As for the comments on Buddhism and God here is some text I got off this site.
"Here is what the late Dr. Suzuki, one of the greatest teachers of Zen Buddhism, says about his concept of God:
"If God after making the world puts Himself outside it, He is no longer God. If He separates Himself from the world
or wants to separate Himself, He is not God. The world is not the world when it is separated from God. God must be in
the world and the world in God.
Since Buddhism in general does not believe in a personal God or divine being, it does not have worship, praying, or
praising of a divine being. It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, heavenly hope, or final judgment. Buddhism is,
therefore, more of a moral philosophy, an ethical way of life.
Professor Kraemer describes the Buddhist system as "a non-theistic ethical discipline, a system of self training,
anthropocentric, stressing ethics and mind-culture to the exclusion of theology."
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on Buddhism. It you look at the basic tenets of Buddhism it's basically a 8
step plan to stop suffering in life. There's more to it of course.
Quote by EntropicForceGod
invented science...
Asumming there is a God. Also you comment that many "scientific" people don't do the experiments
themselves. First off it would be impossible given the amount of resources and time the average person has. There would
be almost no way you'd be able to repeat something like decades of AIDS research in your garage. It's not
practical. It'd be nice if you could but unlikely to happen. Second the scientific method has Peer Review where
other scientists around the world can check the work. They make sure that the results correspond with the experiment.
I'm not sure if this example applies to this but remember that cloned human scandal with that guy in Korea? He was
eventually found out and busted. It shows that the scientific community has a way of checking the work that is being
produced. Because of this I can feel fairly safe if I read something in a scholarly journal that that's how the
experiment went and those were the results achieved. Unless you are going to say that peer review does not work. It
could happen but I doubt it greatly.
On another note Einstein was not religious. He clearly said he was an agonostic. Check this site for more info.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically
repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is
in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds.,
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43."
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary
importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver,
especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The
Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216."
As you can see Einstein clearly is not religious. Einstein's position on God is often mixed up because he mentions
God many times. For instance, he refers to God when he talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the famous
"God does not play with dice" quote that many people refer to when talking about Einstein's religious
convictions. However, there is a great deal of evidence pointing to his agnostism.
Quote by squallkicksYES! A
god would HAVE to follow the rules of science to exist at all.
If a God is all-powerful he'd be able to make the impossible possible. He'd would be able to make a completely
perfect cube perfectly spherical at the same time. This is illogical and cannot work within the bounds of science and
logic. That would have to mean God would have to be NOT all-powerful. Does that still mean he is a God? Well that
depends on your definitions of God and divinity.
Also I think everyone should be open to all possibilities. However, you have to realize that not all things are equally
possible. Take for instance the Flying Spagetti Monster. It's POSSIBLE that he exists. After all he is supposed to
be invisible to all human methods of detection so he COULD exist. However, is he as likely to exist as something like
invisible gnomes in your ears that help you keep your balance. An open mind is good but a naive one isn't.
Quote: Archer79]On a more pertinent facet, who would you say has controls
of the schools then? ...When Prayer is discouraged within their doors, and the only premise for creation taught is
Darwinistic evolution. ...A theory that the creator himself disavowed, and has had numerous facts revealed that
contradict the textbooks, such as common attributes between forming fetuses, etc... ...To me, it would at least make
sense to present a balanced approach, where all 'could have beens' are addressed. ...However, it is not
permitted. ...No religious/historic beliefs are permitted other than those of Evolution.
Ah but you see the reason prayer is discouraged is due to the seperation of Church and State. US law requires that no
religion can be endorsed in any way by the government. Allowing prayer would go agaisnt that. However, that only applies
to public schools. In a private school you can pray all you want so long as you can convince the school officials to let
you.
Darwinistic evolution simply has the most evidence in its favor and is the strongest scientific theory on life so
that's why it is taught. While it is true that Darwin himself doubted his own work he did so because he could not
find the many "intermediate species" that his theory predicted. He could not find the so-called missing links
between species in the fossil record. However, since then many have been found. Also the fossil record does not hold all
the dead life forms that have ever existed. Only a small fraction of life forms can be and have been preserved as
fossils. I find it admirable that he could doubt his own work. It's the scientific method in action. Since his time
much much more evidence has been found to support his ideas. A lot of this about evolution and creatoinism has already
been discussed so look up the Evolution versus Creationism thread. It kinda died a while ago but it used to be really
active.
Anyways this balanced approach is impossible. After all there are thousands of differing religious/mythical/historic
ideas on life etc. If you teach the Christian view you'd have to teach the [insert random religion] views on it as
well. There's simply not enough time in a school year (a year of biology that is) to learn all that. Don't get
me wrong. I'm not saying you can't teach religion in school at all. I'm all for having religous studies
as an elective in school. You just can't teach religion in a SCIENCE classroom. You can only teach SCIENCE. To
teach religion as science would be something immensly foolish because the facts are very clear. Religion is NOT science.
Creationism is NOT science. Even if you assume it is Evolution still has a greater body of evidence supporting it.
Again like I said all this about evolution and creationism has been discussed to death already and I don't really
feel like having to repeat all the same stuff.
On another side note 111 Japanese yen = 1 US dollar. Meaning after I give you 1000 yen you'd only have $9. That
would take around 500 posts. Well patience is a virtue you know?
And that's my two yen and an end to a very long-winded post. Sorry for the length I'm bored.