceptable? see my other posts...
Because there is enough of a Muslim community in that area to support it.
A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell, sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” - Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
“We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal
Even though these people have the right to build the mosque where they please, it should not be built close to a place where terrorists, acting partly due to their religion, killed thousands of innocent people. You don't burn down someones house and kill the people inside in the name of Christianity and then ask to build a church next door.
No i do not support this decision. A Mosque is sometimes built in places where Muslim extremist have attacked and they would build a Mosque at or near the place as a sign of victory. Since Muslim extremist attacked the World Trade Centers and destroyed them would you not agree with me that it is ironic that now somebody is planning to build a mosque next to it based on the information above? (President Obama did not make this decision by the way)
Now liberals are all for freedom of religion LOLOLOLOL! They don't even want Jesus mentioned at Christmas but now they are the icons of religious freedom. They contridict themselves all the time. Basically to be a liberal is to be in love with pointing the 'How dare you' finger at everyone and anyone. Now thousands of Americans who lost loved ones to 9-11 are evil religion haters if they oppose a mosque at ground zero. Nobody hates religion more than them!!!
I'm getting sick and tired of their holier than thou bullshit. There's no such thing as a liberal making a situational adjustment because something is of bad taste, liberals are spineless and hipocritical finger pointers. THey are hipocrites because all they do is preach 'Tolerance' 'Tolerance' yet if someone disagrees with anything they believe they are totally intolerant of them. 3,000 murdered at ground zero and liberals are too stupid and insensitive to see how a mosque built there is a total slap in the face to the victums and their families. Anyone with common sense would say to themselves "Hmmm, in this situation I wouldn't recommend it." But I'm not even saying that muslim's rights should be violated or it should be illegal for them to build a mosque there. What i'm saying is for the love of God you are out of touch with reality if you can't simply admit "Hey, that is a poor idea." (Even though a legal one). Liberals have no down to Earth common sense. On top of that i believe it's a terrible idea because of the violent reaction it would create. People are irate over 9-11 someone will burn that mosque to the ground within a year if it's built
I'm Liberal, I'm Christian. Doesn't matter if someone says Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, or whatever they want to say. I'm gonna smile and return the well-wishing. This time it's the Conservatives being uptight about it. Conservative Christians often confuse "freedom of religion" with "right to legislate our religion."
Added Note: I could care less if Prayer was in school or not. It shouldn't encompass the education, but if you want to pray, no one should bar you (and no one does). Prayer happened all the time in my High School. Many Christians and even one Muslim (who prayed between classes in private). To disallow one but not the other is a ridiculous double-standard.
Whether Christian, non-Christian, liberal or conservative I'm just saying that comon sense tells you that it is a very tasteless and disrespectful move (although i do agree it should still be in their legal right to do so). But why so terrified for a liberal to just admit it's a shitty move?
Whether Christian, non-Christian, liberal or conservative I'm just saying that comon sense tells you that it is a very tasteless and disrespectful move (although i do agree it should still be in their legal right to do so). But why so terrified for a liberal to just admit it's a shitty move?
Distasteful? No more than it is to build a Church in a town where a serial killer claiming to have been acting on the voice of God lived. No more than a Jew living next to a bank. It's not even right at Ground Zero, it's just relatively nearby. Is it wrong or offensive to sell tacos in Chinatown? I don't think anyone would care. If a person is raped by someone of another race, they usually don't come out disapproving of interracial relationships. It's not distasteful or disrespectful, it's just a very small bickering that's been taken way too far.
Distasteful? No more than it is to build a Church in a town where a serial killer claiming to have been acting on the voice of God lived.
Only if that killer acted on behalf of biblical doctrine. Remember that the 9/11 attacks were sanctioned within Islamic doctrine.
Then it's a matter of poor taste.
No more than a Jew living next to a bank.
Jews and banks are always a bad combination, I agree.
It's not even right at Ground Zero, it's just relatively nearby.
Which is the point. Put it far away, and don't associate the centre with 9/11.
Show some respect for goodness' sake.
Is it wrong or offensive to sell tacos in Chinatown?
I hope you're trying to make a point here.
If a person is raped by someone of another race, they usually don't come out disapproving of interracial relationships.
Not applicable.
It's not distasteful or disrespectful, it's just a very small bickering that's been taken way too far.
If your ideology or religion has taken lives, especially if it's a case of mass murder, then even if you may legally practice that religion or ideology, as a matter of respect and common human decency you do NOT support it at the site of its victims.
It's simple really. If you violate this little piece of fairness, then the rest of us are perfectly justified in ridiculing your poor behaviour and calling you out for your lack of respect.
I'm a conservative Christian. 'Anything goes' is NOT me! Jesus said, 'I am the way the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father except by me.' The Bible is my authority.
Why allow a pagan religion to propogate lies in a christian land? It will lead to distress and sorrow such as in 9/11.
We must love our brothers or have no part with Christianity; is that what Muslims preach? .....and then blow themselves up ...
That's right, but he also set out a good guideline on how to treat others. For every one you force-feed Christianity successfully, you scare ten more away.
If you truly followed the teaching of Jesus, you would know that Jesus would sooner allow a thousand sinners to sin on their will than to force a single man along his path. To come to God is an active of willingness, to know him, to seek him, must come from your own heart and your own desires. Jesus did not agree that law should dictate faith (hence why the law had such a problem with him). He would sooner have you shut your mouth, if it should offend others (or his name by associate with you), than for you to express your opinion and have others repulsed by it. The best way you can help your faith is not to force it, but to live by it and give a strong, yet subtle, example for those around you. Muslims preach peace and love as well, they also see Jesus as a great prophet and an overall great man. For every group, however, there is a small percentage of extremists. There are Christian extremists who would do the same thing if they thought it would further the goals of God (which is absurd). What of the Christian soldiers who would give their life to get rid of the "Threat of Islam?" Does that make us any different? If you want to set yourself apart, at least live up to the example.
we cant change the world i am afraid , but we can change and save aurself :) u christians you should understand that and walk with holy ghoust and be convict by him about sin and hate evil not going 4 compromise , 24 h with jesus ! 'Anything goes' is NOT me! Jesus said
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
Mt 22:37-39 if all people call them self christians
meditate those comments plus 1 Corinthians 13 ... 1 Corinthi 2 , 4 -5 ,
Now liberals are all for freedom of religion LOLOLOLOL! They don't even want Jesus mentioned at Christmas but now they are the icons of religious freedom. They contridict themselves all the time. Basically to be a liberal is to be in love with pointing the 'How dare you' finger at everyone and anyone. Now thousands of Americans who lost loved ones to 9-11 are evil religion haters if they oppose a mosque at ground zero. Nobody hates religion more than them!!!
Liberalism has nothing to do with anti-theism.
Being liberal, IE open-minded and accepting new ideas will however make you intolerant of authoritarianism and charlatans. In this way liberals often attack religion.
Untrue. A teacher in public school would get straight up FIRED for saying a prayer before class. You don't even have to aproach the level of authoritarianism to get in hot water with the liberal agenda
Neo Nazis can march anywhere and practice their freedom of speech but now liberals are turning any christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin into hate speech, and making it illegal. Now listen to what i'm saying, the BELIEF that homosexuality is wrong and that we should not hate homosexuals but pray for them is now hate speech! Whether you agree or not is not the point.
"Open minded and accepting new ideas?"
There are multiple cases now of science teachers being fired for entertaining the possibility of intelligent design (in a scientific way). Whether you think the arguements are weak or strong for intelligent design is not the point. The point is you will be fired for even mentioning the possitive arguements for it in public school. And i'm sorry but isn't science all about accepting challenges and testing out new hypotheses, etc. Make no mistake, liberals have a religion of their own and it is becoming more and more intolerant to oppose their beliefs (and even if their beliefs are true it is scary that religious people are being forced into silence). It is scary that people are not becoming freaked out that freedom of speech is in trouble
Untrue. A teacher in public school would get straight up FIRED for saying a prayer before class.
Actually not. They would receive disciplinary action if word got out, that could end in termination depending on the sentiment in the area.
Besides this, such a situation is in clear violation of the law, especially our constitution, and it would therefore be appropriate.
Finally, this changes the topic, doesn't address what I said.
You don't even have to aproach the level of authoritarianism to get in hot water with the liberal agenda
What's this now? Breaking the law gets you canned. How liberal.
Neo Nazis can march anywhere and practice their freedom of speech
Right. No law against that.
but now liberals are turning any christian teaching that homosexuality is a sin into hate speech,
Hate speech provisions exist, and they are employed under certain circumstances, like television broadcasts. They do not refer to casual speech, but specific kinds of advertisement of speech.
The Christian issue about preaching homosexuality is a sin is really about calling homosexuals fagots, intimidating them with death threats, and so on. It's the same as litigating against calling black people sinners and advocating for their lynching. This is what "preaching homosexuality is a sin" actually means:
If you can't act cordially in public channels, radio, and so on, then it's your own damned faults for issuing death threats and not keeping your traps shut.
Now listen to what i'm saying, the BELIEF that homosexuality is wrong and that we should not hate homosexuals but pray for them is now hate speech! Whether you agree or not is not the point.
No it isn't. Try researching hate speech laws and their scope. You can believe what you want, and can talk about what you want. If you go on a radio, print in news papers, or go on television and proclaim that fagots must die, you just engaged in hate speech.
You still haven't rebutted my original statement:
"intolerant of authoritarianism and charlatans?"
There are multiple cases now of science teachers being fired for entertaining the possibility of intelligent design (in a scientific way).
Public school teachers may not promote their religion in a government funded institution.
Intelligent design is religious, not science. I don't care if you think it is science, the matter has been settled by the scientific community, in other words the experts, and has been settled on a court of law, again by experts.
You may as well be asking that teachers be allowed to promote the Quran in science class as scientific. What? You didn't know that Islamic creationists already do this? Well, look.
Whether you think the arguements are weak or strong for intelligent design is not the point.
The point is that it isn't science, but religion.
The point is you will be fired for even mentioning the possitive arguements for it in public school.
Same as prayer, you may face disciplinary action, and rightly so. Secular government cannot support taxpayer dollars going to the promotion of religious ideas.
And i'm sorry but isn't science all about accepting challenges and testing out new hypotheses, etc.
Yes, like Cold Fusion, and Planet X. Intelligent Design didn't follow the rules of science (makes unfalsifiable claims) and didn't publish research pertinent to itself in scientific journals or credible academic institutions. What claims it did make that could be falsified were falsified by experts.
It isn't close-minded to reject something that has been falsified, or doesn't play by the rules.
Make no mistake, liberals have a religion of their own and it is becoming more and more intolerant to oppose their beliefs (and even if their beliefs are true it is scary that religious people are being forced into silence).
This statement is stating the obvious but in a misrepresenting way. Liberalism is a philosophy. Many liberals are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists and so on.
It is scary that people are not becoming freaked out that freedom of speech is in trouble
Taking advantage of your authority as teacher to indoctrinate students into a religion on the state's dollar is not a freedom of speech issue. Learn to keep your religion out of the classroom. That is professionalism.
Wow! Seriously aveskde, you are not exactly talking to your prototypical christian here, not even close. I debate the history of the bible a lot and i enjoy the scientific view of deep subjects. So i like to read and watch dvds on the cases for and against evolution, intelligent design, etc. I side with intelligent design because of the scientific arguments, not a single shred of religion enters into it. For you to say something like 'It has been settled by the scientific community' is a total joke to me. I've let a few of my non religious friends watch some intelligent design dvds and they have all admitted that they make some strong points (even if they still don't believe it completely). To hear statements about the 'scientific community' settling this issue only leaves me with the impression that there is politics in popular science (politically correct science). There has not been a shred of religion talk in my ID material. On top of that there are anti-evolution scientists out there who not only publish books about their problems with evolution but these people also HATE religion lol. I mean come on dude, i don't need someone in create debate website to argue with me that ID has no scientific merit when i have personally witnessed quite a few non-religious people who were pretty damn impressed with ID arguements
I'm telling you that people i know are pretty damn far from settled on the ID debate and you are telling me that the brilliant scientific community has 'settled' it! iT'S always a poor argument to quote experts or to quote 'the experts.' Every person should only interpret things according to themselves and how it makes sense to them. It is a cop out to say 'oh well since the experts say this is true than it must be true'
I'm telling you that people i know are pretty damn far from settled on the ID debate and you are telling me that the brilliant scientific community has 'settled' it! iT'S always a poor argument to quote experts or to quote 'the experts.' Every person should only interpret things according to themselves and how it makes sense to them. It is a cop out to say 'oh well since the experts say this is true than it must be true'
We look to experts because they are well-studied in a complicated, deep subject. We do not "decide for ourselves" because we are ignorant of biology, chemistry, and the evidence.
To put it in a way that you might understand, when a surgeon is discussing the procedure with you, it is not in your best interest to decide how the procedure ought to be performed. Unless you have had years of experience cutting into people and know how the body works, you are ignorant of the subject.
Creationism and Intelligent Design profit from making people like you distrust scholars and experts, they tell you to decide for yourself because they know that you're ignorant as dirt and will not research the academic papers, but only read easy-to-digest information that supports your conclusion. They you'll buy into their rhetoric.
Telling an audience "don't believe me, decide yourself" is an old way to play on a crowd's common behaviour to manipulate them into believing you.
Science actually doesn't know enough to be conclusive anyway. That's why the word 'theory' is still attached to everything. Don't get me wrong science knows a lot but the truth is that science does NOT know way more than it does know. Break thru discoveries always come along that make science throw out everything that they thought they knew and cause them to start over. To give a brand new example - Dark Matter. Now all of the sudden they are saying 'Damn, the rate at which the universe is expanding is inconsistant with the mass of the physical universe, along with the gravitational pull of everything. There must be some invisible force that lies outside of the physical universe. And they have the theory now that the answer is dark matter that composes 95% of the universe. Every field of science is still dealing with incomplete information!
I was going back and forth with one guy in here and he kept going on and on about how certain he is about the exact state of the universe right after the big bang...We don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf!! We seriously overrate how much scientists know, there is so much more info that they don't know then there is info that they do know.
And when you talk about evolution and hard coded morals i have no idea how you tie them together. Morals and evolution? Survival of the fittest is a good description for evolution. Why would evolution care about morality? In fact, why did evolution hard code us with an obsession to worship a creator that does not exist? And you're actually contridicting yourself, according to you the belief in religion has caused more murder and misery in human existance than anything else. Tons of people in here say it is the anti-morality. Well clearly evolution gave us the religion instinct because we are only products of evolution. But now all of the sudden evolution gave us the morality instinct. Which one is it? Did evolution hard code us with both morality and immoral religious beliefs? Why?
Science actually doesn't know enough to be conclusive anyway. That's why the word 'theory' is still attached to everything. Don't get me wrong science knows a lot but the truth is that science does NOT know way more than it does know.
If you are going to try and play this angle be advised that creationism (intelligent design) has NO peer-reviewed papers that support the idea and make it past the experts in the scientific community. Evolution has hundreds of papers printed every year which support it and work off of it.
Try playing this angle with the Earth being spherical (after all, that's only a theory, it could be flat...).
Break thru discoveries always come along that make science throw out everything that they thought they knew and cause them to start over.
Not really. You see, the way a theory works means that it makes useful predictions about nature. If something comes along that explains things better, it must still be able to account for the evidence that the former theory explains.
And when you talk about evolution and hard coded morals i have no idea how you tie them together. Morals and evolution? Survival of the fittest is a good description for evolution.
Evolution is a program that intrinsically follows from self-replicating systems with heredity, mutations, variation, and scarce resources. A population that is fit is one which makes best use of its environment.
Sometimes genetic fitness means that population which can socialise, work together to find food where a single individual cannot. These mutations pass onto the next generation.
Before long you have behaviours ingrained at the genetic level which cause revulsion at the thought of killing a friend. This is because working together with friends in a pack causes everyone to be able to survive better and spread their genes more successfully.
Why would evolution care about morality?
Group behaviour. If we evolved to be single, alone, we would not have morality.
In fact, why did evolution hard code us with an obsession to worship a creator that does not exist?
Big brains want to explain the world around them. They imagine a bigger, more powerful man made everything. They pass this along to the next generation. Soon the big man grants wishes, and instructs behaviours, because the big man is useful for organising big groups of people to follow a single person.
And you're actually contridicting yourself, according to you the belief in religion has caused more murder and misery in human existance than anything else. Tons of people in here say it is the anti-morality.
It hasn't caused more misery than anything else, but it is up there with authoritarianism and greed.
Well clearly evolution gave us the religion instinct because we are only products of evolution.
Not all feelings we have are evolved at a genetic level, some are ideas that are passed on for thousands of generations. Religion is likely an emergent phenomenon that comes from the desire to explain the unknown, the fear of the world and need to offer sacrifice to control a random nature, and the need to command others for fear of punishment.
But now all of the sudden evolution gave us the morality instinct. Which one is it? Did evolution hard code us with both morality and immoral religious beliefs? Why?
Morality is likely hard coded because we see it in other animals, transcending the ability to learn culture. Religion seems to be learned by the previous generation, because one can be raised without religion and not want for it. However, religion is natural, the awe we get from nature, the need to explain it, to control it, to appease it, to control others. All of these things likely cause religion to form.
The theory of evolution keeps 'advancing.' Since the days of Darwin it has become more precise and exact! Have you ever asked yourself this question, is it true that everytime an objection is raised to evolution scientists tweak it's definition?
So why is it that evolution hard coded us with religious beliefs in a God that doesn't exist? Science suplies a brilliant sounding answer; you see this is how it works...
But wait, what on Earth would morality have to do with survival of the fittest? Science supplies another impressive sounding addition to the way it works; well you have to factor in this detail of the microorganism...
The more objections that get raised to evolution the more exact and detailed it becomes, and it always sounds so impressive and brilliant. No matter what objection you have to it science just say "Well yeah yeah see, that's how it operates..." Well what are they doing? Only thing they're doing is analizing how everything behaves and saying "Yeah that's how evolution works."
And again with the talk about peer reviewed papers instead of the actual arguements. I don't want to hear the term peer review when I ask why the Cambrien Explosion had a ton of life forms appear all at once when your precious evolution is supposed to be slow and gradual. I don't want to hear about 'peer reviews' when I ask you why there is no transitional fossils when even Darwin himself admitted that if they don't start popping up by the thousands then his theory is wrong. You do what I used to do all the time, you totally overrate what "They Say", what "The Experts Say!" It's Bullshit! THe whole world has an agenda. The universe is not comparable to your 'expert physician' analagy. Do you really think anybody has the entire universe on an operating table right in front of them like an expert physician does? Evolution has yet to give a good answer for the origin of life ever. You can't compare that to an expert who has all his data sitting right in front of his face. You are really giving these scientist way too much credit (as i once did) they have SO much undiscovered information it's ridiculous. They might as well be philosophers not scientists. I repeat myself, they don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf, IN OUR OWN PLANET, but they know how life started, they have the universe figured out, they know life evolved yet we have about 4 questionable fossils they claim to be 'transitions' when their should be millions and millions! You need to think about the specific factors for yourself and come up with your own conclusions (or your best guess). You can't say 'They Say' 'They Say' all the time, because 'They' are full of shit!
The theory of evolution keeps 'advancing.' Since the days of Darwin it has become more precise and exact! Have you ever asked yourself this question, is it true that everytime an objection is raised to evolution scientists tweak it's definition?
Its definition doesn't keep changing. The details of gene flow across species and populations are ascertained with greater clarity. Extinct species are found, and new molecular data helps us determine relationships in ancestry.
So why is it that evolution hard coded us with religious beliefs in a God that doesn't exist? Science suplies a brilliant sounding answer; you see this is how it works...
I already answered this question.
But wait, what on Earth would morality have to do with survival of the fittest? Science supplies another impressive sounding addition to the way it works; well you have to factor in this detail of the microorganism...
I already answered this question.
The more objections that get raised to evolution the more exact and detailed it becomes, and it always sounds so impressive and brilliant. No matter what objection you have to it science just say "Well yeah yeah see, that's how it operates..." Well what are they doing? Only thing they're doing is analizing how everything behaves and saying "Yeah that's how evolution works."
Welcome to modeling animal behaviour using science.
And again with the talk about peer reviewed papers instead of the actual arguements. I don't want to hear the term peer review when I ask why the Cambrien Explosion had a ton of life forms appear all at once when your precious evolution is supposed to be slow and gradual.
They didn't appear all at once. An explosion of diversity occurred over millions of years. It is geologically fast but not fast for evolution. You also ignored the part where I said that invertebrates don't fossilise well, so once vertebrates evolved, suddenly the fossil record improves tremendously.
I don't want to hear about 'peer reviews' when I ask you why there is no transitional fossils when even Darwin himself admitted that if they don't start popping up by the thousands then his theory is wrong.
There are thousands of transitional fossils. Creationism works by simply ignoring it. It ignores the fossils because they don't fit creationism.
You do what I used to do all the time, you totally overrate what "They Say", what "The Experts Say!" It's Bullshit! THe whole world has an agenda.
Paranoia bleeding onto facts.
The universe is not comparable to your 'expert physician' analagy. Do you really think anybody has the entire universe on an operating table right in front of them like an expert physician does?
So you're arguing that we forgo listening to people who study the universe and life and treat them on equal footing with ignorant people who just started school.
Evolution has yet to give a good answer for the origin of life ever. You can't compare that to an expert who has all his data sitting right in front of his face.
Evolution doesn't cover the origins of life. It covers the diversification of life. Abiogenesis covers the origin of life.
You may as well blame Newtonian Mechanics for not explaining how gravity got here.
You can't compare that to an expert who has all his data sitting right in front of his face. You are really giving these scientist way too much credit (as i once did) they have SO much undiscovered information it's ridiculous. They might as well be philosophers not scientists.
I trust the scientists because unlike your bedfellows they actually bring us results. You know, the whole peer-reviewed articles thing? They bring us hundreds every year, with new findings. Your bedfellows just bring excuses "There is a conspiracy to deny us freedom."
I repeat myself, they don't even know where the oil went from the explosion in the gulf, IN OUR OWN PLANET,
Not biology.
but they know how life started, they have the universe figured out, they know life evolved yet we have about 4 questionable fossils they claim to be 'transitions' when their should be millions and millions!
Fossils are rare, so we have thousands. We also have genetic sequences which corroborate evolution by showing our genetic relatedness with the animals.
You need to think about the specific factors for yourself and come up with your own conclusions (or your best guess). You can't say 'They Say' 'They Say' all the time, because 'They' are full of shit!
Don't listen to the experts, just reinvent the wheel born from ignorance and personal prejudice. That's what you're arguing for. You're wrong and are trying to character assassinate those who prove you wrong.
Wow! Seriously aveskde, you are not exactly talking to your prototypical christian here, not even close. I debate the history of the bible a lot and i enjoy the scientific view of deep subjects.
Just when the science threatens your conclusion (Christianity) you reach for pseudoscience (Intelligent Design Creationism). Most Christians do this.
So i like to read and watch dvds on the cases for and against evolution, intelligent design, etc.
There are no cases to be made against evolution. When you watch a video or read a book with a title that brings up the cases for and against evolution, what you are doing is looking for propaganda disguised and reasonable dialogue.
There has been over 150 years of research put into this theory, and it has not been falsified. It is an example of legitimate science.
I side with intelligent design because of the scientific arguments, not a single shred of religion enters into it.
Intelligent design is a rebranding of biblical creationism that replaces all references to god with "intelligent designer" and uses heavy jargon to disguise old creationist arguments like "what good is half a wing?"
It exists because creationism is overtly religious and cannot be taught in schools. Christians want creationism and prayer in schools because they enjoyed that privilege for over a century, until secular authorities correctly called it out as a violation of secular government if public schools teach religion. They need these things taught in schools because a secular education naturally causes a child to question his beliefs and gain a more rational mindset, which of course undermines religious dogma.
Once creationism was banned from schools ID was created as an attempt at undermining science that could sneak under the separation of church and state. However since it isn't science but a deliberate attempt to attack evolution, and because its proponents are thinly disguised religious fundamentalists, the link was revealed in a court.
For you to say something like 'It has been settled by the scientific community' is a total joke to me. I've let a few of my non religious friends watch some intelligent design dvds and they have all admitted that they make some strong points (even if they still don't believe it completely).
I don't care what your friends think. They are not experts, and they are not biologists.
To hear statements about the 'scientific community' settling this issue only leaves me with the impression that there is politics in popular science (politically correct science).
Science is a human affair, and so it cannot help but have politics, however unlike most fields it has strict codes of academic integrity and a zero tolerance policy towards forgery.
The simple fact is that Intelligent Design is a thinly veiled attack at evolution with no actual substance behind it. You can take an expert biologist and show him an ID video and do you know what he'll say?
"They made a straw man of how evolution works and attacked it!"
"No the precambrian radiation did not happen as quickly as that, it wasn't a sudden explosion of life but took millions of years, besides the fact that precambrian fossils are rare because they were invertibrate and that doesn't preserve well, thus giving the appearance of an explosion of fossils."
"No, complex systems are explicable because they may serve different purposes along the way of their evolution."
"Complexity doesn't require a designer."
"Evolution isn't random chance."
"There actually are transitional fossils AND we have DNA sequences that affirm those fossils."
"God did it isn't an explanation for how something was done, it's a question answering a question."
There has not been a shred of religion talk in my ID material.
Learn to read between the lines. If they are attacking evolution and secular science and keep making reference to intelligent designers, they clearly mean god.
On top of that there are anti-evolution scientists out there who not only publish books about their problems with evolution but these people also HATE religion lol.
You know, I think you're just so desperate to believe in god that you'll buy the cover story of people who say things like "I'm not religious but evolution means we're just products of random chance."
Please stop being so gullible. You're being played.
I mean come on dude, i don't need someone in create debate website to argue with me that ID has no scientific merit when i have personally witnessed quite a few non-religious people who were pretty damn impressed with ID arguements
Do you really not see the error in your reasoning here? Ignorant people can be impressed with something and it doesn't have to be scientific. Why do you think cold fusion and free energy impress all sorts of people? There is no science behind them but people still are impressed.
I have heard my share of totally brain washed religious people speak. People who are ridiculous at how rigid they are, who would never in a million years even admit that they question a part of their beliefs. Wow you are the scientific version of that. Bro, there are a lot of people out there who have serious problems with evolution who don't have a religious bone in their body. Lol, you would be screaming 'RELIGION!' at them and i would love to see the looks on their faces. I forget the name of the one guy, wrote a huge book trashing the theory of evolution, then he also wrote another book on how religious people are idiots. Like how on earth is the problem of irreducible complexity a religious rebuttle? Yes religious people point to it but you need to talk science with the non-religious people who have a problem with it. You can't tell those people to run back to church lol.
Now suppose cold fusion is a total joke like you say it is but a bunch of people believe it. Would you not see a reason to throw it into a high school science book? Even if you're right and the reason to put it there is to shoot holes in it? But if any ID arguement is impressing people your reaction is AHHHHHHH, RELIGION!! Stay away from science classes! Do they not teach even dead theories from before Einstein and Newton for reasons of completeness and science history? Your reason to exclude ID from science class is totally political
I have heard my share of totally brain washed religious people speak. People who are ridiculous at how rigid they are, who would never in a million years even admit that they question a part of their beliefs. Wow you are the scientific version of that.
Try challenging the germ theory of disease to a microbiologist, or gravity to a physicist. You speak from ignorance to someone who knows the field very well.
Bro, there are a lot of people out there who have serious problems with evolution who don't have a religious bone in their body.
I don't care. They are not scientists, and the uneducated masses buy into all sorts of pseudoscience.
I forget the name of the one guy, wrote a huge book trashing the theory of evolution, then he also wrote another book on how religious people are idiots. Like how on earth is the problem of irreducible complexity a religious rebuttle? Yes religious people point to it but you need to talk science with the non-religious people who have a problem with it. You can't tell those people to run back to church lol.
I already explained before, ID is a movement started by Christian fundamentalists as a way to sneak antiscience into classrooms. Try researching these things. Here's a hint for you:
Go to the internet archive, archive.org, and type the discovery institute's URL into the "way back machine." The very old pages in the archives show that they are a front for attacks on science, what they call materialism.
Now suppose cold fusion is a total joke like you say it is but a bunch of people believe it. Would you not see a reason to throw it into a high school science book?
Let's teach children that curses cause illness as well as bacteria and viruses.
Even if you're right and the reason to put it there is to shoot holes in it?
You don't teach pseudoscience to children expecting them to shoot holes into it. High-school children are not experts and rely on accurate information from which to learn about their world. It takes seasoned scientists and careful readers to poke holes in the bunk that is creationism.
But if any ID arguement is impressing people your reaction is AHHHHHHH, RELIGION!! Stay away from science classes!
I'm sure that it never occurred to you that the point here is ID doesn't impress scientists in other words experts in the field of biology who know the subject.
To you, a person is on equal footing with a scientist.
Do they not teach even dead theories from before Einstein and Newton for reasons of completeness and science history? Your reason to exclude ID from science class is totally political
Before you go on a rant about politics, you'd better try reading up on the political plans of your masters:
What does germ theory or microbiology have to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe. I'm sure you're well versed in telling people 'Sit down I am the authority on this subject' but you really need to realize that 'NONE' have authority on the subject of origins. You keep calling ID pseudoscience, where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of ID. What is your theory, that particles just magically started spinning the right way and Bam, life? Where is your proof? You take your expert status to levels where nobody is an expert. When it comes to origins all of us are limited to analyzing the different variables and making an intelligent guess on what makes most sense to us. You need to give it a rest on 'peer reviews' and 'the experts' on this subject
What does germ theory or microbiology have to do with the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
If you tell a person who studies microbiology that germ theory is only a theory and that curses and sin cause disease too, he will tell you that the scientific community has ruled that out and agrees that germ theory is the only working model. The matter is closed.
In other words, you a non-expert are questioning a scientific consensus on biology, a consensus of experts who have decades of experience on the field and have published ground-breaking articles and research. You are telling them "no you're wrong and arrogant because this fringe group who doesn't play by the rules of science says god did it."
You don't realise it but that is what you are saying. ID is "god did it" under heavy jargon and cloak of science-sounding arguments. However it isn't science. Science follows strict rules: gather objective data, find a model that explains it, test the model, and submit for review by others. It must be falsifiable and therefore cannot reference the supernatural or gods, because those cannot be falsified or tested. It must explain all the relevant data and evidence.
In other words, even if Intelligent Design were a scientific theory, it would have to look like evolution because the evidence says that we evolved over millions of years. It cannot merely ignore this and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
I'm sure you're well versed in telling people 'Sit down I am the authority on this subject' but you really need to realize that 'NONE' have authority on the subject of origins.
This is really an argument from ignorance. You don't know how one could explain our origins, and can't imagine how it could be researched accurately, so you assume that it cannot be.
The simple fact is that we deduce our origins through gene flow, and by performing experiments that mimic early earth conditions, to determine how life could form.
You keep calling ID pseudoscience, where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of ID.
You need to educate yourself. Instead of thinking "I can't imagine how" ask "How could it?"
Where is your proof?
All life shares the same nucleotides, all life shares a very similar genetic code, RNA-enzymes can function as an intermediate for early replication, protocells called protobionts exist, which suggest what an early cell might look like, experiments on replicating early earth conditions demonstrated that nucleotides and amino acids could form.
You take your expert status to levels where nobody is an expert. When it comes to origins all of us are limited to analyzing the different variables and making an intelligent guess on what makes most sense to us. You need to give it a rest on 'peer reviews' and 'the experts' on this subject
Again, just because you can't understand how this type of research works and you are ignorant of the advances made, doesn't change the fact that we have learned a lot.
The belief that the complexity of the universe, and of life, and everything, can not possible be the product of blind chance is held by many, probably purely by instinct and not by research. There are a lot of people out there that cannot ever come to believe that there is not a force/entity/God/thing, whatever you want to name it, holding all of this together. You simply can't blow these people away with impressive scientific concepts and change their minds because no matter what you reveal to them they will simply agree with your research and say 'uh yeah, sounds pretty damn impressive and organized, hence an organizer! (ID).
I'm sure you don't like the ID argument 101 which pretty much says everything we have ever observed in our life that has intelligent organization to it (a refrigerator, toilet, computer, etc.) has had a designer, therefore why would we not assume (based on a lifetime of experience not ignorance) that when we reach the top of the mountain (the universe itself and all in it, which is more impressively organized then anything) the same is not also true? Is not every single example in life of organization having an organizer good evidence to judge that which is beyond life (the power source of it all)? Is that really ignorant? I see it as a conclusion using simple probability. Do you really not see how holding this belief can totally have nothing to do with religion for people but merely a philosophical stance? All the facts you are telling me are the result of a designer or of random processes! I don't deny any scientific facts you point out but none of them can argue for or against intelligent design vs. random chance. Science is constantly observing and predicting and discovering new things about the physical world around us. But to make a claim about the driving force behind the physical world will always be totally unprovable, untouchable, you can't research it it's an idea without concrete data. It is a matter of religion or philosophy.
Einstein had a philosophy about the universe and so does your average high school drop out. But your philosophy about what power source drives this physical universe and your knowlege of how the universe opperate are 2 totally different things. Einstein knew 800 times more about how the universe works than I do, but he can't have a better guess than me about what is causing the universe to work that way because such a question can not be researched, it's philosophical. The whole ID vs randomness/evolution is actually a strange argument because it's not really a science argument anyway. Religious man sees scientific data, 'oh God's power is causing this'. Science man sees the same data, 'oh evolution is causing this.' How on Earth do you measure what force is causing it and tell the other guy that he's wrong? What me and you have basically been doing is going back and forth about who better understands how X operates, and how X changes, and how X reacts, and how X evolves, etc. THen saying to each other 'Well because I better understand how X works I am in a better possition to tell you what is 'causing' X to work. THat doesn't make sense, nobody has a better guess at what MAKES the universe work simply because they better understand HOW the universe works. Science can answer things like 'What', 'How often', 'Where', etc, it can't answer 'Why.' That is speculation for anyone.
The belief that the complexity of the universe, and of life, and everything, can not possible be the product of blind chance is held by many, probably purely by instinct and not by research.
This is a strawman. Evolution works by natural selection, a nonrandom process that shapes a population over an environment and selects beneficial random mutations.
There are a lot of people out there that cannot ever come to believe that there is not a force/entity/God/thing, whatever you want to name it, holding all of this together. You simply can't blow these people away with impressive scientific concepts and change their minds because no matter what you reveal to them they will simply agree with your research and say 'uh yeah, sounds pretty damn impressive and organized, hence an organizer! (ID).
I don't really care to "blow them away." People will always believe in crazy things, and call it god, chi, takyonics, feng shui, voodoo, etc.
I'm sure you don't like the ID argument 101 which pretty much says everything we have ever observed in our life that has intelligent organization to it (a refrigerator, toilet, computer, etc.) has had a designer, therefore why would we not assume (based on a lifetime of experience not ignorance) that when we reach the top of the mountain (the universe itself and all in it, which is more impressively organized then anything) the same is not also true?
It's the teleological argument masquerading as science. Evolution demonstrates that complex things like proteins, organs, and so on can and will evolve when conditions are met. Therefore apparently designed things do not require a designer. That is a false premise, as exposed by evolution.
This is an example of evidence. Brushing it away as "evolution is a hoax" denies this evidence and means any conclusion you reach doesn't fit all the facts.
Is not every single example in life of organization having an organizer good evidence to judge that which is beyond life (the power source of it all)? Is that really ignorant?
It leads to an infinite regression or a special pleading fallacy if you think that way. Further, there are natural processes that organise matter without intelligence, like crystalisation, evolution, and in thermodynamics there is a rare case where systems can organise into less entropy, as a matter of statistical probability.
I see it as a conclusion using simple probability. Do you really not see how holding this belief can totally have nothing to do with religion for people but merely a philosophical stance?
A religious position is inescapable. Because the nature of the argument asks for ever-escalating, more complicated intelligences to design the former, and because the nature of an infinite progression with increase leads to a "god" intelligence.
All the facts you are telling me are the result of a designer or of random processes!
Neither, it is evolution.
I don't deny any scientific facts you point out but none of them can argue for or against intelligent design vs. random chance.
Intelligent design denies the evidence of common decent, and creates a strawman of evolution that makes it appear random.
Evolution isn't random. It is heredity, reproduction with variation, competition for resources, and random mutation. Together natural selection automatically follows from it, killing off those organisms least suited to the environment.
The strawman is to claim that evolution is random mutation. Natural selection isn't random, the most fit organisms are what survives.
Science is constantly observing and predicting and discovering new things about the physical world around us. But to make a claim about the driving force behind the physical world will always be totally unprovable, untouchable, you can't research it it's an idea without concrete data. It is a matter of religion or philosophy.
ID is unprovable. Evolution depends on the fossil, genetic and other evidence. These have been found and they support it.
Einstein knew 800 times more about how the universe works than I do, but he can't have a better guess than me about what is causing the universe to work that way because such a question can not be researched, it's philosophical.
It's philosophical if it is unknowable. Depending on what we learn about our universe in the next century, it may be knowable. Some evidence points to quantum fluctuation. However we do know that the universe expanded from a singularity.
The whole ID vs randomness/evolution is actually a strange argument because it's not really a science argument anyway.
Evolution is a science.
Religious man sees scientific data, 'oh God's power is causing this'. Science man sees the same data, 'oh evolution is causing this.'
A religious person is committed to a conclusion that cannot be shaken from his mind.
A scientist works with established theory.
How on Earth do you measure what force is causing it and tell the other guy that he's wrong?
You can show through genetic sequencing that we are related to other animals in a way that is consistent with a historical lineage.
Transitional forms fill in gaps to genome sequencing with organisms that are extinct but have no DNA preserved.
Molecular analysis shows how proteins and enzymes evolved by comparing with different branches.
What me and you have basically been doing is going back and forth about who better understands how X operates, and how X changes, and how X reacts, and how X evolves, etc. THen saying to each other 'Well because I better understand how X works I am in a better possition to tell you what is 'causing' X to work.
You aren't in a position to have this kind of conversation anyway because you have demonstrated that you do not know how evolution works. You only have a caricature.
THat doesn't make sense, nobody has a better guess at what MAKES the universe work simply because they better understand HOW the universe works.
There is no dualistic nature to the universe that makes it operate on some sort of unseen background. The properties of the universe operate independently of each other and together, giving us what we have. Understanding these properties lets us understand the universe.
Science can answer things like 'What', 'How often', 'Where', etc, it can't answer 'Why.' That is speculation for anyone.
What good can come from speculating a "why" for the universe? It isn't a created object with given purpose.
I agree that evolution is science, it is the very detailed examination of how living organisms function and change. Then there are other fields of science and they too are very detailed at taking us down to the smallest basement level details of the physical world. I agree with you that I have no more than the casual reader's knowlege of evolution or perhaps any field of science. But I guess we just don't see eye to eye. I will never understand how me attaining a master's degree level of information on how these things work will possibly help me to discover what is below that basement level. If it is a power source or just random mutation. We are all taking a leap of faith my friend whether we are theists or atheists. Surely you must know that there are people out there who do have masters degrees in biology and also believe in God. In all fairness can you really come back and say 'Yes all the theist scientists are idiots who think they know their field, but any scientist who has a clue would never believe in God.' I don't want to put words in your mouth but you have to know that such a statement is not true
I agree that evolution is science, it is the very detailed examination of how living organisms function and change. Then there are other fields of science and they too are very detailed at taking us down to the smallest basement level details of the physical world.
This is correct.
I agree with you that I have no more than the casual reader's knowlege of evolution or perhaps any field of science. But I guess we just don't see eye to eye. I will never understand how me attaining a master's degree level of information on how these things work will possibly help me to discover what is below that basement level.
Suppose you lived in the very early 20th century, you are a normal 20s' man. You heard that men were flying with this thing called the flying machine.
Now, you're no scientist or engineer, but you know that wood and metal and humans are heavier than air... they couldn't levitate above it. It must be a hoax. So you laugh at it, mock it for being so obviously wrong. After all if humans could fly they would have wings!
Imagine you arguing with an engineer decades later about how absurd this flight is, how the planes now being made must be hoaxes, things held up by invisible wires as a farce.
This is where you are with biology. Yes it seems ridiculous, a leap of faith that random mutation can make a dog from a wolf but that is only a part of it. We are dealing with a complicated field spanning over a century of research in chemistry, genetics, fossils, cladistics and phylogeny, and taxonomy and ecology and population studies. I've been studying this for the past few years and I still haven't memorised all the taxonomic branches, the phylogenetic relationships, etc. I'm still discovering new fossil lineages in papers, and I'm still learning subtle but important details in genetics at the molecular level. There is a lot to know.
When you learn a lot about biology it becomes clear that it could only be this way through common ancestry, it becomes obvious that life continues to change, that it isn't static and defined but transitional. Then it becomes less ridiculous that a wolf with certain mutations and special selection could look like a chihuahua.
Surely you must know that there are people out there who do have masters degrees in biology and also believe in God.
Yes, I do. However if they're good scientists they won't let that affect their research, they won't bias their results to prove god.
In all fairness can you really come back and say 'Yes all the theist scientists are idiots who think they know their field, but any scientist who has a clue would never believe in God.'
I never made this argument. What I would point out is that evolution doesn't negate a god but seems to make a god unnecessary.
If you asked me why i think that Jesus was supernatural i would probably have to gather my thoughts for a little bit, and give you a fairly long and detailed explaination (although not ridiculously long) on why i believe it so. So if someone asked you 'why is it that it is clear that it can only be this way thru common ancestry', what would be your semi-detailed explaination?
And by common ancestry you do mean that we all go back to one 'first' life form right? I'm pretty sure you don't believe that there were say 1,000 original life forms completely unlinked to each other and they all evolved into 10,000,000 life forms. That's what I believe, I don't believe we all can call the ameba our great ancestor, if you believe that then that is the explaination i would like to hear from you (and I'll research your response because I don't like to run away from view points that disagree with mine). I'll tell you what has me locked into my denial of macro evolution. Years ago I watched the movie 12 Angry Men and I remember one by one the jurors changed their minds to not guilty except 2 'guilty' jurors were left. So they asked the one guy for his thoughts and he said 'The woman saw him do it! That to me is IMMOVABLE evidence.' With evolution the lack of transitional fossils has always been immovable evidence for me, i just can't get around it. Every now and then they will come out with such and such a fossil that is the 'missing link' between A and B but it just makes me shake my head because the amount of transitionally minute changes a species would have to go thru to go from A to B is a lot, not one link! The fossil record would have to at least somewhat resemble Optimus Prime transforming into a truck (many inbetween stages). And this is where my debate with people at work usually ends because i simply don't know what else to say, I am genuinely very unimpressed by the fossil record
So if someone asked you 'why is it that it is clear that it can only be this way thru common ancestry', what would be your semi-detailed explaination?
Mendel showed us that units of traits (what we call genes) are inherited in patterns but always from parents to offspring. Traits do not appear suddenly, they are always linked to the previous generation in some way. This is crucial for it tells us that one generation must follow from the previous one.
Knowing this we look at the shape of organisms: the symmetry, the way the bones are organised, the way the skin tissues are organised, the organs, etc. and we begin to see a pattern where, in the same way two parents will produce a child who has the father's face and mother's legs (or grandparents' traits for these), an ape has our fingers (and fingernails), our chest (two mammary glands), our eyes (stereoscopic with colour vision), our dentition, and even shares our genitalia (which is rare, as many mammals have a bone in the penis for example). As you go further back you still see that shared skeleton, but with modifications suited to arboreal life, and quadrupedalism. The point is that morphology shows a distribution of traits that looks like a lineage, in the same way that parents can only give their traits to their children, a branch on the tree can only bestow its traits onto its descendants. So this comparative anatomy is part of what suggests common ancestry but it isn't perfect. We need more evidence.
Looking into the fossil record we see the development of cetaceans, primates, land-walkers, and so-on. This isn't perfect but is very revealing, for example when we see:
Shows us the many changes that occurred, that we know about.
But what is really amazing is the genetic and molecular evidence. For example when we sequenced the human genome and found a pair of chromosomes from primates were fused together to form one of our own chromosomes, thus why primates have 48 chromosomes and we have 46.
In other words genetics is showing us that even if the fossil record were nonexistent and morphology were ambiguous, common ancestry comes through in comparing gene sequences amongst other molecular data, and if we accept heredity, then the diagrams follow which look like the tree of life.
In other words, heredity shows us that parents pass their traits to offspring, and putting the evidence in context of this knowledge it easily makes sense of all genetics and fossils.
And by common ancestry you do mean that we all go back to one 'first' life form right?
No. First off, if there is a life form, then there is a large population of it. It will also be very simple.
I'm pretty sure you don't believe that there were say 1,000 original life forms completely unlinked to each other and they all evolved into 10,000,000 life forms.
The earliest life would have been simple, so simple that heredity was more about horizontal gene flow and asexual reproduction. Therefore it would be infeasible to expect those life forms to be entirely unlinked.
That's what I believe, I don't believe we all can call the ameba our great ancestor, if you believe that then that is the explaination i would like to hear from you (and I'll research your response because I don't like to run away from view points that disagree with mine).
We wouldn't. The amoeba, for starters is really complicated. It's a eukaryote, meaning it has organelles and chromosomes. PLUS it has all the extra machinery.
The simplest bacterium is complicated.
No, the first "life" forms would be self-replicating molecules slowly acquiring something like a cellular wall, and growing from there. They would be in a grey-area not properly deemed life, but eventually would qualify.
So they asked the one guy for his thoughts and he said 'The woman saw him do it! That to me is IMMOVABLE evidence.' With evolution the lack of transitional fossils has always been immovable evidence for me, i just can't get around it.
Every now and then they will come out with such and such a fossil that is the 'missing link' between A and B but it just makes me shake my head because the amount of transitionally minute changes a species would have to go thru to go from A to B is a lot, not one link!
There are usually may other fossils as part of the series, and if you look where it belongs you'll see those other ones.
where is the ground breaking evidence to the contrary of ID
there will probably never be any because ID doesn't make any testable hypotheses which is why it is NOT science. It just proposes that everything is so complex there must be someone behind it - which is silly, and untestable, and not scientific.
What is your theory, that particles just magically started spinning the right way and Bam, life?
the theory of evolution is that more complex and better adapted life can come from lesser forms and the evidence is everywhere - from drug resistant bacteria to evolution from wolves to dogs (which we can basically replicate ), etc.
the Miller Urey experiments prove that simple elements water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen produced 22 types of amino acids going from inorganic matter to organic.
The only way to test ID is to find a hypothesis where if ID is true X will happen and if it is untrue Y should happen and then find out which one happens - that is science.
There are other debates on ID - this discussion should go there.
A teacher in public school would get straight up FIRED for saying a prayer before class
if he says a prayer to himself before the schoolkids show up, he would not get in trouble - if he is a government employee (like a teacher) proselytizing to other people's children - why wouldn't that person be in trouble? If that teacher was trying to teach your kid the Qu'ran, would you want the teacher to be in trouble?
Neo Nazis can march anywhere and practice their freedom of speech
and christians who are against abortion can protest right outside abortion clinics, etc
entertaining the possibility of intelligent design (in a scientific way)
that isn't possible because science deals with how things happen and repeatable experiments, etc., but intelligent design deals with why things happened - and is a philosophy.
P.S. - we are a bit far from the topic of the debate
All that liberals and actual small gov conservatives are saying is - you can say Jesus at Christmas all you want - just don't take tax dollars to do it, and don't have the government teach my kid religion even if the majority says so.
Of all places... OF ALL PLACES WHY THE BLOODY HELL WOULD THEY CHOOSE TO BUILD A MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO???
If anything they should build a memorial, but not a mosque. Radical Islam is Islam none the less, and it would be disrespectful not only to the families who lost loved ones in the destruction, but the victims as well.
while i support the right to the peaceful gathering of people to worship their deity, why don't people ask Muslim nations why we cant build on their land. Islam is a one way street. they build mosques and Muslim universities here in America but we are rejected and not allowed to build churches or Christian collage classes in most Muslim countries. also it is illegal in most Islamic counties to go to their country on the grounds of being a missionary that is not Muslim. and to continue my point it is illegal for most people to publicly display religious activities that are not Muslim. that means preaching publicly, carrying a bible, and going to church is illegal under law.
so why do Muslims hark intolerance at us but yet don't talk about what their parent counties do?
I disagree with the placement of a mosque next to ground zero in the same way I would oppose a gun shop next to Columbine High School. Do all Muslims kill people? Of course not. And neither do all guns. But the connotation is still there, and it shows a lack of respect for those affected by both tragedies.
Interesting analogy - I wonder how many who say No would have protested the NRA holding its meeting 15 miles from Columbine high school less than 2 weeks after the shooting...
The NRA should not have held a meeting at that location so soon. I can't answer for everyone else on the negative side of this debate, but I say, just like the mosque, they ought to have their meetings elsewhere.
There is an old tradition from the era of the crusades, in which Moslem's, when they would win a victory, would build a mosque over the battle ground and hold it as a place of spiritual significance. Now I understand the majority of Moslem's in the world do not partake in violent jihad anymore, but I don't think it was a coincidence that they chose this location for their "community center". First of all, the chosen location is not exactly prime real estate. It is priced far above it's actual value. Secondly, there are dozens of other suitable locations other than the one near ground zero that would have been a better value, have the same amenities, and ease of access. They would in fact be making it harder on themselves to use the building they have chosen, yet they have chosen it anyway. I find this connotation disturbing, and I also find it disturbing that no one can spare political correctness for the sake of a genuine debate.
Seeing as how the victims of 9/11 were killed by Muslim terrorist I would personally consider it a slap in the face to their family's and to America as a whole. I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists but this is just in bad taste.
Absolutly not! For terrorist whose relegious belief is to see all Americans dead so they can go to heaven one day!!These terrorist with such beliefs fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York City and kill thousands of innocent American people!!! These people with such beliefs come back under ten years later and want to build a church on the same grounds in which they performed acts of terror against the American people!! HAHA!!! Are you Serious?? Is this some type of Joke??! oh but Obama who agrees and shares the same relegious beliefs with the people who want to blow us all up says Oh but Muslim beliefs are considered a relegion!!?? So they obviously must have the rights here in America as Terroist-Americans to worship there ungodly beliefs in order to destroy America from the inside out!!?? Wake Up America!! Its time to repair the Busted and broken U.S. Constitution before its to late!!
