Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 467

• 0%

  Bkumm9 months ago

  As some of you may have noticed, there are people here on Propeller (you know who you are) who like to label global warming and evolution particularly as religions.

  It's time to sit up and take notice of this behavior.

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 0%

    scriblerus19 months ago

    The neocon propagandists and their corporado sidekicks seem to believe that if they can co-opt religion and turn it to their profitable advantage--such as in war-profits--why not have have religion co-opt science and turn it also to their advantage.

    Science to their minds, after all, was never meant to be the pursuit of truth. It was ever meant only to develop new technologies to make the neocon corporados more money and give them more power.

    Their propaganda is aimed not at science, where knowledge is a strong shield against such surreptitious insideousness, but against the ignorant, where such nonsense has already found fertile soil and is being nurtured by fanciers like Limbaugh and Coulter.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      AmericanIdiot9 months ago

      Before they were neocons, what were they called?

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        CaptainLucid9 months ago

        fascists

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          GWHayduke9 months ago

          Go back to class, you have failed Poli-Sci 101.

          Reply
      • 0%

        SpazMat9 months ago

        Truthfully?

        They were called liberals.

        Thats a no-crapper.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Silverghost9 months ago

      The word, science, is from the Latin, sciens, to know; the Greek: gynosko, to know, is translated science in Scripture. BK: The problem with what many call science is that they only want others to know what agrees with their position. It is what the Bible calls "science, falsely so-called."

      To violate the inquisitive mind & the scientific procedure to examine the premises of theories rigorously, is not true science.

      The Supreme court in 1961 declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. One of the planks of this was evolution with another being atheism. Do not blame Biblical Christianity for being observant of processes in history, philosophy & religion. -Rev. S

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        Bkumm9 months ago

        Planks do not a ship make.

        I don't understand where you're going with your travel into the root of the word science and the whole Bible thing, but okay.

        People that study evolution or any other science do not violate the laws of that study when they discount things that have been brought up a hundred times and disproved a hundred times. No matter how many times someone wants something to be true it is not true unless there is evidence to support it.

        As for the Supreme Court declaring secular humanism to be a religion, that is a bit of a stretch. They do refer to it, but as far as I know, it is not listed among the religious organizations.

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          Silverghost9 months ago

          BK: Planks make a platform, as to the terminology used.

          The Bible indicates that there is psuedo-science. Charles Dawson maintained that he had found the Piltdown man's skull, a missing link, until later it was revealed in 1953 that it was the jawbone of a ape that had been planted there in England, a hoax. There had been a number of other studies & finds that have proven phony. Where is the missing link?

          The evidence of which you speak, BK, cuts both ways.

          Yet the lowest geological strata demonstrates complex life forms. If evolution were true, it would progress from simple on the lowest to complex.

          The US Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as being a religion, a matter of record. -Rev. S

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            memestryker9 months ago

            Categorizing Secular Humanism as a religion doesn't mean it's about cultural doctrine or a metaphor cult like most major world religions. It simply means that people who do not follow a religion have a right to congregate for the purpose of fellowship and sharing values as well as access to similar tax exemptions and other elements that would normally be associated with a religion.

            They can provide counseling, outreach, feed the hungry, etc. like other "religions." Unitarian-Universalists have done this for many years, and actually call themselves a "church" although they do not share any supernatural beliefs.

            So the term "religion" has been used because it's the existing model used for such purposes. It was easier to evolve the existing model than try to start from scratch. The SCOTUS frequently operates with minimalism. That doesn't mean that science is the same as a metaphor cult.

            Reply
          • 0%

            memestryker9 months ago

            We've covered this territory, but here it is again:

            Science continually opens itself to better data. Karl Popper said science is about taking the best data we have and forming a theory--then immediately throwing rocks at it in search of a better theory. When scientists saw evidence that Cartesian thinking was limited, they accepted Einstein's theories.

            Religion generally fixates on some myth involving supernatural entities and then reifies that myth.

            I think where religious people get lost is that there is a lot of wisdom in sacred writings, such as those of the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. Where people make the mistake is taking the mythological aspects (or cultural engineering aspects, such as that of St. Paul or Mohammed) as fixed, constant fact. The try to eat the unchanging menu instead of the food.

            Reply
          • 0%

            Silverghost9 months ago

            Meme: Your remarks are insightful & seem to coordinate properly the relationship of religious fervor in both the faith communities & the scientific communities.

            What many do not realize is that there is a great number of well qualified scientists that believe in Biblical truth. For the evolutionists to attempt to separate the two entities is ridiculous to the Creationist.

            Inasmuch that the evolutionist ignores data that indicates sudden appearance of life, he degenerates to a religious fanatic in supporting his position, because he doesn't give space to true scientific method & discovery.

            As to Paul the Apostle, he was one of the most educated men of his day. In his zeal, he originally sought to eliminate Christians, much the way some have fervor today. Yet when God met him, the O.T. Scriptures came to full meaning, whereby he completely undergirded the N.T. Christian effort. -Rev. S

            Reply
          • 0%

            Bkumm9 months ago

            How the Bible indicates anything having to do with Piltdown Man would be something I'd have to see.

            There is no such thing as a 'missing link'. It's a misnomer that was originally used to try and explain evolution to people that had little understanding of how it works. Evolution takes time. So, you won't see a specific 'link' that matches one species to another. Now, you will see changes over time, but in order to provide you with the proof you're looking for, we would have to find every single one of those stages and that is asking a lot. However, in some cases this is happening.

            Where does the 'lowest' (by this you must mean oldest, because those aren't necessarily the same thing) geological strata show complex life forms?

            It is a matter of record, but it's mentioned in passing. There has not been a USSC case defining secular humanism as a religion to my knowledge.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Silverghost9 months ago

              BK: "we would have to find every single one of those stages."

              No. There is abundant evidence ("stages") of microevolution in progress. No evidence exists whereby macroevolution occurs, crossing over to another species, forming a durable new line.

              The Geological record shows the lowest &, barring upheaval of fragmented layers, the oldest strata, demonstrating complex forms of life. BTW, the simplest forms are complex enough, regarding recent scientific discovery, to indicate a real stretch of the imagination that they just happened. It's like saying that a Swiss watch just happened.

              You state, "It is a matter of record, but it's mentioned in passing." This is merely an attempt to minimize the declaration by the Supreme Court in the case record that Secular Humanism is a religion. Religious fervor, BK... : ~ D -Rev. S

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                smithichie9 months ago

                How many birds have teeth these days like Archaeopteryx did?

                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/i...

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  Silverghost9 months ago

                  Smithchie: Archaeopteryx was a true bird, not a dinosaur. "The skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis," air sacs, not as dinosaurs. "Analysis of the skull with computer tomography (CT) scanning shows that Archaeopteryx had a brain like a modern bird's, three times the size of that of a dinosaur of equivalent size." Jonathan Sarfati, AIG, March, 2000.

                  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3...

                  "Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not." "Both during the time of Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct group of birds existed that could be categorised as 'birds with teeth.'"

                  http://darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_0...

                  -Rev. S

                  Reply
  • 0%

    ThKng9 months ago

    What is this thing with the religous wanting their kids to be as dumb as they are. if they want their kids to learn religous dogma instead of real science teach it yourself or send em to a religous school (theres no shortage of those).

    its unfair on the rest of a school full of kids to miss out on a future because some ignorrent parents couldn't pull their head out of the bible

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      Endoscopy9 months ago

      I just love it when people call Christianity and Judaism "ignorrent". He can't even spell the word.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months ago

        yeah religious people come in all flavors, dumb to brilliant. kids should be taught to be independent and make up their own minds, that's the real problem, religious inculcation, not being exposed to a belief system.

        Reply
      • 0%

        Silverghost9 months ago

        Par for course, Endoscopy!

        The fact is most of the true Christians that I know want their kids to be able to discern on their own what is true & what is false. I'm constantly challenging my congregation to check out what I say for accuracy & veracity.

        But, when you don't have a leg on which to stand, you might well resort to ad hominem & other illogical tactics. Spelling just isn't important to the fanatic, who wants to beat you down with words. -Rev. S

        Reply
• 0%

  SonOfTheMask9 months ago

  "I'm sending this warning because I can see the blood in their eye and it scares me." I wish someone had sent the religious that warning when the French Revolution seized on religion as "bad" and needing to be elminated. Likewise with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Albania, etc. The anti-religionists had more than "blood in their eye"...they actually had blood on their hands. Someone might also want to ask that the more militant neo-atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens to proactively renounce violence against the religious before their adherents get it into their heads that "religion=all evils of the world" (Dawkins and Hitchens message) doesn't mean do violent things to end religion.

  Extremism is rarely a virtue, regardless of flavor.

  Reply

  47 Replies

  • 0%

    Bkumm9 months ago

    You must be watching my feed. THANKS! It's nice to know one has a fan. So to speak. Disregard my invitation message then, you already know about it, so it's pointless.

    I completely agree with you, by the way. Extremism is bad. Fanaticism is bad. I am especially concerned with the attacks of Hitchens because he is so eloquent in his attacks that some people don't even know that it's happened.

    However, if science gets branded a religion, we are in a world of hurt. Religion got the upper hand (I don't know why we all just can't get along) in the Ottoman Empire and they went from being the most powerful nation in the region to being the 'sick old man' in about 150 years. Obviously, there were other factors involved, but the silencing of science was a major factor.

    Thanks for dropping by!!

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      SonOfTheMask9 months ago

      You have a feed? I saw this come up on the Tracker, but if you have a feed, then I'll see about that too.

      The scientific method and what we generally call "the sciences" today are definitely not religions. Evolutionary theory is not a religion. Not by any generally accepted understanding of the term religion.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Bkumm9 months ago

        Sure. You do too, by the way. That's how some of the more notorious stalkers follow their victims. Just go to either my participation or my submissions and click on the RSS button. Then you can follow all of my craziness all over Propeller.

        You are, and I say this with some trepidation, utterly correct in your statement on science.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Silverghost9 months ago

      Science may not be a religion, BK, but those that religiously & fanatically hold on to their pet notions as being "scientific fact," considering examination of their position unconscionable, are exhibiting religious fervor.

      SOTM: That would agree with your marvelous observation: "Extremism is rarely a virtue, regardless of flavor." -Rev. S

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        Bkumm9 months ago

        I'm willing (and I know of no scientist that would say differently) to examine any challenge to my position that evolution is the process by which humans came to be. However, I will not go over the same ground that has been hammered into the consistency of stone by the bootprints of a thousand people.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Silverghost9 months ago

          I sympathize with you, BK, regarding old hat. Yet there has not yet been found a missing link, though much effort has been exerted. A few hoaxes & phony finds have been introduced, but no true evidence.

          Microevolution is a proven fact, but it is within the genetic code of a species. Macroevolution has no basis from which to draw proof. If you believe that there is, produce it. I haven't heard of any. -Rev. S

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            memestryker9 months ago

            Ah, the creationist wedge. I guess it had to come. There is no proof at all of anything supernatural, but you want us to believe that since it's complex, it must be magic. Thus, why not your pet metaphor--one that would have been understandable to people in Biblical times--the benevolent father. And then a genius was born, so all the myths floating around at the time were coopted and the story was written.

            Evolution is deterministic, so it's very slow and survival occurs when times are difficult in some way--shortages of food, temperature extremes, various predators, natural catastrophes. So of course we won't see "macroevolution" occur.

            You don't have to give up your religion over it. You can say "God used the big bang and evolution as tools" if that helps you get your brain around it. The evidence that exists ALL supports evolution and NONE supports any religious myth.

            People are gullible and addicted to endorphins. That's the bottom line.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Silverghost9 months ago

              Meme: "All the myths...", insisting on that term, disingenuously. That's old hat attempt to discredit the truth. If you look further on, I give evidence to the truth of Biblical accounts. Peter said: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables,...but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." He also stated that Scripture was more sure than his eyewitness account, "whereunto ye do well to take heed."

              2Peter 1:16,19.

              You state, "it's very slow...", yet the evidence supports sudden appearance of life. Some scientists, predisposed to evolutionary theory, having examined the relationship of appearance, have discovered that there is no evidence for gradual appearance. It has caused those, who honestly apply scientific method in this genre to reject evolution.

              I won't give up one aspect of my belief, unless (a huge step) there is sound evidence to controvert it. -Rev. S

              Reply
          • 0%

            Bkumm9 months ago

            One more time, there is no missing link. That isn't the way evolution works.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Silverghost9 months ago

              BK: There has to be some transitional forms to indicate or provide a remnant of proof for the migration to a new, heretofore non-existing line. Yet none appear. -Rev. S

              Reply
      • 0%

        memestryker9 months ago

        They are not exhibiting "religious" fervor--just fervor.

        But most atheists I know are not extremists. They are mostly just intelligent people who were indoctrinated as children into some world religion and eventually recognized that much of what they were being taught was based on the myth and not on the wisdom.

        I cherish my parents' cultural roots as traditions, but I don't believe in the supernatural, and haven't in a very long time. I came to that conclusion myself reading the Bible and other religious writings several times as an adolescent. I even attended seminary because I was so curious about why people believe in myths.

        Science is demonstrating that endorphins and evolution are behind religious beliefs. And few actually get into the details. Most just come to associate feelings with religious myth--and they are indoctrinated to do so.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          Silverghost9 months ago

          Granted that some religious sectors & their seminaries do get into misinformation & make intellectual & tactical errors. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution.

          Isaiah, speaking of the foundations of the earth, spoke of God as sitting on the circle of the earth. In a day that religious entities believed the earth was flat, Columbus read what Isaiah wrote & looked out on the horizon. He discovered the rather large, but distinct circular configuration of the horizon & concluded that God had indicated that the earth was round, taking courage to explore a new route to India. Others were in fear of his ships dropping off the "edge" of the earth.

          The Bible has no myths, Meme! Man makes up false stories. God cannot lie. -Rev. S

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            memestryker7 months, 3 weeks ago

            Silver,

            I'm just getting to the older replies--I had company and also traveled from mid-December to this past Thursday and didn't spend much time online.

            I agree that the Bible has wisdom that is worth keeping. And I agree that some religious sectors and their seminaries misinterpret. So yes, tossing the baby with the bathwater is definitely not the solution.

            The Bible was written by men--and not even most men, since most people were illiterate, and much of it was based on stories and songs that were passed down through generations before being written on scrolls and then being among those selected by other men for the actual book that evolved into what we know as the Bible today.

            Your statement "God cannot lie" is meaningless to me with respect to the Bible. What is called "God," to me, is energy and natural law--not a "person." Using metaphors helped illiterate people understand. (continued)

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              memestryker7 months, 3 weeks ago

              (continued)

              Silver,

              Although the man Jesus likely lived (some scholars suggest "he" is actually more than one individual), there is no evidence that the stories surrounding his life are anything but myth, especially those surrounding the virgin birth and his supernatural resurrection. I think even those stories are based on metaphors.

              That doesn't weaken the Bible, in my opinion. American Indians spoke of the abilities of animals metaphorically in similar fashion to teach wisdom. I view both Buddha and Jesus as a great teachers of "correct" thought and action. I think Jesus was a genius in recognizing that inclusion of all people in society and especially wisdom teaching (including women and children) and unconditional acceptance and forgiveness of the individual and others are keys to happiness and peace.

              (continued)

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                memestryker7 months, 3 weeks ago

                (continued)

                Silver,

                So I have to disagree, in part. I think the Bible is full of myth, metaphor, allegory, and other useful methods of imparting wisdom. Metaphor enables a richness of analogy that can be used to teach people who cannot read. The Bible's also used as a tool of social control and teaching those elements of history that were recorded. The chapters chosen for inclusion were chosen by people with agendas.

                You call the "energy and natural law" that I perceive "God." I consider "God" a bridge word for those indoctrinated into a patriarchal religion. However, framing it as a male supernatural being is just silly--and asserting the importance of tribal lineage is absurd.

                Jesus was a Jew and he tried to teach his followers how to be good Jews. His practice must have looked like magic to some--enough to create the myth surrounding his life. But I see no evidence that he or anyone was/is supernatural.

                Reply
  • 0%

    RickyDawkins9 months ago

    "Someone might also want to ask that the more militant neo-atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens to proactively renounce violence against the religious"

    I would ask the same of the religious. To PROACTIVELY renounce violence.

    This will entail setting aside much of the dogma of the bible. So, we are back at square one in that religion is the root of much evil/violence.

    Reply

    31 Replies

    • 0%

      Bkumm9 months ago

      Excellent point, Rick. Violence or the active inciting of violence against others is wrong regardless of who does it.

      By the way, I don't think that Dawkins or Hitchens are inciting violence towards others. They are simply very outspoken in their support of atheism.

      Reply

      30 Replies

      • 0%

        SonOfTheMask9 months ago

        I don't assert that either Dawkins or Hitchens are calling for violence. However, considering that both assert that religion is evil; that people who have faith are either stupid, brainwashed, or evil; and that the world would be a much better place without religion...I ask you how do you think they imagine religion would be eliminated, especially considering that faith is increasing rather than decreasing?

        Reply

        26 Replies

        • 0%

          Bkumm9 months ago

          I didn't say that you did.

          Well, I think their hope (as is mine) that with knowledge will come the elimination of ignorance.

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 0%

            SonOfTheMask9 months ago

            "...the elimination of ignorance." So, you also see people of faith as ignorant? Sigh.

            Reply

            9 Replies

            • 0%

              Bkumm9 months ago

              I have a comment to that, but must go for now. No offense is intended to any person of faith.

              Reply
            • 0%

              toph19739 months ago

              I look at religion as anti-knowledge. I do think that religion fosters ignorance. Not all religious persons are ignorant, but many are. All we have to do to see how ignorant religion can make someone is to watch the View. One of the co-hosts isn't so sure the earth is round. Only religion can make someone think this way. Religion is not based on knowledge, or fact. Religion is based on the supernatural and fairytales.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                My response is that religion has promoted dogmatism which often conflicted with scientific inquiry, especially during the infancy of the development of the sciences. On the other hand, religion spurred scientific inquiry as many religious scholars attempted to understand God's creation.

                Religion has also provided the underpinnings of the moral codes of most modern cultures. To suggest that religion is simply anti-knowledge flies in the face of the entirety of what religion and the religious experience is all about, how religion has shaped our world, and the fact that many of our most intelligent thinkers in history were religious.

                Also, to say that religion is not based on knowledge or fact is itself an ignorant statement. Although, to be fair, I understand your comment is primarily directed toward "knowledge" or "fact" of the existence of "god".

                Reply
              • 0%

                marlenebomer8 months, 2 weeks ago

                Religious leaders have throughout time have opposed every advancement in scientific knowledge: from Galileo, to Gutenberg, to the first heart transplant, to the budding knowledge of sex and gender!

                The main reason, IMNSHO, is because science destroys the fanatical hold the cleric class has on the people.

                Ever since the Dark Ages (when theocracy was at its greatest), the clerics have opposed knowledge found outside of their control, as they held the will of the people in a iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove.

                Reply

            • lovermanComment removed: User banned.4 Replies

              • 0%

                SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                I would restate to say "any dogma or ideology that promotes violence is potentially dangerous"...I'm not sure such dogma or ideology is necessary ignorant. If a dogma asserts that any convicted killer should be put to death, it is promoting violence...but it is not necessarily ignorant.

                I do agree that uninformed or under-informed people are more susceptible to being swayed towards violence and intolerance.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  tkyrchncs9 months ago

                  "If a dogma asserts that any convicted killer should be put to death, it is promoting violence...but it is not necessarily ignorant." Yep. Still ignorant. And immoral too.

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                    I don't think it would be ignorant. You may disagree with capital punishment (obviously you do, you deem it immoral) but to say that the example I gave is indicative of ignorance is not true in my view.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      tkyrchncs9 months ago

                      What did Jesus do when he came upon the crowd about to stone the adulteress? Capital punishment allows the state to put people to death in my name and I strenuously object. If I think you need to be dead I will make it so and take the consequences, legal and moral on myself, thank you very much. It is wrong by any standards by which it can be judged. That makes it ignorant in my book.

                      Reply
        • 0%

          RickyDawkins9 months ago

          Books "saved" me from religion.

          "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true."

          http://richarddawkins.net/article,114,Ignorance...

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months ago

            ''Books "saved" me from religion''

            a book saved me from religion too. The bible. strange but true.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              memestryker9 months ago

              I kept wondering why I didn't "see" what others saw, and at a religious summer camp as an adolescent, I read the Bible cover to cover. I was appalled--I thought why doesn't anyone actually listen to this guy (Jesus)! He's a genius! He saw that only when we open society to all people--including women and children--will we have true happiness. He spent time with poor women rather than with kings.

              I read several other versions, and I came to understand that I did "see" it. The doctrine, the emotional appeal, the comfort in the potential supernatural intervention, the endorphin rush, the shared agreement, the hypnotic trance of the mass or homily, the music, the ritual.

              I usually kept it quiet over the years because it was not politically correct to tell the truth in the southern U.S. where I grew up. But recently, I've finally begun to think it's more important to get the truth out than to be accepted. Jesus was right--the truth sets you free.

              Reply
        • 0%

          RickyDawkins9 months ago

          If you insist on quote-mining Dawkins, at least use the correct quote.

          ..cont

          "By far the largest of the four categories is 'ignorant', and ignorance is no crime (nor is it bliss ? I forget who it was said, "If ignorance is bliss, how come there's so much misery about?"). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so. Nor is it intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid or (probably) insane. It's just true. The difference is that not many people think Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer, or that the earth is flat, so it isn't worth calling attention to them. But, if polls are to be believed, 100 million US citizens believe that humans and dinosaurs were created within the same week as each other, less than ten thousand years ago."

          http://richarddawkins.net/article,114,Ignorance...

          Reply

          10 Replies

          • 0%

            RickyDawkins9 months ago

            ..cont

            "This is more serious. People like this have the vote, and we have George W Bush (with a little help from his friends in the Supreme Court) to prove it. They dominate school boards in some States. Their views flatly contradict the great corpus of the sciences, not just biology but physics, geology, astronomy and many others. It is, of course, entirely legitimate to question conventional wisdom in fields which you have bothered to mug up first. That is what Einstein did, and Galileo, and Darwin. But our hundred million are another matter. They are contradicting ? influentially and powerfully ? vast fields of learning in which their own knowledge and reading is indistinguishable from zero. My 'arrogant and intolerant' statement turns out to be nothing but simple truth.

            Not only is ignorance no crime. It is also, fortunately, remediable. In the same Times review, I went on to recount my experiences of going on radio phone-in talk shows around the United States."

            Reply

            9 Replies

            • 0%

              RickyDawkins9 months ago

              ..cont

              "Opinion polls had led me to expect hostile cross-examination from creationist zealots. I encountered little of that kind. I got creationist opinions in plenty, but these were founded on honest ignorance, as was freely confessed. When I politely and patiently explained what Darwinism actually is, they listened not only with equal politeness but with interest and even enthusiasm. "Gee, that's real neat, I never heard that before! Wow!" These people were not stupid (nor insane, nor wicked). They didn't believe in evolution, but this was because nobody had ever told them what evolution is. And because plenty of people had told them (wrongly, according to educated theologians) that evolution is against their cherished religion."

              http://richarddawkins.net/article,114,Ignorance...

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                Also from Dawkins:

                "Well, do we know of any comparable examples, where stupid ideas have been known to spread like an epidemic? Yes, by God! Religion. Religious beliefs are irrational. Religious beliefs are dumb and dumber: super dumb. Religion drives otherwise sensible people into celibate monasteries, or crashing into New York skyscrapers. Religion motivates people to whip their own backs, to set fire to themselves or their daughters, to denounce their own grandmothers as witches, or, in less extreme cases, simply to stand or kneel, week after week, through ceremonies of stupefying boredom. If people can be infected with such self-harming stupidity, infecting them with niceness should be childsplay."

                Reply

                6 Replies

                • 0%

                  RickyDawkins9 months ago

                  (Link please...)

                  I tend to agree with Dawkins that irrational religious beliefs allow and even encourage "otherwise sensible" people do ignorant and stupid things.

                  AMEN!

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Neophile9 months ago

                    http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-f...

                    Good piece.

                    Reply

                    2 Replies

                    • 0%

                      SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                      "Good piece." Not in my view...that's hardly a shocker to etither of us, is it?

                      Reply

                      1 Reply

                      • 0%

                        afoaf9 months ago

                        How can you disagree with the notion of being nice to one another?

                        Simply because of the theology (or lack thereof) of the author?

                        Reply
                • 0%

                  SonOfTheMask9 months ago

                  I think we can safely infer from this piece that Dawkins thinks "religion is evil; that people who have faith are either stupid, brainwashed, or evil; and that the world would be a much better place without religion"...don't you agree?

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 0%

                    memestryker8 months, 4 weeks ago

                    No, I don't get that at all. It's obvious they are brainwashed (or they'd see the folly that others see), but not stupid or evil. I wonder though if they really believe it. I've heard so many say they believe their local major religion in case it's true--especially if fear of damnation is involved.

                    Reply
            • 0%

              memestryker9 months ago

              And Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister (they believe Catholics and other Protestants all are going to hell--not just atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.). They fired tenured female professors from their universities when they regressed to their Paulist roots just a few years ago.

              Ignorant people abound--and they bask in it; glorify it. Students reach college who cannot even critically think--they are so immersed in religious ideology that all they can do is cite religious texts or quote religious leaders.

              If the U.S. elects an even more extreme religious ideologue, the world is in very serious trouble. I'm not saying an extreme leftist ideologue wouldn't also be a problem, since either way we get a police state. But the far right is very dark--the path of the fundamentalist Christian taliban.

              Reply
        • 0%

          memestryker9 months ago

          It's a coping mechanism and people are gullible by nature. It apparently has survival value. Religious myths are spread by cultural doctrine. Approximately 2% of the population demonstrate what psychologists call "sociopathy," so evil is out there, and religion is a great way to manipulate people.

          Religion is no different than the cultural engineering of Chairman Mao--in fact, St. Paul, Moses, Elijah, Mohammed, Joseph Smith all were very successful cultural engineers who understand how to use fear and hypnotic suggestion to control people.

          There is no evidence for the truth of any supernatural aspect of any religion. None.

          Magical intervention? It feels good to be surrounded by people on an emotional high saying "we all agree with each other." Gets those endorphins flowing with no drugs.

          Reply
      • 0%

        AmericanIdiot9 months ago

        Do homosexuals worship Uranus?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          SpazMat9 months ago

          Well, not MINE, I don't think.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Silverghost9 months ago

            At 22 yrs of age I nearly knocked a fellow out the 3rd story of a YMCA window, who was trying to examine something else on me. He immediately desisted. -Rev. S

            Reply
• 0%

  Grrr9 months ago

  I'd like to see neo-conservatism labeled a religion. Since it really is, pretty much.

  Reply

  23 Replies

  • 0%

    Bkumm9 months ago

    But, then what qualifies as a religion? See, we've got to be really careful about this kind of thing and stop dismissing it as 'pointless' or 'it'll never happen'. It might and we need to pay attention.

    Thanks for stopping by!

    Reply

    22 Replies

    • 0%

      Grrr9 months ago

      No different from Communism or Fascism that you are equating with religion below.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        Bkumm9 months ago

        It's possible that it could become that, but I don't think it's there yet. Neo-Conservatism is a very interesting off shoot of conservatism, which of course also has fascism as an off shoot. So, maybe.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          Grrr9 months ago

          Seems to me that it is EXACTLY that.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            Bkumm9 months ago

            Hey, I could be wrong. Trust me, it's happened before. A lot.

            Reply
          • 0%

            RickyDawkins9 months ago

            Neo-conservative: What bible-worshiping Americans become in the ABSENCE of knowledge and reason.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ThKng9 months ago

              With the way things are it's not like theres all that much knowledge and reason around.

              if their was any knowledge or reason we wouldn't be having this argument

              Reply
        • 0%

          Silverghost9 months ago

          BK: I think that anti-Christian could qualify in your terms as being a religion. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, but have tried to understand your publications.

          To automatically exclude all Christians as being against true knowledge is short-sighted. Whence would people like Galeleo, Newton, Columbus, etc. be, who fought against the ignorance of the prevailing church, believing that the Bible gave insight to true knowledge of the universe?

          Their are some in this world today, who believe all that the Bible says & do not consider it a hindrance to true scientific endeavor, rather a boon to discovery. -Rev. S

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            Bkumm9 months ago

            Being against something does not make it a religion. And, to be clear, I am not against religion, per se, I'm against what it does to people.

            Galileo didn't publish in his lifetime because the Church threatened to have him excommunicated. Newton was after the time of the great attacks by the Church on science. Let's be clear that the Reformation had more to do with the Enlightenment than anything else.

            I'd love to see how literal belief in the Bible and scientific endeavor are compatible.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Silverghost9 months ago

              The Bible does not deny concrete truth, but upholds it. God is the author of truth in all endeavors. What man does to corrupt the truth of God, in the name of religion, he does likewise in the realm of science. There is no conflict with the Scriptures & true science.

              To start with the premise that God knows what he is saying & has the almighty power to keep His holy Word in tact over the whims of man, a sincere look at what He says will be a stepping point to further discovery of scientific truth.

              As a number of scientists have found, it starts with belief in His Word. Without the truth of God, one comes up with seeming truths or half truths with no conclusiveness & no peace.

              Yes, the adversary has been the so-called "Christian church." But a cursory reading of the N.T letters will find corruption either already at work or lurking at the door of the local churches of the day. -Rev. S

              Reply
    • 0%

      Eagle_Eye9 months ago

      "But, then what qualifies as a religion?"

      Good question Bk, IMHO, as a Minister I define a "religion" as an organized group believing in a "Supreme Intelligence".

      Where it all got screwed up is in the "Organized Religions", they have turned it into a for profit business.

      Reply

      12 Replies

      • 0%

        Bkumm9 months ago

        Good point, EE.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Silverghost9 months ago

          Excellent observation, EE. -Rev. S

          Reply
      • 0%

        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months ago

        I read a lot of these threads, and I would like to seem some distinction made between the 'religious' and 'believers'.

        Frankly I don't think there are very good definitions of religion currently circualting, and the phenomenon is poorly understood. I've heard it refered to as merely a template or mold or set of instructions, but it obviously goes beyond that, beyond church and book. there are also psychological and societal implications.

        a good question: why is belief a communal activity?

        I mean I'm sure I could tell you 'why' it becomes that, I meant that as a rhetorical in the vein of 'should it be'.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months ago

          (oh boy here goes another half hour of my life...)

          an interesting way to look at it is religions are generally started by a single enigmatic individual.

          He has a powerful experience, BY HIMSELF, and wishes to share that experience with others.

          We share our experiences thru symbol

          Thru words

          And these words and symbols, meant by the originator to convey or relate his experience with others, are made into religion and scripture and ritual that often actually BLOCK people from that experience.

          And people get together once a week to celebrate that fact.

          [maybe Jesus's quote, 'these must hear it in parables' was an understanding of the limits of words and human comprehension in this area. 'Thou shalt beatest thy child with an ugly stick' can cause trouble. but the tale of the lump of leaven or the the improperly dressed wedding guest generally just cause head-scratching, or perhaps, in their day, the roll of the eye or the twirl of the finger near the temple]

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months ago

            (good or bad, that only took 17 minutes and 43 seconds :-)

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              GWHayduke9 months ago

              Well said DeadMan.

              As a practicing and devout (by my own standards) Catholic, I view religion as a moral compass, a group of guiding principles in my life.

              I get very uncomfortable with people who take the bible literally...I mean I have a difficult time taking 100 year old science literally, let alone 2000 year old parables.

              Regardless, people, intelligence,