By a vote of 4-1 the Spencer (Iowa) Community School Board of Education agreed “to discontinue the pursuit of a Religious Liberty Policy” .
…
This is as official as it gets, at least for the foreseeable future, in the effort to defeat an attempt to introduce Intelligent Design and a sectarian Bible class earlier in that school district. And, this time, the Discovery Institute did not even put up a fight in Iowa.
What a loser we have in Jeebus.
dont forget about Kirk Cameron and the Banana Guy passing out free copies of The Origins of Species with their 50 pages of bullshit religion attached to it on the 19th this month at 50 Universities and Colleges….
Leave science alone stupid religion….
Agreed. Devoutly religious atheists like Dawkins have no clue what objective science is.
did you just state that Dawkins is not not religious….that would be a double negative jcc….
Uh yeah, right… t-that’s exactly what I said.
Uh no, that would be you either deliberately altering the meaning of my words or, quite probably, failing to comprehend a simple, declarative sentence.
my point is… is that you dont understand the meaning of some of the words you use….I know its crazy that atheist believe that snakes cant talk, virgins births dont happen and lions dont exist on a boat for 42 days without eating their prey….but
atheism is not a religious belief….its a logical conclusion based on simple observations…I have yet to observe the suspension of laws of the universe…if atheism was a religion…it would have at least one far fetch claim as to this suspension that You yourself couldnt believe…at least one god damn miracle…Am I wrong
Nicely said by a good, dutifully religious atheist. Sorry to disappoint, but the dictionary flatly contradicts you: religion a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
it’s an illogical conclusion based on an emotional denial of evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs.
Uh, not just one, a whole slew of ‘em: the just-so “explanation” of the creation of the universe from nothing; the just-so “explanation” of the existence of life, and the just-so “explanation” of the existence of reason itself… to name just a few.
Dead wrong.
By now I would think it obvious that JCC and other like commentators have no regard for the truth about atheism. Of course atheism is not a religion, as atheism is arrived upon by examination of the evidence and utilizing reason, not blind faith, as religion requires. Except those held in the grips of the delusion, anyone who examines the evidence, and accepts it after utilizing their reasoning power, will come to the conclusion of atheism. This is scary to individuals like JCC and phreedm. Like a twisting animal in the throes of death, religion, I fervently hope, will die.
So the opposite of religion…is religion! Ah-ha! & the opposite of black is…black! @ the opposite of day is….day!
Atheism is a religion in much the same way as bald is a hair color.
Wow. Now that’s original… I’ve never heard that one around here before…
The obvious response is, “You still don’t understand it? How hard is it?”
I cant look down this hall of mirrors anymore….please keep your stupid religion to yourself
An expected, emotional response by one confronted by objective reality.
Religion: fantasy based. Atheism: reality based. People who have examined the evidence simply get tired of being harrassed by those spouting ignorance.
Atheists think the universe came into being out of nothing. How is that not fantasy based? Do you see things pop into existence out of nothing?Atheists think non-living molecules turned into living molecules, how is that no fantasy based? Have you ever seen a rock turn into a living thing? You talk about spouting ignorance but you can’t explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Who’s following reality? If in your reality things pop into existence out of nothing and non-living things become living then how can you even use science? There would be no purpose in any science because out of nowhere something could just pop into being and destroy any theory a scientist might propose.
dw:
Au contraire, I have nothing but the highest regard for the truth about what atheism really is.
Really? Could you, for once, answer just one question? Please give me an “operational” definition of what you believe reason to be—that is, one that is not self-referencing—and please follow that by a detailed explanation of how it ever came into existence. Because until you can do that, every time you refer to this thing you call “reason,” you’re taking nothing less than blind a leap of faith in its existence.
Sorry, but after using my “reasoning power” I concluded just the opposite. Hmmm, so either my “reasoning power” is wrong or your’s is… wow, could reason itself be a subjective concept?
Yes, after that demonstration of such a formidable “reasoning power,” I’m absolutely petrified…
You said it.
JCC: <blockquote.Really? Could you, for once, answer just one question? Please give me an “operational” definition of what you believe reason to be—that is, one that is not self-referencing—and please follow that by a detailed explanation of how it ever came into existence. Because until you can do that, every time you refer to this thing you call “reason,” you’re taking nothing less than blind a leap of faith in its existence.
Reason utillizes factual evidence, gained by observation, analyzation, experimentation, much the same as science. I am not surprised that you do not know what reason is as your belief system requires a specific allergy for factual evidence as well as a requirement that in matters of belief that no facts are necessary.
As for the rest of your comments, like many you have posted, they are absurd.
Interesting, how the little mouse avoids my commentary, likely because I trounced him soundly.
JCC:
Your “reasoning power”? Without any concept of what reason entails you have no “reasoning power”. You can not substantiate your point of view with the facts, as there are none. You are in conclusion correct: your reasoning power is wrong.
dw:
Please try to follow more carefully; I didn’t ask you what reason “does”, I asked you what reason is. There is a distinction, and the ability to comprehend that distinction shouldn’t require a great deal of intelligence.
I wasn’t asking you out of personal ignorance; I simply wanted to know what your understanding of it is. The fact that you did not provide the requested definition but rather spoke of it as though it is itself, a conscious entity, indicates that it is you who is apparently clueless as to what reason is.
Not only is that assertion completely unnecessary to the conversation, but indicative of an insufferably arrogant, and above all, ignorant personality type.
And, as usual, other than merely making that statement, you’ve done nothing in the way of actually demonstrating how each of my comments are in the slightest way, “absurd.”
Given that I, unlike you, have demonstrated that it is you who apparently lacks any comprehension of the concept of what reason is, I’d be very careful about making such irresponsible accusations like that in the future.
Apparently, you suffer from the same paralysis of the will that Doug does—I defy you to cite any of my posts where I fail to substantiate my point of view with facts.
But you just said I had “no reasoning power.” So, which is it? And if I do have “reasoning power,” then that assertion clearly contradicts your earlier claim that:
which itself contradicts the fact that I have “examined the evidence…after utilizing [my] ‘reasoning power,’” but have
come to a completely different conclusion about it than you. So, what does that fact have to say about your “reasoning power?”
So, I ask again, can you please provide me with your definition of what reason is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason:
Reason is the mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises.
Reason in this sense is often contrasted with authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith, and is thought by rationalists to be more reliable than these in discovering what is true or what is best.
Settles that. Little mouse isn’t using reason, not @ all.
JCC:
the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
Unfortunately, you have no sound arguments.
You still haven’t a clue as to what reason is or what it does. Accept the reality. “The force of the myth is too strong, young skywalker, you cannot resist.”
This is nice to see from Spencer High School, as that was MY high school! Class of 1996. Good for them and shame on the people trying to slip BS into their science classes.
Been a while but I see the jokesters are still active
Yeah, old JCC is still getting non-verbal communications beamed into his brain via zombie jay-sus. & refusing evidence that contradicts his ‘epistemology’.
dw:
Since you obviously got that definition from Dictionary.com, did you also investigate what it’s definition of “first principles” were? Just in case you didn’t, it’s:
And in case that escapes your grasp, here’s what the fully vetted “authorities” of Wikipedia say they are:
Now, with that in mind, consider this: the second Merriam-Webster Online dictionary definition of reason is: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways. Its definition of rational is: having reason or understanding; relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason.
See anything peculiar there—like circular definitions? There’s no real or usable definition at all. But, remember I specifically asked you for a definition of reason that was not self-referencing? All you could come up with was something that mentioned “first principles” which, when investigated, turn out to be concepts that are, by definition, intellectually—and therefore, scientifically unprovable. So, logically speaking, anyone who asserts them as grounds for their arguments must do so purely by blind, and completely unsubstantiated, faith and faith alone.
No my friend, as I just demonstrated, it is you who, by invoking reason have no “sound” arguments because such an invocation appeals to pure conjecture that reason exists and can be consistently perceived by conscious minds.
The very fact that atheists think they have “reasons” to be atheists actually presupposes that God exists—because reasons require that the universe is rational—that is, one that can be comprehended by a conscious mind that is itself, rational. Reason can only exist and be known if there is an immutable and objective source and standard of such things. To say something is unreasonable, atheists must first know, and be able to unambiguously define, what reasonable is. Like all nontheistic worldviews, atheism must borrow from the theistic worldview in order to make itself seem intelligible.
Sorry that had to blow up so close to your face.
You’ll do well to heed your own advice.
This is known as ‘circulus in probando’, reasoning in a circle. It appears clever to the theist, but in fact, it’s simply drawing bloody circles w/one’s knees. Again, analogical arguments are not evidentiary ones.
A. Reason needs to be evaluated WITHOUT the use of reason, but if one cannot, then,
B. It’s self-referential, therefore circular, so
C. Reason must be reified, ergo,
D. Dawg did it!
Note that little mouse refuses to address me anymore. He might delude himself that he won a substantial victory, but I marionetted the guy – so he wrestles w/himself in ‘prayer’, revels in mystic martyrdom, & generally entrenches himself in the mouth of madness.
Plenty of atheists are atheists because they have absolutely no reason to believe in any god. How is this unreasonable?
Also, the “just so” explanations to which you refer far above are vast misrepresentations of what science, not atheism, have determined about the nature of our universe. These determinations are not complete and do not address concerns of external guidance at all. The existence or non-existence of a god is irrelevant to scientific inquiry.
It’s not unreasonable, and that wasn’t my point. “Having no reason to believe in God” is a reason to believe in atheism—but that still doesn’t define what “reason” is, or how we’re able to perceive it.
No, my “just-so” citings above refer to how atheists use scientific findings to extrapolate their explanations for the nature of the universe. The science is inconclusive, but atheists have convinced themselves that it [the scientific evidence] somehow supports their materialistic conclusions.
Agreed (as I pointed out in my previous sentence, above), but the entire point of scientific inquiry is to satisfy the human need to know why things are the way they are—without that, there’d be no inquiry.
Agreed. The inquiry should be, by definition, objective; it’s the interpretation of those findings that I was referring to. So, what is a truly objective scientist to conclude when his scientific inquiries lead him to unmistakable evidence that the universe was designed?
Okay, so your problem is with unreasonable people in general, not with atheists in general.
“So, what is a truly objective scientist to conclude when his scientific inquiries lead him to unmistakable evidence that the universe was designed?”
If a scientist were to encounter such evidence, he would be beholden to document it, use it to make predictions, perform experiments, and publish findings.
In general, yes.
But specifically, my problem is with atheists who adamantly base belief in atheism on “reason” yet, when pressed to define what reason is, they must defer to a “just-so” explanation of its existence—one which runs counter to objective scientific inquiry. That in itself isn’t so bad, it’s when they attempt to use it [reason] as a club to bash Christians’ supposed lack of intelligence that exposes them as the hypocrites and victims of their own logic that they are.
Which, when done, is mocked, derided, and smeared as “religious pseudo-science” by atheists in the scientific community–not very “objective” of them, is it?
So the majority aren’t True Scientists™ – an argument from numbers? Sorry, it is psuedo-science, & you’re a pseudo intellectual, little mouse.
The image I see is that of a snake swallowing its own tail. Reason is simply a paradox – we have reason in an obviously irrational & non-rational universe.
You can’t ‘borrow’ concepts or thoughts, like it’s currency. That’s reification. Furthermore, that’s as asinine as saying atheists need to ‘borrow’ language from theists in order to communicate.
You, little mouse, are an utter twat.
What makes you think your reasoning is even true? If your reasoning comes about by molecules bouncing around in your brain then why would you even trust your reason? The reason atheists can’t explain “reason” is because there is no naturalistic basis for it. It would be like trusting a dogs reasoning. If it’s just molecules firing off in ones brain then how could you believe it to give you any form of truth? We Theists believe in reason because we know we were created by a rational Being. Reason falls into the same boat as morality. Morality can’t be explained naturalistically either. If there are no objective moral values and what we deem as moral is just what our brains are telling us then there is no reason to follow these morals. If there isn’t objective moral values then anything is permissible. An atheist saying “murder is wrong” would be the same as saying “speghetti is delicious.” It’s just an opinion that doesn’t mean anything to anyone else. But we Theists know there is Objective Morality b/c we were created by a Morally Perfect Being. Why do you think when you do something wrong your concience tells you it is wrong and when you do something good your concience tells you it is good? It has nothing to do with herd instinct because our moral values violate our survival in certain instances. Why would you put yourself in danger to save a drowing person? But if you don’t you’ll feel bad. But if you do you are putting your life at stake, there is no self-preservation in that.
Why shouldn’t I? This is a retarded version of Lewis, & his ‘non-rational’ argument. It’s entirely circular: reason is a tool we use to process the world.
Just repeat yourself, why dontcha? Why shouldn’t I?
That’s just a psychological effect called projection. You don’t ‘know’ any such thing – you’re making an unrepeatable, unobservable, unverifiable claim.
Variant on the old ‘we’re more special than the animals’ argument. Ridiculous. Moral behavior’s been observed in the lower forms of life, so that’s just stinking thinking.
You’re an asshole, Joel. Obviously another psychopath who can’t connect to another human being empathically w/o the ‘divine’.
Capitalizing the key words for emphasis doesn’t impress anyone.
What on earth is a ‘concience’? Do you mean a ‘conscience’? Our moral values do NOT violate our survival instincts.
You mean ‘drowning’, right? It’s herd instinct to save a member of the herd. Bad example.
Sure there is. I save that person, that person might save my life some day. Just ask soldiers who’ve served in wars.
Really, Joel? Is that the best you got?