Pages

 

Recent Pages by dragonfire1981 (Eclectic Cyborg):
Left to Rot - an Immigrant Speaks on the GOPs Appalling Political Stunt One Small Step...50 Years Later Reflecting on "Tank Man" 30 Years Later 20 Years Later: Reflecting on Columbine Why I March

Jump to bottom

24 comments

1 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 3:53:26pm

Dragonfire, I don’t see in Charles’ comment any lumping except that of creationists. Creationist, however, doesn’t equal a believer in God’s creation. Creationism is a particular strain of thought that necessarily includes anti-evolutionism and so, by def, is anti-scientific. Therefore, Charles didn’t lump all believers together or called them ignorant.

2 Wik  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 4:39:45pm

“In fact, the majority of the current candidates are creationists — and according to recent Gallup polls, the majority of Republican voters.”

As written it implies that the majority of the current candidates are both creationists and the majority of Republican voters.

Illogical. Illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, co-ordinate…

3 wrenchwench  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 4:45:31pm

Creationists don’t believe in evolution, as Sergey said.

Don’t forget the immortal words of Lao Stinky:

Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

4 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 4:46:09pm

Of course I didn’t say or imply I was talking about “all believers.” I thought it was pretty clear that I’m talking about creationists — the ones who are always trying to force or sneak creationism into science classes.

5 researchok  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 4:50:55pm

If you are trying to jam something down someones throat, the gag reflex is to be expected.

Feel free to enjoy that meal on your own.

And yes, I am a person of faith- and science.

6 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 4:54:42pm

Why do you think you’re a creationist?

7 docproto48  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:21:02pm

Science without religion is lame
Religion without science is blind
-Albert Einstein

8 andres  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:22:26pm

re: #6 Obdicut

Why do you think you’re a creationist?

I saw on a site some time ago the “divisions” between creationists and evolutionists (if such word exists). The divide they presented isn’t the black & white one we usually use, but was more nuanced. I remember that one of the divisions was that they believed in the theory of evolution and believed that the Genesis is a metaphor for evolution. This group was put quite close to the division between the two, but lumped in the creationist side.

It might be that what he’s referring.

9 Jimmah  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:22:50pm
Now I won’t say the comment offended me, but I will say it bothered me a little bit for the simple fact that it seems to lump all believers into one group.

The quote you posted specifically mentions creationists. Doesn’t say anything whatsoever about “all believers”.

This is pretty clear to me even after 4 glasses of wne and two generous Bailey’s Old Irish. That christian-republicanism you got there must be strong stuff!

10 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:23:49pm

re: #7 proto87

Science without religion is lame

Incorrect, if we take the mainstream view of religion, which is quite possibly not what Einstein had in mind.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

11 docproto48  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:31:33pm

Einsteins two papers are quite interesting on the subject.
As a word of warning, each must be carefully read all the way through before developing an opinion or they will irritate almost everyone.
They are:
1. “Religion and Science”
2. “Science and Religion”

12 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:33:23pm

re: #10 Sergey Romanov

And just as I thought, Einstein’s usage was not conventional, so this is simply an out of context quote.

[Link: www.sacred-texts.com…]

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

And further:

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.
[…]

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.

How do you like them apples?

13 Jimmah  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:35:12pm

re: #7 proto87

Science without religion is lame
-Albert Einstein

Quantum Electrodynamics minus Jesus/Moses/Ahkenaten = ….lame?

Please do elaborate Mr Einstein! (Ssince we are in the ‘soundbite zone’ here, a soundbite on what exactly he meant by ‘religion’ in this context might be helpful.)

14 Jimmah  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:44:10pm

re: #8 andres

Genesis is a metaphor for evolution like…I dunno actually…struggling to find an equivalently awful metaphor here to be honest.

15 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 5:44:45pm

To sum up: Einstein didn’t see a conflict between religion in general (very general) and science. He did see a conflict between religion based on personal deities (and that means most religion as practised now, really) and science. Wishy-washy as some of Einstein’s letters may seem, this is a far more radical approach than even this militant atheist would allow. I personally do not believe there is a necessary conflict between science and all forms of personal-god-based religions.

16 Jimmah  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 6:03:06pm

re: #15 Sergey Romanov

religion in general (very general)

God can always hide in the gaps. And there will probably always be gaps.

It must surely occur to the astute believer from time to time however, how odd it is that God at once wants to proclaim his truth to the world while scurrying from one crevice of ignorance to the next as human knowledge advances.

He moves in mysterious ways/the importance of faith of course blah blah etc etc.

17 docproto48  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 6:12:48pm

re: #15 Sergey Romanov

I was trying to decide if we were disagreeing or not but I see from this comment that we are not, although I do not feel Einstein was Atheist. Agnostic yes but the two are not necessarily synonyms. When stating “I regret that I am a Jew because I could not choose to be a Jew”, this was not as is often viewed a rejection of Judaism but in fact was clearly a statement that had he been able to choose to be a Jew he would have done so, not the words of an atheist.

18 docproto48  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 6:28:28pm

re: #16 Jimmah

God can always hide in the gaps. And there will probably always be gaps.

It must surely occur to the astute believer from time to time however, how odd it is that God at once wants to proclaim his truth to the world while scurrying from one crevice of ignorance to the next as human knowledge advances.

He moves in mysterious ways/the importance of faith of course blah blah etc etc.

Consider more of a “theological deist” view (I think I just made that term up) with God having rare interactions with the universe as opposed to actively controlling everything. I’m not saying God can’t but that he doesn’t need to.

Love this discussion line, way more interesting than medical journal review and charting on patients wish I had more time to devote to it

19 Jimmah  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 6:46:51pm

re: #18 proto87

I find that deism very easily dissolves into plain old non-theism, on analysis.

Not sure if the rarity of his interactions does anything to separate the view you have presented here from that of plain old theism , but it would at least go some way to accounting for the total non-appearance of those interactions ;)

20 [deleted]  Sat, Dec 3, 2011 8:34:42pm
21 dragonfire1981  Sun, Dec 4, 2011 3:26:11pm

Thanks for the comments guys.

I suppose in my mind I went with too broad a labeling for creationist. At a base level a creationist is, in my opinion, someone who believes the creation of the world was NOT all natural meaning some external intelligence had some influence on the beginnings of this planet and all living things on it.

I suppose however, that the term “Creationist” , when used in a political sense, does by and large generally refer to the fundamentalist YEC variety. I also know full well these are the types Charles takes the most issue with.

So I suppose some of the confusion was my own fault. It is challenging when there are so many terms used to refer to Christians of different stripes, especially when those same terms often mean different things in different circumstances.

22 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 4, 2011 6:45:13pm

re: #21 dragonfire1981

Thanks for the comments guys.

I suppose in my mind I went with too broad a labeling for creationist. At a base level a creationist is, in my opinion, someone who believes the creation of the world was NOT all natural meaning some external intelligence had some influence on the beginnings of this planet and all living things on it.

I suppose however, that the term “Creationist” , when used in a political sense, does by and large generally refer to the fundamentalist YEC variety. I also know full well these are the types Charles takes the most issue with.

So I suppose some of the confusion was my own fault. It is challenging when there are so many terms used to refer to Christians of different stripes, especially when those same terms often mean different things in different circumstances.

No, it really doesn’t have to do with ‘young earth’ creationists, but specifically the denial that evolution is a natural process. If you personally believe that the evolution of everything has been guided by God and that it doesn’t just happen on its own, and if you don’t believe mankind evolved from apes, then you are, in fact, a creationist.

If you just think that God created the universe, with the idea that evolution would then occur, you’re not.

23 cinesimon  Sun, Dec 4, 2011 7:52:06pm

This is most definitely a case of over-sensitivity.
It’s pretty obvious to any reasonable person that Charles was talking about fundamentalist Christians.
Just as reasonable people don’t consider all Muslims to be extremists, neither do we consider all Christians to be so. Certainly many fundamentalist Christians consider all Muslims to be ‘the enemy’, so it’s not surprising they project their own disgusting beliefs and behavior onto others.
It seems to me that the writer has been listening to far too many of those on the right wing who have formulated a rather ridiculous strategy of pretending to be as persecuted as the Jews were before WW2 - this righteous plea to the ignorant looks like it’s successfully rubbing off on many seemingly sensible people who should know better.

24 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Dec 5, 2011 12:41:05pm

re: #21 dragonfire1981

No, it doesn’t pertain mostly to YECs. It also pertains to OECs. It also pertains to IDiots.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 461 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1