Religion correlation with poverty

[jryan]

No jryan, the "News letter" is full of quote mined phrases cherry picked to support the Right wing Christian agenda, you show me the actual book or the full text of that passage about elephants and we can talk but if you insist on deceptive quote mining to make your points you are just as dishonest as your source.... BTW, most of the sounds elephants make to communicate with each other are infra sounds, you read the article, stop using deception to make your points, it won't fly with me, i am familiar with quote mining by the religious apologists, it's the same thing as a lie, it's lying, the people who do it are liars..... Funny how that 9th commandment evaporates when the truth conflicts with the religious agenda...

 

 

No, see, your statement is incredibly ironic because what YOU did with the elephant quote is ACTUALLY cherry picking, AND you did a terrible job of it to boot. You took a statement that was four words and still managed to misread it and then offered a counter argument to what those four words didn't actually say... you then went on to proclaim that you ONE poorly executed example is indicative of the entire piece, and stuck with that argument.

 

I've never seen someone who could stuff two complete logical fallacies into a rebuttal of a four word statement... so congratulations on that, I suppose.

 

Your argument is wholly closed minded and sclerotic and really not worth whatever effort you put into it.

[Moontanman]

No, see, your statement is incredibly ironic because what YOU did with the elephant quote is ACTUALLY cherry picking, AND you did a terrible job of it to boot. You took a statement that was four words and still managed to misread it and then offered a counter argument to what those four words didn't actually say... you then went on to proclaim that you ONE poorly executed example is indicative of the entire piece, and stuck with that argument.

 

I've never seen someone who could stuff two complete logical fallacies into a rebuttal of a four word statement... so congratulations on that, I suppose.

 

Your argument is wholly closed minded and sclerotic and really not worth whatever effort you put into it.

 

 

Your Author, Pamela R. Winnick, is a well known Christian Apologist, she is nothing if not a one of the many people who make money off the Christian apologist movement to have creationism taught in the classroom. The news letter her article is in is also a right wing christian rag that has no opinion other than the right wing christian position and and is in no way a real news source for anything other than right wing christian view points. Real data is obscured by propaganda and out right lies is their stock in trade. This article is a direct attempt to promote her book.

 

Pamela R. Winnick is an attorney and journalist based in Pittsburgh. Her book A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion is due out later this year.

 

Do mistakes get into class books, i would be amazed if they didn't, dishonestly using this to promote a book that promotes creationism as science is despicable...

 

http://thomasnelson....mela__R_Winnick

 

Houghton Mifflin spokesman Collin Earnst says such tales are included in order to "connect science to culture." He might more precisely have said to connect science to certain preferred, non-Western, or primitive cultures. Were a connection drawn to, say, a Bible story, the outcry would be heard around the world.

 

Yes, this is correct, if the fairy tale of the Christian bible was portrayed as the fairy tale it is there would be rioting in the streets, other beliefs not associated with powerful religious groups are safer to show how primitive man got it wrong, I see no claim that these "tales" were being told as the truth...

 

If it's the states that impose multiculturalism, however, they're only doing the bidding of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995, the academy published the National Science Education Standards, which, according to academy president Bruce Alberts, "represent the best thinking . . . about what is best for our nation's students." The standards (which explicitly place religion on a par with "myth and superstition") counsel school boards to modify "assessments" for students with "limited English proficiency" by, for example, raising their scores. They tell teachers to be "sensitive" to students who are "economically deprived, female, have disabilities, or [come] from populations underrepresented in the sciences." Teachers should especially encourage "women and girls, students of color and students with disabilities."

 

I'm not sure why these things are considered wrong but the sneering attitude for the idea that religion is a myth speak volumes about the agenda of this so called new letter....

 

http://www.antievolution.org/events/pbsevo/wre_prw_20011129.html

 

I categorize Winnick as an antievolutionist, and I do so based upon the evidence of her writings and the description of the fellowship she has received to pursue the topic.

 

Also FYI, the paper I write for, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has strongly endorsed the teaching of evolution (and properly so in my opion)--primarily because I was the only reporter in all of PA who scooped the story of how PA almost adopted standards that might have allowed the teaching of evolution.

 

Again, I think that the inconsistencies in this paragraph by Winnick likely stem from haste in entering the message. I'm not sure how this information is supposed to bear upon the topic of discussion, though. I don't think that it's worth the time to puzzle out. Perhaps Winnick will attempt to clarify this point later.

 

I am, however, writing a book about the subject showing how the media and scientific elite has stifled meaningful debate on the subject. In doing so, I am indeed supported ($25,000) by the Phillips Foundation, an organization which takes absolutely no position on the subject of evolution, but which seeks to promote fair and balanced reporting in all subject areas.

 

I see no signs of this "stifling" of "meaningful debate". The scientific literature on evolutionary biology is copious.

 

Perhaps Winnick has a connotation of "meaningful debate" wherein the uninformed musings of people largely or almost completely ignorant of evolutionary biology are supposed to be accorded equal respect to the insights of those who have actually taken the time to do research in the field.

 

The phrase, "scientific elite", is an artful rhetorical touch on Winnick's part. It is, however, pretty much an inversion of reality. The resistance which "intelligent design" conjectures encounter is not due to policy handed down from on high. Instead, the scientific proletariat can look at the claims made by the "intelligent design" proponents and quickly determine that there is a definite lack of substance there. "Intelligent design" proponents have been predicting the rapid demise of evolutionary biology as we know it, but like cultic claims of imminent apocalypse, it always seems that it is conveniently delayed. "Intelligent design" proponents like to promulgate conspiracy theories and utilize the "scientific elite" phrase to cover up their consistent failure to put forward arguments which convince scientists en masse of the correctness of their claims. They seem never to give any credence to the notion that a simpler explanation fits the facts far better: they are wrong, and one doesn't have to be a member of the "scientific elite" to figure it out.

 

About that fellowship... let's have a look at what the Phillips Foundation says about it.

 

Pamela Winnick

Part-time Fellowship

 

Project: "Examination of How Media and Established Scientists Treat the Subject of Evolution," analyzing why there seems to be little tolerance for teaching creationism in America. Pamela is a staff writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and previously worked as a staff writer for The Blade in Toledo, Ohio. She received a B.A. in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo, an M.A. in English from the University of Virginia and a J.D. from Columbia University. After practicing law for many years, Pamela decided to pursue a career in journalism, earning an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University in 1999.

 

The Phillips Foundation clearly states that the fellowship is about exploring the lack of "tolerance" for "teaching creationism". It says nothing about "meaningful debate". This contradicts Winnick's claim that the Phillips Foundation takes "absolutely no position on the subject of evolution".

 

Further, the content of the Phillips Foundation site gives no support to the claim by Winnick that the Phillips Foundation's only concern is promoting fair and balanced reporting. Consider, for instance, this page, which repeats the phrase, "liberal bias", throughout.

 

Other pages which belie the stated goal of "objective journalism" include this page, which lists the projects picked out by the 1999 fellowship recipients. It's not just me who can see this, for this page on Contests and Scholarships: Free-Market Conservatism lists the fellowship program of the Phillips Foundation right at the top.

 

Whoever out there who is mis-identifying my purpose a ought to have the courage to identify him/herself. There is terribly reminiscent of the McCarthy period and reflects terribly on all of who seek to defend Darwinism.

 

I have not "mis-identified" Winnick's "purpose". I have done my homework and found substantial evidence that Winnick approaches her journalistic assignments concerning evolution with an axe to grind. This is, unfortunately, all too common in modern journalistic practice.

 

At the time of Winnick's complaint, I didn't have my name directly on the page about the PBS "Evolution" series. Does that mean that I lacked the "courage" to "identify myself"? That hardly follows. Just as you won't find the name of the editor of a newspaper printed on each and every page, my name is not shown on every page of my "antievolution.org" domain. However, my name was listed under the "Site Information" section of the topics web page. Also, my name is listed as the owner of the "antievolution.org" domain. Any journalist with half a clue can run a WHOIS query and come up with that information. Whoever wants to claim that I "lack courage" for failing to identify myself should have the technical competence to have checked whether I had, indeed, failed to identify myself. A person with minimal technical competence would have easily found that I had identified myself.

 

I find the allusion to McCarthy to be self-serving on Winnick's part. Certainly my pages don't lend credence to such an analogy. I link to the original writings of the people I criticize and I clearly give my reasons for criticizing them. I even provide fora for those who I criticize to utilize, as Pamela Winnick has done with the use of the Message Board here at antievolution.org. I don't see any good point of analogy to McCarthy in what I have done. However, I can make an argument that the use of misleading rhetoric apparent in Winnick's response is clearly reminiscent of "tailer-gunner Joe".

 

The "intelligent design" proponents seem to have a propensity for making the sort of invidious comparisons that Winnick utilizes above. Whether it is evolutionary biologists being compared to the repressive former Soviet regime or to McCarthyites, it seems that the exploitation of cheap rhetoric takes precedence over doing the hard work of convincing the scientific community - not the "elite", whoever they might be - that "intelligent design" is anything more than a social and cultural program advancing antievolutionary views and antiscientific philosophy.

 

Wesley

[jryan]

Your Author, Pamela R. Winnick.....

 

 

Ad hominem fallacy. You really need to stop wasting your time putting all this work into arguments that are doomed from the start.

[swansont]

Ad hominem fallacy.

 

Ad hominem, perhaps, but not a fallacy if it is relevant to the subject matter, like someone's religious attitudes in a religious discussion.

[A Tripolation]

I'm just saying... Even if the one single argument you stipulate that lack of acceptance of evolution and its teaching is the only valid proposal we've offered you about how religion has impeded progress and tamped down good ideas (which it's not, there are other ways as have been shared, but let's say JUST evolution)... this one example still represents a monstrous and repugnant waste of potential, talent, output, and quality of life.

 

I read your post and I see your point. But I still do not think you are justified in pinning the blame on religion. I think you need to pin the blame on humanity. If you replaced all the references in religion to your post to, say, children that grew up in impoverished regions where violence is the name of the game, your points would still stand. Such a transference does not suggest to me a sole instigator in the waste of human talent and the degradation of quality of life.

[iNow]

I read your post and I see your point. But I still do not think you are justified in pinning the blame on religion.

Then you are not being honest with either me or with yourself. The ONLY reason that evolution has been rejected for over 152 years is because of religion and religious belief.

 

I think you need to pin the blame on humanity.

Not all of humanity rejects the validity of evolution, so your proposal lacks merit and substance given the context in which it was shared.

 

If you replaced all the references in religion to your post to, say, children that grew up in impoverished regions where violence is the name of the game, your points would still stand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you've just asserted that there is an equivalence between the effect on children stemming from living in an impoverished region stricken with violence and the effect on children stemming from living with religious belief. If so, I want to be clear that I don't think they are equivalent, just similar.

 

Also, FWIW... Of course religion is not the sole instigator in the repression of good ideas and progress (like with evolution). It's just a powerful one.

[John Cuthber]

And if I tell you to hand me your wallet because Vishnu commands it you are less likely to do so than if I demand your wallet or I will shoot you.

 

It rather depends on what you, as Vishnu's agent propose to do about it. if you plan to torture and kill me in the manner of the crusaders or the inquisition then, once again you have shown the equivalence of totalitarianism and religion

 

 

The original argument against the contribution of universities of the middle ages to the advancement of science was that these institutions were religious in nature and that scientific discovery was just some insignificant side effect from their initial purpose. This is both wrong and ignorant.

 

Not really, the claim was that their studies were not really science as we would recognise it today. A lot of cataloguing and a bit of technology, but not much science.

 

Your "cave men" analogy made no sense, and you are free to explain it more clearly however. By my reading you argue that we shouldn't care what happened to Galileo and his theory since modern astronomy is independent ancient discovery.

 

What you actually said was "Even today many of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are religious institutions or built by religious institutions." and I say that's simply wrong or irrelevant. Most major seats of learning today are essentially secular. They may have religious origins, but that isn't the point. They were set up as religious organisations and, at that time, they didn't do science. The world has changed. They are no longer religious, and they do now do science.

The last time I was in Nottingham I went to a rather nice pub. It was called "The Church" it was built in an old church building (hence the name). Are you saying that, because what was once a religious site is now a bar, the Church was seeking to promote drinking beer?

 

 

 

 

 

(remarking on the bolded bit) Ummmmm... what? "Science" started after the middle ages? That must come as a great shock to the ancient Greeks.

 

The "modern" scientific method- hypothesis testing, experiments etc is often credited to Francis Bacon. It's probably not realistic to say it was down to one individual, but it was at about that point in history that the idea really took off. The ancient Greeks would also have been rather shocked by the fact that there are more than 5 elements, objects tend to fall at very nearly the same rate whatever their weight and that spiders do not have the same number of legs as flies.

That's because their idea of science was a man sitting in a room thinking about stuff- rather than actually making observations.

 

 

 

 

This statement is rather absurd and incredibly bigoted. The fact that you can hold such a bigoted stereotype of the majority of your fellow humans is evidence of your own intellectual dishonesty more than evidence of the lack in anyone else.

 

I mean, you are saying this to someone who IS a theist and it doesn't even apply to me. Your bigoted stereotype failed to pass it's immediate comparison. It's like you arguing that all Corvettes are yellow while staring at a red corvette. Of course, I am also rather confused by what you intend to prove to me about theism by showing me the moons of Jupiter...

 

And yet you are ignoring the facts like Bacon's era being the start of real science while claiming that you accept facts. The refusal of the priests in Galileo's time to look through the telescope and see the moons of Jupiter because they "knew from the scriptures" that they couldn't exist is well enough described elsewhere on the web

 

 

 

And you have broken the cardinal law of scientific inquiry in the process when you claim to have proof of a negative.

 

No, I didn't.

Tell me, how well do you sleep at night with that tiger in your bedroom?

I realise there's no evidence for it, but as you say, you can't prove a negative so you should assume it's still there. Even if you look carefully, there's some chance you missed it.

In reality you would look silly to take precautions against that possible tiger without some evidence.

 

Why do you believe in the "why" without evidence?

 

I broke the same "law" of science that everyone always breaks, because it's impossible to take it to an absolute conclusion.

 

 

 

 

Again, you are simply spouting ignorance.

 

No, I'm raising the point that they don't seem to have a lot of actual scientific evidence to support their conclusions

 

 

 

 

I didn't claim that your thoughts are politically correct. I simply pointed out a wholly secular trend in today's culture that plays havoc with writing truthful textbooks. It is also far more ingrained in modern textbooks than is creationism.

 

In a truly secular world there wouldn't be any religion to be PC about. If you don't like the effects of PC then a way to reduce its influence would be to abolish religion

[jryan]

Ad hominem, perhaps, but not a fallacy if it is relevant to the subject matter, like someone's religious attitudes in a religious discussion.

 

 

No, he is using his opinion of her as a stand in for attacking the evidence provided in her article. That is fallacious.

 

But he had to do that because he fumbled his one attempt to cherry pick an error in the actual article when he misread 4 words and ran with it. Rather than risk it, or due to the fact that he couldn't find anything when he read more carefully, he retreated to attacking the author rather than the piece.

[swansont]

No, he is using his opinion of her as a stand in for attacking the evidence provided in her article. That is fallacious.

 

Pointing out potential bias is not fallacious, and has nothing to do with quoting or misquoting someone. A(n attempt to) quote actually shows that it's not fallacious.

[jryan]

It rather depends on what you, as Vishnu's agent propose to do about it. if you plan to torture and kill me in the manner of the crusaders or the inquisition then, once again you have shown the equivalence of totalitarianism and religion

 

 

And you missed the point. But then it does seem to be rather standard to rush to the Inquisitions when other avenues of debate are failing. But then the inquisitions killed 2,500 people over the course of 500 years whereas the unscientific Soviets and Chinese starved over 100 million people while refusing the accept that state agricultural doctrine was faulty.

 

If you want to try and win on anecdotes just know that you lost that argument almost 100 years ago.

 

 

Not really, the claim was that their studies were not really science as we would recognise it today. A lot of cataloguing and a bit of technology, but not much science.

 

 

You are displaying that you are willing to ignore thousands of years of human history to claim a point built from defiant ignorance. You are being the opposite of a free thinker to score points for atheism as free thought. In other words, you aren't helping your cause.

 

What you actually said was "Even today many of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are religious institutions or built by religious institutions." and I say that's simply wrong or irrelevant. Most major seats of learning today are essentially secular. They may have religious origins, but that isn't the point. They were set up as religious organisations and, at that time, they didn't do science. The world has changed. They are no longer religious, and they do now do science.

The last time I was in Nottingham I went to a rather nice pub. It was called "The Church" it was built in an old church building (hence the name). Are you saying that, because what was once a religious site is now a bar, the Church was seeking to promote drinking beer?

 

 

No, it's not wrong nor is it irrelevant. The very fact that you claim that these religious institutions were really secular in terms of study IS THE WHOLE POINT. I have been arguing that that science and religion are separate pillars in society and can't be used to invalidate the other, while you are claiming that religion impedes science. My examples of middle age universities fostering scientific study supports my point, not yours.

 

Also, science is a process, not an outcome. The scientific process is designed to allow the progress of knowledge through a strict regime of empirical study. To judge science in the middle ages against the science today on outcomes shows a very base ignorance of what you are even supposed to be arguing for.

 

 

The "modern" scientific method- hypothesis testing, experiments etc is often credited to Francis Bacon. It's probably not realistic to say it was down to one individual, but it was at about that point in history that the idea really took off. The ancient Greeks would also have been rather shocked by the fact that there are more than 5 elements, objects tend to fall at very nearly the same rate whatever their weight and that spiders do not have the same number of legs as flies.

That's because their idea of science was a man sitting in a room thinking about stuff- rather than actually making observations.

 

No it didn't. You really need to take a step back and reassess your knowledge on this subject before you choose to continue this line of debate. You are wholly uneducated in the history of science and therefor not well armed for what you are trying to argue.

 

The scientific method has been traced back to Egypt circa 1600 BC. But the scientific method used today started with Aristotle's development of empiricism in the 4th century BC, and was drawn directly from his texts.

 

 

And yet you are ignoring the facts like Bacon's era being the start of real science while claiming that you accept facts. The refusal of the priests in Galileo's time to look through the telescope and see the moons of Jupiter because they "knew from the scriptures" that they couldn't exist is well enough described elsewhere on the web

 

 

I am not ignoring it, I am denying it. But your insistence that science started with "Bacon" I assume you are arguing Francis Bacon because you arbitrarily picked a non-theist, rather than ROGER Bacon, who ACTUALLY is the beginning of the scientific method in European study... but you can choose him because he lived hundreds of years before Francis Bacon, and was a Franciscan monk.

 

To argue that science began with Francis Bacon is as dubious a claim as saying that Henry Ford invented the automobile.

 

 

 

No, I didn't.

Tell me, how well do you sleep at night with that tiger in your bedroom?

I realise there's no evidence for it, but as you say, you can't prove a negative so you should assume it's still there. Even if you look carefully, there's some chance you missed it.

In reality you would look silly to take precautions against that possible tiger without some evidence.

 

 

 

Do you believe that you can prove the non-existence of the tiger using science? While your argument certainly paints a pictureof some fretful toddler demanding daddy check under the bed for monsters, you are simply engaging in reductio ad absurdum to prove your point. But, in the real and more complex world, I see that the basic human rights that the West believes are inalienable are, if you believe the atheistic view, completely arbitrary and alienable, whereas in the theistic view there is a "why not" to stand in the way of alienation.

 

 

Why do you believe in the "why" without evidence?

 

 

Because, as someone who came to a belief in God from an atheistic past, I see this "why" as the only logical underpinning of such concepts as inalienable rights, the very fabric of civilization that makes us humans more than mere animals. It is more compelling than the "just because" I found with atheism.

 

With atheism, while arguing it as a source of free though, I couldn't escape the simple truth that atheism's "just because" explanation of the "why" was limiting and didn't even attempt to explain it. The internal consistency in this belief in "why" was the first evidence I needed for the greater discovery that came next. But that discovery is a complicated and personal thing, and me saying it is so from personal experience is not, admittedly, compelling. It certainly wasn't to me when I was in the same position.

 

In fact, the "just because" of atheism doesn't even hold in it any rational compulsion for discovery. I can't escape the irony of a modern atheistic progressive arguing for and against technological modernism at the very same time all while having no real purpose for doing so. It appears utterly rudderless.

 

 

No, I'm raising the point that they don't seem to have a lot of actual scientific evidence to support their conclusions

 

 

No, I am pointing out that you are so completely ignorant of the curriculum of theological study that you assume the whole of the education is spent reading the bible and religious texts. It's another subject that I suggest you educate yourself before going any further. You simply show yourself an ignorant, bigoted person when you choose to state such incorrect generalities.

 

 

In a truly secular world there wouldn't be any religion to be PC about. If you don't like the effects of PC then a way to reduce its influence would be to abolish religion

 

 

So is it your belief that political correctness only manifests itself with religion?

 

Pointing out potential bias is not fallacious, and has nothing to do with quoting or misquoting someone. A(n attempt to) quote actually shows that it's not fallacious.

 

 

Yes it is. Pointing out the POTENTIAL for bias can not be used as a substitute for the existence of ACTUAL bias which is what he needs to make a non-gratuitous counterpoint.

[John Cuthber]

I can't be bothered doing a point by point rebuttal of that but here are the highlights.

 

"The scientific method has been traced back to Egypt circa 1600 BC. But the scientific method used today started with Aristotle's development of empiricism in the 4th century BC, and was drawn directly from his texts."

The absolute bollocks examples I chose to illustrate the failure of the ancient Greeks (i.e the fact that there are more than 5 elements, objects tend to fall at very nearly the same rate whatever their weight and that spiders do not have the same number of legs as flies." are all attributed to Aristotle.

He got things totally wrong which he would have got right had he used the empirical method, This shows that science really didn't start with him.

 

You say "But your insistence that science started with "Bacon" I assume you are arguing Francis Bacon "

Perhaps you should have a look at what I wrote i.e. "It's probably not realistic to say it was down to one individual".

 

"But, in the real and more complex world, I see that the basic human rights that the West believes are inalienable are, if you believe the atheistic view, completely arbitrary and alienable, whereas in the theistic view there is a "why not" to stand in the way of alienation."

 

Why do theists think the have a monopoly on morality?

Human rights are straightforward sensible self interest. They have nothing to do with the existence of any God.

On the other hand they are often ignored in the name of religion.

 

No doubt this feeds you belief that " it does seem to be rather standard to rush to the Inquisitions when other avenues of debate are failing.".

Well, why shouldn't we point out that religion kills people in a way that science doesn't?

 

Incidentally, it's not easy for me to distinguish the insane policies of China and the Soviet Union from the insane policies of religion.

Both are maintained by a belief (based on faith rather than evidence) that the perpetrators of these crimes are "following a higher power" whether that's God or teh Communist Party.

 

From my point of view, Communism was a religion where God was relabelled as "The Party".

[jryan]

I can't be bothered doing a point by point rebuttal of that but here are the highlights.

 

"The scientific method has been traced back to Egypt circa 1600 BC. But the scientific method used today started with Aristotle's development of empiricism in the 4th century BC, and was drawn directly from his texts."

The absolute bollocks examples I chose to illustrate the failure of the ancient Greeks (i.e the fact that there are more than 5 elements, objects tend to fall at very nearly the same rate whatever their weight and that spiders do not have the same number of legs as flies." are all attributed to Aristotle.

He got things totally wrong which he would have got right had he used the empirical method, This shows that science really didn't start with him.

 

 

Again, you fail to grasp the very simple concept that science is a process, not results. It is quite possible to arrive at a wrong conclusion scientifically. But in the case of your absurd argument of the "failure" of the Ancient Greeks, I again must assume your ignorance. The very idea of reducing the physical world to composite elements began with that very same classification system that you declare a "failure".

 

It's a very odd and ignorant path you are carving here as you wish to claim that "science" started with Francis Bacon, not the Greeks, because the greeks got things wrong... but I would challenge you that Francis Bacon also "failed" in the same way. If you choose to come over to the logical side of this debate and try to argue that Francis Bacon started "science" as a matter of process, rather than results, then I would go back to logically arguing that Aristotle was the originator of empiricism, not Francis Bacon.

 

 

You say "But your insistence that science started with "Bacon" I assume you are arguing Francis Bacon "

Perhaps you should have a look at what I wrote i.e. "It's probably not realistic to say it was down to one individual".

 

 

Well maybe there is hope then as you seem to understand that science is a process.. you just need to realize that that process has been in place for at least 2000 years before your arbitrary argument for when science began.

 

 

 

"But, in the real and more complex world, I see that the basic human rights that the West believes are inalienable are, if you believe the atheistic view, completely arbitrary and alienable, whereas in the theistic view there is a "why not" to stand in the way of alienation."

 

Why do theists think the have a monopoly on morality?

Human rights are straightforward sensible self interest. They have nothing to do with the existence of any God.

On the other hand they are often ignored in the name of religion.

 

 

I didn't argue that theists have a monopoly on morality. I am arguing that they have a monopoly on why we should follow it.

 

 

 

No doubt this feeds you belief that " it does seem to be rather standard to rush to the Inquisitions when other avenues of debate are failing.".

Well, why shouldn't we point out that religion kills people in a way that science doesn't?

 

 

Again, this line of argument you are using was thoroughly debunked nearly 100 years ago and ever since when a state founded on atheism and the preeminence of the state and man as ultimate arbiter in human morality proceeded to kill 40 million of it's citizens. This test has been repeated in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere with precisely the same result. Some 100 million bodies in mass graves stand against the 2,500 dead from the Inquisitions. The Inquisitions happened over a 500 year span, to the 80 years that atheistic states have to work with.

 

So, again, like the comparison between China and Europe on scientific discovery you must first explain why atheistic states appear to be so much better at killing people than religious ones do before you can claim that religious cultures are uniquely prone to killing people.

 

 

Incidentally, it's not easy for me to distinguish the insane policies of China and the Soviet Union from the insane policies of religion.

Both are maintained by a belief (based on faith rather than evidence) that the perpetrators of these crimes are "following a higher power" whether that's God or teh Communist Party.

 

 

When confronted with the existence of millions of people dying in an atheistic state you then simply argue that these states were religions. This is not compelling and screams of confirmation bias, or worse.

 

But sure, in a way you seem to confirm my point here in that atheism only seems to have an individual answer for morality. All evidence points to that it is wholly insufficient at a cultural level where it has only lead to death and destruction.

 

 

 

From my point of view, Communism was a religion where God was relabelled as "The Party".

 

 

By this I can assume that you believe that atheists can be religious, then? So your primary argument against theism, the restrictive nature of religion, apparently applies uniformly to atheism and atheistic societies more regularly than to theistic ones.

 

Imagine that.

[John Cuthber]

"Again, you fail to grasp the very simple concept that science is a process, not results. "

No, I understand that.

I understand that part of the process is looking at the real world and seeing if you have got things right.

Aristotle clearly didn't do that or he wouldn't have believed that men had more teeth than women.

He wasn''t alone in doing that sort of thing.

That was the nature of "science" at his time.

The modern approach to science took a lot longer.

 

I think the essence of you problem here "By this I can assume that you believe that atheists can be religious, then? So your primary argument against theism, the restrictive nature of religion, apparently applies uniformly to atheism and atheistic societies more regularly than to theistic ones." is that all Alsations are dogs, but not all dogs are Alsations.

 

"When confronted with the existence of millions of people dying in an atheistic state you then simply argue that these states were religions. This is not compelling and screams of confirmation bias, or worse."

Not quite. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that I cited reasons for my opinion.

It seems to me that you are the one playing with confirmation bias.

Can you explain why communism (as in the USSR) isn't a religion?

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

Jryan, where do you get your morality from? Is it objective morality or subjective morality?

 

And you missed the point. But then it does seem to be rather standard to rush to the Inquisitions when other avenues of debate are failing. But then the inquisitions killed 2,500 people over the course of 500 years whereas the unscientific Soviets and Chinese starved over 100 million people while refusing the accept that state agricultural doctrine was faulty.

 

If you want to try and win on anecdotes just know that you lost that argument almost 100 years ago.

 

Something more than an assertion is needed to back this up.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Pointing out the POTENTIAL for bias can not be used as a substitute for the existence of ACTUAL bias which is what he needs to make a non-gratuitous counterpoint.

 

 

I think my point was justified, so far all you have done is cry and whine it's not fair to point out you are using inflated appeals to emotion instead of facts.....

[jryan]

"Again, you fail to grasp the very simple concept that science is a process, not results. "

No, I understand that.

I understand that part of the process is looking at the real world and seeing if you have got things right.

Aristotle clearly didn't do that or he wouldn't have believed that men had more teeth than women.

He wasn''t alone in doing that sort of thing.

That was the nature of "science" at his time.

The modern approach to science took a lot longer.

 

 

 

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. You are still mired in results over process. That the old process took less time is a completely unfounded and ludicrous claim because you have no idea how much effort went into these observations. You have the end results. They also didn't have as much to work with as they were starting from scratch so their conclusions were destined to be rudimentary or wrong. That didn't make it less scientific.

 

Just admit it was a silly claim and move on. Trying to defend it isn't helping you out.

 

 

 

I think the essence of you problem here "By this I can assume that you believe that atheists can be religious, then? So your primary argument against theism, the restrictive nature of religion, apparently applies uniformly to atheism and atheistic societies more regularly than to theistic ones." is that all Alsations are dogs, but not all dogs are Alsations.

 

 

No it is you stating that Alsations don't bite mailmen and concluding when an Alsation bites a mailman that it is no longer an Alsation.

 

 

 

 

"When confronted with the existence of millions of people dying in an atheistic state you then simply argue that these states were religions. This is not compelling and screams of confirmation bias, or worse."

Not quite. You are deliberately ignoring the fact that I cited reasons for my opinion.

It seems to me that you are the one playing with confirmation bias.

Can you explain why communism (as in the USSR) isn't a religion?

 

 

Why should I make an argument against it? If this is what you believe then it shoots a great big whole in the argument that Christianity, or theistic religion, is particularly detrimental to science because not only was mostly secular China more detrimental to science (as Swansont argues was due to it's insularity) in the middle ages than were Christian states, but the limitations on science in 20th Century came for the most part from atheistic communist states. Arguing that they were "religions" is merely a semantic dodge of the over riding point asserted that theistic religion and it's belief in God is a greater limiter on scientific discovery than is atheism. That initial assertion ignores the natural conclusion of your argument regarding communism as a religion.. that atheistic cultures have, by your own measure, turned "religious" 100% of the time... all while knowing that predominantly Christian and Muslim states have variously better records of forming non-religious states than do atheists.

 

It's easy enough to understand why that is, too, given the fact that any secular state where the people are mostly theist will not grant their state the title of godhead, and therefor can operate morally and intellectually separate from the state. Almost by design such societies don't grant their governments the kind of power you see in a communist "religious" state. Even without believing in a God it is plain to see how a state in which the populous have a personal and unwavering sense of morality resist the efforts of the state to establish a unified state morality.

 

You can argue that an atheist is more pragmatic and flexible than a theist, but in the case of a Soviet Union and all other Communist nations this ability to bend has only lead to a more out of control and more deadly state as a result.

 

 

 

Jryan, where do you get your morality from? Is it objective morality or subjective morality?

 

 

I believe in objective morality as it is the very foundation of inalienable rights.

 

 

Something more than an assertion is needed to back this up.

 

 

Of course, which is why I provided my evidence for the assertion, with numbers and everything! If I got the numbers wrong then feel free to call me on it. But if you need to have me google it for you here:

 

The Black Book of Communism - criticized as being both too high in it's estimates and too low. It's total estimate is about 94 million dead between 1920 and 1997, which says nothing of the trials and imprisonments.

 

The Spanish Inquisitions -The most notorious and deadly of the Inquisitions (all inquisitions in all of Christian Europe ran from the 1200s through the 1800s), ran from 1480-1834. The total inquisitions in Spain were about 90,000 with a total 1,414 executions, or 4 executions per year average. These were obvious atrocious abuses of power, but nothing compared to a Communist sate. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge beat the Inquisitions totals on any given day and he was small time compared to Mao and Uncle Joe.

 

 

 

I think my point was justified, so far all you have done is cry and whine it's not fair to point out you are using inflated appeals to emotion instead of facts.....

 

 

*sigh* You still don't understand how stuff works. All you have done is justify your faith in the nature of the article without actually addressing the points of the article itself. THAT feels a lot like your characterization of religion. You seem afraid to actually address the evidence... but then that makes sense because you utterly failed your first two attempts -- the first being your absurd accusation of my "cherry picking", the second being your actual failed attempt at cherry picking. Since you have failed how better to avoid a third failure than a refusal to address the evidence at all? Hence your retreat to ad hominem.

Edited January 9, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

I believe in objective morality as it is the very foundation of inalienable rights.

 

Yes but what is the source of your objective reality?

 

 

 

sigh* You still don't understand how stuff works. All you have done is justify your faith in the nature of the article without actually addressing the points of the article itself. THAT feels a lot like your characterization of religion. You seem afraid to actually address the evidence... but then that makes sense because you utterly failed your first two attempts -- the first being your absurd accusation of my "cherry picking", the second being your actual failed attempt at cherry picking. Since you have failed how better to avoid a third failure than a refusal to address the evidence at all? Hence your retreat to ad hominem.

 

 

Now you are being insulting but I will ignore that because your argument has no place to stand and trying to show me as stupid is the only way you can defend your assertions...

 

First off yes textbooks do have mistakes, when i was in school one of my favorite things was pointing out mistakes in textbooks. There is often a plethora of mistakes, it happens, i think the process should be monitored more closely but I have no say in it.

 

I did address the points of the article, do i have to do it again? Simply whining that i am being unfair is no way to be, sit down and take a few breaths have a another creationist give you a tissue and a hug and and assure you that your fairy tale book is real and maybe the crying will stop.

 

Let me try, yet again, The passages about primitive peoples creation myths has been misrepresented both by the author you cited and by you, she is being dishonest so she can sell books. There was no attempt to teach these myths as an alternative to science, your insinuation that was what was taking place is a lie, no other way to say it, a lie, you saying nothing would be wrong with teaching genesis along side these other primitive myths fails miserably.

 

It's easy to denigrate the myths of people with no power but if Genesis was portrayed in the same manner all the Christians in our nation would be in an up roar, you know that and your assertion that you and the rest of your fundy cohorts would like Genesis would be taught as a primitive myth is false, you want it taught as a alternative to evolution, you want to indoctrinate the children of everyone into your cult of primitive myths. it would be immoral to assert these myths as science and you know it.

 

Creationism exists on lies, creationists cannot support their myths in any way but lies, misrepresentations, and out right fabrications. Your condescending attitude toward me is an example of the dishonesty of creationism, you have no real evidence so you result to insults and trying to make anyone who disagrees with you look stupid but in fact all you do is make your own argument look stupid.

 

The one quote i focused on "humans cannot hear elephants" was taken out of context, it is apparent it was taken out of context to anyone who has been paying attention to the scientific research along those lines. The sounds we can hear elephants make are incidental to their main methods of communication which involve infra sounds. Misrepresenting this as scientists say humans cannot hear elephants is totally dishonest, you know it and yet you defend it, what does that say about you?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Moontanman

[jryan]

Now you are being insulting but I will ignore that because your argument has no place to stand and trying to show me as stupid is the only way you can defend your assertions...

 

 

No, I am showing your arguments as fallacious and pointing out a common devolvement of your debate with each step. I don't think they are "stupid" as much as I think they are disingenuous.

 

 

First off yes textbooks do have mistakes, when i was in school one of my favorite things was pointing out mistakes in textbooks. There is often a plethora of mistakes, it happens, i think the process should be monitored more closely but I have no say in it.

 

 

 

Sure, I agree. The problem I have is that I see you bias leaking through in the manner in which you address textbook mistakes, and how easily you want to cast aside a boat load of examples by using logical fallacies and cherry picking (both poorly executed) for no other apparent reason than they fail to fit your personal narrative.

 

 

 

I did address the points of the article, do i have to do it again? Simply whining that i am being unfair is no way to be, sit down and take a few breaths have a another creationist give you a tissue and a hug and and assure you that your fairy tale book is real and maybe the crying will stop.

 

 

But you DIDN'T address the article. How many more times do I have to show you that your half-hearted cherry picking and logical fallacy does not amount to a real addressing of the article? You asked me for an example, I gave you an example, and you have done everything in your power to avoid addressing the example in any meaningful way. That is where we have been on that subject for several post exchanges.

 

You can't see past superficiality to examine the evidence you asked me to provide. Until you choose to be a actual "free thinker" this is pretty much as far as you and I can take this subject.

 

 

 

Let me try, yet again, The passages about primitive peoples creation myths has been misrepresented both by the author you cited and by you, she is being dishonest so she can sell books. There was no attempt to teach these myths as an alternative to science, your insinuation that was what was taking place is a lie, no other way to say it, a lie, you saying nothing would be wrong with teaching genesis along side these other primitive myths fails miserably.

 

 

You showed nothing of the sort. You posted a link to somebody responding to the author to tell her she is a creationist even when she explicitly states in her message in question that she believes in evolution, and he provides no actual evidence to back up his argument other than a letter from her foundation repeats teh term "liberal bias" with the assumption that ... what, that liberal biases don't exist? Or that only conservatives can see liberal bias? It's moot anyway as your evidence is simply perpetuating the ad hominem you crafted against the author rather than address her points.

 

And the kicker is the letter you post doesn't even address the bolded bit of her statement you wanted to wanted to counter.

 

I didn't address this because your long response was simply a gratuitous ad hominem that added nothing to the discussion, but there you have the detailed response you were looking for. The response you have provided is itself festooned with logical fallacy, but I will hope your knew that by reading it.

 

 

The rest later.

[John Cuthber]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. You are still mired in results over process. That the old process took less time is a completely unfounded and ludicrous claim because you have no idea how much effort went into these observations. You have the end results. They also didn't have as much to work with as they were starting from scratch so their conclusions were destined to be rudimentary or wrong. That didn't make it less scientific.

 

Just admit it was a silly claim and move on. Trying to defend it isn't helping you out.

 

 

 

I believe in objective morality as it is the very foundation of inalienable rights.

 

The most notorious and deadly of the Inquisitions (all inquisitions in all of Christian Europe ran from the 1200s through the 1800s), ran from 1480-1834. The total inquisitions in Spain were about 90,000 with a total 1,414 executions, or 4 executions per year average. These were obvious atrocious abuses of power, but nothing compared to a Communist sate. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge beat the Inquisitions totals on any given day and he was small time compared to Mao and Uncle Joe.

 

 

 

Again, I can't be bothered with most of that post so I just cropped it.

I left a couple of the more glaring faults to respond to.

The process is generally called science. It involves checking things.

If Aristotle had been a real scientist (in the modern sense) he would have looked in a few people's mouths and counted the teeth.

It's not a demanding experiment.

He didn't.

So, on that basis (among others cited earlier) I claim that Aristotle was not a scientist.

It's not a silly claim, it's a perfectly obvious one.

What is silly is that idea that "They also didn't have as much to work with as they were starting from scratch so their conclusions were destined to be rudimentary or wrong. "

No, we are talking about the ability to count teeth here.

It's not rocket science- a school kid could do it.

 

"their conclusions were destined to be rudimentary or wrong. That didn't make it less scientific."

No, failing to make any observation made it unscientific.

 

Face it- Modern science as we know it was unknown to the Ancient Greeks.

 

If you believe in objective morality and inalienable rights do you also accept that religion (or at least people under the influence of religion) has been responsible for the ultimate immorality and refusal of those rights?

 

Here's a recent example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13452575

What do you think about it?

Do you believe that the child should have been killed?

Do you accept that belief in witches is a religious matter (there is no evidence- so it must be a matter of faith)

 

Also, as I have said, in comparing the inquisition with Stalinism, you are just comparing one religion with another. Both are bad; so what?

[jryan]

It's easy to denigrate the myths of people with no power but if Genesis was portrayed in the same manner all the Christians in our nation would be in an up roar, you know that and your assertion that you and the rest of your fundy cohorts would like Genesis would be taught as a primitive myth is false, you want it taught as a alternative to evolution, you want to indoctrinate the children of everyone into your cult of primitive myths. it would be immoral to assert these myths as science and you know it.

 

 

 

Creationism exists on lies, creationists cannot support their myths in any way but lies, misrepresentations, and out right fabrications. Your condescending attitude toward me is an example of the dishonesty of creationism, you have no real evidence so you result to insults and trying to make anyone who disagrees with you look stupid but in fact all you do is make your own argument look stupid.

 

 

No, in your view creationism exists on errors, but they believe the errors to be true. You most certainly believe things that are in error, are those beliefs "based on lies"? I wouldn't say that. I would say that you are simply mistaken.

 

Richard Feynman once said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” ... I would assume that you agree with this? It is the foundation of the discipline, after all. Once you stop believing that then you stop being a scientist.

 

 

 

The one quote i focused on "humans cannot hear elephants" was taken out of context, it is apparent it was taken out of context to anyone who has been paying attention to the scientific research along those lines. The sounds we can hear elephants make are incidental to their main methods of communication which involve infra sounds. Misrepresenting this as scientists say humans cannot hear elephants is totally dishonest, you know it and yet you defend it, what does that say about you?

 

 

No, you claimed it was out of context without bothering to show proof of some other context. In fact, your "context" that you provided simply made a different, less definitive statement than the one quoted. In other words, you didn't put the quote in context, you corrected the quote that was in the article. The whole reason that the quote was in the article was because it was wrong, you went and proved what the article had already assumed. Good job!

 

Again, I can't be bothered with most of that post so I just cropped it.

 

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered with most of your post so I just cropped it.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered with most of your post so I just cropped it.

 

To a disappointingly good approximation you cropped all of it, which is different.

 

I presume you couldn't actually reply to the questions raised by the fact that people get killed by religion even today in the West.

[jryan]

To a disappointingly good approximation you cropped all of it, which is different.

 

 

You choose to answer what you find worthy in my response and I have now done the same with yours. We lose all of your arguments in the process because there really wasn't much there to begin with.

[John Cuthber]

You choose to answer what you find worthy in my response and I have now done the same with yours. We lose all of your arguments in the process because there really wasn't much there to begin with.

 

There is a difference between our approaches. Mine answers some points yours answers none.

In particular you fail to address the fact that religious beliefs kill children.

Why do you do this? Do you think the child's life unimportant?

[jryan]

There is a difference between our approaches. Mine answers some points yours answers none.

 

 

 

No, John, but your response is actually a good example of why it is useless debating with you. You continually chose to answer to only some of what I said when what I was saying was in response to ALL of your point. It is a thoroughly dishonest method of open debate that you are using, so I simply threw your style back at you and you got upset.

 

 

In particular you fail to address the fact that religious beliefs kill children.

Why do you do this? Do you think the child's life unimportant?

 

 

That reminds me, have you stopped beating your wife?

[iNow]

So, I've sort of lost track of this thread due to all of the dissembling and obfuscation. Can anyone remind what the central question is, and where the specific disagreement resides?

 

Science has existed for long time.

Big revolution a few centuries ago.

Most before that was philosophy, not empiricism.

Church helped science in some ways, but opinion of many is strong that it was more detrimental overall than helpful.

 

 

Now that I've summarized, can people STFU with the sniping and invective and character attacks and address my opening question?

[JustinW]

Is the question whether religion correlates to poverty, or whether poverty correlates religion? Most poverty stricken countries hold the more radical religious beliefs. The more wealthy a nation the less religion is relied upon as a way maintaining hope in salvation. The further away from death you are the less you will feel the need for salvation or deliverance from sufferage. Is this a fair assumption?

 

I'm not at all sure where this thread was wanting to go or how some might want to reason the correlation between poverty and religion. I think my assertion above is how I see that the two are connected.

 

And once I think about it, should wealthier nations humble themselves to a certain degree? Maybe try and empathize with those who are closer to death on a daily basis? Hmmmm.......