400 replies to this topic

[ljkeane]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 23.30, said:

Religion is at the root of this problem no matter how you look at it. How can schools do a 'better job' when the kids are being brainwashed early and the school boards themselves are under constant assault or threat of assault? This is a public menace that is hurting the country.

Certain religious groups clearly are the driving force behind opposition to good education about evoulution in the US but since I suspect members of these groups don't constitute anywere near 60% of the population of the US the issue I would have is with the level of education those who aren't members of these groups.

I don't really care that certain groups choose to reject the evidence for evolution it's only when these groups are allowed to dictate the science curriculum of schools that I do have an issue with them. Ultimately it's not the beliefs of these groups that is the problem but that they are able to influence the level of education that students receive.

Edited by ljkeane, 02 May 2009 - 05:52 PM.

[turinturambar]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 17.33, said:

If dumb doesn't work, then I have no problem associating Republican with tragically fucking ignorant. Really, I don't care how much you associate with the basic Republican platform, if you're not embarrassed and disgusted by what the party has become, whether you continue to vote that way or not, you're dumb. Or simply not paying attention.

Actually, I don't vote either or.  I'm generally embarrassed and disgusted by what both parties have become.  

My friend on the other hand is more about the traditional economic conservative.  Believe it or not there are plenty of those out there, they simply haven't had much luck on the national stage the last decade or so.  Believe it or not, McCain use to be more of that type, though once he ran for president he changed a lot of things to please the more conservative side of the party.  That really disappointed me as there was a point in time when I liked him and would have voted for him.  I voted for him in the primary when I turned 18 and I was pretty much devastated when Bush won the primary....and that's pretty much what turned me off to the primary process.  

This country has become so freakin' split on the issues with blind party loyalties that sane moderate candidates simply don't have a chance.

[Zap Rowsdower]

CiaranAnnrach, on May 1 2009, 15.49, said:

ETA: Personally, I believe religion has a net positive impact, but that's me. Aside from EHK getting his wish and seeing the results for himself, I don't think anyone short of God Himself coming down from on high can convince him otherwise.

I think this would be a difficult subject to study, but if I were to hazard a guess then I'd have to say that such a study would probably lead to mixed results. Probably the the most concrete finding of such a study would find that not all religions are created equal- that some faiths promote positive or beneficial behavior while others do not.

For example, just consider the results of this poll:

Quote

WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

***

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.

[CiaranAnnrach]

Zap Rowsdower, on May 2 2009, 17.58, said:

I think this would be a difficult subject to study, but if I were to hazard a guess then I'd have to say that such a study would probably lead to mixed results. Probably the the most concrete finding of such a study would find that not all religions are created equal- that some faiths promote positive or beneficial behavior while others do not.

For example, just consider the results of this poll:

I find it odd that you would quote the latter half, which express my personal beliefs, as opposed to the main body of that post which mostly deals on if religion has a net positive or net negative impact on society. I would assume the main body would be more appropriate. In truth, when I saw what you had quoted, I had first thought you were discussing the possibility of convincing EHK of otherwise, at which point I'd have reasserted that, no we do not need a poll for that.

That poll also isn't really that damning; it shows that religious people are slightly more apt to say torturing terrorists is kosher. Honestly, looking at the actual poll, there are a bunch of issues with it. For one, it had an extraordinarily small sample size, with each "pool" containing different numbers. The numbers they pulled for people who attend regularly are near double those who rarely attend. Plus, there are actually 5 different options, which CNN summarily lumped in together to create a "yes" or "no". If you actually look at the options, across all the different religious tiers, there is maybe a variation of 3-8% total per bracket. In fact, the number of people who claim it can often be justified decreases from the monthly bracket to the weekly bracket. In addition, there is a 1% difference between weekly churchgoers and those who never go to church in their opinion that it can never be justified.

That poll strikes me more as the results of someone doing a small study of a select few very focused groups of people, (only whites were polled), and then CNN seeing what they wanted to out of it. Seriously, why is it people keep posting polls without actually looking and evaluating the poll for themselves?

[EHK for Darwin]

ljkeane, on May 2 2009, 17.51, said:

Certain religious groups clearly are the driving force behind opposition to good education about evoulution in the US but since I suspect members of these groups don't constitute anywere near 60% of the population of the US the issue I would have is with the level of education those who aren't members of these groups.

I don't really care that certain groups choose to reject the evidence for evolution it's only when these groups are allowed to dictate the science curriculum of schools that I do have an issue with them. Ultimately it's not the beliefs of these groups that is the problem but that they are able to influence the level of education that students receive.

I covered this several times about 20+ posts ago. They don't have to be 60%. The victims don't have to be their kids or go to their schools. Their deliberate misinformation, smear campaign, and theological crusade against evolution affects everyone. As Watcher explained, it affects the schools, the teachers, and the textbooks that every kid has. As I've explained multiple times, overcoming simple ignorance is hard enough, countering ignorance laden propaganda signed off by mom, dad, and god is fucking impossible.

Their beliefs hurt the country whether they attack schools and school boards or not.

Quote

My friend on the other hand is more about the traditional economic conservative. Believe it or not there are plenty of those out there, they simply haven't had much luck on the national stage the last decade or so. Believe it or not, McCain use to be more of that type, though once he ran for president he changed a lot of things to please the more conservative side of the party. That really disappointed me as there was a point in time when I liked him and would have voted for him. I voted for him in the primary when I turned 18 and I was pretty much devastated when Bush won the primary....and that's pretty much what turned me off to the primary process.

I liked McCain for quite a while myself. Voted for him in the primary as well. Disgusted with what the Republicans did to him. And even more disgusted with the ass licking he chose to do to get the nomination the second time around.

Quote

This country has become so freakin' split on the issues with blind party loyalties that sane moderate candidates simply don't have a chance.

Sane moderates have every chance. They're called 90% of the Democrat party. There's so many damned sane, sober moderates in that party it annoys the fuck out of me. I'd love to see a few prominent ones who weren't ashamed to be true blue liberals. Seriously, we have very little real left in this country. Sure as hell not much in elected office, or if they are, they hide it well. The Republicans have been the ones slitting the throats of their moderates and pushing for ideological purity for 20 years, Democrats have been welcoming all comers with open arms. So much so that if you examine many of the positions of the more conservative ones, you'd swear they were a Republican.

Quote

Actually, I don't vote either or. I'm generally embarrassed and disgusted by what both parties have become.

A vote for a third party in our system is a vote against your own interests. Whichever party you hate more, you just gave them a partial vote.

[ljkeane]

EHK for Darwin, on May 3 2009, 00.55, said:

I covered this several times about 20+ posts ago. They don't have to be 60%. The victims don't have to be their kids or go to their schools. Their deliberate misinformation, smear campaign, and theological crusade against evolution affects everyone. As Watcher explained, it affects the schools, the teachers, and the textbooks that every kid has. As I've explained multiple times, overcoming simple ignorance is hard enough, countering ignorance laden propaganda signed off by mom, dad, and god is fucking impossible.

The way their campaign impacts on those who are not members of their groups is either directly on their education or is a reflection of the level of education they have received.

I think the impact of your suggestions on people who actually are members of the more extreme religious groups will be minimal what is important for everybody else is that they receive a good enough education. Something like national requirements for the curriculums schools teach would probably reduce the influence of fringe groups on the education students receive.

Edited by ljkeane, 02 May 2009 - 07:49 PM.

[Humble Asskicker]

I'm with Ser Scott on this. What I object to here is not so much religion, but utilizing disingenuity in furthering an agenda. Furthermore, considering the number of 1) these vocal creationists and religious figures who are slammed for tax evasion and 2) number of media persona (the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's) the amount of audience derived from advocating certain viewpoints appealing to a select demographic, and 3) the politicians dependent upon their constituency for re-election - considering this, it's hardly a shot in the dark to guess that the agenda of the vast majority of these visual figures is not religion, but $$$.

To go about cherry picking and misrepresenting an exhaustively researched and demonstrable scientific theory is the only way that creationism subsists, and all of these figures have heard them time and again, ignore them, and proceed with the same tangent, with the same deliberate misinformation.

These tactics of delivering an agenda through means of deception are not limited to creationists, but can be seen in all manner of activities, from business, politics, to every basic human interaction (all of which has the gullible group who eagerly digest what they want to hear, over what available information debunks each respective fantasy).

This agenda happens to be pernicious to a particular scientific advancement, a behavior which many here on this board (myself included) view as bad, but then we've witnessed areas where such bungles have occurred without the power of religion, or at least with its influence comparatively suppressed (*cough* the invasion of Iraq *cough* ).

I don't think religion should be exterminated though, whatever that religion may be. I do think the supernatural should be discounted as having any relevance on social policy, although I think social policy should accommodate supernatural belief to the extent that people are allowed to practice, as long as its hold is limited to that (in other words, church and state as separate - very swell dream that). It is, after all, outside nature, being supernatural and all, and so attempts to qualify it with nature are, inevitably, irreconcilably disputable. You can claim all you want that God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Jahbulon are fiction or non-fiction, but within the natural world as we know it, it won't go beyond that. Anyone could be right with any claim that exceeds the measurements of nature, so to prohibit one group from their beliefs would be just as prejudiced a position as the creationists' present behavior.

As for the flock, whose reasons for persisting in unfounded belief and demonstrably erroneous belief, it is ignorance, whether willful or otherwise. This has already been addressed. But again, eliminating religion would not eliminate ignorance (you would be hacking at the branch instead of removing the root). Education is the only real remedy, I think. And if education will not suffice for certain people, you have to sigh at losing the battle, but muster on for the war. There will always be that one chick who cries over the boyfriend who cheated on her, after he promised to stop his ways when he started a relationship with her during his marriage. Some people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what's in front of them. This isn't an issue of religion; religion is merely one venue for the problem.

In summation, religion: a forum for the real problem, not the problem itself; eliminating religion: not solving the problem for the aforementioned reason, or rather open up for new problems to arise, or the same problems for different reasons, while simultaneously participating in an act of equivalent prejudice and ignorance that the creationists are herein accused of.

As a postscript, I think the influence of religion has visibly waned. Sure, its advocates shout with just as much ardor as they always have, but while religion does have a habit of intruding and reshaping social policy, I think more often than not it's the other way around, and with each successive generation since the Age of Enlightenment it has mutated to something that is conducive to secular mores (that is, liberation from edicts that are grounded simply on the basis of "God said so"). I don't think it will fade anytime soon, but it's certainly changing to something more palatable (though it is a rocky journey).

Edited by The Humble Asskicker, 02 May 2009 - 07:12 PM.

[Triskele]

I don't know if religion is the root of all evil or not but these Youtube videos mocking creationists are making my day.

ETA:  The third one with the creationist who posits that a comet hit the Earth and froze it is amazing.  I am starting to think that people ought not be free to practice their beliefs.

Edited by Triskele, 02 May 2009 - 07:37 PM.

[EHK for Darwin]

ljkeane, on May 2 2009, 19.02, said:

The way their campaign impacts on those who are not members of their groups is either directly on their education or is a reflection of the level of education they have received.

No.

Quote

I think the impact of your suggestions on people who actually are members of the more extreme religious groups will be minimal

To quote myself: I'm not after them.

Quote

what is important for everybody else is that they recieve a good enough education.

Education does better without unnecessary & ignorant artificial barriers.

Quote

Something like national requirements for the curriculums schools teach would probably reduce the influence of fringe groups on the education students receive.

National standards are useful, but alot of shit still happens in the trenches even with declarations and textbooks from Washington.

[EHK for Darwin]

Triskele, on May 2 2009, 19.22, said:

I don't know if religion is the root of all evil or not but these Youtube videos mocking creationists are making my day.

Fucking classic series. Love em all. 17 & 21 are favorites.

[HT Reddy]

EHK for Darwin, on May 2 2009, 00.14, said:

No it isn't.

Yeh, obviously we disgagree on this. And that's the whole point.

Quote

When you present those two as the only options without any qualifiers, 'equally likely' is more or less implied.

This simply isn't true, and it's your bias showing through. Honestly, if you just attempt to see things froma  different point of view than your own, you would realise that this isn't some cheap rhetorical trick to make Christianity seem more credible than it reallt is (why would he need to do this - he is preaching to believers and is a believer himself), he is simply saying that Christian claims would be crazy if they weren't true. Yes he believes they are true - get over it. Like, if I say that to jump out of a three-storey window is either stupid or brave, am I saying that each possibility is 50%? No, because talking about probabilities is totally irrelevent to the sense of the sentence, and it's the same in Scot's example.

[EHK for Darwin]

HT Reddy, on May 2 2009, 19.33, said:

Honestly, if you just attempt to see things froma  different point of view than your own, you would realise that this isn't some cheap rhetorical trick to make Christianity seem more credible than it reallt is (why would he need to do this - he is preaching to believers and is a believer himself), he is simply saying that Christian claims would be crazy if they weren't true. Yes he believes they are true - get over it. Like, if I say that to jump out of a three-storey window is either stupid or brave, am I saying that each possibility is 50%? No, because talking about probabilities is totally irrelevent to the sense of the sentence, and it's the same in Scot's example.

I don't believe its a conscious or intentional misrepresentation, but it still is one. His suggestion is that its 'either/or', which technically it is. But the 'either' is completely random and arbitrary with absolutely nothing to support it and the 'or' is the only logical conclusion without significant evidence showing otherwise (or more specifically, in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever for anything). Unless there is good reason to believe 'something', the default position should be 'nothing'.

If he wants a pat on the back for acknowledging this stuff to the fawning masses, he'll have to do better. If he'd continued with the fact that there's absolutely no reason to believe in the abrahamic god, that there's no actual evidence to support his existence, that this particular church domination is no more or less likely to be the 'right' one than all the other Christian faiths, muslims, zoroastrians, gnostic heretics, mormons, hindus, buddhists, Pre-christian pagans, sun worshipers, Scientologists, hippy crystal worshipers, counter-cultural trend following Wiccans, leprechaun and Nessie believers, etc, etc, etc...he just MIGHT be approaching an accurate statement.

[Humble Asskicker]

EHK

Quote

If he'd continued with the fact that there's absolutely no reason to believe in the abrahamic god, that there's no actual evidence to support his existence, that this particular church domination is no more or less likely to be the 'right' one than all the other Christian faiths, muslims, zoroastrians, gnostic heretics, mormons, hindus, buddhists, Pre-christian pagans, sun worshipers, Scientologists, hippy crystal worshipers, counter-cultural trend following Wiccans, leprechaun and Nessie believers, etc, etc, etc...he just MIGHT be approaching an accurate statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this didn't you just acknowledge that the lack of belief in any or all of these beliefs is on equal footing with holding such beliefs? In other words, if we acknowledge that these supernatural posits are unknowable, this doesn't speak to them being invalid, but that we cannot know. Just as we cannot know that your stance of disbelief is valid.

I've always thought that the tenet of not holding any particular religion as above the rest was important for the purpose of preventing discrimination against the rest, not because it's ridiculous to contemplate that one of them might be true. But to hold the belief on non-theism over theism, and use it as grounds to discriminate, seems as against this policy as though you were holding Christianity as the national religion.

Particularly when, as Ser Scott pointed out, creationist thought is a minority belief within the spectrum of religion (he gave an example of Roman Catholicism as a religion that is in sync with the Theory of Evolution).

Quote

Education does better without unnecessary & ignorant artificial barriers.

You don't at all consider that ascribing certain opposing beliefs as "unnecessary barriers", in the very broad manner you advocate, is overly simplistic? You mentioned earlier the idealistic notion of eliminating a harm greater than whatever benefit is offered (the whole rotten apple analogy). As Zap pointed out, this isn't exactly the most easily quantifiable area. It's merely a cross your fingers sort of stray hope.

Besides which, what religions would you excise? Would it just be a complete, anything non-secular gets the boot sort of deal, or would we would appoint some reasonably objective (whatever the fuck that means in this instance) scientists to determine what religions pose the most threat to any pet area of science and progressive social fad and eliminate those?

I think this bears repeating: (from my earlier post)

Quote

These tactics of delivering an agenda through means of deception are not limited to creationists, but can be seen in all manner of activities, from business, politics, to every basic human interaction (all of which has the gullible group who eagerly digest what they want to hear, over what available information debunks each respective fantasy).

Quote

[The supernatural] is, after all, outside nature, being supernatural and all, and so attempts to qualify it with nature are, inevitably, irreconcilably disputable. You can claim all you want that God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Jahbulon are fiction or non-fiction, but within the natural world as we know it, it won't go beyond that. Anyone could be right with any claim that exceeds the measurements of nature, so to prohibit one group from their beliefs would be just as prejudiced a position as the creationists' present behavior.

Quote

But again, eliminating religion would not eliminate ignorance (you would be hacking at the branch instead of removing the root). Education is the only real remedy, I think. And if education will not suffice for certain people, you have to sigh at losing the battle, but muster on for the war....Some people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge what's in front of them. This isn't an issue of religion; religion is merely one venue for the problem.

Edited by The Humble Asskicker, 02 May 2009 - 08:01 PM.

[EHK for Darwin]

The Humble Asskicker, on May 2 2009, 19.51, said:

You don't at all consider that ascribing certain opposing beliefs as "unnecessary barriers", in the very broad manner you advocate, is overly simplistic? You mentioned earlier the idealistic notion of eliminating a harm greater than whatever benefit is offered (the whole rotten apple analogy). As Zap pointed out, this isn't exactly the most easily quantifiable area. It's merely a cross your fingers sort of stray hope.

Besides which, what religions would you excise? Would it just be a complete, anything non-secular gets the boot sort of deal, or would we would appoint some reasonably objective (whatever the fuck that means in this instance) scientists to determine what religions pose the most threat to any pet area of science and progressive social fad and eliminate those?

I think this bears repeating: (from my earlier post)

The entirety of religion is an unnecessary and unnatural barrier to alot of things, certainly not limited to education. It is a barrier to tolerance. The popular ones these days being homosexuals and sometimes other religions. I hear Jew hate is still popular with some of them. It is a barrier to medical research (stem cells) and sometimes proper medical treatment. (JW's on blood transfusions) It is a barrier to the battle against AIDS and other STD's, both abroad and here at home. A barrier to sustainable populations. A barrier to rational public policy generally, because even if they do attempt to couch their agenda in secular terms at times, they are not being put forth for secular reasons. The ultimate root of too much of their would be policy is 'god says', which is appalling on so many levels.

I can go on for a while, but you get the picture. They are the root cause of a whole host of ills. And I can't for the life of me see what they offer that cannot be done and done well via secular means. The things that they do manage very competently, say charitable donation or drug treatment, won't suddenly go to hell without them. And its quite possible that given the party (and its platform) that most devout religious folk choose to represent them in the US, that they're a net negative on these things as well.

Ideally, I'd drop all religions. I cannot see much redeeming value in any of them and the potential for increasingly greater harm persists if you let even the quiet moderate ones stick around. Whatever benefits are lost by the disappearance of religions will be plugged by other means. People aren't gonna suddenly refuse to go on or start behaving like barbaric sociopaths just because god is gone. God isn't required for people to be good people.


And to your last post, no, eliminating religion would not rid us of ignorance. But religion is right now one of the largest and most active encouragers of ignorance. The entire concept of religion is founded upon varying degrees of selective ignorance. Its ignorance is more successful then others because it can't be disputed by rational means in many cases. It carries weight unmatched by anything in certain circles. God Says trumps all. Getting rid of it doesn't win the war against ignorance, but its a damned good start. If we cure cancer, people will still die of the flu and other ailments, but damn...we still fucking cured cancer. Its a big first step.

[EHK for Darwin]

The Humble Asskicker, on May 2 2009, 19.51, said:

EHK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in this didn't you just acknowledge that the lack of belief in any or all of these beliefs is on equal footing with holding such beliefs? In other words, if we acknowledge that these supernatural posits are unknowable, this doesn't speak to them being invalid, but that we cannot know. Just as we cannot know that your stance of disbelief is valid.

I've always thought that the tenet of not holding any particular religion as above the rest was important for the purpose of preventing discrimination against the rest, not because it's ridiculous to contemplate that one of them might be true. But to hold the belief on non-theism over theism, and use it as grounds to discriminate, seems as against this policy as though you were holding Christianity as the national religion.

Particularly when, as Ser Scott pointed out, creationist thought is a minority belief within the spectrum of religion (he gave an example of Roman Catholicism as a religion that is in sync with the Theory of Evolution).

No I didn't. I stated that the default position in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is to believe nothing. There is no reason to believe that any of those are any more or less likely than the others. None of them have an ounce of support. The proper, rational, and logical position would be agnosticism to all of it. In the complete absence of evidence, omission is infinitely more likely and rational than commission.

According to the poll, 42% of the weekly church goers believe in creationism. That is disgustingly huge even if we don't toss any of the 'No opinion' folks that way.

All besides the point, my main opposition to religion is not that its untrue, but that it actively hurts the country. I have no problem considering it a public menace.

[Humble Asskicker]

Quote

No I didn't. I stated that the default position in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is to believe nothing. There is no reason to believe that any of those are any more or less likely than the others. None of them have an ounce of support. The proper, rational, and logical position would be agnosticism to all of it. In the complete absence of evidence, omission is infinitely more likely and rational than commission.

Then you must forgive me for being unclear with what I was attempting to convey. I was in fact arguing the agnostic position. I perceived your attacks on religion as the atheistic position, that you were stating that religion was unknowable and so we should qualify the only relevant position as counting an atheistic point of view (throw out religions, which are practices that disagree with the atheistic persuasion) - which is equally unknowable. I was disputing this because there's no absolute evidence that some supernatural force doesn't exist, so it's equally impossible to advocate that for certain. I was of the view then, that to allow any belief to exist outside of social policy was the only fair (and just to mention it, agnostic) position. It's not naysaying or yeasaying either way.

Quote

All besides the point, my main opposition to religion is not that its untrue, but that it actively hurts the country. I have no problem considering it a public menace.

Right, to continue.

Quote

The ultimate root of too much of their would be policy is 'god says', which is appalling on so many levels.

I think "common sense" could supplant "god says" quite easily.

I believe I see the difference between our stances. I'm of the perception that as long as our understanding of the world (as far as general population and those with the power to make policies, and the social mechanism resultant of the two) is limited, judgment will invariably be colored by stupidity. Religion is one of the tools wielded for or against the uninformed stance (you state it's much more for, and I happen to agree). I believe as general understanding improves, people may adapt their personal view of spirituality to suit that understanding. Naturally, nothing is assured and the promise that some day there will be this pure, untarnished utopia of...I don't know, whatever we are striving for now...may not be achievable, but perhaps we can eventually hit somewhere in the ball park (with the chance of regression from there, of course, as I don't see any social status as ever being inert).

From what I gather from your statements (as always, please correct where I've gotten it wrong) that religion is *the* active force for modern ignorance. Wiping it out will be a panacea towards achieving said utopia.

Our contention lies in whether there is an intrinsic tendency towards an uniformed attitude (religion or no), which I believe, or whether religion is the major body of that attitude, as you say.

I don't believe that in this hypothetical situation of where religion is eliminated (not even questioning the feasibility of it, or why quelling the religions of today won't somehow sprout new religions, as I don't want to turn this into a sub debate on whether people have a natural desire to believe in the supernatural), that we'll suddenly make headway, because I think that religion is, deep down, simply a pretext for a deeper desire towards simple, ignorant perceptions. You seem to think otherwise.

Do you suppose I have the core of our difference down accurately?

Edited by The Humble Asskicker, 02 May 2009 - 08:46 PM.

[Watcher]

Zap Rowsdower, on May 2 2009, 15.58, said:

I think this would be a difficult subject to study, but if I were to hazard a guess then I'd have to say that such a study would probably lead to mixed results. Probably the the most concrete finding of such a study would find that not all religions are created equal- that some faiths promote positive or beneficial behavior while others do not.

For example, just consider the results of this poll:

Any poll that is based on church attendance should be suspected. Studies have shown that polls trying to gauge church attendance over estimate the true amount of attendance by as much as 50%. For whatever reason, people misinform pollsters about how often they go to church.

Quote

I don't disagree with you that it is extremely important to ensure that students receive a high level of education and that groups with an anti evolution agenda should not be allowed to dictate the science curriculum. I just don't agree with EHK that the problem with knowledge about evolution in the US is entirely due to religion or that the solution to the problem is to ridicule all religious groups.

I would argue that the major reason that over 40% of Americans believe that evolution isn't true is due to their religious belief. And it is the conservative christian idiots that put the most resources into anti-evolution beliefs and produce the out right lies about it. This breakdown of the polls on Religious Tolerance shows that the percentage of Americans that believe Earth is less then 10,000 years old hasn't really changed in the past 20 years.

I don't believe that all religious groups should be ridicule over this issue. I believe the leaders that are purposely trying to dumb down the American Education system should be met with nothing but scorn and contempt. I'd advocate for a bit more patients for their willfully ignorant followers. For over 20 years the basic scientific errors have been pointed out. For over 20 years the science community has done nothing but strengthen support for the Theory of Evolution but they stick by their ridiculous lies in the face of reason. A look at Conservapedia website on evolutionshould be enough to convince you of how far from reality evolution opponents have gotten. That page if full of quote mining, distortions and misleading facts.

[EHK for Darwin]

The Humble Asskicker, on May 2 2009, 20.44, said:

Then you must forgive me for being unclear with what I was attempting to convey. I was in fact arguing the agnostic position. I perceived your attacks on religion as the atheistic position, that you were stating that religion was unknowable and so we should qualify the only relevant position as counting an atheistic point of view (throw out religions, which are practices that disagree with the atheistic persuasion) - which is equally unknowable. I was disputing this because there's no absolute evidence that some supernatural force doesn't exist, so it's equally impossible to advocate that for certain. I was of the view then, that to allow any belief to exist outside of social policy was the only fair (and just to mention it, agnostic) position. It's not naysaying or yeasaying either way.

I don't advocate anything for certain. I do treat completely unsupported, fantastical beliefs with as little consideration as possible, because quite frankly, they don't merit any. Sure there's the infinitesimal possibility that any of them, from god to leprechauns, may in fact be true. But we hardly spend much time mewling over the less culturally significant ones, and from an objective standpoint, each ones pretty much just as fringe as the other. I don't see the point in giving any of them much more than a moment's consideration absent serious evidence as none of them warrant it.

I characterize my view as atheism not because i dismiss that sliver of a possibility that some deity may exist, but because agnosticism strikes me half-hearted, weak-willed, indecisive hand-wringing. Nor does it have the appropriate shock value when talking with believers. Half of them probably think agnostic is a fancy term for non-denominational, I want to make sure NOONE is under any misunderstanding.

Quote

I think "common sense" could supplant "god says" quite easily.

Common sense is an infuriating term that I do try to avoid like the plague. (I think I've only used it once in the last year, and then half jokingly) But even common sense is MUCH easier to expose as bullshit than religion. Though it might take alot of work and patience, it can be disputed in rational, real world terms. God says still cannot be. Common sense is unlikely to get too fucked up in most cases, as its still subject to real-world rules, rationale, and experiences. AKA, common sense isn't gonna get people to spontaneously believe that the world is a dream and we're all stuck in the Matrix. Further, common sense isn't gonna spread any consistence message to all corners of the nation. Its a collection experiences, urban legend, my friends said, my parents said, education, upbringing, etc and thus everyones 'common ignorance' is gonna vary. A bit harder to stand on such 'common sense' when you're the only one spouting that particular variety. Much easier to hold tight when tens of millions of others congregate weekly to propagate the same thing. Also, your particular common sense is less likely to be advocated or legislated into law. So yes, common sense is an issue. But not the same sort of demon nor nearly as dangerous as 'god says'.

Quote

From what I gather from your statements (as always, please correct where I've gotten it wrong) that religion is *the* active force for modern ignorance. Wiping it out will be a panacea towards achieving said utopia.

Utopia might be overstating things, but this is pretty much correct. I accept that ignorance is inevitable, though its in our interests to limit it as much as possible. My problem with religion is that it actively advocates FOR ignorance. I cannot find another force as strong, influential, effective and widespread that pushes for it so hard. As such, I see it as 'the' (or one of the) key barriers to limiting ignorance. Take my earlier car accident analogy. (car accidents of course = ignorance and its effects) Car accidents will happen. An effective society limits them via safer cars and highways. But religion, since it actively seeks to spread ignorance, is a force of commission rather than mere negligence. They are the tens of millions of drivers that actively try to run other drivers off the road. That's what I find particularly obnoxious about religion.

Quote

Our contention lies in whether there is an intrinsic tendency towards an uniformed attitude (religion or no), which I believe, or whether religion is the major body of that attitude, as you say.

I don't believe that in this hypothetical situation of where religion is eliminated (not even questioning the feasibility of it, or why quelling the religions of today won't somehow sprout new religions, as I don't want to turn this into a sub debate on whether people have a natural desire to believe in the supernatural), that we'll suddenly make headway, because I think that religion is, deep down, simply a pretext for a deeper desire towards simple, ignorant perceptions. You seem to think otherwise.

Do you suppose I have the core of our difference down accurately?

The top parts were good. These last few sentences I don't believe I've touched on (could be wrong), but I will here. As I said above, ignorance is inevitable but uniform ignorance isn't. Ignorance needs to reach a critical mass of consistent voices before it can seriously influence society or become enshrined in law. Religion (IMO) is unlike any any other force out there in the depth of its effects, how widespread those effects are, and how unchallengeable they are by rational means. Other things (ideology, nationalism, etc) may do this, but not as effectively and always on a smaller scale. It is in those regards, quite unique. You speak of unified attitudes, well I see religion as the single greatest unifier of those. Both in its scope and depth of its effects. Might be useful if we could find one with almost entirely positive tenets and spread that to every individual in the world, but in the absence of that its a force for division (too many faiths and too many subdivisions) and all of them have far too many obnoxious tenets and/or common practices & preconceptions.

[The White Wolf]

El-ahrairah, on May 2 2009, 17.33, said:

As a proud member of the homeschool movement (which as everyone knows is an evil conspiracy of neo-fascists hiding from the Black Helicopters and awaiting the Rapture), I'm quite happy with its even worse than abysmal standards. My ignorant parents have done a pretty good job thus far, such as getting both me and my older brother ACT, PSAT, & SAT scores in the 99th percentile. They even got him into college (to study, among other things, the Theory of Evolution).

One thing it appears you haven't learned is the dangers of statistics of small groups.  I'll even one up you: my wife and I were both educated entirely by public schools, got similar marks on the ACT & SAT to that of your brother.  Moreover we both performed very well in college: my wife went on to take the MCAT where she placed in the 90th percentile and attended Washington University Medical School.  I took the Math GRE and received a mark in the 93rd percentile.  So clearly, by these two examples, there is no problem at all with public schools.  (/removes tongue from cheek)

[Watcher]

El-ahrairah, on May 2 2009, 15.33, said:

Now this I have to take personally...

As a proud member of the homeschool movement (which as everyone knows is an evil conspiracy of neo-fascists hiding from the Black Helicopters and awaiting the Rapture), I'm quite happy with its even worse than abysmal standards. My ignorant parents have done a pretty good job thus far, such as getting both me and my older brother ACT, PSAT, & SAT scores in the 99th percentile. They even got him into college (to study, among other things, the Theory of Evolution).

Why are you taking it personally? Are you contesting that one of the reasons behind the home school movement wasn't their rejection of evolution theory. That there isn't a wide selection of text books they can choose to teach their children that are out wrong about evolution.

I'm glad your parents aren't one of them. But there is very little oversight in homeschooling by most states. Your antidotal story doesn't make it true for others.