Things overrated by Americans

[Mike_Lowery]

Elvis
Beatles
Michael Buble
50 Cent
Starbucks (I said it....what!)
scones
tiramisu
tennis
New England Patriots
"Friends" (tv show)
spoof movies
thousand island dressing
digital cable

[Leo Lakio]

You forgot "America" ;)

[TATTRAT]

you forgot KISS...thank g*d for the power chord:rolleyes:

[craigwatanabe]

The automobile. We as Americans are obsessed with them.
Apple Computers. Some people worship them as if it were a god.
Apple Products in general. The iPhone isn't all that great.
Tort Laws. Hey we love to sue each other, it's the American way!
Medication. We have medication for stuffy noses to itchy butts.
Diets. Too many of them.
Self Help books. You're depressed, buy a book.
EBay. Caveat Emptor
Energy Drinks and Bottled water. So a Coke and tap water isn't trendy:rolleyes:
Nike. Born out of a waffle iron, wow I'm impressed.
Prius. Hey I'm obsessed with automobiles, I like to go fast. Sorry Toyota.
And finally,

Big Screen TV sets. So we're going DTV and suddenly that 27" Sharp TV set isn't worthy anymore, gotta go flat screen and wall sized! Yeah as in that Chase credit card commercial that says it all for overrated things by Americans, "I WANT IT ALL...I WANT IT ALL!!!"

We as Americans love to indulge and are obsessed with material things. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.

[lavagal]

Opinions!

But hey, they're everywhere, everyone's got one, and this is a free country.

@;-)

[joshuatree]

Hybrids in general. A solid diesel engine with twin turbos will give you same or even better fuel mileage performance.

[Kaukura]

Opinions!

But hey, they're everywhere, everyone's got one, and this is a free country.

@;-)

Agreed. Nobody forces anybody to like/dislike anything that is surrounding us. We can live as simply as we want, and if we have the resources, live as extravagantly as we want.

I LOVE Thousand Island dressing btw.

I was looking at former Prime Minister of Japan Koizumi's visit to Graceland a few years back..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/in_pictures/5135212.stm

[SusieMisajon]

Private health care.

The socialized version is SO much better.

[Walkoff Balk]

Here's my list of overrated:
Reality shows that uses a teleprompter for aspiring actors such as The Hills.
Tila Tequila as a role model for young Asian American women.
The Beckhams coming to American and corrupting our youth by their used soccer jersey.
Five dollar foot long is 5.99 in Hawaii.
Sex tapes of famous people not living anymore.
Fast eating contests which can replaced by air fast eating contest because of the food shortage.
And fans who rhythm clap to the chant of overrated at a college player.

[Frankie's Market]

10) NBA basketball players (2004 Olympics proved that!)
9) American Idol
8) Bill O'Reilly
7) MTV (When was the last time you ever saw them broadcast an honest-to-God music video?)
6) Star Wars (plot is a rip-off of Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress.)
5) Dr. Phil's advice.
4) John Madden's announcing (A very good football analyst, but he's not numero-uno. Sometimes says really screwy things on the air.)
3) Steroids scandal in baseball (Uhhh, problem is much worse in football.)
2) Oprah's book club selections

And finally, Number 1 on the list of things most overrated by Americans is,....

Dave Letterman's Top 10 lists. :D

[sinjin]

Blondes. (I said it....what!)
Home Ownership(especially a big one).
Christian morality.

[mel]

1. Recycling
2. Cellular Phones
3. Mass Transit
4. Ethanol - stop it, people are going hungry!
5. "American Idol"

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Atheism
Television
SUVs
Disposable everything
Body piercing
Cosmetic Surgery

[sinjin]

Atheism
Television
SUVs
Disposable everything
Body piercing
Cosmetic Surgery
Not to be provocative but I'm curious why atheism makes your list when 75% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian"?

[craigwatanabe]

Not to be provocative but I'm curious why atheism makes your list when 75% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian"?

This country was founded on Christian values, now those same values are prohibited from the very walls of justice that was produced by them. It's more of an irony than an overreaction. Maybe that's why the United States of American is losing it's strength because we are no longer a nation of immigrants, but more a community of distinct cultures that are trying to find their roots their immigrant relatives left behind.

[Frankie's Market]

This country was founded on Christian values, now those same values are prohibited from the very walls of justice that was produced by them. It's more of an irony than an overreaction. Maybe that's why the United States of American is losing it's strength because we are no longer a nation of immigrants, but more a community of distinct cultures that are trying to find their roots their immigrant relatives left behind.

It's just a changing reality from how this country has evolved since the days of the Founding Fathers. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Yep, as long as you weren't Black, American Indian, female, etc. We've come a long, long way since 1776. Not only in terms of different immigrant groups migrating into the US, but expanding into territories where, frankly speaking, the indigenous population does not consist of WASPs and their culture.

What you might view as differing groups being indoctrinated and encultured into the US mainstream (read: WASP) way of life, others have seen as acts of cultural genocide. This is particularly true of many indigenous groups such as native Hawaiians, American Indian tribes, and Eskimos in Alaska. But more and more, other groups do not feel that US citizenship should carry the price tag of subscribing to Judeo-Christian values, traditions, practices, and beliefs. If our country is, indeed, "losing its strength" as you see it, why dump that blame entirely on the doorstep of those who are not Christians? Sad to say, I've seen more than my fair share of intolerance and lack of respect, whether it be between Christians/atheists, gay/straight, etc.

[sinjin]

This country was founded on Christian values, now those same values are prohibited from the very walls of justice that was produced by them. It's more of an irony than an overreaction. Maybe that's why the United States of American is losing it's strength because we are no longer a nation of immigrants, but more a community of distinct cultures that are trying to find their roots their immigrant relatives left behind.http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[cynsaligia]

This country was founded on Christian values...

yeah! what the link sinjin's post said! *cheers*

and to continue in that vein of thought--my addition to the list of things overrated by americans:

"christian values."

americans say the phrase as if those values did not exist at all before jesus christ was born. "thou shalt not kill," "thou shall not steal," "thou shalt not lie," and "honor thy father and mother" are not exclusive to the decalogue. additionally, much of american christian dogma, particularly re sex, is rooted in the pronouncements of st. augustine, who was born centuries after christ.

how many times does it have to be said that when the pledge of allegiance was originally written in 1890-something, it did not contain "under god?" those two words were added in the mid-1950s, and if i remember correctly, they were added in reaction to the rise of the atheistic soviet union.

"in god we trust" started appearing on US money during the religious fervor of the civil war--nearly a hundred years after our nation was born.

in fact, this nation was born largely because of a desire for religious freedom. the original (european) settlers to what is now USA left europe because they were persecuted for their beliefs. my feeling is they would vehemently chide some current US citizens for their fervor to exclude those who are not christian, or not the kind of christian they are.

(ps--catholics are christians. in fact, we're as close to the original christians as you can get.)

[scrivener]

(ps--catholics are christians.
Undoubtedly, if they understand and believe in the tenets of the faith (and don't simply practice the behaviors of the church). It's not what one does about communion and birth control, but what one believes about sin and redemption and the person of Christ.

in fact, we're as close to the original christians as you can get.)
Ooooh. Not sure I agree with this one. While the church itself IS about as close to the organization of the first-century church as it gets, certain large parts of the practice of the faith, if I may embarrass myself with what is spotty doctrinal knowledge, have gotten away from those early beliefs. It is my very humble and uneducated opinion that the first-century believers held to the concept of soul competency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_competency), which in turn (if I get it right, and I'm not always sure I do) implies a belief in the priesthood of the believer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers) If you check out the links, you'll see that I do come to this discussion with a decidedly Protestant (and more specifically Baptist) view, so of course there will be some disagreement here, but the priesthood of the believer, an important part of Martin Luther's theses, seems to me to be a return to "original" Christian doctrine from where the organization (not necessarily the practitioners; please don't misread me) of the church seemed to have found itself in the one-and-a-half millennia since its establishment.

Just a second opinion, since of course we were all wanting one here. :)

[Walkoff Balk]

Is it me or did a light topic turn serious and kind of angry when religion is discussed? Look how a polarizing figure Obama's pal Rev Wright became in this country.

[Frankie's Market]

Is it me or did a light topic turn serious and kind of angry when religion is discussed?

Oh, it's definitely not your imagination. This whole tempest in a teapot started with atheism/religion being brought into a discussion about things that are "overrated." Up until then, I think people tried to stick to things that were inoffensive and innocuous for the most part.

I tried to stick to topics that were benign in my overrated list. If I wanted to stir people up, believe me, I would mentioned other things. The UH football team, for starters. :)

[cynsaligia]

Ooooh. Not sure I agree with this one. While the church itself IS about as close to the organization of the first-century church as it gets

clarification: when i say catholics are as close to the original christians as you can get, i meant in the historical perspective. more specifically, catholicism started with st. peter.

i agree that the catholic church has, in many ways, veered far from jesus' message (see my previous comment re st. augustine, for example). and the whole needing a priest as your gateway to god thing? yes, it's not exactly something jc himself said.

Is it me or did a light topic turn serious and kind of angry when religion is discussed? Look how a polarizing figure Obama's pal Rev Wright became in this country.

Oh, it's definitely not your imagination. This whole tempest in a teapot started with atheism/religion being brought into a discussion about things that are "overrated." Up until then, I think people tried to stick to things that were inoffensive and innocuous for the most part.

I tried to stick to topics that were benign in my overrated list. :)

you guys are kidding, right? HT often turns into a tempest--that's part of the fun & entertainment.

for the record, this thread wasn't "inoffensive and innocuous" before religion/atheism/christianity got mentioned. knowing mike, his first post was obviously sardonic, with words some would consider sacred: starbucks, elvis & the pats! secondly, FM, how do you think timkona would take to your calling his splotchy lovemonkey, billorally, "overrated?" oh, wait--we know the answer already. he'd just sputter off some jibberish about volvo-driving, nay-saying, protesting "liberals" (as he defines them) are "overrated." :cool:

[Leo Lakio]

Up until then, I think people tried to stick to things that were inoffensive and innocuous for the most part.I dunno - I didn't think my one prior contribution was particularly "innocuous." :p"thou shalt not kill," "thou shall not steal," "thou shalt not lie," and "honor thy father and mother" are not exclusive to the decalogue.But to try to lighten it up a bit (courtesy of a comedian I saw on Canadian TV recently) --- have you ever wondered why "Thou shalt not kill" ranks so low down the list (#6 to many, #5 to Roman Catholics & Lutherans)? Not even in the top five for most religions! Taking the Lord's name in vain ranks higher.

So if someone shot you to death, but you happened to yell "goddamnit!" before you expire --- YOU jump ahead of your killer, in the lineup to enter Hell!

[Mike_Lowery]

So if someone shot you to death, but you happened to yell "goddamnit!" before you expire --- YOU jump ahead of your killer, in the lineup to enter Hell!

haha, this made me chuckle...


One more overrated thing: nuclear families

[scrivener]

americans say the phrase as if those values did not exist at all before jesus christ was born. "thou shalt not kill," "thou shall not steal," "thou shalt not lie," and "honor thy father and mother" are not exclusive to the decalogue.
Oooh, it's nitpick with cyn day. :)

Is "thou shalt not lie" your interpretation of "thou shalt not bear false witness?" I've often debated this with friends and students. I don't know if telling a lie all by itself was ever meant to be one of the Ten. Yes? No?

[cynsaligia]

I dunno - I didn't think my one prior contribution was particularly "innocuous." :pBut to try to lighten it up a bit (courtesy of a comedian I saw on Canadian TV recently) --- have you ever wondered why "Thou shalt not kill" ranks so low down the list (#6 to many, #5 to Roman Catholics & Lutherans)? Not even in the top five for most religions! Taking the Lord's name in vain ranks higher.

So if someone shot you to death, but you happened to yell "goddamnit!" before you expire --- YOU jump ahead of your killer, in the lineup to enter Hell!

eeehhh, does order in the decalogue = importance to god? i never thought it did. i just figured that's the order moses remembered it in. *shrug*

Oooh, it's nitpick with cyn day. :)


perfectly fine with me, since your version of nitpicking is constructively challenging. and i like the attention from you & leo. *grins fetchingly*

Oooh, it's nitpick with cyn day. :)

Is "thou shalt not lie" your interpretation of "thou shalt not bear false witness?" I've often debated this with friends and students. I don't know if telling a lie all by itself was ever meant to be one of the Ten. Yes? No?

i guess that's my interpretation, but it's not MY interpretation. that's what i understand "thou shalt not bear false witness" to mean, or that's what i was told it was meant. of course, what do i know? one of the three schools i went to were catholic--in fact, one was shinsho buddhist, and the other treated college prep as a religion just as much as it viewed episcopalianism. beyond that, i can't offer much to any presumed debate with you on this particular subject at this point.

[salmoned]

Moses didn't remember the commandments, that's why God had to write 'em down Himself/Herself/Itself/Myself. ;)

[Frankie's Market]

for the record, this thread wasn't "inoffensive and innocuous" before religion/atheism/christianity got mentioned. knowing mike, his first post was obviously sardonic, with words some would consider sacred: starbucks, elvis & the pats!

I'm well aware that each of the above have their legion of fans. Heck, I'm a big fan of the Beatles. But Mike's post didn't inflame me, or anybody else, judging by the initial responses to this thread. You yourself didn't jump into this thread until atheism/religion was brought up, right? :rolleyes:

Also, I wouldn't even begin to compare religious/spiritual devotion to devotion that is given to a sports team or a coffee shop. It's common to see people make fun of each other's loyalty to sports teams, especially after the other person's team loses. And unless somebody is a real hothead or an anti-social jerk, they can take some good-natured ribbing when it comes to fun topics like sports and music. But religion is a whole 'nother animal. It's not common for workmates in the office to go around putting down/making fun of each other's religion, is it? If I put down "the Mormon Church" on my overrated list, I know it would offend HTers of the Mormon faith to a degree that can't even begin compare to how sports fans feel about their teams or latte afficionados feel about their cafe.

I'm a big Green Bay Packers fan. But I don't have a shrine to Brett Favre in my home. Neither do I think that watching every one of their games on TV will get me to heaven after I die. Let's get some perspective here! :rolleyes:

secondly, FM, how do you think timkona would take to your calling his splotchy lovemonkey, billorally, "overrated?"

I think the best person to answer that question would be Tim himself.

[Walkoff Balk]

Why didn't Anne Coulter or was it the other skinny blonde conservative pundit get called out for calling Brett Farve a girlie man because he cried during his retirement speech? I'm guessing that a lot of conservatives are also Brett Farve fans.

[Menehune Man]

Things over rated by Americans? Hmmm...

Americans.

And I'm not being unpatriotic, just realistic.

[Walkoff Balk]

How about Cockroach/Americans, Gecko/Americans, and Poi Dog/Americans? I hope these groups don't lose their innocence because of the politicians in our government. As the David Letterman would say, "Am I right people?"

[Frankie's Market]

How about the top MLB and NBA teams being called "World Champions" when there are various pro basketball and baseball leagues in other countries? Maybe at one time, these American pro leagues were untouchable. But as recent international competitions like the Olympics and the World Baseball Classic show, other countries are capable of beating the Americans at their own games.

[cynsaligia]

I'm well aware that each of the above have their legion of fans. Heck, I'm a big fan of the Beatles. But Mike's post didn't inflame me, or anybody else, judging by the initial responses to this thread. You yourself didn't jump into this thread until atheism/religion was brought up, right? :rolleyes:

my jumping on this thread only until religion was brought up matters how, pray tell?

you & WB have noted this thread "turned angry." i don't agree with that notion at all, and that was my point in the section of post #22 where i address you both.

it's absurd how you toot your horn for keeping things light on this thread as if to point accusingly at those of us who answered mike's initial post with something more substantive than "american idol." all any one of us who have replied in this thread have done is answer mike's question in the manner we see fit, and no post is more appropriate than others.

Moses didn't remember the commandments, that's why God had to write 'em down Himself/Herself/Itself/Myself. ;)

forgot about that. :p

scriv, i happened to run into one of the nuns today, so i asked her about the whole "bearing false witness" thing. the way she explained it to me, the concept of "false witness" includes gossiping--saying things that might be true, but are damaging to your fellow man. i asked if false witness could also include being purposely hurtful by withholding comment or leaving out details, and she affirmed such acts can fall under the false witness umbrella. the backbone of that commandment is, "do unto others," she told me, so if by saying something or not saying something, you are hurting someone, then it's "false witness."

once again, thanks to you, scriv, i learned something new. *thumbs up*

[cezanne]

Wheel Of Fortune

[Pomai]

This thread is very unpatriotic. :mad:

How about things overrated by Japanese? Or Italians?
:rolleyes:

[Menehune Man]

How about things overrated by Japanese? Or Italians?

Okay...

Anime
&
Pizza

How's that?

[Pomai]

Okay...

Anime
&
Pizza

How's that?Perfect! I'll add...

Japanese:
Sushi
Kobe Beef
Sony
Toyota - Great in reliability, but the ugliest cars ever designed, except for the new RAV 4 and the original Land Cruiser

Italian:
Pasta (that came from China, didn't it)
Parmigiano Reggiano
Ferrari... err.... um.. OK. I can't say that's overrated. I just can't afford one right now. lol

[Frankie's Market]

my jumping on this thread only until religion was brought up matters how, pray tell?

I was just stating a plain and simple fact. You entered the thread after atheism/religion entered into the fray. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. It's just a fact.

At the same time, I didn't think it was unreasonable for me to observe that the religion theme seemed to strike a chord with you. The things that you listed as being overrated (Christian values and In God We Trust) all fell into this category.

By the way, I agreed with much of your initial post.

you & WB have noted this thread "turned angry." i don't agree with that notion at all, and that was my point in the section of post #22 where i address you both.

WB used the word "angry." But I concurred with his notion that the tone and discussion did turn more "serious" after religion/atheism was brought up.

it's absurd how you toot your horn for keeping things light on this thread as if to point accusingly at those of us who answered mike's initial post with something more substantive than "american idol." all any one of us who have replied in this thread have done is answer mike's question in the manner we see fit, and no post is more appropriate than others.

Sorry if you took post #21 of mine as being some sort of accusation against you. It wasn't intended that way.

Secondly, I wasn't singling myself out. To quote myself from #21, Up until then, I think people tried to stick to things that were inoffensive and innocuous for the most part.

Thirdly, if I was being accusatory at those who got into a deep and serious discussion about religion, then I would have been accusing myself. Look at what I wrote in post #16. Nothing humorous or light about that one, is there?

And finally, I find it more than a bit ironic to be labelled as an "accuser" and then, in turn, being accused for tooting my own horn.

[kani-lehua]

not overrated by americans per say, but by some locals:

yohei restaurant
beachhouse restaurant

i would rate yohei as a B+, but would go back and try some other dishes. most definitely not the soba. beachhouse restaurant i would rate a D. the food was just passable to me. if it had not been for the scenery and hawaiian music, i would have rated it an F. overpriced and overcooked food.

[cynsaligia]

I was just stating a plain and simple fact. You entered the thread after atheism/religion entered into the fray. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. It's just a fact.[/I]

you rolled your eyes after pointing it out, thereby indicating that you've passed some sort of judgment about it. clearly, you are too spineless to admit what thought laid behind the eye-rolling.

At the same time, I didn't think it was unreasonable for me to observe that the religion theme seemed to strike a chord with you. The things that you listed as being overrated (Christian values and In God We Trust) all fell into this category.

i listed only "christian values" as being overrated. the rest was elucidation.

as i said about the rolling eyes after "observing" the point at which i entered the fray, so say i about your observation about religion "striking a chord" with me.


Sorry if you took post #21 of mine as being some sort of accusation against you. It wasn't intended that way.

if no one's told you, the phrase, "sorry if you took it wrong" is not really an apology; it's a passive-aggressive way of acting as if you are sorry but really think it's the other person's problem. the correct way to apologize, if you really mean it, is to say: "i'm sorry my actions/words/whatever it was irked you," not "i'm sorry if you took it the wrong way."



Secondly, I wasn't singling myself out. To quote myself from #21, Up until then, I think people tried to stick to things that were inoffensive and innocuous for the most part.

Thirdly, if I was being accusatory at those who got into a deep and serious discussion about religion, then I would have been accusing myself.


thank you for further demonstrating the original point i was making. the thread never was "angry" nor was there ever a "tempest in a teapot."


And finally, I find it more than a bit ironic to be labelled as an "accuser" and then, in turn, being accused for tooting my own horn.

and this is problematic, how? *smirk*

...which leads me to another thing that's overrated in america: not admitting when you're wrong, as if doing so makes them less of a person. i know in hawaii, we say it's a typical behavior of certain cultures (the whole saving face thing with asians). but it's also a corporate behavior in the US, largely bcs of our litigious society.

my work experience has taught me that a well-said apology can smooth over grievances in the business world. it can even have the power to make any thoughts of lawsuit recede because it encourages the injured customer to speak more openly with the company. with continued conversation, the two parties are much more likely to come to a mutually beneficial solution that does not include appearing in court.

[Frankie's Market]

you rolled your eyes after pointing it out, thereby indicating that you've passed some sort of judgment about it. clearly, you are too spineless to admit what thought laid behind the eye-rolling.

Spineless. Your name-calling is duly noted.

i listed only "christian values" as being overrated. the rest was elucidation.

Elucidation. But of course, how could I have missed it.

if no one's told you, the phrase, "sorry if you took it wrong" is not really an apology; it's a passive-aggressive way of acting as if you are sorry but really think it's the other person's problem. the correct way to apologize, if you really mean it, is to say: "i'm sorry my actions/words/whatever it was irked you," not "i'm sorry if you took it the wrong way."

*sigh!* Well, at least I tried.

You have yourself a good weekend.

[cynsaligia]

*sigh!* Well, at least I tried.

as yoda said, "do, or do not. there is no try."


You have yourself a good weekend.

i already am! :cool:

[MyopicJoe]

Medication. We have medication for stuffy noses to itchy butts.

LOL

Don't forget social anxiety!

I love this MadTV spoof of Zoloft:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcTHtFpRI0c

[Leo Lakio]

This thread is very unpatriotic. :mad:

How about things overrated by Japanese? Or Italians?
:rolleyes:I can't contribute to those, as I am not one; but I am an American, and as such, am proud that I live in a nation where I am free to contribute to such a discussion.

It's never unpatriotic to discuss how our nation can improve.

[Keanu]

Constitutional conventions when there is no real issue to address.

[mel]

How about things overrated by Japanese? Or Italians?
:rolleyes:


1. Ferrari
2. Sony Vaio
3. Rome
4. Godzilla
5. Pokemon
6. anime

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Not to be provocative but I'm curious why atheism makes your list when 75% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian"?

atheism made my list because it is the largest compliment to Christian religious influence on society, govt, etc. In other words, America doesn't champion for other-godding or alternagodding, but degodding. This country's biggest argument with religion is Jesus vs science and cannot/will not move beyond that.

[cezanne]

Drifting, street and competitive.
Those Fast and Furious type ricers.

[Leo Lakio]

as yoda said, "do, or do not. there is no try."6) Star Wars (plot is a rip-off of Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress.)And there is the crux of the disagreement, don't you think? ;)

[kstephen]

tv

havent had it in our house for over 11 years.

(a choice made when we decided to have and raise children.)

when we go to the inlaws and see a little of it,
it just assures us that we made the right decision for our family.

sure does help slow the hurried lifestyle that quite a few have here.

ps. we do watch DVDs and our kids get limited "screen" time which
includes tv and computer. (15 min/day, maybe a movie a week)

[kani-lehua]

paris hilton
nicole ricci
lindsay lohan
those three girlfriends of hugh hefner's
tomkat

[Walkoff Balk]

Hey, How come there's only hot chics in the last list? Ok then, How about Matthew McCon....um the naked bongos playing guy, Justin Timberwolves, fake doctor McDreamy, and I'll add a female to the list for equal time, Ryan Seacrest?

[kani-lehua]

Hey, How come there's only hot chics in the last list? Ok then, How about Matthew McCon....um the naked bongos playing guy, Justin Timberwolves, fake doctor McDreamy, and I'll add a female to the list for equal time, Ryan Seacrest?


hehe. i added tomkat (tom cruise and katie holmes). now i'll add to the list:

scientology

don't rake me over the coals. it's just an opinion.

[craigwatanabe]

Hannah Montana

[craigwatanabe]

and I'll add a female to the list for equal time, Ryan Seacrest?

...thinking about that one...hmmm...still thinking...pondering...okay is there something here I don't know about regarding Ryan Seacrest getting a sex change or something? Am I that out of the loop? :confused:

[turtlegirl]

Haha! Hannah Montana!! I hate that show! What's with those writers - kids acting spoiled, wearing grownup clothes and too much makeup?! Wierd!!

[Mike_Lowery]

Haha! Hannah Montana!! I hate that show! What's with those writers - kids acting spoiled, wearing grownup clothes and too much makeup?! Wierd!!
not only did you describe every show on The Disney Channel, MTV, and Nickelodeon, but you also described 90% of American adolescents.

[turtlegirl]

...barf....

[Walkoff Balk]

hehe. i added tomkat (tom cruise and katie holmes). now i'll add to the list:

scientology

don't rake me over the coals. it's just an opinion.

I remember when they would try to talk to me about Dianetics by L.Ron Hubbard. I would pretend not to be home or if they caught me on the street, I would look at my watch and say, "I gotta go."
Just an observation, you don't see Hare Krishnas anymore after the movie "Airplane."

[sinjin]

This country's biggest argument with religion is Jesus vs science and cannot/will not move beyond that.This is not the case with millions of American Catholics. Science does not address matters of faith. Maybe faith should do likewise with respect to matters of science. Only literalists are at odds with science.

[scrivener]

Just an observation, you don't see Hare Krishnas anymore after the movie "Airplane."
Totally untrue. I lived and worked in Nuuanu until a few years ago; I rode the bus with Hare Krishnas. I spoke to them while in line at the 7-Eleven. I saw them walking up or down Nuuanu, toward or away from their temple. Until his death, I saw George Harrison on television every so often, and Annie Lennox still pops up here and there. Many Hare Krishnas stop at the temple on their way into town for their jobs in downtown Honolulu; some drive up for the lunches.

[Frankie's Market]

Tony Robbins - Totally overrated motivational guru. If you buy any of his books, audio tapes/cd, or videos, he'll give you some useful information. But in every section at some point, he'll stop and say that if you want more information, you need to attend one of his seminars.

Then when you attend one of his seminars, Robbins will only make a brief, token appearance. The bulk of the seminar will be conducted by his less charismatic assistants.

[craigwatanabe]

Totally untrue. I lived and worked in Nuuanu until a few years ago; I rode the bus with Hare Krishnas. I spoke to them while in line at the 7-Eleven. I saw them walking up or down Nuuanu, toward or away from their temple. Until his death, I saw George Harrison on television every so often, and Annie Lennox still pops up here and there. Many Hare Krishnas stop at the temple on their way into town for their jobs in downtown Honolulu; some drive up for the lunches.

Ummm...scriv I think Walkoff Balk meant that you don't see them at the airports anymore passing out flowers. Now they're selling t-shirts in Waikiki :D

In Pahoa there's a lot of Krishnas and Bob Marley fans congregating at the natural food store. Amazing mix of people, I like to call them Krishnafaris.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

This is not the case with millions of American Catholics. Science does not address matters of faith. Maybe faith should do likewise with respect to matters of science. Only literalists are at odds with science.

Sinjin, that's my point. This discussion is Jesus/Science framed. We aren't talking about Hinduism vs Buddhism in schools and government getting equal time, like they do in Sri Lanka. Or having Ramadan sue it's way into the American work calendar. Or Native American tribes suing New Age businesses in the courts, based on cultural appropriation and theft.

[sinjin]

Sinjin, that's my point. This discussion is Jesus/Science framed. We aren't talking about Hinduism vs Buddhism in schools and government getting equal time, like they do in Sri Lanka. Or having Ramadan sue it's way into the American work calendar. Or Native American tribes suing New Age businesses in the courts, based on cultural appropriation and theft.This sad situation is hardly the fault of the atheist minority in the U.S.

The blame falls squarely on Evangelical Christians who want their faith treated as fact for all intents and purposes in the scientific arena. Fat chance.

[salmoned]

Lists.
Polls.
Self esteem.
Indignation.

[craigwatanabe]

Lists.
Polls.
Self esteem.
Indignation.

Let's have a poll to determine if I'm good enough because I need to know :D

[craigwatanabe]

This sad situation is hardly the fault of the atheist minority in the U.S.

The blame falls squarely on Evangelical Christians who want their faith treated as fact for all intents and purposes in the scientific arena. Fat chance.


Maybe evolution shouldn't be taught in a science class but as an elective as such. That way creationists won't have a problem of students requiring to learn it as science. Remember no matter how much hard evidence is brought forward regarding evolution, it's still, just a theory and as viable as creationism, but you don't see that taught in public school.

Until evolution can be proved as a fact, it shouldn't be taught as fact in our public schools. Does 2+2=7? If you can't prove it, it shouldn't be taught in public school.

[Jim75]

Maybe evolution shouldn't be taught in a science class but as an elective as such. That way creationists won't have a problem of students requiring to learn it as science. Remember no matter how much hard evidence is brought forward regarding evolution, it's still, just a theory and as viable as creationism, but you don't see that taught in public school.

Until evolution can be proved as a fact, it shouldn't be taught as fact in our public schools. Does 2+2=7? If you can't prove it, it shouldn't be taught in public school.must . . . resist . . . urge . . . to reply:p

[craigwatanabe]

must . . . resist . . . urge . . . to reply:p

Oh go on and flame away, I already fell into that trap of not discussing religion or politics already. :D

[Leo Lakio]

Another item for the thread topic:

Flaming each other on internet message boards.

(That's in honor of my friend and erstwhile debate partner, CW.);)

[sinjin]

Maybe evolution shouldn't be taught in a science class but as an elective as such. That way creationists won't have a problem of students requiring to learn it as science. Remember no matter how much hard evidence is brought forward regarding evolution, it's still, just a theory and as viable as creationism, but you don't see that taught in public school.

Until evolution can be proved as a fact, it shouldn't be taught as fact in our public schools. Does 2+2=7? If you can't prove it, it shouldn't be taught in public school.CW, a theory is as good as it gets in science. The definition of theory in science is not what you construe it as. Evolution is indeed a fact.

Theory -
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has a lot of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about Geology? Should that be excluded from being taught as science since it presumes an ancient Earth?

[Pua'i Mana'o]

My. Jesus and science yinning and yanging again.

</point>

[sinjin]

Jesus does not belong to YEC's. Science does not belong to atheists.

[craigwatanabe]

CW, a theory is as good as it gets in science. The definition of theory in science is not what you construe it as. Evolution is indeed a fact.

Theory -
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has a lot of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

How about Geology? Should that be excluded from being taught as science since it presumes an ancient Earth?


You say a theory is as good as it gets? Well in science based on it's own deductive reasoning, it's not good enough.

Then why hasn't there been any conclusion based on these facts? And what about geology? Time is a reference that can be debated for eons. Remember even scientists have proven that time is relative only to the mass it's reflective of.

Until scientists publish statements that indicate Evolution is a known fact, it wil remain only a theory. The scientific method allows for fact finding however until you can pull all facts together to form a conclusive answer, you cannot imply a conclusion based on inconclusive observation. That is simply going against the rules of this model of explanation.

There is no conclusive answer to Evolution thus it's theory remains unresolved and cannot be construed as a factual statement.

Faith however does not rely on the scientific method of proving itself, just as you believe that a motorist will not cross the centerline and kill you in a head on collision, Faith allows for another reason for us being here. Just because one cannot comprehend something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So if Evolution does exist and we cannot comprehend it, by it's own means it must be proven to be accepted. Science is something man has derived to explain the world around us. Some things just defy explanation...sometimes you just gotta believe that life is bigger than what our feeble minds can comprehend.

When our ticket for life ends, some believe we become part of the eco-system and die, others hang onto a belief that life goes on and rewards us for our efforts. That's our choice. But to teach Evolution as the only outcome of our existance doesn't give us that to choose. Armed with the knowledge of Creationism or Evolution we make that choice. But we can't if only one is offered. I believe our thoughts and inspirations to others are an intangible entity like a spirit, we go on to a better place of understanding where our efforts live in eternity. Or you can believe you turn to dust and fertilize the land for which you crawled out of.

It's your choice but at least you have that opportunity to choose. Like politics you have a choice of which party you want to identify with. That party will either raise you to prosperity or drive you out of existance. But it was your choice.

Man I just did a double sin...mentioning religion and politics in one thread. :eek:

[salmoned]

Ha, ha! The theory of evolution is in no more doubt that the theory of gravity. Certainly, Newton's theory of gravity has been modified over time, as has Darwin's theory of evolution. Even so, the apple will fall to earth and the species subjected to environmental pressure will evolve or become extinct. Even the dodo realized that! ;)

[turtlegirl]

Aaargh!!! (sounds of me smacking my own forehead!)...

Are we actually debating fact vs. faith!!?? Religion!?

Why not debate on what color Rudolph was, and did he really lead Santa's sleigh one Xmas eve? Was his name really Rudolph? Did the other reindeer really laugh and call him names? Do you believe in him, or do you need scientific proof? See where I'm going with this!?

Just because you cannot prove or disprove the existence of Rudolph does not mean that he does not exist! And fly all over the world in one night bringing toys!!

So if Rudolph does exist and we cannot comprehend it, by it's own means it must be proven to be accepted. Some things just defy explanation...?!!!!?

Aaargh!! (now furiously smacking forehead!!)

[sinjin]

You say a theory is as good as it gets? Well in science based on it's own deductive reasoning, it's not good enough.

Then why hasn't there been any conclusion based on these facts? And what about geology? Time is a reference that can be debated for eons. Remember even scientists have proven that time is relative only to the mass it's reflective of.

Until scientists publish statements that indicate Evolution is a known fact, it wil remain only a theory. The scientific method allows for fact finding however until you can pull all facts together to form a conclusive answer, you cannot imply a conclusion based on inconclusive observation. That is simply going against the rules of this model of explanation.

There is no conclusive answer to Evolution thus it's theory remains unresolved and cannot be construed as a factual statement.

Faith however does not rely on the scientific method of proving itself, just as you believe that a motorist will not cross the centerline and kill you in a head on collision, Faith allows for another reason for us being here. Just because one cannot comprehend something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So if Evolution does exist and we cannot comprehend it, by it's own means it must be proven to be accepted. Science is something man has derived to explain the world around us. Some things just defy explanation...sometimes you just gotta believe that life is bigger than what our feeble minds can comprehend.

When our ticket for life ends, some believe we become part of the eco-system and die, others hang onto a belief that life goes on and rewards us for our efforts. That's our choice. But to teach Evolution as the only outcome of our existance doesn't give us that to choose. Armed with the knowledge of Creationism or Evolution we make that choice. But we can't if only one is offered. I believe our thoughts and inspirations to others are an intangible entity like a spirit, we go on to a better place of understanding where our efforts live in eternity. Or you can believe you turn to dust and fertilize the land for which you crawled out of.

It's your choice but at least you have that opportunity to choose. Like politics you have a choice of which party you want to identify with. That party will either raise you to prosperity or drive you out of existance. But it was your choice.

Man I just did a double sin...mentioning religion and politics in one thread. :eek:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_state.htm

Thank you for sinning. No dialogue, no progress.

[craigwatanabe]

Are we actually debating fact vs. faith!!?? Religion!?

No we are not...we are debating THEORY vs faith. You see even you believe it is a fact despite it not being one.

Whether it be Evolution or Creationism, it's your choice.

And Sinjin if a theory can be a fact then what's the bother labelling it a theory in the first place. If you cannot prove it, it has no rightful place in the realm of science. If you can prove it conclusively then call it for what it's worth, The FACT of EVOLUTION and let's see how far that flies in the face of science. The only FACT of Evolution is that it is still called the Theory of Evolution. Mankind in all of his wisdom still cannot save himself from the dangers that can destroy him yet we attempt to define our existance as a theoretical fact based on our limited knowledge.

And unlike religion, Ruldolph the red nosed raindeer's existance can be explained and tracked to it's creator. It never evolved.


You want to believe in Evolution go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. But until there is conclusive evidence based on it's very arguement of existance I'll stick to faith because I cannot believe our entire existance and the natural beauty of our world happened by chance.

From the smallest atom to the largest galaxies there is a commonality between them. Science has a wonderful way of explaining it but it all started with this one Big Bang. Like all this scientific computation of known physics but thru it all, a miracle happened and life happens thru one cataclysmic explosion.

If one believes in Quantum Physics, that episode had to have been observed in order to happen. Who observed it? It sure wasn't us or any species that could be populating our universe.

One can take the beginnings of life as a bio-mathematical equation that requires an intense knowledge of the field of bio-engineering, or one can take the simple route and just believe something magnificant happened to let all this occur on such a grand scale.

It seems the more we find out about our world, the less we know. As space probes relay information of our own solar system back to us we constantly have to redefine our own laws of physics. And we have the nerve to conclude as fact how we were created? We once thought the earth was flat, some think it's hollow, some believe in the bermuda triangle. Some even believe that we are being visited by aliens!

Now we find out the earth is round and it's very much solid. We simply don't know the facts about our own planet let alone our very existance! Yet we define and redefine it to match our limitations of understanding. When does it end? According to evolutionists, it already did with the claim that evolution as a theory is a fact. How ubsurd!

[sinjin]

No we are not...we are debating THEORY vs faith. You see even you believe it is a fact despite it not being one.
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

[Pua'i Mana'o]

*pokes sinjin playfully with a stick*

good going, dude. Ya had to go there with "Christian morality" and then I, naturally, couldn't help myself with "atheism" and then Craig comes back with a sonnet and now we are here™.

Personally, I loathe the debate. Today's science was yestercentury's natural philosophy, which can be found alongside the philosophers and teachers and alchemists and midwives, when one examines the olde wisdom. That two such venerable institutions of thought would be contentious today as these both are, smacks of jumping the shark.

For an excellent exercise on the matter, watch the Hitchens Brothers debate it on youtube (plug in "Hitchens vs Hitchens", grab some coffee and get comfy; 14 videos in length, religion and Iraq are the subjects of the formal debate).

[salmoned]

When our ticket for life ends, some believe we become part of the eco-system and die, others hang onto a belief that life goes on and rewards us for our efforts. That's our choice. But to teach Evolution as the only outcome of our existance doesn't give us that to choose. Armed with the knowledge of Creationism or Evolution we make that choice. But we can't if only one is offered. I believe our thoughts and inspirations to others are an intangible entity like a spirit, we go on to a better place of understanding where our efforts live in eternity. Or you can believe you turn to dust and fertilize the land for which you crawled out of.

It's your choice but at least you have that opportunity to choose. Like politics you have a choice of which party you want to identify with. That party will either raise you to prosperity or drive you out of existance. But it was your choice.

You can choose what you believe, but you can't actually choose what happens when your ticket expires. I may believe I'm the King of the World and will Live Forever, but that ain't automatically gonna make it so, eh?

[sinjin]

*pokes sinjin playfully with a stick*

good going, dude. Ya had to go there with "Christian morality" and then I, naturally, couldn't help myself with "atheism" and then Craig comes back with a sonnet and now we are here™.

Personally, I loathe the debate. Today's science was yestercentury's natural philosophy, which can be found alongside the philosophers and teachers and alchemists and midwives, when one examines the olde wisdom. That two such venerable institutions of thought would be contentious today as these both are, smacks of jumping the shark.

For an excellent exercise on the matter, watch the Hitchens Brothers debate it on youtube (plug in "Hitchens vs Hitchens", grab some coffee and get comfy; 14 videos in length, religion and Iraq are the subjects of the formal debate).Actually when I put "Christian Morality" on my list I wasn't refering to this debate at all. My thinking was more along the lines of prudishness when it comes to sexual mores. I never meant to offend you of all people. Like Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

[craigwatanabe]

You can choose what you believe, but you can't actually choose what happens when your ticket expires. I may believe I'm the King of the World and will Live Forever, but that ain't automatically gonna make it so, eh?

The one belief you can take to the grave is that whatever the outcome it will be, you won't be the one deciding that unless your belief is the accurate one.

I'll take the odds that if there is a god then believing so will grant me a better place after I die.

If there is no god then who the heck cares.

But if there is a god and you don't care, Hell's a rotten place to live the rest of your immortal life.

So given the scenerios, I'll choose the better rather than the non-distinct or the worst cuz if there isn't a god, then it doesn't matter.

Three possible outcomes. Choose wisely.

[Leo Lakio]

The theory of evolution is in no more doubt that the theory of gravity.'scuse me - we now have an alternate, faith-based theory, called "Intelligent Falling." :p
You want to believe in Evolution go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. But until there is conclusive evidence based on it's very arguement of existance I'll stick to faith because I cannot believe our entire existance and the natural beauty of our world happened by chance.Craig - I have found that many Christians accept evolution as fact, yet feel that it was either originated by or is somehow "overseen" by God. Is that a way to view it that you would find acceptable within the values of your personal faith?

[craigwatanabe]

'scuse me - we now have an alternate, faith-based theory, called "Intelligent Falling." :p
Craig - I have found that many Christians accept evolution as fact, yet feel that it was either originated by or is somehow "overseen" by God. Is that a way to view it that you would find acceptable within the values of your personal faith?

As a matter of fact yes I do. Coming from an athiest background and having had many arguements with my Jehova Witness sister growing up I had always believed in evolution, that is until I had my own spiritual awakening and had to deal with the possibilty that could evolution be questioned?

It's not so much that I don't believe in evolution, it's more the notion by mankind that something or someone had to have flipped that switch that started the whole process going.

In Genesis it was stated that man was formed from the dusts of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into man.

Darwin theorized that man evolved out of a primordial soup and that somehow some way an amino acid was formed creating the basis for life as we know it.

This is where theories begin to differ as to how that amino became an organism. Some believe it came thru a comet, others believe a more devine intervention occured. In any case that comet had to come at the right time at the right place, meaning a nurturing planet capable of fostering life from a comet's plunge into that soup.

With the odds stacked against that amino acid surviving in a hostile earth atmosphere, it was as if it were sheer luck or fate that allowed life to begin on our planet.

I don't believe in luck, things happen for a reason and life on earth happened despite overwhelming odds of it occuring.

The Bible as old as it is defined mankinds origins that mimicked evolution but on a more spiritual level, not scientific, but similar in it's beginnings.

How so can a book as old as the Bible come to this basis when mankind hadn't even known how to wipe his own ass in his evolutional steps to modern man?

Not only did the Bible depict evolution as Darwin suggested but also described WHO started the whole process. That's something evolutionists who denounce creationism cannot or do not agree with. But the most amazing part of it is that the Bible depicted mankind's creation well before science was even a cognizant process in our minds. And sadly it foretells our demise.

Thanks Leo for taking the blinders off. I actually embrace that concept of creationism as a method for evolution but was getting too caught up in defense of my ramblings.

My belief as radical as it is states that God gave us the breath of life. What is that breath? Air. Part of that gaseous mix is Oxygen. When you mix one Oxygen molecule with two parts Hydrogen (the most abundant atom in the universe) you get water. Water is essential for life.

God to me is representative of the Hydrogen atom, One proton, One Neutron orbiting around One electron. In the Bible we are reminded of the Trinity: The Father, The Son and the Holy spirit. Three entities forming the stuff stars and virtually every mass in the universe are made of. God is everywhere just like Hydrogen. Give Hydrogen some Oxygen and you have the basis for water, the stuff life needs to survive. God breathed the breath of life into us and man arose. According to Darwin we evolved out of the sea. What is the sea? Water.

To me simplicity answers the most intriguing problems. Keep it simple we all say. Complex problems require complex answers.

The Hydrogen atom is the simplist atom in existance and the most abundant in the Universe. If you attempt to tear that atom apart you get fission. Just like tearing apart our belief in God, when belief fails, so does our chance at eternal life. But when you harness the power of the hydrogen atom you get fusion or an incredible amount of energy that is beneficial to mankind.

The hydrogen atom can be man's best friend or it's worst enemy depending on how you respect and use it. Just like God, defy him and face his wrath, bless him and be rewarded.

And when it comes to man's best friend, take God and reverse it and you have the word Dog...man's best friend. One of the virtues of all the dogs I've owned in my life was their devotion and unconditional love for me. And that's another thing God wants us to know, that despite our misgivings, he will always love his children, unconditionally.

You can sin all your life but in the end, God will forgive you with the chance of repentance and for those who do not believe, the words from that song Jet Airliner ring true: You've got to go thru Hell before you get to Heaven.

I am a man of experience, but I don't need to go thru Hell to appreciate the wonders of everlasting life as my reward for being a good steward of God's creations. It takes effort to be good, it takes laziness not to. In my beliefs rewards are earned not taken for granted.:)

[turtlegirl]

Aaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh!! (smacking forehead!)

;)

[cyleet99]

Wow.......I didn't know this battle was raging underneath the cover of "overrated things!' Okay, here's my additions to the list of overrated things:

chef boyardee products (mostly the canned stuff)
getting your own way
the politics of global warming
reality shows
entertainment and celebrity news

Things not rated highly enough:
The spirit of aloha
knowing right from wrong
helping others
recycling

And now, my thoughts about evolution versus creationism. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me how the earth got here, or if life originated in primordial seas, or if the big bang put everything here perfectly 3000 years ago. I am a Christian (Southern Baptist at heart) and agree with scrivener's "priesthood of the believer" mentality, and the part about God creating the cosmos. But I think there are too many things in this world that cannot be explained without some form of evolution. I do not believe in "intelligent design." That is not all it was cracked up to be either.

Creation/evolution discussion is only a small part of the faith vs. science argument. Francis Collins is a geneticist and was the leader of the Human Genome Project. He wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. He argues that science and faith are compatible, and covers a broad range of topics including bioethics, the origins of the universe, creationism, intelligent design, atheism, agnosticism, and belief in God. I finished the book with a great sigh of relief; it is not necessary for me to agree with those on the extremes one way or another. There is a harmony of scientific findings and faith.

Sorry if I sound preachy, but arguments and forehead slapping only lead to a headache and bruising of the forehead. :p

If you would like to borrow my book, pm me and I will get it to you.

Love and aloha to all. Cindy

[acousticlady]

God to me is representative of the Hydrogen atom, One proton, One Neutron orbiting around One electron.

OUCH! In oh so many ways. But let's start with the obvious. A Hydrogen atom consists of a proton - period. That's what makes it a Hydrogen. The most common variety does have a neutron with it - but it is not necessary for it to be a Hydrogen atom. It can, and does, exist without an electron - that is a positive ion. The type of Hydrogen that you talk about concerning fission and fusion would be HEAVY Hydrogen - containing 2 neutrons in its nucleus. To be a neutral atom, the proton takes on an electron - which ORBITS around the proton and neutron. But orbiting is a simplistic view of the electron's motion. In fact, a more realistic picture would be that the electron is generally in cloud or wave form that envelopes the proton and neutron. Oh, and the Hydrogen atom doesn't have to only have one electron. It can have more. That would make it a negative ion. And.....fission and fusion take place all the time - it is a part of nature. Both proton decay and neutron decay can be considered as such. And then there's plasma......

OK - that being said, my other comment on all this evolution vs creationism stuff is what about carbon dating? Creationists, as I understand it, believe in what the bible says literally. So......the Earth is only 10,000 yrs old? The sequence of evolution is determined through carbon dating - which is based on the time it takes for a carbon atom to decay. The evidence for evolution is through carbon dating. THAT is the difference between a science based theory and a faith based theory. EVIDENCE!

Nature's creationism - take an unassuming nitrogen - it has 7 protons and (usually) 7 neutrons. If one of the neutrons decay, the nitrogen becomes an oxygen and if a proton decays, it becomes a carbon. How cool is that!!!!

And lastly, with a slight twist on the theme of this thread.......

Things underrated by Americans - SCIENCE! Particularly Physics, Chemistry and Math!

[sinjin]

The one belief you can take to the grave is that whatever the outcome it will be, you won't be the one deciding that unless your belief is the accurate one.

I'll take the odds that if there is a god then believing so will grant me a better place after I die.

If there is no god then who the heck cares.

But if there is a god and you don't care, Hell's a rotten place to live the rest of your immortal life.

So given the scenerios, I'll choose the better rather than the non-distinct or the worst cuz if there isn't a god, then it doesn't matter.

Three possible outcomes. Choose wisely.Your calculations seem to omit the possibility that the "God of Abraham" might not be the "right" god.

[Leo Lakio]

Thank you, Craig, for taking the time to address my question seriously and openly. I think your commentuntil I had my own spiritual awakeningspeaks volumes about you, and perhaps many of the rest of us; those of us who see spirituality as a matter of personal belief and behavior, rather than something we must impose upon others. While it's obvious that you and I are often on different sides of these issues, I have respect for your perspective.

[salmoned]

The one belief you can take to the grave is that whatever the outcome it will be, you won't be the one deciding that unless your belief is the accurate one.

I'll take the odds that if there is a god then believing so will grant me a better place after I die.

If there is no god then who the heck cares.

But if there is a god and you don't care, Hell's a rotten place to live the rest of your immortal life.

So given the scenerios, I'll choose the better rather than the non-distinct or the worst cuz if there isn't a god, then it doesn't matter.

Three possible outcomes. Choose wisely.
Whether you're right or wrong, you still won't be deciding the issue.

There's quite a few more than 3 possible scenarios - remember your god may be the wrong god (false god); God may not care whether we believe in Him or not; To appreciate the benefits of God, you may have to become [one with] Him prior to your expiration, etc. So what it really boils down to is you must believe you've chosen the one right attitude or lifestyle in order to benefit from God's love. I can't possibly buy into that premise and anyone who does is nutty in my book. Not that I don't like nuts, I do. I just don't care to support or yield to their nutty ways. If there is a single God, I cannot possibly believe He holds Man in higher esteem than an elephant or ebola.

[Frankie's Market]

I'll take the odds that if there is a god then believing so will grant me a better place after I die.

If there is no god then who the heck cares.

But if there is a god and you don't care, Hell's a rotten place to live the rest of your immortal life.

So given the scenerios, I'll choose the better rather than the non-distinct or the worst cuz if there isn't a god, then it doesn't matter.

Three possible outcomes. Choose wisely.

My idea of a "wise" choice is not letting fear rule my life.

Got one life to live. I'll be darned if I spend it going to a church I'm not sure about every week just as some sort of afterlife "insurance policy." Neither will I let my decisions be governed by superstitions like staying at home on Friday the 13th and putting a horseshoe over my door.

[scrivener]

Creationists, as I understand it, believe in what the bible says literally. So......the Earth is only 10,000 yrs old? The sequence of evolution is determined through carbon dating - which is based on the time it takes for a carbon atom to decay. The evidence for evolution is through carbon dating. THAT is the difference between a science based theory and a faith based theory. EVIDENCE!
Ouch. Stop, please. Surely, as a scientist, you know better than to lump an entire population of people together because you have encountered a few who believe one thing. As I have made clear, I am a creationist, but how old the earth is I have not one clue about. As craig points out, that argument really doesn't matter if you believe in a creator, because why couldn't the creator create a world that's younger than the millions of years it supposedly is but dates much older? It's not something I believe in myself, because the argument is irrelevant to me: The origins of the earth and the hows and whys of its origin are only an interesting topic for discussion, not especially essential to my faith.

You seem to think that a faith-based theory is devoid of evidence, but I wonder what you think of the kinds of evidence often used in social sciences. Since none of us can get into the brains of others, all we have to go on sometimes is what people report as their experiences. Research on fear, for example, might depend on questionnaires, which are then turned into data. Sure, the data is mathematical, but it comes from the testimonies of the subjects' responses. Are those responses evidence? I don't have scientific proof of many of the things I believe, but I have evidence. Whether it is faulty or not remains to be seen, but please understand that I didn't just open up a fortune cookie and believe what it told me. My faith is the result of a lifetime (and I mean a LIFETIME) of examining the evidence of my own heart and the evidence of others' experiences.

Please, please, please: Don't take us all for brainless sheep. We see the evidence, and we recognize a discrepancy. There is no turning of blind eyes here, only an acknowledgment that none of us knows everything.

[scrivener]

Got one life to live. I'll be darned if I spend it going to a church I'm not sure about every week just as some sort of afterlife "insurance policy." Neither will I let my decisions be governed by superstitions like staying at home on Friday the 13th and putting a horseshoe over my door.
I like this statement, because I think it illustrates nicely what the difference is between people like you and people like me (and I know that's a tricky way to word this, but be assured I mean it in the most devoid-of-connotation sense possible). See, it's because I'm not sure that I do go to church, or read threads like this, or learn about the beliefs of others. I believe, but I believe with all kinds of doubts and uncertainties. That's what makes it faith, you see? The truth is that I don't KNOW what the other drivers on the road are going to do, but I have a certain amount of faith that they are going to stop at the red light when I'm going through the intersection the other way. That uncertainty doesn't keep me off the roads, even when I have the occasional near-collision because others betray that faith.

All I have is my open heart, my able brain, the testimonies of people I respect and admire, and my own experience, which I realize can be faulty, but it's all I've got. None of us really knows whether love is what we think it is, or whether it is some instinct that has enabled our species to continue to pass its genes from one generation to the next, but all we have are our experiences, and if love isn't the multi-faceted, many-splendored, ineffable thing most of us think it is, we can't know it. Each of us has to respond to love in whatever way makes sense to us, whether it's some mechanism for survival or whether it's some emotional connection between people.

Similarly, I cannot know for sure that the things I've seen, felt, or experienced point to a loving God, but oh my goodness, for better or worse, I do believe it. It would be much, much easier for me not to believe it, and I have tried not to believe it at times, but it's no use.

One thing a scientist has in common with a thoughtful believer is this: The continued attempt to disprove the hypotheses. I keep testing, I keep looking for something to tell me that my experiences are not what I think they are, but nothing has ever done it.

[cyleet99]

**takes a deep breath**

If there is a single God, I cannot possibly believe He holds Man in higher esteem than an elephant or ebola.

Have you read the account of the "Single God's" acts of creating? Humanity was the last of the creation, because man was created to be the keeper of the creation. We answer to our Creator. God made humans to have a relationship with their Creator, both in the physical world and eternally. Elephants and ebola viruses are part of the kept creation. They are not held responsible, as we are, for the earth, all in it, and for each other. And we do not do a good job, but the "single God" knows that. You cannot deny that you have a profoundly spiritual side, and you know it. Elephants and viruses do not. And I would venture to say that you hold yourself to a moral standard. If there is no God, why has humanity from the ancients to today continued to hold to any moral standard? It is because we know in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, and all over the world, throughout history and today, we run our societies using those standards. And the God of Abraham says to our faces that He is the only God, that there are no other Gods. Pretty brazen, wouldn't you say?

[Frankie's Market]

I like this statement, because I think it illustrates nicely what the difference is between people like you and people like me (and I know that's a tricky way to word this, but be assured I mean it in the most devoid-of-connotation sense possible). See, it's because I'm not sure that I do go to church, or read threads like this, or learn about the beliefs of others. I believe, but I believe with all kinds of doubts and uncertainties. That's what makes it faith, you see?

Yes, faith is as you describe it.

But I want to make clear that my post isn't an anti-religious rant. What I was responding to was Craig's statement that a reason to adopt a religion is one based on fear. Specifically, using the fear of eternal damnation in hell. I know that such a fear has driven countless millions into adopting a religion from the beginning of time.

I'm not ragging on religion. Rather, I'm just saying that if I ever had to select a religion (and I am open minded in my belief of a god or higher being possibly existing), I would not select it based on a fear of unknown consequences. I mean, how many religions are out there? In the thousands? And how many of them teach that non-believers to their doctrine will suffer some kind of punishment, damnation, and torture? Once again, in the thousands.

Just as an example: Someone from a Catholic Church might tell me that I'm bound for hell unless I convert and get baptized in their church. But if I became a Catholic, wouldn't that anger the god Allah and set me on a course to go to the Islamic version of hell?

This is why if I ever selected a religion, it can't be based on fear. It can't be based on picking one over the other because that one has the scarier punishment. It has to be based on the whole package, if you know what I mean.

[acousticlady]

Ouch. Stop, please. Surely, as a scientist, you know better than to lump an entire population of people together because you have encountered a few who believe one thing. As I have made clear, I am a creationist, but how old the earth is I have not one clue about. As craig points out, that argument really doesn't matter if you believe in a creator, because why couldn't the creator create a world that's younger than the millions of years it supposedly is but dates much older? It's not something I believe in myself, because the argument is irrelevant to me: The origins of the earth and the hows and whys of its origin are only an interesting topic for discussion, not especially essential to my faith.

You seem to think that a faith-based theory is devoid of evidence, but I wonder what you think of the kinds of evidence often used in social sciences. Since none of us can get into the brains of others, all we have to go on sometimes is what people report as their experiences. Research on fear, for example, might depend on questionnaires, which are then turned into data. Sure, the data is mathematical, but it comes from the testimonies of the subjects' responses. Are those responses evidence? I don't have scientific proof of many of the things I believe, but I have evidence. Whether it is faulty or not remains to be seen, but please understand that I didn't just open up a fortune cookie and believe what it told me. My faith is the result of a lifetime (and I mean a LIFETIME) of examining the evidence of my own heart and the evidence of others' experiences.

Please, please, please: Don't take us all for brainless sheep. We see the evidence, and we recognize a discrepancy. There is no turning of blind eyes here, only an acknowledgment that none of us knows everything.

I apologize if my comments made it sound that way. I was responding Craig's previous post(s) in which he talked about theory and then later on referred to God as unchanging and likened it to the unchanging Hydrogen atom.... and, I was on a roll :eek:. In no way do I believe any of us know everything - especially me. I, too, have issues with experimental methods in the social sciences. But, as you say, we cannot open up our brains and see what is being thought (how scary would that be!). So we need to rely on gaining knowledge through observation. We actually got into a big discussion about this in my acoustics class - much of what we (think we) know is based on subjective evidence. But, things like the development of MP3's have been dependent on some of this subjective knowledge. So, I would not discount their methods entirely either.

And.....while I may not be of the Christian faith, that certainly does not mean I am not a spiritual person. My faith may be more rooted in eastern philosophies, but that does not mean that I have no respect for you, Craig or anyone else who believes differently. I truly believe that if we all believed and thought the same way, we (as humans) would never have evolved past living in caves. I also believe that (friendly) discussions like this are essential in helping all of us understand one another just a little bit better :cool:.

[sinjin]

...And the God of Abraham says to our faces that He is the only God, that there are no other Gods. Pretty brazen, wouldn't you say?Actually He's never said this to my face. To claim the Bible is the actual word of God because it says so in the Bible is circular.

[sinjin]

One thing a scientist has in common with a thoughtful believer is this: The continued attempt to disprove the hypotheses. I keep testing, I keep looking for something to tell me that my experiences are not what I think they are, but nothing has ever done it.IMO you are a most uncommon "believer".

[Leo Lakio]

One thing a scientist has in common with a thoughtful believerAt the risk of tossing words back at you - please don't assume that these are different species. Being a scientist does not prevent someone from being a "thoughtful believer." There are many who are comfortable with being both.You cannot deny that you have a profoundly spiritual side, and you know it. Elephants and viruses do not....aaaand you can "prove" this how? Elephants have been shown to grieve, to recall members of their herd who have passed on, and to show a range of other emotions that we humans think we recognize; who are we to say that they are not, in their own fashion and by their own measure, "spiritual"?

If we humans are supposed to be the top of the heap, the keepers of this realm, then we have totally messed it up to the detriment of all creatures. No amount of holy scribbling designed to justify anything we do or did will convince me that we are little more than a highly-evolved parasite. Definition: "A parasite lives in a close relationship with another organism, its host, and causes it harm. The parasite is dependent on its host for its life functions. The parasite has to be in its host to live, grow and multiply."

Sounds like humanity to me. If God created us in his image and put us in charge of all his creation, then he is clearly a flawed being himself and not the ultimate in perfection that he is made out to be.

[scrivener]

At the risk of tossing words back at you - please don't assume that these are different species. Being a scientist does not prevent someone from being a "thoughtful believer."
I would never assume that. If I compare a baseball fan with a football fan, there is no implication that being one means you are not the other. But a baseball fan is one thing and a football fan is another thing. There are scientists who are believers, but what makes a person a scientist is a completely different list of criteria from what makes a person a believer. Yes?

[Leo Lakio]

but what makes a person a scientist is a completely different list of criteria from what makes a person a believer. Yes?No, can't agree with you there, because of your use of the word "completely." If such lists of criteria could ever exist, it is my belief that there would be a number of points found on both of them, starting with an insatiable curiosity regarding the unknown and unknowable. Such curiosity is often the driving force for someone to become a believer in a particular faith, as well as a factor in a scientist's career choice.

[salmoned]

**takes a deep breath**



Have you read the account of the "Single God's" acts of creating? Humanity was the last of the creation, because man was created to be the keeper of the creation. We answer to our Creator. God made humans to have a relationship with their Creator, both in the physical world and eternally. Elephants and ebola viruses are part of the kept creation. They are not held responsible, as we are, for the earth, all in it, and for each other. And we do not do a good job, but the "single God" knows that. You cannot deny that you have a profoundly spiritual side, and you know it. Elephants and viruses do not. And I would venture to say that you hold yourself to a moral standard. If there is no God, why has humanity from the ancients to today continued to hold to any moral standard? It is because we know in our hearts the difference between right and wrong, and all over the world, throughout history and today, we run our societies using those standards. And the God of Abraham says to our faces that He is the only God, that there are no other Gods. Pretty brazen, wouldn't you say?

We are not the endpoint of creation - this is one of the biggest and dumbest lies of all. We are not the 'keepers of creation', we're simply another part of it (not the greatest and certainly not the latest). I do have a spiritual side and I do believe in a creator, but not an anthropomorphic one. Creation hasn't ended with humanity, although we may soon end our part in it. Elephants and viruses DO have a spirituality, as do peanuts, plankton and GMOs. If the god of Abraham were the only god, he wouldn't have to declare it - it would be self-evident. As well, he wouldn't have to make any rules about what we should believe concerning him. Ideas of right and wrong are just a recent (less than 20,000 years old) artifice of our dominant civilization - 'primitives' like me don't share the concept. I live in a continuum which stretches well beyond the single tick of the clock called history and I'd like to invite you to join the real world. [How 'over the top' can I go?] ;)

[sinjin]

This isn't turning out so badly after all.

[turtlegirl]

Yeah! It's nice that everyone respects all individuals' viewpoints, even while not necessarily agreeing!

[cyleet99]

salmoned.....What's a "primitive?"

BTW; i do value everyone's point of view. I know that you all make me think; not only about what I believe, but why I believe it, and how to explain it in a coherent way. I am far from a philosophical giant. I just know what has happened to me. As was told to me once by a fellow Christian: "We are beggars telling other beggars where to find bread."
Peace. Cindy

[WindwardOahuRN]

This is really deep. Party on. :rolleyes:

[tutusue]

Yeah! It's nice that everyone respects all individuals' viewpoints, even while not necessarily agreeing!
Ooooh, this doesn't always happen but it's sure nice when it does! ;)

[salmoned]

salmoned.....What's a "primitive?"

BTW; i do value everyone's point of view. I know that you all make me think; not only about what I believe, but why I believe it, and how to explain it in a coherent way. I am far from a philosophical giant. I just know what has happened to me. As was told to me once by a fellow Christian: "We are beggars telling other beggars where to find bread."
Peace. Cindy

Well, if you put the term back into context, you'll see I've already defined it. Primitives, in the sense I've used the term, are those who acknowledge our descent from a time prior to the beginnings of our currently dominant civilization, which I've stated as having occurred within the last 20,000 years (more or less). We recognize that humans have had continuously viable means of survival for about a million years or more before certain ideas and practices like 'civilization', 'god', 'right & wrong', etc. were developed and that there might be something there from which we can learn to ensure our continued existence for another million years or so. That, perhaps, 'civilization' circumvents or ignores the evolutionary tactics we've developed to ensure our survival as a species, and that, as a result, people within our civilization find it difficult or impossible to be happy, satisfied or confident in our future, both individually and collectively.

[cyleet99]

Thanks--from the way you phrased it, I kinda thought it was a belief system I was not familiar with. So you believe civilization is overrated.:p

[sinjin]

Well, if you put the term back into context, you'll see I've already defined it. Primitives, in the sense I've used the term, are those who acknowledge our descent from a time prior to the beginnings of our currently dominant civilization, which I've stated as having occurred within the last 20,000 years (more or less). We recognize that humans have had continuously viable means of survival for about a million years or more before certain ideas and practices like 'civilization', 'god', 'right & wrong', etc. were developed and that there might be something there from which we can learn to ensure our continued existence for another million years or so. That, perhaps, 'civilization' circumvents or ignores the evolutionary tactics we've developed to ensure our survival as a species, and that, as a result, people within our civilization find it difficult or impossible to be happy, satisfied or confident in our future, both individually and collectively.One needn't be happy in order for our species to survive, only horny.:eek::p
Btw it appears we think a lot alike.

[salmoned]

True, we needn't be happy, but I like being happy. As well, being horny, as an isolated attribute and in our current circumstances, may or may not be relevant [as a positive or negative factor] to our long term survival.

"Thanks--from the way you phrased it, I kinda thought it was a belief system I was not familiar with. So you believe civilization is overrated."

It is a belief system, but you are probably familiar with it. It allows for a wide range of divergent opinions with a goal of better comprehension of who, how, where, what and why we are.