400 replies to this topic

[EHK for Darwin]

ljkeane, on May 1 2009, 19.22, said:

The only realistic solution to what seems to be a very real problem is to address the education students receive so that they know that the evidence for evoulution is clear.

I like my 'destroy religion' solution better. Impractical though it might be.

[C S]

I tend to agree with EHK that religion is the primary cause of doubt for the veracity of Evolution.  (As a religious person who is a member of a denomination that does not officially doubt the veracity of Evolution, I would prefer to say certain religious groups as opposed to religion as a whole.)  Having said that, I wonder what the result would be of a poll that asked the same question about climate change.  I suspect that the results would be somewhat similar, even though most (possibly all) faiths are pretty close to neutral on this issue.  Admittedly, the science isn't quite as strong regarding climate change, but it's pretty solid on the general details.

[EHK for Darwin]

Craster's Son, on May 1 2009, 19.27, said:

I tend to agree with EHK that religion is the primary cause of doubt for the veracity of Evolution.  (As a religious person who is a member of a denomination that does not officially doubt the veracity of Evolution, I would prefer to say certain religious groups as opposed to religion as a whole.)  Having said that, I wonder what the result would be of a poll that asked the same question about climate change.  I suspect that the results would be somewhat similar, even though most (possibly all) faiths are pretty close to neutral on this issue.  Admittedly, the science isn't quite as strong regarding climate change, but it's pretty solid on the general details.

Climate change is an interesting one that we've had limited discussion on before. For whatever reason that I can't quite grasp, climate change has become a MASSIVE ideological issue with opponents falling pretty neatly and fervently along those lines. Outside of basic pro-business mantra, the perception of environmentalists as flaky hippies, and of course vested business interests in some industries, I can't really see a reason for it. I don't think those are really sufficient to explain how virulent opponents are against the subject. Nor why they gleefully dance a jig everytime a milkbone of evidentiary doubt gets thrown their way. Its become a cause celeb, one that we can't really pin on religion.

For this one, I blame Republicans.

[ljkeane]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 01.24, said:

This is bullshit. The problem is that various groups are smearing evolution on a massive, national scale and indoctrinating kids from birth in beliefs that are not only wrong, but fundamentally stupid. Schools can deal alright with simple ignorance. That's their job. They are less skilled at dealing with intentional, ongoing propaganda campaigns that carry divine fucking approval and parental/community advocacy. You're essentially asking schools not just to educate kids, but to win the battle of hearts and minds against parents and preachers. Don't you think that's JUST A BIT of a tall order? Double teacher salaries tomorrow and you're not gonna get that.

I'm asking schools to teach students the scientific facts and not present creationism as 'science' beyond that what do you suggest as a realistic way to address the issue?.

I think you're overstating the influence of conservative religious groups on students especially on those who are not members of their religion, they're also against sex before marriage how well do you think that propaganda is working out?.

[EHK for Darwin]

ljkeane, on May 1 2009, 19.35, said:

I'm asking schools to teach students the scientific facts and not present creationism as 'science' beyond that what do you suggest as a realistic way to address the issue?.

Mock, ridicule, shame and embarrass religion every time they give you an opportunity. Pat Robertson blames hurricanes on gays and abortions? Splash that everywhere. Rant about it on web forums. Shake your head with incredulous scorn at family gatherings. Some religions speak in tongues? Get a video of it and splash it all over youtube. That shit looks inherently silly on its face, don't even need to add commentary. In every possible way try to diminish and ridicule religion. (preferably when they do/say something inherently stupid or mock-worthy) Expose their horseshit. Make people feel ashamed to openly identify with it. Reduce its influence to the extreme fringe.

Quote

I think you're overstating the influence of conservative religious groups on students especially on those who are not members of their religion, they're also against sex before marriage how well do you think that propaganda is working out?.

Not a good example. People do not have a biological imperative reinforced by billions of years of evolution to believe in evolution...they do on fucking and procreating. Not even religion can win on basic biology. But they've got a fighting chance against education.

[Kat]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 17.33, said:

Climate change is an interesting one that we've had limited discussion on before. For whatever reason that I can't quite grasp, climate change has become a MASSIVE ideological issue with opponents falling pretty neatly and fervently along those lines. Outside of basic pro-business mantra, the perception of environmentalists as flaky hippies, and of course vested business interests in some industries, I can't really see a reason for it. I don't think those are really sufficient to explain how virulent opponents are against the subject. Nor why they gleefully dance a jig everytime a milkbone of evidentiary doubt gets thrown their way. Its become a cause celeb, one that we can't really pin on religion.

For this one, I blame Republicans.

There is also a non-insignificant minority of people who cry, "But climate changes on its own, look at the geologic record!" (after someone brings this up as a "reason" why current climate change must be non-anthropogenic) who conveniently sweep the selfsame geologic record under the table when evolution comes up.  :rolleyes:

[CiaranAnnrach]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 19.50, said:

Mock, ridicule, shame and embarrass religion every time they give you an opportunity. Pat Robertson blames hurricanes on gays and abortions? Splash that everywhere. Rant about it on web forums. Shake your head with incredulous scorn at family gatherings. Some religions speak in tongues? Get a video of it and splash it all over youtube. That shit looks inherently silly on its face, don't even need to add commentary. In every possible way try to diminish and ridicule religion. (preferably when they do/say something inherently stupid or mock-worthy) Expose their horseshit. Make people feel ashamed to openly identify with it. Reduce its influence to the extreme fringe.

You'd have a very hard time doing that without becoming a hypocrite, you realize that, right? A smear campaign, persecution of people for their beliefs. I don't think that's very realistic.

Plus, you run the risk of causing all those who are religious from gathering together to act together to counteract that same persecution. Giving all religions a common enemy who is out to get them might not be the best idea, you might inadvertently make them stronger.

ETA: Also, Scientology is absolutely fucking scary. People do not ridicule them openly and vehemently for very long and get away with it, at least not the degree of campaign you seem to be suggesting. (Unless you're not suggesting what I think you're suggesting.)

Edited by CiaranAnnrach, 01 May 2009 - 08:03 PM.

[ljkeane]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 01.50, said:

Mock, ridicule, shame and embarrass religion every time they give you an opportunity. Pat Robertson blames hurricanes on gays and abortions? Splash that everywhere. Rant about it on web forums. Shake your head with incredulous scorn at family gatherings. Some religions speak in tongues? Get a video of it and splash it all over youtube. That shit looks inherently silly on its face, don't even need to add commentary. In every possible way try to diminish and ridicule religion. (preferably when they do/say something inherently stupid or mock-worthy) Expose their horseshit. Make people feel ashamed to openly identify with it. Reduce its influence to the extreme fringe.

I'm sure the kind of people who are devoted enough to restrictive religious groups to reject scientific evidence will be devastated by a campaign of ridicule on web web forums and youtube, clearly it's only a matter of time until they renounce their religion.

Alternatively we could try and ensure that all students are clearly presented with the compelling evidence in support of an important scientific theory and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Edited by ljkeane, 01 May 2009 - 08:13 PM.

[EHK for Darwin]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 1 2009, 19.59, said:

You'd have a very hard time doing that without becoming a hypocrite, you realize that, right? A smear campaign, persecution of people for their beliefs. I don't think that's very realistic.

What would be hypocritical? I never said there's anything wrong with smear campaigns in the proper circumstances. If they're warranted, necessary, and/or useful, why not? My problems stem from dishonest, damaging & ignorant ones.

Quote

Plus, you run the risk of causing all those who are religious from gathering together to act together to counteract that same persecution. Giving all religions a common enemy who is out to get them might not be the best idea, you might inadvertently make them stronger.

All religions won't have a common enemy. This attack would not be against all religions or all religious expressions. It would be targeted at the most obviously and objectively stupid and ridiculous expressions. The things that most people, religious or otherwise, nod their heads and utter 'That's kinda weird (or dumb)' anyway. The most discredited would be the fanatical, evangelical right. They most certainly would develop an 'us vs. them' siege mentality, but they've got one already anyway, so who gives a fuck? They are the lions share of the problem. But it won't just impact them. Most religions will suffer varying degrees of guilt by association that will slowly but surely creep into the national consciousness. The individual, non-fanatical believer can say 'This is weird, but hey, that ridicule doesn't apply to me', shrug and be on their merry way.

Eventually enough people on the sidelines or with moderate vested interests one way or another will start agreeing more and more that 'Yes, that shit is fucking stupid/scary/ridiculous/embarrassing' and slowly but surely many of them will dissociate and distance themselves. This won't help the most fervent, true-believing god warriors, but they're not the prize anyway. Their destruction would be nice, but I'd be happy with their irrelevance.

Quote

I'm sure the kind of people who are devoted enough to restrictive religious groups to reject scientific evidence will be devasated by a campaign of ridicule on web web forums and youtube, clearly it's only a matter of time until they renounce their religion.

I'm not after them.

Edited by EHK for Darwin, 01 May 2009 - 08:13 PM.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

A few hours and glasses of jug wine later im back to the thread.

Quote

Not a good example. People do not have a biological imperative reinforced by billions of years of evolution to believe in evolution...

I litterally laughed 'till i cried when i read this.  everytime i read it i smile.

I started this thread to move the discussion about the validity of evolution out of the dancing bird thread.  the whole idea of the dancing bird bringing to light a nuance in the evolution of the mind was being derailed because it assumes evolution is taken for granted.  So, I started a thread directly about evolution.

Ok, yes I misinterpreted the poll because I didnt look at the pole, and yes the thread title was bait.  Sue me.

Quote

ETA: Also, Scientology is absolutely fucking scary. People do not ridicule them openly and vehemently for very long and get away with it, at least not the degree of campaign you seem to be suggesting. (Unless you're not suggesting what I think you're suggesting.)

C'mon CA, don't act like your belief in an invisible man in the sky that made everyone and everything is saner than my belief in invisible aliens that inhabit my body and keep me from using my magic powers.

you call EHK a hypocrite, then you (hypocritically) call scientology crazy.  sorry, paul didnt sound any saner than hubbard.  it is known.

back to evolution. now that my divorce is about to be filed, somehow, against all odds, i have convinced my wife that we are indeed very closely related to monkeys, and she said she believes evolution now.

[AndyP]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 20.12, said:

All religions won't have a common enemy. This attack would not be against all religions or all religious expressions. It would be targeted at the most obviously and objectively stupid and ridiculous expressions. The things that most people, religious or otherwise, nod their heads and utter 'That's kinda weird (or dumb)' anyway. The most discredited would be the fanatical, evangelical right. They most certainly would develop an 'us vs. them' siege mentality, but they've got one already anyway, so who gives a fuck? They are the lions share of the problem. But it won't just impact them. Most religions will suffer varying degrees of guilt by association that will slowly but surely creep into the national consciousness. The individual, non-fanatical believer can say 'This is weird, but hey, that ridicule doesn't apply to me', shrug and be on their merry way.

emphasis mine

'Pastor Martin Niemöller' said:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Do you know how scary you are?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

also, someone called me her earlier i think.  i'm not a girl.

ETA do i really look that girly in my avatar pic?

Edited by GdMisfits, 01 May 2009 - 10:15 PM.

[CiaranAnnrach]

GdMisfits, on May 1 2009, 21.58, said:

I started this thread to move the discussion about the validity of evolution out of the dancing bird thread. the whole idea of the dancing bird bringing to light a nuance in the evolution of the mind was being derailed because it assumes evolution is taken for granted. So, I started a thread directly about evolution.

Be honest. You intended this to become a religion slamfest with that "Creationism wins" comment. You stacked the wood, covered it with fertilizer, doused it with gasoline, then sat back and watched until someone (EHK) lit the fire for you.

GdMisfits, on May 1 2009, 21.58, said:

C'mon CA, don't act like your belief in an invisible man in the sky that made everyone and everything is saner than my belief in invisible aliens that inhabit my body and keep me from using my magic powers.

you call EHK a hypocrite, then you (hypocritically) call scientology crazy. sorry, paul didnt sound any saner than hubbard. it is known.

It's not their beliefs that scare me, (which, how the fuck did you pull what I said as a criticism on what they believe? I digress.) It's their lawyers. They have a horde of them, and they have attempted to shut down entire service providers to get ONE person's blog taken down. They have a vivid history of lawsuits against their more outspoken critics, especially critics who were once a part of the Church of Scientology who left with knowledge pertaining to their "inner teachings", and more often than not they somehow manage to win.

So, no, it's not hypocritical to be scared of their very heavy handed and ultra aggressive business practices. Nice try, though, but their "beliefs" didn't really play into what I said, originally or here.

ETA: @EHK, I reserve my doubts that it will work out quite the way you think it will. I think more than likely, any attack on a single facet of religion will result in all religions retaliating, simply because this is a country where all religions are supposed to be free of persecution. All it will take is for one group of people to call your attack on their specific religion an attack on "the religious freedom of America", and that's a banner every church can rally under with relative ease.

Edited by CiaranAnnrach, 02 May 2009 - 01:47 AM.

[Blauerdrakken]

TrackerNeil, on May 1 2009, 13.26, said:

Blauer, I don't think most modern biologists would say evolutionary theory is "survival of the fittest", unless by "fittest" you mean "most likely to reproduce." That's not the same thing.

As to this statement about "both theories", you are dead wrong. Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense; in fact, it's not scientific at all. So if you want to teach alternate theories to evolution you're first going to have to do decades of scientific research to find a scientific alternate to evolutionary theory. Good luck.

I commend you, however, on having readily picked up the creationists' new tagline for their attempt to displace the teaching of evolutionary theory. First is was "Evolution is just a theory!", which become "Intelligent design is science!" and has now become "Teach the controversy." There really is no scientific controversy, so I don't see why we should teach it in science class.

As I said before. Creationism doesn't belong in a science class. It should be studied for the cultural and historic significance, not the scientific.

[Horus Bergeron]

EHK for Darwin, on May 1 2009, 14.16, said:

And thus we witness the fruits of decades of evangelical expansion and infiltration of American society; a population of ignorant drooling imbeciles of which 60% are preemptively unfit to study most major scientific fields. A self-imposed brain drain of enormous scale with potentially catastrophic long term consequences. Its fucking sick. I would rather have 10 more Bin Laden's than this horseshit.

For anyone who has ever doubted that Christianity is a plague, here's your evidence. Its now a pandemic and has stupified most of the population.

I think that if I ever came clean to my mom about my agnostic views she'd have a conniption, however I even she'd admit that the Old Testament is rubbish if you pressed her.  

I watched the History Channel's interpretation of the Old Testament and it basically showed how the Israelites basically did what every other culture in the history of the world have done, create the mythos of a religion which absolved all of their actions, primarily their bloody and ruthless conquest of Canaan, and made themselves out to be the most important people in all of creation.  The difference between them and the Greeks is that they were able to convert the Western World to their religion through the powerful reach of the Romans.  Had Constantine not "seen the light" we'd all likely be worshipping Jupiter today.  

I still have difficulties fully accepting myself as agnostic however.  It almost is a rejection of my dead father's church and there was a time that I held a great pride in the Catholic Church.  Surprisingly, I still get offended by Protestants who rip on the Catholics when they have thier own demons so I am still part of the problem.  I still identify with them but recognise how the religious differences add to ethnic strife in my parents native country.  I won't tell anyone in my family how my faith has declined.   I only have the caveat that I won't restrict myself to relationships with only Christian women, that would be stupid in my case.  I've dated Persian-Islamic women in the past.  

In the end, I see religion as a form of control, and it's hard to break.  I've been raised to treat questions of faith as a sort of test and that's what holds most of the older generations.  They don't completely understand that the same science that proves evolution, is the same science that develops the televisions that they watch and the medical science that will develop vaccines or the machines that kept Terry Schiavo alive.

I have little doubt that President Obama is likely a closet agnostic, he pretty much admits that both of his parents and his Indonesian stepfather were.  They were all intellectuals who had little use for religion.  I think he saw the United Church of Christ as useful in his efforts to help in the struggling communities in Chicago, and so he joined their church.  I also see the potential for good that churches can do and recognise the good that Catholics can do.  I don't think that things are as cut and dry as the poll suggests.

Edited by Horus-SpiderObama, 02 May 2009 - 07:17 AM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GdsMisfits,

My parish priest, in his homilies, has been known to say, "We're either crazy for beliving in the amazing 'God/man' who comes back from the dead banishing true death from the world. . . or we're right.  There is no in between.". How's that for non-hypocracy?

[Dornish]

the Blauer Dragon, on May 2 2009, 06.45, said:

As I said before. Creationism doesn't belong in a science class. It should be studied for the cultural and historic significance, not the scientific.

If and only if it is taught as being on the same level of validity as Greek, Norse, etc myths, I'd agree.

[Merentha]

Dornish, on May 2 2009, 09.02, said:

If and only if it is taught as being on the same level of validity as Greek, Norse, etc myths, I'd agree.

Well, if studied in the context of sociocultural importance, then it is more important than the Greek and Norse.   I remember in high school one of my youth pastors got offended that we were studying Islam in a world history course, even though it was in the context of Islam's impact on the 700s.  He felt that Christianity should have played a bigger part in our course, but my teachers felt that, given the explosive Muslim growth, our time was better spent looking at some of Muhammed's teachings for the reasons behind them.  Likewise, studying Christianity and how it affected western Europe is going to be far more important to a history course than studying the Norse myths.

[Dornish]

yeah but you can use the Greek to put it into context. Its important because it is believed by a large portion of the population, just as the Greek myths once were, and may eventually fall out of favor and thus become just as irrelevant as Zeus.

[EHK for Darwin]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 2 2009, 01.31, said:

ETA: @EHK, I reserve my doubts that it will work out quite the way you think it will. I think more than likely, any attack on a single facet of religion will result in all religions retaliating, simply because this is a country where all religions are supposed to be free of persecution. All it will take is for one group of people to call your attack on their specific religion an attack on "the religious freedom of America", and that's a banner every church can rally under with relative ease.

Mockery and criticism is not persecution. And the regular Catholic or the lazy Methodist has no common cause with the evangelical getting ripped a new asshole for blaming earthquakes on evolution teaching.

Quote

As I said before. Creationism doesn't belong in a science class. It should be studied for the cultural and historic significance, not the scientific.

I'm fine with it getting the same treatment in High School history textbook's as similarly significant concepts...which is a sentence...at most. It sure as fuck doesn't merit a chapter or even a paragraph.

Quote

My parish priest, in his homilies, has been known to say, "We're either crazy for beliving in the amazing 'God/man' who comes back from the dead banishing true death from the world. . . or we're right. There is no in between.". How's that for non-hypocracy?

How's that for misrepresentation? There's the implicit suggestion there that the two are equally likely propositions. They're not.

Quote

The difference between them and the Greeks is that they were able to convert the Western World to their religion through the powerful reach of the Romans. Had Constantine not "seen the light" we'd all likely be worshipping Jupiter today.

I'm gonna have to go with 'historical forces' over 'great men' on this one. By the time Constantine adopted Christianity into the empire it had already spread far and wide, representing a huge chunk of the population, and didn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon. If Constantine didn't adopt it, some other emperor a generation or a century later most likely would have. Earlier persecution was not having the desired effect. Also, it was spreading pretty handily throughout the Persian empire as well. It was only once the Romans made it the official religion that the Persians started treating it like a suspect, enemy influence. Who knows how they would have ended up if Christianity's adoption had been delayed. Or if Islam some centuries later would have been able to arise. I don't want to say that Christianity's ascension was inevitable, but it seemed like it at that time.

Quote

Surprisingly, I still get offended by Protestants who rip on the Catholics when they have thier own demons so I am still part of the problem.

I was raised Catholic and trust me, I get exactly the same way. Part homerism, part cultural identity. Yeah its a silly ass faith, but its MY silly ass faith (not really, but you understand), and only myself and other Papists get to rip on it! Don't really mind secular criticisms from anyone at this point so long as I don't even sniff a Protestant v. Catholic agenda driving the criticism.

Quote

I've dated Persian-Islamic women in the past.

That sounds hot actually.

Quote

I have little doubt that President Obama is likely a closet agnostic, he pretty much admits that both of his parents and his Indonesian stepfather were. They were all intellectuals who had little use for religion. I think he saw the United Church of Christ as useful in his efforts to help in the struggling communities in Chicago, and so he joined their church. I also see the potential for good that churches can do and recognise the good that Catholics can do. I don't think that things are as cut and dry as the poll suggests.

I've got the same take on Obama and faith. Ironically enough he's given the most thoughtful and intelligent statements on faith that I've ever heard from a politician. (read the text of his Call to Renewal speech. Great shit) He saw those churches as a means of helping those communities and I have no doubt as a necessary step in his own political advancement. The guy is also practical and a politician after all.

I do not doubt that Churches can and do many good things. But these are not things that can't be done and done well at a secular level. And that on the grand scheme of things, they do cause more harm than good.