Don't want to be an American Idiot

[mississippichem]

You got all of that from my choice of the word "pathetic?" Whoa... Others even before you told me it was the perfect word to describe the data, and yet now here you're telling me it was "skewed in a way that was both malicious and misguided."

 

Can you help me understand what you mean? I've lost your intended meaning, I fear. Perhaps you wish I'd said, "Hey! Look at the opportunity we have for making things better! Yippeee gollly, this is such fan-diddly-tastic news folks!"

 

No. Despite the accumulation of evidence and despite the increased availability to information, acceptance of evolution has been flat to negative over the past several decades, and the data skews heavily by ideology. How is it malicious to point out a fact? How is it misguided to present data and share a one word response to it, "Pathetic?" I'd really like you to elaborate on that if you'd be so kind.

 

I completely understand your frustration with American culture. It frustrates me to no end whenever I present evidence of the fallaciousness of religious thought and people respond with "God's ways are higher than ours" or "there are questions science can't answer too". It makes my blood boil because I work hard everyday to understand the world in an objective and systematic way (actively removing my own internal biases) at my job doing chemistry, while these nutcases (including some of my own friends and family) just read a book about a tribal deity and his demigod son written by middle eastern desert goat herders from several thousand years ago...and I'M the crazy one!!??

 

\me jumps off cliff

 

I disagree with those in this thread who think it is simply a matter of science not evangelizing enough. Religion doesn't fight fair. Here in the southeastern US, evolution teaching biology teachers are liberal conspirators, stem cell researchers are over educated baby killers.

 

I was once told by a door to door Baptist pamphlet giver that knowledge of science had hardened my heart against Jesus and because of that I believed in evolution. BTW, this after I completely pwned him [nicely] in an evolution/creation discussion. He used the fact that I beat him in the debate to prove that he won the debate because "Satan likes to take hold in intelligent young men such as yourself".

 

Religion teaches people to be immune to reason and to only buy fear mongering and arguments that are pathos heavy [logos slim]. That's why it has gotten beyond control in the US. Christianity is grotesqely tied in with right wing politics and as a result people often can't tell where Christianity ends and Republicanism begins. There is seriously a movement in my state to institute Christian prayer in schools!!!! That is some third world shit.

 

Give iNow a break guys. He has just been exasperated beyond his wits end with the battle against the irrational hordes. Remember that atheist are one of the most hated people groups in the US. It can be tough to be an atheist if you live down here in Colonel Sanders land I know.

[John Cuthber]

The other 95% of the world would like to remind you that you don't actually have a serious left wing party to vote for.

[iNow]

Remember that atheist are one of the most hated people groups in the US. It can be tough to be an atheist if you live down here in Colonel Sanders land I know.

That's a good insight, actually.

 

The rejection of evolution in the US has increased despite countless campaigns and improvements in how information is shared these past several decades. That's not the issue here. The issue is that it's nearly impossible to use reason and evidence to change the mind of a person who arrived at their position using neither. The issue is that education tends to fail in the face of willful ignorance, and the challenge we're truly facing here is a profound inoculation against rationality and logic.

 

At some point, you need to move beyond the "kumbaya, let's chat over tea and crumpets" approach and begin openly ridiculing that which is clearly ridiculous... At some point you need to take a passionate stand against the promulgation of dark ages thinking in this the modern 21st century. I'm not trying to pass laws that make religious beliefs illegal, yet they're trying to pass laws that force creation myths into the science classroom... That force invasive techniques on women's reproductive rights... That force biblical passages to be inscribed on classroom walls... That ad infinitum. You're basically telling me to sit down and shut up at a time when everyone should be standing up and speaking out.

 

Even Thomas Jefferson got this... "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."

 

I imagine things are different up there in lovely BC, Canada... Perhaps you could acknowledge that things are also different down here in the deep south of the US.

Edited June 3, 2012 by iNow

[waitforufo]

One of the beautiful things about Americans is how they choose to tell pollsters how to drop dead.

 

So if someone from Gallop called you on the phone and asked you if you believed God created the earth 5000 years ago in an instant, are you telling me you wouldn't at least be tempted to say yes? With all the things going on the world right now some jerk calls you on the phone and disturbs your wind down from a hard day to ask you if you're and idiot are you really saying your answers would be truthful?

 

This reminds me of when I was in high school back in 1976 and my home room teacher passed out a survey with questions on personal drug use and sex activity. I remember my fellow students and I smiling, giggling and laughing as we filled in the little ovals. I never saw any published results but I'm sure the survey revealed high drug use and rampant sexual promiscuity. No one knew this survey was coming and everyone I knew said they regularly used every drug mentioned during nightly orgies.

 

I wish this Gallop survey would have asked the following question. Do you believe that God created the earth 5000 years ago because the Rigellian Simpsons characters Kang and Kodos said there people witnessed the creation? That one would have likely garnered a unanimous yes.

 

If you are buying this survey, perhaps you simply need to adjust your BS detector.

 

By the way, most Americans could care less what people think about them. It's one of the wonderful things about being an American.

[iNow]

Gallup has been doing work like this for decades. They are good at it. The large size of the sample tends to eliminate the noise from those few false responders you reference. They are hardly enough to make the entire trend as you're here now suggesting.

 

And, No... I would NOT be tempted to answer yes if asked if I thought the earth was 5K years old and created by god.

 

But again... Here we are at a place where we can't even agree about basic facts.

[waitforufo]

So you have confidence in surveys where the survey takers filter out responses they don't like?

[iNow]

You have failed to demonstrate that to be the case. It's little more than an unfounded assertion from you, one that you'll certainly fail to support or back-up in any adequate way.

[swansont]

By the way, most Americans could care less what people think about them. It's one of the wonderful things about being an American.

 

It can be one of the dangerous things, too, so don't count me among them. Being a boorish lout is not something I would wear as a badge of honor.

[waitforufo]

You have failed to demonstrate that to be the case. It's little more than an unfounded assertion from you, one that you'll certainly fail to support or back-up in any adequate way.

 

You miss the point of my question. You responded to my previous post with the following.

 

Gallup has been doing work like this for decades. They are good at it. . . .

 

What exactly is there to be good at? If they are not "good at" eliminating false responses, are they "good at" eliminating false responders? Are they "good at" only bothering the dinners of people who speak the truth? Perhaps they are "good at" asking loaded questions which only find the truth.

 

I don't think they are good at anything. They bother people in their homes. Most people hang up on them. They know nothing about the people that respond. The responses they get are biased on how the responders feel at the moment.

 

So I ask again, if some jerk called and interrupted your dinner to find out if you believe that the Rigellians Kang and Kodos witnessed the creation of the earth by God 5000 years ago, would you answer yes?

 

I would.

Edited June 3, 2012 by waitforufo

[Royston]

So you have confidence in surveys where the survey takers filter out responses they don't like?

 

You really do need to back this up, and confirm there's a bias in the data for whatever reason.

 

iNow, I'm a bit confused by this thread, you've posted data that shows that acceptance of evolution is on the increase. What is interesting, is the shape of the graph concerning belief in a guided hand of evolution, verses a flat out denial of evolution is more or less constant. However the same sample seem to be changing their minds, i.e where there is an increase in one viewpoint, there's a decrease in another (or thereabouts), whereas the steady increase of acceptance of evolution doesn't follow this trend. I'm not sure what to make of this, but is it possible that science education in the US is actually working ?

 

Overlooking that the percentage who do accept evolution should be bigger, I'm not sure you're bringing anything new to the state of belief in the US. Considering if you're brought up in an environment where belief in god seems to be tantamount, and through fear, an individual can't be seen denouncing god (even through an impartial poll), I don't see that these results are surprising...but should be addressed nevertheless.

 

Personally I think the belief systems (with regards to religion) in the US are dangerous, and that such a prolific ignorance needs close attention...i.e I think a large population of the US are simply lying about their beliefs, and are following the herd through fear.

[mississippichem]

You miss the point of my question. You responded to my previous post with the following.

 

 

 

What exactly is there to be good at? If they are not "good at" eliminating false responses, are they "good at" eliminating false responders? Are they "good at" only bothering the dinners of people who speak the truth? Perhaps they are "good at" asking loaded questions which only find the truth.

 

I don't think they are good at anything. They bother people in their homes. Most people hang up on them. They know nothing about the people that respond. The responses they get are biased on how the responders feel at the moment.

 

So I ask again, if some jerk called and interrupted your dinner to find out if you believe that the Rigellians Kang and Kodos witnessed the creation of the earth by God 5000 years ago, would you answer yes?

 

I would.

 

Establish how that lead to the results reported from Gallup in the OP. How did that phenomena lead to the allegedly invalid result? Be specific please.

 

EDIT: punctuation

Edited June 3, 2012 by mississippichem

[John Cuthber]

 

By the way, most Americans could care less what people think about them. It's one of the wonderful things about being an American.

Wasn't it wonderful when mister Bin Laden pointed out that a lot of people don't like that attitude?

I mean seriously, do you not understand that an attitude like that will get you into trouble?

[iNow]

Personally I think the belief systems (with regards to religion) in the US are dangerous, and that such a prolific ignorance needs close attention...i.e I think a large population of the US are simply lying about their beliefs, and are following the herd through fear.

Fair point. Would you suggest that population is helped by knowing that there are others out there like me who "have their backs?"

[waitforufo]

Establish how that lead to the results reported from Gallup in the OP. How did that phenomena lead to the allegedly invalid result? Be specific please.

 

 

In a poll there is no valid or invalid result. Pollsters ask questions. Some people choose to answer those questions. Pollsters report the results of those that answer. It's up to the reader of the resulting report to determine how to interpret the results. The reader of the report has to ask themselves what kind of person would participate in such a poll and what is the likelihood such participants would answer truthfully.

 

Most people could care less about evolution or creationism. This topic has no impact on their lives.

 

So how does this reader interpret these results? Well, you are going to get respondents that are religious nut jobs saying they believe the eye witness testimony of the Rigellians Kang and Kodos. Then you are going to get people that think it’s important to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else or that they could be “Jeopardy!” grand champions. Yeah, you will probably get a few poor saps that think such a poll is important in the grand scheme of things in some way and take the time to participate and provide their true feelings. Finally you will get people who give BS answers for laughs.

 

So in my opinion, the entire poll is most likely to provide no meaningful information.

 

So why is my analysis any more or less valid than anyone else’s?

 

Wasn't it wonderful when mister Bin Laden pointed out that a lot of people don't like that attitude?

I mean seriously, do you not understand that an attitude like that will get you into trouble?

 

 

Really, you had to go there? Since you did, let me ask you. Do you think Al Qaeda would be more likely to want to kill those that believe in the evolution or creationism?

[John Cuthber]

1)In a poll there is no valid or invalid result.

 

2)So in my opinion, the entire poll is most likely to provide no meaningful information.

 

3)So why is my analysis any more or less valid than anyone else’s?

 

 

4)Really, you had to go there? Since you did, let me ask you. Do you think Al Qaeda would be more likely to want to kill those that believe in the evolution or creationism?

1 yes there is. The purpose of a poll is to find out what people think. If it doesn't answer that question it's invalid

2 Yes, but you just told us that you don't seem to understand what a poll is for.

3 For the same reason: if you don't know what a poll is for so your opinion on it is rather dubious.

4 Who cares? The point is that the American attitude provoked that response.

I guess the best answer would be "whichever side is perceived as damaging their cause."

They chose to attack while the government was run by a self proclaimed Christian which might suggest they don't care too much.

If the original poll is right then roughly 3/4 of the people they killed would have been "believers". If they wanted to kill atheists they should have attacked Norway.

Edited June 3, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JohnB]

iNow, I have to ask. Why is it important?

 

This, I think, was what Xitten getting at in the early part of the thread. Classifying a group as heading for "thermo stupid" (love the term BTW) based on their views in one area makes no sense. To a great degree evolution v creation isn't something that people even think about, it simply has no relevence to their lives. It isn't that they won't consider changing their opinion, it's simply that they see no benefit in devoting any effort in the area.

 

For example, how would changing his opinion from creationist to evolutionist make a man a better mechanic? Will getting a deep and profound knowledge of evolutionary principles allow him to service your cars air conditioner in a superior manner? Nope, it will make do difference at all. Whereas reading the latest literature and manuals will help him service the car better and increase his chance of promotion. Rather than being stupid, he is being smart by spending his time increasing his knowledge of things that are of direct material benefit to him rather than wasting time reading about irrelevencies.

 

The simple fact is that for 99% of the time for 99% of the people the whole creation v evolution argument is not on their radar. The power bill is, health insurance is, taxes are, little Jimmys school grades are, putting food on the table is, putting petrol in the car is. I'm probably a bit of a "guided creation using evolutionary principles" myself, but unless I'm actvely debating the concepts with someone then I doubt whether it absorbs more than one hour of my time every 3 months. I don't think about it as it is not relevent to my day to day life.

 

There are only two groups to whom it is important and they are the evangelists on either side. The ones on the creationist side are boring and the ones from the evolutionists are arrogant egotists. (in general) Dawkins is a bright boy who has many who respect him, etc, etc. Does he use his influence to create an atheistic version of the Red Cross or similar humanitarian organisation? Nope, he uses it to travel the world and show how the "intellectual giant" Richard Dawkins can smash another creationist. Obviously in his mind the world is greatly benefitted by having a large number of people tell him how smart he is. Ego, pure and simple, the same thing that drives the tele-evangelist.

 

But to the original point. Please do explain to me why an evolutionist, since he isn't in the "Thermo stupid" ranks makes a better car mechanic than a creationist. Or doesn't it really matter?

 

This also has a bearing on waitforufos comment. If the question is not important to people and from their POV it doesn't matter, will they really answer phone polls truthfully?

 

And are their answers what they truly believe? I've posted this link before from an Aussie show. They went to the Dallas and asked people if they thought the Bible was true and the things in it should be followed. Those that said "Yes" were put to the test. What they said they believed and what they did believe were worlds apart.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLfWJ5mNgw8

 

Personally I wouldn't stress all that much over what people say they believe in a 2,000 year old book.

[padren]

At some point, you need to move beyond the "kumbaya, let's chat over tea and crumpets" approach and begin openly ridiculing that which is clearly ridiculous... At some point you need to take a passionate stand against the promulgation of dark ages thinking in this the modern 21st century. I'm not trying to pass laws that make religious beliefs illegal, yet they're trying to pass laws that force creation myths into the science classroom... That force invasive techniques on women's reproductive rights... That force biblical passages to be inscribed on classroom walls... That ad infinitum. You're basically telling me to sit down and shut up at a time when everyone should be standing up and speaking out.

 

There are a whole lot of things that much organized religion does in this country that is outright appalling, but does it have to be as simple as "religion vs. reason" or can their be middle ground? Personally, I'm a hard agnostic, but I don't find fault with anyone for believing in God - I don't even consider the belief to be unreasonable.

 

Where it goes all wrong is when people choose to apply "faith" to the outright denial of reality as it's superior but it's not just religion that does that, nor is it all religion. If a group of religious people want laws that favor their faith specifically and disfavor others then by definition they do not believe in living in a society with an egalitarian perspective on religious plurality. We need to reject that mentality, not religion itself.

 

Where the discussion starts to get difficult, is when atheists as theists alike start to discuss where things go wrong, it often gets put back to the whole original "belief in God" thing.

 

Instead of getting hung up on figuring out why someone believes in a God, why not ask why they don't believe in an ever so incrementally better God? Like a version of Christianity that can co-exist with a plurality of religions (and lack there-of) within a society that doesn't panic over the hurricanes a gay pride parade will bring?

I think a lot of Christians are pretty tired of the fundamentalist arms of the church and are especially frustrated by anti-scientific rhetoric, but they aren't going to magically turn their religion off either. If atheists don't have more to add to the discussion of religion in the 21st century than "sucks to your sky fairies" then we'll basically be left out of it.

 

I understand how frustrating it can be to try to engage in a conversation in a reasonable way with people who filter everything you say against a core belief that isn't even claimed to be reasonable. At least atheists try to live up to that claim. However, that doesn't mean they are incapable of seeing reason, aren't drawn to reasonable arguments, nor that they can't eventually reconcile their faith with facts. It's far easier for someone to reconcile their faith with science than it is for them to discard their faith entirely.

[John Cuthber]

"There are a whole lot of things that much organized religion does in this country that is outright appalling, but does it have to be as simple as "religion vs. reason" or can their be middle ground?"

What would the middle ground be?

I'm rational during the week but let it slide on Sundays?

Seriously, any credibility given to irrational beliefs like the sky fairy undermines the importance of being able and willing to think for yourself.

That lack of clarity carries on into everything else you do. You can't switch it on and off at a whim.

[padren]

"There are a whole lot of things that much organized religion does in this country that is outright appalling, but does it have to be as simple as "religion vs. reason" or can their be middle ground?"

What would the middle ground be?

I'm rational during the week but let it slide on Sundays?

Seriously, any credibility given to irrational beliefs like the sky fairy undermines the importance of being able and willing to think for yourself.

That lack of clarity carries on into everything else you do. You can't switch it on and off at a whim.

What about believing in God is mutually exclusive with reason? The middle ground (in my opinion) is rather simple - if someone doesn't want to eat pork for religious reasons, that's their prerogative, when they don't want you to eat pork because of their religion without a convincing reasonable secular basis then "they've left the middle ground."

 

I am pretty sure that's the only way a plurality of religions (including the lack thereof) can exist in a single society, is there something I missed? Should we assume no such coexistence is possible, and just have the believers and nonbelievers battle it out on pay per view to see who takes it all?

 

 

I have no patience for people claiming their favorite sky fairies have placed demands on how I must live my life and I am sure I've made that rather caustically clear in these forums more than once... but seriously: Isaac Newton managed to be rational 6 days a week, go to church on Sundays, and still do more to advance every disciple of modern science on Sunday afternoons than most people (atheists alike) will contribute in a lifetime.

 

You can be religious with no other belief than "this universe was intelligently created" and that doesn't have to be based on anything other than a feeling - fundamentally, that belief is as reasonable as any other. Personally, I don't believe the question of God is relevant to my life at all, and for all intensive purposes I'm an atheist functionally. I am all but certain that when I die my "self" will no more exist than it did before I was born - that my life is but a few moments in between oblivion. When I die I doubt there will be a single thing of me left to care about a single thing I did while alive. Being alive of course, I love the hell out of it and plan to do everything I can before I die. That of course leaves me trying to figure out what's worth doing while I'm alive, and frankly no amount of reason will ever determine that. Reason is a vital tool I use to shape my understanding so I can better determine what I feel like doing, but reason doesn't provide any quintessential existential tools to figure out what's worth doing. Reason does help sort out what things aren't worth doing (ie, what is fruitless or counterproductive) towards a goal, or what is likely to be productive towards a goal - but it doesn't offer any quintessential truths about those goals' value to a temporary entity just passing through.

 

There could theoretically be some sort of "Pinnacle Argument of Reason" that does answer that fundamental question of what's worth doing - but I've never heard it. Until I hear it, I wouldn't know if it's stronger than how I feel about what's worth doing. If I heard it, I wouldn't know if I would agree, or if I'd be unreasonable or if the reasoning was insufficient. There's lot I don't know about what a "rational basis for determining what's worth doing" would look like, but I am sure that there's no bloody need for a consensus at that level for us to be able to live in a functional society!

 

So why can't we skip blaming the root of "religion" for all the irrational evils of the world and address the actual blatantly sick mentalities that are disturbing to most religious and non religious people alike?

 

The idea of teaching creationism in public schools should disturb any religious person in the United States that believes this country is supposed to protect religious equality. The idea of denying a woman's right to make her own medical choices (including to carry a pregnancy) based on a religious argument should also be disturbing - it disturbed Supreme Court Justices Warren E. Burger (Presbyterian), Harry Blackmun (Methodist), William O. Douglas (Presbyterian), William J. Brennan, Jr. (Roman Catholic), Potter Stewart (Episcopalian), Thurgood Marshall (Episcopalian) and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Presbyterian) to vote 7-2 in Roe vs. Wade against Byron White and William Rehnquist.

 

We have a secular legal and legislative framework in this country because it provides a common framework for everyone. A real nice feature is anyone can make a rational reasonable secular argument regardless of their religion. Some people are really into helping the homeless, some for secular reasons and some not. Regardless of why it matters to them personally, any proponent can make a case for why society should care in a secular fashion. Claims can be made and evidence weighed, without religion ever being a factor.

 

What's wrong with that approach?

Edited June 4, 2012 by padren

[Royston]

Would you suggest that population is helped by knowing that there are others out there like me who "have their backs?"

 

Yes, I used to get a little annoyed when I saw examples of almost aggressive promotion of rational thought, say Hitchens and Dawkins et.c as it comes across as hypocritical. It's needed however, and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment, i.e more extreme, right wing and religiously bolstered manifestos, it's needed more than ever.

 

Isaac Newton managed to be rational 6 days a week, go to church on Sundays, and still do more to advance every disciple of modern science on Sunday afternoons than most people (atheists alike) will contribute in a lifetime.

 

That's not a good example, the church had a lot more power back then, things (at least in the UK) have moved on somewhat.

 

So why can't we skip blaming the root of "religion" for all the irrational evils of the world and address the actual blatantly sick mentalities that are disturbing to most religious and non religious people alike?

 

Because religion is a tool for justifying irrational evils.

[padren]

That's not a good example, the church had a lot more power back then, things (at least in the UK) have moved on somewhat.

How does that make Issac less of a religious man, or his works less scientific in nature?

 

For bonus points: If all the "rational thinkers" of the day had rejected Newton's contributions to science outright "for persisting in his sky fairy beliefs" would you say the church would be more or less power today as a result?

 

Because religion is a tool for justifying irrational evils.

So is manifest destiny, equality, self defense, protecting the poor, protecting the job creators, protecting jobs, protecting the environment, imminent domain, and many more. Luckily none of those things are only those things - including religion. Religion done badly is good at justifying irrational evils, but so are most things that are done badly. You don't need religion to justify irrational evils, only fear.

 

Another bonus question - which "evil" is more irrational?

 

1) The idea that just about any law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun, based on an anachronistic reactionary revolution-era constitutional amendment

2) The idea that a government has the right to decide whether average law abiding citizens have the right to bare arms

 

If people are getting away with using religion as a tool for justifying irrational evils... just perhaps more rational people need to be involved in the dialogue*?

 

* again to be clear simply shouting "Sucks to your sky fairies!" does not constitute getting "involved" in the dialogue.

Edited June 4, 2012 by padren

[John Cuthber]

What about believing in God is mutually exclusive with reason?

There are 50 pages on that starting here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65651-people-who-believe-in-god-are-broken/

" if someone doesn't want to eat pork for religious reasons, that's their prerogative,"

No, if someone chooses not to eat pork because they don't like it, that's their prerogative.

If the don't eat it for religious reasons then the decision is made by someone else who is abusing power gained under false pretences.

 

"I am pretty sure that's the only way a plurality of religions (including the lack thereof) can exist in a single society, is there something I missed?"

Yes, what you have missed is that the idea simply doesn't work: 9/11, the crusades, the holocaust: take your pick of examples.

 

" Isaac Newton managed to be rational 6 days a week, go to church on Sundays, and still do more to advance every disciple of modern science on Sunday afternoons than most people (atheists alike) will contribute in a lifetime."

Dangerously close to the banned logical fallacy of appeal to authority. At any rate it's not relevant. I can still ask how much more he could have achieved if he hadn't been distracted by counting the colours in the rainbow and deciding there were 7 'cos it's a lucky number (seriously you thought "indigo" was for real?)

 

"You can be religious with no other belief than "this universe was intelligently created" and that doesn't have to be based on anything other than a feeling - fundamentally, that belief is as reasonable as any other."

Nope, that's another logical fallacy.

It's not reasonable unless you can explain how it came to pass that, while it was created "intelligently" it's so full of cock ups. (The best documented are things like the design of the human eye).

 

"So why can't we skip blaming the root of "religion" for all the irrational evils of the world and address the actual blatantly sick mentalities that are disturbing to most religious and non religious people alike? "

I wasn't aware anyone had. Though I do believe (and there's evidence if you need it) that most people are really reluctant, even in wartime, to kill other humans. You need to convince them that the others "deserve to die" or that they are "sub human". Religion helps enormously with both of those.

 

"A real nice feature is anyone can make a rational reasonable secular argument regardless of their religion. "

Not really: no.

For example, a gay couple can't generally marry.

The "reason" given for that is religion.

My opinion is that religion should butt out of people's lives.

[iNow]

Where it goes all wrong is when people choose to apply "faith" to the outright denial of reality as it's superior but it's not just religion that does that, nor is it all religion. If a group of religious people want laws that favor their faith specifically and disfavor others then by definition they do not believe in living in a society with an egalitarian perspective on religious plurality. We need to reject that mentality, not religion itself.

I think this gets to the question that John asked me... Why does it matter? This type of thinking is a proxy for other more important issues in our society... It is a filter through which all other critical discussions tend to pass. We're at a point where facts don't matter, and that's where the problem is.

 

At least when we disagreed in decades past, we agreed on facts... We just chose different avenues on how to respond to them. However, we seem to have gotten to a point where the various factions cannot even agree on basic facts, and that's appalling. Even right here in this very thread we had a user dismiss entirely the survey output without ever pointing to single validated issue or error. It's all well poisoning and counter arguments that consist of little more than "nuh-uh," and the faith/religion/rejection of evolution issue is just a proxy for that larger issue. Tons of overlap on the Venn... That sort of thing.

[Royston]

How does that make Issac less of a religious man, or his works less scientific in nature?

 

My point was, that you used an example where there was much greater pressure on people to believe in god (religion was far more ubiquitous in the UK back then). In any case, Newton wasted a lot of time writing theological nonsense. That time could of been better used contributing even further to science...he actually spent more time on theology than science BTW (kinda besides the point, but thought it was worth a mention).

 

For bonus points: If all the "rational thinkers" of the day had rejected Newton's contributions to science outright "for persisting in his sky fairy beliefs" would you say the church would be more or less power today as a result?

 

Surely any answer to that would be completely speculative...so pass.

 

So is manifest destiny, equality, self defense, protecting the poor, protecting the job creators, protecting jobs, protecting the environment, imminent domain, and many more.

 

I'm well aware of that, and I agree, but that doesn't negate that religiously motivated attacks, policies et.c are not a problem and need to be addressed, you know, shite like this a little lie from your doctor won't hurt you.

 

Another bonus question - which "evil" is more irrational?

 

1) The idea that just about any law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun, based on an anachronistic reactionary revolution-era constitutional amendment

2) The idea that a government has the right to decide whether average law abiding citizens have the right to bare arms

 

I've been gawping at this question for the last half hour, and I guess they're equally irrational, but I'm having a hard time trying to justify that (I'm very hungover BTW.)

 

If people are getting away with using religion as a tool for justifying irrational evils... just perhaps more rational people need to be involved in the dialogue*?

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

* again to be clear simply shouting "Sucks to your sky fairies!" does not constitute getting "involved" in the dialogue.

 

I dunno, you've got to start somewhere

[JohnB]

What would the middle ground be?

I'm rational during the week but let it slide on Sundays?

Seriously, any credibility given to irrational beliefs like the sky fairy undermines the importance of being able and willing to think for yourself.

That lack of clarity carries on into everything else you do. You can't switch it on and off at a whim.

 

So John, that would mean that you would answer the question I asked iNow in the affirmitive. An atheist car mechanic is a better mechanic than a theistic one. Really?

 

iNow, you missed my point. It doesn't matter, it's not a proxy or filter, it's just not relevent. Whether a person is an evolutionist or a creationist has no bearing on how they view their local councils efforts in garbage removal. Being a sort of "guided evolution" type myself has exactly what bearing on how I feel about the bloody stupid carbon tax that Gillard wants? If I was a creationist I'd be in favour?

 

We recently turfed out an incompetent State Gov in the largest landslide in Australian political history, I mean these people were a joke. Would I view them as less incompetent if I were more atheistic? Nope. Like I said, it's not a proxy or filter, belief or not in creationism is simply not relevent to the day to day lives of 99% of the population. Will I buy white or wholegrain bread? What would a creationist do? Full cream or reduced fat milk? Which one fits better with my belief in evolution?

 

It really doesn't matter.