7 in 10 U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Malachite is definitely on to something here. Evolution wouldn't be seen as a threat if it were not being used to bludgeon religion.

Maybe religion needs a little friggin bludgeoning.

I don't really care what someone BELIEVES, never did, I care what they DO, and when what they do involves trying to shove what they believe down my throat with a fucking bayonet I get a bit pissy about it - whether they do it themselves or by the proxy of manipulating the government and it's bayonets into doing it for them.

Man, you think I'm a little hostile to the religious now... back when I was little and every act of abuse, violence, hypocrisy and horror I saw came at the hands of those in good aroma with the christian faith, THEN topped by a PUBLIC schools attempt to *force* me to utter the McCarthyist pledge of allegience - when I hate, hate, hated "Their God" as only a wounded child can hate, a hatred so pure it blinded me for many years to those who weren't complete monsters within that faith.

And then I run into shit like Blue Laws, or other manipulations of the Government and Society we live under which serve to support and advance the cause of a single religion whether I believe it or not, whether I care for it or not, even if I believe it to be a foul, vile and inhumane subjugation of humanity... FORCED to play along with it by the threat of Governments gunbarrels.

And here we are again, what with the damn christofascists wanting to ram their beliefs down someone elses throat, manipulate the system to espouse and support their FAILED and useless belief which cannot abide competition since it seems any competition at all causes those trapped within it to flee in droves, to victimize people with no recourse against it, sponsoring it's ignorance, it's malice, with my tax dime.

Not on your life.

Oddly enough, imma fairly tolerant person in such regard, right up to the moment someone tries to force their beliefs upon another - at which point I would gladly roast them alive and toast mashmallows on the flames with glee.

See, it's a two way street - you wanna push yours on me, I'll push back, you leave me be, I leave you be... but when you wanna force your toxic theology upon others, you get no consideration from me about it.

None whatever.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Actually, it is..." - what, your OPINION that a President needs to be in concordance with your personal views on all matters, including science ? Fine, but that's not what I asked.
No I clarified it by saying... just a sentence or so afterwards... that what I want is President who is grounded in reality, who is able to accept evidence even if... no, especially if... it contradicts his or her world-view.

Quote:
Per the issue of 'wars', I'm assuming you mean Iraq. A quick survey of quotes from the Clinton era and then the Bush era politicians will show that first Dems, and then Republicans both said nearly EXACTLY the same things, w/ regard to evidence of Saddam's WMD program. Funny thing is, it was the Dems who were rattling the sabres when their guy was office, and even after, only to eventually flip on the matter.

You see, rappy, by the the evidence had changed. There was "ground truth" with Hans Blix and his nosy minions poking aggressively into every corner that the CIA told them to look, and finding nothing. I know we've been over this before. The evidence is over 5 years old by now, and has been repeated at least five or six times to you, specifically. Either refute it or accept it, but try to remember it for next time, so we don't keep getting stuck in defunct arguments, OK?

Quote:
And read what I said again. I never said that evolution was 'cutting edge'. In fact, I specifically said CURRENT and cutting edge, to distinguish between more established topics ( like evolution )and other matters, say like string theory . Perhaps I could have made the distinction more clear, but the point I was trying to make is, the realm of science isn't, nor should be, a role for the President to concern himself with all that much. Policy, say like putting a man on the moon, sure, but that doesn't mean HE /SHE has to actually be a rocket scientist to take the oath of office.

I get your point; thanks for the clarification. But it might be helpful, though, if our politicians were more than lawyers. Just as we require more technical literacy of our workers, shouldn't we require more technical literacy of our politicians?

Quote:
Now, if a sitting President declares that all ships must stay with in sight of US shores, for fear they may venture too far out and fall off the edge of the Earth, then yeah, we've got a big problem there.

Indeed!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon,

But faith *is* policy.

Que? DOn't follow you.

Policy should be based upon facts and evidence, not 'these are my religious beliefs, and everyone should adhere no matter how wacky'
Quote:
But then again, is that what socialism is all about?

Horse. Dead. Flogging. Why?

Quote:
Faith should be policy, but only for those who willingly join that faith. It should not be mandated for a piece of land.

Faith should be for the individual and have nothing to do with policy.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
There was "ground truth" with Hans Blix and his nosy minions poking aggressively into every corner that the CIA told them to look, and finding nothing.

But this wasn't at all what was going on. Iraq had the burden of proof to show where the KNOWN WMD they admitted they had, was, or if it had been destroyed, where that was done, show how it was done, and what came of it all. They failed to do much of any of that. Hans and Co. weren't suppose to traipse around Iraq, hither and yon, on some country wide Easter egg hunt. Iraq was suppose to present to them with what they had, and year after year, Saddam stalled, delayed and would not 'play along'. We know now that some of this was all a bluster, by Saddam, to make this neighbors think his WMD program was much more than it was. But even so, he still had some WMD or components he wasn't suppose to have, and it cost him dearly.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:00 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

You're missing the point. The attacker is also a religion. this is a religious war. The religion that lives in academia is a different offshoot of the same lunacy, it's just more intelligent in its design so it learns to replace its creation myth with one that sounds like science, and so forth. This ain't a case of the truth attacking ignorant loons, it's a case of conflicting world view. Don't matter if you think all of 'em are wrong, that's just people for you, they're bound to be wrong.

And it ain't the blue laws that scare me.

Magon,

Quote:
Policy should be based upon facts and evidence

It never is.

Quote:
Horse. Dead. Flogging. Why?

Socialism is a religion.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But this wasn't at all what was going on. Iraq had the burden of proof to show where the KNOWN WMD they admitted they had, was, or if it had been destroyed, where that was done, show how it was done...

RAPPY- Hans Blix concluded that the "missing" WMD were missing because of recordkeeping lapses. The WMD were destroyed or abandoned with such haste in late 1980's that their destruction was not recorded.

Also, you have to remember that the Bush administration was not ONLY claiming that Saddam had unaccounted WMD from the 1980s. That wouldn't have been an existential threat to the USA and certainly not warranted a full-scale invasion. But as the UNMOVIC team drew nearer and nearer to their conclusion, the administration ramped up its claims. Colin Powell put up phoney pictures of WMD production facilities for a very unimpressed UN, and Rumsfeld was certain that the Iraqis had deployed WMD to the east, north and south somewhat of Bagdhad.

While Hans Blix was roaming Iraq???

Silly stuff, really. It would be impossible to hide a WMD production program which was large enough to threaten the USA at the same time that Hans Blix was poking his nose into every corner of Iraq, including Saddam's palaces. There was a real disconnect from reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2012 3:49 AM

DREAMTROVE

Does it really matter?

Saddam Hussein destroyed his mass stores of WMDs in 1991, for fear that they would be discovered. He was, alas, a little weak. Someone should have told him this...

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2012 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Does it matter??

Not anymore, I guess. (sigh) Iraq was invaded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US troops were killed, trillions of US dollars were spent and tens of thousands of US soldiers were maimed, and Iran gained a toehold in the resulting power vacuum.

But it certainly is a good example of what happens when people... the President and the population... don't pay attention to evidence. Because reality wins in the end, no matter WHAT anyone "believes". Didn't we all learn anything when we jumped off the chair/ doghouse/ garage roof because we believed we could fly? In any case, this wasn't my main point, but this thread, like all threads, is going to include a few diversions here and there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2012 5:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
There was a real disconnect from reality.

It was politics being played, by both Dems and GOP. The precedent that Clinton set, with declaring that it was US policy to remove Saddam from power, along w/ the inflammatory rhetoric by Dems, prior to and even after 9/11, only for them to then flip on their position, AFTER the war started, is deplorable.

Saddam was still more dangerous than the MSM is telling the public, even if the stories that there were warehouses full of WMD weren't true.

And you're wrong about 1 thing. A WMD program need not be all that big to constitute a threat. In a country like Iraq, it's be quite easy to dismantle, and hide, or move entirely out of country, to Syria.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2012 5:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Back to our regularly schedule program.

There is a spectrum of proof and a spectrum of belief, but at one extreme "belief" includes accepting ideas which run counter to widely-observed evidence. To me, the question isn't where you are on that spectrum but which direction you will move: Will you move in the direction of better evidence? Will you continue to ask questions and look for answers within the realm of the evident world? Or will you be plopped here or there, wherever someone left you after they implanted an idea in your head (or after you did that to yourself)?

I have more confidence in someone who starts out on the unrealistic end of the spectrum but continues to ask and observe and weigh evidence, than someone who can quote you chapter and verse about string theory because they "believe" it.

Reality-based thinking isn't a position on various topics, it is a PROCESS. It depends on three a priori (before everything) assumptions: (1)there is a real world (2) we are part of it (3) we come to know it through our senses. That eliminates subjectivism as a philosophy.

AFA socialism being a "religion" - we all have goals and values and assumptions- things we believe are "right" and "wrong". IMHO they should be just as subject to question as any part of the external world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2012 11:00 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe you're right.
LOL. Pot, meet kettle.

We are all believers. We just believe different things.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Saddam was still more dangerous than the MSM is telling the public, even if the stories that there were warehouses full of WMD weren't true.

And it all comes full circle...

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
You're missing the point. The attacker [science? evolution?] is also a religion. this is a religious war. The religion that lives in academia is a different offshoot of the same lunacy, it's just more intelligent in its design so it learns to replace its creation myth with one that sounds like science, and so forth. This ain't a case of the truth attacking ignorant loons, it's a case of conflicting world view.

Specifically... "The religion that lives in academia...sounds like science..." Well, it sounds to me as if you have nothing against science per se, but against the orthodoxy of scientists. The practitioners of "science", if you will, who are not open to new ideas and fresh insights and the unpredictability of nature, but want to hammer every square peg of reality into the round hole of orthodoxy. Is that correct?

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

CANTAKESKY I have a little harder time figuring out what you're saying because you're not very clear, or perhaps you're trying to say several things.

Quote:
Evolution has become a philosophy of the intentions of the universe, a blueprint for what is natural and unnatural, a map for where humankind ought to be headed.

What does that mean? Because, IMHO, evolution shows that the universe has no "intentions" at all. And since evolution has produced a wide variety of creatures... and nature has capriciously destroyed them... it would be impossible to predict where humankind "should" be headed, based on the fossil record. (Except maybe off this plant, if we really want to think about long-term survival) Are you perhaps talking about social Darwinism, which posits that people are, or should be, in endless brutal competition against each other? Or are you perhaps thinking that evolution favors the self-domesticated human, the one who likes to live in large groups and bows his/ her head to others' will? Or do you think that evolution is telling us that we cannot control our own destiny, that nature will trump ANY attempt to form ourselves? Or do you think that evidence-based-thinking destroys hope for the future? "Realism" is too harsh? Or do you simply not like to be told what to think? What is it, specifically, that you're reacting to?

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

I'm rather disappointed. Few of you seem to have understood what I'm saying- All knowledge is provisional, question your knowledge daily, and try to look with fresh eyes at the evidence around . But, be prepared to accept what it tells you, even if you don't like it.

Now, everyone here... me included... has beliefs, or values, or hopes, or even fears (yes, especially fears. Nothing narrows scope of thought like stress.) ... which make them resistant to evidence. Things we don't want to see because it makes us uncomfortable. THAT should be a personal sign that this is an area to look into, not a place to avoid. I have never gotten in so much trouble as when I ditched that little inner warning bell in favor of what I "wanted". I loaned money to people I shouldn't have, taken on projects I couldn't complete, failed to respond to another's illness. And I missed following up on significant scientific questions too, which I dismissed at the time with "Oh, I'm sure somebody else has thought about it"... for example, the connection between stem cells and cancer. Lately, I have been looking at human history, and it is replete with examples of how hierarchies develop along with technology and trade. I keep trying to figure out how to have one without the other, and have been trying to solve it with the idea of democracy. But, maybe democracy itself is a red herring. Maybe people are so self-domesticated they are no longer suitable to guide their own affairs. Maybe the real answer is, you CAN'T have one without the other. I don't know, it would be interesting to talk about, but few people here seem interested in having an EVIDENCE-BASED conversation, and I'm not interested in endless recitations of your personal orthodoxy, since I feel I know it quite well already. I'm hoping for a conversation in which we both (or all) develop as we develop an idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:27 AM

Just watched Hogfather last night. Thought this conversation was pertinent.

Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

Gotta love Terry Pratchett

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:00 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"We are all believers. We just believe different things."

Not true.

We all have bases we can't prove. SOME of us understand we are acting on what are mere assumptions. Others of us believe our assumptions are facts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Just watched Hogfather last night. Thought this conversation was pertinent.

Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?

Gotta love Terry Pratchett

That scene (and the poor little match girl) are what convinced me to BUY a copy of Hogfather.

Excellent flick that, damn shame Ian Richardson ain't around no more though.

Know what I like best about the Death of Discworld ?
He CHEATS.
Telling Susan to not get involved was all but begging her to do it, and he bloody well knew that when he did so!

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:03 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I'm hoping for a conversation in which we both (or all) develop as we develop an idea."

Said in the voice of a child offering up their finest whine: But it's HAAarrrrrd. Thinking's HAAARRRRRRD. It's TOOOoooOOO haAAAarrrrrd.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:32 PM

Frem, it;s also sad that Pratchett has alzeihmers and not likely to write much anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Of all of the things I like to think, I like to think that we can rise above our limitations and lizard-brain reactions and choose our goals and values wisely. And understand out HOW to implement them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

MMmmmmm ... that's a tall order.

To get back to when you were trying to have a discussion about economies - about how to create an economy that doesn't positively feed back on small differences in scope which then go cascading to create steep hierarchies - there are just too many factors - for me - to consider all at the same time to grind an analysis forward to figure how it will all come out. To accurately predict the results of even a few systematic rules. When I say thinking is HHAARRrrrd I mean me. And, I'm guessing, for others as well.

Not to say that people shouldn't think, or that belief should be mistaken for, or substituted for, thought.

But the kind of discussion you're looking for is (in general) an examination of very large questions, which happens slowly, if at all.

And besides, look at what happens when even a very limited question is asked - when ads are your only source of information, how do you determined the appropriateness and quality of medical care? You'd think (I'd think anyway) that a very limited question like that would invite all sorts of direct, focused answers. But, not so much.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 7:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, it's hard for me, too. This is a wall I keep running into. I gather up all my facts, take a running start at an answer and ... SMACK! Wind up plastered against obdurate logic. Which is why I'm here, looking for a little boost, a toe-hold, or something, anything. I feel I'm not looking at this properly. Now society may move on past this conundrum, and in a very evolutionary way, bit by bit, evolve into something positive which no one could have predicted. But I don't have faith in social evolution... I'm too aware of Jared Diamond's How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed; as I said, history is replete with examples of failed societies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:10 PM

Well Magons, I have high hopes for Rhianna - mind you she wrote most of the plot of Overlord which is one of my favorite games, plus I suspect she's been helping Terry with a little ghost-writing for longer than he's comfortable with admitting...

Siggy, I still think the notion of edible/perishable currency has some legs, the problem would be implementing it on a wider scale, cause that sorta thing is already present both around here and in the areas of detroit where urban farming has caught on.

The use-it-or-lose it aspect seems a pretty reliable check against concentrations of power.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:11 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There may be supra-logic human reactions as well. Even if a system should LOGICALLY work there may be confounding human factors at work - a little bit like the chimps and fruit in a big pile or like baboons with their most aggressive troop members accidentally wiped out.

One of the things I find strange about humans in an unthinking group (running on automatic pilot and old ideas) for example is how often they do the EXACT opposite of what is rational. When resources get scarce birth rate goes up. When resources get scarce people use and hoard them more rather than husband and magnify them.

It's that whole question about what was the Easter Islander thinking when he chopped down the last tree? Did he even recognize the absolute destructiveness of that act? And if he did, was he so in the grip of immediate social forces that he could NOT do any different?

Similarly, there are a few relatively rare cultures that went up to the brink - and stepped back. How did they do that? Was it the act of one or two powerful people who swayed a culture? Or was it a general consensus bottom-up movement?

Diamond hit upon an excellent question, it would be nice if he had an answer!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well Magons, I have high hopes for Rhianna - mind you she wrote most of the plot of Overlord which is one of my favorite games, plus I suspect she's been helping Terry with a little ghost-writing for longer than he's comfortable with admitting..

-F

We're watching the Colour of Magic in the evenings. Must be Pratchett season for us :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:48 PM

I hate to say it ikiki, but going to the brink and then over seems to be the way that things seem to equalise themselves with us humans. Unfortunately, there are always scars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2012 7:30 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

On WMDs, since I've never stated how I feel: I don't believe Iraq was making them. I believe that the public, and congress, were given false info, probably by someone who wanted a war, but possibly by accident. If they had any they were probably from Iran, bought from them, and not very many. It wasn't a valid reason to start a war at any rate. In high school when it happened I believed we were right, not anymore.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 16, 2012 4:41 AM