They want to charge you for using the sun now

[MurphyGuy]

It's disingenuous to say that anybody who believes in creation believes in a "magical sky fairy". There's a difference in believing that life wasn't random, and believing every word in the Bible (or whatever text), a book written, and heavily edited, by man.

Not really. Logical analysis provides three choices, 1) Believe 2) Not Believe 3) Null
Option 1 is reached through forced indoctrination of young children. (that should be a warning sign for most people with common sense)
Option 2 is reached through rejection (the reasons for which are many with some good and some really silly)
Option 3 is the only logical path.

I think that most compelling argument for creation is the point of life,

What does that mean? What "point of life" ?

and the concept of an irreducibly complex machine, as it relates to basic cellular reproduction.

Some life forms have just over 525 genes. That isn't even more complex than the average person's capability to remember if they tried.
So while some life forms are extremely complex, complexity is not a requirement.

It's entirely possible that life was random, and just happened. Anybody who claims to "know" otherwise is full of crap. That being said, this is what I BELIEVE to be true.

Humans created god to answer questions. Humans are hardwired to seek answers to our questions, the problem is, in the absence of good answers, we tend to accept bad ones.

Let's say you did in fact find all of the "pieces" you needed to make life, just floating around in our primordial Ocean, just waiting to be assembled.

We have already done that..

Let's just say they happen to come together to form a strand of DNA. The chances of this are about as good as taking a dead deer in a box, sterilizing it, shaking it up for a few billion years, and expecting the entire tree of life to come out. I guess it's possible, but talk about faith. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that we still have not created LIFE from nothing. Maybe we will one day, I'd be very excited if that happened.

Already done:

Artificial Life Forged in a Lab? Scientists Create Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life. Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and div

scitechdaily.com

One of the things humans are very VERY good at is figuring out nature and copying it. And once we copy it and have a better understanding, we tend to modify things to make it work for us. Presto, you have lights at night, antibacterial medications, light beer, and internal combustion engines.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that did in fact happen, that somehow random pieces of molecule were able to chemically bind together in the perfect way to form a strand of DNA. Now what? How does a single strand of DNA go about turning into a single cell organism? There's a lot of missing pieces there, and that's the concept of an irreducibly complex machine comes in.

While humans and other macroscopic "animals" are complex, simple bacteria and viruses are not always in the same boat. Evolution is normally a very slow process, but it can happen right in front of your eyes under certain conditions. When scientists investigate antibacterial resistance, they can watch bacteria evolve to resist the drugs on a time scale that is measured in hours.
The larger the organism, the more complex it is, the more time it takes to change.

If you want to change the function of a steel angle bracket, you hit it with a hammer and maybe drill a hole.. takes 5 minutes. But if you want to change the function of a building, it takes far longer and far more effort.

In order for a living organism to reproduce, it has to be complete to start with. You can't just have a half a nucleus and a third of a mitochondria start making cytoplasms and cell walls. To start with, I would argue there has to be an entire functioning system to reproduce into an other functioning system.

See link above.

Michael Behe is the guy who coined the idea, and wrote a few books on it as well, he does a much better job explaining this than I do.

The deeper I get into this topic, the more I understand that nobody knows shit.

ID’s Top Six — The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines | Evolution News

There is no known cause, other than intelligent design, that can produce machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts.

evolutionnews.org

enjoy reading critiques and criticisms just as much as I enjoy reading theories that I already subscribe to, and would be happy to defend my position.

This is a game that has been played for hundreds of years. Religion makes a claim, puts on display something we can't yet do, and postulates that since it is impossible for humans to replicate, it must be god. A really bad argument, but most people have really poor analytical skills so it works.

Then of course, technology catches up, humans figure it out, and then religion moves on to the next thing we haven't yet done and the process repeats. Remember the "missing link" between primates and humans? You don't hear about that anymore as an argument do you? That's because we have all the fossils now, from full blown primate to full blown human. We even have fossils of intermediate branch species that didn't last long.

So the church no longer pursues that argument and their gullible followers are guided in a different direction. That's the power of childhood indoctrination.

Most people do not understand science or technology, which is kind of weird since their lives all fully depend on it.

 

[A.Justice]

Not really. Logical analysis provides three choices, 1) Believe 2) Not Believe 3) Null
Option 1 is reached through forced indoctrination of young children. (that should be a warning sign for most people with common sense)
Option 2 is reached through rejection (the reasons for which are many with some good and some really silly)
Option 3 is the only logical path.

When you say "believe" without context, that leaves a indiscriminate door open for whatever. Some people "believe" that if they blow a bunch of people up they go to heaven with dozens of virgins. Some people believe that some dead guy will come back thousands of years later to save their soul. Some people believe that the chances of life being randomly created are smaller than the chances of it having some sort of external help, from some "realm, or dimension" beyond our understanding. Some people believe that a bunch of random mud and molecules somehow it turned into every piece of life we see today.

I would agree that some of those beliefs might come from childhood indoctrination, but some of them are also rooted in scientific research.

What does that mean? What "point of life" ?

What I mean by that is the initial point that biological life started. The point where we went from an inanimate object, to a functioning organism.

Some life forms have just over 525 genes. That isn't even more complex than the average person's capability to remember if they tried.
So while some life forms are extremely complex, complexity is not a requirement.

But a base level of complexity is, in order for reproduction to happen.

Humans created god to answer questions. Humans are hardwired to seek answers to our questions, the problem is, in the absence of good answers, we tend to accept bad ones.

I don't disagree with that statement.

We have already done that..


Already done:

Artificial Life Forged in a Lab? Scientists Create Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life. Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and div

scitechdaily.com

"Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab."

From your link.

No, they didn't "make" life. They modified something that already existed. On top of that, that cell was created by intelligent design, under tightly controlled conditions.

One of the things humans are very VERY good at is figuring out nature and copying it. And once we copy it and have a better understanding, we tend to modify things to make it work for us. Presto, you have lights at night, antibacterial medications, light beer, and internal combustion engines.


While humans and other macroscopic "animals" are complex, simple bacteria and viruses are not always in the same boat. Evolution is normally a very slow process, but it can happen right in front of your eyes under certain conditions. When scientists investigate antibacterial resistance, they can watch bacteria evolve to resist the drugs on a time scale that is measured in hours.
The larger the organism, the more complex it is, the more time it takes to change.

If you want to change the function of a steel angle bracket, you hit it with a hammer and maybe drill a hole.. takes 5 minutes. But if you want to change the function of a building, it takes far longer and far more effort.


See link above.


This is a game that has been played for hundreds of years. Religion makes a claim, puts on display something we can't yet do, and postulates that since it is impossible for humans to replicate, it must be god. A really bad argument, but most people have really poor analytical skills so it works.

That is absolutely historically accurate. People make all kinds of ridiculous claims about what they understand "God" to be, and religion has been used to manipulate millions of people over the years.

Then of course, technology catches up, humans figure it out, and then religion moves on to the next thing we haven't yet done and the process repeats. Remember the "missing link" between primates and humans? You don't hear about that anymore as an argument do you? That's because we have all the fossils now, from full blown primate to full blown human. We even have fossils of intermediate branch species that didn't last long.

So the church no longer pursues that argument and their gullible followers are guided in a different direction. That's the power of childhood indoctrination.

Ironically enough, I broke from the church as a young adult because I didn't believe in it. As I learned more about the topic of creation, I started to realize that it's much more scientifically viable than people make it out to be. I guess that makes me a special kind of idiot then, huh? ?

I don't personally have a problem with the existence of creation, and evolution. I think something had a helping hand in the initial start, but I have no reason to think that life couldn't have evolved more "naturally" from there. You see real evidence of adaption (or evolution, depending on how you want to define it) everyday, that's undeniable.

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't completely believe in the Bible. I'm not referring to any sort of religious creation story.

Most people do not understand science or technology, which is kind of weird since their lives all fully depend on it.

I agree.

 

[timselectric]

Looks like another thread has completely gone off the rails. lol

 

[MurphyGuy]

When you say "believe" without context, that leaves a indiscriminate door open for whatever. Some people "believe" that if they blow a bunch of people up they go to heaven with dozens of virgins. Some people believe that some dead guy will come back thousands of years later to save their soul. Some people believe that the chances of life being randomly created are smaller than the chances of it having some sort of external help, from some "realm, or dimension" beyond our understanding. Some people believe that a bunch of random mud and molecules somehow it turned into every piece of life we see today.

I would agree that some of those beliefs might come from childhood indoctrination, but some of them are also rooted in scientific research.

Beliefs are either rational or irrational. Irrational beliefs are based on wishful thinking, feelings, hope, desperation, myths, etc. Rational beliefs are based on evidence, observation, statistical analysis, historical precedent, etc.

All religious beliefs are irrational. (correct or wrong will never be answered)
All scientific beliefs are rational. (being correct or wrong is usually eventually answered)

One can have irrational beliefs about anything, but rational ones require qualifications, quality checks, etc.

What I mean by that is the initial point that biological life started. The point where we went from an inanimate object, to a functioning organism.

Where do you draw the line? A virus is a functioning organism, but it's not alive. Few things are so black and white. How much of a leap between a virus and something that makes its own way?

 

[MurphyGuy]

Looks like another thread has completely gone off the rails. lol

Ah yes.. most of us call it "chit chatting"

 

[A.Justice]

Beliefs are either rational or irrational. Irrational beliefs are based on wishful thinking, feelings, hope, desperation, myths, etc. Rational beliefs are based on evidence, observation, statistical analysis, historical precedent, etc.

All religious beliefs are irrational. (correct or wrong will never be answered)
All scientific beliefs are rational. (being correct or wrong is usually eventually answered)

I would also like to point out that I find there to be a big difference between the topic of creation, and religion. While they can definitely be intertwined, they are also separate in a lot of ways. I think it could be described as "science beyond our understanding". I'm definitely not saying it's all true, or "science" I just think it's one way to look at it.

One can have irrational beliefs about anything, but rational ones require qualifications, quality checks, etc.

I would actually agree that a lot of "religious" beliefs can be irrational. But just because something is irrational doesn't make it, in and of itself, wrong.

Where do you draw the line? A virus is a functioning organism, but it's not alive. Few things are so black and white. How much of a leap between a virus and something that makes its own way?

I see what you're saying. My personal definition of life would be an organism that's able to sustain itself. A virus, as far as I know, needs some kind of host to function, there's probably exceptions somewhere in nature, but even viruses are relatively complicated. Also, at some point the virus would have to make a jump to be a "true" living organism.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I would also like to point out that I find there to be a big difference between the topic of creation, and religion. While they can definitely be intertwined, they are also separate in a lot of ways. I think it could be described as "science beyond our understanding". I'm definitely not saying it's all true, or "science" I just think it's one way to look at it.

I would actually agree that a lot of "religious" beliefs can be irrational. But just because something is irrational doesn't make it, in and of itself, wrong.

I see what you're saying. My personal definition of life would be an organism that's able to sustain itself. A virus, as far as I know, needs some kind of host to function, there's probably exceptions somewhere in nature, but even viruses are relatively complicated. Also, at some point the virus would have to make a jump to be a "true" living organism.

"sustain itself" is a tricky definition. The only organisms that I'm aware of that can sustain themselves are plants. They suck up nutrients from the soil and convert co2 and sunlight into energy.

The rest of us need to feed off something else that is living in order to sustain ourselves.

 

[timselectric]

Ah yes.. most of us call it "chit chatting"

Better here, than in a useful thread. lol

 

[MurphyGuy]

"sustain itself" is a tricky definition. The only organisms that I'm aware of that can sustain themselves are plants. They suck up nutrients from the soil and convert co2 and sunlight into energy.

The rest of us need to feed off something else that is living in order to sustain ourselves.

Oh, just remembered, there's a type of bacteria deep in the ground that feeds off sulfur(?) to sustain itself.

 

[A.Justice]

"sustain itself" is a tricky definition.

You're right. I should have said able to reproduce, and gather its own energy. The things that would take to "sustain" the species into another generation, is I guess closer to what I'm trying to say.

The only organisms that I'm aware of that can sustain themselves are plants. They suck up nutrients from the soil and convert co2 and sunlight into energy.

The rest of us need to feed off something else that is living in order to sustain ourselves.

That does raise the question what the first organism fed off of. Even if they were sulfer, or other weird compound eating, why would they have suddenly switched to what would basically be cannibalism of its own species?

 

[A.Justice]

Better here, than in a useful thread. lol

Yeah, and the OP deleted their account. At this point, the thread is fair game, lol.

I enjoy these conversations with people who know what they're talking about, and don't resort to name calling.

 

[MurphyGuy]

You're right. I should have said able to reproduce, and gather its own energy. The things that would take to "sustain" the species into another generation, is I guess closer to what I'm trying to say.

That does raise the question what the first organism fed off of. Even if they were sulfer, or other weird compound eating, why would they have suddenly switched to what would basically be cannibalism of its own species?

Evolutionary changes have a number of causes. With simple organisms, environment is probably the biggest reason, then random mutations from radiation.
With higher forms of life, environment is still at the top, but probably very closely followed by the predator/prey relationship. Radiation doesn't play as big of a roll because higher forms of life evolve repair mechanisms.

Did you know that oak trees communicate with each other? Ever notice that acorns only fall heavily every so many years and when they do, all the trees do it together? It's an evolutionary adaptation of the oak tree that takes advantage of the squirrels, and does it in such a way that the acorns are spread further from each other. I was stunned when I read that little bit of information.

Intelligent design? Nope.. if intelligent design was true, I don't think evolution would be required.

 

[A.Justice]

Evolutionary changes have a number of causes. With simple organisms, environment is probably the biggest reason, then random mutations from radiation.
With higher forms of life, environment is still at the top, but probably very closely followed by the predator/prey relationship. Radiation doesn't play as big of a roll because higher forms of life evolve repair mechanisms.

Did you know that oak trees communicate with each other? Ever notice that acorns only fall heavily every so many years and when they do, all the trees do it together? It's an evolutionary adaptation of the oak tree that takes advantage of the squirrels, and does it in such a way that the acorns are spread further from each other. I was stunned when I read that little bit of information.

I hadn't heard of that specifically, but I knew there was different ways that plants could communicate. There really are some incredible things going on in nature. Like I said before, I don't disagree with evolution at some level, I just don't think the initial "spark" was random chance.

Intelligent design? Nope.. if intelligent design was true, I don't think evolution would be required.

I just see that in a different way I guess. I look at it like a computer engineer designing AI. He puts the software together, and has to let it learn on its own, but will step in at crucial points and make "administrative" changes to make sure the system keeps functioning, and then let it return to it's "natural" path.

It almost fits the simulation theory perfectly as well. We're all in a simulation, "God" is the software designer. Unknowable, all-powerful, omnipotent, and exists outside of and before our time. It actually fits pretty well if you think about it.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I hadn't heard of that specifically, but I knew there was different ways that plants could communicate. There really are some incredible things going on in nature. Like I said before, I don't disagree with evolution at some level, I just don't think the initial "spark" was random chance.

I just see that in a different way I guess. I look at it like a computer engineer designing AI. He puts the software together, and has to let it learn on its own, but will step in at crucial points and make "administrative" changes to make sure the system keeps functioning, and then let it return to it's "natural" path.

It almost fits the simulation theory perfectly as well. We're all in a simulation, "God" is the software designer. Unknowable, all-powerful, omnipotent, and exists outside of and before our time. It actually fits pretty well if you think about it.

If you think there is a "god", or an intelligent designer, because you refuse to believe complex life could arise through natural chance, then I have to ask: Where did the "god" or intelligent designer come from? Who created the intelligent designer?

Logical analysis is basically mathematics, and we learned in algebra 101 that whatever we do to one side of an equation to solve it, we must do to the other side as well. The same exact thing is true for any logical reasoning when solving a problem.

So if you can't reconcile the random occurrence of life happening on its own, how do you reconcile a god or intelligent designer existing?

The only possible answer is "the intelligent designer has always existed", which makes absolutely no sense, and is the irrational part of religion I mentioned.

 

[A.Justice]

If you think there is a "god", or an intelligent designer, because you refuse to believe complex life could arise through natural chance, then I have to ask: Where did the "god" or intelligent designer come from? Who created the intelligent designer?

Logical analysis is basically mathematics, and we learned in algebra 101 that whatever we do to one side of an equation to solve it, we must do to the other side as well. The same exact thing is true for any logical reasoning when solving a problem.

So if you can't reconcile the random occurrence of life happening on its own, how do you reconcile a god or intelligent designer existing?

The only possible answer is "the intelligent designer has always existed", which makes absolutely no sense, and is the irrational part of religion I mentioned.

I would say that the intelligent designer has always existed, inside of this "reality" or whatever you want to call it. Anything outside of this reality is, by nature, not comprehendable by things within it.

The cause of the universe had to have happened outside of time, space and material, because it created time, space, and material. Therefore the cause of the universe is timeless and immaterial.

If there's something operating outside of quantum laws, quantum laws and physics can't be used to describe it either. I mean, the entire universe was "created" from nothing right? There had to have been some sort of catalyst, and because that catalyst created time and space, it can't be within time and space.

I would check out some books by William Lane Craig, IIRC it's "Theism, Atheism and Big bang Cosmology" that go into this topic in depth. There's quite literally volumes written on this subject, you seem genuinely interested, it might be worth checking out.

There's also a book called "Case For a Creator" that goes over a lot of interesting stuff like this, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book holds water, but definitely raises a lot of questions. I'm pretty sure the past few things we've been talking about are covered in there, and those guys are professionals, and do a much better job at describing it than I do.

 

[LeoThomson]

So many books banned....

Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

PEN America's report on school book bans offers the most comprehensive look at banned books in the 2021–22 school year, with counting more than 2,500 bans.

pen.org

https://lithub.com/banned-books-teacher-fired-oklahoma/

 

[MurphyGuy]

I would say that the intelligent designer has always existed, inside of this "reality" or whatever you want to call it. Anything outside of this reality is, by nature, not comprehendable by things within it.

The cause of the universe had to have happened outside of time, space and material, because it created time, space, and material. Therefore the cause of the universe is timeless and immaterial.

If there's something operating outside of quantum laws, quantum laws and physics can't be used to describe it either. I mean, the entire universe was "created" from nothing right? There had to have been some sort of catalyst, and because that catalyst created time and space, it can't be within time and space.

I would check out some books by William Lane Craig, IIRC it's "Theism, Atheism and Big bang Cosmology" that go into this topic in depth. There's quite literally volumes written on this subject, you seem genuinely interested, it might be worth checking out.

There's also a book called "Case For a Creator" that goes over a lot of interesting stuff like this, I don't necessarily believe everything in the book holds water, but definitely raises a lot of questions. I'm pretty sure the past few things we've been talking about are covered in there, and those guys are professionals, and do a much better job at describing it than I do.

Postulating on unknown answers to the questions we have is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have with the whole creation path is that it leads to a god, which leads to religion, which leads to the many flavors of human subjugation and other evils.

And that's the crux of it. You postulate a creator, the next guy is telling women to be submissive and trying to baptize everyone.

As I said, we humans are wired to seek answers, but when we can't get good answers, we're gullible enough to accept bad ones.

 

[A.Justice]

So many books banned....

Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

PEN America's report on school book bans offers the most comprehensive look at banned books in the 2021–22 school year, with counting more than 2,500 bans.

pen.org

https://lithub.com/banned-books-teacher-fired-oklahoma/

Is a book really "banned" when it's just removed from a few school libraries? You can probably order them on Amazon, or find them in the public library without an issue.

In no way do I support the banning of books, but I agree that a line has to be drawn as to what content is available for children in schools. I have two kids, but quite frankly I'm not worried about them reading garbage, because I'd like to think that I've taught them not to believe everything they read, are told, or see on a screen.

Postulating on unknown answers to the questions we have is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have with the whole creation path is that it leads to a god, which leads to religion, which leads to the many flavors of human subjugation and other evils.

And that's the crux of it. You postulate a creator, the next guy is telling women to be submissive and trying to baptize everyone.

I actually agree with that 100%. People have a hard time separating things like this, and traditional religion.

I think in some ways, "science" (or pseudoscience, really) is the new religion. People are now using "science for the good of the people" to squash rights and exert control over the populace.

As I said, we humans are wired to seek answers, but when we can't get good answers, we're gullible enough to accept bad ones.

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

I've probably read a dozen or more of these types of books over the past 15 years and, as I'm sure you know, its all speculation. The authors were all raised with, and indoctrinated into, religious mentalities. Once a young brain is pushed into that, it's damn near impossible to break free of it, and the more they are indoctrinated, the harder it is.

I don't have any problems with speculation, that's were a lot of hard science has to start. But I'm not going to make decisions based on it until something is proved.

Maybe in another decade or so, I might pick up the latest book on the subject to see if anything has changed. For now, I just got done melting my brain with a book called "Something Deeply Hidden Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by Sean Carroll". If you decide to read it, make sure you have a bottle of aspirin nearby. I basically had to read each chapter 3 times.

 

[LeoThomson]

Is a book really "banned" when it's just removed from a few school libraries?

Yes. it is banned from the school library.

You can probably order them on Amazon, or find them in the public library without an issue.

And if a teacher posts a link to a library, they get fired.

In no way do I support the banning of books, but I agree that a line has to be drawn as to what content is available for children in schools.

Both can't be true.

I have two kids, but quite frankly I'm not worried about them reading garbage, because I'd like to think that I've taught them not to believe everything they read, are told, or see on a screen.

I applaud you for teaching kids to be critical, I can recommend "God is not great", worthwhile for those willing to question the premise that "God is great", it won't stop kids from believing in god(s), but it might reduce some of the crazy claims we see in religious extremists everywhere.

God Is Not Great - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And we should be careful how we teach, if we want to teach heterosexual relationships in the classroom, we should also be teaching all the other possible relationships as being "normal". I have a friend who tried (but luckily failed) to commit suicide as a teenager because she was being bullied for her sexuality. But things like gender change surgery might be better decided upon at the age of consent.

I think in some ways, "science" (or pseudoscience, really) is the new religion. People are now using "science for the good of the people" to squash rights and exert control over the populace.

I agree on pseudo science, but not every one agrees what that means. For example we have known since the late 1800's that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yet many religious conservatives, especially in the US, call that pseudo science. And we urgently do need to make rules on the where we dump the waste products from the burning of fossil fuels. Religion on the other hand has a history of squashing rights, the reason the Pilgrims fled England was because of religious persecution, we see religious nonsense in Iran, Israel and even in India.

I really suggest checking out "Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. It's a set of "brief" interviews with experts on a bunch of different theories for the existence of a creator. It's laid out scientifically, and analytically. It's not a super long book, but there's lots of references to longer texts if you want to go down the rabbit hole like I did.

There is no testable theory that proves or disproves the existence of any of the creator gods or any of the gods for that matter, so the correct term would be "hypothesis". Having said that, there might well be a "creator", after all technology like CRISPR and it's successors, will lead to the creation of "improved humans". And if it is taken far enough, possibly no longer even recognisable as humans we know today. The same could become true for Artificial Intelligence. Imagine we took this to perfection without destroying ourselves in the process, what will the world look like?

 

[A.Justice]

Yes. it is banned from the school library.

By that definition, an item would be "banned" if they didn't sell it on Amazon. If you can still legally obtain it, it's not banned. I think some of these articles are using the term "banned books" as a hot button word to get people fired up.

And if a teacher posts a link to a library, they get fired.

That sounds pretty shitty, I don't know anything about that.

Both can't be true.

I would prefer that the school library doesn't stock adult fiction "smut" novels for kids under 18. It's the same reason I don't keep erotica in my living room.

You don't think there should be ANY restriction on what they stock in children's libraries at public school, none at all? I'd like to see the original anarchist cookbook, as well as the CIAs declassified kitchen bomb making materials at every elementary school if that's the case, maybe we could even throw in some violent religious propaganda as well.

Like I said, I don't support the banning of any books, or the censorship of speech in any way. What I'm saying is that there's a difference between what reading material should be available to young children, more or less without parental consent, and what a consenting adult should be able to find at a library or online.

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

 

[LeoThomson]

By that definition, an item would be "banned" if they didn't sell it on Amazon.

Indeed, if amazon banned sellers from selling it, it would be banned on Amazon.

If you can still legally obtain it, it's not banned.

The Marshall University Libraries, which conduct research on banned books in the United States, have defined a banned book as one that has been "removed from a library, classroom, etc."

I think some of these articles are using the term "banned books" as a hot button word to get people fired up.

Banned Books Home

Banned Books 2022 - Marshall University - Page on books banned/challenged around the United States for various reasons over the past year - Ron Titus

www.marshall.edu

That sounds pretty shitty, I don't know anything about that.

It is, on top of that librarians have been threatened with violence as well.

A School Librarian Pushes Back on Censorship and Gets Death Threats and Online Harassment

Amanda Jones lost her legal battle against online harassers this week but vows to continue to press her case.

www.edweek.org

I would prefer that the school library doesn't stock adult fiction "smut" novels for kids under 18. It's the same reason I don't keep erotica in my living room.

"Smut" is in the eye of the beholder, in Iran a woman was beaten to death by the morality police because she did not wear a head scarf.

You don't think there should be ANY restriction on what they stock in children's libraries at public school, none at all?

If kids are curious, we should encourage them to learn about it, under adult supervision.

I'd like to see the original anarchist cookbook, as well as the CIAs declassified kitchen bomb making materials at every elementary school if that's the case, maybe we could even throw in some violent religious propaganda as well.

To my knowledge since it came out 50 years ago, the recipes used from the "anarchist cookbook" killed fewer people than (people with) guns killed in a single month and nothing is done about guns. If you want to ban extreme violence and rape, there are a lot of books to ban and you could start with the bible.

Like I said, I don't support the banning of any books, or the censorship of speech in any way.

But you do, you keep porn away from your kids (I don't have any in the house), but our kids will see it in school. I remember I saw my first playboy in grade 4 and found it quite boring. The only exiting thing at the time was that it was "not allowed"

What I'm saying is that there's a difference between what reading material should be available to young children, more or less without parental consent, and what a consenting adult should be able to find at a library or online.

Kids will find those books if they want to, if you normalize heterosexual relationships, you also have to normalize all the other relationships as you don't want kids to pick on others because they have two daddies. Want to keep heterosexual relationships out of the classroom as well?

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

Yes, we see it differently. I am looking for a world where it is ok for people to be different, I think we can agree we both want kids to be curious and encourage them to think for themselves and become curious and responsible adults. How can we do that if we do not encourage them to ask questions about life and the universe, even the uncomfortable ones?

Maybe I am more comfortable in my sexuality (heterosexual male) and that makes it easier for me to answer my kids questions truthfully in an age appropriate way as my parents did with me.

 

[MurphyGuy]

I think the discrepancy here is over the definition of the word "ban", I guess I see a difference between taking a book out of a school, and having it completely removed from circulation and print everywhere.

To my knowledge and understanding, the US Government does not have the authority to ban a book from being printed and distributed. That would kind of violate the 1st amendment in a big way.

 

[LeoThomson]

To my knowledge and understanding, the US Government does not have the authority to ban a book from being printed and distributed. That would kind of violate the 1st amendment in a big way.

What would happen if Trump had included the secret documents in a book, would the government have been able to prevent the publication?

 

[MurphyGuy]

What would happen if Trump had included the secret documents in a book, would the government have been able to prevent the publication?

I don't think freedom of speech extends to national security secrets.