Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Ususal Futile Religious War on PT and Elsewher

Pages: (9) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,21:55    Eric, you're standing on the edge of a slippery slope.  You question the judgement of people who believe in God?  Why, because you do not?  You are opposed to religion being forced upon and yet you set yourself up to commit the very same sin by evaluating people for beliefs that differ from your own.  Now is it religion or human nature?  (I guess it depends upon whether you believe atheism is religion) Earlier it was asked that if you removed religion would something else step to be just as divisive.  I'm inclined to think so but then I think it would ultimately be called religion, if you get my meaning.  The eternal question is a pretty big question and I think it will always dominate human thought.  Not a pretty outlook for the evangelical, militant atheists, huh?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,22:18    Have I ever shared with you all my concept of "insomesensism"? I don't care what anyone "believes". I'm willing to grant that, however bizarre or irrational their religion appears to me, I may be missing something. I probably am. "in some sense, their God, Jesus, Koran, Revelation of St. John... what have you, may mean something, in some way that I just don't get. Fine. As long as they don't try to proselytize me or my kid, or try to "them-ify" (as in "us" vs. "them") me and mine in the public square, I couldn't care less. But apparently some people feel that this position represents proselytizing on my part for atheism. (I'm speaking of the ID/creationism crowd.) As long as society bends over backwards to assure these folks that "In God we Trust" is OK on the coins; that "Pledge of allegiance... under God" is harmless; or (here in Ohio) the state motto being "With God, all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26) is just hunky-dory, is it any wonder they feel entitled to christianize the science curriculum? The trick is distinguishing between "tolerance" and "tolerance of intolerance". As long as people are speaking in broad generalities, and vilifying Person X without specific reference to a specific statement or action, I have no idea where they stand in that "tolerance to tolerance of intolerance" spectrum. Sorry. without these specifics, I'm going to dismiss your opinions out of hand. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,22:39    It seems as if both extremes overstep themselves.  After the removal of school prayer I guess the atheists thought The Pledge and "In God We Trust".  Maybe ID was the creationists attempt to get a little back.  Both instances are flawed for the same reason.  The vast majority of the public do not accept either premise.  Society as a whole does not bend over backwards to accept The Pledge and "In God we Trust", they are the norm and unthreatening.  Equally, society as a whole isn't threatened by evolution in science class.  They may not fully accept or understand the theory but within the scope of science education it is the norm also.  Thus there are no real popular movements to change either. Maybe we're entering a phase where the shrill extremes alienate themselves and moderation and tolerance surfaces as the prevailing modes of thought.  Boy, I really stepped fully into fantasy there, didn't I?

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2006,23:29    Quote Maybe we're entering a phase where the shrill extremes alienate themselves and moderation and tolerance surfaces as the prevailing modes of thought.  Boy, I really stepped fully into fantasy there, didn't I? Yeah, you are. For what it's worth, I personally believe that people have a right to proselytize. I never like when they do it to me, but it's free speech and anyway, what's the point of believing in something if you don't think it's right and that therefore everyone should believe it, too? So believers have a right to try to convert me and I have a right to try to convert (or corrupt) them. So we argue, make snarky comments, and disagree. That's freedom of speech. I see that as all Dawkins and PZ are doing. As far as I'm concerned it's nothing to do with evolution, which has some definite parallels with Christianity, in my opinion. (PZ and Dawkins would disagree with me there. Oh gasp, guess what, I think for myself.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,01:44    Fuck it. You all can think me as nasty as you like, but the sheer level of dumb being exhibited by Skeptic and others borders of the amazing. Find me ONE example of where I have claimed all religious people are stupid. Find me ONE example of where I have said religious people are not entitled to believe as they will. Find me ONE example of where I have said that no god at all exists, absolutely, certainly in every sense of the word. Find me ONE example of where I have said we should cast out the evil religionists from our midst and have nothing to do with them in the fight against fundies. I could go on. In each case you will not find a single example. People, STOP now. STOP claiming the arguments I am making are somehow the same as the strawmen in your heads. They are not. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOR LACK OF ABILITY TO FOLLOW AN ARGUMENT OR READ FOR COMPREHENSION. For Skeptic (or more properly Spastic, you've moved from the mildly annoying camp into the GoP camp of shrill dishonesty and total lack of comprehension). Why should anyone expect the parting of the Red Sea to be a real event. On what basis does one claim this to even possibly be a real event? Is there any evidence for it at all of any kind? If THIS event is claimed to be real (or possibly real) then why is the story surrounding the Trojan horse any less or more real, or Odysseus meeting Cassandra? The point here is simple. Claims like the parting of the Red Sea ONLY recieve any credence at all because they are claims made by current religions. A deist god who set the universe up and takes no part in it after that point is, at this time at least, totally undetectable by science or any rational means. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, it in no way offends me (very little does except wanton stupidity). In fact I have a very good friend who believes just this and as far as I am concerned he is just as correct in his belief in such a deity as I am in my lack of belief. The one question I (and indeed he) ask is this: why is this idea, the idea of a creator, non-interventionist god given any credence greater than that of say the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Oh and Spastic, my example was Cyril the Elephant, not Cyril the monkey. If it is different from a god concept please explain how (it really isn't by the way), rather than just shrilly asserting it and calling me names. Rather ironically you haven't understood one single point I've made and yet you claim they're stupid. Try harder dumbass! In the very loosest sense, yes all theists are creationists, but is that what the anti-creationist group here at ATBC are combatting? No. Is that what I am combatting? No. The creationists of which we speak are the OECs, the YECs, the IDCists. These are a minority amongst religious people, just as fundamentalists and extremists are a minority amongst theists. These creationists are making a fundamentally scientific series of claims. A 6000 year old earth is fucking different from a 4.6 billion year old earth.One (or neither) of these claims is true, they cannot both be true, they are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if we use the young earth claim, or we use one of a million other dumb claims (flagella didn't evolve, the clotting sequence can't evolve, the flood happened, yadda yadda yadda). Don't focus on the window dressing, focus on the phenomenon behind the claims. Creationists are making claims about the nature of reality. End of story. Those claims are open to falsification on the basis of the available evidence. End of story. To date, every single one of them has been falsified on the basis of the evidence. End of story. They COULD have been supported by the evidence, no on knew until they went and researched it, but they weren't. End of story. Next claim please. The relevant point of people like PZ and myself to this issue is that it isn't only the extreme  fringe of religion that makes testable claims. The deist god concept might not be testable (and therefore on a scientific basis is indistinguishable from fantasy. We simply can't use science to probe it's accuracy) but there are a whole swathe of god concepts that ARE scientifically testable. All we are saying is that to lie to people about the fact that science has and will falsify some or all of these testable god concepts does us all a disservice. It's patronising and dishonest to the theists and it doesn't serve the ends of the anticreationist movement because it fails to deal with the actual problem. Lenny says it best: why should anyone take my religious ideas more seriously than yours, his, the bloke down the street's ideas, or your hot food delivery merchant of choice? I absolutely do not claim to have the answer to the existance of god or gods. What I do claim is that it is possble to formulate god concepts that are open to rational disproof and millions people have done this millions of times. This is a clear indication that one person's religious claims that are not open to rational enquiry should be taken no more seriously than another person's untestable claims. Lenny's religious views are just as valid on a rational basis as mine are. I am more than happy to admit that, as is he. The problem with creationism is that it usually rears its ugly head as part of an unquestioning, unselfcritical dogma. Look at how creationists tie their religious interpretation of certain texts to their religious identity. I've had many creationists say that if their literal reading of Genesis is wrong then their whole faith in god is wrong. Firstly this simply isn't true, secondly this is a consequence of a culture and an ideology which fears rational enquiry and actively seeks to prevent it. It's not only religious ideologies that do this, look at Stalinism or Lysenkoism for examples (as I think I've said about 20 times now. It's nice to have your actual arguments ignored isn't it?). The problem is NOT religion but unquestioning adherence to dogma and ideology. The unfortunate thing is that this appears to occur in religions far more than in other areas of human endeavour. There are obvious reasons for this, religions on average tend to be ideological systems based on the faith in certain prospects, there are typically tenets that are beyond question, and there are typically aspects of that ideology that have no supporting evidence. There are exceptions, and there are non-religious ideologies that share these traits. The point is not that we atheists get our hackles up whenever someone mentions the word god, we don't (although I'm sure some do, but I don't) but that we see no reason to grant an automatic free pass to certain ideas, that are as flawed as other ideas, simply because they are religious. To close: please I beg you all, humbly and earnestly, and with no small degree of passion and frustration deal with my arguments as they are, not as you think they are. Louis P.S. Added in edit: I AM a nasty fucker, both on and off line. I suffer fools not at all and have won the international all comers intolerant bastard award every year for the last ten years. Life's far too short to be nice to total dishonest morons. What utter fuckwits like Spastic Colon, AmazinglyFoolishDimwit, and Gimp of Putresence fail to understand is that disagreement has nothing to do with it. I disagree with Lenny about loads of things, Nick Matzke too, and many people about many things. Guess what, as long as they're honest (and these guys are as honest as the day is long) I couldn't give a shit. I certainly don't claim to be right about everything, or even anything. I've learnt more from Lenny and Nick and PZ and Larry and Wesley and...... the list goes on than I'll ever be able to repay them in beers (beers they undoubtably deserve) precisely because of our disagreements. Listening to Lenny about religion and Marxism (doubtful any of them remember me from T.O. I haven't posted in ages) taught me a lot for example, and I'm not a Marxist or religious and disagree about some aspects of both. Disagreement is good. Dishonesty and subintellectual blather isn't. None of the people I disagree with do anything like it, excpet for the obvious muppets. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,01:53    Kristine, You made a comment that really interests me. Just what do you think the similarities between christianity and evolutionary biology are? Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,02:05    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 27 2006,01:44) Fuck it. You all can think me as nasty as you like, but the sheer level of dumb being exhibited by Skeptic and others borders of the amazing. Find me ONE example of where I have claimed all religious people are stupid. Find me ONE example of where I have said religious people are not entitled to believe as they will. Find me ONE example of where I have said that no god at all exists, absolutely, certainly in every sense of the word. Find me ONE example of where I have said we should cast out the evil religionists from our midst and have nothing to do with them in the fight against fundies. I could go on. In each case you will not find a single example. People, STOP now. STOP claiming the arguments I am making are somehow the same as the strawmen in your heads. They are not. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOR LACK OF ABILITY TO FOLLOW AN ARGUMENT OR READ FOR COMPREHENSION. For Skeptic (or more properly Spastic, you've moved from the mildly annoying camp into the GoP camp of shrill dishonesty and total lack of comprehension). Why should anyone expect the parting of the Red Sea to be a real event. On what basis does one claim this to even possibly be a real event? Is there any evidence for it at all of any kind? If THIS event is claimed to be real (or possibly real) then why is the story surrounding the Trojan horse any less or more real, or Odysseus meeting Cassandra? The point here is simple. Claims like the parting of the Red Sea ONLY recieve any credence at all because they are claims made by current religions. A deist god who set the universe up and takes no part in it after that point is, at this time at least, totally undetectable by science or any rational means. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, it in no way offends me (very little does except wanton stupidity). In fact I have a very good friend who believes just this and as far as I am concerned he is just as correct in his belief in such a deity as I am in my lack of belief. The one question I (and indeed he) ask is this: why is this idea, the idea of a creator, non-interventionist god given any credence greater than that of say the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Oh and Spastic, my example was Cyril the Elephant, not Cyril the monkey. If it is different from a god concept please explain how (it really isn't by the way), rather than just shrilly asserting it and calling me names. Rather ironically you haven't understood one single point I've made and yet you claim they're stupid. Try harder dumbass! In the very loosest sense, yes all theists are creationists, but is that what the anti-creationist group here at ATBC are combatting? No. Is that what I am combatting? No. The creationists of which we speak are the OECs, the YECs, the IDCists. These are a minority amongst religious people, just as fundamentalists and extremists are a minority amongst theists. These creationists are making a fundamentally scientific series of claims. A 6000 year old earth is fucking different from a 4.6 billion year old earth.One (or neither) of these claims is true, they cannot both be true, they are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if we use the young earth claim, or we use one of a million other dumb claims (flagella didn't evolve, the clotting sequence can't evolve, the flood happened, yadda yadda yadda). Don't focus on the window dressing, focus on the phenomenon behind the claims. Creationists are making claims about the nature of reality. End of story. Those claims are open to falsification on the basis of the available evidence. End of story. To date, every single one of them has been falsified on the basis of the evidence. End of story. They COULD have been supported by the evidence, no on knew until they went and researched it, but they weren't. End of story. Next claim please. The relevant point of people like PZ and myself to this issue is that it isn't only the extreme  fringe of religion that makes testable claims. The deist god concept might not be testable (and therefore on a scientific basis is indistinguishable from fantasy. We simply can't use science to probe it's accuracy) but there are a whole swathe of god concepts that ARE scientifically testable. All we are saying is that to lie to people about the fact that science has and will falsify some or all of these testable god concepts does us all a disservice. It's patronising and dishonest to the theists and it doesn't serve the ends of the anticreationist movement because it fails to deal with the actual problem. Lenny says it best: why should anyone take my religious ideas more seriously than yours, his, the bloke down the street's ideas, or your hot food delivery merchant of choice? I absolutely do not claim to have the answer to the existance of god or gods. What I do claim is that it is possble to formulate god concepts that are open to rational disproof and millions people have done this millions of times. This is a clear indication that one person's religious claims that are not open to rational enquiry should be taken no more seriously than another person's untestable claims. Lenny's religious views are just as valid on a rational basis as mine are. I am more than happy to admit that, as is he. The problem with creationism is that it usually rears its ugly head as part of an unquestioning, unselfcritical dogma. Look at how creationists tie their religious interpretation of certain texts to their religious identity. I've had many creationists say that if their literal reading of Genesis is wrong then their whole faith in god is wrong. Firstly this simply isn't true, secondly this is a consequence of a culture and an ideology which fears rational enquiry and actively seeks to prevent it. It's not only religious ideologies that do this, look at Stalinism or Lysenkoism for examples (as I think I've said about 20 times now. It's nice to have your actual arguments ignored isn't it?). The problem is NOT religion but unquestioning adherence to dogma and ideology. The unfortunate thing is that this appears to occur in religions far more than in other areas of human endeavour. There are obvious reasons for this, religions on average tend to be ideological systems based on the faith in certain prospects, there are typically tenets that are beyond question, and there are typically aspects of that ideology that have no supporting evidence. There are exceptions, and there are non-religious ideologies that share these traits. The point is not that we atheists get our hackles up whenever someone mentions the word god, we don't (although I'm sure some do, but I don't) but that we see no reason to grant an automatic free pass to certain ideas, that are as flawed as other ideas, simply because they are religious. To close: please I beg you all, humbly and earnestly, and with no small degree of passion and frustration deal with my arguments as they are, not as you think they are. Louis Louis, I don't think you are nasty. Find ONE example where I have said any of the things that you claim to be accused of. I have never seen you claim: "all religious people are stupid" "religious people are not entitled to their beliefs" etc. Now when a religion makes a claim about the world we live in and science proves that claim wrong, I go along with the science. In the real world (as oposed to cyberspace) I have knowingly spoken with 1 (only 1) YEC fundy. He was a nice guy. I didn't believe in his world-view one little bit but saw no reason to ridicule him (and I am not saying you ridicule people [willy nilly] here BTW). Anyway. I like this subject and so far the conversation here has been far more interesting than it's equivalent on PT. EDIT: BTW. I agree that there isn't any scientific evidence that God exists. Not a bit.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,02:48    Wow, stepped away to watch a movie and then watch the Colts kick the crap out of the Eagles (fell asleep late in the fourth quarter) and all sorts of stuff gets posted here. Who went and decided it was ok for you guys to voice opinions without my permission?  Bastards. Ok lemme start at the top....         Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2006,12:07) I hope people understand what I'm driving at there). I think you and I are on the same page, Louis.  Not surprising as we share such a great name.         Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2006,12:07) P.S. Liked the Lenny quote I doubt one can ever go seriously wrong quoting the good Rev. Dr. As for snakes...  snakes are very cool, but ever since the incident wherein one decided in the middle of the night to share my sleeping bag whilst I was on military maneuvers, I confess that I prefer them on the other side of some very thick glass.  You will, I hope, forgive me this small idiosyncrasy.         Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 26 2006,12:08) They followed me to a certain extent into freedom because they were drawn to my joie de vivre, if I may say so myself, but then wanted me to settle down and sit in church and give up this and that part of my individuality until I ended up looking like every other church lady. Always good to see your smiling face, Kristine.  Please don't ever become a church lady.  I fear we godless bastards would stand no chance against you.         Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,12:39) Religion is the root of all evil? Bollocks! Just about everything mankind has come up with has been used for both bad and good. While religion may not be the Root of all evil, it is certainly the kludge of a great many evil doers.  A disproportionately large amount of them, I dare say.  That being said, let me reiterate my contention that I don't give a flying fig about anyone's religious opinions, so long as they are not being pushed on anyone else. Again, the heart of this particular fight is that they are being pushed on everyone else. While I have no problem with saying "Science has nothing to say about your supernatural god fellow," I do see a problem with "Science can accommodate your supernatural god fellow".  That shoe is on the wrong foot.         Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 26 2006,14:31) My father believed that everyone who didn't accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior didn't go to heaven. My uncle told me that if I believed in evolution I was going to ####. Kristine, I don't wish to upset you in any way, but tangentially, it seems to me that going around threatening children with everlasting torture and pain if they don't think along the party lines is abusive.  But that is another fight, which has been taken up in this AtBC thread, a while back.       Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 26 2006,15:05) I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one that's bothered by this massive cluster fuck of an argument. Indeed you are not.  Take comfort in that.       Quote (Russel @ Nov. 26 2006,15:36) Wanna know my opinion? Of course you do! Who wouldn't? Yes, of course we do!  Seriously, an interesting proposal, and one which I shall keep in mind henceforth.  Thank you for that.       Quote (the egregiously misnomered skeptic @ anytime he has ever said anything, it's really all the same shit repeated ad nauseum) blah blah blah Please do not construe my policy of ignoring your comments in their entirety to in any way be related to the fact that you are religious.  It is not.  It is, however, a direct result of the fact that you are an unentertaining idiot.       Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,15:45) I am arguing that people should be judged on their actions and not beliefs. Quite.  It is the actions that matter.  In this case, it is specifically the actions of people who would see their superstitions taught in my children's science class.  I'm also vehemently opposed to being forced to live my life according to those superstitions.  Different fight, same enemy. guthrie, you begin your comment with       Quote (guthrie the first part @ Nov. 26 2006,15:46) I cant come up with any particular sensible thing to say about this. and yet you say       Quote (guthrie the second part @ Nov. 26 2006,15:46) HHMMmm, so maybe the two sides are really going to get married and live happily ever after?   I doubt it.  But it seems to me that there is a similar amount of talking past each other going on here.   which is rather sensible from my seat here by the light of my brand new flat LCD monitor.  (I just had to brag on my wife who bought me a new computer! Further, you mentioned       Quote (guthrie in conclusion @ Nov. 26 2006,15:46) I think in MY ideal world, I would have teleported into the rooms that the people who are involved in this are in, and slugged them with some "perspective juice" to bring them down from their hobby horses. I do hope you would include me in such an adventure. As this comment is getting boringly long and it is now nearly 4AM, I suppose I shall finish (for now)with this...       Quote (The Good Reverend Dr. Lenny Flank @ Nov. 26 2006,16:04)       Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2006,11:13) Personally, as long as the superstitious don't bother me or the education of my children or the law of my country, I don't give a flying fig what they believe. Herein lies the crux of the matter. They do.  At least a certain very vocal subset of them do. THAT is the crux of the matter. It is indeed a very small subset.  And indeed, most of the theists in the US are helping us *fight against that small subset*. Do we welcome their help, or do we refuse to associate with people whose religious opinions we don't like. I welcome their help and am happy to fight alongside them against our mutual enemy. Others simply can't tolerate having a theist of any sort anywhere within smelling distance. And that is what the whole "fight" is about. While I admit to a certain immodest penchant for "hearing" my own "voice", it is a special occasion to be quoted by the esteemed good Dr. and I freely admit a large cranial swelling occurs in such rare instances. But if I may, please allow me a small addendum to your comment.  There are, in fact, some of us who are simply rubbed the wrong way when we feel like we have been shoved behind the curtain to make room at the public lectern for a theistic ally.  It does seem sometimes that the stage becomes inexplicably small at their arrival. My utter lack of scientific qualifications notwithstanding, is there truly no room for me upon the stage? More plainly, I believe that at least some of this internal dispute might be resolved if the likes of Drs. Dawkins and Myers weren't made to feel that they were unceremoniously dismissed to allow for the dog and pony show of the likes of Dr. Miller. I cast no dispersion on the qualifications of Dr. Miller, and certainly not based on his theism.  I certainly welcome his help, his voice, which carries much more weight than my own.  Indeed that is the point.  But in our efforts to reason with the reasonable theists and say "Hey lookee here, you can be a scientist AND a theist", it does seem that Drs. Dawkins and Myers sometimes get treated as our "dirty little secret".  Perhaps this is the source of at least some of their rancor. So yes, Lenny.  Of course I personally welcome Ken Miller's help.  I just don't want Richard Dawkins to be shoved away in the process. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,03:10    My 2 cents worth. (posted 2 hours before Louis started this thread)

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,04:06    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2006,02:48) ...     Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,12:39) Religion is the root of all evil? Bollocks! Just about everything mankind has come up with has been used for both bad and good. 1)While religion may not be the Root of all evil, it is certainly the kludge of a great many evil doers.  A disproportionately large amount of them, I dare say.  That being said, let me reiterate my contention that I don't give a flying fig about anyone's religious opinions, so long as they are not being pushed on anyone else. Again, the heart of this particular fight is that they are being pushed on everyone else. While I have no problem with saying "Science has nothing to say about your supernatural god fellow," I do see a problem with "Science can accommodate your supernatural god fellow".  That shoe is on the wrong foot.     Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,15:45) I am arguing that people should be judged on their actions and not beliefs. 2)Quite.  It is the actions that matter.  In this case, it is specifically the actions of people who would see their superstitions taught in my children's science class.  I'm also vehemently opposed to being forced to live my life according to those superstitions.  Different fight, same enemy. Herein lies the crux of the matter. They do.  At least a certain very vocal subset of them do... 1) Who is pushing their religious POV on others here? I certainly don't see many religious regular posters on this site trying to "evangelise". Yes, some people do use religion for "wrong-doing", no denying that. But everything can be used both ways and is. 2) To me it seems far more atheists want to "fight" here than religious people. Again, how many people here think that religion=science? I certainly do not want religion in science classes. It is extremists (on both sides) that want that.

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,04:20    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 27 2006,01:44) Fuck it. You all can think me as nasty as you like, but the sheer level of dumb being exhibited by Skeptic and others borders of the amazing. Find me ONE example of where I have claimed all religious people are stupid. Find me ONE example of where I have said religious people are not entitled to believe as they will. Find me ONE example of where I have said that no god at all exists, absolutely, certainly in every sense of the word. Find me ONE example of where I have said we should cast out the evil religionists from our midst and have nothing to do with them in the fight against fundies. I could go on. In each case you will not find a single example. People, STOP now. STOP claiming the arguments I am making are somehow the same as the strawmen in your heads. They are not. So... I might be about to ramble a bit here, please bear with me if so: Personally I have a problem with people who claim that: all religious people are stupid; that religious people are not entitled to believe as they will; or that religionists should be barred from participating in the fight against fundamentalism. But I haven't seen you espousing a single one of these viewpoints. In fact I haven't really seen you say anything particularly unreasonable in this thread at all, though I have to admit I mostly skimmed it. I can't know for sure, but I think pretty much any lurkers reading this thread will find it painfully obvious that you're the one being reasonable here and "skeptic" is being just a crazy, straw-man flinging fundie. I'm making this post mostly to say: The people at PT and such who have been expressing concern with "burn the religionists"-flavored atheism over the last week or so aren't trying to say all atheists, all materialists, or even all people who think religion is harmful, fall into this excessive category. I think many or most of the people expressing this have been atheists, or nearly so, ourselves. I am just posting to say I hope you realize there's a difference, and people like Skeptic who are just trying to paint anyone who won't accept their own religious viewpoint with the "evangelical atheist" strawman brush are not in any way the same as people who just plain think "evangelical atheism" (if it exists) is bad or to be avoided. Personally, when I speak out against what I would label as "evangelical atheism", I do so because I want the gibberish people like "skeptic" fling to remain straw men, and not valid criticisms-- I want it to be publicly clear to any honest observer that the intolerance toward others that is so standard in right-wing christian circles will not get be accepted in the same way if it tries to creep into rationalist communities. (And to be clear, when I talk about evangelical atheism in the post above, I don't mean "strong atheists" or "atheists who actively believe religion is societally and personally harmful". I pretty much just mean "atheists who are dicks about it and/or run around trying to convert everyone whether they're okay with that or not". I'm beginning to suspect "evangelical atheism" isn't a very good term for this, as it's so ambiguous and so easy to turn into a straw man, but I'm not sure what best to use. If you can think of a better term to use, let me know. While I agree with Nick Matzke's side of the PT argument in principle, I have to admit I worry that he's doing the same thing he's accusing Dawkins of by using this loaded "evangelical atheist" term-- stating his viewpoint in impolite or excessive terms, and thus turning off people who might otherwise have agreed with his viewpoint if he'd just argued it calmly rather than bashing people over the head with it.)

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,05:56    Quote I think pretty much any lurkers reading this thread will find it painfully obvious that you're the one being reasonable here and "skeptic" is being just a crazy, straw-man flinging fundie. Well, now, that's not quite fair. "Skeptic" may be somewhat irrational, and is certainly given to flinging straw-men, but "fundie"? How so? And, give credit where credit is due. He finally, though perhaps unwittingly, provided an answer to Lenny's oft-posed but never addressed question:   Quote why should anyone take my religious ideas more seriously than yours [etc.] According to "Skeptic":   Quote they are the norm and unthreatening -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,06:36    I'm coming to this late, and find myself agreeing with many of the positions expressed here - at least the moderate ones, and particularly LouFCD's first post.  I think he expresses my own two-mindedness over the whole religion issue. As I drive through the  crappy mid-Western town where I've ended up teaching, I can't help thinking, as I see the ever-growing profusion of "non-denominational" Jesus temples, that this is a kind of growing cancer on the American intellect, selling snake-oil and sowing confusion and ignorance.  And yet, and yet - so often the position of someone like PZ seems to rid so much of the human experience of its beauty.  His levelling down of all religious belief to a single, false, categorical proposition is ultimately impoverishing. I'm in Rome at the moment (thank God, or at least the NEH); it seems impossible to entertain the idea that it would have been better for religion never to exist - or for it to pass away altogether now - even given the injustice and stupidity it has so often been responsible for.  It has also inspired some of the greatest human achievements - and yes, even scientific ones. But what I really wanted everyone to read was this, Philip Larkin's beautiful poem "Churchgoing" - a poem by an atheist which articulates, for me at least, the discomfort I feel at the reduction of all religious sentiment by its critics to its basest form. --------------

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,08:12    Alas and alack, I'm afraid I can be a bit fuzzy of thought at 4AM, not to mention cantankerous, especially when I'm in rather a lot of pain (which is usually the case if I'm up at 4AM). Sorry 'bout that Stephen, I believe I was drifting back and forth between the fight I feel needs to be continued and the one I would like to see ended. A few things from ericmurphy I'd like to take a moment to address: Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 26 2006,20:21) Now, I don't particularly mind if someone thinks I'm wrong about something. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about something. But this need to correct my worldview is where I run into problems with religious people. I frankly couldn't care less (my arguments with AF Dave notwithstanding) if a religious person thinks God created the universe 6,000 years ago, a global flood wiped out almost all living creatures 4,500 years ago, and that God personally cares whether I masturbate or not. That's fine; they're certainly entitled to whatever goofy beliefs they want to have. But when they try to enforce that belief system on me (and by extension, the rest of whatever society they happen to live in), that's where the sparks fly. The only reason Intelligent Design was ever a problem was because it was an attempt to circumvent the courts and get the fundamentalist Christian worldview forced down the throats of unwitting schoolchildren. Exactly. Quote (ericmurphy @ Nov. 26 2006,20:54) Really? I think the Sex Pistols are better than the Clash.  Does that somehow imply that everyone who thinks t'other way around must be forcibly re-educated to my point of view? Yes. Quote (mcc @ Nov. 27 2006,04:20) So... I might be about to ramble a bit here, please bear with me if so: Ramble on, brother.  I do. Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 27 2006,06:36) I'm coming to this late, and find myself agreeing with many of the positions expressed here - at least the moderate ones, and particularly LouFCD's first post. Man, I love it when people agree with me.  That means they're right. After reading the rest of your comment, I'm reminded of the great beauty of Westminster Abbey, and I am inclined to concur.  Surely the world would be a lesser place for the lack of such architecture.  And I'm also reminded of the Natural History Museum in London.  The world would be a lesser place for the lack of that architecture. And then I'm reminded of the Tate Modern, set up in an abandoned electrical power plant.  Not so much.  Although I was there before the slide exhibit opened, so perhaps that would have improved my review of the architecture. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,08:24    Quote (Louis @ Nov. 27 2006,01:44) Fuck it. You all can think me as nasty as you like, but the sheer level of dumb being exhibited by Skeptic and others borders of the amazing. Find me ONE example of where I have claimed all religious people are stupid. Find me ONE example of where I have said religious people are not entitled to believe as they will. Find me ONE example of where I have said that no god at all exists, absolutely, certainly in every sense of the word. Find me ONE example of where I have said we should cast out the evil religionists from our midst and have nothing to do with them in the fight against fundies. Louis, go back and read your opening posts and tell me that you're not talking about religious people as a whole.  If you're only discussing the tiny minority of YECs then there is no point whatsoever to this entire post.  Do you advocate altering biology courses to weed-out the vast minority?  No, I believe, as I stated, that you share the thoughts of Dawkins but you don't want to appear rude or intolerant. He does and I assume by inference that PZ, whomever that is, comes off the same way.  Not only do they appear rude but also foolish.  Dawkins' comment that evolution allowed him to be an intellectually honest atheist is a perfect example of this kind of nonsense. You may join him and believe that science justifies your beliefs but in doing so you are the same as ID advocates.  ID is nothing more than The Argument from Design v2.0 and has no standing in scientific discussions and likewise science has no standing in discussions of faith.  To invoke either one in these cases is invalid. So back to your original idea, to advocate the failure of students based upon their religious beliefs because they are somehow incompatible with the study of science is foolish.  The one has nothing to do with the other.  And again if, as you say, you're only focusing on that tiny minority then you're idea is unnecessary, if not impractical. Consider this, if a test question asks "How old is the Earth?", and the student answers 6,000 years then he got the question wrong and will suffer the consequences through his grade lowering.  If the student answers, "current theory states that the Earth is 6.5 billion years old", do you then question whether or not the student actually believes that the Earth is 6.5 billion years old and mark that question wrong if your instincts tell you he is actually a YEC in disguise?  Impractical and it really amounts to an attack on religious people whether you realize it or not. You can say what you like about me (and most of it is dead wrong) but I will continue to point out invalid statements, intentional or otherwise.  Dawkins is attempting to create an atmosphere in which it is ok for scientists to look down on religious people because they are delusional.  Whether they are or not is open for debate but one thing is certain, science cannot be used as evidence in that debate.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,08:55    The quintessential "Skeptic":     Quote I assume by inference that PZ, whomever [sic] that is, comes off the same way.  Not only do they appear rude but also foolish. "I don't know who you're talking about, but one thing I do know: he (or she) is rude and foolish" At least in some circles, I appear to be making zero headway in my plea for specifics. Here. Let's try it this way:     Quote Dawkins [when he writes "___" (fill in the blank) ] is attempting to create an atmosphere in which it is ok for scientists to look down on religious people because they are delusional. Quote You can say what you like about me (and most of it is dead wrong) How can you be sure? Perhaps it's just another, equally valid viewpoint. Quote but I will continue to point out invalid statements, intentional or otherwise "I do, however, reserve the right to issue blanket condemnations of people I don't know for things I've heard they might have said, but can't be bothered to check, let alone quote." -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,09:59    Quote Kristine, You made a comment that really interests me. Just what do you think the similarities between christianity and evolutionary biology are? How about “the last shall be first and the first shall be last”? Well, perhaps that’s not a good example, but it seems to me that whenever Dembski talks of the improbability of speciation, I am reminded of the parable of the mustard seed, and I wonder why he does not think of this. (No, I do know after all. Dembski longs for religion to be the towering Lebanese cedar tree, which was the dominant symbol back in the Israelites’ time and which this parable ridicules, chosing instead for its symbol a seed that produces a lowly bush (like the phyletic bush?) that is illegal to plant and lacks the superficial majesty of a towering theocracy.) A frequent theme in Judeo-Christian literature is that of the smallest, weakest, or most unlikliest of persons achieving greatness, and its seems to me that that is often the story of evolution (who would have expected a small tree-dwelling creature to become the ancestor of apes and man, or a land-dwelling mammal to eventual evolve into whales? How about mammals themselves, survivor from the age of the dinosaurs? And don’t forget bacteria, the ultimate winners in life). I abhor the whole dog-eat-dog “survival of the fittest” crap—Darwin barely tolerated it and Dawkins has spoken against it. I think it’s a gross mischaracterization of evolution. During natural disasters (even Hurricane Katrina) it is the working-class stiffs who shake a leg and display their creativity and adaptability, not upper management. “There will be poor always” because the poor are more resourceful (dare we say, more “fit”?)! When I get done with finals I’ll get back to working on my novel which includes a Christian main character who accepts evolution. However, I’d like to reiterate that I am an atheist, but an atheist with extensive religious training and one never entirely throws that away. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,10:13    Quote Please don't ever become a church lady. No fear. I'm too much of a fuddy-duddy to become fundy at this point. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,10:14    Spastic, Yet again no no no no no no no no. I AM and HAVE BEEN talking about creationists with regards to dismissal from biology courses. What the fuck has belief in god got to do with biology?  Belief in the fixedness of species for example is a different ball game. Yet again, not all religious people are creationists, all creationists are religious people. Since you manifestly a) don't understand anything I've written (you are taking dumb and dishonest to almost GoPlike levels, bravo a new low) and b) you don't understand what the whole debate is about in the first place, allow me one last attempt at cramming some scintilla of a clue into the sorry spongey object between your ears. The internecine "war" going on at PT, Pharyngula and many places elsewhere is a staggering example of nonsensical fratricide. Otherwise intelligent and erudite people are simply talking past each other and accusding each other of wildly inaccurate evils. On the one "side" (for as far as I can tell everyone really agrees on the vast majority of this issue, it's just a futile war of misunderstandings) we have what has been termed the "Chamberlain Group" (this was a name that was used prior to Dawkins' recent book, but is apt of the strawman). On the other "side" we have what have been called the "Evangelical Atheists" (of which I am probably one, regardless of the fact that I certainly don't agree with the asinine caricature of my ideas). The Chamberlain Group are mischaracterised as wanting to appease ALL religious people by diluting science education in some fashion in order to prevent the small subsection of religious people loosely called creationists debasing science education. The Evangelical Atheists are mischaracterised as wanting to beat the shit out of any religious person who has the temerity to claim to be on the side of science. Neither strawman is accurate, although as with any group there are extremists at both ends who make the strawman description appear true. On the "EA side" neither Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, me or any number of people represent that extreme. On the "CG side" neither Nick Matzke, Francis Collins, Ed Brayton or numerous others represent the relevant extreme. Yet somehow the majority keep talking past eah other and getting increasingly heated. Both groups have no problem with engaging with religious opponents of creationism or non-religious opponents of creationism (depending on personal religious stance). Both groups are stridently anticreationist. Both groups agree that the utter destruction of science education that the creationists seek is false, vile, unconstitutional (in the USA), and a total abandonment of the responsibility of educators should it be allowed. In most cases, both groups totally agree on the tactics and strategy. Then comes the bone of contention:  every time the religious canard of "science/evolution leads to atheism" is brought up, a certain subsection of one group hand wave away the correct aspects of this statement (for it's not entirely correct but the religious is approximating something that is correct) and appear to tell the incoming religionist not to worry about the atheists growling in the corner, it's really nothing to do with them. I don't agree by the way that this is what this subset of the CG are doing, but it could be seen to APPEAR that way (which is the problem). This understandably pisses off (not matter how misinterpreted this appearance is) a subset of the EAs. Now, way back in dim and distant history (or perhaps the present) there will have been heated conversations in which some subset of the EAs will have said something unsupportably derogatory about religious people. Not the sort of puerile misunderstandings you are wanking on about, but outright bone fide hateful abuse. It's an unfortunate fact that there exists a minority of atheists who are bitterly recovering from their previous religious beliefs and are vicious about it (I escape this, I'm not bitter and I never had any religious faith). Sometimes these people do and say totally undefensible things. Straight away everyone leaps for their respective high horses. The CG guys accuse all the EA guys of being a bunch of religion hating bozos who are shooting themselves and everyone else in the feet. The EA guys accuse all the CG guys of being hypocrites who are accelerating the demise of science at the hands of fundies by appeasing their weaker demands, and by pretending that rational thought, reason and observation (and even science) are silent on the subject of the existance of god or gods. Reason is anathema to faith. They are diametrically opposite ways of interrogating the universe. This expressedly refers to the strict philosophical uses of the words. It does not mean, nor seek to imply, that religious people are incapable of reason, or that in religious thought reason is never employed. Please, before you witter off on your strawman ludicrousness, try to crack this through your skull. Just like the title of Dawkins' books The Selfish Gene and the God Delusion don't mean what you think they mean (you'd have to actually read the books to find that out, which you clearly haven't), try to appreciate the simple fact that a word can be used in different contexts and have different meanings. I'll give you an example: Religious belief is irrational (True in the philosophical, technical sense, not necessarily true in the colloquial sense). This is a really key distinction. When Dawkins is talking about the God Delusion he is using those words in a very specific sense, a point he makes extremely clear early on. One way to commit th strawman fallacy is to deal with the weakest possible interpretation of someone's argument despite the fact that this has been made abundantly clear that it is not this interpretation being used. The whole kerfuffle has arisen because of misunderstandings just like the ones you are making. Although to be honest, you are making a whole slew of others as well. Louis -------------- Bye.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,10:23    Quote I abhor the whole dog-eat-dog “survival of the fittest” crap—Darwin barely tolerated it and Dawkins has spoken against it. It's interesting the way the evo-phile - evo-phobe spectrum meshes with the left-right political spectrum. On the one hand, there seems to be a general correlation between "evophilicity" and "left". (Not, I hasten to add, without significant exceptions). But "Social Darwinism" was (is?) associated more with "right". I gather William Jennings Bryan, of Scopes trial creationist notoriety, was the equivalent of a "leftist" for that era, and was motivated at least in part by a reaction against this aspect of "Darwinism". -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,10:29    Kristine, Thanks for that. I was curious as to what you meant. I see no similarity between christianity and any scientific field, bar the sort of superficial similarities or literary concordance you mention. Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,10:41    Quote I see no similarity between christianity and any scientific field, bar the sort of superficial similarities or literary concordance you mention. Well, I don’t really see any deep, scientific, or lasting connection either. But it’s the kind of thing that springs to mind when I hear Christians argue against evolution. It strikes me as ironic, since they're not making scientific arguments but literary/emotional ones. ID is heading for its own apocalypse BTW (like so many ambitiously apocalyptic paradigms), and betrayal-with-a-kiss is what I see in Dembski's future. It just astonishes me that he can't recognize it. Literature has symbolic truths that are applicable locally--not globally--but people never learn. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,12:13    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,16:35) I am losing the plot here. I am not really a fundy. Neither am I an Atheist. Just confused would be the best description of me. MAybe you could join my club! I'm in the "whats this religion stuff everyone gos on about?  oh I cant seem to BELEIVE in anything, so I'll just sit on the sidelines for now." club.  Or maybe the "Whats all the fuss about, they cant all be correct, and I cant choose between them" club.   Or something.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,12:24    I don't blame guys like Dawkins for calling open season on religious belief.  Every day we see where leading religionists equate atheism with everything dark and demonic.  We see political leaders make similar claims, even going as far as to say atheists are not patriots (bush I).  Bush II has said all non-christians are all going to #### (as did Texas Gov Rick Perry last month). It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn. I am not one to argue about religion with religionists and I could care less what people believe in but I have no issue with people criticizing religious beliefs.  I hope Dawkins writes a dozen more just like his last one.  At least his arguments are thought out and reasoned and not emotional/hateful garbage like we read from the ID crowd and other tard communities. We need more, not less, reasoned criticisms of religious belief. Chris -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,12:24    Quote (skeptic @ ,) You may join him and believe that science justifies your beliefs but in doing so you are the same as ID advocates. You are completely wrong. Science can't justify my "beliefs", because as an athiest, I don't have any "beliefs". Have a look at the Dawkins quote you're twisting around, in it's entirety:   Quote An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It's really hard to say it much better than that. Do I believe in god? No? Well than where did we come from? The science of evolution tells us we're descended and evolved from a common ancestor of just about everything else on earth (and it's not inconceivable that this ancestor came about naturally). Do I believe this??? No. I know it as a fact. Do I trust in Darwinism? No! I don't have faith in Darwinism any farther than I could throw it. And by throw it I mean: answers that are proven true, I'll take as fact, and questions that remain open, remain open. Here's another question. By joining this discussion, have I outed myself as an Evangelical Atheist?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,12:42    Ved, Have you outed yourself as an Evangelical Atheist? Naaaaah, not in my opinion at least. But then I'm exactly the same sort of Evangelical Atheist you are. Perhaps if you littered your posts with comments about how stupid religious people are like I have (hmmmm, where are those then?) then you too could also earn the attention of the loathesomely stupid Spastic {Colon} (painful, annoying, squirts out shit). Why is it we are lumbered with idiots whose objections could removed by them simply reading the first few posts for some modicum of comprehension? Sigh. Louis -------------- Bye.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,12:49    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24) ... It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn... Chris So what? Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it. Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler. Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like. How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,14:49    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,12:49) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 27 2006,12:24) ... It's been open season on non-religionists for thousands of years.  We've been taking the blame for everything bad and wrong in the world, from Hitler to Stalin to 9/11 the atheists, secular humanists get the public blame and scorn... Chris So what? Nobody living is responsible for what happened a thousand years ago. Nobody living suffered it. Who blames atheists for 9/11? Nobody I know, let alone the general public. Nor am I aware of atheists being blamed for Hitler. Stalin may have been an atheist but I don't think many people equate all atheists as being Stalin-like. How many regular posters here criticise people for being atheist? I can't think of any. It was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed 9/11 on secular humanists (they also credited lesbos and pagans as well).  And not a day goes by where the tards at UD don't blame hitler's deeds on his atheism.  Religionists also trelessly point to Stalin as an example of what secular humanism/atheism gets you at the godless store. Intelligent design is a full frontal assault on secular humanism.  You've heard of Intelligent Design I assume.  It's like creationism but they use bigger words. And you are aware that Bush I said atheists should not consider themselves citizens or patriots?  And his mentally retarded son said no one but christians get to go to heaven.   This is pretty common stuff, religionists blaming atheism for pretty much everything as well as portraying them as wicked and dangerous (or just doomed to leading meaningless, unhappy lives).  I'm surprised you weren't aware of any of this.  You should get out more.  Read the paper even. There are several tards here to either blame secular humanism/atheism for the worlds ills, or they simply try and save us.   But my point was if the religionists dish it out they should plan to have some flung their way too.  And those who get their feelings hurt because Dawkins thinks their beliefs are stupid might consider growing up or adopting ideas that are more bullet proof. Chris -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,14:49    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 27 2006,13:49) Who blames atheists for 9/11? Pat and Jerry discuss 9/11: Quote PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population. JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes. JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'. PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,16:48    Louis, good post I must say but I need some clarification.  I'm not in on the internal grumblings as I don't read these other sites.  Maybe I should but I honestly don't have the time. So for better understanding, would Gould be a moderate or extreme member of the Chamberlin group? How can Dawkins not be an extreme member of the EA group?  Are there others like him more extreme? To address you and Ved, you might consider Outspoken Atheist to EA.  Evangelical implies not only outspoken and unashamed but also compelled to convert unbelievers.  Think of the Great Commission and the purpose not only spread the word but make believers of all people. Also, you say that science = atheism is a misinterpretation but it appears that the prevailing message is science = reason = atheism.  Maybe there are multiple messages being sent here but your example of failing students can certainly be interpreted in this vein. Faith is irrational and reason is purely rational.  I have no problem here but I take it one step further and call for a complete Wall of Separation between rational and irrational.  My problem is when rational is used to assess the irrational to declare false conclusions.  I'm going to assume from your characterization that this is the realm of the extreme EA.  If this is the case then I'm in full agreement with Lenny.  Such stances do infinitely more harm then good.  I would put myself in the extreme wing of the Chamberlin group but not to placate religious allies.  Its just a matter of principle for me.  It is invalid to justify atheistic beliefs (that better Ved?) using scientific methods. So that being said, I'm ready to offer you the benefit of the doubt.  Could you please explain to me how failing students based upon YEC belief is practical or not an attack on religion.  Or were you just using that example as a gross exaggeration (that would make more sense)?

Pages: (9) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard