hound9_4

The other day I was somewhat startled to encounter a couple of Serbians who had some fairly surprising opinions of the US and the recent military conflict in the area. For example:

1. They claimed the US had started the conflict.

2. They claimed that the US was the aggressor and the bully

3. They claimed that Milosovich was not captured and on trial, but this was only a fiction created by our lying media

4. They claimed that no European nations had asked for US assistance

5. They claimed that Serbia had never done anything wrong, even in attacking its neighbors, because Serbians are a proud people

6. They said there was no such thing as ethnic cleansing, except against the Serbians

7. They claimed that the reason the US attacked Serbia was to

set up strategically located bases so they could later attack Russia from Serbia.

8. They saw no problems with trying to settle 500 year old grievances with a war since Serbians are a proud people.

Do you have any comments, opinions ?

Here is part of a news story:

"Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology."

from:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Do you agree that the universe around us, creation as we see it is God's handiwork? Direct to us from God? It is direct, and without errors, his direct message to us?

And do you not agree that the bible was not WRITTEN by God, but used men as intermediaries? And would you not agree that men are not perfect beings like God? And would you not agree that men make mistakes and get confused and have limited abilities to understand ?

Then if you agree at least somewhat with those two statements, then does it not make more sense to look at God's creation in its infinite complexity and beauty to learn God's thoughts? And not to try to guess what is the correct translation of this word or that word in some text that was written several thousand years ago in a dead language that ommitted vowels? Why not read God's message direct from him?

Does that not make more sense?

This is from a book by Stephen Hawking.

According to the story, a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"

To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

Rev Ray Mummert is a Paster from Dover, PA.

I heard a religious rally/meeting last summer, attended by many congressional leaders, where the recall and termination of all judges in the US was advocated. This would result in the firing of tens of thousnds of judges, I believe.

The purpose was to install judges who would rule in the "right" way, according to fundamentalist Christian principles.

I frequently hear calls from certain quarters to remove the restrictions against separation of church and state, or to repeal the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...").

I wonder, if this was done, which religion, of all the sects and cults in the US, would prevail in the ensuing contest?

There was a time when that was true, and in Christian countries. We call it the Dark Ages.

What about Puritan-style rules, with bible-reading and church attendance mandatory?

I find it amazing and frankly, somewhat disconcerting and intolerant that some fundamentalist Christian sects feel that their primary purpose is to bludgeon others as often as possible about how only their beliefs are right, and all others are wrong.

Does Christianity require "witnessing"?

Are you required to annoy everyone you meet?

Are prohibitions against proselytizing in the workplace discriminatory?

Doesn't this cause a conflict when multiple groups, each claiming that they and only they know the true correct path try to ALL convert everyone to their belief system?

I have heard this repeatedly recently. The complaints seem to have become more numerous even as the fundamentalists have grown in power and influence.

Are they persecuted?

Why are they persecuted, or why do they think they are?

Would you support not only a strict ban on abortion in the US, but the use of US military power, including nuclear weapons, to force all other countries to ban abortion or suffer the consequences?

According to a pole published, whose results were published in the New York Times a couple of years ago:

"Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)."

We are witnessing an incredible growth in mystical beliefs in the US, contrary to other Western democracies. In the face of this, is science in trouble?

The US before WWII had a pretty third rate science community. And it could easily head back in that direction to being a scientific backwater.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/

As a scientist, I have been quite taken aback by what seem like illogical uninformed statements, sometimes very strongly worded, by those in the religious community (particularly Christian fundamentalists).

Statements like:

1. evolution depends on carbon dating

2. the big bang is part of evolution

3. if you accept the big bang you are an atheist/offensive to God/damned/etc

4. if you accept evolution you are an atheist/doing the work of the devil/damned/etc

5. illogical, intellectually dishonest definitions of the word "theory" in the context of "scientific theory"

6. irrational, intellectually dishonest definitions of what is "scientific" or what "religion" is.

Frankly, making statements like this, and wandering into the scientific realm speaking nonsense really reflects badly on the religious community. It would be as if prominent scientists went and started to dictate to religious groups about what they could and could not do, or how they could worship.

I answered this query of goring, and I am surprised that my answer:

"An electromagnetic wave is another fancy word for 'light'. Light can be visible, or invisible (like infrared light, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, UV rays).

Electromagnetic waves are composed of transverse oscillating electric and magnetic waves." (edited slightly)

is receiving so many "thumbs-down" ratings. What is wrong with this explanation?

What do YOU think electromagnetic waves are?

Gregory Paul published a study in the Journal of Religion and society that correlates the level of religious beliefs in several countries with social ills, mostly stemming from unethical and immoral behavior. Paul's study finds that

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies"

quoted from the London Times online:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,...

You can see Paul's paper at:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Why do you think this correlation exists?

In Christianity, it has become common for the more fundamentalist Christian elements to claim that other Christian sects are not Christian, such as Catholics or Mormons or Christian Scientists or Presbyterians.

Does such a thing occur in Islam? Does a similar phenomenon occur? Do the Wahabis claim that the Shi'ites are not real Muslims? I have had Sunnis tell me that Sufis are not real Muslims.

I have noticed over the years that it is common for evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to want to use the word "Christian" in a different way than it is commonly used.

This leads to confusion and hard feelings. For example, to many fundamentalist Christians, they claim that Catholics or old line protestant faiths such as Anglicanism and Methodism are not Christian.

1. If you are a fundamentalist Christian, do you realize you are doing it? Why do you do it?

2. If you are not a fundamentalist Christian, have you noticed this?

I have often heard religious people claim that evolution or the Big Bang are religious, or beliefs of atheism, which they claim to be a religion.

I thought a religion mainly meant something that dealt with supernatural causes. This is not true to you? Just because I have enthusiasm for something, like monster truck racing, does that make it a religion?

How is this so? If you are religious, what is a religion to you?

I have often heard the Big Bang and evolution attacked by religious people because they are just "theories". Surely most religious people have heard that in science, a theory is more than just a guess, or a rumor. In science, for something to be an accepted theory, it has to explain a lot of the data and probably have some predictive power.

However, this seems to be ignored, and I often hear religious people using something like the following as a definition of a theory:

"Something taken to be true without proof: assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presupposition, supposition, thesis. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Abstract reasoning; speculation: the opposite of something based on experience, as in 'The decision was based on experience rather than theory.' Antonyms: certainty, fact, proof, reality"

which I cribbed together from the dictionary defintions at answers.com.

So if you are religious, what does a theory mean to you