# Get your GOD-damned idiocy out of my education!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [November 30, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358 "2004-11-30T17:58:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/201 "2004-12-02T11:53:50Z")

</div>

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are you calling me ignorant because I know what the word “theory” means? Here you go:
> 
> [Theory](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)  
> **Evolution** is a theory. The overwhelming amount of data that we have discovered to support that theory are **facts**.
> 
> Try to follow along before you go calling me or anyone else ignorant, jack-ass.

Don’t get so defensive, especially over this. Check it out: [Evolution is both fact and theory.](http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)

> [@](#):
>
> Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
> 
> Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> 
> Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: “I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection’s] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/202 "2004-12-02T11:58:17Z")

</div>

> [@bup](#):
>
> _pinching bridge of nose_ No, they’re not. By definition. Whether we go with your definition or mine. Babies don’t not believe in God, nor do deny God. They just don’t conceive.

So they have no faith in God then? Alright, they are atheistic.

> [@bup](#):
>
> All-powerful. Not scientifically meaningful?  
> All-knowing. Not specific enough for you?  
> Everlasting. Not falsifiable?

Not specific at all. All you’ve told us is what God isn’t limited by, you haven’t told us anything about what God is. If I told you I wasn’t a martian, that doesn’t actually tell you anything about me, does it?

> [@bup](#):
>
> When did ‘what it’s made of’ and ‘where is it in the universe’ become necessary parts of a definition? By entity, I mean ‘thing.’ I would answer your other points, but I don’t profess to know. I don’t know that God exists in the first place.

So God’s a thing now? Well, in order to be a thing God must be material-right? If not material then how does God act on the material? What is something if it’s not material/physical?

> [@bup](#):
>
> I’m not usually accused of attempting to be clever, and here, it’s especially undeserved. You seem to be implying with ‘clever’ that I’m taking a position I don’t really believe, just because I like to be glib. I am not doing anything but putting out my honest thoughts. I got into this, not to be clever, but because **Meatros’** assertion that being an atheist did not require any faith stuck out as inaccurate.

Actually it is accurate and I’ve consistently explained it to you. As Dio pointed out, this isn’t a new conversation-even on this board no less.

> [@bup](#):
>
> And I maintain that one cannot claim they know something without proof nor faith. It’s one or the other. Otherwise you don’t even claim to know.

Again, all atheist means is without belief in God, if you don’t actively believe in God you are in fact an atheist.

> [@bup](#):
>
> I do appreciate your attempts to eradicate my ignorance. I hope you appreciate my attempts to eradicate yours.

I appreciate the effort, even though I think it’s misplaced.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/203 "2004-12-02T12:08:01Z")

</div>

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> I’m pretty sure gravity is considered a law, not a theory.

Actually it’s both, here’s the words right out of Newton’s mouth…er…‘pen’…[Link](http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Newton.htm)

> [@](#):
>
> “ **I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I frame no hypotheses… It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies.**  
> That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”

In other words, he discovered the law of gravity, but not the theory (which would explain why it works).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Along those same lines, I’m also pretty sure micro-evolution is considered scientific law, since we have the ability to see it happen with our own eyes. Macro-evolution is only classed as a theory because we can’t see it happening, because it’s already happened. So technically, it is a form of conjecture.

Microevolution isn’t a ‘law’, nor is it’s processes any different from macroevolution. In effect if you accept microevolution you have to accept macro because all macroevolution is, is an accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Taken from [this site](http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html):  
> Law (third definition): a set of observed regularities  
> Theory (sixth definition): an explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence

Theories and laws are different things in science: [From SCIAM](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF)

> [@](#):
>
> 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
> 
> Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty–above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
> 
> All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> (Note: I’m not saying I don’t believe in macro-evolution, just that it’s called a theory for a reason, namely because we cannot go back in time and observe it ourselves. It’s highly possibly that if human beings survive another few thousand millennia, and can see the branching off of specie and genus groups with our own eyes, that macro-evolution will become scientific law. The difference is technical, but it’s there.)

Actually you are incorrect and it won’t become scientific law because your understanding of the terminology of science is incorrect.

[Here’s another page with definitions](http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html)

> [@](#):
>
> LAW
> 
> 1. An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
> 
> 2. A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).
> 
> 3. A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).
> 
> THEORY
> 
> 1. The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)
> 
> 2. A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding (“explain”) a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).
> 
> 3. A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).
> 
> 4. 
> 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don’t like this one but I include it to show you that even in “Science dictionaries” there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].
> 
> 5. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).
> 
> 6. An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
> 
> Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that “law” and “theory” are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what’s the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics – Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of “laws” whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with “simple” (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
> 
> **Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a “transitory law, a law in waiting”. There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither “better than” nor “above” a theory.** From this view, laws and theories “do” different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature “conform” to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don’t conform.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/204 "2004-12-02T12:10:03Z")

</div>

> [@jjimm](#):
>
> “Baldness is a hair colour” is a deliberate paradox to show the absurdity of the comparison. Baldness could NOT be a hair colour, therefore atheism could NOT be a religion. Get it?

Do you get an ad logicam fallacy? If 2 + 2 = 4, then God exists. Therefore, God exists.

> [@](#):
>
> This is a very very well-known phrase, **Liberal**.

I had never heard the allegedly well-known phrase. It may be well-known, but it is mal-formed.

> [@](#):
>
> If I didn’t think so highly of you, your seeming incomprehension would appear, to me, anyway, like an intentional hijack.

If you thought highly of me, you wouldn’t launch such a ridiculous salvo as that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/205 "2004-12-02T12:13:55Z")

</div>

> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> No, no, and no.
> 
> Omnipotence: Create a rock that is too heavy to lift. If you can, you are not omnipotent. If you cannot, you are not omnipotent. Omnipotence is just a word which does not corespond to anything real in reality.

Very true, it’s also a negatively defined word, in that omnipotence expresses that the omnipotent being is \*without limits \* of power.

Instead of the rock example, I always liked the “Can God both not exist and exist at the same time”?

> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> Omniscience: This requires that all of time be laid out, static, predestined. How exactly is this information coded, where does it reside, etc… ?

True, and again it’s a negatively defined word, the entity is without the limits of knowledge.

> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> Everlasting: Cannot be falsified. All the time we have is all the time in Universe. We simply cannot see what is ‘outside’ of Universe. Thus, you can’t falsify.

Also, if a being is eternal then that being can’t act in a temporal universe; _when_ did God create the universe?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/206 "2004-12-02T12:14:28Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> So they have no faith in God then? Alright, they are atheistic.

Are you trying to discount the existence of agnosticism?

Atheism: belief that there is NOT a God, aka “un-faith”  
Agnosticism: belief that the existence of God is unknowable, meaning there’s no faith but there’s no “un-faith” either

I think that if you even have the slightest shred of doubt about your position (I’m thinking of **gobear** ’s earlier post), you can’t be an atheist. Atheism, like theism, requires 100% belief. Otherwise, you’re agnostic or nontheist.

Babies can’t be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic anyway. To adopt a philosophy means that you’ve considered it. Consideration requires a self-conscious mind. Babies/toddlers are not self-conscious. Saying people under two are atheist is like saying animals are atheist. Nontheism doesn’t equal atheism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/207 "2004-12-02T12:20:11Z")

</div>

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Are you trying to discount the existence of agnosticism?

Not at all, I was an agnostic atheist for quite some time. Agnosticism is not a position on belief in God, it’s a position on whether you think it’s possible to know whether God exists.

A=without, gnostic= knowledge, ism=belief. You can still have faith in God without knowledge (aka fideism) or you can lack that belief (atheism).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Atheism: belief that there is NOT a God, aka “un-faith”

This bad definition has been covered.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Agnosticism: belief that the existence of God is unknowable, meaning there’s no faith but there’s no “un-faith” either

Actually it means that the person who says they are agnostic hasn’t answered the question as to whether they believe in God or not.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> I think that if you even have the slightest shred of doubt about your position (I’m thinking of **gobear** ’s earlier post), you can’t be an atheist. Atheism, like theism, requires 100% belief. Otherwise, you’re agnostic or nontheist.

Well, you would be wrong on several counts. Theism doesn’t require 100% belief, you could be like Kurt Wise (?) who said even if all the evidence for creationism were false, he would believe anyway (and be a fideist).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Babies can’t be theistic, atheistic, or agnostic anyway.

I disagree.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> To adopt a philosophy means that you’ve considered it.

Atheism is a philosophy now?? When did that happen? Outside of a lack of belief in God/Gods, what other tenant do atheists hold (cause it ain’t naturalism).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Consideration requires a self-conscious mind. Babies/toddlers are not self-conscious. Saying people under two are atheist is like saying animals are atheist. Nontheism doesn’t equal atheism.

You are misusing the term atheist based on the popular definition.

Nontheism is atheism based on the route meaning of the word.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/208 "2004-12-02T12:22:23Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> (cause it ain’t naturalism).

BTW-in order to be clear, I’m not implying that atheists can’t be naturalistic, just that atheists don’t have to be; as I’ve encountered atheists who believe in a whole manner of supernatural things (including vampires).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/209 "2004-12-02T13:18:27Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Not at all, I was an agnostic atheist for quite some time. Agnosticism is not a position on belief in God, it’s a position on whether you think it’s possible to know whether God exists.
> 
> A=without, gnostic= knowledge, ism=belief. You can still have faith in God without knowledge (aka fideism) or you can lack that belief (atheism).

Wouldn’t a lack of faith be considered non-theism, not atheism? I mean, to me there’s a pretty big difference between asserting there is NO God (which has always been my definition of atheist), and not believing in God (which I’ve always called non-theism). Maybe it would be better to refer to the former as antitheism.

I honestly don’t understand how someone can be an agnostic antitheist (or theist). Maybe it’s just because I’m using admittedly narrow definitions for all these groups, but how can you oppose (not merely lack) faith in something if you’re not 100% sure of its non-existence? Likewise, how can you have faith, without knowing for 100% sure if you’re right? (Maybe I should start a Great Debate about this.)

> [@](#):
>
> Actually it means that the person who says they are agnostic hasn’t answered the question as to whether they believe in God or not.

Well, that’s one type of agnosticism. There’s another type that says that we can’t truly determine whether or not there is a deity, since any supernatural force would be easily able to cover its tracks and make it seem like there wasn’t a deity, and might have good reason to do so. That’s where I am.

> [@](#):
>
> Well, you would be wrong on several counts. Theism doesn’t require 100% belief, you could be like Kurt Wise (?) who said even if all the evidence for creationism were false, he would believe anyway (and be a fideist).

Never heard of Kurt Wise, so I googled him. I think that’s more a sad case of indoctrination than anything else. Even the majority of theists I know admit that creation is just a parable. Though I guess my beliefs aren’t that much different–even if it could be “proven” that there is/is not a God, I don’t think I could accept that, because I think a supernatural force could cover (or not cover) its tracks however it wanted, thereby making any “proof” subject to debate. But I still don’t think that man should be teaching science. Even if he’s going for the Omphalos hypothesis, it’s pretty clear that there has to be some things about the observable world that put a pretty big damper on his Scriptural belief. It’s amazing to think that someone would reach that high a level of education and still believe in the literal seven-day creation.

Slight tangent: what sort of evidence would you have to observe to admit the possibility of a supernatural force/God?

> [@](#):
>
> I disagree.

On which part? The part about babies being non-self-conscious? Or the part about how belief in any philosophy requires self-consciousness?

> [@](#):
>
> Atheism is a philosophy now?? When did that happen? Outside of a lack of belief in God/Gods, what other tenant do atheists hold (cause it ain’t naturalism).

What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy?

> [@dictionary.com](#):
>
> Philosophy: Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

It’s a statement on the essential structure of reality. Sounds like a philosophy to me; just as much a philosophy as theism and agnosticism.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/210 "2004-12-02T13:33:58Z")

</div>

What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy? How about a term needlessly foisted on people who grew up and just quit believing in myths and invisible magical all-powerful genies? Remember, we are all atheists to a degree-you could spend all day dismissing the hundreds(if not _thousands_) of dieties you don’t believe in, and I’m pretty sure none of you have gone through the trouble of doing the extensive research that would be needed to find the evidence to do so for each and every one of them, and I just disbelieve in one more than you do. If you want to label this a “philosophy”, then fine. Is your disbelief in Santa Claus a philosophy in and of itself? How about your disbelief in the existence of Zeus, Odin, Kali, or any of the countless other entities that others have worshipped?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/211 "2004-12-02T13:46:12Z")

</div>

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Wouldn’t a lack of faith be considered non-theism, not atheism? I mean, to me there’s a pretty big difference between asserting there is NO God (which has always been my definition of atheist), and not believing in God (which I’ve always called non-theism). Maybe it would be better to refer to the former as antitheism.

It would be considered both non-theism and atheism, as those words both express a lack of belief in God. Atheists don’t have to assert that there is no God, that position is known as ‘hard atheism’.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> I honestly don’t understand how someone can be an agnostic antitheist (or theist).

A hard atheist isn’t an agnostic atheist (AFAIK), as they don’t express doubts on ‘knowledge’ of God.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Maybe it’s just because I’m using admittedly narrow definitions for all these groups, but how can you oppose (not merely lack) faith in something if you’re not 100% sure of its non-existence? Likewise, how can you have faith, without knowing for 100% sure if you’re right? (Maybe I should start a Great Debate about this.)

I think your definitions are the problem, to be frank. Atheism doesn’t oppose or assert 100% confidence in God’s non-existence, it just asserts a lack of belief.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Well, that’s one type of agnosticism. There’s another type that says that we can’t truly determine whether or not there is a deity, since any supernatural force would be easily able to cover its tracks and make it seem like there wasn’t a deity, and might have good reason to do so. That’s where I am.

That seems to be the same type from where I’m sitting. Agnosticism isn’t a ‘third’ position on whether one believes in God or not-it doesn’t address the question as to whether one believes in God despite lack of definitive knowledge. That question would be answered by the agnostic when they express either fideism or atheism.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Never heard of Kurt Wise, so I googled him. I think that’s more a sad case of indoctrination than anything else.

True, but I’m using it as an example of fideism despite gnostic knowledge.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Even the majority of theists I know admit that creation is just a parable.

I don’t know if, personally, the majority of theists I know accept creationism as a parable. I’d like to think so, but I’m not certain (in that I haven’t really asked all of them).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Though I guess my beliefs aren’t that much different–even if it could be “proven” that there is/is not a God, I don’t think I could accept that, because I think a supernatural force could cover (or not cover) its tracks however it wanted, thereby making any “proof” subject to debate.

Right, so you would be an eternal agnostic as to whether knowledge of God is truly knowable.

My question is, what God do you accept as possible or not possible? What God do you believe in despite your agnosticism (or what God don’t you believe in)?

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> But I still don’t think that man should be teaching science. Even if he’s going for the Omphalos hypothesis, it’s pretty clear that there has to be some things about the observable world that put a pretty big damper on his Scriptural belief. It’s amazing to think that someone would reach that high a level of education and still believe in the literal seven-day creation.

I agree.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Slight tangent: what sort of evidence would you have to observe to admit the possibility of a supernatural force/God?

Personally? Well, first I’d need to know a lot more about what God would be, if a God existed. Since I perceive that there are nothing but unsatisfactory (and contradicting) definitions of the term ‘God’, I can’t actually say what evidence I would accept. So before I even get to that stage, I need a coherent definition. Does this mean you need one or that anyone else needs one to believe? Not necessarily, after all, billions of people believe despite what I perceive as an incoherent definition.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> On which part? The part about babies being non-self-conscious? Or the part about how belief in any philosophy requires self-consciousness?

Again, the problem is definitions; by my definition of atheist, babies are atheists-as is anything that doesn’t have God belief (animals would fall under this definition as well).

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy?

It’s a stance on a particular question and that’s it. Now, don’t get me wrong, it can be incorporated into many philosophies, but in and of itself it’s not a philosophy.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> It’s a statement on the essential structure of reality.

The structure of reality? Perhaps it’s a tangental question, but it’s not all inclusive, as atheists can believe in an afterlife and can believe in the supernatural. I’ve met self describe atheists of both sorts.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Sounds like a philosophy to me; just as much a philosophy as theism and agnosticism.

I don’t consider theism or agnosticism philosophies either; certianly they can be included in philosophies, but in and of themselves they are just answers to specific questions about God.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/212 "2004-12-02T13:50:33Z")

</div>

> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> What would atheism be if it wasn’t a philosophy? How about a term needlessly foisted on people who grew up and just quit believing in myths and invisible magical all-powerful genies? Remember, we are all atheists to a degree-you could spend all day dismissing the hundreds(if not _thousands_) of dieties you don’t believe in, and I’m pretty sure none of you have gone through the trouble of doing the extensive research that would be needed to find the evidence to do so for each and every one of them, and I just disbelieve in one more than you do.

That’s actually another very important point.

Throughout history people have been considered atheists _because_ they don’t believe in the accepted God of society. The earliest example that immediately springs to mind is that of Socrates who was brought up on charges (and ultimately put to death) which included (but weren’t limited to) atheism. Throughout his apology Socrates said that he wasn’t an atheist and in fact could not be one because he believed that a daemon was instructing him (not to mention the whole fact that his ‘quest’ relied on a prophecy from the Oracle of Apollo).

Christians in ancient Rome were considered atheists because they rejected the Roman pantheon.

> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> If you want to label this a “philosophy”, then fine. Is your disbelief in Santa Claus a philosophy in and of itself? How about your disbelief in the existence of Zeus, Odin, Kali, or any of the countless other entities that others have worshipped?

You could use this statement against the assertion that atheism is a religion as well.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/213 "2004-12-02T13:53:53Z")

</div>

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> I’m pretty sure gravity is considered a law, not a theory.

You’d be partially wrong I’m afraid. [If string theory is a theory of gravity, then how does it compare with Einstein’s theory of gravity?](http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html)  
Much like evolution, gravity is a fact, or law (we know it’s happeneing) and a theory, there are even various models with data to support them which claim to be the math-behind-gravity.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Along those same lines, I’m also pretty sure micro-evolution is considered scientific law, since we have the ability to see it happen with our own eyes.

[totally wrong.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution) And this is something that bugs the hell out of me. ‘anti evolutionists’ always bring this shit up. Well, news for you, micro and macro evolution are both evolution.  
[Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.](http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm)

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> Law (third definition): a set of observed regularities  
> Theory (sixth definition): an explanation **for an observation or series of observations** \* that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence\*

Bolding and italics mine.  
Hopefully this points out your mistake.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> (Note: I’m not saying I don’t believe in macro-evolution, just that it’s called a theory for a reason, namely because we cannot go back in time and observe it ourselves.

Um, no.  
Hypothesis= educated guess  
Theory= falsifiable, testable, repeatable framework to explain phenomona.

> [@continuity eror](#):
>
> It’s highly possibly that if human beings survive another few thousand millennia, and can see the branching off of specie and genus groups with our own eyes, that macro-evolution will become scientific law. The difference is technical, but it’s there.)

The difference is nonexistant.  
Evolution is evolution.  
Micro and macro just apply to the specific lense you use to look at it.

**Czarcasm** : [Still can’t get a straight answer as to why Zeus isn’t cool but God is.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5554290&postcount=62)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/214 "2004-12-02T14:00:29Z")

</div>

> [@Liberal](#):
>
> If you thought highly of me, you wouldn’t launch such a ridiculous salvo as that.

**Lib** [What color hair to bald people have on their heads? If that sounds like a nonsensical question, congratulations! You’re right, it is nonsense. If you’re bald, there is no hair on your head and, therefore, no head-hair to have any color. It’s a contradiction in terms. Unfortunately, not everyone realizes this - there are still those out there who imagine that an absence of some particular item or belief leads us to all sorts of grand conclusions.

Case in point is The Raving Atheist, who continues to assert that when we learn that a person is an atheist we are somehow able to make conclusions about their ideology:

```
Metaphysics, according to my dictionary, is “a division of philosophy that is concerned with ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.” Plainly, then, atheism contains metaphysical convictions, having quite a bit to say about each of those subjects. 

```

Ummmm… no. Atheists often have something to say about those subjects and atheists have metaphysical convictions, but atheism - by itself - has nothing to say about those subjects. Atheism is not a philosophy, like materialism or idealism. Atheism is not connected with any particular view about the cosmos, it isn’t connected with any particular view about reality, and so forth. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no metaphysical, epistemological, moral, political, or other convictions that a part of atheism.]([Atheism and Agnosticism](http://atheism.about.com/b/a/045793.htm))

In other words, it’s an old atheist joke.  
And it makes perfect sense.  
In order to highlight the absurdidty that atheism is a belief, the comparsion that ‘bald is a hair color’ is made. The obvious point being that bald is, in fact, not a hair color, but a lack of hair. Atheism is not a ‘belief color’, it is a lack of belief.

So yeah, one wonders why you are debating this issue.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/215 "2004-12-02T15:34:39Z")

</div>

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> No. It is an observed _fact_ that evolution occurs over a small amount of time (that which can be observed by human beings) in certain species. The _theory_ is that it occurred for _all_ life since the beginning of time and that is how all species have come into being.

Not true.  
First, it is an observed fact that evolution occurs. Stop. Strike the rest. Time plays a role in certian evolutionary processes, but evolution occurs regardless of the time frame. And, I will note, if you can already admit that ‘micro’ evolution occurs, is it really so hard to picture it, well, continuing?  
Also, theories of abiogenesis are different from theories of evolution.  
Just like anti-evolutionsts often bring up the big bang, which is also not part of the theories of evolution.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> This is the theory that is supported by the overwhelming majority of observable facts.

Fundamental error in method.  
In Religious argumentation, a ‘truth’ is taken as given, and then facts are looked for to support it.  
In the case of evolution, the data points exist, and then a cohesive explenation is crafted around them.  
The direction of inquiry is **very** important.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> This is the only theory that currently makes sense based on the facts that we are aware of.

There are several theories of evolution.  
There is only one fact, and that is that evolution occurs.  
We’re just not sure as to the exact math. (wow, deja vous!)

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> You know damn well that every time a reputable scientist attempts to teach evolution, it is described as the **theory** of evolution. Because that is the scientific method.

No, they teach a theory, or theories of evolution.  
But evolution occurs even while we’re working out the correct theory.  
Just like gravity was real even when we switched from Newton, to Einstein, to String Theory, etc…

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> But your attempt to be pedantic about it only clarifies my point. People too frequently confuse the role of science vs the role of religion

Right.  
Science tells us what is true. (to a reasonable standard of proof)  
Religion tells us what we’d like to be true. (and is totally ‘immune’ to proof or refutation)  
Oh, and, by the way, science does explain **why** things happen, it just relies on causation rather than hokey metaphysics.  
You see, unless you believe there is a Reason and Why to our lives, you won’t ever look for one.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> No, creationism has absolutely no place in science courses. \<snip\> it isn’t because religion is invalid or imaginary

Yes, it is.  
From a framework or logic, science, reason: religion is both invalid and imaginary when it proclaims to have gotten at Truths.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> It is because creationism has no scientific basis.

Cross off the word scientific and your sentence is correct.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> A religious work, which does not have to hold to the standards of the scientific method, should not be used as the basis of a science course.

Or as a basis for anything else that deals with reality.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> But by the same token, science does not take the place of religion.

Science does not aim to.  
Science talks about what is real.  
Religion, eschewing science, does not.  
In order to take the place of religion, scientists would have to just start making shit up.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> nor the source of faith,\<snip\>, nor the nature of faith.

Um… why is the nature of faith mystical now?  
You choose to believe something despite lacking factual confirmation or refutation.  
Simple, cut and dry.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> That is the role of religion. Biology and sociology and linguistics explain how I get so pissed off when people fail to understand this and resort to cursing at them on internet message boards. But Christianity explains _why_ I shouldn’t use profanity and why I should either ignore it or better yet wait until I can respond more calmly and with compassion.

No, christianity does not ‘explain why’. It states it. “Because we tell you to.”  
For proof of this, simply look to all the other religions which tell ‘explain why’ in a totally different manner and to different ends.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> And once again, you take your mis-interpretation of what I write in order to tell me how to act and how I should live my life. And I really wish you’d cut it out, because whether it’s out of compassion or whether it’s just out of a desire to flame me, it’s intolerably condescending and really, really fucking annoying.

Some fight ignorance, some let it crash on their couch for a few years.  
Different strokes.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> Tell you what, **gobear** : How about you let _me_ decide the kind of Christian I’m going to be and leave it between me and God?

Because we can’t ask God but we can look at your behavior versus your ideal?

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> If I’ve decided I’m no longer going to listen to any self-righteous, racist, homophobic Bible-thumping jack-ass who wants to tell me I’m going to hell because he chooses to lump me in with all the other liberals and the homos, why would I possibly listen to somebody who shows such a blatant disrespect for my beliefs as you do repeatedly and chooses to lump me in with “folks like you” and “you folks”, meaning what? Christians? Theists in general? Southerners?

Theists.  
Y’all. You folk. You, who are tipified by a chosen belief in theism.  
And, the difference is that bible thumpers are basing their conclusions off something totally non-scientific, namely religion.  
Those who point out that your beliefs are irrational do so from the point of view of reality.

And, I’ve never gotten this wackyness.  
Why on earth does anybody have to respect a ridiculous belief?  
Respect the person, realize that they hold some bad beliefs.  
Seems simple.

I can and will tollerate your right to have whatever religion you want and to express it as long as you do not harm another soul.  
I can and will choose to not tollerate the actual belifef as, to me, it is literally intollerable.  
But you are not your memes.  
Or, to put it in another way “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> You keep acting like you understand me, so tell me: which group are you lumping me in with, exactly? And why are you basing what I say on “folks like you” instead of actually reading **what I say**? You say my religion is just like being a Shriner or a Republican – how the fuck can you possibly presume to know what my religion means to me, or how I came to have the belief system that I have?

Immaterial.  
You have a ‘belief system’ not based on reality.  
It doesn’t matter if you worship Zeus or God.  
If you came to your religion via drugs or prayer or tantra.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> You claim to understand how pissed I can get; you have no fucking clue. I have no idea why you’ve got such a bug up your ass about organized religion, although knowing other stuff that has no place in this thread, and comparing it to my own experience growing up in the Bible Belt, I can definitely imagine a lot of scenarios that would cause that kind of prejudice.

Why does one have a ‘bug up their ass’ for pointing out that something is irrational, illogical, etc…  
If people said the moon is really made of green cheese, do we have to just let that slide as a charming bit of ignorance?

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> You’ve got your beliefs, fine, whatever. Just recognize that they’re _yours_, and when you insult _mine_, and insult me for believing them, **that** is when I react.

No, no, no.  
He has a lack of belief, and requires proof for what he does end up believing.  
You have an overabundance of belief not based on proof.  
Both “beliefs” are not equal.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> But I’m not an asshole about religion, because I believe it’s a personal thing for each person to decide for himself.

You are entitled to your own opinions.  
You are not entitled to your own facts.  
You don’t have to be an asshole to be wrong.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> And I sure as hell don’t understand why you and some others don’t understand that and acknowledge that, but instead try to impose your beliefs or lack thereof or other people, mocking and insulting them into submission by calling their beliefs “ignorance” or talking about their “imaginary” and “invisible” and “mythical” God.

Because religion is based on nothing real.  
And science is based on everything that is real.  
They’re not equal.

> [@SolGrundy](#):
>
> I don’t understand why you have to insult others to feel better about your own beliefs.

I, for one, do not.  
I do however feel a need to fight ignorance.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/216 "2004-12-02T15:36:19Z")

</div>

> [@Marley23](#):
>
> Buddy, dictionaries are guides to popular usage, not stone tablets that define words. But if you do want to play the dictionary pissing contest, Wikipedia provides the following:
> 
> _Etymology_  
> The term atheism (French athéisme, from athée, meaning atheist, from Greek 'Αθεος, atheos, meaning godless : a-, without; + Θεός, theos, meaning god; it has Indo-European Roots) is formed of the Greek prefix α- (a-), meaning “without” or “not,” and the Greek-derived theism (from Θεϊσμός, theismos), meaning a belief in a god. **The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god."**
> 
> Can you fucking more along now? Since there’s such a thing as proof, I don’t have to actively believe god doesn’t exist. And yes, this does mean that infants and agnostics are atheists. If you lack belief in god, you’re an atheist. That’s not what the word is popularly used to mean, which is what dictionaries tell you, but it does **accurately reflect the fucking etymology of the term**.

And you use ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left,’ I guess. Cool down and take a douche.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/217 "2004-12-02T15:44:35Z")

</div>

> [@bup](#):
>
> And you use ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left,’ I guess. Cool down and take a douche.

Actually you would be the one using ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left’, since you are the one accepting the useage of a word that doesn’t reflect what the term originally meant.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/218 "2004-12-02T15:54:06Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Actually you would be the one using ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left’, since you are the one accepting the useage of a word that doesn’t reflect what the term originally meant.

Actually, the word in latin for left hand is sinestra.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/219 "2004-12-02T16:01:09Z")

</div>

> [@bup](#):
>
> And you use ‘sinister’ to mean ‘left,’ I guess. Cool down and take a douche.

Hey, you’re the one who was telling me what I believe. And you’re the one who was wrong, not me. So I think I’ll pass.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [December 2, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/220 "2004-12-02T16:21:49Z")

</div>

> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> Actually, the word in latin for left hand is sinestra.

Ah, if that’s the case, then I misunderstood what he was trying to go for.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=10)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=12)