How old is the earth?

[Skipjack]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... stitution/

[IntLibber]

as opposed to the guy in the oval office who doesnt understand economics, I prefer having a president who understands economics but has funny ideas about science than the other way around.

[Diogenes]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... stitution/

Sir Isaac Newton was a Religious nut. Einstein believed in God. No doubt you will deride them shortly.

[Giorgio]

Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists, their belief never reflected on others lives.
Here you have a religious nut that will try to force HIS belief upon others.

It's quite a difference.

[seedload]

Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists, their belief never reflected on others lives.
Here you have a religious nut that will try to force HIS belief upon others.

It's quite a difference.

Believing in the Bible does not make someone a nut. Being President does not give someone the power to force his belief upon others. Fiscal conservatives who are not also God fearing are, unfortunately, not very electable in this country. So, we conservatives are often forced to accept a candidate's impotent ranting about religious issues in order to get a fiscal conservative into office.

Of course, it won't be long until all conservatives are unelectable. At that point, I will start supporting only candidates that I completely agree with rather than candidates I somewhat agree with but are electable.

FYI, OP, Bible Belief > Nazi for Presidential candidates, IMHO.

[Giorgio]

Believing in the Bible does not make someone a nut.

I never said that.

Being President does not give someone the power to force his belief upon others.

Are you really sure about this point?

[TimTruett]

If I had my druthers, I would simply re-define the word "religion" to extricate it from the clutches of all the unwholesome things that have a hold on it now.

The only religion worth talking about is a religion that is based only on things that are true, is capable of making progress and being improved, is compatible with our highest faculties (including reason), and is oriented towards the future. Amazingly enough, I have found one (or at least the basis of one). The key ideas of "universal mental phenomena" and "the proper object of cherishing" are explained in an odd little book titled "After Eve: the next step in our spiritual evolution" by Samuel McCullough (on Amazon.com).

On a more mundane level, I myself have written a book of religious humor titled "The Chronicles of Zordack". It's about Zordack, the spokesman for Lord Zorgon.

By the way, Albert Einstein sometimes used "God" as a shorthand word, but he explained what he meant; and Einstein's "God" concept is so abstract that it is in no way connected to the sort of personal, magical god that people commonly mean when they talk about believing in god.

I've heard that Isaac Newton wasted a large part of his life writing about theology. To me, that is an indictment of religion rather than a celebrity endorsement of it.

[seedload]

Believing in the Bible does not make someone a nut.

I never said that.

Being President does not give someone the power to force his belief upon others.

Are you really sure about this point?

Not a hundred percent sure, no. Playing the odds. I believe there are really good odds against someone like this (1) even really trying to pass his personal agenda through congress and (2) succeeding.

[Skipjack]

as opposed to the guy in the oval office who doesnt understand economics, I prefer having a president who understands economics but has funny ideas about science than the other way around.

Well personally I would prefer a president who lives in the real world versus some fantasy world... You know, so he can make real world decisions.

Sir Isaac Newton was a Religious nut. Einstein believed in God. No doubt you will deride them shortly.

Like many other people, they were children of their respective times. Their believes of course somewhat reflected the general view on the world at the time. It is also not 100% clear that Einstein (despite some famous "god" quotes by him) was religious. He most certainly did not believe in creationism and all the young earth bullcrap.
There is also a big difference between being religious and being in denial of reality, like the creationists are.

Also, I would like to see your opinion if he was not a christian, but say a Hindu and a supporter of one of their world creation myths?
I doubt it!

[Diogenes]

Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists, their belief never reflected on others lives.
Here you have a religious nut that will try to force HIS belief upon others.

It's quite a difference.

This was the argument used against John Kennedy. (He was the first Catholic President.) Though Kennedy turned out to have been one of our worst Presidents, no one ever thought he let his religious beliefs influence his decisions. (Probably would have been better off if he had.)

The argument was false against Kennedy, and it is false against Perry.

[Diogenes]

Isaac Newton and Einstein were scientists, their belief never reflected on others lives.
Here you have a religious nut that will try to force HIS belief upon others.

It's quite a difference.

Believing in the Bible does not make someone a nut. Being President does not give someone the power to force his belief upon others. Fiscal conservatives who are not also God fearing are, unfortunately, not very electable in this country. So, we conservatives are often forced to accept a candidate's impotent ranting about religious issues in order to get a fiscal conservative into office.

Of course, it won't be long until all conservatives are unelectable. At that point, I will start supporting only candidates that I completely agree with rather than candidates I somewhat agree with but are electable.

FYI, OP, Bible Belief > Nazi for Presidential candidates, IMHO.

Directed mostly to the Foreigners.

Americans are not too tolerant of Bigotry toward religious belief. We regard Belief in God as a Positive characteristic. An Atheist could not get to the top of either the Democrat or Republican party ticket. Even Obama, made certain that everyone knew he claimed to be a "Christian" and went to Church, albeit a racist lunatic church.

Arguments about a President's religious beliefs will not affect his support among the American population. It will only make Americans mad at people who malign it.

[Skipjack]

Americans are not too tolerant of Bigotry toward religious belief.

So if perry was a Hindu and was quoting Hindu believes of earths cration, you would be fine with it? (I asked that question earlier)
Or is your tolerance for religious believes only valid for christian believes?

Arguments about a President's religious beliefs will not affect his support among the American population. It will only make Americans mad at people who malign it.

Interesting to hear that, since the republicans have tried to make quite a point about Obamas alleged religious believes...

[Diogenes]

If I had my druthers, I would simply re-define the word "religion" to extricate it from the clutches of all the unwholesome things that have a hold on it now.

The only religion worth talking about is a religion that is based only on things that are true, is capable of making progress and being improved, is compatible with our highest faculties (including reason), and is oriented towards the future. Amazingly enough, I have found one (or at least the basis of one). The key ideas of "universal mental phenomena" and "the proper object of cherishing" are explained in an odd little book titled "After Eve: the next step in our spiritual evolution" by Samuel McCullough (on Amazon.com).

On a more mundane level, I myself have written a book of religious humor titled "The Chronicles of Zordack". It's about Zordack, the spokesman for Lord Zorgon.

By the way, Albert Einstein sometimes used "God" as a shorthand word, but he explained what he meant; and Einstein's "God" concept is so abstract that it is in no way connected to the sort of personal, magical god that people commonly mean when they talk about believing in god.

A few contrary points.

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

Despite his parents' secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein rather suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism. "He was so fervent in his feelings that, on his own, he observed Jewish religious strictures in every detail," his sister recalled. He ate no pork, kept kosher and obeyed the strictures of the Sabbath. He even composed his own hymns, which he sang to himself as he walked home from school.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1VVrdYNuo

I've heard that Isaac Newton wasted a large part of his life writing about theology. To me, that is an indictment of religion rather than a celebrity endorsement of it.

Let me try to make you aware of a theory of which you may not have heard. I call it the "Santa Claus effect".

Parents often used to chide their children to behave because "Santa Claus" knows who is naughty and nice and rewards the nice but punishes the naughty.

Now consider the same effect on society in general, replacing "Santa Claus" with God. If people believe in a higher power, they tend to exert better control over their more extreme impulses. If they only knew that no higher power existed to care whether they killed their neighbor and stole his property, then the problem becomes only one of execution. All one must do is avoid the retaliatory action of Government, friends and family. (Not nearly so difficult as avoiding the watchful gaze of God.)


As William Linn, the first Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, elected unanimously on May 1, 1789, stated:
"Let my neighbor once persuade himself that there is no God, and he will soon pick my pocket, and break not only my leg but my neck. If there be no God, there is no law, no future account; government then is the ordinance of man only, and we cannot be subject for conscience sake."


Many people now argue that religion is inherent in the characteristic of mankind, yet not all religions are created equal. Years ago I pointed out to an Atheist I argued with that if Religion was holding back Science, why did all the Science flourish in the Christianized parts of the world, while the non-Christianized parts remained in Scientific Darkness until relatively recently?

Could it be that Christianity created a (more) Stable community where intellectual work such as Science might flourish? (Hard to do science in an impoverished war zone like environment with robbers and murderers lurking about.)


You may think the most important thing in the Universe is the Advancement of Science, but the vast majority of the population would place a higher value on social stability. Not being killed and constantly thieved from is much more desirable to people than whether or not they learn about some new trinket or other.

You can read more about Religion and Science from this perspective by looking at articles on this website.

http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm

That is all the effort I intend to make in informing you.

[Diogenes]

as opposed to the guy in the oval office who doesnt understand economics, I prefer having a president who understands economics but has funny ideas about science than the other way around.

Well personally I would prefer a president who lives in the real world versus some fantasy world... You know, so he can make real world decisions.

Sir Isaac Newton was a Religious nut. Einstein believed in God. No doubt you will deride them shortly.

Like many other people, they were children of their respective times. Their believes of course somewhat reflected the general view on the world at the time. It is also not 100% clear that Einstein (despite some famous "god" quotes by him) was religious. He most certainly did not believe in creationism and all the young earth bullcrap.
There is also a big difference between being religious and being in denial of reality, like the creationists are.

Also, I would like to see your opinion if he was not a christian, but say a Hindu and a supporter of one of their world creation myths?
I doubt it!

In America it is Customary for our Presidents to be religious. You may not like it, but few over here care. One would think that having been apprised of the mountains of bodies given to the world by Atheist rulers, you might have the ability to see the benefits of the less bloody Christian led governance.



How much Death did Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (et al) deal out?




Where are the Christians on the list? Yes, you may keep your preference for Atheist governance. The Islamists will be there shortly to disabuse you all of that silly notion, and they won't be impressed that you find their beliefs silly.

[Diogenes]

Americans are not too tolerant of Bigotry toward religious belief.

So if perry was a Hindu and was quoting Hindu believes of earths cration, you would be fine with it? (I asked that question earlier)
Or is your tolerance for religious believes only valid for christian believes?

I have no issues with tolerating Hindus believing whatever they want. Were they to run for President in this nation, they likely wouldn't get anywhere because most Americans (in my opinion) would not support any Presidential candidate that did not identify himself as Christian, or perhaps eventually Jewish. (We've already tried a Muslim President, and He Sucks!)

You are advancing what is known as an "Ad hominem. " It is an argument that someone is wrong about something because of an unrelated bit of derogatory information alleged about them.

Arguments about a President's religious beliefs will not affect his support among the American population. It will only make Americans mad at people who malign it.

Interesting to hear that, since the republicans have tried to make quite a point about Obamas alleged religious believes...

That is a multi-fold issue. It is based on the belief that he is LYING about his beliefs, (That he is really a Muslim at heart) and that Muslims are predominately responsible for terror attacks against Americans. Americans have had a long history of Animosity towards Muslim nations. That is why the Doors on American Outhouses traditionally featured the symbols of the star and the crescent.



This is also indicated by the line "To the shores of Tripoli" in the "Marines Hymn." (A popular patriotic song relating to the Marine Corps) The line refers to Steven Decatur's bold raid on Libyan pirates early in this nation's history.


Politically, being a Muslim will garner few votes in this nation. You talk about living in a real world, THAT is the "real world" in this country. We make efforts to be tolerant, but that is just the current lay of the land.