Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expelled?

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

^RG is the typical faith-head. He has no substantiating evidence for his statements so he calls for atheists to have "auto-rectal lobotomies" because they won't bow down and fellate Jesus. Every time I have asked him to give supporting evidence for his claims, he gets still more insulting and starts making more unrelated and unsubstantiated claims, until the thread is totally off course and pointless.

1) Actually, youi're the one who usually can't substantiate your claims (I'm still waiting for the argument how Communist Russia and China didn't go after the religious that you say exists, but...), and you're the one who usually starts with the name-calling.

2) Had you bothered to actually read my post, you would have read that it was being applied only to fundamentalist atheists, not all athiests in general. That is, atheists that need to slam anyone who doesn't believe the same as they do (such as your calling me a "religion-head" and that I require everyone to fellate Jesus (I don't recall my saying that everyone had to be Christian (in fact, I stated that I tend to respect any non-fundie viewpoint), much less requiring them to do an act against their own). Could you show me where those statements are?

Also please give me an example of the fundamentalist atheism you talk off.

In small words: You are attacking a system of belief simply because it's not yours. You quote and speak of the tenets of your religion, while stating that those of other beliefs are ignorant; there is no belief but yours that is good. That makes you a fundamentalist.

I'm guessing you will dredge up Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot again. In that case I will ignore it, because I have (with the help of greater men than myself) debunked that notion every time you brought it up.

1) I've never brought up Pol Pot. Could you bother actually linking to where I've done this? Just one will suffice.

2) I like bringing it up because you keep pointing out that it's been debunked, but you never show a link, you never show the logic, and you just keep on saying it. I'd like something to actually read.

I have met and read many scientists and I say once more that I have never seen any of them worshiping Darwin. Darwin certainly was a great man, you cannot call a man who so fundamentally changed the way we view the world anything else, but unlike the God/Jesus you worship that is supposedly infallible, scientists admit that Darwin was a flawed man and many of his ideas on evolution were wrong and have since been replaced with better ones (something religion doesn't do), such as the gene centric view of evolution.

Augh. Dude: Do you honestly bother thinking about anything that you type?

1) Religion has changed over the millennium. If you bothered just reading the Old Testament and compared it the New Testament, you would see that. If you read the various papal proclamations you would see that. If you ever picked up a newspaper and noted that the various religions are in schisms you would see that. How can you claim to be an intelligent person and not see the changes in religion?

2) "Darwin Worship" does not necessarily mean that scientists have an altar to Darwin and believe in his divinity. Rather, simply that Darwin is seen as the separation of science and religion (ironic, given that Darwin was a devout Christian at the time, and that his trip was funded by the local church).

Science and faith go together like sunlight and vampires, wherever science (sunlight) takes root, faith (vampires) diminishes. In ages past when the Church had all the power it suppressed most scientific inquiry and now that it has lost power it tries to influence those in power to make laws that will allow its debunked nonsense to be taught to innocent schoolchildren.

Excluding, of course, the times when religion funded science, created new branches of science, fostered new branches of science, and made sure that science could thrive by protecting and copying its written works. Science and Religion (when both are properly used) are more like plants and sunlight; Religion's need to explore the universe has allowed Science to bloom.

As Einstein said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I think that if you actually bothered doing more than looking for the exceptions, you would find a lot more to it than just your beliefs. But, then again, it's so much easier to hate something without bothering to understand it....

Also, true atheists do not hate God, because we do not believe he/she/it exists. To us hating God is like hating fairies, i.e. totally pointless.

And yet you put such effort into anything that disproves God, and you use such vitriol in attacking the religious. If you truly did not believe in God, then what would one's belief in a mythical being matter to you? Weird...

And sorry about agreeing with you that Expelled is a stupid movie, and that it was lacking any basic morality. If Stein had stuck to just showing that ID was being discriminated against, and showing that it had some validity (as opposed to trying to prove it the way he did), it would have been an okay movie. His interviewing process and some of the links he made, however, made it a serious piece of drek...

RG

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

I think Intelligent Design is a good way for people of religion-centered faith to accept scientific principles... but it is not science itself. It saddens me that this simple mechanism for allowing people to believe in their faith as well as accept science is being used as a political bludgeon.

Self deception is fine when you practice it alone. But it becomes a problem when people of the ID klan begin proselytising it as a serious description of the world we live in and foister it on our children.

You may have said there are things which Darwin said were untrue, but that does not diminish the central point in the theory of evolution. Even Einstein's use of the ether in his equations on relativity are found to be wrong, but that doesn't diminish his work. Discoveries and new perspectives found in science makes science an evolving thing. On the other hand, ID require no thing beyond that God is the reason for everything, and therefore it is stagnant as an intellectual persuit of knowledge through inquiry, experimentation and validation. You can't test for the presence of God, or any other supernatural being.

Science is wrongly percieved as the exact answer like the surety in arithmetic where 1+1=2. Science is based on what is known, what is observed, how it is described, how it works, and whether those observations and descriptions can be verified and repeated independently by other scientists following a similar proceedure or method of inquiry. The results and conclusions always are within error limits, which means that the surety is based on a good guess at the situation given the facts gathered and the results obtained.

This is why the Theory of Evolution is a theory, it is testable by observations, and the reams of scientific data gathered has shown consistently that its central tennant is still true.

As for the point in the article about creation on earth being seeded by an extra terrestrial source or not, and the jumping on the Aliens bandwagon to ridicule scientists, I think it dispicable that the hard work of scientists are ridiculed in this way, when the ID proponent's ideas are stagnant and do not develop or can develop as a replacement for science or as an equal of science for it to be taught in schools.

When you say it is a 'good way good way for people of religion-centered faith to accept scientific principles' many people make this fundamental error in thinking it is about real science. It isn't. Nothing about ID is science or has any scientific principles, so utterly useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Read the summation given by the Judge, and better understand what ID proponents say and admit about the lack of substance in their own theory that they have to ridicule the scientists. It is a damning indictment given by the Judge, himself a conservation and religious man, on the issue as a point of law.

PDF file ( http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf )

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an alternative untestable hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

In that one paragraph, it sums up how ID proponents are dealing with the science commnunity, by deciet, lies and misrepresentations. It is not a fit way to teach children about the world IMHO.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

And to clarify: I don't mind ID as a personal belief. If it is to be taught in the classrooms, it's best taught as part of the philosophy of science (that is, how people view the universe, and how science and religion mix) and not as a factual part. Scientists should be allowed to believe as they will, as long as the theories they expound are provable via the scientific process.

A science class should not be used to proselytize any religion (even atheism), nor be used to as a tool for intolerance...

RG

 

[The_Reaper]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

Sure, Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection, but he suggested nature weeds out those that are too weak to survive, not other people picking and choosing.

If you're blaming anyone, blame Nietzsche.

 

[Negasta]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

1) Actually, youi're the one who usually can't substantiate your claims (I'm still waiting for the argument how Communist Russia and China didn't go after the religious that you say exists, but...), and you're the one who usually starts with the name-calling.

The communist regimes suppress religion because it is a rival for power over the people. I never said they did not, but then of course you read only what you want to.

That is, atheists that need to slam anyone who doesn't believe the same as they do (such as your calling me a "religion-head" and that I require everyone to fellate Jesus (I don't recall my saying that everyone had to be Christian (in fact, I stated that I tend to respect any non-fundie viewpoint), much less requiring them to do an act against their own). Could you show me where those statements are?

So you are basically saying that we must be good little heathens and hide away any criticism we may have of religious stupidity? I won't deny you the right to believe anything, but I will sure as hell tell you it is stupid if I think it is! You're the typical "you can believe anything as long as you believe in God, any god" person.

In small words: You are attacking a system of belief simply because it's not yours. You quote and speak of the tenets of your religion, while stating that those of other beliefs are ignorant; there is no belief but yours that is good. That makes you a fundamentalist.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of religion:

The belief in the existence of a god or gods and the activities that are associated with the worship of them.​

Seeing as atheism entails the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods or anything supernatural, your statement that atheism is a religion is moronic at best. I have also never said that their is no good belief but mine.

1) I've never brought up Pol Pot. Could you bother actually linking to where I've done this? Just one will suffice.

I gave him as an example because you and your ilk usually bring him up in conjunction with Stalin and Hitler.

2) I like bringing it up because you keep pointing out that it's been debunked, but you never show a link, you never show the logic, and you just keep on saying it. I'd like something to actually read.

Here you are:



Hitchens—The Morals of an Atheist

He comes to the Stalin issue around 15 minutes in.

You should also consider reading The God Delusion and God Is Not Great. Both have chapters taking on the myth of Stalin killing because of his atheism.

1) Religion has changed over the millennium. If you bothered just reading the Old Testament and compared it the New Testament, you would see that. If you read the various papal proclamations you would see that. If you ever picked up a newspaper and noted that the various religions are in schisms you would see that. How can you claim to be an intelligent person and not see the changes in religion?

There certainly have been changes in religion, but they have always been violently resisted by the mainstream (the Protestant Reformation comes to mind). When is the last time you have seen proponents of the Gene-Centered View of Evolution and proponents of the Group-Centered View of Evolution murdering each other in the streets?

2) "Darwin Worship" does not necessarily mean that scientists have an altar to Darwin and believe in his divinity. Rather, simply that Darwin is seen as the separation of science and religion (ironic, given that Darwin was a devout Christian at the time, and that his trip was funded by the local church).

And yet by the end of his life he was most certainly a non-believer. Go read the full works of Darwin that were recently put online.

Excluding, of course, the times when religion funded science, created new branches of science, fostered new branches of science, and made sure that science could thrive by protecting and copying its written works. Science and Religion (when both are properly used) are more like plants and sunlight; Religion's need to explore the universe has allowed Science to bloom.

Only when the science agreed with what religion already believed. Remind me what happened to Galileo? The atomic theory of matter was also suppressed for centuries by the church. For decades churches were forbidden from using lightning rods because they were "against the will of God".

As Einstein said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Einstein also said: "I believe in no personal god..."

I think that if you actually bothered doing more than looking for the exceptions, you would find a lot more to it than just your beliefs. But, then again, it's so much easier to hate something without bothering to understand it....

I despise religion precisely because I understand it. My reading on science and religion killed my faith.

And yet you put such effort into anything that disproves God, and you use such vitriol in attacking the religious. If you truly did not believe in God, then what would one's belief in a mythical being matter to you? Weird...

Because there are millions of people out there who want to kill me simply for not believing.

And sorry about agreeing with you that Expelled is a stupid movie, and that it was lacking any basic morality. If Stein had stuck to just showing that ID was being discriminated against, and showing that it had some validity (as opposed to trying to prove it the way he did), it would have been an okay movie. His interviewing process and some of the links he made, however, made it a serious piece of drek...

You finally speak sense. The reason they made the movie as they did, is because ID has no proof of its own. You should also note that most of the people supposedly being persecuted are just piss poor scientists and that is the reason why they were denied tenure.

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

You get drawn in by the naked guys, and you stay for the debate....

Star Warrior: And that's why I hate fundies...More interested in their own beliefs rather than what's really going on...

[Of course, the banana would EVOLVE that way; it helped get its seed out easier. Also, didn't the Nobel Prize-winning experiments in the 50's show conclusively that all you needed were the elements in the primordial sea and some lightning to create some amino acids and from there simple life...Oops! Sorry; I forgot that as an ID person I'm not supposed to have or respect that knowledge...]

And speaking of fundies:

The communist regimes suppress religion because it is a rival for power over the people. I never said they did not, but then of course you read only what you want to.

So...In a free society, we should only have those beliefs that the government allow us, and that we should accept that? Especially in a situation where my wishes are considered equal to yours...? Note that Stalin and Mao didn't limit themselves to just Christianity or Buddhism; they attacked any ideology that was different, no matter how secular or religious. For that matter, any group that was different fell under attack.

It should also be noted that I love the euphemism "suppressed"; it sounds like they were told not to do it and sent on their way...Instead of the re-education camps, gulags, and massacres that actually happened. But that's convenient to your point...

So you are basically saying that we must be good little heathens and hide away any criticism we may have of religious stupidity?

It's that you call it "religious stupidity" that shows bigotry on your part. And for someone complaining that I'm reading only what I want, it's interesting the swaths you're conveniently ignoring. I don't care what you believe, as long as you recognize that I can believe as I want. Bigotry of any stripe should be nailed, regardless of what the source of that bigotry is.

I won't deny you the right to believe anything, but I will sure as hell tell you it is stupid if I think it is! You're the typical "you can believe anything as long as you believe in God, any god" person.

Again: If you had bothered actually reading what I typed, you would have read that I don't care if you believe in any kind of god or not, as long as you don't attack me for my beliefs.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of religion:

The belief in the existence of a god or gods and the activities that are associated with the worship of them.​

Seeing as atheism entails the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods or anything supernatural, your statement that atheism is a religion is moronic at best. I have also never said that their is no good belief but mine.

a) You neglected that it has four definitions, of which "any philosophy that is zealously defended" would definitely apply to atheism.

b) I agree that you have not said that your particular beliefs are better. However, you have pointed out on a number of occasions that any belief in a supernatural source is bad and inferior to your beliefs. I call shenanigans on your statement.

c) Without quoting the joke about the atheist that went to Heaven, I would like to submit that your quoted definition fits atheism; after all, it wouldn't take a lot to point out that as an atheist you would have a very definite belief in God, just in the negative rather than my positive one. And before you call shenanigans, it has just as much ligical weight as you saying that you haven't stated atheism as being superior.

I gave him as an example because you and your ilk usually bring him up in conjunction with Stalin and Hitler.

Sorry; not letting you off that easily. He wasn't mentioned, and ergo shouldn't have been mentioned by you either. After all, he just wanted a return to an agrarian society and had no problems saying he was in charge. Stalin and Mao made it seem like they were setting up an untopian society, and massacred (not "suppressed") any that didn't share their worldview.

Here you are:

You should also consider reading The God Delusion and God Is Not Great. Both have chapters taking on the myth of Stalin killing because of his atheism.[/QUOTE]
Dude: Think first, find source second. Yeah; I'm going to see a major atheist source as an unbiased source when it comes to a historical event re: religion. Why should I listen to an obviously biased source? If you're trying to show me how superior science and precepts are, shouldn't you start with the Scientific Process, and that unbiased sources should be considered first? Unless, of course, you have no unbiased source, in which case you don't really don't have a point, do you?

Wanna try again?

There certainly have been changes in religion, but they have always been violently resisted by the mainstream (the Protestant Reformation comes to mind). When is the last time you have seen proponents of the Gene-Centered View of Evolution and proponents of the Group-Centered View of Evolution murdering each other in the streets?

How little you know your history...Had it happened even a century ago, I'd that you would have seen at least some fighting (it wasn't that long ago that dueling was made illegal, and it even longer before it was enforced). Then again, most of the violence today is generally from the political sector, not the religious one. More to the point, I would like to point out that violence has been based on scientific thought (some of the German schools were especially notoriious for it, or is the only Tycho Brahe that you have heard of re: Penny Arcade?). So, I not only reject your point about violence, and parry by saying it would depend on which era we were referring to.

And I'm not disagreeing that changes have not been challenged, but how is that even relevant?

And yet by the end of his life he was most certainly a non-believer. Go read the full works of Darwin that were recently put online.

Speaking of irrelevant. Nifty point; however, when he originally formed his theory, and wrote "The Oriigin of Species", he was devoutly religious. And that speaks more to the point; after all, if you're trying to point out that religion and science don't go together, then you can't allow that what is seen as the the defining point of religion vs. science to be at the hands of a religious person.

Only when the science agreed with what religion already believed.

They actually tended to agree, and, outside of some groups, still tend to agree. After all, the majority of Christians, at least, believe in the same physical laws as atheists.

Remind me what happened to Galileo?

Guy ticked off some high-level clergy and it caught up with him at the trial. His books were printed, at Church expense, when the pope that was the opposing counsel at Galileo's trial died. In other words, Galileo should have played nice rather than shooting his mouth off...

The atomic theory of matter was also suppressed for centuries by the church.

I'm really starting to think that that word doesn't mean what you think it does...After all, you can't suppress what you didn't know in the first place. The atomic theory was an obscure Greek idea; it had no relevance to everyday life and was so allowed to gather dust in some library.

For decades churches were forbidden from using lightning rods because they were "against the will of God".

Duh. After all, if the church wasn't meant to go down in flames, it wouldn't. Yeah, I agree that it was silly, but just as silly as caloric and abiogenesis...

Einstein also said: "I believe in no personal god..."

Relevance? After all, neither do a lot of Christians. Or Buddhists. Or Jews. And then there are the Deists...

I despise religion precisely because I understand it. My reading on science and religion killed my faith.

Cool. Just don't attack that of others. Otherwise you are creating the same problems as you point out that others are....

Because there are millions of people out there who want to kill me simply for not believing.

So? Imagine a group of religious zealots with your mentality; going after non-believers would be a logical next step...

You finally speak sense. The reason they made the movie as they did, is because ID has no proof of its own.

I love how you make illogical arguments and I'm the one not making sense...That quipped, that's how it's supposed to be...

You should also note that most of the people supposedly being persecuted are just piss poor scientists and that is the reason why they were denied tenure.

Let me get back to you on that...

Overall: It's interesting that you have what should essentially be a gimme; after all, the atheist viewpoint is well-founded in logic. Yet, you are botching the basic logic part because you aren't doing basic research, you're relying on euphemisms and biased sources, and emotion is more important to your case than pure logic. All things that you condemn us religious types for doing. Interesting irony, that...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

I loved the banana, if I didn't make that clear...heh...

RG

 

[Negasta]

Re: Has anyone heard of latest ID propaganda Expel

I tried to, but I simply could not find a "neutral" source on Stalin et al. that our Dinesh D'Souza clone would accept.

Made a thread on another board asking for help with this, but I have had no "neutral" enough suggestions.

I did however write this:

I just don't want to leave the debate where it is, because then they will think I've given up in defeat instead of given up to prevent myself from bashing my skull in on my desk in exasperation.

Another poster on that board noted that no matter who makes an argument or discovery, if the logic is sound, the theory stands. As and example, if Hitler had solved Fermat's Last Theorem, the solution would still be valid today.

Just read the damn books I suggested and watch the videos. I have read the book and seen a lot of videos of the opposing side, I was a Christian for the first 18 years of my life after all.

It was also suggested that I ask you to point me the passage(s) in the Atheist Bible that commands atheists to persecute and kill non-atheists, because I can point you to the passages in your beloved Bible that tell you expressly to kill and persecute non-Christians, both in the Old and New Testament.