Hey I'm athiest and im looking 4 a debate on religion...but a friendly debate b/c i dont hav a problem w/religious ppl i jst wnt 2 see if i can get a few straight answers....

so here's my 1st question:

Frst of all, why is our god real but all the gods from greek and roman "mythology" aren't?? I mean who's to say that in a few thousand years people won't call "God" mythology?!

quote:

So you would agree that teachers (say, below university level) shouldn't be able to teach ID? I only say this because there is a lot of support for teaching ID alongside evolution/the big bang in science classes, and as a scientist I imagine that you would find this to be degrading to the teaching of science?

I think high school science teachers are degrading to science.
Seriously though, I agree with your initial question. I am not for ID being taught in public high schools mainly because they are government funded. Even though I think there could be some scientific evidence behind it, public high school isn't the atmosphere to discuss such highly complicated topics that the best minds have been wrestling for years. Some students that age are still pretty impressionable and it becomes easy for a teacher to try to manipulate their position for what they view as the greater good. Along with that, I also think public high school teachers claiming science has disproven God is also inappropriate for the exact same reasons. Being from the south eastern US, I was exposed to a lot of teachers violating both of these "rules" I made up and it was always awkward, even if I agreed with what they were saying.

quote:

if they are academics, then they should abide by the standards set out by thier fields, thier universities and thier specific faculties as a matter of course, and especially stringently in the teaching of students. Believe what you want; teach only what should be taught.

What should be taught is the million dollar question with this issue. Personally I think as long as what they publish/teach is based on sound logic and good principles, then I don't see a problem, even if it ends up their conclusion is wrong (which is the case more often then not)

quote:

I would agree with you here if I was trying to claim that ID has been proven, or is even endorsed by the scientific community

So you would agree that teachers (say, below university level) shouldn't be able to teach ID? I only say this because there is a lot of support for teaching ID alongside evolution/the big bang in science classes, and as a scientist I imagine that you would find this to be degrading to the teaching of science?

quote:

But all I am trying to claim is that professors who openly believe in ID shouldn't be blacklisted.

I guess what I was trying to say in the point above is that professors are free to openly believe whatever they want. But, if they are academics, then they should abide by the standards set out by thier fields, thier universities and thier specific faculties as a matter of course, and especially stringently in the teaching of students. Believe what you want; teach only what should be taught.

quote:

In context, it seems like you're saying liberal means not looking at the Bible as 100% literally correct (like created in 7 days)

That is basically what I'm saying - liberal Christianity is the kind that practises Higher Criticism, makes a keen study of hermemeutics and so on. Really liberal theologians are those like John Hick, whoa are more interested in religious pluralism and, frankly, more well thought out theological systems. Conservatives are a little further down the scale, disagreeing on how exclusive Jesus' ministry is, and then way down the line, fundamentalists who claim that the bible is literally the inerrant word of god.

So yes, "we find ourselves in agreement here."

quote:

I think you're giving ID theorists more credit for their intellectual position than they deserve.

I would agree with you here if I was trying to claim that ID has been proven, or is even endorsed by the scientific community. But all I am trying to claim is that professors who openly believe in ID shouldn't be blacklisted. I don't see any value in blacklisting anyone based on any theory, especially one that isn't/can't be disproven. It seems like blacklisting for unpopular theories is bad scientific practice.
To me, blacklisting is more of a method used when someone openly practices immoral studies (like giving syphilis to unsuspecting humans). Endorsing ID doesn't qualify for immoral study methodology.

quote:

evolution should force Christians to become liberal

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by liberal in a theological sense. In context, it seems like you're saying liberal means not looking at the Bible as 100% literally correct (like created in 7 days). If that is the case, I wholeheartedly agree with that. If I remember right, it was a pope (maybe one of the Urbans?) who decided the world was created ~6,000 years ago (based on a literal back calculation from the Bible). Seeing as I've never believed the pope to be a representative of God, it doesn't really shake my beliefs that the Earth is much older. But unless I'm mistaken, we find ourselves in agreement here.

What I meant by "evidence of evolution is evidence against God. " is sometimes atheists I know attempt to equate proving evolution as disproving God, which it seems you acknowledge, is faulty logic.

quote:

oh im srry i must have been crazy of course its more interesting than the bible what was i thinking. just because something is more appealing doesnt make it right.

Well, not to be a bit snappy, but that was kind of what I was pointing out. You said that the Roman pantheon etc couldn't compare to the feats of the Judeo-Christian god. I suggested that you might not be aware of the feats of the Roman pantheon and thus not in a good place to decide if they were comparable.

And then you got all sarcastic, without rebutting my point and at the same time suggesting that I am unable to tell the difference between what is right and what is interesting.

quote:

Secondly, I was just wondering if you know any of the the actions, decisions etc of the Roman pantheon? Aside from being much more exciting than the Bible, thier anthropomorphism comes across better. And they have some pretty impressive feats attributed to them as well. Like the battle between the titans and the first gods. Battle of the heavenly host against the fallen angels, eat your heart out.

oh im srry i must have been crazy of course its more interesting than the bible what was i thinking. just because something is more appealing doesnt make it right.

quote:

It doesn't go against the laws of science. They don't say "ignore this evidence" but build on it, provide alternative explanations, or even support with their own evidence. This is what they do with their alternative theories as well (except sometimes they do say, ignore this test, because it makes no sense). That is the basis of the scientific method.

That indeed is the basis of the scientific method, but I think you're giving ID theorists more credit for their intellectual position than they deserve. For example, the 'irreducible complexity' argument that is often marshalled against evolution has been countered by a number of examples. These include designing a mousetrap which uses less pieces than the supposedly 'irreducibly complex' mousetrap, demonstrating the possible evolutionary uses of various less useful body parts (i.e. the reforming of a reptillain tripartite jaw into the mammilian single jaw and two ears) and so on. I think that the evidence lined up in favour of the evolutionary theory is pretty much agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific world, and while this isn't proof in itself, I think the proof that convinced them into becoming the majority might be.

quote:

evidence of evolution is evidence against God.

I don't think that this is quite the case, but I do think that evolution is evidence against a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Bible. i.e. at least evolution should force Christians to become liberal, in the strictly theological sense of liberal.

quote:

ok ill just start from this how is the christian god and the god of the romans the same first of all there is a polytheism in roman mythology the christians believe in a monotheism. Secondly none of the roman gods even compare to god and his actions, decisions, and works and prophecies.

I'm not entirely sure that this constitutes an adequate reply to this charge. First off, I think you mean that the Roman pantheon is polytheistic, and the abrahamic religions monotheistic, rather than 'a' mono/polytheism. That would inherently suggest a polytheistic aspect in Christianity and the Roman pantheon.

Secondly, I was just wondering if you know any of the the actions, decisions etc of the Roman pantheon? Aside from being much more exciting than the Bible, thier anthropomorphism comes across better. And they have some pretty impressive feats attributed to them as well. Like the battle between the titans and the first gods. Battle of the heavenly host against the fallen angels, eat your heart out.

quote:

ok ill just start from this how is the christian god and the god of the romans the same first of all there is a polytheism in roman mythology the christians believe in a monotheism. Secondly none of the roman gods even compare to god and his actions, decisions, and works and prophecies.

This molecule tells the whole body what to do and imagine its in the form of a cross so God not only exists but he holds you together. google it

ahh humanity at its best.

quote:

The mythological God of the Romans is the same as the Christian God or any other deity proposed by man. Do not question the construct by which man comprehends God but rather accept the fact that a need for God exits.

ok ill just start from this how is the christian god and the god of the romans the same first of all there is a polytheism in roman mythology the christians believe in a monotheism. Secondly none of the roman gods even compare to god and his actions, decisions, and works and prophecies.

quote:

I'm not sure I understand your wording and how it differs from what I'm saying, so I'll go ahead and try to clarify precisely how it works. Chemically speaking, proteins are a long chain of amino acids linked by a peptide bond. So when I said amino acids have to be assembled in a sequence before doing anything, it could mean that they would be assembled into a protein. I tried to not say they would have to be assembled into a protein, because usually a protein just refers to a long chain of amino acids, whereas short chains (which can be just as useful for some functions) would be called a peptide or polypeptide. It's likely we're saying the same thing here, but it's more precise to say proteins are made of amino acids, rather than by because, to me at least, it seems like you're saying amino acids act as a catalyst rather than a building block.
Point is, having a protein with a very specific function form before DNA/RNA is very very unlikely unless I hear a good theory for how it could work.

My bad, must have interpreted that wrong. I thought you were implying that amino acids themselves had to be assembled in a specific sequence.

*Egg on face*

Well, let's start with what I know.

quote:

Sorry to butt in, but I was pretty sure it was proteins that have to be assembled by amino acids in a specific sequence before they can be used.

Just sayin'...

I'm not sure I understand your wording and how it differs from what I'm saying, so I'll go ahead and try to clarify precisely how it works. Chemically speaking, proteins are a long chain of amino acids linked by a peptide bond. So when I said amino acids have to be assembled in a sequence before doing anything, it could mean that they would be assembled into a protein. I tried to not say they would have to be assembled into a protein, because usually a protein just refers to a long chain of amino acids, whereas short chains (which can be just as useful for some functions) would be called a peptide or polypeptide. It's likely we're saying the same thing here, but it's more precise to say proteins are made of amino acids, rather than by because, to me at least, it seems like you're saying amino acids act as a catalyst rather than a building block.
Point is, having a protein with a very specific function form before DNA/RNA is very very unlikely unless I hear a good theory for how it could work.

quote:

For those science fans out there here is some info about God. A protien molecule called Laminin that basically holds your body together oh and guess what they form of the protein it forms a cross.

Geez, no offense but this sounds more like something that circulates my grandmother's email than science. While I do believe in God, I have to be fair to atheists and point out that a LOT of proteins hold you together, many of which do not look like a cross. I've studied a ton of essential proteins whose sole job it is to keep things together, and seeing as Laminin isn't one of them, I'm gunna guess (without looking it up) that it isn't a major player.

Onto more gray area stuff...

quote:

disputing one of the most fundamental scientific principles by simply denying the findings of molecular biology or geology, say.

Well that's the thing. It doesn't go against the laws of science. They don't say "ignore this evidence" but build on it, provide alternative explanations, or even support with their own evidence. This is what they do with their alternative theories as well (except sometimes they do say, ignore this test, because it makes no sense). That is the basis of the scientific method.

quote:

because pondering on the function of an enzyme can be investigated by your students.

And the origin of life can't be pondered/investigated by students?

Based on what you've said, I'm gunna make an assumption that you believe that evidence of evolution is evidence against God. (And even if you don't, I'm sure that someone reading this is.) Why does evolution disprove intelligent design? In my microbial genetics lab, we evolve bacteria/phages all the time. We design a way for it to go, and set up the factors so that all the bacteria on a plate will have a trait that we want them to have. It's evolution in every respect of the word, but it happened due to an intelligent design (if you can call me or my professor intelligent).

Having said that, I myself am not totally convinced by every aspect of it for a number of reasons, but I support doing research on it in case I am wrong and if it were proven, it wouldn't shake my faith in the least.

quote:

Presumably the problem is that lots of schools have a majority of one species of religion, and it is conceivable that by permitting prayer in schools a large number of people would flock to one a prayer meeting, and exclude the others or something along those lines. Not concretely evil, but I mean it would be awkward and make way for all sorts of nasty complaints.

Two points on this 1) This isn't in the constitution (at least the American one) as you (and many other people have) claimed.
2) So this justifies no one being allowed to pray or being able to carry bibles? I don't see how the fact that not everyone wanting to do something (like pray in this case) justifies the idea that no one should be allowed to do it. Should we outlaw sports for the same reason, that jocks will exclude others who don't like sports? Or what about students are aren't as intellectually gifted as others? Won't they feel excluded not taking the normal classes? People naturally aren't lumped together, so why try to do so in this case? And what if a community is religiously diversified? Would they then be allowed to pray if they wanted? This ideology seems to bring up more problems than it potentially solves.

My major point in bringing up origin of life and God not proving himself is to say that the belief of "I don't believe in anything that isn't proven" makes little sense when everyone has to embrace some idea without proof. Some people apparently believe that a comet striking the earth started life, even though there's no proof of that. All the competing origin of life ideas are unproven, and that's ok, as long as we acknowledge that. Saying that one idea is unacceptable because it is unproven, or that science has proven all these other ideas is simply wrong. While I know you, Brehon, being a pretty reasonable person, aren't saying that, I'm mentioning it because a great many do think along those lines.

quote:

For those science fans out there here is some info about God. A protien molecule called Laminin that basically holds your body together oh and guess what they form of the protein it forms a cross.

You see, I'd be much more impressed by this if science had discovered that, say, prior to Jesus' brith, that protein had taken the form of the star of David, and then after the Crucifiction turned into a cross. That would impress me. As it is, the fact that one protein happens to be in the shape of a fairly simple and fairly common geometric shape is hardly compelling evidence for anything.

I'm also pretty sure that scientists have worked out the majority the possible combinations of proteins by now, even if they don't know all of those that are functional in the body or where they are found in that body.

quote:

God exists and you want proof
lets say a painter paints a picture a beautiful master peace
and you come by a day later and someone ask you "who painted this" and you tell them i guess the painter did but my question is how do you know you cannot see the painter only the painting how do you know that this specific painting didn't grow from nature.

Also, that isn't proof. That is an argument, and one that doesn't really hold up in the slightest. David Hume blew it out of the water years ago, and I really cannot see how it persists to this day except through wilful ignorance.

Any way, to go back a while...

quote:

I think of college professors, not high school...

I agree. In England, we don't call the staff members equivalent to high school professors, but teachers. I think. Still find the US education system incredibly complicated. As various people on this site will testify to.

quote:

Professors all the time go off and talk about their own ideas about a lot of topics, most of their ideas don't have much or any academic evidence behind them.

Yes, but there is a vast difference between thier own theories and disputing one of the most fundamental scientific principles by simplying denying the findings of molecular biology or geology, say. The reason that professors who put forward ID as a scientific theory should be blacklisted, or at least ignored, is because thier theorising flies in the face of the evidence, and not just one source of evidence but a very credible majority of the evidence, replacing the theory with something incredibly backward and unhelpful.

quote:

If a professor can express his ideas on how an enzyme functions, why not on origin of life?

In a scientific context this becomes even more crucial, because pondering on the function of an enzyme can be investigated by your students. Telling them something untrue is not an example of good teaching, and there is a difference between speculating about something like this and attempting actively to teach science students theories that are absolutely against the spirit of science.

quote:

Where does the constitution say you cannot pray in school or carry Bibles around??

I think this arose in the context of permitting prayer on federal property and that sort of thing. It is possible that this extract makes it look like I'm condemning the freedom of religion which I'm not (at least not here).

Presumably the problem is that lots of schools have a majority of one species of religion, and it is conceivable that by permitting prayer in schools a large number of people would flock to one a prayer meeting, and exclude the others or something along those lines. Not concretely evil, but I mean it would be awkward and make way for all sorts of nasty complaints.

And you are of course quite right about the creation of the first RNA or RNA-like substance that was the first example of self-replicating life, but just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean that discovery isn't on the way. Scientists are getting round to making synthetic life, and I'm sure once we've managed that, then an explanation as to the original creation of life will become more apparent.

quote:

Considering that many christian beliefs state that God wouldn't prove his own existence, lack of evidence is consistent with this belief.

Well, aside from the publication and possible divine inspirtation of the Bible and the miracle stories therein, not to mention the miracles performed by the saint and so on. I mean, as not proving you exist goes, if that really was his intention, he's not doing so well. Not that those things prove he exists of course, but my point is that if he did exist and refused to prove he existed, that this would have been a bad stratergy to take up.

It is also interesting to consider that a god who refuses to prove he exists is exactly the same shape as the non-existence of god. However, I think there are a number of positive arguments that demonstrate that an atheistic description of the universe is more accurate than a theistic one, and espeically a monotheistic christian one.

quote:

The existence of God is validated by the question.

Ontological arguments are especially open to criticism. The point made by Kant that existence is not a predicate is my favourite objection.

quote:

Originally posted by LuciiHunii:
I don't believe in God and all that. There is no proof that God is real or isnt real. Its just a spirtual thing.

Wow....were to start.
God exists and you want proof
lets say a painter paints a picture a beautiful master peace
and you come by a day later and someone ask you "who painted this" and you tell them i guess the painter did but my question is how do you know you cannot see the painter only the painting how do you know that this specific painting didn't grow from nature.

For those science fans out there here is some info about God. A protien molecule called Laminin that basically holds your body together oh and guess what they form of the protein it forms a cross. Cells organize into certain molecular structure they are about 60,000 proteins in the body scientists dont even know how many there are. This molecule tells the whole body what to do and imagine its in the form of a cross so God not only exists but he holds you together. google it

I don't believe in God and all that. There is no proof that God is real or isnt real. Its just a spirtual thing.

quote:

Amino acids have to be assembled in a specific sequence before they can do anything useful anyways, so it seems like a weird way to go for the origin of life.

Sorry to butt in, but I was pretty sure it was proteins that have to be assembled by amino acids in a specific sequence before they can be used.

Just sayin'...

Wolfie:

I'm not saying I have proof of God's existence, I'm just asking why lack of proof is always sufficient when it doesn't even rule out the other theory. If you want to believe that way, it is reasonable. Just a question.

In any case, something you should know, amino acids are chemicals (specifically, they are NH2---C---CooH with the middle carbon, called alpha carbon, bound to a H and an R group which changes depending on what amino acid you are talking about). Also, the article you showed talks about the formation of RNA, which is not an amino acid. Based on what I know, (and based on this article), many scientists believe nucleic acids formed before peptides (or RNA before amino acids). This makes sense because amino acids are not self-replicating like RNA is. Amino acids have to be assembled in a specific sequence before they can do anything useful anyways, so it seems like a weird way to go for the origin of life. The comet idea seems kinda strange since usually heat destroys organized chemicals, but I can try to look it up later.

Hope you don't mind the minor science lecture. It's good to understand a theory before you endorse it.

In any case, I liked the article you showed me. It's very intriguing and I'll try to find the research paper on it. In essence, what they showed is an enzyme made of RNA can self-replicate and take up materials around it to replicate. This is interesting, but does not really seem like a breakthrough, since we already knew RNA enzymes could self-replicate out of a cell. The only novel thing I could find is they had RNA competing, which I've never heard of done before. Like I mentioned, this is an interesting article, but doesn't talk about how these chemicals could be first formed, since there is no proposed mechanism where RNA would be formed de novo and be able to survive in an outside environment. RNA enzymes were specifically synthesized for self-replication. This experiment isn't really addressing what I brought up.

quote:

God does exist the formulation of the question is the proof in and of itself.

So if I say "hmm, the boogeyman" and I understand him and can ask questions about him, he's real. Wow that totally makes sense.

Just because we want God to exist doesn't mean he does. I could want a million dollars to appear in my closet but that doesn't mean it will.

ignorant and brainwashed and incapable of change.

The existence of God is validated by the question.

The mythological God of the Romans is the same as the Christian God or any other deity proposed by man. Do not question the construct by which man comprehends God but rather accept the fact that a need for God exits.

Friendly debate on religion is hopeless my friend. Trust that you may find God.