Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Excerpt from this story:

[ QUOTE ]
The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

[/ QUOTE ]

More proof catholics are "less nuts".

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Maurile beat you to it I think. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

yep just noticed.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Anyway, what are some good internet sources that accurately describe both theories for those who are interested?

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

http://forumimages.footballguys.com/...ult/tongue.gif

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, what are some good internet sources that accurately describe both theories for those who are interested?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are no "both theories" since "Intelligent Design" isn't a theory (as that term is used in a scientific context).

But a good resource from the scientific perspective is TalkDesign.

A Pro-ID site is the Discovery Institute.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

I heard Rev. George Coyne speak on CSPAN a few weeks ago and posted to watch for the show to run again. I am not sure if it will be rerun anytime soon now. The guys knows his stuff (from this science-layman’s perspective).

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Thank G-d!

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
More proof catholics are "less nuts".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. If you accept this strange categorization of "very much nuts"-"nuts"-less nuts"-not nuts" etc, as you seem to do and very happily so, why not just try to stop being nuts altogether by quitting catholicism? This will clearly put you closer to a "no nuts" spot.

If you don't mind being "less nuts", rather than closer to "no nuts", there shouldn't be any difference between "very much nuts" and "less nuts", or between "completely crazy" and "only a bit crazy".

If I'm a catholic, or a believer in any other religion, I wouldn't give a damm about being "less nuts" or "more nuts", according to some completely irrelevant and imaginary scale.

Again, if you accept the existence of this "objective" scale then you should leave catholicism, otherwise you are very confused.

(A different perspective: it's very easy for any particular person to become "less nuts", by having a "less-nutty" personal opinion about the matter in question. I don't see how it has anything to do with what some dude in the vatican says. If you need some dude to say something in order for your religion to be "less nuts", this is completely nuts by itself. And if some more important catholic dude would say the opposite thing tomorrow? than you are "a bit more nuts" again? Do you see how crazy all this is? I'm sure you do.)

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

An excellent example of binary thinking that makes me annoyed with many religious types. Also one of the most psychologically bothersome influences of religion...

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

RJT

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, OK. Fair enough.

I must say though, that if any of you understand what DS is talking about with his "scale", you also accept it in some way. You can't have one without the other (talk to chezlaw about logic, "meaning", etc [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). It is pretty clear that Bluff is rather proud with this statement by this guy from the vatican, i.e, he thinks it does matter in some way where exactly you stand on DS' "nuts/less" ladder (for instance, in comparison to protenstants, or other religion). Otherwise I can't see why post this at all.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PM,

Bluff, and the rest of us Christians, do not accept the existence of the "objective" scale of nuts/less nuts. It is merely in David S.’s context of nuts/less nuts that he posts this. Bluff’s main point with his post is to show many on the forum that they have no clue what our Religion is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, OK. Fair enough.

I must say though, that if any of you understand what DS is talking about with his "scale", you also accept it in some way. You can't have one without the other (talk to chezlaw about logic, "meaning", etc [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). It is pretty clear that Bluff is rather proud with this statement by this guy from the vatican, i.e, he thinks it does matter in some way where exactly you stand on DS' "nuts/less" ladder (for instance, in comparison to protenstants, or other religion). Otherwise I can't see why post this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM,

The only thing we believers agree to when entering into the discussion here on the forum is to use the “language” of the person talking. This does not mean because we accept the vernacular for discussion purposes that we concede to any premises. If neither side agrees to start at some point then there is no discussion.

Bottom line is that we believers think atheists are nuts and visa versa. Sure, we can stop there and say then there is no point in going further. What does that serve? (Of course, there is no point, per se, to all this discussion.) The good the discussion does, as I see it is two fold: To come to a better understanding of others and to partake in the “journey of life" more fully.

If we look at it from your point then it is all nonsense. As is all philosophy nonsense then. So too then is cosmology and things of that sort. I mean what do we really expect to find in the cosmos - are we going to find some key to unlock the doors of perception? Perhaps, I am naïve but I fund that not bloody well likely.

The only thing that Bluff is proud of is in Dr. Coyne’s genius. It is not evident from the short article, but the guy is no dummy. Do you really think that the director of the Vatican Observatory doesn’t have a clue to cosmology? If that is the case (that you think he has no clue) then Bluff posting the link is more important than I am sure he originally thought.

RJT

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that Bluff is proud of is in Dr. Coyne’s genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, do you honestly want me to believe that that is "the only thing that Bluff is proud of?". No offence, but you must be kidding (kidding yourself and others). Dr. Coyne's genius? for saying that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms? I know many 12 years old who think and would say the same. Actually, most "normal" people, IMO, think so. Where exactly is the genius here?

And seriously, who cares about this particular dude? who cares about whether he has a clue in cosmology or not? Clearly, it was posted in order to "prove" something with regard to catholicism (Bluff also specifically used the word "proof"). Dr whatsisname that I have never heard about is just playing a role here, a role in a general argument about the "nuts"-iness of catholicism as opposed to other religions.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

PM,

I obviously do not know Bluff’s actual intent of the post (how could I?) I’ll let Bluff speak for himself. I was merely expressing what seemed obvious to me.

What I am saying and did in fact say is that Coyne is no dummy. If you read my post you will see that I told you that one cannot tell from this short article that he has smarts. I assumed from your other posts (you being no dummy) that you would realize that since we know that Coyne is the director of the Vatican Observatory, one should be about to deduce that he has something going for himself. Perhaps I should have told you what else I assumed was evident, that is the Vatican Observatory isn’t some villa in the hills outside of Rome with a guy in a black robe and a Tasco telescope.

You are correct that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that ID isn’t Science. I did not say that because Coyne say so, therefore he is a genius. Indeed I have not the wherewithal to label him such even if I knew him personally. That distinction is not something I am smart enough to determine.

You also missed my point in Bluff’s vocabulary. Too reiterate, he is using the vernacular of David. Bluff’s words are not his own original choice of words. He could very well have simply posted the link to the article. He chose to segue from David’s earlier post is all.

You might be right in one thing though - posts and discussion like these are perhaps a waste of time. I may have misunderstood you (from your earlier posts) regarding your interest in rational discourse. It is ironic that really you appear (now at least) to be only interested in “pontification”.

RJT

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this at all. If you accept this strange categorization of "very much nuts"-"nuts"-less nuts"-not nuts" etc, as you seem to do and very happily so, why not just try to stop being nuts altogether by quitting catholicism? This will clearly put you closer to a "no nuts" spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a toungue and cheek reference to a post Sklansky made awhile back saying that he considered Catholics to be the least nuts among Christians.

****oops, didn't see RJT beat me to it....gotta learn to read these threads in their entirity*****

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this at all. If you accept this strange categorization of "very much nuts"-"nuts"-less nuts"-not nuts" etc, as you seem to do and very happily so, why not just try to stop being nuts altogether by quitting catholicism? This will clearly put you closer to a "no nuts" spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a toungue and cheek reference to a post Sklansky made awhile back saying that he considered Catholics to be the least nuts among Christians.

****oops, didn't see RJT beat me to it....gotta learn to read these threads in their entirity*****

[/ QUOTE ]

Daddyio,

Perhaps, you are correct BigDaddy. He might not know the reference. Either that or he doesn't know what the word vernacular means.

RJT

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Well I wasn't too sure about how much it was a toungue in cheek post with reference to DS's "scale" (Of course I am aware of this "scale"). It sounded quite a bit too proud in order for it to actually be "toungue in cheek", especially since it was coming from an opinionated catholic. In any case, if it was indeed tongue in cheek and nothing more then clearly my replies here were irrelevant. Perhaps I'll never know for sure, unless the OP will say something about it.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'll never know for sure, unless the OP will say something about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only silence from any poster that I think is interesting here is David S.’s. After all his talk about geniuses/atheists and the assumption being that they are somewhat logical “outside of the classroom” is shown time and again here on the forum to be a fallacy.

Of course there is no indication that PM is a genius. I am simply saying that post like these, where the poster brings his bias to the discussion does not lead one to conclude that smart atheist have a clue, let alone a better clue than believers.

Whether it was tongue in cheek or only an allusion to David’s terminology, nothing from the post leads to anything more.

RJT

p.s. This somewhat attack of you by me is not meant to be personal - it is strictly business. The unchecked arrogance of some atheist here on the forum is getting tiring. (Perhaps it is that the Religion topic has run its course - or maybe it‘s me.)

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only silence from any poster that I think is interesting here is David S.’s. After all his talk about geniuses/atheists and the assumption being that they are somewhat logical “outside of the classroom” is shown time and again here on the forum to be a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how is this paragraph related to this thread, or specifically to my posts here.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there is no indication that PM is a genius. I am simply saying that post like these, where the poster brings his bias to the discussion does not lead one to conclude that smart atheist have a clue, let alone a better clue than believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I follow you here at all. What bias are you refering to? Also, FWIW, I'm not defining myself as an "atheist", nor as "religious" in a normal sense. Another point is that I have never agreed with any of DS' points with regard to being religious/non-religious and logic "outside of the classroom".

(I won't be able to reply in the next 15 hours or so, just to let you know... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

I never said atheists are smart. I said smart people are atheists.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never said atheists are smart. I said smart people are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Prince,

I know that. I was just trying to say that there certainly is no evidence of your main theory here on the forum. There are a few smart folk here. Some are atheists and some are believers. The proportion of smart atheist to smart believers in no way reflects the “real world” proportions. In the real world there seems to be many more smart atheists to the number of smart believers.

From our sample of smart folk here, nothing I have read thus far leads me to conclude that the smart atheists have anything over on the smart believer. I do not see much evidence of what one might expect from the smart atheist: a more objective and logical approach to decision making relative to their beliefs/non beliefs.

From the data I have observed on the forum, I must conclude that the large percentage of smart atheists in the real world is an anomaly. Either that or their atheism stems from reasons other than their intelligence.
Perhaps a third reason is this: the smart believers are simply not counted when the census is taken of how many smart folk there are. The ratios are therefore skewed.

For whatever reason the proportions are the way they are recorded in the real world, this forum seems to confirm one thing to me: it doesn’t take a genius meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.

RJT

Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

BluffThis,

I'm interested in your position on a few things quoted in the article:

[ QUOTE ]
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]
So did we get from monkeys to humans entirely by natural processes, or has God interfered with physical processes to direct it? It's one or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
"He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

[/ QUOTE ]
Please decipher this statement for me. He <font color="green">allows</font> and <font color="blue">participates</font> but doesn't <font color="red">intervene</font>??

[ QUOTE ]
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order."

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm?

[ QUOTE ]
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, at least it's clear now. It's nice that one religion has got it right.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

In my view the current state of Evolution Theory suffers from a serious problem. Anything that challenges not only the general idea of evolution but many of the specifics is labelled "unscientific". I think the general idea of evolution theory - that people evolved from lower forms of life is likely correct. I also think that teaching a literal intepretation of Genesis is not something to be done in the science class.
But it is not unscientific to look at a complex structure such as the eye and try to see if it is reasonable to think that it evolved or was designed. That's a thought process that students should go through. Teachers of Evolution should be able to defend their position on this subject. In my experience in Evolution classes this thought process was not explored properly at all.
I go further though, becauseI happen to believe that the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is probably substantially wrong. I've heard some great challenges to it on the basis of experimental findings and mathematics. And these challenges come from what looks to me like a growing group of people who are not pushing religion. I think the fear from a lot of people is that a debate over the particulars of evolution will lead to a religious crusade. So for this reason a lot of the refinement to the theory that I think should have happened has not made it to the classrooms.
I'm troubled by the thinking that I see in evolution classes, where ideas are presented as fact and not seriously proven. In high school and college I challenged recapitulation theory, the molecular clock hypothesis and some of the fossil evidence for human evolution that was presented as factual. Students I think need to be able to tell the difference between facts and theories.
So I think its healthy for evolution to have to defend some of their ideas vs "intelligent design". In my mind that is the one of the basic ideas of the theory of evolution - to explain why some things might look as though they are designed but were not. The book of Genesis vs evolution is the inappropriate context for the science class.
I think its nuts to define "intelligent design" as only a religious subject and something science can never consider. It gives scientists a pass on seriously proving a theory in the classroom that is supposed to explain why intelligent design is not the answer.
Having said that I think we still have to be careful on what the components of inclusion of "intelligent design" in a course curriculum really means. The whole class can't be a debate and the theory of evolution needs to be taught
thoroughly because it is very important to understand. I just think Evolution theory as presented in high school/college introductory classes needs some serious house cleaning. It's got some problems with data integrity and scientific method in it's presentation.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Hiya Chips,

A very long and very well thought out post. Unfortunately it is only a re-hash of the same old arguments. The eye is a very good example. Any investigation will show you that there are indeed problems with the eye and its design, the macula being the most obvious one, and it is definitely a by-product of an evolutionary process. I have mentionned that before on another post and will say no more about it. Good open minded investigation rather than blind faith will convince you.

Secondly, your argument, altough well formulated, implies that ID is science, it is not! The fact that some scientists support it doesn't make it science. Many scientists support astrology, or hypnosis past life regression, or whatever lunatic theory. Should we present all those and more as well in classes?

We have unfortunately, and it has some consequences, gone so far in knowledge that no one can any more claim encyclopedic knowledge of science. Therefore we have to rely on specialisation, even for what is culturally transmitted. It may the first time that we have to make those choices but it becomes much more important not to muddy the waters in an unscientific, if not uneducated, way.

Re: Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

[ QUOTE ]
So did we get from monkeys to humans entirely by natural processes, or has God interfered with physical processes to direct it? It's one or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or both. Occasional interventions. And since God has foreknowledge, He knew what the natural process of evolution would bring about and what it might not.

Your monkey to human line indicates you don't believe in evolution I take it. Both monkeys and humans descend from common primate anscestors. And the infusion of a soul in humans is strictly by God.

[ QUOTE ]
Please decipher this statement for me. He allows and participates but doesn't intervene??

[/ QUOTE ]

The quote said "continually". Thus occasional interventions are part of what he meant. And God's permissive will allows all that is not the result of a specific "interference".

What the Holy Father meant was that evolution is not the either/or situation you are trying to make it to be in order to make your point. Thus a guided evolution, in a process mosly but not totally the result of normal evolutionary processes is what he is stating is the case. And Cardinal
Schoenborn's opinions are entirely his own.

Re: Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

Thank you for clarifying, you have a very self consistent position. But is it correct?

BTW this is OOO, I was banned a while ago and had to make a new username.

Re: Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for clarifying, you have a very self consistent position. But is it correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

My consistency makes it far more likely that it is. So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms, that is, how far-fetched they are, and on what is the price for being incorrect either way.

Re: Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

[ QUOTE ]
My consistency makes it far more likely that it is [correct]. So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms, that is, how far-fetched they are

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Internal consistency has nothing to do with whether your beliefs accurately reflect reality. See, for example, Islam. Or your local asylum.

[ QUOTE ]
and on what is the price for being incorrect either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. The consequences of being wrong have no bearing on whether you are, in fact, correct. The consequences of not following Islam are dire. Is this an argument for the correctness of Islam?

Re: Proof Catholics Are Better at Doublespeak
 

[ QUOTE ]
My consistency makes it far more likely that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, most paranoids are extremely consistent within their delusions. This is only one example.



[ QUOTE ]
So it all depends on the evidence for or against my axioms

[/ QUOTE ]

What does evidence of any kind have to do with your or anybody's axioms?

Also, it seems like you are doing right here on this thread quite the opposite of what that guy from the Vatican suggested, i.e, you are clearly mixing "intelligent design" and science with your talk about "occasional interventions". You are basically creating your own version of "intelligent design", which is very similar in essence to the original one. There's no meaning to the scientific theory of evolution if you add "occasional intervention by god" to it. It's now a religious "explanation" of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

It is pretty much impossible to appear intelligent when trying to convince someone that something which is silly, is in fact silly, when that someone refuses to acknowledge it's silliness.

Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

It is pretty much impossible to appear intelligent when trying to convince someone that something which is silly, is in fact silly, when that someone refuses to acknowledge it's silliness.

Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have faith that the wall is yellow.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

Thanks for the links.

This issue puzzles me because there are only two opinions that are clearly wrong: a literal interpretation of the Bible, and an atheistic 'something coming from nothing' evolution.

But the rest of the arguments are in middle territory subject to science that do not positively lead one to conclude the above two extremes. Why do people make such an issue of it?

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many atheists appear dumber than they are simply by partaking in debates on the silliness of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've ever felt dumber when debating religion with a religious person (although I might have appeared dumber in their eyes, but who cares).

The most I can say, is that debating religion with religious people, often makes me very bored. It is akin to talking with someone who insists on telling you his dream from last night, with great and unnecessary detail. Very tedious, and quite annoying.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a good analogy.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

<font color="blue"> Quote:
Imagine two people standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that the wall is white. Person B says, "No it's not". Person A says, "Yes it is". Person B says, "No it's not".

Well, you get the idea.



I don't think it's a good analogy.
</font>

I just meant that when you can't get around someone's logic however faulty it may be, you've reached a dead-end.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just meant that when you can't get around someone's logic however faulty it may be, you've reached a dead-end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. More precisely, I don't think that their logic is faulty or not-faulty. The annoying thing is the _illusion_ of a logical debate, while in fact, logic has nothing to do with all that.

Frankly, most atheists have the same problem religious people have, while discussing religion.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

<font color="blue"> Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. </font>

I guess that's where the debate starts and ends. I believe people have every right to believe what they want. Just call it what is is.... FAITH!

I guess I sound the ignorant and arragant one asking how anyone could possibly arrive at the existence of gods and magical kingdomes in the sky through any type of logical conjecture based on real world evidence conceived in reality.

See what I mean? I can't help but sound irate trying to debate silliness.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
This issue puzzles me because there are only two opinions that are clearly wrong: a literal interpretation of the Bible, and an atheistic 'something coming from nothing' evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Creatio Ex Nihilo is a Christian doctrine, not an atheist doctrine. But in any case, it has nothing to do with evolution.

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I know what you meant, only I don't think there's any problem with religious people's logic. More precisely, I don't think that their logic is faulty or not-faulty. The annoying thing is the _illusion_ of a logical debate, while in fact, logic has nothing to do with all that.

Frankly, most atheists have the same problem religious people have, while discussing religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

PM &amp; Stat,

PM is exactly correct in the above quote. And it is his last sentence that I was trying to emphasized. I took PM’s original (what I understood to be) editorializing of Bluff’s post as something I had not witnessed in him before. Up until this post I have found his post to be objective (often to the point of apathetic - which I think he pretty much would agree that he is regarding the religion debate).

Stat, here is why I think your analogy is wrong (but actually correct in that it makes my point of how I see the debate here):

An analogy of how the debate should be:

Two blind people are standing in front of a white wall. Person A comments that Jesus (or anyone: prophet, philosopher, certain text, one’s moral sense) told me the wall is white. Since I am blind I will go with whom/what I think may have a better grasp of the color of the wall.

Person B says I will wait until science or death can show me what color the wall is.

Person B then says - let’s talk about how you, Person A, have come to your decision.

Notice that here on the forum the discussion was not started by person A saying this is how it is let’s talk about it.

Anyone not interested in Person B’s invitation to discuss should avoid these threads.

RJT

Re: Vatican Astronomer Debunks ID
 

<font color="blue"> Anyone not interested in Person B’s invitation to discuss should avoid these threads. </font>

I'm not sure what you're saying. That non-believers should not get involved unless invited to do so?

I do see your point. These debates are almost always started by someone looking to point out the silliness of religion. Oddly enough, rarely on this forum do the religious try and push their beliefs onto anyone else. So to this extent, the atheists come off as the annoying group who is preaching a philosophy.

It's just so hard to pass up. When I see a child who can't figure out a toy, my inclination is to show him how it works. Likewise, when I see a religious person use one unproven premise to justify a second unproven premise, I want to scream!

I do think religion has been used up on here. At least I'm used up by it. I agree with another poster who said let's talk about other philosophical, science, and math related subjects. With religion, the wall is white; the wall is blue; and never the trains shall meet.