PDA

View Full Version : Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums


Dagobahn Eagle
04-14-2007, 07:44 PM
Newsweek article on YEC propaganda 'museum' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18061154/site/newsweek/): (permalink (http://society.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=563236)).
Welcome [...] to the Creation Museum. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science. Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark. [Emphasis mine]
How is this any better than North Korean museums' displays about how Kim il-Sun created the peninsula of Korea, or a Stalinist museum of the horrors of living in democratic nations? Is it any better than a KKK museum parading the idea that Africans are inferior to us and deserving of slavery?

The article mentions, among other things, caricatures of science; the belief that dragons may have been real only a few hundred years ago; and that the Bible should always be prioritized over science because 'humans are fallible'. A museum. I feel nauseated.

It's one thing to believe this nonsense privately. To spread it without knowledge of the subject is another. And to contaminate the public mind in this fashion is simply unforgivable. These people make a mockery of the very principle of museums and have a place alongside the propaganda-makers of East Germany's brainwashing machinery. And in the midst of this, they are the ones who feel oppressed. It's beyond arrogance to poison the minds of the gullible this way.

While I keep telling myself, and really believe, that it's impossible that the country will fall into a Dark Age of cultism, theocracy and oppression, sometimes I truly fear for the future of the United States of America - I don't find it completely impossible that it's the Christian Saudi-Arabia of tomorrow. The YECs attack not only evolution, an integral part of biology - they also strike at medicine, tolerance, freedom, science in general, and women's rights, to mention but a very few.

Emperor Devon
04-14-2007, 08:27 PM
It's nothing short of nauseating, but it's hardly new. If "intelligent design" can't get stuck in public schools, something like this is inevitable.

Portraying total fiction and utter nonsense as absolute truth in a house of knowledge of all places is nothing short of desecration. It's an insult to science, intelligence, knowledge, and all highest virtues men can aspire to. It's barbaric. It's spitting upon what makes humans great. It is an insult to all the great minds throughout history and a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind. I'd go so far as to call it an indirect hatred for humanity. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world it is things like this.

My two Randist cents.

Gargoyle King
04-14-2007, 08:33 PM
It's nothing short of nauseating, but it's hardly new. If "intelligent design" can't get stuck in public schools, something like this is inevitable.

Portraying total fiction and utter nonsense as absolute truth in a house of knowledge of all places is nothing short of desecration. It's an insult to science, intelligence, knowledge, and all highest virtues men can aspire to. It's barbaric. It's spitting upon what makes humans great. It is an insult to all the great minds throughout history and a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind. I'd go so far as to call it an indirect hatred for humanity. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world it is things like this.

My two Randist cents.

Whoa!! Slow down!! :lol:
I personally wouldn't go this far, i do agree however that it's an insult to science and common knowledge. If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world i'd have to say it's Bush (c'mon you can't deny there is something very mischevious about that man - i worry for the world every time he smiles, i think what is it now? First the Iraqi War and now World War 3 with Korea!) :lol:

Emperor Devon
04-14-2007, 08:50 PM
Whoa!! Slow down!! :lol:
I personally wouldn't go this far,

I would.

If you look this casually, it may just seem stupid someone word portray nonsense as fact but nothing more.

But look for a moment at the deeper meanings of this. Science, knowledge, independence, intelligence, and all those other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today. Everything this advocates is the total opposite of that - to besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today, and harkens back to the Dark Ages where God was put above reason (and funnily enough, the same time when religion ruled the world).

It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity. To advocate ignorance and stupidity in this manner is like saying "Back to the jungle! Back to savagery and barbarism! Down with intelligence and knowledge! Humans are worthless!"

i do agree however that it's an insult to science and common knowledge.

Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to. Dismiss them as worthless and you dismiss humanity as worthless.

If anything could be described as the personification of all that is evil in the world i'd have to say it's Bush

Somewhat good intents, horrible results. What things like this symbolize is much worse.

Achilles
04-14-2007, 09:01 PM
Oh that. Yes, well, that's just one drop in the bucket my friend. Here are some of the other weapons of mass destruction that are being used in the war on reason:

Christian Colleges and Universities (http://www.college-scholarships.com/christian_colleges.htm). Bob Jones University (http://www.bju.edu/) is arguably the flag ship of these institutions. Richard Dawkins has a very entertaining commentary on Liberty University (http://www.liberty.edu/), which can be found here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dK757VbkZhI) (I recommend watching to the end. What he says might sound familiar :)).

The Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) (specifically the Center for Science and Culture (http://www.crsc.org/)). This group had a hand in trying to get intelligent design (aka creationism) into the science curricula in Dover, Pennsylvania (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259). Not to be deterred, they were also arguably behind a similar move in the state of Kansas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html). Keep in mind this esteemed group of scientists don't actually do any ID-specific research, nor to they publish any ID-specific papers. In fact it appears that all they do is try to circumvent the scientific process and indoctrinate young minds into their pseudo-science by getting their ideas into science curricula. Ken Miller, one of the scientists involved with the Dover trial has a very long (but very good) presentation on ID which can be found here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg).

There was one other thing I wanted to touch on, but I seem to have forgotten it. I'll edit this post later if it comes back to me.

EDIT: Of course it came back to me right after I posted.

The Templeton Prize (http://www.templetonprize.org/). This prize is awarded to someone that "serves to stimulate this quest for deeper understanding and pioneering breakthroughs in religious concepts". It might be a red herring to point out that this honor comes complete with a $3 million cash bonus. Some might want to point out that there are similar prizes for science, but science is a legitimate exploratory endeavor, while religion is not.

Thanks for reading.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-14-2007, 09:41 PM
Richard Dawkins is always worth your time. He assaults another so-called 'museum' of in the Q&A session, advising the students of Liberty University to 'leave and enroll at a real university' [paraphrased].

I personally find that Dawkins is too rude in some cases (for example, his 'I keep a tally of the people walking out'-comment was uncalled for, in my eyes), but his ideas are solid as concrete.

Achilles
04-14-2007, 10:05 PM
Indeed, he does a bit of an edge sometimes. If you haven't had an opportunity to see Sam Harris speak, I'd highly recommend doing so. Here's a clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3CzIl4o4k) that shows Harris at his most riled (and still manages to be a paragon of patience and grace). Of course, he has a strong Buddhist background, which Dawkins does not have ;)

SilentScope001
04-14-2007, 11:21 PM
Free speech is something that should be protected, regardless of what ideas a person like or hate. I am against censorship in all ways, both private and public, both internal and external. Internal censorship would be having a bias that makes you believe that one idea is wrong and then curisng that idea. Everyone has an internal censorship of some sort, but it should be destroyed, because it infringes on Free Speech.

What's the point of the 1st Amendment, after all, IF you do not have the Right to be Heard?

Yes, I say that tiny little spiel. Why? Because I object to ED calling for censorship of an idea, regardless of what Idea it actually is. You hate it, fine. But don't go and start calling people evil or such or that they deserve to have this museum be shut down. Otherwise, if we can shut down "ideas" because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong", well...er...this means that we can shut down any other "ideas" as well, because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong".

We might as well shut down ALL ideas we hate. Why not complete the cycle, and get rid of all opposing ideas? Because if we do so, then there is a chance that my Ideas would be destroyed with this last purge, and there is a chance your Ideas will be destroyed in the last purge. I think it would be better to keep things in flux, allow for everyone to have the right to speak their mind, and for everyone to keep an open mind to hear what other people are saying.

What does this mean in the ID/Creationism debate? I do not know, and I do not care. Teach it in school, teach it outside, sooner or later, if a person wants to learn ID, they'll learn it. What I do care is the offensive call to censor ID and prevent that Idea from spreading.

And I do believe in evolution, I feel it actually boosts my faith in religion. But that doesn't mean that we should censor other people's ideas.

Jae Onasi
04-15-2007, 12:39 AM
It beats 'performance art'. Welcome to America, where you can have museums about Spam and assorted other...unusual things.

Aside from being ultra-fundamentalist in religious doctrine, the other non-religious programs at Liberty are pretty good, and the campus is in a beautiful part of the country. I did visit when I was in high school. There was a rule at the time (don't know if this is still the case) that the guys all had to wear ties to class and chapel. We saw one guy with what must have been 20 or 30 ties on, arranged very neatly 360 degrees around his neck. It was quite a statement. :D

Saying Dawkins has 'a bit of an edge' would be like a woman saying 'I'm a bit pregnant'.

Achilles
04-15-2007, 01:01 AM
It beats 'performance art'. Welcome to America, where you can have museums about Spam and assorted other...unusual things. Last time I checked, Spam isn't a lie being propagated as truth. One of these things is dangerous while the other is not.

Aside from being ultra-fundamentalist in religious doctrine, the other non-religious programs at Liberty are pretty good, and the campus is in a beautiful part of the country. Like the science program that proclaims that dinosaurs were around 3000 years ago?

Saying Dawkins has 'a bit of an edge' would be like a woman saying 'I'm a bit pregnant'. Rather than point out that I've watch dozens of speeches and interviews and have only seen him "lose it" a couple of times, I think I'll point out that the spokespeople for Christianity are not better and in most cases are far worse than Richard Dawkins. I'll take Dawkins over Falwell or Robertson anyday. Let's give objectivity a chance, eh? Pregnancy is an all-or-nothing proposition after all.

Samuel Dravis
04-15-2007, 02:27 AM
The Creation Museum, which has so far funded its $26 million cost through private donationsI don't see a problem. If people go to it, then it's their responsibility. I don't care what they do with their time. "Dangerous" as religion may or may not be, no one can tell them they don't have the right to do as they like in this case.

Achilles
04-15-2007, 02:36 AM
By itself, I don't see it as being anymore of a problem than any of the other indoctrination tools. As part of the whole, it's just another source of growing concern. If those groups that donated were really interested in furthering knowledge and understanding, I'm sure there are more than a few legitimate causes that $26 million could have gone towards. My 2 cents.

stoffe
04-15-2007, 09:17 AM
If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech?

As long as it doesn't affect anyone else than those who choose to believe it then they should be allowed to do/think as they want. If they try to force it on everyone else then it's a different matter entirely, though that applies to other ideas as well. Forcing people to "believe" in religious doctrine at gunpoint isn't any worse then forcing people to "believe" in atheism at gunpoint.

It's one of the dilemmas of freedom of expression, that it must allow people with uncomfortable and "wrong/dangerous" ideas to hold them regardless. It's not really freedom of expression if you're only allowed to have ideas that have gotten the stamp of approval by some higher authority.

That does of course not grant these people freedom from having their ideas criticized by others who don't agree with them. The critics have the right to express their ideas as well, so long as they don't force the deviants to believe like them.

Just (some of) my thoughts on the subject. :)

Darth InSidious
04-15-2007, 09:41 AM
Last time I checked, Spam isn't a lie being propagated as truth. One of these things is dangerous while the other is not.

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative. I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific? It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO :)

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today...

harkens back to the Dark Ages where God was put above reason (and funnily enough, the same time when religion ruled the world).
I advise you to learn some history. The foundations of science and knowledge are in your 'Dark Ages', with minds. Your 'Dark Ages' were alive with writers, philosophers, and proto-scientists. The 'Dark Ages' in your understanding are a Protestant myth and about a century behind modern historical thought.

@Dagobahn: Would this be the 'Christian' Saudi Arabia where only Muslims can be citizens?

@ED: I am curious as to why the highest good is this Laputian quest for knowledge? What of compassion, mercy, tolerance, love?

Dagobahn Eagle
04-15-2007, 10:48 AM
Freedom of speech is not absolute, nor should it be. A doctor cannot lie to a patient about his condition, regardless of freedom of speech. I'm sure there are people who don't like to hear that diabetes is more common among Asians, for example. Should they be allowed to become doctors and spew nonsense about how we're all equally likely to get diabetes? Should medicine be made 'politically correct' so that those of us who don't like life's harsh realities have a place to go to hear what they want to hear? Never.

Is it freedom of speech-protected for an ice cream company to advertise its products as sugar-free when in reality they are not? Would it be legal for tobacco producers to slap a 'non-addictive' label onto their cigarette packs? Certainly not.

When I visit a doctor's office, I expect to be able to ask questions about human anatomy without getting lies in return. The second I hear my doctor say something like 'AIDS is not a virus, but punishment for your sins', I walk out of there and report him to the proper authorities. When I visit a museum, I expect to learn about whatever the museum is dedicated to. It's the same thing.

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.A scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science), such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is a model used to explain facts. It can very well be factual. The theories of evolution and atoms certainly are.

Otherwise, if we can shut down "ideas" because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong", well...er...this means that we can shut down any other "ideas" as well, because we hate them and that we believe/think/know they are "wrong".No. I hate nazism, but I perfectly well recognize that the ignorant swines have the right to spew their anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual, anti-freedom bigotry. It's not that the Creationists disagree with me that's the problem. It's that they build 'museums' and 'schools', sites of education and learning, to further those ideas. These two institutions should have a standard of accuracy, just like newspapers that can't lie about individuals without risking libel lawsuits.

Want to make a Creationism museum? Go ahead. Just be sure to inform the visitors that you do not claim a single one of your ideas is real, unless you actually can produce evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative. I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific? It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.That is because it, like the hypothesis that trolls are real, has brought forth no evidence whatsoever to support its claims. Few sane people today can honestly say they believe in trolls. Why? Because there's no evidence for them. All the mysteries that required trolls and other vættir (a collective term for all mysterious forest creatures in Norse woods - there were quite a few) have been solved. No one today claims we need to learn about curses from witches as an alternative to allergies, do we? We accept that when cows start itching, they're ill or allergic, and we need no 'alternative explanation' - certainly not a supernatural one with no evidence - to this fact.

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO:).Science is not a religion. A religion is the belief that there is one or more supernatural lifeform, a god, in this universe. Science says nothing of the sort.

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today...Nonsense. You'd have to declare every single activity in the world a religion if you are to define 'religion' as 'something somebody has a strong interest in'.

If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech?You can have all the dangerous ideas you want. Just don't put them in museums as facts, unless you can prove they are indeed factual.

Darth InSidious
04-15-2007, 11:00 AM
A scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science), such as the theory of gravity or atomic theory, is a model used to explain facts. It can very well be factual. The theories of evolution and atoms certainly are.
Incorrect. It explains the evidence. 'Facts' are absolute, noumenal. Evidence is...observations. Observations are phenomenal. The phenomenal cannot be absolute, since we cannot tell whether it is also noumenal. Therefore, evidence does not equate to 'facts'.

That is because it, like the hypothesis that trolls are real, has brought forth no evidence whatsoever to support its claims. Few sane people today can honestly say they believe in trolls. Why? Because there's no evidence for them. All the mysteries that required trolls and other vættir (a collective term for all mysterious forest creatures in Norse woods - there were quite a few) have been solved. No one today claims we need to learn about curses from witches as an alternative to allergies, do we? We accept that when cows start itching, they're ill or allergic, and we need no 'alternative explanation' - certainly not a supernatural one with no evidence - to this fact.
You cannot give evidence for the noumenal, though. Since ID deals solely with the noumenal, and not the phenomenal, in fact placing both in contradiction, it cannot be scientifically proven, and in fact debunks science altogether - it bypasses science as irrelevant.

Science is not a religion. A religion is the belief that there is one or more supernatural lifeform, a god, in this universe. Science says nothing of the sort.
I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.

Nonsense. You'd have to declare every single activity in the world a religion if you are to define 'religion' as 'something somebody has a strong interest in'.
That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-15-2007, 01:34 PM
I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.Not at all. Religion is the belief in a supernatural deity. It is almost always hostile to change, but that is in no way what defines it.

And as a side note, science is not hostile to change at all, neither am I.

That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.I think you're failing to understand the implications of the religious fundamentalists gaining more and more control in the world's only superpower, a nation responsible for roughly 50% of the world's research. Already, we've got people opposing abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research for religious reasons. Back in the days of the Wright brothers, the work to invent aircraft was discouraged by many fundamentalists who interpreted it as against the will of God. When the fork was introduced to Scandinavia, religious people refused to use it because... [drumroll] ...the Bible never mentions Jesus eating with a similar tool.

Religious fundamentalism, by definition, impedes progress and freedom.

stoffe
04-15-2007, 01:47 PM
Already, we've got people opposing abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research for religious reasons. Back in the days of the Wright brothers, the work to invent aircraft was discouraged by many fundamentalists who interpreted it as against the will of God. When the fork was introduced to Scandinavia, religious people refused to use it because... [drumroll] ...the Bible never mentions Jesus eating with a similar tool.


And yet today both forks and aircraft are standard, even though the religious institutions had much more power back then (and religion played a larger part in most people's everyday life). This would indicate that just because a group of people with strong convictions scream loud it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of humanity listen to them and do as they say. :)

I'd like to think that the same would be true today in the more secular western world; that scientists will continue to work towards what they believe in even if religious fundamentalists are ideologically opposed to their work and ideas. Without the need to silence those fundamentalists to enable progress. Prove them wrong and provide counter arguments to their claims rather than prevent them from saying what they believe in.

Achilles
04-15-2007, 02:19 PM
If some people want to believe in these things then why not let them? People have different beliefs and feelings about many things that are not always logical and rational, but they believe it anyway. If people aren't allowed to have "dangerous" ideas do you really have freedom of expression/speech? I won't presume to speak for anyone else here. I'm not advocating that they shouldn't be permitted to have such a museum, or that their right to free speech/expression should be suspended. I don't believe I've said anything here that suggests that.

As long as it doesn't affect anyone else than those who choose to believe it then they should be allowed to do/think as they want. Absolutely. It is a shame that so many resources are going into something that will do nothing to progress knowledge and understanding (which is the whole point of a museum, imho).

If they try to force it on everyone else then it's a different matter entirely, though that applies to other ideas as well. Like children that are not allowed to make a choice regarding what their parents expose them to? Dawkins makes a case that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and I'm inclined to agree with him.

Forcing people to "believe" in religious doctrine at gunpoint isn't any worse then forcing people to "believe" in atheism at gunpoint.Agreed. Luckily, I don't know of anyone that advocates atheism at gunpoint. Those regimes that have in the past have much bigger problems than atheism though.

It's one of the dilemmas of freedom of expression, that it must allow people with uncomfortable and "wrong/dangerous" ideas to hold them regardless. It's not really freedom of expression if you're only allowed to have ideas that have gotten the stamp of approval by some higher authority.I couldn't agree more. I think you'll find that I advocate a cultural shift to atheism based on this very principle. People should be allowed to believe in whatever they want, within reason (unless you want to advocate for pedophiles, etc). It would be nice though if we lived in a society where superstition wasn't necessary.

That does of course not grant these people freedom from having their ideas criticized by others who don't agree with them. The critics have the right to express their ideas as well, so long as they don't force the deviants to believe like them.Exactly.

Just (some of) my thoughts on the subject. :)Thanks for sharing them :)

A *lie*. That seems to imply that the theory or evolution is some kind of dogmatic truth, an absolute.That would be a false dichotomy. Exposing religion as a lie does not automatically make evolution the default winner, just as debunking evolution would not make religion the default winner. Religion can be a lie all by itself and evolution can be debunked all by itself and a 3rd option we haven't even considered might be the true "winner".

Luckily, all the evidence just happens to support the theory of evolution, so I am confident in it's accuracy...until I have good cause to think other wise.

Your emphasis on the word "theory" demonstrates that you do not understand the significance of the term within the study of science. I can only assume that you are incorrectly confusing it with what those familiar with science would call a hypothesis. I would suggest that you spend some time researching the subject a little more (specifically the difference between a hypothesis and a theory), as it might aid you in some of these discussions. I hope that helps.

Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative. Emphasis on "non-scientific". A non-scientific alternative to science. Lovely.

I don't agree with it, I don't think it's likely, but I don't deny the possibility of it. On what rational grounds can it be denied? That it isn't scientific? Luckily, the study of science requires that we are skeptical until we have evidence. Anything is possible until it can be discounted. Since ID has yet to produce a testable hypothesis (by its advocate's own admission), it hasn't even taken the first step toward being taken seriously. Hence all the hub-bub about keeping it out of science classrooms.

It deals solely with noumena - how can science penetrate its claims? It can't.Correct. Which is why it's not science and most likely never will be.

You reaction is yet one more example of the religion of science, IMO :) I would have to know what you were referencing specifically in order to reply. In the mean time: this is not an argument.

The language used here certainly sounds religious - 'desecrate', 'caricatures', 'nauseated', 'contaminate the public mind', 'mockery', ' mockery of the very principle of museums', 'beyond arrogance', 'house of knowledge', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'an insult to all the great minds throughout history', 'a salute to ignorance, stupidity, and faithlessness is mankind', 'indirect hatred for humanity', 'personification of all that is evil in the world', 'other virtues were what brought man from scattered tribes living in caves to the advanced societies we live in today',' besmirch science in such a way as this "museum" does is a slap on the face to what made man what man is today', 'It's monstrous. To desecrate science is to spit in the face of humanity','Which are the highest of virtues mankind can aspire to','the war on reason', 'lie being propagated as truth'...My, the Rationalist Inquisition is out in full force today... You are, of course, welcome to your opinions, however please don't confuse them with the truth. Thanks in advance.

Incorrect. It explains the evidence. 'Facts' are absolute, noumenal. Evidence is...observations. Observations are phenomenal. The phenomenal cannot be absolute, since we cannot tell whether it is also noumenal. Therefore, evidence does not equate to 'facts'.As I have already pointed out in another thread, this argument belies your lack of understanding regarding science. Fact is the foundation of science. Scientific theory is superior to facts because fact just exist while theories offer explanations about facts. I again implore you to spend some time learning about the basics of science before commenting further.

You cannot give evidence for the noumenal, though. Since ID deals solely with the noumenal, and not the phenomenal, in fact placing both in contradiction No contradiction. Being noumenal, it immediately takes itself out of the game. If it weren't for the fact that ID advocates were trying to sneak it into science curricula, I promise you that the scientific community would be perfect happy to just ignore it.

it cannot be scientifically proven, and in fact debunks science altogether - it bypasses science as irrelevant.LOL. It does no such thing. I recommend studying this a bit further, sir.

I disagree. A religion is a collection of (usually absolute) dogmas first and foremost. Which is what you have turned science into.There is no dogma in science. Where there is dogma, it's not science. It really is that simple.

That is all very religious language, however. If I were to replace 'museum', 'science', 'knowledge' and 'reason' in these phrases with 'God', 'divinity' et al., you would say that it is just a few religious nuts getting hot under the collar over nothing.It seems interesting that you see fit to mock such language while seeking to claim it as your own. If you can fashion a list of "official religious outbursts" and the demonstrate how the contributors to this thread have unwittingly committed some form of copyright violation, I'm sure that each of us will be more than happy to offer an apology for the trespass.

And yet today both forks and aircraft are standard, even though the religious institutions had much more power back then (and religion played a larger part in most people's everyday life). This would indicate that just because a group of people with strong convictions scream loud it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of humanity listen to them and do as they say. :)I don't think there is any evidence that shows that religion was more prevalent then than it is today. Most survey data that I've seen would seem to indicate that religiosity (in the U.S. at least) has been pretty steady for most of the last century. This might seems like case for "atheist alarmism" but when you consider religiosity as function of progress, the more sophisticated that our society becomes the more absurd superstition is.

As DE points out, the U.S. seems poised on the edge of a theocracy. Considering how much power the U.S. government wields throughout the world, it would seem to be in everyone's best interest if we prevent the fundies from completely taking over. At least that's my opinion.

I'd like to think that the same would be true today in the more secular western world; that scientists will continue to work towards what they believe in even if religious fundamentalists are ideologically opposed to their work and ideas.The only "secular western world" I'm aware of is Europe and Canada :)

The problem in the U.S. is that the gov't has seen fit to begin limiting which kinds of scientific research are allowed. So it's not a matter of live and let live.

Without the need to silence those fundamentalists to enable progress. Prove them wrong and provide counter arguments to their claims rather than prevent them from saying what they believe in.Again, I think the "silence the fundamentalist" argument might be something of a red herring. No one is calling for rounding up all the fundies and pushing them off a cliff. It seems much more like a call to reason. At least from where I'm standing.

Thanks again.

JediMaster12
04-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Welcome [...] to the Creation Museum. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science. Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark. [Emphasis mine]
What you have shown is nothing short of the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of. The idea of showing that evolution is unsupportable by science? Completely dumb and pure nonsense. The world is not 6,000 years old and geological evidence points that out. Everything in the Bible is not literal.

I am for freedom of expression but as I believe someone pointed out there are limits to that but what I know is the limit to the letter of the law meaning words that incite violence are a crime of itself.

Dawkins makes a case that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse and I'm inclined to agree with him.
How is this abuse? Is this one of those trapizes that depends on point of view? The way how you make it seem to me is something that is as ridiculous as the parent worry craze of playground equipment.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-16-2007, 02:16 PM
I disagree it's child abuse, but I do believe that it's morally wrong to indoctrinate a kid into religion before it's old enough to think for itself. As people such as Dawkins have pointed out, it's just as wrong as indoctrinating them into supporting a certain political ideology.

Little children are too young to understand politics - doesn't it follow from that that they're also too young to understand huge questions such as 'where do we come from'? Why is it OK to take an infant to church, teach it to pray, and call it a 'Catholic child', but frowned upon to take it to demonstrations, tell it Scandinavia is Heaven because of socialism, and call it a 'Norwegian Labour Party child'?

SilentScope001
04-16-2007, 03:16 PM
Little children are too young to understand politics - doesn't it follow from that that they're also too young to understand huge questions such as 'where do we come from'? Why is it OK to take an infant to church, teach it to pray, and call it a 'Catholic child', but frowned upon to take it to demonstrations, tell it Scandinavia is Heaven because of socialism, and call it a 'Norwegian Labour Party child'?

Isn't for me. Do what you wish, even for politics.

Indoctration is part of every child's education. All childern have to be indoctrined to believe that 2+2=4, for instance. Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorites becuase they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.

"Why does 2+2=4?"

"Because it does. Now shut up and your homework."

Though letting the child question for himself what is right and wrong, if those authorities are correct, I'm okay with. Let the child choose wheter he want to accept the indoctration or if he wants to throw away that nonsense of God and 2+2=4 into the trash bin. But first, just indoctrine him with the information he needs, and then, later on, let him choose.

Achilles
04-16-2007, 03:21 PM
How is this abuse? Is this one of those trapizes that depends on point of view? The way how you make it seem to me is something that is as ridiculous as the parent worry craze of playground equipment. There's a psychological and an intellectual component.

As DE points out above, children are too young to grasp some things, including how to differentiate fact from fiction. Considering the prevalence of religions that teach the doctrine that we are all damned and salvation is for only the most devout, I think it's sufficient to say that these parents are promoting a culture of fear. From my perspective, parents are supposed to protect their children from people that want to terrorize them, not assist or do it themselves.

Before someone accuses me of being extreme by characterizing it as "terror":
Main Entry: ter·ror·ize
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"Iz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : SCARE
2 : to coerce by threat or violence
and
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

We acknowledge that the point of terrorism is to manipulate behavior with fear, but sometimes we fail to recognize such behavior when its part of our culture.

Secondly, there is the intellectual aspect. I'm not sure if I should characterize it as neglect or malfeasance. Similar to how many states have begun to remove children from their homes because the parents put their children at serious health risks by allowing them to become clinically obese, I think that teaching children to reject reason should be seen as neglect. I'm not saying that every parent should be forced to certain levels of intellectualism or risk losing their children, but those parents that purposely (intentionally, etc) teach their children not to think rationally, should be considered unfit (I had to turn Jesus Camp off when I saw what constituted "home schooling" for some people).

And regarding playground equipment, you watch a child's head bounce off a sidewalk and then accuse parents of being "safety-mongers". Yes, kids are supposed to fall down and skin their knees etc, but some toys (including playground equipment) are truly dangerous.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-16-2007, 04:03 PM
Indoctration is part of every child's education. All children have to be indoctrinated to believe that 2+2=4, for instance.Of course. Children need to be taught about facts of life. Indoctrination into politics and mythologies, though, the kid can perfectly well do without.

Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorities because they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.I have to wonder if you're really attacking something else than the teaching of basic mathematics here.

Though letting the child question for himself what is right and wrong, if those authorities are correct, I'm okay with. Let the child choose wheter he want to accept the indoctration or if he wants to throw away that nonsense of God and 2+2=4 into the trash bin. But first, just indoctrine him with the information he needs, and then, later on, let him choose.Are you seriously saying that it's OK to tell a 5-year old kid about God and then expect him to 'think for himself'? Two problems:
Very many parents and schools are very inefficient when it comes to 'teaching both sides'. When I went to elementary school, the authorities had this idea that kids should be turned into Christians at school in mandatory Christianity Classes. It was also mandatory to attend church. And you know what? You can't have that and at the same time go, 'well, you don't have to believe it'.
Children do not think for themselves.And regarding playground equipment, you watch a child's head bounce off a sidewalk and then accuse parents of being "safety-mongers". Yes, kids are supposed to fall down and skin their knees etc, but some toys (including playground equipment) are truly dangerous.True. Safety is a bigger concern now than when I was a kid, but that does not mean it's irrational. Falling off a swing that's moving at full speed is serious for a litte six year old, so I'd say that if she and her friends are made to wear helmets, I won't shed a tear.

Let the kids be safe, is what I have to say.

Achilles
04-16-2007, 04:20 PM
Children do not think for themselves. My turn to disagree (but only partially) :D

It has been my experience that children are extremely analytical and quite capable of thinking for themselves (as evidenced by the question that all parents dread: "why?"). Unfortunately they are equally terrible at interpreting what they take in. They rely on adults to provide context which makes indoctrination particularly egregious. This is where I do agree. Taking a child's natural curiosity and systematically replacing it with dogma (in other words, teaching them not to think for themselves) is not something anyone should be proud of. It is our duty to teach children how to think, not what to think.

Samuel Dravis
04-16-2007, 05:39 PM
I would like to state that not every form of religious education that parents might indoctrinate their children with causes harm. My parents are rather religious themselves, but being free of the more "out-there" ideas of the fundies, what they told me was not hard to deal with intellectually by the time I was old enough to care about it. Considering that I was homeschooled as well K-12, I don't personally see any significant harm in this kind of teaching.

In cases of the fundamentalist tendency to actually distort or "creatively interpret" knowledge (aka lie), I agree there is harm being done. I've personally experienced some books that were quite literally lying outright, particularly from the publisher Abeka Now I'm not sure if they actually believed what they were saying or not - I could easily think they didn't really and just wanted to teach the kids religion - but it was easy enough to tell that they weren't interested in the student learning anything except doctrine. I'll be the first to point out that I have very limited experience with the other Christian's curriculum (mine was for the most part Catholic - I rarely had an issue with it), but what I've seen does appear to support Achilles' view. The fundamentalist's teaching things that are directly contradictory to known facts does not help kid's critical thinking abilities. Being informed about the idea of God and why your parents think you should believe it too, however, I don't have a problem with. Parents just want what is best for their children, and if they believe a religion then it's understandable they want their kids to be raised in it as well. My only trouble with it is the purposeful distortion of facts and reasoning that some engage in. Kids are smart. They can handle it if they have good info and know how to use it, but deliberately telling them lies is inexcusable.

JediMaster12
04-16-2007, 07:14 PM
So by teaching religious affiliation is evil? Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture. Culture is defined as the learned behaviors and characteristics of a group. As a product of the public school education system, crappy as it is in California, I have not had the benefit like my cousins of being education in a Christian academy. Still I have had my fair share of the religious outlook and what my peers have learned from their parents at home. Religious indoctrination is a learned behavior. When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning.
I am inclined to agree to Achilles' notion that fundamentalist extremes that contradict known facts does hurt reasoning skills. It never ceases to amaze me that kids come to school thinking that say the moon is made of green cheese because daddy said so and so so vehemently that even when you show them it is not they still believe what daddy told them. Sure kids are supposed to have some respect for authority but this sounds extremist of the authoritarian personality.

SilentScope001
04-16-2007, 07:30 PM
I have to wonder if you're really attacking something else than the teaching of basic mathematics here.

Actually wasn't attacking nothing except how that kids has to rely on adults to tell them something. Anything. Kids should learn how to find out stuff by themselves.



Are you seriously saying that it's OK to tell a 5-year old kid about God and then expect him to 'think for himself'? Two problems:
1. Very many parents and schools are very inefficient when it comes to 'teaching both sides'. When I went to elementary school, the authorities had this idea that kids should be turned into Christians at school in mandatory Christianity Classes. It was also mandatory to attend church. And you know what? You can't have that and at the same time go, 'well, you don't have to believe it'.

I actually did that during my Sunday School.

You can say that didn't go well. :)

2. Children do not think for themselves.

Then why in the world is it okay to teach people about science and not about religion? The child wouldn't know either way. The only thing that matters is that the adults (aka you) think that one way is true and the other way is wrong. Of course, what if one question your judgement?

If Kids can't think for themselves, then they should learn how to think for themselves, by themselves. They cannot rely on anyone to tell them what is true, so they must figure out what is the truth and critically ask questions. If they cannot do such a thing, then they deserve their fate of getting themselves deluded.

Achilles
04-16-2007, 07:48 PM
I would like to state that not every form of religious education that parents might indoctrinate their children with causes harm. Can I assume that you're referring to moderately religious parents that only teach cherry-picked parts of their religion and do not subject their children to the regimens of religious tradition (i.e. weekly church attendance, seminary, etc)? If these parents are not conditioning their children with dogma, then I would agree that they probably aren't likely to cause their children harm.

My parents are rather religious themselves, but being free of the more "out-there" ideas of the fundies, what they told me was not hard to deal with intellectually by the time I was old enough to care about it. Considering that I was homeschooled as well K-12, I don't personally see any significant harm in this kind of teaching. Is it safe to argue that your case is the exception rather than the rule, if we're discussing fundamentalism? If we're discussing moderation, then this is about what we should expect, correct? In other words, were you explicitly and repeatedly conditioned not to think for yourself, but rather to accept religious dogma as the one and only truth?

Being informed about the idea of God and why your parents think you should believe it too, however, I don't have a problem with. As you point out there is a difference between being exposed to something and being indoctrinated into it. Unfortunately, I don't know many parents that actually practice this and the ones that I do know are atheists.

Parents just want what is best for their children, and if they believe a religion then it's understandable they want their kids to be raised in it as well. I'm taking the position that one of the best things a parent can do for their children is to teach them how to think well.

My only trouble with it is the purposeful distortion of facts and reasoning that some engage in. Kids are smart. They can handle it if they have good info and know how to use it, but deliberately telling them lies is inexcusable.Agreed.

So by teaching religious affiliation is evil? Inherently? Not necessarily. How would you differentiate "religious affiliation" from "religious indoctrination"?

Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture. Culture is defined as the learned behaviors and characteristics of a group.
<snip>
Religious indoctrination is a learned behavior. I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you advocating that religious indoctrination is on hallowed ground because it is part of our culture? Weren't slavery and discrimination against women part of our culture for a long time?

When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning. There are ways to answer those questions that provide information without attaching baggage.

Thanks for reading.

Samuel Dravis
04-16-2007, 08:09 PM
Can I assume that you're referring to moderately religious parents that only teach cherry-picked parts of their religion and do not subject their children to the regimens of religious tradition (i.e. weekly church attendance, seminary, etc)? If these parents are not conditioning their children with dogma, then I would agree that they probably aren't likely to cause their children harm.

Is it safe to argue that your case is the exception rather than the rule, if we're discussing fundamentalism? If we're discussing moderation, then this is about what we should expect, correct? In other words, were you explicitly and repeatedly conditioned not to think for yourself, but rather to accept religious dogma as the one and only truth?I was told "this is what we believe, and these reasons are why we believe it." The belief was dependent on the evidence, in other words. Yes, I went to sunday services, along with my entire family. When I eventually found the evidence lacking, I had no further reason for belief, so... I think what my parents did was perfectly fine, developmentally-wise. It wasn't "believe or go to hell" it was "believe because x", which is as it should be, always.

I'm taking the position that one of the best things a parent can do for their children is to teach them how to think well. I agree with that.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-16-2007, 08:14 PM
So by teaching religious affiliation is evil?No one called it evil. But it certainly is unfortunate.

Look at it this way: religion is part of this little thing we anthropologists like to call culture.So are politics, yet we don't indoctrinate our kids to follow our favorite politicians from the age of two, do we? We don't have ceremonies akin to Infant Baptism in politics. Why? Because the kid's too young to think for itself on such important issues (of course the kid can think for itself, just not on important issues such as politics and religion).

When a kid asks about the man with the kids around him in the picture the parent explains. It is called learning.And when the kid asks about the man wearing a coat and tie giving a speech behind a podium, you tell him it's George W Bush/Clinton/Reagen/Whatever, the greatest President ever, he who will lead your country out of whatever problems it's currently in and that those who do not believe in him are subject to eternal torture?

Or do you simply say he's the President, and that he rules the country?

I hope you see what I mean. There are many ways to answer simple questions. When the kid asks about the guy sitting at the table, you can perfectly well answer without making the kid a Christian.

Then why in the world is it okay to teach people about science and not about religion?Once again: Science is neither a belief system nor a religion. It is about proving things right. Telling a kid that the Earth is round is not the same as telling a kid that the Earth was once flooded, and that a guy named Noah saved a few chosen animals and people with his big boat. The first is proven, the second is an unproven, absurd myth blatantly plagiarized from another people's mythology.

Teaching kids facts is not the same as indoctrinating them into religion.

The only thing that matters is that the adults (aka you) [...]Groan... I'm only 21, already:p.

[...] think that one way is true and the other way is wrong. Of course, what if one question your judgment?Nope, it's not all that matters. What matters is that there's a difference between teaching facts and indoctrinating them into political systems and/or mythological ideas.

If Kids can't think for themselves, then they should learn how to think for themselves, by themselves.Of course. Doesn't change the fact that a four year old can't make big decisions on the War on Terror or the Second Coming of Christ.

JediMaster12
04-16-2007, 08:33 PM
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you advocating that religious indoctrination is on hallowed ground because it is part of our culture? Weren't slavery and discrimination against women part of our culture for a long time? No. I was implying that if you look say at the 'American' culture as a whole, treat it as a culture, you could see that like any other group it is a part of their groups of shared and learned behaviors.

So are politics, yet we don't indoctrinate our kids to follow our favorite politicians from the age of two, do we?If you think about it, we subconciously do. Take the example of baseball players. Say a kid sees something in his dad's collection and asks who it is. Dad responds by saying that it is Babe Ruth the greatest batter or whatever. The kid asks why is that and dad explains. I know that's not the same as politics but believe it or not we do things that indoctrinate kids. Kids learn from their parents. That is the way of things.

Achilles
04-16-2007, 08:46 PM
No. I was implying that if you look say at the 'American' culture as a whole, treat it as a culture, you could see that like any other group it is a part of their groups of shared and learned behaviors. I'm not sure what I may have said that would have given you the impression that I wasn't already very aware of that :D

Ok, I'll be serious now. I know that it's cultural (I studied anthropology too), but I'm not really clear what that has to do with the merits of the institution. Per the examples that I provided, there are lots of examples of bad ideas that were parts of culture, passed down via enculturation. Thanks to changes in the zeitgeist, most of us look back now with disdain. It is my hope that someday we will do the same with religion.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-18-2007, 02:25 PM
Oh, and while we're at it: Has anyone else than me checked out the fair and balanced Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) yet?

Sigh. Schools, museums and encyclopedias. Three objective tools of learning turned into biased political weapons. Disgusting.

Achilles
04-18-2007, 02:40 PM
The funny thing about conservapedia is that it's completely unnecessary. If something on Wikipedia is incorrect, it can be corrected. If something is biased, it can be flagged. So instead of trying to have a free market place of information, we'll just go where we can make up our own rules and then call ourselves "intellectually honest". And a frightening number of people are perfectly ok with that.

Is it too much to hope that this is a sign that fundamentalists are realizing that there are no more gaps for their gods to hide in? Could it be that these are the death throes of superstition?

EDIT: HA!! Go to conservapedia. Click on Index. Scroll down a smidgen and admire the categories for World History (i.e. "Ancient History (Creation-500 AD)").

Also, if anyone would like an example of what an intellectually rigorous, bias-free conservapedia article looks like, check out the entry for "evolution". :D

Prime
04-18-2007, 03:52 PM
Welcome [...] to the Creation Museum. Here, dozens of exhibits attempt to show the Bible as the literal truth and the theory of evolution as unsupportable by science. This doesn't make any sense. The theory of evolution is supportable by science, because there is in fact evidence to support it. That's how the theory was arrived at in the first place. The theory came into being using the Scientific Method, which is itself science. What is the evidence that shows that the entire theory is false?

Creationists believe that the Garden of Eden did exist, that the world is 6,000 years old, that God created man and animals simultaneously, and that the flood wiped out every living creature that wasn’t inside Noah’s Ark. Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat?

Free speech is something that should be protected, regardless of what ideas a person like or hate. I am against censorship in all ways, both private and public, both internal and external. Internal censorship would be having a bias that makes you believe that one idea is wrong and then curisng that idea. Everyone has an internal censorship of some sort, but it should be destroyed, because it infringes on Free Speech.So you are proposing that advocating genocide of various peoples, child abuse, distributing child pornography, and attemping to incite violence are all worthy endeavors and should be protected and encouraged?

What's the point of the 1st Amendment, after all, IF you do not have the Right to be Heard?

Yes, I say that tiny little spiel. Why? Because I object to ED calling for censorship of an idea, regardless of what Idea it actually is. You hate it, fine. But don't go and start calling people evil or such or that they deserve to have this museum be shut down.But according to you, I should be allowed to say I hate it and they are evil and the museum should be shut down, because the free speech lets me.

Remember: I someone has the right to say something, someone else has an equal right to call it bull****. ;)

Little children are too young to understand politicsOn the contrary, from what I've seen they tend to see through politics and call out adults on it. :D

Indoctration is part of every child's education. All childern have to be indoctrined to believe that 2+2=4, for instance. Of course, this is because the child is dumb, and needs to know that 2+2=4, because a long time of research has 'concluded' that 2+2=4, and the child should trust these authorites becuase they are smart and intelligent, yadda, yadda, yadda.

"Why does 2+2=4?"

"Because it does. Now shut up and your homework."But seriously, what school teaches like that? From what I remember, and I hope it is the same today, the teacher would show the child why 2+2=4 is true, not just take it on blind faith.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-18-2007, 04:05 PM
The funny thing about conservapedia is that it's completely unnecessary. If something on Wikipedia is incorrect, it can be corrected. If something is biased, it can be flagged. So instead of trying to have a free market place of information, we'll just go where we can make up our own rules and then call ourselves "intellectually honest". And a frightening number of people are perfectly ok with that.It's not that Wikipedia is biased - it's that it does not push the ideas of the right-wing religious nutters.

Of course it's not a sign of 'liberal bias' to write an article on evolution and treat it as the observed and proven phenomenon that it is. However, to a rabid Creationist, this is blatant distortion of Divine Truth.

I also like how they pull a FAUX News and say 'OK, this site is allegedly biased, and we don't like that, so we're going to create a site that really is deliberate and overt in its biased representation of the world'. You don't combat bias with opposite bias. You combat it by being objective and down-to-Earth. If they really feel Wiki is liberally biased, which they do, they should take it to Wiki, as Achilles said.

mimartin
04-18-2007, 05:32 PM
Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat?

Maybe the Dragon’s used their magic Dragon powers to shrink all the other animals.

I don’t have a problem with the museum. People are allowed to believe what they want. I’m a Christian and I believe in evolution. It is not one or the other proportion to me. I had a similar question as Ham as a child and thankfully got a different response from my step-mother. A response that allowed me to keep my faith while still accepting science and evolution.

As a human, I believe the $26 million could of better spent on the helping those that are less fortunate.

Achilles
04-18-2007, 06:23 PM
Can someone explain to me how the majority of the 1,000,000+ cataloged species we see today fit on a 135m boat? Don't forget that they would have needed to stock food for the animals as well. And an explanation for waste management would be handy. Lastly, some idea on how Noah was able to circumnavigate the globe in accordance with specialization so quickly (i.e. marsupials in Australia, safari animals in Africa, etc.).

Totenkopf
04-18-2007, 07:45 PM
Don't forget that they would have needed to stock food for the animals as well. And an explanation for waste management would be handy. Lastly, some idea on how Noah was able to circumnavigate the globe in accordance with specialization so quickly (i.e. marsupials in Australia, safari animals in Africa, etc.).


Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so.

Seems to me that some of you dogged athiests have overestimated the influence of "fundamentalists" in the USA. For starters, not everyone who believes the Roe V Wade decision was bad law is either necessarily religious or a fundamentalist. Last I heard about the fetal stem cell issue was that such a path would not get GOVERNMENT funding, not quite same as saying outlawed. If the benefits of said path are irrefutable and exclusive to fetal stem cells, private business will line up behind it. Hell, they'd probably sell their own mother's for a piece of that kind of bonanza. Also, beyond the abortion question, exactly which "rights" are Christians trying to deny women? Fact is, while the population of the US is not nearly as atheistic as current day Europe, it does not mean that the US is not a secular society. People here often seem more taken with worldly concerns, all the more so when you look at pop culture and academia and law. When the Pope chastizes the western world for being too materialistic (ie worldly), he doesn't exclude the US from his admonitions.

Fact is, most politicians play to their extremes to get their respective parties' nominations, then basically jettison the groups that got them there. Clinton did it with "don't ask, don't tell" and no doubt Bush has done similiarly with the "dreaded" fundamentalists. Now, if the Christian "fundies" used the same playbook as the islamofacists, you'd have some cause for concern. But to declare that the USA will become a YEC Saudi Arabia goes beyond hyperbole.

Achilles
04-18-2007, 10:53 PM
Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so. a.k.a. "goddunit", a.k.a "goddidit".

Seems to me that some of you dogged athiests have overestimated the influence of "fundamentalists" in the USA. For starters, not everyone who believes the Roe V Wade decision was bad law is either necessarily religious or a fundamentalist. Last I heard about the fetal stem cell issue was that such a path would not get GOVERNMENT funding, not quite same as saying outlawed. If the benefits of said path are irrefutable and exclusive to fetal stem cells, private business will line up behind it. Hell, they'd probably sell their own mother's for a piece of that kind of bonanza. Also, beyond the abortion question, exactly which "rights" are Christians trying to deny women? Please help me understand how your arguments support your premise. Also, please show me how your arguments are supported by evidence.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure we have threads for each of your arguments. If you would like to debate the merits of them, please feel free to post your points there and I'll be more than happy to address them.

Fact is, while the population of the US is not nearly as atheistic as current day Europe, it does not mean that the US is not a secular society. Hmmm. IMO, this debatable. What is not debatable is that the U.S. government has been helmed by fundamentalists for the last 7 years.

People here often seem more taken with worldly concerns, all the more so when you look at pop culture and academia and law. When the Pope chastizes the western world for being too materialistic (ie worldly), he doesn't exclude the US from his admonitions. Again, this is debatable. While you seem to see rock n' roll, Berkley, and Roe v. Wade, I see the growing influence of christian rock, Bob Jones University, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

I do think that the U.S. has some cultural problems, but I do not think that the "solutions" offered by the fundamentalist agenda are anything other than an alternative set of problems. They want to swing the pendulum the to one side when the real answer is to try to keep it somewhere in the middle.

Fact is, most politicians play to their extremes to get their respective parties' nominations, then basically jettison the groups that got them there. I think you might be making an error with some of your word choices. I don't know that I would agree that it's a "fact" that "most" politicians do this.

Clinton did it with "don't ask, don't tell" and no doubt Bush has done similiarly with the "dreaded" fundamentalists. I believe that I've adequately debunked this argument in this post (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281882&postcount=24). The only thing that Bush jettisoned was his pretense of being a uniter, not a divider.

Now, if the Christian "fundies" used the same playbook as the islamofacists, you'd have some cause for concern. I'm only allowed to be afraid of fundamentalists if they fly planes into buildings? I'm not allowed to be concerned when the executive branch (comprised of fundamentalist christians) completely circumvents separation of powers and suspends citizen rights? In fairness to you on my last point, they didn't do it alone. They had the help of the other two fundamentalist-controlled branches as well.

But to declare that the USA will become a YEC Saudi Arabia goes beyond hyperbole. Really? Why? Because no one in power here is trying to accomplish something like that?

Jae Onasi
04-19-2007, 12:50 AM
I think everyone's getting wound up over a museum that's going to sit pretty idle and be visited only by those who believe in literal creationism in the first place.

In the US we are blessed with the right to believe what we want and support those beliefs how we want (for the most part). We have a Spam museum in MN, for heaven's sake.

If you don't like what the 'religious right' is doing, then it's your job to go out and convince voters to vote for the issues important to you. It's a free country. Christians organize because we want the issues important to us to be brought to the table. If you have issues important to you, then organize voters, talk to your legislators, and get involved.

How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?
How many of you have actually contacted them to express your concerns or to talk about the issues important to you? A lot of them really do care about hearing your concerns. I've contacted mine more than once, and have had some very interesting discussions with them on a variety of different things, all non-religious, actually. It's not fair to gripe about what's happening in government if you've never even gone to vote.

Achilles
04-19-2007, 01:35 AM
How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?
How many of you have actually contacted them to express your concerns or to talk about the issues important to you? A lot of them really do care about hearing your concerns. I've contacted mine more than once, and have had some very interesting discussions with them on a variety of different things, all non-religious, actually. It's not fair to gripe about what's happening in government if you've never even gone to vote.
Wow, that's a lot of assumption wrapped up in one teeny-tiny little post, Jae :D

Considering that I think of myself as fairly politically savvy and that I view voting as one of my most important civic responsibilities, you can rest assured that I know who my elected representatives are.

The problem is that due to the political suicide which is atheism, there isn't much of a non-theist lobby. Not many politicians (read: no politicians) run on an atheist campaign platform. Therefore my only option in the voting booth is to choose the candidate the most accurately represents my views (or whose views I disagree with the least). Sometimes this means that I cast my vote for moderate republicans that happen to be be very religious, not because I want to, but because my other options are too extreme.

I'm glad to hear the political system works so well for you as a conservative christian in a conservative christian country, but your situation is not indicative of everyone's.

Totenkopf
04-19-2007, 02:16 AM
Curious, but what exactly does an atheist platform entail? To what extent is it so radically different from others that you wouldn't be happy in the modern democrat camp, for instance? My guess is that if people of religious faith were as few in number as you atheists, your argument would apply for them as well. Point partially being that someone who clearly identifies himself in the minority as you do, is inevitably going to be unhappy (from a bit to massively) with his/her lot.

I'd say Jae is partially right. You can't have an impact if you don't make an effort. I'm also cynical enough to realize that $$ talks and BS walks. Your local/state/fed pol might lend you his ear from time to time, but I've no illusions that it's probably as much a function of good PR as anything. Anyway, getting late......

Achilles
04-19-2007, 03:11 AM
Curious, but what exactly does an atheist platform entail? Well, first, I imagine the candidate them self would need to be an atheist. That means they wouldn't be associated with any church. Considering that some politicians take a lot of heat for allegedly not being "religious enough", I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.

As for their stance on issues, I imagine it would look something like:

-Elimination of prayer in school
-Strengthening the Establishment Clause
-Eliminating tax exemptions for religious groups
-Eliminating government ties to faith-based initiatives
-Et cetera

Of course, they might actually want to do some work on more important issues, but again, policy based on reason rather than religiosity might not be that popular either:

-Eliminating gov't bans on funding for certain types of research
-Adding funding for comprehensive sex ed in public schools
-Re-establishing abortion laws that are considerate of womens' health.
-Legitimate education reform that actually improves public education rather than makes some attempt to cast ineffective alternatives in a favorable light.
-Et cetera.

I imagine it would look something like that.

To what extent is it so radically different from others that you wouldn't be happy in the modern democrat camp, for instance? In some cases nothing. In other cases, quite a bit. I guess it would depend on the issue. Did you have a specific example that you wanted to present?

My guess is that if people of religious faith were as few in number as you atheists, your argument would apply for them as well. That is true, however I would submit that a theist in a strictly secular society would not be forced-fed the morality of the majority, as seems to be the case when the opposite is true. For example, there would still be a law against killing people. If you choose to jump through the additional hoop of attributing the underlying principles to a deity of your choosing, then that's your business.

Point partially being that someone who clearly identifies himself in the minority as you do, is inevitably going to be unhappy (from a bit to massively) with his/her lot. Depends on whether or not that group is truly being oppressed or if they are just bellyaching. I can't imagine any religious group having a legitimate case for oppression in a secular democracy. I suppose that there is some scenario that I am not imagining, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head.

I'd say Jae is partially right. You can't have an impact if you don't make an effort. Correct, but making the assumption that will you definitely make a difference by making an effort is silly. I can't imagine that any politician is going to ignore 83% of their constituency to pander to the concerns of those that represent less than 8%...unless the smaller group has strong political capital.

I'm also cynical enough to realize that $$ talks and BS walks. Your local/state/fed pol might lend you his ear from time to time, but I've no illusions that it's probably as much a function of good PR as anything. Anyway, getting late...... And I'm cynical enough to agree with you :D

Take care.

Totenkopf
04-19-2007, 03:26 AM
In some cases nothing. In other cases, quite a bit. I guess it would depend on the issue. Did you have a specific example that you wanted to present?

Actually, not so much. However, if you have the time (and/or inclination), perhaps you could cite a few examples in each case.

Achilles
04-19-2007, 04:24 AM
As I've already said, it depends on the issue. If you're not going to pursue it further, then I'm not going to chase your point down for you ;)

Jae Onasi
04-19-2007, 12:31 PM
Wow, that's a lot of assumption wrapped up in one teeny-tiny little post, Jae :D
I broke my self-imposed rule of not writing anything too serious when I have a fever. I have written some truly spectacular things when I've had fevers and thought at the time that they were perfectly reasonable. Then a couple days later I re-read them and said to myself 'Oh, Lordy, I really was somewhere in a galaxy far, far away with that comment....' So I try not to post too much when I'm unwell.

It was meant as a general commentary more than anything else, and I actually didn't have you in particular in mind. In fact, if you had told me you didn't vote, I'd have been extremely surprised.

I just realized reading thru the thread that people were complaining about fundamentalists being active, but not doing anything about it. If someone's going to gripe about something, then they should consider possible solutions. All the complaints about ultra-conservative Christians being in power in the White House bothers me--where were these complainers 7 years ago in Ohio, Florida, and other states where the race was close, when their votes really could have made a difference? The fact is that Bush's supporters put together a great grassroots get-the-vote-out campaign at the state level and were very organized in getting people registered to vote, and that made a huge difference in some places.


Considering that I think of myself as fairly politically savvy and that I view voting as one of my most important civic responsibilities, you can rest assured that I know who my elected representatives are.
Most people couldn't name one. You're an exception, actually.

The problem is that due to the political suicide which is atheism, there isn't much of a non-theist lobby. Not many politicians (read: no politicians) run on an atheist campaign platform. Therefore my only option in the voting booth is to choose the candidate the most accurately represents my views (or whose views I disagree with the least). Sometimes this means that I cast my vote for moderate republicans that happen to be be very religious, not because I want to, but because my other options are too extreme.
Aren't we supposed to vote for the one who most accurately represent our views anyway? Religion is just one part of a person's life. When I evaluate someone's ability to do the job in Congress, religion actually plays a very small part for me, if it's an issue at all. I would not vote against someone for being atheist if they were more qualified for the job.

I'm glad to hear the political system works so well for you as a conservative christian in a conservative christian country, but your situation is not indicative of everyone's.
I don't actually think this is a conservative Christian country in the least. If it truly was, we wouldn't be seeing or hearing the crap we see/hear on TV/radio/other media, spectacular amounts of fraud in major corporations (Enron comes to mind), among many other things. This is a secular society that happens to have a lot of people who say they are Christians and darken the doors of a church maybe once or twice a year. Pelosi and Boxer are not conservative Christians, and most of the members of Congress don't bother with church except to make an appearance for some political reason. Clinton and Gore may say they're part of the Baptist church, but they certainly don't espouse traditionally Baptist views in the least or act in traditional Baptist ways. Many other politicians are the same way, and if the fundamentalists truly had as much power as liberals/atheists fear, then there would be many more fundamentalists in office, at least in Congress.

In terms of the museum, if we say 'you can't build a museum because of religion' we set a dangerous precedent, because then we could equally extend that to other free speech rights. I don't like the idea of a Satanic museum or a cult museum, but they have the right to express themselves (in appropriate ways). If we cut that off, we could lose too much and we'd find ourselves in the middle of a state-controlled communication situation. If there is a Satanic museum, I simply won't go visit.

Prime
04-19-2007, 02:41 PM
Seems Noah may NOT have been the captain of his own ship. My guess is that Noah "built the ship" and that God gets the credit for everything else. Remember, though, if you DO take the Ark story literally, it's equally easy to answer your question with a simple...God willed it so.Isn't that just a huge copout?

mimartin
04-19-2007, 02:55 PM
How many of you know who your Representative in Congress is? Or the 2 Senators from your state? Or the relevant legislators in your area if you're not American?

I know who both my U.S. Senators are and I even know the useless Representative from Texas’s 14th district, The Honorable Ron Paul.

I have on occasion email both Senators and gotten the usually lips services answer saying they are concerned about the topic, but then they’re on TV saying the same thing about the other side. They make you give them your mailing address in order to communicate with them, now I’m on their fund raising mailing list and get a letter every week asking for money, junk mail that is paid for with our tax dollars.

Totenkopf
04-19-2007, 03:51 PM
Isn't that just a huge copout?

Never said I believed it. Only that if one believes in the Noah story and the power of God, then one could use that as a defense. I agree that it's just a bit too convenient. Probably should have used smilies or so to demonstrate they weren't my personal beliefs, just a demonstration of the type of response those proponents could/would fall back on if pushed.

----------------------------------------------

a.k.a. "goddunit", a.k.a "goddidit".
you are correct....sir. If such a God does in fact exist, such would be child's play. But.....does He exist? Now thats the rub.


What is not debatable is that the U.S. government has been helmed by fundamentalists for the last 7 years.
I'm curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that the US government is being run by fundamentalist principles, not simply by people in this current government who you arguably view as such . Most Christians (esp. Catholics and many of the "splinter" protestant sects) aren't fundamentalists. Perhaps, though, it might help if you explain what YOU mean by fundamentalist. Some of the issues that secular progressives hold as dear currently (abortion, fetal stem cell research, etc..) are not merely opposed by "people of faith". Nor or all those people "fundamentalists". As regards Roe v Wade, it's now known to have been based on a fraudulent case (the "plaintiff" has since admitted as much). But more importantly, it was just another example of a one branch of government overstepping it's constitutional role. Sadly, many in Congress (hell, the legal profession in general) are slaves to precedent and dropped the ball. Just like another court invented constitutional position, seperation of church and state (read as seperation of church FROM state), you don't find "abortion rights" anywhere in the US Constitution.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Fact is....... it does not mean that the US is not a secular society.

---Hmmm. IMO, this debatable.
debatable only really if you make secular synonomous with atheistic.

Originally Posted by Totenkopf
People here often seem more taken with worldly concerns, all the more so when you look at pop culture and academia and law. When the Pope chastizes the western world for being too materialistic (ie worldly), he doesn't exclude the US from his admonitions.

---Again, this is debatable. While you seem to see rock n' roll, Berkley, and Roe v. Wade, I see the growing influence of christian rock, Bob Jones University, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

I do think that the U.S. has some cultural problems, but I do not think that the "solutions" offered by the fundamentalist agenda are anything other than an alternative set of problems. They want to swing the pendulum the to one side when the real answer is to try to keep it somewhere in the middle.
Frankly, most things are debatable, especially if people don't work from the same set of principles. However, I don't see the "growing influence" of christian rock (influence being key concept here) having any major impact on society, neither currently or in the forseeable future. Are there groups out there? Yes. Have they tapped into an unserviced market? Apparently. What impact will that have? None that is obvious at the moment. Besides, God found more of a home in country music long ago. While I don't know about you, I've seen little evidence of any significant impact by Christian rock on the music scene, let alone pop culture. Berkely has long been a "hotbed" of "other side of the pendelum" politics and cultural mores. Nowhere near the "center/middle". BTW, what exactly do you see as the middle? I once heard Al Franken describe himself as being "in the middle". Now, that's more than just a laugh. What examples of influence do you refer to when citing BJU (pardon the pun of sorts ;) )? Parial birth abortion ban opposition is not universally religious. Most rational people would see it for what it is. A form of infanticide. One could easily support such a ban for humanitarian reasons alone. My guess is that you're really referring to the "slippery slope" argument. Considering how close the SC vote was (5-4), and how divided the country is in general on the subject of abortion, I don't see any credible threat to abortion on demand (beyond cutting off all govt funding and making it a strictly private affair) over the horizon. The greater threat in that sense will come from advances in medical technology, not merely "ideology". Furthermore, less Bush or someone conservative follows him and appoints the next crop of SC justices, that fear is also overstated.


I don't know that I would agree that it's a "fact" that "most" politicians do this.
I probably should say that in presidential politics it's usually neccessary to play to the "extremes" in the individual parties b/c they have the greatest impact on the primary process. In that light, it should be interesting (even if anticlimactic in the end) to see who gets the nod in the GOP.

Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Now, if the Christian "fundies" used the same playbook as the islamofacists, you'd have some cause for concern. But to declare that the USA will become a YEC Saudi Arabia goes beyond hyperbole.

---I'm only allowed to be afraid of fundamentalists if they fly planes into buildings? I'm not allowed to be concerned when the executive branch (comprised of fundamentalist christians) completely circumvents separation of powers and suspends citizen rights? In fairness to you on my last point, they didn't do it alone. They had the help of the other two fundamentalist-controlled branches as well. Really? Why? Because no one in power here is trying to accomplish something like
that?
Achilles, you're free to fear whomever you like. "Stripping" of civil rights actually has nothing to do with fundamentalism, but everything to do with power hunger. PC thinking (one of the byproducts of the poisonous influence of places like Berkely) is a much greater current threat to your constitutional rights. Concepts like hate speech (about as elastic as sexual harrassment) are a direct threat to the first amendment and strict gun control laws run counter to the second amendment, both actual parts of the constitution. The rise of the "secular nanny state" is a greater near term threat to your freedoms than than a bunch of "religious nutters". Frankly, last I checked, I didn't see anything that suggested the the "fundies" you believe "control the government" have any intention of rounding up the atheists and making them wear a crimson A on their garments or to cut their tongues out for "spewing heresy". I don't recall them stating a desire to execute peope or flog them for "sexual offenses", etc.. This are the types of things you would have to fear if the fundamentalists wanted to ape the islamofascists. Furthermore, and this is more what I mean by taking a page, if that group engaged in the types of tactics currently employed by the arguably errant followers of Islam, how much do you want to bet that publicly professed attitudes toward christians would be much more proscribed? And no offense, but the claim that Congress and the SC are controlled by fundamentalists almost sent me into paroxsyms of laughter.

As I've already said, it depends on the issue. If you're not going to pursue it further, then I'm not going to chase your point down for you ;)
Well, to put it differently, on which topics do you find yourself in agreement with the dems and why? Abortion? Civil rights? Hate speech/crimes? Gun control? School choice? Foreign relations? Border issues? The environment?Where, if at all, are you closer to the repubs/conservatives on these issues? On which particular issues do you find yourself at odds with both parties?

Achilles
04-19-2007, 04:12 PM
I broke my self-imposed rule of not writing anything too serious when I have a fever. I have written some truly spectacular things when I've had fevers and thought at the time that they were perfectly reasonable. Then a couple days later I re-read them and said to myself 'Oh, Lordy, I really was somewhere in a galaxy far, far away with that comment....' So I try not to post too much when I'm unwell. Sorry to hear you aren't feeling well. I hope you get better soon.

It was meant as a general commentary more than anything else, and I actually didn't have you in particular in mind. In fact, if you had told me you didn't vote, I'd have been extremely surprised. I'll take that as a compliment :D

I just realized reading thru the thread that people were complaining about fundamentalists being active, but not doing anything about it. Actually, I consider my "work" here as "doing something about it". I probably won't change your mind, but I might change someones. Other than that, I'm not sure what could be done to counter the fundamentalist movement (besides voting for non-fundies of course, but I can only do that every couple of years).

If someone's going to gripe about something, then they should consider possible solutions. All the complaints about ultra-conservative Christians being in power in the White House bothers me--where were these complainers 7 years ago in Ohio, Florida, and other states where the race was close, when their votes really could have made a difference? I seem to remember quite a bit of controversy over Florida. Bush didn't win the popular vote. He was put into office by the Supreme Court and the electoral college.

I was pretty upset about Ohio too, but have to admit that I probably succumbed to learned helplessness a little. My state was called for Bush without even counting the votes that were mailed in.

The fact is that Bush's supporters put together a great grassroots get-the-vote-out campaign at the state level and were very organized in getting people registered to vote, and that made a huge difference in some places. That's one way to put it. Another way to put it might be: The rapture right did a excellent job of campaigning every sunday and producing voter guides (which helped their congregations identified which candidates were "christian enough"). This sure seems like a violation of church and state to me, however for some reason the administration only sought to hand out stern warnings along with gov't funds for the promotion of faith-based initiatives.

Aren't we supposed to vote for the one who most accurately represent our views anyway? Indeed. How many issues did you disagree and the person that you voted for disagree on? 90%? 80%? 60%? I'm happy if I get 50%.

Religion is just one part of a person's life. Oh, I wish that were more true. The actual act of worship is one thing, but dogma affects political decisions everyday.

When I evaluate someone's ability to do the job in Congress, religion actually plays a very small part for me, if it's an issue at all. That's because you evaluate someone's ability to do the job based on how their views match yours. You ignore that both sets of views are based on religion.

I would not vote against someone for being atheist if they were more qualified for the job. You would be the first :)

Forty-two percent of Americans say they would not vote for a 72-year-old candidate, even though the majority (57%) still would. That is about the same willingness found for a hypothetical homosexual candidate (55%). An atheist would seem to have the hardest time getting elected president, as a majority of Americans (53%) say they would not vote for a presidential candidate who was an atheist.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611

I don't actually think this is a conservative Christian country in the least. If it truly was, we wouldn't be seeing or hearing the crap we see/hear on TV/radio/other media, spectacular amounts of fraud in major corporations (Enron comes to mind), among many other things. I'd suggest some research on Bush's ties to Enron (This (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,192920,00.html)should get you started). Also, the Parent Television Council. This group does nothing except watch television all day and file complaints with the FCC. Something like 98% of all complaints come from this one group.

This is a secular society that happens to have a lot of people who say they are Christians and darken the doors of a church maybe once or twice a year. I'm more concerned about those in the driver seat and their extremist constituencies. The moderate christians you refer to simply provide a safe haven for the fundies.

Pelosi and Boxer are not conservative Christians, and most of the members of Congress don't bother with church except to make an appearance for some political reason. Clinton and Gore may say they're part of the Baptist church, but they certainly don't espouse traditionally Baptist views in the least or act in traditional Baptist ways. You say that as though it were a bad thing or as if those were the people I'm concerned about. Pick an issue and we'll compare Bush to Clinton.

Many other politicians are the same way, and if the fundamentalists truly had as much power as liberals/atheists fear, then there would be many more fundamentalists in office, at least in Congress.
Many more than what? Your entire argument seems to be based entirely on your opinion while ignoring the fact that the rapture right has been working to control all three branches of gov't for several years.

In terms of the museum, if we say 'you can't build a museum because of religion' we set a dangerous precedent, because then we could equally extend that to other free speech rights. No one is saying that we should. The point is that this is an embarrassment and a shame and it should be seen as such. The Spam museum that you offer as a comparison is certainly representative of how quaint we can be, but this is something else entirely. This is a $26 million message to the world that many of the citizens of the world's sole superpower are still living in the dark ages.

I don't like the idea of a Satanic museum or a cult museum, but they have the right to express themselves (in appropriate ways). If we cut that off, we could lose too much and we'd find ourselves in the middle of a state-controlled communication situation. If there is a Satanic museum, I simply won't go visit.This isn't now, nor has it ever been, an issue of free speech.

Get well soon!

Dagobahn Eagle
04-19-2007, 06:28 PM
To clarify: It's not an issue of content, it's a matter of accuracy. It's not that they're idiots who believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago that makes me want them shut down, it's that they present their ideas as fact. I'd be equally opposed to a museum making wicked lies about fundies.

Museums should have a standard of accuracy, regardless of content. Plain and simple.

Achilles
04-19-2007, 07:47 PM
you are correct....sir. If such a God does in fact exist, such would be child's play. But.....does He exist? Now thats the rub. Indeed.

I'm curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that the US government is being run by fundamentalist principles, not simply by people in this current government who you arguably view as such.I'm not sure that I understand the distinction that you're trying to make.

Most Christians (esp. Catholics and many of the "splinter" protestant sects) aren't fundamentalists. No argument. I don't think I've stated that most christians are fundamentalists. I think my message has been that christian fundamentalists appear to be in control.

Perhaps, though, it might help if you explain what YOU mean by fundamentalist.Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>

Some of the issues that secular progressives hold as dear currently (abortion, fetal stem cell research, etc..) are not merely opposed by "people of faith". Like who? If there is a 3rd position on these issues, it's been so marginalized that I'm not aware of it. Of course there is a portion of the population that probably falls under the category of "undecided" but I don't consider "undecided" an argued position.

As regards Roe v Wade, it's now known to have been based on a fraudulent case (the "plaintiff" has since admitted as much). But more importantly, it was just another example of a one branch of government overstepping it's constitutional role. Could you expand on this please (specifically the last sentence)?

Sadly, many in Congress (hell, the legal profession in general) are slaves to precedent and dropped the ball. Just like another court invented constitutional position, seperation of church and state (read as seperation of church FROM state), you don't find "abortion rights" anywhere in the US Constitution. You don't find separation of church and (or from) state in the constitution either. That's why we have a branch of government whose role is to determine what the Framers would have intended. So that we could adapt the constitution to modern issues.

Also, the courts didn't "invent" the concept. They lifted it from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Madison (at least I think it was Madion). Therefore the courts determined the intent...just like they are supposed to.

Debatable only really if you make secular synonomous with atheistic. Not at all. This is like Ann Coulter stating that if you aren't neo-con then you're liberal.

Frankly, most things are debatable, especially if people don't work from the same set of principles. However, I don't see the "growing influence" of christian rock (influence being key concept here) having any major impact on society, neither currently or in the forseeable future.Link (http://peopleoffaith.com/christian-article-two.htm)
If more people are listening to this than other forms of music, then that's influence. What societal change might be there is unknown, but my point was not christian music is reducing crime, etc.

Berkely has long been a "hotbed" of "other side of the pendelum" politics and cultural mores. Nowhere near the "center/middle". At no point did I say that it was "center" or "middle". I seem to recall listing some thing that are generally perceived as being liberal and something things that are generally perceived as being conservative. Nowhere did I list things that are generally considered centrist.

Are you deliberately attempting to mis-characterize my argument or did you simply misunderstand?

BTW, what exactly do you see as the middle? Depends on the issue. In case you haven't noticed, I'm very sensitive to context.

What examples of influence do you refer to when citing BJU (pardon the pun of sorts ;) Well, my intent was to cite it as the largest christian university in the U.S. but apparently I misspoke. It's actually Abilene Christian University. I guess Bush kicking off his 2000 SC campaign at BJU just made me assume that it was the largest.

Parial birth abortion ban opposition is not universally religious. Universally? Yes, I suppose that you have a case that it's not a "universally" religious position. Of course, I don't recall taking such an indefensible position. I think there's a pretty strong case that the 70% of americans that oppose the procedure do so on religious grounds. I've yet to hear a single secular argument against the procedure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you have an example of one?

Most rational people would see it for what it is. A form of infanticide. One could easily support such a ban for humanitarian reasons alone. Since you seem so knowledgeable about the subject here's a pop quiz for you:

-What percentage of abortions utilize this procedure?
-Why are they performed?
-How do existing laws already restrict such procedures?

Answers:
1) Less than 10%. I don't know how many of 2nd trimester abortions are performed using the now-illegal method, but it is the only form used for 3rd trimester abortions, which are less than 1% of all abortions. 2) Several reasons. All of them medical (deformed child, mother's health, inviable pregnancies such as Ectopic pregnancies, etc) 3) 3rd trimester abortions are already illegal unless there is a serious health risk. In other words, all the courts have accomplished has been to put more womens lives at risk.

I suspect that you jumped on the pro-life bandwagon without taking the time to do a whole lot of research. I don't think any reasonable person would support this type of abortion unless there was a very good reason. Unfortunately, the right has so oversimplified the counterargument as only being "a woman's right to choose", that most people don't take the time to learn what the argument is actually about.

My guess is that you're really referring to the "slippery slope" argument. Nope, and I hope that you're not trying to put words in my mouth.

The courts have put more women at risk by forcing them to undergo potentially life-threatening labor in the 3rd trimester. However, there are still options for 2nd trimester abortions (although some of them might be more risky for late term abortions...again with women's health), so I don't see the need to invoke slippery slope. Maybe this will be the catalyst for new medical breakthroughs that help catch genetic defects even sooner.

However if this does result in increased traction for 2nd trimester abortions or abortion in general, then I think we can throw "slippery slope" out the door and just call a spade a spade.

Considering how close the SC vote was (5-4), and how divided the country is in general on the subject of abortion, I don't see any credible threat to abortion on demand (beyond cutting off all govt funding and making it a strictly private affair) over the horizon. It's my understanding that the ban was on the procedure itself, not on gov't funding for the procedure. Did I miss something.

What disappointed me was the decision to completely disregard the implications for women's health. That was the only reason the ban was shot down before and it seemed to be perfectly reasonable to do so.

The greater threat in that sense will come from advances in medical technology, not merely "ideology". Furthermore, less Bush or someone conservative follows him and appoints the next crop of SC justices, that fear is also overstated. Are you aware of how SC justices are appointed?

Achilles, you're free to fear whomever you like. "Stripping" of civil rights actually has nothing to do with fundamentalism, but everything to do with power hunger. First, I'll concede that some decisions were obvious political rather than religious. Second, I still argue that some decision were equally religious and political. Third, I'd like to point out that I do not necessarily differentiate between religious fundamentalism and power-mongering. Both are about control.

PC thinking (one of the byproducts of the poisonous influence of places like Berkely) is a much greater current threat to your constitutional rights. Could you expand on this please?

Concepts like hate speech (about as elastic as sexual harrassment) are a direct threat to the first amendment You can say whatever you would like, so long as no threats are made. I agree that having separate laws for hate speech and hate crimes are counterproductive, but I consider these separate from political correctness.

and strict gun control laws run counter to the second amendment, both actual parts of the constitution. The constitution says that every individual has the right to bear arms, which in the vernauclar of the time, meant that local government had the right to maintain a militia. However, the supreme court, once again doing their job of interpreting the constitution, determined that it would mean that citizens would have a right to own guns. I'm perfectly ok with this, just as I am perfectly ok with considering reasonable legislation that would promote public safety.

The rise of the "secular nanny state" is a greater near term threat to your freedoms than than a bunch of "religious nutters". Jury's still out.

Frankly, last I checked, I didn't see anything that suggested the the "fundies" you believe "control the government" have any intention of rounding up the atheists and making them wear a crimson A on their garments or to cut their tongues out for "spewing heresy". I don't recall them stating a desire to execute peope or flog them for "sexual offenses", etc.. This are the types of things you would have to fear if the fundamentalists wanted to ape the islamofascists. That's one rather extremeist interpretation. I, for one, consider basic discrimination the alienation of rights. I do consider the blurring line between church and state a threat that we should be vigilant rather than blasé about. I do consider the fundamentalist war on science to be dangerous to our long-term sovlency as a nation. So while you paint visions of concentration camps, I focus on the real concerns.

Furthermore, and this is more what I mean by taking a page, if that group engaged in the types of tactics currently employed by the arguably errant followers of Islam, how much do you want to bet that publicly professed attitudes toward christians would be much more proscribed? And no offense, but the claim that Congress and the SC are controlled by fundamentalists almost sent me into paroxsyms of laughter. Well, sir, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Did you have something other than contemptuous attitude to support your argument?

Well, to put it differently, on which topics do you find yourself in agreement with the dems and why? Abortion? Civil rights? Hate speech/crimes? Gun control? School choice? Foreign relations? Border issues? The environment?Where, if at all, are you closer to the repubs/conservatives on these issues? On which particular issues do you find yourself at odds with both parties?To cover each of these would take some time and I think I've touched on several of them here and elsewhere. Keeping in mind that you still haven't been very specific (i.e. which democrats vs. which republicans), I'll assume that you're intending the most polarized of each. Let's take your last suggestion: Environment.

I agree with the left that it's a serious concern. I disagree with those on the left that want to adopt a "sky is falling" approach. I agree with those on the right that argue that we should be putting more effort into determining specific actions which will have the greatest impact. I disagree with those on the right who are more concerned with making the left out to be idiots than taking the time to educate themselves on the issues. My stance is that we need to quit bickering and commit to some science that will give us specific action plans. And we need to marginalize the opinions of those that feel that god gave us the earth to abuse as we see fit and that jesus will be back soon anyways so it doesn't matter.

Thanks for reading.

Totenkopf
04-20-2007, 08:55 AM
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction that you're trying to make.

Well, if an atheist were elected president tomorrow, would that mean that the government was controlled by atheists? The president is not a dictator and his control is obviously limited. The idea that either the Congress or SC is run by fundamentalists borders on conspiracy theory. If the "fundies" are running all 3 branches of the government, they've done a pretty poor job of demonstrating any real serious threat to nonbelievers (who btw are about as statistically significant as the number of partial birth abortions).


...I don't think I've stated that most christians are fundamentalists. I think my message has been that christian fundamentalists appear to be in control.

Perhaps appearances are deceptive.


Like who? If there is a 3rd position on these issues, it's been so marginalized that I'm not aware of it. Of course there is a portion of the population that probably falls under the category of "undecided" but I don't consider "undecided" an argued position.

Not sure what to make of this other than draw the conclusion that pos#1 is that of religious and pos#2 that of atheists (somehow monolithic it seems).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
As regards Roe v Wade, it's now known to have been based on a fraudulent case (the "plaintiff" has since admitted as much). But more importantly, it was just another example of a one branch of government overstepping it's constitutional role.
Achilles:
-Could you expand on this please (specifically the last sentence)?

Basically put, it's not the purview of the court to create rights out of thin air. Congress sets the laws and the SC makes pronouncements about how they view said laws. The SC, however is not an oligarchy and can be overridden (much like the prez can veto a bill, but also be overridden).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Sadly, many in Congress (hell, the legal profession in general) are slaves to precedent and dropped the ball. Just like another court invented constitutional position, seperation of church and state (read as seperation of church FROM state), you don't find "abortion rights" anywhere in the US Constitution.
Ach:
You don't find separation of church and (or from) state in the constitution either.
Tot:--as I noted above.

Ach:-That's why we have a branch of government whose role is to determine what the Framers would have intended. So that we could adapt the constitution to modern issues. Also, the courts didn't "invent" the concept. They lifted it from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Madison (at least I think it was Madion). Therefore the courts determined the intent...just like they are supposed to.


Seeing as how Jefferson wasn't the only one involved in crafting the Constitution, it's rather spurious to allow the misgivings(?) of one man to somehow give the court the right to "interpret" the concept of seperation of church and state to be morphed into a total divorcing of any state support for religious activities. Seeing as how the the US SC also elevated secular humanism to religious status, perhaps they too should be excluded from any government support. Given the importance many of the founding fathers of the US viewed religion with, it seems more likely the concern was vis-a-vis the creation of a theocracy, not whether Fr. Jones was reminding/informing parishoners about their duties as members of a congregation when exercising their civic right/duty to vote. Just as atheists have their own peculiar set of values when making decisions, so does any other group. It's basically silly to say that a Catholic school cannot receive any government funding, but a "secular" private school can. Unless the Catholics are absolved of any tax burden (at EVERY level), then you don't really have seperation, merely a one sided relationship where the state exploits religion to its own benefit.


Not at all. This is like Ann Coulter stating that if you aren't neo-con then you're liberal.

Quite the contrary. It's quite a stretch to say that secular means that a society has to believe in no gods/God to qualify. Secular does not=atheism. Athletics is a secular activity, as is taking out the trash. Neither has an inherent spiritual component. Paying taxes is another type of secular activity. One of many things that define a culture.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, most things are debatable, especially if people don't work from the same set of principles. However, I don't see the "growing influence" of christian rock (influence being key concept here) having any major impact on society, neither currently or in the forseeable future.
Ach:
If more people are listening to this than other forms of music, then that's influence. What societal change might be there is unknown, but my point was not christian music is reducing crime, etc.

Not altogether actually clear on the relevance of your point here. In a country of 300 million (+/-), how many people are actually listening to christian rock? What evidence do you have that demonstrates that it's having any impact outside of a niche group? Do you also fear the "influence" of country and gospel music? You seem to fear some kind of nebulous effect.


At no point did I say that it was "center" or "middle". I seem to recall listing some thing that are generally perceived as being liberal and something things that are generally perceived as being conservative. Nowhere did I list things that are generally considered centrist.Are you deliberately attempting to mis-characterize my argument or did you simply misunderstand?

Perhaps you were merely unclear. I didn't accuse you of making any such statement. Perhaps, however, you should make clear what exactly constitutes the middle ground you referred to at the end of your statement. Your apparent fear of CR, partial birth abortion bans, etc.. seem to reflect "left of center" concerns. These would be clear examples of Berkely values/fears.


Universally? Yes, I suppose that you have a case that it's not a "universally" religious position. Of course, I don't recall taking such an indefensible position. I think there's a pretty strong case that the 70% of americans that oppose the procedure do so on religious grounds. I've yet to hear a single secular argument against the procedure, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you have an example of one?

One doesn't have to cite religion to see how wrong headed and barbaric such a procedure is. Unless you have solid statistics which demonstrate that each and every pba was medically necessary, then you know it's objectionable that any, let alone 5000+/-, should be killed in that way. One can try to make the technical argument that LEGALLY the child is a still born, but then the holocaust and slavery were legal within the confines of thier own systems at the time. Most people who actually know what the procedure entails object to it. I know many people who are pro-choice, but find pba's to be offensive. Even the medical profession has admitted that these procedures are not necessary.


I don't think any reasonable person would support this type of abortion unless there was a very good reason. Unfortunately, the right has so oversimplified the counterargument as only being "a woman's right to choose", that most people don't take the time to learn what the argument is actually about.

No offense, but I think you've swallowed the "health of the mother" caveat kool aid on this topic. The fact that anyone would engage in this process demonstrates they are unreasonable in the first place. Frankly, the argument, such as it is, is that the pro-abortion crowd wants absolutely no restrictions on abortion regardless of the circumstances.


No, and I hope you're not putting words in my mouth.

No, I'd say you seem to have handled that on your own. Banning one type of abortion does not equate banning all abortions. Will the pro-life crowd see this as a victory of sorts? Sure. Does it mean that they will succeed in banning ALL abortions? Highly unlikely in our lifetime. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would not disappear in America. Regulation would merely be punted to the state level. As you well know, that means that the laws in the "blue states" would be fairly abortion friendly.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Considering how close the SC vote was (5-4), and how divided the country is in general on the subject of abortion, I don't see any credible threat to abortion on demand (beyond cutting off all govt funding and making it a strictly private affair) over the horizon.
Ach:
It's my understanding that the ban was on the procedure itself, not on gov't funding for the procedure. Did I miss something.

Seems to me that you were arguing that pba bans seemed to signal the beginning of the end for abortion. Otherwise, given that the procedure in question is statistically insignificant, you wouldn't be too worried about the ramifications of only banning one type of particularly gruesome and admittedly unnecessary procedure. My point was that given the slim vote margin (on what you consider the fundie controlled SC--shouldn't the margin have been much greater if that were true?) on the pba-ban issue, that the only real arguable threat in the forseeable future would be the complete defunding by government of ANY abortion procedure. But hey, PP and others make ample $$ to help subsidize the abortion industry should that happen.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The greater threat in that sense will come from advances in medical technology, not merely "ideology". Furthermore, less Bush or someone conservative follows him and appoints the next crop of SC justices, that fear is also overstated.
Ach:
Are you aware of how SC justices are appointed?

Uhhh... the president pulls their names out of a hat and then throws darts or reads goat entrails to see who he should pick and then Congress consults a magic 8 ball to see which ones to approve and then thanks the bones for any kind of answer at all? :laughing:


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Achilles, you're free to fear whomever you like. "Stripping" of civil rights actually has nothing to do with fundamentalism, but everything to do with power hunger.
Ach:
First, I'll concede that some decisions were obvious political rather than religious. Second, I still argue that some decision were equally religious and political. Third, I'd like to point out that I do not necessarily differentiate between religious fundamentalism and power-mongering. Both are about control.

Perhaps, but you seem more concerned about WHO is controlling, than that anyone is doing so at all.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Concepts like hate speech (about as elastic as sexual harrassment) are a direct threat to the first amendment.
Ach:
You can say whatever you would like, so long as no threats are made. I agree that having separate laws for hate speech and hate crimes are counterproductive, but I consider these separate from political correctness.

Actually you're incorrect. Ask Don Imus or anyone whose been thrown out of work and/or sued for sexual harrassment b/c of nonthreatening, but "offensive" comments. There are also nonlegal ramifications here as well. Universities are notorious for causing students a world of trouble if they don't kowtow to PC thought. Kind of funny for instituions that are supposed to encourage free expression of ideas. Still the very concept of hate speech is steeped in PC thinking and thus not seperate.


The constitution says that every individual has the right to bear arms, which in the vernauclar of the time, meant that local government had the right to maintain a militia. However, the supreme court, once again doing their job of interpreting the constitution, determined that it would mean that citizens would have a right to own guns. I'm perfectly ok with this, just as I am perfectly ok with considering reasonable legislation that would promote public safety.

Oddly enough, the constituion doesn't specify exactly what type of weapons the citizenry is restricted to should the state have the need to call upon them to form a militia. So, what in your mind specifically constitutes "reasonable legislation"?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The rise of the "secular nanny state" is a greater near term threat to your freedoms than than a bunch of "religious nutters".
Ach:
Jury's still out.

--yeah, like in the case has already been closed.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, last I checked, I didn't see anything that suggested the the "fundies" you believe "control the government" have any intention of rounding up the atheists and making them wear a crimson A on their garments or to cut their tongues out for "spewing heresy". I don't recall them stating a desire to execute peope or flog them for "sexual offenses", etc.. This are the types of things you would have to fear if the fundamentalists wanted to ape the islamofascists.
Ach:
That's one rather extremeist interpretation. I, for one, consider basic discrimination the alienation of rights. I do consider the blurring line between church and state a threat that we should be vigilant rather than blasé about. I do consider the fundamentalist war on science to be dangerous to our long-term sovlency as a nation. So while you paint visions of concentration camps, I focus on the real concerns.

Somewhat overheated concerns, btw. First, what "basic discrimination" do you refer to specifically? Please provide specific examples of the blurring line you refer to above. We've managed to avoid a theocracy so far. By the assault on science I take it you refer to the whole creationist line of thinking, opposition to man-made global warming theory as well as fetal stem-cell/cloning (what else?)? It's only natural that in a democratic republic people of all stripes will seek to gain some kind of influence in the government policy making process. The fundies, as you refer to them, are a small segment of the US population. You appear to overestimate their influence, all the more so with the next election less than 2 years away and the socially progressive secular lib driven dems in a good position to take the WH.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Furthermore, and this is more what I mean by taking a page, if that group engaged in the types of tactics currently employed by the arguably errant followers of Islam, how much do you want to bet that publicly professed attitudes toward christians would be much more proscribed? And no offense, but the claim that Congress and the SC are controlled by fundamentalists almost sent me into paroxsyms of laughter.
Ach:
Well, sir, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Did you have something other than contemptuous attitude to support your argument?

--Sorry, but which argument are you referring to exactly?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Well, to put it differently, on which topics do you find yourself in agreement with the dems and why? Abortion? Civil rights? Hate speech/crimes? Gun control? School choice? Foreign relations? Border issues? The environment?Where, if at all, are you closer to the repubs/conservatives on these issues? On which particular issues do you find yourself at odds with both parties?
Ach:
To cover each of these would take some time and I think I've touched on several of them here and elsewhere. Let's take your last suggestion: Environment.

I agree with the left that it's a serious concern. I disagree with those on the left that want to adopt a "sky is falling" approach. I agree with those on the right that argue that we should be putting more effort into determining specific actions which will have the greatest impact. I disagree with those on the right who are more concerned with making the left out to be idiots than taking the time to educate themselves on the issues. My stance is that we need to quit bickering and commit to some science that will give us specific action plans. And we need to marginalize the opinions of those that feel that god gave us the earth to abuse as we see fit and that jesus will be back soon anyways so it doesn't matter.


Well, can't say I disagree with most of what you're saying on this specific subject. Only add that the catastrophists you reference on the left should also avoid labeling their opponents as well.

Thanks for reading.

No problem.....

Jae Onasi
04-20-2007, 01:44 PM
Just a quick clarification because it's always important to me for people to have accurate medical info--ectopic pregnancies are never terminated at the 3rd trimester, but rather always the first, and if the docs get to it soon enough before it bursts.
It's a pregnancy that starts in the fallopian tube, and if it's not dealt with, the fallopian tube bursts, which can lead to life-threatening bleeding. An ectopic pregnancy would never make it to the 3rd trimester for a partial-birth abortion to occur. This actually happened to a friend of mine. She collapsed at home and would have died from blood loss if her husband hadn't come home an hour early from work.

Achilles
04-20-2007, 08:43 PM
Well, if an atheist were elected president tomorrow, would that mean that the government was controlled by atheists?Not at all. Separation of powers is supposed to ensure that no one branch "controls" the whole thing. If an atheist were elected president tomorrow, and atheists had the majority in both houses of congress, and there was an athiest majority in the supreme court,and atheists were using this advantage to push an "atheist agenda" that completely marginalized all other opinions, then I would say that atheists controlled the government.

The president is not a dictator and his control is obviously limited. Not very limited when the other two branches are using the same play book and certainly not limited when the checks-and-balances branches are willing to turn over power.

The idea that either the Congress or SC is run by fundamentalists borders on conspiracy theory.Congress just recently lost republican (fundamentalist) control. Even if you were to argue that a majority of republicans aren't fundamentalist but were cowed into submitting via politics, that's still a case for fundamentalist control. Another party has the majority now, so I'd say that some concerns have abated.

As for the SC, it's clear that the conservatives now have the majority.

So help me understand how that's a conspiracy theory?

If the "fundies" are running all 3 branches of the government, they've done a pretty poor job of demonstrating any real serious threat to nonbelievers (who btw are about as statistically significant as the number of partial birth abortions).Do Muslims counts as non-believers?

Perhaps appearances are deceptive. Incredulity is not an argument.

Not sure what to make of this other than draw the conclusion that pos#1 is that of religious and pos#2 that of atheists (somehow monolithic it seems). You said that people other than "people of faith" oppose ESCr, abortion, etc. I asked what group that was. You replied with an argument that doesn't appear to have anything to do with the point.

So, opposition to "ESCr, abortion, etc" (as you referred to it) comes from where?

Basically put, it's not the purview of the court to create rights out of thin air. Congress sets the laws and the SC makes pronouncements about how they view said laws. The SC, however is not an oligarchy and can be overridden (much like the prez can veto a bill, but also be overridden). So tell me how Roe v. Wade differs from Brown v. Board of Education? Both were landmark decision regarding civil rights. Was the SC out of line by failing to support Jim Crow segregation? Seems to me that this is very much one of the responsibilities of the SC.

Seeing as how Jefferson wasn't the only one involved in crafting the Constitution, it's rather spurious to allow the misgivings(?) of one man to somehow give the court the right to "interpret" the concept of seperation of church and state to be morphed into a total divorcing of any state support for religious activities. You can argue the validity of it all you want, but that doesn't change what happened. The Framers didn't stop to fill out NPATs, so we all have to make due with what's available. Jefferson wrote to Madison. Madison drafted the Bill of Rights. Not a whole lot of mystery to solve there.

Seeing as how the the US SC also elevated secular humanism to religious status......for the purposes of religious discrimination.

...perhaps they too should be excluded from any government support.What kinds of support are you referring to?

Given the importance many of the founding fathers of the US viewed religion with, it seems more likely the concern was vis-a-vis the creation of a theocracy, not whether Fr. Jones was reminding/informing parishoners about their duties as members of a congregation when exercising their civic right/duty to vote. I think the Establishment Clause is pretty clear. You're more than welcome to debate the catalyst for it.

Just as atheists have their own peculiar set of values when making decisions, so does any other group. Really? What are "atheist" values?

It's basically silly to say that a Catholic school cannot receive any government funding, but a "secular" private school can. I don't recall making that argument. Was this directed toward me or someone else?

Quite the contrary. It's quite a stretch to say that secular means that a society has to believe in no gods/God to qualify. Secular does not=atheism.You:Fact is, while the population of the US is not nearly as atheistic as current day Europe, it does not mean that the US is not a secular society.
Me: Hmmm. IMO, this debatable. <snip unrelated point>
You: debatable only really if you make secular synonomous with atheistic.
Me: Not at all. This is like Ann Coulter stating that if you aren't neo-con then you're liberal.
You: Quite the contrary. It's quite a stretch to say that secular means that a society has to believe in no gods/God to qualify. Secular does not=atheism.

Indeed it is a stretch to say that, however I did not make that argument. What I did say is that it's debatable to say that the U.S. is secular. Prayer in schools, god in the pledge, god on our currency, gov't funding for faith-based initiatives, and now legislation based on religiosity rather than reason. Help me understand how secularism is a slam-dunk case for you.

Not altogether actually clear on the relevance of your point here. In a country of 300 million (+/-), how many people are actually listening to christian rock? What evidence do you have that demonstrates that it's having any impact outside of a niche group? Do you also fear the "influence" of country and gospel music? You seem to fear some kind of nebulous effect. Actually, at this point, I almost have to say that it's your point. I off-handedly mentioned christian music as part of example and you've blown it up into a cornerstone of the debate.

Who listens to christian music? Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists?

Pick an identifiable group. Give them their own genre of music. If that genre of music suddenly undergoes a surge in popularity, what conclusions could you possibly draw about the group itself?

Lastly, please try to avoid making similar strawman arguments in the future.

Perhaps you were merely unclear. That's possible. Please feel free to ask for clarification if you're uncertain about my meaning. I'd rather have to answer a few extra questions that chase down a bunch of red herrings.

I didn't accuse you of making any such statement.Me:Again, this is debatable. While you seem to see rock n' roll, Berkley, and Roe v. Wade, I see the growing influence of christian rock, Bob Jones University, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

You:Berkely has long been a "hotbed" of "other side of the pendelum" politics and cultural mores. Nowhere near the "center/middle".

Please help me understand what I'm missing from your comment. Seems as though you meant to imply that I'd characterized Berkley as "center/middle".

Perhaps, however, you should make clear what exactly constitutes the middle ground you referred to at the end of your statement.The middle changes depending on the issue. Which issue would you like for me to expand upon?

Your apparent fear of CR, partial birth abortion bans, etc.. seem to reflect "left of center" concerns. These would be clear examples of Berkely values/fears. Again, "if it ain't neo-con, then it must be liberal", eh?

CR = Fear of growing religiosity in an allegedly secular society.
partial birth abortion bans = Fear of policies based on religious concerns rather than medicine.

One doesn't have to cite religion to see how wrong headed and barbaric such a procedure is.Ok, do you know why the procedure is done the way that it is?

Unless you have solid statistics which demonstrate that each and every pba was medically necessary, then you know it's objectionable that any, let alone 5000+/-, should be killed in that way. Burden of proof fallacy. As I have already pointed out 3rd trimester abortions are illegal without medical cause. P&X would only be used in the 2nd trimester if it was very late.

One can try to make the technical argument that LEGALLY the child is a still born, but then the holocaust and slavery were legal within the confines of thier own systems at the time. Because the procedure is sometimes used to extract fetuses the die in the womb does not mean that anyone has tried to use "still born" as a justification.

Most people who actually know what the procedure entails object to it. Like medical professionals? Or by "most people" do you mean the uninformed that allow their opinions to be influenced by conservative rhetoric?

I know many people who are pro-choice, but find pba's to be offensive. And?

Even the medical profession has admitted that these procedures are not necessary. I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to provide a few sources then. *waits for Totenkopf to post links to pro-life websites*

No offense, but I think you've swallowed the "health of the mother" caveat kool aid on this topic. The fact that anyone would engage in this process demonstrates they are unreasonable in the first place. That is an opinion. You are welcome to it, but that doesn't make it fact. I find it strange that you are so quick to label me when it appears that you aren't very well informed on the topic in the first place.

Frankly, the argument, such as it is, is that the pro-abortion crowd wants absolutely no restrictions on abortion regardless of the circumstances. Really? I've never heard anything from the pro-abortion machine that sounds like "we demand the right to kill babies whenever we want". Why is it these groups haven't put more effort into repealing the existing laws that covered this procedure? Your caricature of pro-abortion proponets is largely inaccurate, but clearly you don't seem interested in objectivity.

No, I'd say you seem to have handled that on your own. Banning one type of abortion does not equate banning all abortions. Please show me where I said it did.

Will the pro-life crowd see this as a victory of sorts? Sure. Does it mean that they will succeed in banning ALL abortions? Highly unlikely in our lifetime. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would not disappear in America. Regulation would merely be punted to the state level. As you well know, that means that the laws in the "blue states" would be fairly abortion friendly. Unless there was a federal ban like the one passed yesterday. You are aware that state law cannot supercede federal law, correct?

Seems to me that you were arguing that pba bans seemed to signal the beginning of the end for abortion. Please point to anything that I may have said that would indicate that. Please watch the strawmen.

Otherwise, given that the procedure in question is statistically insignificant, you wouldn't be too worried about the ramifications of only banning one type of particularly gruesome and admittedly unnecessary procedure. False premise. I'm terribly worried that the government is trying to tell the medical community what it can or cannot do. I'm terribly worried that women who's babies have died in the womb will have to have the additional slap in the fact of going through labor to deliver the dead child. I'm terribly concerned that some women will have to undergo risky labor after it's been determined that childbirth could damage her health. What I'm not terribly concerned about are the women that won't be able to change their mind about being pregnant in the 3rd trimester. Why? Because 3rd trimester abortions for that reason were already illegal.

My point was that given the slim vote margin (on what you consider the fundie controlled SC--shouldn't the margin have been much greater if that were true?) on the pba-ban issue, that the only real arguable threat in the forseeable future would be the complete defunding by government of ANY abortion procedure. But hey, PP and others make ample $$ to help subsidize the abortion industry should that happen.5-4 is all you need. I never said the entire SC bench were fundies, I just said it was now controlled by fundies. Which appears to be the case.

Uhhh... the president pulls their names out of a hat and then throws darts or reads goat entrails to see who he should pick and then Congress consults a magic 8 ball to see which ones to approve and then thanks the bones for any kind of answer at all? So in other words you don't know. Let me help. SC appointments are made by the president and are life-terms. Supposing that everyone remains in good health, it might be 10+ years before another opening becomes available. So it's not like the next president gets to wipe the slate clean and start all over again.

Perhaps, but you seem more concerned about WHO is controlling, than that anyone is doing so at all. If some other left-wing democrat were president and looking to turn our gov't into a communist state, I'd be complaining just as loudly.

Actually you're incorrect. Ask Don Imus or anyone whose been thrown out of work and/or sued for sexual harrassment b/c of nonthreatening, but "offensive" comments.Sexual harassment is threatening. That's why it's called harassment.

There are also nonlegal ramifications here as well. Universities are notorious for causing students a world of trouble if they don't kowtow to PC thought. Like BJU?

Kind of funny for instituions that are supposed to encourage free expression of ideas. Still the very concept of hate speech is steeped in PC thinking and thus not seperate.Opinion, not fact.

Oddly enough, the constituion doesn't specify exactly what type of weapons the citizenry is restricted to should the state have the need to call upon them to form a militia. So, what in your mind specifically constitutes "reasonable legislation"? Reasonable legislation would be legislation that is objective and considers both sides of the argument. What exactly that looks like is up in the air right now.

--yeah, like in the case has already been closed. Your opinion.

Somewhat overheated concerns, btw. First, what "basic discrimination" do you refer to specifically?Preferential treatment of one group over another.

Please provide specific examples of the blurring line you refer to above. I provided about half a dozen earlier in this post. Some of them aren't the critical (i.e. god on currency), while others are pretty significant (i.e. specifically the last two).

By the assault on science I take it you refer to the whole creationist line of thinking, opposition to man-made global warming theory as well as fetal stem-cell/cloning (what else?)?Creationism is a big one. Opposition to global warming I'm ok with so long as it is scientific opposition and not blatant undermining like Bush's science adviser was found to be doing a few years back. Stem cell research is another big one. How many examples do you need? Three of the biggest scientific issues of this generation and the Bush administration is on the wrong side of all three. 2 of which for blatantly religious reasons and arguably the 3rd as well.

It's only natural that in a democratic republic people of all stripes will seek to gain some kind of influence in the government policy making process. The fundies, as you refer to them, are a small segment of the US population. You appear to overestimate their influence I've presented my arguments. You've yet to offer much more than incredulousness and fallacies. Anytime you're actually ready to refute my points, just let me know :)

all the more so with the next election less than 2 years away and the socially progressive secular lib driven dems in a good position to take the WH. Yep, I'm glad there will be another election soon. And yes, I will be voting democrat unless the republicans can do better than McCain or Giuliani.

--Sorry, but which argument are you referring to exactly? Any of them, really.

Well, can't say I disagree with most of what you're saying on this specific subject. Only add that the catastrophists you reference on the left should also avoid labeling their opponents as well. Of course. It would be hypocritical to bash the right for name-calling if the left is doing it too. :)

@Jae: you're absolutely correct. I wanted to make the point about non-viable pregnancies, and picked the first example that sprang to mind without regard for trimesters. Thanks for the correction.

Jae Onasi
04-20-2007, 11:34 PM
I don't listen to Christian rock just because of the message, though there is a certain truth to the adage garbage in/garbage out. I listen to Christian rock because I know for sure that it's not going to have filthy language and obscene references. I don't have to worry about content or whether my kids are going to hear the f-bomb.

I've found it really difficult in the last 5 years or so to find secular radio stations that don't use expletives or talk about off-color topics or make innuendos on some kind of semi-regular basis, including the light rock stations. Now, I can speak innuendo with the best of them, and I've said my share of expletives and dropped plenty of f-bombs in my life. My music tastes run anywhere from Sting to Eminem to medieval motets to Handel and back to Don Henley and Meatloaf and Beatles. However, now that I have kids in the car with me a lot of the time, I have to think about what they're hearing because they're young. I don't want them to hear a bunch of swear words, I don't want them to hear Howard Stern-type topics, and I don't want them hearing Imus-style racism. Even on talk radio WGN has 'sex Thursday'--not something my kids need to be hearing about at their tender ages. With Christian radio I know for sure that I'm not going to hear bad language out of song or the DJ, I'm not going to hear questionable or embarrassing topics, and I'm not going to hear rude or mean-spirited conversation. If secular music/radio wants to win me back, they're going to have to clean up their act and make things a little more family friendly again, instead of catering to the lowest common denominator of smut or foul language.

Totenkopf
04-21-2007, 05:38 AM
Not very limited when the other two branches are using the same play book and certainly not limited when the checks-and-balances branches are willing to turn over power. Congress just recently lost republican (fundamentalist) control. Even if you were to argue that a majority of republicans aren't fundamentalist but were cowed into submitting via politics, that's still a case for fundamentalist control. Another party has the majority now, so I'd say that some concerns have abated. As for the SC, it's clear that the conservatives now have the majority. So help me understand how that's a conspiracy theory?

Your very arguments demonstrate that you are conspiratorially minded. You haven't shown fundamentalist control, but have merely displayed a rather paranoid personal pov. Well....it's a free country.



Perhaps appearances are deceptive.

Incredulity is not an argument.
Neither is paranoia.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Not sure what to make of this other than draw the conclusion that pos#1 is that of religious and pos#2 that of atheists (somehow monolithic it seems).

--You said that people other than "people of faith" oppose ESCr, abortion, etc. I asked what group that was. You replied with an argument that doesn't appear to have anything to do with the point.

You should be a little more careful. You automatically assume a lot of things about the people who don't share your values. You throw out figures and make vague arguments about how other's arrive at their opinions/pov. My counterpoint to you is that you seem to believe from your statement that there are only two points of view: yours (ie the atheistic) and everyone else (at least who seems to have a pov) as fundies/unthinking religious folk. Hardly a rational position. Am I to understand that you believe that everyone who opposes your pov is automatically a fundie (or secretly "mind controlled"/cowed by them)?



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Basically put, it's not the purview of the court to create rights out of thin air. Congress sets the laws and the SC makes pronouncements about how they view said laws. The SC, however is not an oligarchy and can be overridden (much like the prez can veto a bill, but also be overridden).

--So tell me how Roe v. Wade differs from Brown v. Board of Education? Both were landmark decision regarding civil rights. Was the SC out of line by failing to support Jim Crow segregation? Seems to me that this is very much one of the responsibilities of the SC.

In at least one very important way. The civil right of BvBoE was access to better education, while Roe was about terminating another persons right to live (hardly civil, I'd say ;)).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Seeing as how Jefferson wasn't the only one involved in crafting the Constitution, it's rather spurious to allow the misgivings(?) of one man to somehow give the court the right to "interpret" the concept of seperation of church and state to be morphed into a total divorcing of any state support for religious activities.

--You can argue the validity of it all you want, but that doesn't change what happened. The Framers didn't stop to fill out NPATs, so we all have to make due with what's available. Jefferson wrote to Madison. Madison drafted the Bill of Rights. Not a whole lot of mystery to solve there.

Your spin, perhaps. I'd guess that the elactic clause in the Constitution must be one of your favorites. The Necessary and Proper clause is big enough to run a train through. Maybe just pick a sentence out of some historical letter and create law or even adopt the "living" constitution" model. Then a SC could invent all the rules it likes. :)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Seeing as how the the US SC also elevated secular humanism to religious status...

--for the purposes of religious discrimination.

Explain, otherwise it seems your paranoia is blazingly radiant here.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
...perhaps they too should be excluded from any government support.

--What kinds of support are you referring to?

Any and all. If there is none now, so much the better. Fair treatment for all, eh?



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Given the importance many of the founding fathers of the US viewed religion with, it seems more likely the concern was vis-a-vis the creation of a theocracy, not whether Fr. Jones was reminding/informing parishoners about their duties as members of a congregation when exercising their civic right/duty to vote.

--I think the Establishment Clause is pretty clear. You're more than welcome to debate the catalyst for it.

So, what exactly is this state religion that the government is shoving down our throats? I don't see any clergy running the government or engaging in inquistions. Or is it just your paranoia about those pesky christian fundamentalists?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Just as atheists have their own peculiar set of values when making decisions, so does any other group.

--Really? What are "atheist" values?

C'mon, every group has it's values. Now you just appear to be disingenuous.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It's basically silly to say that a Catholic school cannot receive any government funding, but a "secular" private school can.

--I don't recall making that argument. Was this directed toward me or someone else?

Wow, and you said incredulity's not an argument. It's completely germaine to your whole paradigm. You have made quite clear that ANY government funding of any body or institution affliated with or religious in nature, is unconstitutional. That it offends your understanding of the establishment clause.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Quite the contrary. It's quite a stretch to say that secular means that a society has to believe in no gods/God to qualify. Secular does not=atheism.

--Indeed it is a stretch to say that, however I did not make that argument. What I did say is that it's debatable to say that the U.S. is secular. Prayer in schools, god in the pledge, god on our currency, gov't funding for faith-based initiatives, and now legislation based on religiosity rather than reason. Help me understand how secularism is a slam-dunk case for you.


It's both presumptuous and arrogant to assume that opposition to this practice is somehow based solely on religion and not reason. Your last statement rather does show that you equate secular with atheist. There is an undeniably secular as well as religious component to the US. The fact that you call the argument debateable reflects your stance that secular=atheist.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Not altogether actually clear on the relevance of your point here. In a country of 300 million (+/-), how many people are actually listening to christian rock? What evidence do you have that demonstrates that it's having any impact outside of a niche group? Do you also fear the "influence" of country and gospel music? You seem to fear some kind of nebulous effect.

--Actually, at this point, I almost have to say that it's your point. I off-handedly mentioned christian music as part of example and you've blown it up into a cornerstone of the debate. Who listens to christian music? Muslims? Atheists? Buddhists?Pick an identifiable group. Give them their own genre of music. If that genre of music suddenly undergoes a surge in popularity, what conclusions could you possibly draw about the group itself?

Spare the strawman argument. You brought up those topics b/c they concern you, not merely "just b/c". Afterall, you stated "..I (that being you of course) see..." If this example is merely so offhand as you suggest, why would it bother you at all that people listen to "christian rock"? Especially when you haven't demonstrated any real impact on US culture. Don't know about you, but I couldn't name a Christian rock band or song to save my life.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Perhaps you were merely unclear.

--That's possible. Please feel free to ask for clarification if you're uncertain about my meaning. I'd rather have to answer a few extra questions that (sic)chase down a bunch of red herrings.

I can only respond to what you are saying. If you are unclear, you must seek to correct yourself in the followup. Otherwise, how will anyone know they've actually misinterpreted your point?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I didn't accuse you of making any such statement.

Me:Again, this is debatable. While you seem to see rock n' roll, Berkley, and Roe v. Wade, I see the growing influence of christian rock, Bob Jones University, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
You:Berkely has long been a "hotbed" of "other side of the pendelum" politics and cultural mores. Nowhere near the "center/middle".
Please help me understand what I'm missing from your comment. Seems as though you meant to imply that I'd characterized Berkley as "center/middle".

Your "offhand examples/concerns" are in line with "Berkely-style values". And you fail to define the ever elusive middle (you make it sound like a case of situational ethics). If they re representative of your values, I can only wonder what you really mean by the "center/middle".


Again, "if it ain't neo-con, then it must be liberal", eh?

Ah, yes, it seems you're equally obsessed with the neocons as well.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
One doesn't have to cite religion to see how wrong headed and barbaric such a procedure is.

--Ok, do you know why the procedure is done the way that it is?

The real question is do you? You've already demonstrated by Jae's correction that your understanding isn't exactly on solid ground. Which pro-abortion sites do you get your propoganda from, btw.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Unless you have solid statistics which demonstrate that each and every pba was medically necessary, then you know it's objectionable that any, let alone 5000+/-, should be killed in that way.

--Burden of proof fallacy. ...

Wrong. Given that a doctor is paid to perform abortions, and that the "health of the mother" clause is like a "get out of jail free card", you don't really know whether those abortions are legitimate or not. Seems your quite willing to assume that they are telling the truth b/c what they're doing is in line with your values. As long as the paper work looks ok, alles ist gut, ja?


Because the procedure is sometimes used to extract fetuses the die in the womb....

"Die in the womb", very euphamistic. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual procedure, rather than PP style propoganda.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Most people who actually know what the procedure entails object to it.

--Like medical professionals? Or by "most people" do you mean the uninformed that allow their opinions to be influenced by conservative rhetoric?

I could ask the reverse of you. How many supporters of the procedure are anything other than knee-jerk pro-abortion kool aid drinkers?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I know many people who are pro-choice, but find pba's to be offensive.

--And?

Well, you did ask earlier what kind of people.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
No offense, but I think you've swallowed the "health of the mother" caveat kool aid on this topic. The fact that anyone would engage in this process demonstrates they are unreasonable in the first place.

--That is an opinion. You are welcome to it, but that doesn't make it fact. I find it strange that you are so quick to label me when it appears that you aren't very well informed on the topic in the first place.

It's pretty obvious your grasp on this is quite fragile. And realllly, you're quite quick to throw around a lot of labels (fundies, neo-cons, uninformed...) at those who don't go lockstep with your views.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, the argument, such as it is, is that the pro-abortion crowd wants absolutely no restrictions on abortion regardless of the circumstances.

--Really? I've never heard anything from the pro-abortion machine that sounds like "we demand the right to kill babies whenever we want". Why is it these groups haven't put more effort into repealing the existing laws that covered this procedure? Your caricature of pro-abortion proponets is largely inaccurate, but clearly you don't seem interested in objectivity.

Really, someone as biased as you clearly are, talking about objectivity, is epicly ironic.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Will the pro-life crowd see this as a victory of sorts? Sure. Does it mean that they will succeed in banning ALL abortions? Highly unlikely in our lifetime. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would not disappear in America. Regulation would merely be punted to the state level. As you well know, that means that the laws in the "blue states" would be fairly abortion friendly.

--Unless there was a federal ban like the one passed yesterday. You are aware that state law cannot supercede federal law, correct?

This is the problem with an overrelying on parsing someone's statements. Federal laws, precedent aside, can be overturned if the SC overturned RvW. Also, you are too myopically focused on a procedure that you admit is statistically insignificant anyway. Besides, the bonus for federal candidates is that the onus of taking a stand on abortion would be removed as it was now relegated to state legislatures.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
My point was that given the slim vote margin (on what you consider the fundie controlled SC--shouldn't the margin have been much greater if that were true?) on the pba-ban issue, that the only real arguable threat in the forseeable future would be the complete defunding by government of ANY abortion procedure. But hey, PP and others make ample $$ to help subsidize the abortion industry should that happen.

--5-4 is all you need. I never said the entire SC bench were fundies, I just said it was now controlled by fundies. Which appears to be the case.

One case doth hardly prove your point.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Uhhh... the president pulls their names out of a hat and then throws darts or reads goat entrails to see who he should pick and then Congress consults a magic 8 ball to see which ones to approve and then thanks the bones for any kind of answer at all?

--So in other words you don't know. Let me help. SC appointments are made by the president and are life-terms. Supposing that everyone remains in good health, it might be 10+ years before another opening becomes available. So it's not like the next president gets to wipe the slate clean and start all over again.

I'm gonna be charitable and guess you missed that great big smily at the end of my cheerfully sarcastic reply. ;)



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Perhaps, but you seem more concerned about WHO is controlling, than that anyone is doing so at all.

--If some other left-wing democrat were president and looking to turn our gov't into a communist state, I'd be complaining just as loudly

More likely a socialist nanny-state (which I somehow doubt you'd protest).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Actually you're incorrect. Ask Don Imus or anyone whose been thrown out of work and/or sued for sexual harrassment b/c of nonthreatening, but "offensive" comments.

--Sexual harassment is threatening. That's why it's called harassment.

Were only it so clear cut. You telling me a dirty joke at work and being overheard by an "offended" party is enough to constitute a form of "threat" to get you fired, and very possibly sued. All so perfectly harmless, though, eh?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
There are also nonlegal ramifications here as well. Universities are notorious for causing students a world of trouble if they don't kowtow to PC thought.

--Like BJU?

Try our great institutions of lower learning (Hardvard, Yale, etc...) as well as many of the "lesser" schools.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Kind of funny for instituions that are supposed to encourage free expression of ideas. Still the very concept of hate speech is steeped in PC thinking and thus not seperate.

--Opinion, not fact.

Yeah, your opinion's not fact.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Oddly enough, the constituion doesn't specify exactly what type of weapons the citizenry is restricted to should the state have the need to call upon them to form a militia.

So, what in your mind specifically constitutes "reasonable legislation"?

--Reasonable legislation would be legislation that is objective and considers both sides of the argument. What exactly that looks like is up in the air right now.

Funny, you talk of reasonable in vague terms (seems like an MO here). I suspect it would be a lot like beauty....in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps you're able to provide an example of what YOU think is reasonable. I'm all eyes.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
yeah, like in the case has already been closed.

--Your opinion.
Yours is as well.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Somewhat overheated concerns, btw. First, what "basic discrimination" do you refer to specifically?

--Preferential treatment of one group over another.

examples:????


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It's only natural that in a democratic republic people of all stripes will seek to gain some kind of influence in the government policy making process. The fundies, as you refer to them, are a small segment of the US population. You appear to overestimate their influence

--I've presented my arguments.

Unfortunately, not very convincing. Mostly overheated paranoia served with a side order of theophobia. ;)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
all the more so with the next election less than 2 years away and the socially progressive secular lib driven dems in a good position to take the WH.

--Yep, I'm glad there will be another election soon. And yes, I will be voting democrat unless the republicans can do better than McCain or Giuliani.

Far as I'm concerned, no one so far appeals to me. No doubt I'll have to "divine" the lesser of two evils in '08.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Well, can't say I disagree with most of what you're saying on this specific subject. Only add that the catastrophists you reference on the left should also avoid labeling their opponents as well.

--Of course. It would be hypocritical to bash the right for name-calling if the left is doing it too.

Indeed. :)

Dagobahn Eagle
04-21-2007, 11:40 AM
C'mon, every group [including atheists] has it's values. Now you just appear to be disingenuous.Then give me a list of blond morals. Or left-handed people morals. Or city people morals.

Atheism isn't an organized religion with a code of morals set in stone. Some atheists are pro-life, others are pro-choice and raving supporters of all kinds of euthanasia. Some atheists are vegetarians reluctant to eat even plants, others throw weekly barbeque parties frying everything they can get their hands on.

Achilles
04-21-2007, 04:06 PM
Your very arguments demonstrate that you are conspiratorially minded. You haven't shown fundamentalist control, but have merely displayed a rather paranoid personal pov. Well....it's a free country.This is not an argument.

Name-call all you'd like, sir, however it will not help you make your point (assuming that you have one). You've made no effort to refute any of my points, rather you look for opporutunities to issue school-yard taunts and dismiss arguments without actually making any of your own.

Neither is paranoia. Again, not an argument. Please address the point or move on.

You should be a little more careful. You automatically assume a lot of things about the people who don't share your values. The only one that has demonstrated this behavior is you, sir.
You've yet to describe this "third group". I'm more than willing to consider that there is one, but you've yet to tell me what it is. Therefore, you comment has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

My counterpoint to you is that you seem to believe from your statement that there are only two points of view: yours (ie the atheistic) and everyone else (at least who seems to have a pov) as fundies/unthinking religious folk.You caution me against generalizing and then make this your very next sentence. Interesting.

No sir, there are actually three possible pov that I can think of:

1) Those that oppose abortion for fundamentist Christian reasons.
2) Those that do not oppose abortion.
3) Those that oppose abortion for some other reason.

This third group seems to be what you're relying on, yet you aren't willing to tell me who they are, on what grounds they oppose abortion, etc. I've never heard from them, so I don't know. You've been invited to educate me, but instead of doing so, you prefer to create strawmen.

Hardly a rational position. Am I to understand that you believe that everyone who opposes your pov is automatically a fundie (or secretly "mind controlled"/cowed by them)?Agreed, which is why I never made that argument.

No, not at all. It's not about my opinion. If you can present an informed, rational argument against abortion I'm more that willing to hear it. However, every single argument you've present thus far has been remarkably uninformed, emotionally-based, and I suspect based on religious doctrine.

In at least one very important way. The civil right of BvBoE was access to better education, while Roe was about terminating another persons right to live (hardly civil, I'd say ;)). False premise. They were both civil rights cases, whether you choose to ignore that or not. This is that "objectivity" thing that I mentioned earlier.

Your spin, perhaps. Please explain how that's "spin".

I'd guess that the elactic clause in the Constitution must be one of your favorites. The Necessary and Proper clause is big enough to run a train through. Maybe just pick a sentence out of some historical letter and create law or even adopt the "living" constitution" model. Then a SC could invent all the rules it likes. :) Please avoid the strawmen and red herrings. The topic was Establishment Clause. Your thoughts?

Explain, otherwise it seems your paranoia is blazingly radiant here.Err...secular humanism, atheism, agnostism, etc were catagorized by the federal gov't as religions for the purposes of protection from religious discimination. Please explain to me how that is "blazingly radiant paranoia".

Any and all. If there is none now, so much the better. Fair treatment for all, eh? No, sir. Which secular humanist group currently recieves gov't funding and for what cause? This was key to your point. Please don't limp out now.

So, what exactly is this state religion that the government is shoving down our throats?Christianity.

I don't see any clergy running the government or engaging in inquistions. Or is it just your paranoia about those pesky christian fundamentalists?Strawman.

C'mon, every group has it's values. Now you just appear to be disingenuous.DE has already addressed this. What he was too kind to point out is that this statement belies a complete lack of understanding of atheism on your part.

Wow, and you said incredulity's not an argument. Indeed it is not. I'm not being incredulous. I never made the argument that attributed to me and I challenge you to show where I have. Pointing out your error is not being incredulous. Perhaps you are confused about the word's meaning?

It's completely germaine to your whole paradigm. You have made quite clear that ANY government funding of any body or institution affliated with or religious in nature, is unconstitutional. That it offends your understanding of the establishment clause. Government funds cannot be used to promote religion. This is why public schools cannot have bible class or teach creationism. Private schools can do what ever they would like. Which part do you feel that I am unclear on?

It's both presumptuous and arrogant to assume that opposition to this practice is somehow based solely on religion and not reason.If you would like to show me otherwise, please feel free. Thus far you have not.

Your last statement rather does show that you equate secular with atheist.My last point shows that your argument was flawed. And this comment is a red herring.

There is an undeniably secular as well as religious component to the US. The fact that you call the argument debateable reflects your stance that secular=atheist. False premise. Debate or don't but please try to avoid all the fallacies.

Spare the strawman argument. Not a strawman at all. I was merely pointing out your strawman while clarifying my point.

You brought up those topics b/c they concern you, not merely "just b/c". Afterall, you stated "..I (that being you of course) see..." If this example is merely so offhand as you suggest, why would it bother you at all that people listen to "christian rock"? *sigh* You made a comment regarding pop culture, academia, and law. I provided right and left examples of each (christian rock was my right example for pop culture). Nothing more. You've ballooned it way out of proportion.

Especially when you haven't demonstrated any real impact on US culture. Don't know about you, but I couldn't name a Christian rock band or song to save my life.Wow. Considering what a force they seemed to be a few years ago, I thought everyone would have heard of Creed.

I can only respond to what you are saying. If you are unclear, you must seek to correct yourself in the followup. Otherwise, how will anyone know they've actually misinterpreted your point?Right, so please respond to what I actually say and avoid using strawmen. I was quite clear, just as your strawman was quite clear.

Your "offhand examples/concerns" are in line with "Berkely-style values".LOL. That's because my off-hand examples were examples of "berkely-style values". At no point did I say they were my own, although you assume that they are.

And you fail to define the ever elusive middle (you make it sound like a case of situational ethics). If they re representative of your values, I can only wonder what you really mean by the "center/middle". I've offered several times to do so. You provide the issue and I'll tell you what I consider the "center/middle" to be. Pretty sure this is the 3rd or 4th time I've said this.

Ah, yes, it seems you're equally obsessed with the neocons as well. Complete red herring. I pointed out that you appear to categorize anything non-conservative as liberal. Would you care to refute this or should I take your red herring as admission?

The real question is do you? Yes, I do. Please quit dancing and answer the question: Do you know why D&X is performed the way that it is?

You've already demonstrated by Jae's correction that your understanding isn't exactly on solid ground.Strawman. Jae's correction had nothing to do with the procedure, but rather complications of pregnancy.

Wrong. Given that a doctor is paid to perform abortions, and that the "health of the mother" clause is like a "get out of jail free card", you don't really know whether those abortions are legitimate or not. Seems your quite willing to assume that they are telling the truth b/c what they're doing is in line with your values. As long as the paper work looks ok, alles ist gut, ja?You can deny it all you'd like but your previous comment is a burden of proof fallacy. Expounding your argument isn't going to make that go away. You're making the claim that legal boundaries are being ignored. Therefore it is on you to demonstrate where this is actually happening.

"Die in the womb", very euphamistic.You are aware the sometimes the fetus dies in the womb, correct? What would you call this? The body still has to come out you know.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual procedure, rather than PP style propoganda.I'm very much familar with the procedure, as I am with D&E. In fact, I know why the procedure is done the way that it is, even though it remains to be seen if you do.

I could ask the reverse of you. How many supporters of the procedure are anything other than knee-jerk pro-abortion kool aid drinkers? I'll be happy to answer your question right after you answer mine.

Well, you did ask earlier what kind of people. Right. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me who these people are.

It's pretty obvious your grasp on this is quite fragile.Really? How so? I understand that you think this, but you've yet to demonstrate how it's actually true.

Really, someone as biased as you clearly are, talking about objectivity, is epicly ironic. Can I assume that since you only replied to one word that you won't be addressing my other points as well? If so, I'll assume that you concede them.

And you can call me biased all you'd like, it isn't going to make it true.:)

This is the problem with an overrelying on parsing someone's statements. Federal laws, precedent aside, can be overturned if the SC overturned RvW. Also, you are too myopically focused on a procedure that you admit is statistically insignificant anyway. Besides, the bonus for federal candidates is that the onus of taking a stand on abortion would be removed as it was now relegated to state legislatures.Yes, I'm aware that the SC can overturn federal law. Your point was that states can make separate laws and I corrected you by pointing out that state laws cannot supersede federal laws. In other words, if the federal government bans something, state governments cannot turn around and allow it.

Considering that the government and fundamentalist lobbies put all this time, money, and effort into banning a procedure that only puts womens' health at increased risk, I don't know how you can accuse me of being the one myopically focused on a statistically insignificant procedure.

One case doth hardly prove your point. Sure it does. What magic number do you need?

I'm gonna be charitable and guess you missed that great big smily at the end of my cheerfully sarcastic reply. ;) No, I saw it. I also saw that you didn't answer the very simple question, so I assumed that you didn't know. Since you're not refuting what I said, I'm also assuming that you actually didn't know and are dropping the point now that you do.

More likely a socialist nanny-state (which I somehow doubt you'd protest).The fact that is your response to the post where I said I would protest makes this response particularly amusing.

Were only it so clear cut. You telling me a dirty joke at work and being overheard by an "offended" party is enough to constitute a form of "threat" to get you fired, and very possibly sued. All so perfectly harmless, though, eh? No, not harmless. That's why it's harassment.

Try our great institutions of lower learning (Hardvard, Yale, etc...) as well as many of the "lesser" schools.You made a argument. I refuted it. Not sure what your response accomplishes. I think you'll need to reframe your argument if you want to make your point.

Yeah, your opinion's not fact.Did you want to defend your point or are you simply going to repeat the argument that I used to refute it and expect it to have some bearing?

Funny, you talk of reasonable in vague terms (seems like an MO here). I suspect it would be a lot like beauty....in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps you're able to provide an example of what YOU think is reasonable. I'm all eyes. As I stated in my last post, I'd would need to see what was put forward. I could probably make a reasonably accurate guess at each side's position, but rather than try to punch around in the dark, I'll just wait.

Yours is as well.No, sir. Your opinion is that the case is closed. The fact is that it is not. Unless you can present how the "secular nanny state" (whatever that means) is a threat to personal freedoms, your point is nothing more than assumption.

examples:????*sigh* Go read the civil rights act of 1964. Religion is a protected class as the gov't amended religion to include "non-religions" as well for the purposes of CRA protections. The document more that adequately defines discrimination. If that isn't enough for you, then I don't know what would be.

Unfortunately, not very convincing. Mostly overheated paranoia served with a side order of theophobia. ;)Well at least I can take comfort knowing that they were better than your counter-arguments which were based on fallacy, based on name-calling, or just non-existent.

Far as I'm concerned, no one so far appeals to me. No doubt I'll have to "divine" the lesser of two evils in '08. That happens sometimes. I wish I could feel sorry for you, however you captured my sentiments regarding almost every election I've participated in.

Darth InSidious
04-21-2007, 04:19 PM
No sir, there are actually three possible pov that I can think of:

1) Those that oppose abortion for fundamentist Christian reasons.
2) Those that do not oppose abortion.
3) Those that oppose abortion for some other reason.

Achilles,

You have my most profuse apologies for not answering you more fully, or at all in other threads. I swear to you I will do so, but at the moment, well...ever heard of the blue-arsed fly? ;)

Just thought I'd posit that while I oppose abortion, I would like to think I am not a fundamentalist. If you wish to challenge this, perhaps we could conduct a poll?

Achilles
04-21-2007, 04:40 PM
Just thought I'd posit that while I oppose abortion, I would like to think I am not a fundamentalist. If you wish to challenge this, perhaps we could conduct a poll? LOL. Interestingly, based of what I've read in your posts, I've always taken you for one (you don't seem to adopt many moderate positions). :D

The important distinction that I tried to make there was "fundamentalist christian reasons". You don't have to be fundamentalist yourself to adopt a fundamentalist stance. Moderates are likely to lean toward fundamentalist positions, especially if the fundies themselves have done a passable job of demonizing the opposition (i.e. calling their movement "pro-life" which implies the other group is "pro-death" as opposed to pro-abortion).

You might not consider yourself a fundamentalist, but you're probably more likely to vote for a fundamentalist presidential candidate than an atheist presidential candidate. Same thing with abortion. You might not necessarily buy into the idea that there are doctors who get their jollies off killing the unborn babies of free-love hippie mothers who suddenly decided in the 9th month that they didn't want to be pregnant after all, but you're probably going to vote like those that do for very similar reasons. And ultimately this boils down to the strictly religious idea that every fetus has a soul and that soul has rights and needs protection (I especially like the way that we get around the argument for the mother's soul but automatically assuming that she's a whore or otherwise irresponsible and therefore deserves to be at risk).

Darth InSidious
04-21-2007, 04:45 PM
LOL. Interestingly, based of what I've read in your posts, I've always taken you for one (you don't seem to adopt many moderate positions). :D

The important distinction that I tried to make there was "fundamentalist christian reasons". You don't have to be fundamentalist yourself to adopt a fundamentalist stance. Moderates are likely to lean toward fundamentalist positions, especially if the fundies themselves have done a passable job of demonizing the opposition (i.e. calling their movement "pro-life" which implies the other group is "pro-death" as opposed to pro-abortion).

You might not consider yourself a fundamentalist, but you're probably more likely to vote for a fundamentalist presidential candidate than an atheist presidential candidate. Same thing with abortion. You might not necessarily buy into the idea that there are doctors who get their jollies off killing the unborn babies of free-love hippie mothers who suddenly decided in the 9th month that they didn't want to be pregnant after all, but you're probably going to vote like those that do for very similar reasons. And ultimately this boils down to the strictly religious idea that every fetus has a soul and that soul has rights and needs protection (I especially like the way that we get around the argument for the mother's soul but automatically assuming that she's a whore or otherwise irresponsible and therefore deserves to be at risk).
Fortunately, I don't have to choose between just two candidates, and here in the UK, there is no parliamentary representation for pro-life groups.

Would I vote solely on the issue of abortion? No. That would be like voting for someone solely because they oppose the Act of Settlement. It would very much depend on the overall manifesto, personality and competence of the candidate.

EDIT: I have conservative moral views that tie in with the Catholic Church. If that makes me a fundamentalist, then fine. But I still take a degree of umbrage at being lumped in with Creationists, Biblical Literalists, the KJV-only-ites, et al.

Achilles
04-21-2007, 05:09 PM
Would I vote solely on the issue of abortion? No. Understood. I think my point was more towards how would you vote regarding abortion itself rather than voting on a candidate who either did or did not support abortion.

It seems to me that even moderately religious people take a religious stance on abortion. A religious stance framed by fundamentalists (like it or not).

EDIT: I have conservative moral views that tie in with the Catholic Church. If that makes me a fundamentalist, then fine. But I still take a degree of umbrage at being lumped in with Creationists, Biblical Literalists, the KJV-only-ites, et al.Fair enough. I would like to point out that there is more than one flavor of creationist (young-earth and old-earth). YEC are literalists that believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago by god and that he made everything as it is (ala the flood, the fall, etc). OEC adopt most of the tenets of scientific discovery except they attribute it all to god (source of the big bang, guided evolution, etc). So it very well may be that you are a Creationist and just didn't realize it :D

Darth InSidious
04-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Understood. I think my point was more towards how would you vote regarding abortion itself rather than voting on a candidate who either did or did not support abortion.
Ah. Well yes, I would vote against abortion. I happen to believe it is wrong, as you believe it is not.

It seems to me that even moderately religious people take a religious stance on abortion. A religious stance framed by fundamentalists (like it or not).
All thought is framed by fundamentalists, in that case.

Fair enough. I would like to point out that there is more than one flavor of creationist (young-earth and old-earth). YEC are literalists that believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago by god and that he made everything as it is (ala the flood, the fall, etc). OEC adopt most of the tenets of scientific discovery except they attribute it all to god (source of the big bang, guided evolution, etc). So it very well may be that you are a Creationist and just didn't realize it :D
I believe in God as Prime Mover. He set things in motion, and where necessary, nudged things along somewhat indirectly in my belief :)

Achilles
04-21-2007, 05:56 PM
Ah. Well yes, I would vote against abortion. I happen to believe it is wrong, as you believe it is not. I would urge caution with absolutes. I have no doubt that you consider it patently wrong, however I do not consider it patently alright. Luckily, I feel that most of my reservations regarding abortion are already adequately addressed by law.

All thought is framed by fundamentalists, in that case. No, not all thought :D

I believe in God as Prime Mover. He set things in motion, and where necessary, nudged things along somewhat indirectly in my belief :) That sounds like OEC then.

Jae Onasi
04-21-2007, 09:13 PM
It seems to me that even moderately religious people take a religious stance on abortion. A religious stance framed by fundamentalists (like it or not).


Catholics were around long before fundamentalists ever existed, and have been pro-life since, well, pretty much Christ. Mormons are also very much pro-life. Fundamentalists get the press because there are more of them making more noise. If the predominant religion in the US was Mormonism or Catholicism, fundamentalists would be taking a backseat.

This isn't an exclusively Protestant issue.

The Source
04-21-2007, 09:29 PM
When it comes to abortion, I am a pro-choice type of person. I don't think it is wise to tell someone what to do with themselves. If they are caught between hell and chaos, I don't see what would be wrong with an abortion. When it comes to having tax-payers picking up the tab, I don't believe we should pay for someone else's choice. However, I do support their right to choose. We tell so many people what they can do with themselves, and it takes away from some of our fundamental constitutional laws.

When it comes to my religious beliefs, I try to seperate my religion from laws. Even though the United States was founded on a regonition of god, I do believe the bible doesn't address abortion directly. We would have to find a biblical definition of life, which references the cell level of existance.

We would also have to define when a soul is present. Does a soul exist when we are in a primitive state of maturation? When does the soul become involed with the host? Does the host have a soul right at the start, or does it receive a soul a few months before birth. How does god do it? We may never know.

Totenkopf
04-23-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Your very arguments demonstrate that you are conspiratorially minded. You haven't shown fundamentalist control, but have merely displayed a rather paranoid personal pov. Well....it's a free country.

This is not an argument.

Name-call all you'd like, sir, however it will not help you make your point (assuming that you have one). You've made no effort to refute any of my points, rather you look for opporutunities to issue school-yard taunts and dismiss arguments without actually making any of your own.

Your conclusion, I'll be charitable here, is no more than an overblown concern that you consistently fail to prove is indeed fact. You make the breath taking leap that b/c one SC decision (by the narrowest margin) doesn't go your way, that it's those "evil fundies" that have hijacked even the SC. How you expect that kind of argument to be taken seriously is a great mystery.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Neither is paranoia.

Again, not an argument.

Once again, you provide no cedible arguments either, hence I'm left scrathching my head at your "reasoning".


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You should be a little more careful. You automatically assume a lot of things about the people who don't share your values.

The only one that has demonstrated this behavior is you, sir.

Patently false. Remember, you're the one who accuses all people that don't buy into your atheistic paradigm as only religious, or guided around by the nose by those people.


You've yet to describe this "third group". I'm more than willing to consider that there is one, but you've yet to tell me what it is. Therefore, you comment has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Wrong, you oversimplistically divide all sides of the argument into one of one 2 possible camps (three if you consider "the uninformed" a seperate group it seems). You have not proven your contention that the majority of opposition to any particuar issue you beleive in is in fact "religious", just making an unsubstantiated claim that you could make a case that X% is religious, but not something else. The fact that you seem to want names suggests that you wear such blinders. Or do you seem to believe that the number of positions on any given argument are ONLY reflected by the number of groups lobbying for a particular point of view?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
My counterpoint to you is that you seem to believe from your statement that there are only two points of view: yours (ie the atheistic) and everyone else (at least who seems to have a pov) as fundies/unthinking religious folk.

You caution me against generalizing and then make this your very next sentence. Interesting.

actually, you were the one that basically lumped people into 2 groups: yours and your opponents. The uninformed MAY have been a defacto third group (an afterthought) that didn't really count.


There are actually three possible pov that I can think of:

yeah, now maybe.


1) Those that oppose abortion for fundamentist Christian reasons.
2) Those that do not oppose abortion.
3) Those that oppose abortion for some other reason.

I have to guess this third group was previously lumped in with the uninformed.


This third group seems to be what you're relying on, yet you aren't willing to tell me who they are, on what grounds they oppose abortion, etc. I've never heard from them, so I don't know.

once agiain, am I supposed to provide you w/phone #s and addresses? (rhetorical sarcasm--just so you don't have trouble identifying it)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Hardly a rational position. Am I to understand that you believe that everyone who opposes your pov is automatically a fundie (or secretly "mind controlled"/cowed by them)?

..which is why I never made that argument.

False, you have relegated all opposition to abortion as being either "fundie" in nature or pawns of the "fundies."


No, not at all. It's not about my opinion. If you can present an informed, rational argument against abortion I'm more that willing to hear it. However, every single argument you've present thus far has been remarkably uninformed, emotionally-based, and I suspect based on religious doctrine.

Yeah, well, I'd suspect that from someone who'd use NPR as an "unbiased" source of info on ESC/ASC to feel that way. You also jumped to the conclusion that I would knee jerk go to "pro-life" sources to counter your positions. Your objectivity is sadly lacking.


So tell me how Roe v. Wade differs from Brown v. Board of Education?

Originally Posted by Totenkopf
In at least one very important way. The civil right of BvBoE was access to better education, while Roe was about terminating another persons right to live (hardly civil, I'd say ).

False premise. They were both civil rights cases, whether you choose to ignore that or not. This is that "objectivity" thing that I mentioned earlier.

False nothing. You asked how they were different, I replied, you didn't like the reply. Tough.


..Establishment Clause. Your thoughts?

Already covered before. Christianity, your own lack of objectivity aside, is NOT the state religion. It's obvious the founding fathers sought to keep the US from becoming a theorcacy.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Explain, otherwise it seems your paranoia is blazingly radiant here.

Err...secular humanism, atheism, agnostism, etc were catagorized by the federal gov't as religions for the purposes of protection from religious discimination. Please explain to me how that is "blazingly radiant paranoia".


Am I to understand then, that if the members of these groups don't have things the way they want them that that is automatically religious discrimination? Where is the statist discrimination against SH, atheists and the like? You fail to show why the opinions of the minority should trump the opinions of a majority (mind you, this is neither Nazi Germany or the USSR) on issues not directly related to physical well being. As Jay pointed out to you before, you'll just have to mobilize yourselves and hang in for the long haul. Of course.....there's always emigration to lands more conducive to your point of view if you really believe your being oppressed.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Any and all. If there is none now, so much the better. Fair treatment for all, eh?

No, sir. Which secular humanist group currently recieves gov't funding and for what cause? This was key to your point. Please don't limp out now.

No, you misidentified my main point which was that either everyone gets funding or no one gets funding. YOUR point is the other.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
So, what exactly is this state religion that the government is shoving down our throats?
[quote]Christianity.
Your paranoia, on this issue, is bursting through again.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I don't see any clergy running the government or engaging in inquistions. Or is it just your paranoia about those pesky christian fundamentalists?

Strawman.

Not at all. If the "big bad religion" really controlled all three branches of governments as you assert, this would be evidence that your ruminations had any real value.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
C'mon, every group has it's values. Now you just appear to be disingenuous. DE has already addressed this. What he was too kind to point out is that this
statement belies a complete lack of understanding of atheism on your part.

Ah, so you're saying that there are NO common values among atheists that allow them to be recognized as a "group" rather than an eccentric mishmash of individuals? Besides, DE's point is negated by the fact that his examples, blond (not bottled) & left handed are genetically predetermined, not chosen.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It's completely germaine to your whole paradigm. You have made quite clear that ANY government funding of any body or institution affliated with or religious in nature, is unconstitutional. That it offends your understanding of the establishment clause.

Government funds cannot be used to promote religion. This is why public schools cannot have bible class or teach creationism. Private schools can do what ever they would like. Which part do you feel that I am unclear on?

If you show me where all activity by religious groups on a public school campus is directly related to actually proselitizing (sp?), you'd have a point that the govenrment was pushing a particular religion down someone's throat.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It's both presumptuous and arrogant to assume that opposition to this practice is somehow based solely on religion and not reason.

If you would like to show me otherwise, please feel free.

Seeing as how you attempt to marginalize all those who disagree with you as being little better than misinformed or religious nuts and/or theirtheir pawns, why bother?


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
There is an undeniably secular as well as religious component to the US. The fact that you call the argument debateable reflects your stance that secular=atheist.

False premise. Debate or don't but please try to avoid all the fallacies.

Your whole argument, your limp protests notwithstanding, demonstrates my point. I can only gather that your particular subjectivity blinds you to the obvious.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You brought up those topics b/c they concern you, not merely "just b/c". Afterall, you stated "..I (that being you of course) see..." If this example is merely so offhand as you suggest, why would it bother you at all that people listen to "christian rock"?

*sigh* You made a comment regarding pop culture, academia, and law. I provided right and left examples of each (christian rock was my right example for pop culture). Nothing more. You've ballooned it way out of proportion.

Incorrect again, I merely asked for a clarification as to how "you saw" something like christian rock to be threatening. You replied with essentially a nonsequitur that amounts to "any religious influence" in society represents a dire threat to "secular values". Unfortunately, you failed to demonstrate why that "offhand" point should even be taken seriously. Not too mention that the way you made your point.. "you see...I see", which reasonably leads one to conclude you were referring to values you shared, not merely pulled out of the air. Which is why I questioned your concept of what constitutes a middle ground position.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Especially when you haven't demonstrated any real impact on US culture. Don't know about you, but I couldn't name a Christian rock band or song to save my life.

Wow. Considering what a force they seemed to be a few years ago....

I guess that means they were something of a fad....


I thought everyone would have heard of Creed.

so many bands, so little time..... ;)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I can only respond to what you are saying. If you are unclear, you must seek to correct yourself in the followup. Otherwise, how will anyone know they've actually misinterpreted your point?

Right, so please respond to what I actually say....

Endeavor to be clear..... ;)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
And you fail to define the ever elusive middle (you make it sound like a case of situational ethics). If they re representative of your values, I can only wonder what you really mean by the "center/middle".

I've offered several times to do so. You provide the issue and I'll tell you what I consider the "center/middle" to be. Pretty sure this is the 3rd or 4th time I've said this.

Saying that the middle position varies with an issue is no different than saying the left take varies, the right take varies, the extreme varies, b/c all issues are different. You're the one who laments the lack of "middle/center" values, but essentially say nothing. Even on the issue of gun control, when asked, you answer with vague generalities. Sounding like....I don't know how to define the middle, but I know when I hear it. Besides, I listed multiple topics for you to expound upon at the end of a previous post. Perhaps you don't read everything before you reply, eh? (see below). They gave you ample opportunity to stake out what you viewed as the middle.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Well, to put it differently, on which topics do you find yourself in agreement with the dems and why? Abortion? Civil rights? Hate speech/crimes? Gun control? School choice? Foreign relations? Border issues? The environment?Where, if at all, are you closer to the repubs/conservatives on these issues? On which particular issues do you find yourself at odds with both parties?



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Ah, yes, it seems you're equally obsessed with the neocons as well.

Complete red herring. I pointed out that you appear to categorize anything non-conservative as liberal.

Given your demonstrated complete lack of objectivity throughout, I find it very humorous that you make this demand. You categorize, as you've so far demonstarted, all pov's that clash with yours as basically fundy, the mirror opposite of what you accuse me of now. Perhaps you should fish in your own pond before looking for "herrings" in another's.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The real question is do you?

Yes, I do. Please quit dancing and answer the question: Do you know why D&X is performed the way that it is?

As you have mischaracterized the procedure of pba, a practice you seem to know nothing, I still wonder if you understand what the furor is all about.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
You've already demonstrated by Jae's correction that your understanding isn't exactly on solid ground.

Strawman. Jae's correction had nothing to do with the procedure, but rather complications of pregnancy.

Not remotely, you demonstrated an ignorance of medical procedure and then would have me (or anyone) take you seriously as some kind of authority on the subject. Where perhaps did you get your degree (if any) that demonstrates your expertise on the subject? Your bad, not mine.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
"Die in the womb", very euphamistic.

You are aware the sometimes the fetus dies in the womb, correct? What would you call this? The body still has to come out you know.

Removing a fetus that died "in the womb" is different from killing it there, then removing it. PBAs are not an example of removing fetuses that merely died (presumably of natural causes) in the womb (ie uterus).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual procedure, rather than PP style propoganda.

I'm very much familar with the procedure, as I am with D&E. In fact, I know why the procedure is done the way that it is...

That's debatable.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I could ask the reverse of you. How many supporters of the procedure are anything other than knee-jerk pro-abortion kool aid drinkers? I'll be happy to answer your question right after you answer mine.

Apparent rhetorical impasse.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Really, someone as biased as you clearly are, talking about objectivity, is epicly ironic.

..you can call me biased all you'd like, it isn't going to make it true.

Saying you aren't proves nothing either.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
This is the problem with an overrelying on parsing someone's statements. Federal laws, precedent aside, can be overturned if the SC overturned RvW. Also, you are too myopically focused on a procedure that you admit is statistically insignificant anyway. Besides, the bonus for federal candidates is that the onus of taking a stand on abortion would be removed as it was now relegated to state legislatures.

Yes, I'm aware that the SC can overturn federal law. Your point was that states can make separate laws and I corrected you by pointing out that state laws cannot supersede federal laws. In other words, if the federal government bans something, state governments cannot turn around and allow it.

Considering that the government and fundamentalist lobbies put all this time, money, and effort into banning a procedure that only puts womens' health at increased risk, I don't know how you can accuse me of being the one myopically focused on a statistically insignificant procedure.

Equally important, the obstacle of precedence notwithstanding, Congress can also repeal laws. So, it can be addressed at two levels. You still fail to demonstrate how even the removal of one statisically insignificant procedure will be the undoing of abortion rights (your true fear on this issue). Short of a civil war, abortions will always be accessible many places in the US (in our lifetimes, I'd wager), even if the range of options is somehow curtailed by only one type at the federal level.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
One case doth hardly prove your point.

Sure it does. What magic number do you need? :eyeraise:

Well, certainly a lot more than one. Afterall, control implies a helluva lot more than one case, especially for the degree you seem to think the "other side" has on the organs of government.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I'm gonna be charitable and guess you missed that great big smily at the end of my cheerfully sarcastic reply.

No, I saw it. I also saw that you didn't answer the very simple question, so I assumed that you didn't know. Since you're not refuting what I said, I'm also assuming that you actually didn't know and are dropping the point now that you do.

I guess I was regreatably too charitable. It's not unfair to say you don't recognize levity when it's slapping you in the face. I see the operative word here is ASSUME.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
More likely a socialist....

The fact that is your response to the post where I said I would protest makes this response particularly amusing.

You merely mentioned communist control. Good thing I asked so you could spell out your position here as well. :)


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Were only it so clear cut. You telling me a dirty joke at work and being overheard by an "offended" party is enough to constitute a form of "threat" to get you fired, and very possibly sued. All so perfectly harmless, though, eh?

No, not harmless. That's why it's harassment.


A rather expansive definition you hew to there.



Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Try our great institutions of lower learning (Hardvard, Yale, etc...) as well as many of the "lesser" schools.

You made a argument. I refuted it. Not sure what your response accomplishes....

Was merley a clarification in response to your reply of BJU (which, btw doesn't realistically count as a counterargument).


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Yeah, your opinion's not fact.

Did you want to defend your point or are you simply going to repeat the argument that I used to refute it and expect it to have some bearing?

Merely pointing out that you confuse a lot of your opinions with fact.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Funny, you talk of reasonable in vague terms (seems like an MO here). I suspect it would be a lot like beauty....in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps you're able to provide an example of what YOU think is reasonable. I'm all eyes. I could probably make a reasonably accurate guess at each side's position....

Paging Capt. Obvious...Trouble is, anyone can identify what either side's position is likely to be as they are not shy about spelling it out for you. Yet you still fail to demonstrate any concept of what YOU see as reasonable middle ground (as mentioned above) when confronted with a specific issue (other than the environment issue). You answers are akin to my asking you what you think of the alphabet and you responding that it depends on which letter or group of letters I'm asking about.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
examples:????

*sigh* Go read the civil rights act of 1964. Religion is a protected class as the gov't amended religion to include "non-religions" as well for the purposes of CRA protections. The document more that adequately defines discrimination. If that isn't enough for you, then I don't know what would be.

Fact is, I was asking you for specific examples of the discrimination that you allege, but you fail to provide any. I shall chalk it up to empty rhetoric on your part.


Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Far as I'm concerned, no one so far appeals to me. No doubt I'll have to "divine" the lesser of two evils in '08.

That happens sometimes. I wish I could feel sorry for you, however you captured my sentiments regarding almost every election I've participated in.


Probably more often than just sometimes. :fist:

Prime
04-23-2007, 05:09 PM
A friendly reminder to keep things civil everyone...

relaxcheeze44
04-25-2007, 10:35 PM
Also, if anyone would like an example of what an intellectually rigorous, bias-free conservapedia article looks like, check out the entry for "evolution

i think that was one of the funniest things ive ever read.
Another good one is the Homosexuality page. that one gave me a good laugh.

EDIT: aparently there is also a creation wiki here: http://creationwiki.org/

Achilles
05-11-2007, 03:06 PM
Sorry this took so long to respond to. I was out of town for a convention/certification and I'm just now getting my affairs back in order after the trip.

Taking it all in, I'm a little disappointed by the continued use of fallacious thinking and personal attacks. I had hoped that by pointing them out, you would own the behavior and take steps to curb it. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case, and as such, it is going to make my response a little less in-depth than I had hoped since I will largely be repeating myself. I'll do my best to respond to any points you do make, but there isn't very much to work with.

Your conclusion, I'll be charitable here, is no more than an overblown concern that you consistently fail to prove is indeed fact. You make the breath taking leap that b/c one SC decision (by the narrowest margin) doesn't go your way, that it's those "evil fundies" that have hijacked even the SC. How you expect that kind of argument to be taken seriously is a great mystery.Continued mischaracterization and personal attacks. My arguments have been posted therefore if you would like to respond to them, I'd be very much interested in reading your response. If you aren't going to respond, then I suggest we agree to move on.

Once again, you provide no cedible arguments either, hence I'm left scrathching my head at your "reasoning". Red herring. Again, since you're not going to respond to what I said, perhaps we should move on to something else.

Patently false. Remember, you're the one who accuses all people that don't buy into your atheistic paradigm as only religious, or guided around by the nose by those people. I'd very much like to know how you determined that this is "patently false". Perhaps you are confused about the term's meaning? The rest of this comment is a red herring. Please try to stick to the topic at hand.

Wrong, you oversimplistically divide all sides of the argument into one of one 2 possible camps (three if you consider "the uninformed" a seperate group it seems). You have not proven your contention that the majority of opposition to any particuar issue you beleive in is in fact "religious", just making an unsubstantiated claim that you could make a case that X% is religious, but not something else. The fact that you seem to want names suggests that you wear such blinders. Or do you seem to believe that the number of positions on any given argument are ONLY reflected by the number of groups lobbying for a particular point of view? Not at all. There are two fairly vocal sides in this debate. I'm not aware of a third, however you seem to insist that there is. I've repeatedly asked for you to simply tell me what their group is called and what their stance in the debate looks like. I don't think I'm asking for too much. Until that happens I'm only aware of pro-abortion and anti-abortion. The anti-abortion stance is based entirely upon religious concerns. If that isn't clear for you, please let me know and I'll be happy to expand upon that.

actually, you were the one that basically lumped people into 2 groups: yours and your opponents. The uninformed MAY have been a defacto third group (an afterthought) that didn't really count. Red herring. Since you didn't actually counter my point, I don't think there's anything more for me to add here.

yeah, now maybe.
<snip>
I have to guess this third group was previously lumped in with the uninformed. *shrugs* I think it would probably make more sense to lump them in with group 1, but since it's "your" group, I guess you'd have to tell me.

once agiain, am I supposed to provide you w/phone #s and addresses? (rhetorical sarcasm--just so you don't have trouble identifying it) You can if you would like. I would just settle for a group name and a summary of their stance. I don't think this needs to be as complicated as you're making it.

False, you have relegated all opposition to abortion as being either "fundie" in nature or pawns of the "fundies." I'm having difficulty following your train of thought. Am I supposed to defend a stance I never took, but you assigned to me? Since you didn't mention abortion specifically in your last response, this response is a strawman. If you are speaking about abortion specifically, then yes: my stance is that all anti-abortion arguments are founded on Christian fundamentalism. If you're talking about my point of view in general (which seemed to be the case), then automatically assuming such a thing would be absurd and indefensible, hence why I said I would never make such a claim (nor have I).

Yeah, well, I'd suspect that from someone who'd use NPR as an "unbiased" source of info on ESC/ASC to feel that way. You also jumped to the conclusion that I would knee jerk go to "pro-life" sources to counter your positions. Your objectivity is sadly lacking.Would you like to debate the merits of my source or simply respond with rhetoric? Since you didn't respond with any source, it's difficult to tell whether my assumputions were correct or not, now isn't it? ;)

False nothing. You asked how they were different, I replied, you didn't like the reply. Tough.False premise is a logical fallacy. You used it. I pointed it out. If you would like to demonstrate how Roe v. Wade was not a civil rights case, I'd be willing to read what you have to write, but thus far all you've responded with is fallacy. In other words, you've presented no arguments.

Already covered before. Christianity, your own lack of objectivity aside, is NOT the state religion. It's obvious the founding fathers sought to keep the US from becoming a theorcacy. I didn't say that it was. I've stated repeatedly that I have serious concerns about the direction we appear to be taking and how I feel we are dangerously close to adopting a state religion, but that isn't the same thing now is it? I agree that the Framers didn't want a theocracy, which is why I feel they would probably be concerned as well.

Am I to understand then, that if the members of these groups don't have things the way they want them that that is automatically religious discrimination? Where is the statist discrimination against SH, atheists and the like? You fail to show why the opinions of the minority should trump the opinions of a majority (mind you, this is neither Nazi Germany or the USSR) on issues not directly related to physical well being. As Jay pointed out to you before, you'll just have to mobilize yourselves and hang in for the long haul. Of course.....there's always emigration to lands more conducive to your point of view if you really believe your being oppressed. Nope, I think you might be on a tangent here.

The civil rights act prohibits discrimination based on protected classes. One of those protected classes is religion. Ok, well what about those that aren't religious; can we discriminate against them? To close that potential loop-hole the gov't stated that non-religious groups would be considered religions classes for the purposes of discrimination.

Therefore, my very christian organization can't use my "religious" beliefs as a basis for hiring or promotion decisions. If they do, then that's religious discrimination (even though I'm not a religious person).

I am not aware of any anti-discrimination laws that state that my boss has to become an atheist to make me happy or otherwise avoid a discrimination lawsuit. However he would probably run into some legal problems if he tried to institute mandatory prayer time at the office. Does that help to clarify at all?

No, you misidentified my main point which was that either everyone gets funding or no one gets funding. YOUR point is the other. It's possible, but I don't think so. Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether you want to debate with me whether or not Federal funds can go to private, religious schools or if you're just lamenting the philosophy of such a policy, in general. If it's the former, then you're wrong (don't argue with me. I didn't write the law). If it's the latter, then I disagree.

Your paranoia, on this issue, is bursting through again. This personal attack completely misses the point of the argument. Is there another religious group that has made huge plays over the last 50 years to dominate the gov't? If so, then I'll stand corrected.

Not at all. If the "big bad religion" really controlled all three branches of governments as you assert, this would be evidence that your ruminations had any real value. This is still a strawman. It seems that you think the only possible evidence there would be for religion-dominated gov't would be inquisitions. Sure that would be a dead-givaway, but I don't agree that it's the only possible indicator. Even if it were, it would only be an indicator of a draconian religious regime.

Ah, so you're saying that there are NO common values among atheists that allow them to be recognized as a "group" rather than an eccentric mishmash of individuals? Besides, DE's point is negated by the fact that his examples, blond (not bottled) & left handed are genetically predetermined, not chosen. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The only common "value" is that atheists don't believe in a god or gods. This group includes kittens, piles of rocks, and free-thinking human beings. Just like the only common "value" that left-handed people have is that they aren't right-handed or ambidextrious (or unable to use their hands at all, etc).

If you show me where all activity by religious groups on a public school campus is directly related to actually proselitizing (sp?), you'd have a point that the govenrment was pushing a particular religion down someone's throat. I think you might be missing the point. The fact is that it's illegal. I don't wish to debate with you the merits of such a law, I'm only pointing out that such a law exists. I hope that helps to clarify.

Seeing as how you attempt to marginalize all those who disagree with you as being little better than misinformed or religious nuts and/or theirtheir pawns, why bother? Once again, I invite you to present your case and you decline. It's very difficult for me to consider (let alone take seriously) your arguments when you refuse to present them in the first place.

Your whole argument, your limp protests notwithstanding, demonstrates my point. I can only gather that your particular subjectivity blinds you to the obvious. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with the point. If you would like to demonstrate how your comment was not based on a false premise, then we could move forward, however this red herring does not move the conversation forward. This is the 2nd time that I've pointed out a fallacy on this point.

Incorrect again, I merely asked for a clarification as to how "you saw" something like christian rock to be threatening. You replied with essentially a nonsequitur that amounts to "any religious influence" in society represents a dire threat to "secular values". Unfortunately, you failed to demonstrate why that "offhand" point should even be taken seriously. Not too mention that the way you made your point.. "you see...I see", which reasonably leads one to conclude you were referring to values you shared, not merely pulled out of the air. Which is why I questioned your concept of what constitutes a middle ground position. Then don't take it seriously. The whole point of me pointing out that it was an aside was to show that you were taking it too seriously and that you shouldn't. You appear to be conceding my point. If makes you feel better to posture like you've made a point, then feel free.

I guess that means they were something of a fad.... Thank goodness. They sucked (I thought so before I found out they were a Christian band, just so I'm not accused of bias).

Endeavor to be clear..... ;) I'm not the one hemmoraging fallacies. ;)

Saying that the middle position varies with an issue is no different than saying the left take varies, the right take varies, the extreme varies, b/c all issues are different. You're the one who laments the lack of "middle/center" values, but essentially say nothing. Even on the issue of gun control, when asked, you answer with vague generalities. Sounding like....I don't know how to define the middle, but I know when I hear it. Besides, I listed multiple topics for you to expound upon at the end of a previous post. Perhaps you don't read everything before you reply, eh? (see below). They gave you ample opportunity to stake out what you viewed as the middle. The middle position on abortion is going to be different from the middle position on same-sex marriage. I don't think asking you to narrow your request down to one topic is asking for too much. I have neither the time nor the inclination to chase down every hot-button issue and present individual disertations on "the middle". If that doesn't suit you, then tough cookies :).

Given your demonstrated complete lack of objectivity throughout, I find it very humorous that you make this demand. You categorize, as you've so far demonstarted, all pov's that clash with yours as basically fundy, the mirror opposite of what you accuse me of now. Perhaps you should fish in your own pond before looking for "herrings" in another's. Well, I'm glad I could amuse you. Considering that I disagree with several "liberal" arguments as well, it is patently false (see, I know how to use the term correctly) to say that every pov that conflicts with my own is "fundy". Red herring stands until you present an argument that shows that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, wishing it away doesn't achieve that.

As you have mischaracterized the procedure of pba, a practice you seem to know nothing, I still wonder if you understand what the furor is all about. I've asked you pointed questions that you have ignored, yet you presume to accuse me of being ignorant on the subject. Interesting.

At least I know enough to know that it's a medical procedure referred to as D&X/D&E and not "PBA".

Not remotely, you demonstrated an ignorance of medical procedure and then would have me (or anyone) take you seriously as some kind of authority on the subject. Where perhaps did you get your degree (if any) that demonstrates your expertise on the subject? Your bad, not mine. Really? How? Because I didn't fall over after reading your opinion? Are you positing that a degree is necessary to speak about a medical subject? If that's the case, then what's your opinion based on? That blade is sharp on both sides, my friend.

I've asked you if you know why the procedure is done the way that it is. You have not responded. If you don't know that's ok, but don't assume that I don't.

Removing a fetus that died "in the womb" is different from killing it there, then removing it. PBAs are not an example of removing fetuses that merely died (presumably of natural causes) in the womb (ie uterus). Indeed it is. However the procedure is exactly the same regardless of the status of the fetus. The ban was on the procedure, which was my point.

That's debatable.Sure. So how about you present an argument and we debate? Feel free to test my knowledge.

Apparent rhetorical impasse. Not at all. I don't think it fair that you can dodge my question and expect me to answer yours. That's a double-standard.

Saying you aren't proves nothing either. It doesn't need to :)
Burden of proof is on you since you're making the claim.

Equally important, the obstacle of precedence notwithstanding, Congress can also repeal laws. So, it can be addressed at two levels. You still fail to demonstrate how even the removal of one statisically insignificant procedure will be the undoing of abortion rights (your true fear on this issue). Short of a civil war, abortions will always be accessible many places in the US (in our lifetimes, I'd wager), even if the range of options is somehow curtailed by only one type at the federal level. First, I made a point to deny a slippery-slope argument the first time you insinuated that I was making one. The fact that you insinuated it again tells me that you're either not reading what I write or are purposely being disingenuous. Not once I have raised the argument that this ruling will unravel the entire abortion debate. Please do not put words into my mouth.

What my argument has been is that outlawing this procedure without women's health clause is a political/religious move made by the Right. If you would like to discuss that, please let me know.

Well, certainly a lot more than one. Afterall, control implies a helluva lot more than one case, especially for the degree you seem to think the "other side" has on the organs of government. Two then? Three? One hundred? You make it sound like no one saw this coming. Simple majority wins. With 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 "swing" vote on the bench it was much easier to say that no one ideology "had control". With 5 conservative and 4 liberal votes, its very clear that there is a strong conservative bias on the bench now. The press made a big deal about the 5-4 vote, but I was asking myself what other vote there would be. Perhaps you have an answer.

I guess I was regreatably too charitable. It's not unfair to say you don't recognize levity when it's slapping you in the face. I see the operative word here is ASSUME. Perhaps I don't. You still haven't the question though. Should I assume that you won't be?

A rather expansive definition you hew to there. Indeed it is. Since I'm not the etymologist that crafted the definition, I'm afraid that I can't be held accountable for the scope of the word. Since I'm not one of the law makers that decided that harrassment was illegal, I can't be held accountable for scope of the law. You'll have to take your concerns up with them (assuming any of them are alive).

Was merley a clarification in response to your reply of BJU (which, btw doesn't realistically count as a counterargument). Sure it does, but it's an ancillary point anyway.

Merely pointing out that you confuse a lot of your opinions with fact.This point has degraded to the "I know you are, but what am I" stage. Seriously, this is the 3rd or 4th time you've come back with essentially the same thing. I tried to break the cycle by asking for an actual argument however you still haven't presented one. Perhaps that is a cue that we should move on.

Paging Capt. Obvious...Trouble is, anyone can identify what either side's position is likely to be as they are not shy about spelling it out for you. Yet you still fail to demonstrate any concept of what YOU see as reasonable middle ground (as mentioned above) when confronted with a specific issue (other than the environment issue). You answers are akin to my asking you what you think of the alphabet and you responding that it depends on which letter or group of letters I'm asking about. You quoted yourself here, so I'm not sure what your point was. Assuming that is has something to do with "middle ground", I'll repeat myself once more by asking you for a specific topic or issue. As I stated ealier, the middle position on abortion is going to be different than the middle position on some other controversial topic. I guess I assumed that would be obvious, however it appears that it's not. Unfortunately, I can't change that reality, so I guess I'm counting on you to break the impasse.

Fact is, I was asking you for specific examples of the discrimination that you allege, but you fail to provide any. I shall chalk it up to empty rhetoric on your part. Feel free to do whatever you would like. I didn't realize that I would have to provide specific examples of actual religious discrimination cases for you to believe that there was a law on the books against it. This isn't to say that there aren't any actual cases lodged, but if there are, I don't follow them. It's not pertinent to the point either way.

Probably more often than just sometimes. :fist:We all have to do the best we can with what we're given. If push comes to shove, maybe we can agree on Chris Dodd. He's religious (for you), but also has the ability to form his own opinions (for me).

Thanks for reading and once again, my apologies for the delayed response.

Totenkopf
05-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Given that neither of us is willing to concede anything to the other, Achilles, I've decided it's better just to drop this. I'll just say, in keeping with the spirit this forum was created, that I hope your convention/certification went well. Almost thought you went off to join a monastery....... ;)

Jae Onasi
05-14-2007, 10:32 PM
I've repeatedly asked for you to simply tell me what their group is called and what their stance in the debate looks like.
Name: "The People Who Don't Give a Flying Hoo-Haw"
Stance: "Pretty Much Don't Care, Now I'm Going Back to My Beer and the Latest Episode of '24', 'Desperate Housewives', 'Texas Hold 'Em', and/or the Latest Sporting Event"

You all are being a little too hot and sassy to each other here. Time to take a break and cool this down a bit.

Jae Onasi
06-01-2007, 08:56 PM
OK, I imagine things have cooled off a bit. Feel free to continue discussion, just play nice. :)

Achilles
06-04-2007, 03:45 AM
Personally, I considered it closed when Totenkopf said that he was dropping the matter about 10 hours before you locked the thread *shrugs*.

I would like to point out though that the group you described is too busy doing the things that you listed to involve themselves, therefore they have no bearing on the discussion that Totenkopf and I were having. If you'd like to take another stab at it though, I'm still interested in learning more about this other anti-abortion group. Thanks.

Achilles
07-29-2007, 03:55 AM
Necromancy: +2

So, what happens when atheists visit the creation museum? This YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk) tells us.

PS: "mya" means "million years ago" for those that don't know.

John Galt
07-29-2007, 02:30 PM
So, what happens when atheists visit the creation museum?



I'm actually heading up there next weekend. I'll post my thoughts/ analyses and maybe some pics after I see it firsthand.

Achilles
07-29-2007, 02:51 PM
Excellent! I look forward to reading more about your trip.

Jae Onasi
07-29-2007, 04:03 PM
I'm actually heading up there next weekend. I'll post my thoughts/ analyses and maybe some pics after I see it firsthand.

Have fun, try not to destroy any exhibits. :)

John Galt
08-08-2007, 03:16 AM
Well, I got back from the Creation Museum late last saturday, and I was going to upload all my pictures into a gallery somewhere, but I found another gallery from someone who took better pictures than I did (most of mine ended up badly blurred).

gallery (http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1c0star/sets/72157600335006271/)

On a random note, they must've spent a fortune on fake dinosaurs and high-quality robotic people/animals. Also, I've never seen so many hi-definition flat screen TV's in my entire life. example: the menus at the restaurants and kiosks were made from 40-inch tv's.

Content-wise, it looked almost as much like an amusement park as a museum. It also seemed quite small to me, to have so much money invested in it. However, it was EXTREMELY crowded, the parking lot was full 20 minutes before it was supposed to open. They did seem to badly oversimplify the evolutionary position, and they made sure to keep the guilt turned up throughout the whole experience.

However, the pictures in the gallery are basically a tour of the museum, albeit from a few months ago. Example: the planetarium projector (one of the few actual "artifacts" in the place) that was in the waiting line are has been moved to the central room.

I'll let the signs in the museum speak for themselves.

Achilles
08-08-2007, 03:21 AM
That t-shirt with jesus riding a dinosaur is the coolest thing I've ever seen!

John Galt
08-08-2007, 03:30 AM
That t-shirt with jesus riding a dinosaur is the coolest thing I've ever seen!

I think I saw something similar to that on sale at the museum.

Achilles
08-08-2007, 03:34 AM
Their online giftshop only shows books and dvds :(

John Galt
08-08-2007, 03:38 AM
Nah, they had a lot of toys for the kids, as well as t-shirts, hats, and other apparel.

they even had experiment kits and dehydrated astronaut ice cream to make it look a little more like a real science museum.

Achilles
08-08-2007, 03:43 AM
Nah, they had a lot of toys for the kids, as well as t-shirts, hats, and other apparel. No doubt.

they even had experiment kits and dehydrated astronaut ice cream to make it look a little more like a real science museum. The part of me that isn't offended thinks that is hilarious.

mimartin
08-08-2007, 11:34 AM
The part of me that isn't offended thinks that is hilarious. QFE

It is good to know if I ever get sent back in time 208 million years that the Dinosaurs were not carnivores.

I'm glad to see they blame everything wrong in the world on Adam. I kept waiting for a sign saying global warming was caused by Adam’s sin. At least they did not blame everything on the woman.

I also loved the "Thou Shalt Not Touch! Please" sign.

I found out the new term for evolution is "Life Recovers." I guess the term is not as offensive as evolution.

Thanks for sharing your impression John Galt and thanks for finding these pictures.

John Galt
08-08-2007, 02:13 PM
QFE

It is good to know if I ever get sent back in time 208 million years that the Dinosaurs were not carnivores.



But I thought dinosaurs were only here 6,000 years ago.

/sarcasm

Achilles
08-08-2007, 03:45 PM
It is good to know if I ever get sent back in time 208 million years that the Dinosaurs were not carnivores. Selective-science at its finest.

I'm glad to see they blame everything wrong in the world on Adam. I kept waiting for a sign saying global warming was caused by Adam’s sin. At least they did blame everything on the woman. Oh come now, let's not be naive :xp: (extra super double emphasis on sarcasm)

"Adam's Sin" is just PR spin. This is the same party that brought us Answers in Genesis. Everyone knows that it's still that bitch Eve's fault. One of the pics even shows a woman in the throes of painful labor (one of god's punishments for women).

I also loved the "Thou Shalt Not Touch! Please" sign. That was a nice touch. I found the "This exhibit is still evolving" (aka "under construction") was a bit hypocritical though.

I found out the new term for evolution is "Life Recovers." I guess the term is not as offensive as evolution. I wonder how non-YECs feel about the whole "man's logic/god's logic" litany.

Thanks for sharing your impression John Galt and thanks for finding these pictures. Indeed. Thanks for sharing the experience with us.

Jae Onasi
08-09-2007, 01:51 PM
Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

Sigh....

ET Warrior
08-09-2007, 02:21 PM
Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion. .
I believe you've mistaken this for Lesson number 1in Atheist "How to amuse yourself at the expense of others"

;)

Achilles
08-09-2007, 02:48 PM
Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

Sigh.... Because reasoning with them has such a high success rate. :rolleyes:

(emphasis on Jae's specification of "religious idiots". I actually rather enjoy speaking with rational theists)

jonathan7
08-09-2007, 03:05 PM
Because reasoning with them has such a high success rate. :rolleyes:

That could be because as my favourite philosopher Nietzsche once mused; "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions".

Everyone would also do well to remember another of the German couts ever quotable quotes; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently".

I'm a Christian (as Achilles already knows) I don't agree with this 'museuam' and I think everything in it is psuedo-science. That said the scientist in me is concerned how easily science is manipulated (by both religious people and athiests) to support ones bliefs over what the factual evidence is. I'm undecided on evolution, mainly as the theory as is has several holes in it; maybe they will be rectified over time, maybe not; it is not a 'fact' merley a theory. Maybe a new theory better suiting the facts will be developed, perhaps not; fluid the future is, always in motion ;) However all my astro-physics knowledge indicates that the universe is around 13.7 Billion years old; and that earth is around 6 billion years old. I would point out to the athiest scientists at this point that too often some of you sound very much like the very fundementalists you argue against. Just a thought.

mimartin
08-09-2007, 03:19 PM
Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

Sigh....

The last thing I’d do is make fun of someone’s faith and I apologize if that is what I was doing. What I was making fun of was closed minded people trying to convert people to their way of thinking by going against scientific fact.

I believe, but I also believe scientific fact when it staring me in the face. Saying that carbon dating is wrong or saying all dinosaurs were herbivores is a disservices and disrespectful to the scientists who devoted their life to the study. I also find it disrespectful of our intelligence.

jonathan7
08-09-2007, 03:26 PM
The last thing I’d do is make fun of someone’s faith and I apologize if that is what I was doing. What I was making fun of was closed minded people trying to convert people to their way of thinking by going against scientific fact.

I believe, but I also believe scientific fact when it staring me in the face. Saying that carbon dating is wrong or saying all dinosaurs were herbivores is a disservices and disrespectful to the scientists who devoted their life to the study. I also find it disrespectful of our intelligence.

You don't want to bring intelligence into this discussion, I know of one Genuis (IQ 155) who believes in New Creation and I dare say he would steam roller you in an argument. That's not to say I don't disagree with him, but I pay him the respect due to a man of his intelligence. You are also getting to emotional on this subject, people will believe what they want too, most people are idiots and believe a whole load of balls. I have far more time for well thought out athiests such as ED and Achilles than I do wishy-washey middle grounders, who are too engrossed in the mediocrity of their own lives than to consider the greater implications of what life on earth entails.

Achilles
08-09-2007, 04:16 PM
That could be because as my favourite philosopher Nietzsche once mused; "Extreme positions are not succeeded by moderate ones, but by contrary extreme positions". So extreme rationalism is countered by extreme irrationalism and vice versa. Correct?

Everyone would also do well to remember another of the German couts ever quotable quotes; "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently". I think such a sentiment, while true, is highly dependent upon context. For instance, someone that comes rationally to a conclusion very different than your own. It is possible to still hold the person in high regard even though their opinion differs from your own. Am I on the right track here?

I'm undecided on evolution, mainly as the theory as is has several holes in it; I'd be interested in learning more about what holes you consider there to be (in the evolution thread, of course :D).

maybe they will be rectified over time, maybe not; it is not a 'fact' merley a theory. I think there may be some confusion over what "theory" means in the scientific context. The way you use it here, I would assume that you are equating it with a hypothesis.

No one equates Newton's theory of gravity with a hypothesis just because we don't know what causes it. Similiarly, no one that has ever used electricity equates electron theory with a hypothesis just because we have never seen an electron.

I would point out to the athiest scientists at this point that too often some of you sound very much like the very fundementalists you argue against. Just a thought.Examples?

PS: Glad to see you're back! :D

EDIT: Whoops. More goodies!

You don't want to bring intelligence into this discussion, I know of one Genuis (IQ 155) who believes in New Creation and I dare say he would steam roller you in an argument. Forgive me if I find this akin to saying "I have a friend that is really tall that will beat you at basketball". The unfortunate reality is that having a lot of intelligence doesn't always mean that it's correctly used.

That's not to say I don't disagree with him, but I pay him the respect due to a man of his intelligence. Smart people make mistakes too. For me the message is what's important, not necessarily the messenger.

You are also getting to emotional on this subject, people will believe what they want too, most people are idiots and believe a whole load of balls. Count me in too then. People that dupe the gullible and the ignorant are immoral. That some people are gullible and ignorant in the first place is beside the point.

I have far more time for well thought out athiests such as ED and Achilles than I do wishy-washey middle grounders, who are too engrossed in the mediocrity of their own lives than to consider the greater implications of what life on earth entails. I enjoy reading your posts as well. Thank you for the compliment.

jonathan7
08-09-2007, 04:39 PM
So extreme rationalism is countered by extreme irrationalism and vice versa. Correct?

Hehe, not quite the way I was meaning it ;), but yes that is essentially what I mean.

I think such a sentiment, while true, is highly dependent upon context. For instance, someone that comes rationally to a conclusion very different than your own. It is possible to still hold the person in high regard even though their opinion differs from your own. Am I on the right track here?

Indeedy, or to phraise your point in the words of the great Aristotle; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Essentially if someone is intelligent and well read, even if you completely differ with them there is always value in what they say. Further to this I'm also firmley of the belief that books no matter what the content should never be burned; e.g. The book of a cult (no Bibile remarks please :p), to debunk what the cult members believe first you have to understand what they believe befoe you can debunk it. I do however feel Einstein was correct in this observation; "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

I'd be interested in learning more about what holes you consider there to be (in the evolution thread, of course :D).

I'll hava look through and add my thoughts on it, if someone else hasn't :)

I think there may be some confusion over what "theory" means in the scientific context. The way you use it here, I would assume that you are equating it with a hypothesis.

No one equates Newton's theory of gravity with a hypothesis just because we don't know what causes it. Similiarly, no one that has ever used electricity equates electron theory with a hypothesis just because we have never seen an electron.

Well technically it is still a theory... just the theory is correct; or all the evidence shows it to be correct... what would happen though if I dropped a stone and it 'fell' to the sky? I would however differentiate between evolution and gravity as I think gravity has certainly been proven beyond reasonable doubt (all data ever gathered substantiates it). I still have doubts over the veritibility of the theory of evolution. I certainly agree with micro-evolution, macro I am undecided on.

Examples?

I think all of us allow our thinking to be influenced by our previous experiances and empotions; so it is something we all do. I think science should possibly follow one of Plato/Socrates in this reguard; "I will follow the truth wherever it may lead". Which means when coming to judge matters scientifically we cast of our own predispositions (such as religion, and I personally would argue athiesm is a religion... a belief there is no God ;)) and look at the data. I'm still of the opinion science doesn't disprove God; but again that is a discussion for another topic.

PS: Glad to see you're back! :D

Hehe, its nice to debate with you again as well :) I hope you are well.

Forgive me if I find this akin to saying "I have a friend that is really tall that will beat you at basketball". The unfortunate reality is that having a lot of intelligence doesn't always mean that it's correctly used.

But call people stupid merley because they don't concur with your line of reason however improbable their line of thought, if they are intelligent they are intelligent. Weather they are right or not is not a matter of them being intelligent.

Smart people make mistakes too. For me the message is what's important, not necessarily the messenger.

Smart peoples mistakes are far more dangerous; take the Atom Bomb as an example. I both agree and disagree if a message is correct it doesn't matter who is delivering it. However I pay heed to those with interlect, I don't agree with Dawkins but he is an intelligent bloke.

Count me in too then. People that dupe the gullible and the ignorant are immoral. That some people are gullible and ignorant in the first place is beside the point.

Personally I would argue we are all responsible for our actions; is the SS Commander not guilty because he grew up in a social climate of anti semitism?

I enjoy reading your posts as well. Thank you for the compliment.

:)

Achilles
08-09-2007, 05:08 PM
Hehe, not quite the way I was meaning it ;), but yes that is essentially what I mean. Ok, well guess which side I want to be on :xp:

Indeedy, or to phraise your point in the words of the great Aristotle; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Essentially if someone is intelligent and well read, even if you completely differ with them there is always value in what they say.<snip> Would it be sufficient to summarize by saying that we do not respect people beliefs so much as evaluate their reasons? If the reasons are sound, then we should adopt their thinking, however if their reasons are deficient, we should reject them.

I'll hava look through and add my thoughts on it, if someone else hasn't :) I'll keep an eye out for it.

Well technically it is still a theory Again, wrong context.

... just the theory is correct; or all the evidence shows it to be correct... what would happen though if I dropped a stone and it 'fell' to the sky? Gravitational theory wouldn't have made it passed the first few step in the scientific method if they hadn't already tested for that :)

I would however differentiate between evolution and gravity as I think gravity has certainly been proven beyond reasonable doubt (all data ever gathered substantiates it). I still have doubts over the veritibility of the theory of evolution. I certainly agree with micro-evolution, macro I am undecided on. I hate to break it to you, but the same thing is true regarding evolution. All the data gathered supports it.

Unfortunately, some people choose to reject it nonetheless, just as there are people today that still believe the earth is flat.

I think science should possibly follow one of Plato/Socrates in this reguard; "I will follow the truth wherever it may lead". This is precisely what science seeks to do. By contrast, religion's doctrine is "I will accept that which does not contradict what I already believe".

Which means when coming to judge matters scientifically we cast of our own predispositions (such as religion, and I personally would argue athiesm is a religion... a belief there is no God ;)) and look at the data. I've argued this point too many times recently to do so again :)

I would be interested to know when it was that you did this with regards to your own religion?

I'm still of the opinion science doesn't disprove God; but again that is a discussion for another topic. It doesn't disprove god. So long as god is a supernatural being, it never can. It can only continue to provide alternative explanations which are supported by evidence and that make the god hypothesis unnecessary.

Hehe, its nice to debate with you again as well :) I hope you are well. Everything is great. Hope you plan on sticking around for a while.

But call people stupid merley because they don't concur with your line of reason however improbable their line of thought, if they are intelligent they are intelligent. Weather they are right or not is not a matter of them being intelligent. Well I hope the records will show that I've never accused anyone of being stupid. I certainly question the intelligence of a lot of the arguments that I hear, but I've never made the mistake of projecting that onto the person themself. In fact, you're much more likely to hear "________ is too smart to really believe that" in my internal dialog than "_________ is a moron".

Smart peoples mistakes are far more dangerous; take the Atom Bomb as an example. I both agree and disagree if a message is correct it doesn't matter who is delivering it. However I pay heed to those with interlect, I don't agree with Dawkins but he is an intelligent bloke. He is a smart guy, but not as smart at others. And none of that would matter to me if his arguments weren't sound.

Personally I would argue we are all responsible for our actions; is the SS Commander not guilty because he grew up in a social climate of anti semitism? And what of the evangelist that indoctrinates children into a specific religious tradition? See my point?

jonathan7
08-09-2007, 05:32 PM
Would it be sufficient to summarize by saying that we do not respect people beliefs so much as evaluate their reasons? If the reasons are sound, then we should adopt their thinking, however if their reasons are deficient, we should reject them.

Yeah, I think that is a logical enough premise.

Again, wrong context.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was generally of the thought that Science, is basically a hypothesis that stands because it can't be disproved. e.g. With reguards gravity no stone has ever fallen to the ground ergo the hypthesis is correct. In otherwods science disproves a theory.

Gravitational theory wouldn't have made it passed the first few step in the scientific method if they hadn't already tested for that :)

Hehe

I hate to break it to you, but the same thing is true regarding evolution. All the data gathered supports it.

Unfortunately, some people choose to reject it nonetheless, just as there are people today that still believe the earth is flat.

I feel I may be making a post in the evolution thread. Strictly speaking I am completely sat on the fence, I am unsure currently of how life has changed on earth. All I know is; the earth is 6Billion years old; there is alot of animals who are related in various ways which inhabbit the earth. etc etc

This is precisely what science seeks to do. By contrast, religion's doctrine is "I will accept that which does not contradict what I already believe".

Not all religious people do that, it is dangerous to group all who believe one thing to group them all to behaving and thinking in the same way.

I've argued this point too many times recently to do so again :)

hehe, fair enough :)

I would be interested to know when it was that you did this with regards to your own religion?

Suprisingly frequently; one of my thoughts when I wake up is; can all of these people really be wrong about life? Then I quickly remember most people are idiots which invalidates what they think ;) I try to be as objective as I can and try to take my personal preconceptions out of the equation as far as I can. I also believe I porbably do that better than the average human being but ultimately I can refer back to Einsteins quote. Faith would of course not be needed if doubt didn't occur. Although on the subject of faith I thought you would enjoy the follow Nietzsche quote; "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything".

It doesn't disprove god. So long as god is a supernatural being, it never can. It can only continue to provide alternative explanations which are supported by evidence and that make the god hypothesis unnecessary.

If the God hypothesis is unnecessary. ;)

Everything is great. Hope you plan on sticking around for a while.

Not sure, off on holiday leading on a Christian youth camp, my best friends wedding is soon as well, then I'm back at uni. Hopefully will be able to get on here time to time though.

Achilles
08-09-2007, 06:58 PM
*Reads post. Looks at thread title*

I'll post my response over in the theism/atheism thread.

jonathan7
08-09-2007, 07:15 PM
*Reads post. Looks at thread title*

I'll post my response over in the theism/atheism thread.

Hehe, we always tend to range over a large set of topics :)

Emperor Devon
08-10-2007, 06:34 AM
Nice pics, John Galt. I could literally feel my blood pressure going up with some of those. :D

Lesson number 1 in the Atheist "How to Win over Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Make fun of every possible thing you can in religion.

Sigh....

Lesson number 1 in the Theist "How to Win over Anti-Religious Idiots to Your Viewpoint":
Don't give them extra ammunition by passing off fairy tales and primitive superstitions that have been scientifically disproved as scientific facts. Also avoid pictures showing small children being indoctrinated into believing all that nonsense.

Honestly Jae, I don't see how you can't make fun of something like this. The earth is 6,000 years old being on a sign in a supposed "museum"? Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

I have far more time for well thought out athiests such as ED and Achilles than I do wishy-washey middle grounders, who are too engrossed in the mediocrity of their own lives than to consider the greater implications of what life on earth entails.

Thank you. I'm very happy to see that people of different viewpoints can still hold respect for each other's views. :)

jonathan7
08-10-2007, 10:17 AM
Honestly Jae, I don't see how you can't make fun of something like this. The earth is 6,000 years old being on a sign in a supposed "museum"? Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

Again I would reiterate that this isn't a museum. But with freedom of speech they are allowed their opinions; Jae is probably in the same problem position that I am in; I have friends who actually believe the world is 6,000 years old.

And what of the evangelist that indoctrinates children into a specific religious tradition? See my point?

It has been my expierance that such children rebel when they get older, and aren't at this moment in time Christians. My parents are very liberal (but both Christians) so I was allowed to form my own opinions of the world with out being indocrtinated. There are a few children who obviously are indoctrinated, but I can think of only 1 who hasn't rebelled.

Anyways, let me now as an old earth creaitonist, quickly take a part this 'musuem' and answers in genesis. Extracts taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp their 'statement of faith'.

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

Sorry did I miss 'And God created a young earth'? The Bible is not meant to be used as a tool to date how old the earth is. Besides my generally understanding of Genesis is that it is more teaching that everything is created by God and we shouldn't worship creation... we should worship him.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

Complete conjecture and not at all factual; the hebrew for day can also be translated as a period of time, as well as the many other varied translations that can come from the book of Genesis. Later in the Bible itself the Bible states that to God a days is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. (NIV Psalm 93:4 4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.)


No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Such a position is dogmatic, fundamentalist and anti-intellectual. Also a definition of 'contradicts' is needed as I don't believe any of what I believe contradicts scripture.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

That statement on its own is anti-scientific, science seeks to explain, we most cast out all our own preconcieved ideas as far as we can.

Finally I am reminded of what Jesus had to say on the subject;

4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Matthew 23:4

Suggested websites for further old earth creaitonist thoughts;

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

http://www.reasons.org/