Merlyn_LeRoy

Oh, there's no end to non-scientific methods that claim to reveal information: praying, astrology, ESP, various religious scriptures, ouija boards, etc, etc. But I see no reason to think any of them are credible, just like reading goat entrails.

Ed, reading goat entrails can explain everything; the question is, why would anyone give such an explanation credibility?

Tahawk writes: Excuse me? I quoted the language from the BSA's website that shows that Buddhist Scouts are part of Boy Scouting and describes their beliefs. No mention of God or any deity by any other name there. Are you know arguing that BSA doesn't know what's on its own website? Are you arguing that the BSA doesn't know what their own legal website says, or what their own BSA representatives have stated in court under oath? And why would a description of Buddhism which omitted mentions of gods or any deities by any other names allow the BSA to assume that every Buddhist is an atheist? There are religions where god-belief is not a tenet of that religion and is left up to the individual followers.

Tahawk writes: But if the issue is whether "atheists" as I understand that word literally --those who no not believe in a theistic diety -- are admitted to Scouting, the answer is that they have been for 88 years -- and still are. Only if the national BSA doesn't know about them. That doesn't mean it's official policy.

Beavah writes: Wake me when scientists agree on how many mysterious, invisible, magic-at-a-distance forces exist, OK? Zero, since "magic-at-a-distance" is not within the realm of science. Now, if you'd like, science has figured out quite a lot about forces like gravity and electromagnetism to make useful predictions and invent things like computers. Are there any gods whose properties are agreed upon by all religions? No. And then don't forget that by "science" you mean a Western, European cultural construct that you're claiming should replace all of da other ways of looking at the physical world that other non-white cultures have used historically. Funny, scientists exist all over the world in all kinds of cultures and political systems, and they all agree on e.g. the earth being roughly spherical. Doesn't sound like that's limited to white, western europeans. Your notion of "science" as being "correct" is a cultural imperialist one, eh? Boy, people here can't read well at all. Both you and Ed somehow get the idea that I think science is infallible when I've clearly stated it can easily be wrong, and being wrong is one of the main mechanisms how science improves. RELIGIONS pretend to be infallible, not science. Having said that, it's due to science being wrong AND BEING CORRECTED that leads it to making useful models and predictions about the real world, and explains why science works the same in different cultures. Reality is the final arbiter. Now, are you going to apologize for disparaging reading goat entrails, or do you think that's a bogus way to glean knowledge?

Tahawk, BSA officials have testified under oath that atheists can't join. Are they guilty of perjury? In any case, you appear to agree that the BSA has religious membership requirements, and that some people are rejected if they don't meet them.

Beavah, religion is 'bunk' when it makes unsupported statements. Wake me when religions agree on how many gods exist, ok? Now, if all da science folks have conceded that science can't address ethics, I'm wonderin' what they propose to help humans learn and grow in that way, eh? How about "ethics"?

Tahawk, their websites and official spokesman have been saying for years that atheists can't be members; are you saying the BSA is wrong about its own policies? Also, Victor Iwamura, the chair of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting, is still trying to "influence the powers that be" on the issue of Buddhists omitting 'god': http://groups.google.com/group/rec.scouting.issues/msg/15ed2e62c872ccad If atheist Buddhists aren't a problem in the BSA, why does the chair of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting describe trying to influence the BSA on this as a "difficult struggle"?

Ed, ANY magical story is "possibly accurate," because introducing magic permits all objections to be answered with "it's magic" or "god did it." It just isn't useful for finding out information.

Ed writes: At one time it was thought to be 10,000 years old. That was based on the information & technology available at the time. That was not, however, based on the scientific method. Your example is also very myopic; other religious myths have very different ages for the earth. We now think the earth is "around" 4.5 billion years old. That is based on the information & technology available now. That estimate IS based on the scientific method, not on religious myths. You may as well argue that people used to think the earth was flat, based on the technology then, but now think it's round, so in the future we may think it's a cylinder. You're comparing a nonscientific statement to a scientific one.

No Ed, *you* don't really know how old the earth is. It's just over 4.5 billion years old.

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, Ed. Having all the answers and being infallible are the usual rubric of religions, not science. Being incomplete or even wrong at times is expected in science, that's one of the ways it improves knowledge. If you want an example of made-up stories, how about the creation of the earth. A lot of people think the earth is only about 10,000 years old, even though the only basis for this are bronze-age myths. (fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Tahawk, try this test: 1) inform BSA national of a BSA member who is an atheist. They can be a Buddhist too, just as long as they're an atheist. 2) See if national removes their membership BSA national has been pretty consistent of removing the memberships of atheists, and their official statements say that atheists can't be members. Your argument isn't with me, it's with BSA national.

Beavah writes: "If your point is that science is ill-equipped to advance human ethics, I tend to agree. So why load that responsibility on science? " Load that responsibility on science? Science assumes that responsibility when its Believers dismiss other fields of human knowledge and inquiry as being "just made up stories" or the same as readin' goat entrails. That's ridiculous on several levels. First, "reading goat entrails" IS religion. It doesn't matter that it doesn't happen to be yours. Do you think eating the flesh of a cracker-turned-god is eminently sensible? And religious stories ARE "made up stories," unless you're going to continue down the path of special pleading and say YOUR religion's stories are genuine, but the Egyptian sun god Ra didn't really have a falcon's head and didn't really exist. Second, MY denigration of religion is mine, not science's. If your religion doesn't make any claims about the material universe and sticks to mythology of an afterlife, science won't care (but *I* will still point out you're making up crap). Science only addresses what can be observed, and no afterlife can be observed, at least so far. Science doesn't bend to your misunderstandings of it. It doesn't directly address human ethics because that's not what science is. Science's stories about mysterious, action-at-a-distance, invisible "forces." Religion's stories about mysterious, action-within-our-soul, invisible God. And there's your usual equivocation. Reading goat entrails is a perfectly legitimate religious method to glean knowledge; just because YOU find it ridiculous doesn't change that. If you want "religion" to be respected, why don't you respect an ancient practice like reading goat entrails? Or are your own religion's practices familiar, while reading goat entrails is not, so you simply discard that as a method of gaining knowledge? Guess what? Plenty of people regard ALL religions the same way. If you can disparage reading goat entrails, why can't other people disparage what THEY see as absurd? Or are you the font of all "true" religion now? If you want YOUR religious views respected, why don't you respect reading goat entrails?

Tahawk writes: In short, ScoutersMom nailed it. Theism is not the test and has not been for a couple of generations. Sorry, the current BSA leadership insists theism IS the test now. Their official legal web page plainly states that atheists and agnostics can't be members. Sure, there are atheists unknown to BSA national in the BSA, but they get kicked out when they're found out. You'll also notice that in all the material you quoted, atheism is not indicated as acceptable. For just one example, Darrell Lambert was kicked out in 2002: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/31/atheist.scout.ap/ http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Irreverent%20Eagle.htm

Hey Gold Winger, if you want to live as if fairies are responsible for everything, go right ahead. No, there's no way to disprove ANY ridiculous statements that can be jury-rigged to mean anything, but such statements are worthless in understanding how the universe works. Beavah writes: I'd offer that both science and religion tell stories (aka theories, but also genuine tales) in an effort to build and pass along understanding. Yes, but science actually works. Religion is still stuck in the same position it was thousands of years ago. It never makes progress, because it isn't about anything, really. It's just made up stories, and one story is as interchangable as another. People pay attention to what Newton wrote about physics and calculus because it leads to useful answers; but hardly anyone pays any attention to what Newton wrote about religion. And beyond religion, there are other areas of human thought and endeavor which are also valuable. Art. Music. Literature. Poetry. Like religion, these should not be readily dismissed by the Believers in science. I don't know anyone who dismisses those; I only dismiss religion as far as it makes baseless statements of knowledge. Only you odd Science Fundamentalists refuse to acknowledge that bigger picture, eh? Wrong, that's your caricature of science, which you are obviously trying to paint as "just another religion," to bolster your silly equivocation. Tell you what, suppose a doctor checks your health and says your blood pressure is too high, and prescribes some drugs to lower it. However, your neighbor says he just sacrificed a goat and read its entrails, and he insists his entrail-reading says your blood pressure is too low, and you need to lower it by eating some mushrooms he picked this morning in the forest. You yourself feel no symptoms, which isn't unusual for people with problem blood pressure. So, do you believe the guy using science, or the guy using religion? Or do you say their advice has equal weight?

Beavah writes: As Merlyn correctly noted, in science nothing is proven absolutely. Nothin' different about religion, by and large. There you go equivocating again. Science does reach a consensus on many things and continues on from there; religion can't reach a consensus on anything, because there's no real knowledge there. Someone reading goat entrails is not comparable to medical science. Saying angels push planets around in their orbits is not a "theory" on par with orbital mechanics. And now you're going off like Ben Stein does, and criticizing branches of science for not being about what *you* apparently want them to be about. Science is a good way to *figure out how to do things in general*, whether that's feeding six billion people or murdering six million people. But that's because science is a method, a tool. If you want to criticize specific people for specific actions, do that, but blaming "science" is like blaming breadknives for stabbing deaths. Science is a method to find out what actually happens in the universe; religion are people making up stories to fill up their ignorance.

skeptic writes: Actually, theologians do agree on something. They believe that there is something beyond this life Uh, no. There are religions where people keep reincarnating into THIS life. That isn't something "beyond" this life. Some religions don't address an afterlife, like confucianism. and that there is an infinite something (call it God, Gods, spirit, greater life level. whatever)that is greater than our understanding and ourselves. Not true either; Buddhists can be atheists, for example. Also, at the core of most religions "most" means not all agree. is honest concern for others This is not a trait of religions, it's a trait of humans. Scientists believe the currently proven theories, Theories are never "proven;" there are theories that best model current observations. but fairly quickly move on when another apparently greater theory appears to be valid Of course! That's one of the key ways to improve human knowledge -- finding errors and correcting them. it is interesting that a large percentage of the greatest scientific minds admitted having faith in something greater than themselves It's also interesting that scientists are much more likely to be atheists than the general population.

Gold Winger writes: am I correct in my assumption that you own nothing that was made in China? Perhaps you could list what I own that's made in China. But that has nothing to do with the city of LA distancing itself from the discriminatory BSA by refusing to do business with them.

Beavah writes: Well, religious folks can agree on how many Dalai Llamas there are too, eh? That's a fairly direct observable. Exactly. Gods aren't observed. But as soon as yeh start talkin' about things yeh can't observe directly, those astronomers and physicists aren't any better than da theologians you disparage, eh? WRONG. Eeesh. They ARE better. They make correct predictions; they build up a clear consensus on what has been observed. Theologians do none of this. They can't even agree on how many gods there are, or any traits of these gods. They can't agree on how many mysterious, invisible forces there are, can they? Is one force really an aspect of da other forces? Is there a Grand Unified Force? You're talking about areas of science that are still in dispute. Scientists agrees that the earth orbits the sun -- this was once debated. It isn't any more. Thinkin' about science as a cut-and-dried, factual description of da world that's somehow "privileged" over other human ideas may be comforting to those who cling to that faith, eh? It isn't "privileged," it WORKS. Theology is no farther than where they were in the bronze age. You'd think after thousands of years, theologians could agree on.... well, something. But they don't. It's like arguing over the color of leprechaun hair. But recognize it for what it is, eh? Just another system of belief. So reading goat entrails is just as good for diagnosing illness as modern medicine? Hey, they're both just systems of belief, so they're both equally valid, right?

Beavah writes: You're not really gonna claim that astronomers agree on everything, eh? Of course not, and I haven't. But they agree on basic things like how many suns our solar system has. Theologists can't even agree on how many gods exist. Both science and religion make up theories to try to describe da mysteries of the universe, based on observation and experience. Now you're equivocating. Modern medicine is on par with reading goat entrails, since both are used to diagnose what's wrong with a person. Creationism is on par with evolution, even though only one is a scientific theory.

Some people dislike discrimination so much that they won't associate with a discriminatory organization to save a few bucks. It's called having principles.

Beavah writes: Or, Merlyn, it's an appeal to da science crowd to have a little bit of humility, eh? As opposed to creationists, who say the creator of the universe is a personal friend of theirs? Should scientists be humble by saying geocentrists, flat-earthers, or creationists might be right? Is belief in God really that much different than belief in invisible air molecules or mystical "pressure"? Vastly. Notice that airplanes can really fly. Make something fly using just the power of a supposed "god." Or cure illnesses, something gods are supposed to be good at -- if they were at all good at it, humans wouldn't need to develop modern medicine. Or even have everyone agree how many gods there are; astronomers agree our solar system only has 1 sun. Why can't theologists even get that far? How can you even talk sensibly about gods when there isn't even enough consensus on how many there are supposed to BE? It's no better than debating what color hair leprechauns have.

Yes, I do. BSA's website: http://www.scouting.org/venturing/venturinglocator.aspx Look up zip code 21401; Crew 202 is chartered by "Md Dept of Natural Resources"

Here's what the official BSA legal website says: http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a volunteer Scout leader or member? A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it addresses the issue of duty to God before duty to country, others, and self. Tahawk writes: Buddhists, Jainists, and non-theist Hindus are in Scouting and their religious awards are recognized by Scouting. Therefore, for anyone to say that Scouting requires theism in its members is simply inaccurate. BSA reps have stated under oath in court that atheists cannot be members. I think the BSA doesn't realize that Buddhists, Jainists, Hindus, Jews, etc. can also be atheists.