lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-14-2007, 06:44 PM   #1
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums

Newsweek article on YEC propaganda 'museum': (permalink).
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.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 04-14-2007 at 06:55 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 07:27 PM   #2
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 07:33 PM   #3
Gargoyle King
Veteran
 
Gargoyle King's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In My Own Little World!
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
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!!
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!)
Gargoyle King is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 07:50 PM   #4
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle_King
Whoa!! Slow down!!
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!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle_King
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gargoyle_King
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 08:01 PM   #5
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
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. Bob Jones University is arguably the flag ship of these institutions. Richard Dawkins has a very entertaining commentary on Liberty University, which can be found here (I recommend watching to the end. What he says might sound familiar ).

The Discovery Institute (specifically the Center for Science and Culture). This group had a hand in trying to get intelligent design (aka creationism) into the science curricula in Dover, Pennsylvania. Not to be deterred, they were also arguably behind a similar move in the state of Kansas. 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.

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. 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.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-14-2007 at 08:16 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 08:41 PM   #6
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
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.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 09:05 PM   #7
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
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 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
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 10:21 PM   #8
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-14-2007, 11:39 PM   #9
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
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.

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


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 12:01 AM   #10
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 01:27 AM   #11
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
The Creation Museum, which has so far funded its $26 million cost through private donations
I 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.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 01:36 AM   #12
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 08:17 AM   #13
stoffe
Network Caretaker
 
stoffe's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,833
Helpful! 10 year veteran! Notable contributor 
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.
stoffe is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 08:41 AM   #14
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,764
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ED
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?



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is online now   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 09:48 AM   #15
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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'.

Quote:
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.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 10:00 AM   #16
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,764
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
A scientific theory, 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'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is online now   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 12:34 PM   #17
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 12:47 PM   #18
stoffe
Network Caretaker
 
stoffe's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,833
Helpful! 10 year veteran! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.
stoffe is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-15-2007, 01:19 PM   #19
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
Just (some of) my thoughts on the subject.
Thanks for sharing them

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
Intelligent design is simply a non-scientific alternative.
Emphasis on "non-scientific". A non-scientific alternative to science. Lovely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoffe
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.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-15-2007 at 02:46 PM. Reason: response for Stoffe
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 01:06 PM   #20
JediMaster12
Dum Spiramus Tuebimur
 
JediMaster12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buried in books...literally
Posts: 5,933
Current Game: Assassin's Creed
LFN Staff Member Veteran Fan Fic Author Contest winner - Fan Fiction Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

JediMaster12 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 01:16 PM   #21
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
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'?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 02:16 PM   #22
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 02:21 PM   #23
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
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":
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 03:03 PM   #24
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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:
  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'.
  2. Children do not think for themselves.
Quote:
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.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 04-16-2007 at 03:19 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 03:20 PM   #25
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Children do not think for themselves.
My turn to disagree (but only partially)

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.

Last edited by Achilles; 04-16-2007 at 03:59 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 04:39 PM   #26
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
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.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 06:14 PM   #27
JediMaster12
Dum Spiramus Tuebimur
 
JediMaster12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buried in books...literally
Posts: 5,933
Current Game: Assassin's Creed
LFN Staff Member Veteran Fan Fic Author Contest winner - Fan Fiction Forum Veteran 
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.

JediMaster12 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 06:30 PM   #28
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 06:48 PM   #29
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
So by teaching religious affiliation is evil?
Inherently? Not necessarily. How would you differentiate "religious affiliation" from "religious indoctrination"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 07:09 PM   #30
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
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.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 07:14 PM   #31
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
So by teaching religious affiliation is evil?
No one called it evil. But it certainly is unfortunate.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
[...] 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.

Quote:
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.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 07:33 PM   #32
JediMaster12
Dum Spiramus Tuebimur
 
JediMaster12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buried in books...literally
Posts: 5,933
Current Game: Assassin's Creed
LFN Staff Member Veteran Fan Fic Author Contest winner - Fan Fiction Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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.

JediMaster12 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-16-2007, 07:46 PM   #33
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediMaster12
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

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.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 01:25 PM   #34
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Oh, and while we're at it: Has anyone else than me checked out the fair and balanced Conservapedia yet?

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

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 01:40 PM   #35
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
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".

Last edited by Achilles; 04-18-2007 at 03:01 PM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 02:52 PM   #36
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,345
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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****.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Little children are too young to understand politics
On the contrary, from what I've seen they tend to see through politics and call out adults on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
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.

Prime is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 03:05 PM   #37
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
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.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 04:32 PM   #38
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 05:23 PM   #39
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
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.).
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2007, 06:45 PM   #40
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
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.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Fundamentalists desecrate the very idea of museums

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.