Books to Fight Creationists With

Science • Views: 5,806

A letter from a Texas lizard in a predicament:

Recently moving to East Texas has brought me in close contact with many who believe the earth is 6000 years old and that teaching any aspect of evolution is a Satanic plot.  I need some guidance as to what to read so as to counter this mind-set.  Just some basic texts that will acquaint me with the pro-evolution (and old earth facts) responses that might counter the creationist point of view in debates with anyone capable of honest and rational discourse.  Thanks.

I just happen to have some titles handy, after my recent move to a new secret underground facility, because I’m finally getting around to unpacking boxes and placing their contents on my scaly shelves. Here are some excellent books that can help anyone in our Texas lizard’s situation fight back against the most determined fanatics.

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters: Donald R. Prothero, Professor Carl Buell — an in-depth look at the fossil record, and the mountains of scientific evidence that overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution by natural selection. A bit pricey in hardcover, but worth it.

Why Evolution Is True: Jerry A. Coyne — an exhaustive case for evolution by a geneticist at the University of Chicago.

The Counter-Creationism Handbook: Mark Isaak — a compilation of hundreds of the most common arguments made by creationists, with definitive refutations for each one. Highly recommended. You won’t believe how much deception and misdirection is employed by creationists. (Or maybe you will.)

Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement: John Brockman — A collection of essays by renowned scientists, examining the current thinking about evolution and destroying the deceptive arguments made by proponents of “intelligent design” creationism.

Jump to bottom

459 comments
1 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:31pm

I really enjoyed Why Evolution Is True. Great book, and I learned a lot.

2 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:44pm

Yaaay! Science kicks ass!

3 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:44:56pm

You can lead a creationist to water, but you can't make him think

4 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:46:02pm

Beat them over the head?

Might be more effective than reason and logic.

5 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:46:15pm

Flu viruses evolve. There is how you show and prove that organisms evolve. They can't argue otherwise. Debate closed in three seconds.

6 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:00pm

Some evolve in a few seconds, some over weeks, some over millenia.

7 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:22pm

That applies to all living creatures. Too easy.

8 Pawn of the Oppressor  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:33pm

re: #4 jcm

Beat them over the head?

Might be more effective than reason and logic.

We'd need a big one for that. Maybe the Bible?

9 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:47pm

OK, now I have a topic I'm comfortable with. Thank you for the list, Charles. I should say that I'm not a fan of Olympia Snowe, and I read your post quoting her with trepidation. That said, I know you're not a liberal, and you are an intellectually honest man, I know you're concerned about the GOP's direction and you posted her remarks in that spirit. Sorry about the run-on post but I was finally able to process my thoughts and put them into words.

10 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:52pm

re: #5 6pat6

They will shift to the "yebbut show me a virus-amoeba" argument.

11 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:47:52pm

re: #7 6pat6
They don't frakkin' listen!

12 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:48:08pm

What I need though, is a book for an evolutionist who thinks ID is the best way to get her family to accept evolution. I tried to tell her about the DI, but I think a book would be better.

13 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:48:48pm
Recently moving to East Texas has brought me in close contact with many who believe the earth is 6000 years old and that teaching any aspect of evolution is a Satanic plot.

Some people are just plain stupid.

14 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:49:11pm

re: #11 pingjockey

They don't frakkin' listen!

So, why bother? They are much like Libtards - unable to grasp the obvious, or the logical. Some people do not "evolve".

15 itellu3times  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:49:40pm

If the Earth is 6000 years old, what about the rest of the universe?

16 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:50:36pm
I need some guidance as to what to read so as to counter this mind-set.

The only book you need to convince a creationist how nutty creationism is is the Book of Genesis. It is chock-full of contradictions and doesn't make sense at all as a theory. To believe every word you have to disagree with yourself. Genesis sucks as a plausible theory. The best way to fight Creationism is to go through Genesis line by line. You cut down trees at the base.

17 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:50:42pm

re: #14 6pat6
That's what I was saying to you. Tell them the flu evolved like you said and they won't listen!

18 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:51:54pm

re: #13 Slumbering Behemoth

Some people are just plain stupid.

Yeah, it's 6013! It was created in 4004 B.C.

/Bishop Ussher

19 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:06pm

re: #16 Mich-again

The only book you need to convince a creationist how nutty creationism is is the Book of Genesis. It is chock-full of contradictions and doesn't make sense at all as a theory. To believe every word you have to disagree with yourself. Genesis sucks as a plausible theory. The best way to fight Creationism is to go through Genesis line by line. You cut down trees at the base.

Yes, but you need to do it in a way that makes it clear you are not trying to destroy their belief in God. You can't convince anyone of anything while they are on the defensive, and attacking their beliefs will do exactly that.

20 LwoodPDowd  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:28pm

Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Is supposed to be a decent book although I haven't had a chance to read it. It doesn't come from an atheistic point of view so it tends to be less offensive to the religious.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

21 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:28pm

6000 years in East Texas seems like a billion.

22 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:52:45pm

re: #14 6pat6

So, why bother? They are much like Libtards - unable to grasp the obvious, or the logical. Some people do not "evolve".

The problem is that they are a big part of the GOP base. Was can't really do without them, so we have to find a way to dial their crazy meter back.

23 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:53:15pm

re: #18 jcm
Every time somebody quotes that I think of Frederick March(?) in that movie about the Monkey Trial with Spenser Tracy.

24 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:54:34pm

re: #5 6pat6

Flu viruses evolve. There is how you show and prove that organisms evolve. They can't argue otherwise. Debate closed in three seconds.

I posted that exact point a few days ago, and actually got some hate mail for it, from people who refused to believe that viruses evolve. And one commenter here at LGF said I was "becoming an extremist" because I mentioned it.

25 jaunte  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:54:52pm

re: #12 Sharmuta

What I need though, is a book for an evolutionist who thinks ID is the best way to get her family to accept evolution. I tried to tell her about the DI, but I think a book would be better.


This was a really good introduction to the political tactics of the DI:
The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

26 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:55:15pm

re: #23 pingjockey

Every time somebody quotes that I think of Frederick March(?) in that movie about the Monkey Trial with Spenser Tracy.

I insist on being accurately wrong!

////

27 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:55:26pm

Example:

In Genesis 1:26 -27 God creates man and woman on the 6th day of creation.

And then the next week in Genesis 2:7 God creates man again. And then in Genesis 2:22 he creates woman again.


Whats up with that?

28 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:55:58pm

re: #24 Charles
That's just nuts. Look at how many bugs became resistant to penicillin over the last 60 years.

29 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:56:36pm

re: #27 Mich-again
God needed a do-over.

30 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:56:54pm

re: #23 pingjockey

Every time somebody quotes that I think of Frederick March(?) in that movie about the Monkey Trial with Spenser Tracy.

You mean Inherit The Wind. I'm not a fan of that movie. It plays games with the historical record that can only be described as manipulative.

31 jcm  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:57:16pm

re: #29 pingjockey

God needed a do-over.

Then it he wouldn't have been Adam, he would have been named Mulligan.

32 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:57:25pm

re: #24 Charles

I posted that exact point a few days ago, and actually got some hate mail for it, from people who refused to believe that viruses evolve. And one commenter here at LGF said I was "becoming an extremist" because I mentioned it.

Charles ... exactly ... I rarely ever comment on evolution threads because I just cannot understand how some people don't believe in it ... and don't really know how to put into words my argument for evolution like many here can ... but this virus issue ... I don't know why this one single issue does not make people "get it" ...

33 FortunateSon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:57:35pm

Whew, I sure haven't been on in a long while. Good to be done with school for a few months. I'll have to check out some of these titles, I know a few who could sure use them.

re: #14 6pat6

The problem is, they are (or seem to be) fundamentally good, if very misguided, people, and I am pleased to call one a very good friend. I usually steer clear of the topic entirely because I'd hate to lose the friendship over a debate where no minds will be changed. But maybe, just maybe, I can slowly introduce logic to him, and then introduce him to one or two of these books...

34 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:08pm

re: #19 EmmmieG

Yes, but you need to do it in a way that makes it clear you are not trying to destroy their belief in God. You can't convince anyone of anything while they are on the defensive, and attacking their beliefs will do exactly that.

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

35 Shiplord Kirel  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:21pm

re: #29 pingjockey

God needed a do-over.


And He still didn't get it right until Salma Hayek came along.

36 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:29pm

re: #32 JacksonTn

just give them this link to read
[Link: www.college.ucla.edu...]

37 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:34pm

re: #30 Dark_Falcon
It's a frakkin' movie!

38 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:49pm

re: #31 jcm
Heh!

39 IslandLibertarian  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:00pm

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness…

I still want to know, who the hell was she talking to?

/match+gasoline...........

40 Shug  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:26pm

re: #24 Charles

I posted that exact point a few days ago, and actually got some hate mail for it, from people who refused to believe that viruses evolve. And one commenter here at LGF said I was "becoming an extremist" because I mentioned it.

If the flu virus didn't evolve, then one vaccine would be good for several years.

but it changes every year and each vaccine ( hopefully ) accounts for the change

So when they deny it evolves challenge them to Just get 1 flu shot and then quit.

See if they put their money where their mouth is

41 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:28pm

re: #19 EmmmieG

Yes, but you need to do it in a way that makes it clear you are not trying to destroy their belief in God.

If what I say shakes someone's belief in God then that faith is weak.

42 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:56pm

re: #39 IslandLibertarian

boob size?
/////

43 KingKenrod  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:59:57pm

I read the Coyne book, it's very good. Exhaustive is a good description, although it remains interesting throughout.

44 pingjockey  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:00:06pm

Good night Lizards!

45 FortunateSon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:00:13pm

re: #24 Charles

I've tried to go that route too, but the most fervent supporters (who tend to be able to back their arguments up with "facts") will draw some bizarre distinction between "microevolution" that happens in bacteria or viruses and "macroevolution" that is totally nonexistent or the work of the Devil or something.

Yep, the ones who learn the "facts" are the most trying, to be sure.

46 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:00:32pm

re: #34 Charles

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

That would be because lying is actually breaking a commandment. (As opposed to being honestly wrong, which I have been known to do.)

47 FortunateSon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:01:52pm

re: #39 IslandLibertarian

Must be the "royal us."

48 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:02:25pm

re: #37 pingjockey

It's a frakkin' movie!

And all I'm saying is why I'm not a fan of it. Freedom of Speech: Moviemakers are free to make their movie their way, I'm free to describe it as I see fit.

49 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:03:22pm

Some take the Bible speaking about the Earth being created in seven days literally, as we know. What the Bible calls a "day" in that context, has to refer to a huge amount of time, insofar as Mankind walking the Earth. But some truly believe that the Earth as a planet is just 6,000 years old, which coincides with the start of what we call civilized man. Civilized Man, I can buy as 6,000 years old. If Genesis were to be taken in that context by the Creationists...who knows? Evidence everywhere shows evolution is fact. I've never really grasped the Creationist claims of 6,000 years. Much like the Flat Earthers, really!

The obvious is that the Earth is around five billion years old or so. Man's time on the Earth is what, about two million or so years? Civilization, as we term it, is about 6,000 years old, give or take. If people would look at things in that context (especially those on the Creationist side), there would be happiness enjoyed by all, and it would really not infringe on the Biblical story in Genesis.

50 Ojoe  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:05:02pm

Here is Pope Benedict on why Creation vs. Evolution is "an absurdity":

"msnbc.com news services
updated 11:55 a.m. PT, Wed., July 25, 2007
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

(my bolds)

Link


Good Night All.

51 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:05:06pm

re: #34 Charles

like I tell my daughter "life's not fair!" :)

52 IslandLibertarian  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:05:09pm

re: #47 FortunateSon

Must be the "royal us."

Well why didn't she say so?

53 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:05:12pm

re: #32 JacksonTn

Charles ... exactly ... I rarely ever comment on evolution threads because I just cannot understand how some people don't believe in it ... and don't really know how to put into words my argument for evolution like many here can ... but this virus issue ... I don't know why this one single issue does not make people "get it" ...

The reason is that the creationists are locked into a Biblical Literalist worldview. They are so concerned with guarding the Bible against doubt that they have abandoned reason and good sense, and "Lying for Jesus" they've become exactly the sort of hypocrites Jesus excoriated.

54 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:05:59pm

re: #17 pingjockey

That's what I was saying to you. Tell them the flu evolved like you said and they won't listen!

Exactly. Some folks are so invested in their idiocy that they will insist that all viruses, both the inconvenient kind and the deadly or permanently miserable kind, are exactly as god created them and do not evolve. Not ever. Despite all the evidence which clearly proves that they do.

Invincible stupidity is not limited to the leftists.

55 LwoodPDowd  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:06:18pm

re: #14 6pat6

So, why bother? They are much like Libtards - unable to grasp the obvious, or the logical. Some people do not "evolve".

While I'm sure they would be appalled by the suggesting that they don't support or believe in evolution, many of the animal rights arguments against animal research clearly show a complete lack of understanding.

Of course as a yeast geneticist, I may be biased. If work in primates has no relevance to humans, what hope is there for my "cruelty free" research to do any good. Oh but that's right, the research does translate. F*** Y** ALF, ELF, PETA, PCRM, the Discovery Institute and many many more.

56 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:06:36pm

re: #27 Mich-again

Example:

In Genesis 1:26 -27 God creates man and woman on the 6th day of creation.

And then the next week in Genesis 2:7 God creates man again. And then in Genesis 2:22 he creates woman again.


Whats up with that?

controlled experiment with baseline group for comparison

or using redundancy as a form of emphasis
or two tales shuffled together

I tend toward option one, but that is me.

57 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:06:58pm

re: #54 Slumbering Behemoth

try to convince that human race is evolving too, they'd stone you

58 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:07:07pm

re: #45 FortunateSon

The main issue with viruses, bacteria, etc. is that they can
have literally a billion mutations in a short amount of time.
Higher life forms do not replicate that quickly.

59 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:07:34pm

Odd. I'm beginning to detect more than a hint of resemblance between the flailing, thrashing desperation of the anti-evolutionists and the people who base their true-believer denial of AGW on a visceral dislike of Al Gore.

Just sayin'.

60 Gella  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:08:01pm

seems to me a lot of ppl never even attended a science class, or been there never heard the lecture

61 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:08:48pm

re: #24 Charles

I posted that exact point a few days ago, and actually got some hate mail for it, from people who refused to believe that viruses evolve. And one commenter here at LGF said I was "becoming an extremist" because I mentioned it.

Some creationists except evolution within a species, but deny one evolving into completely different one. That way, they get explain viruses and wolves into dogs for example. They'll keep moving the target as their ideas fail the logic test.

62 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:09:06pm

re: #34 Charles

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

It s not a question of what is fair so much as it is what is effective.

Name calling and insults are not persuasive. If one side is willing to be persuasive and the other is only willing to engage in insults, then the game goes to the persuasive.

We can afford to confront the ID folks with forbearance because evolution is demonstrable while a 6000 year old earth is not.

In such debates, it is more often than not the audience that is more persuadable than is the other debater.

Win the audience and you win the debate.

63 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:09:23pm

re: #53 Dark_Falcon

The reason is that the creationists are locked into a Biblical Literalist worldview. They are so concerned with guarding the Bible against doubt that they have abandoned reason and good sense, and "Lying for Jesus" they've become exactly the sort of hypocrites Jesus excoriated.

DF ... I don't get why they feel that way ... I am a Christian ... Catholic ... taught by nuns ... I was never told that evolution was wrong ... I don't feel threatened one single bit by evolution ... it takes nothing from my christianity ... will never understand the mindset of Christians who feel that way ... but do not engage them ... having said that I would not vote for someone who wanted to push this in schools ... if they want that taught in schools there are plenty of Christian schools who teach this and they are free to send their children there ... I own my vote and will use it as I see fit ...

64 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:10:05pm

re: #45 FortunateSon

My first experience in this exact sort of debate was when I was a kid about 10. My buddy's dad was the preacher at a neighborhood holy roller Church. I said something about dinosaurs in his presence and he made it a point to butt in and say there was no such things as dinosaurs. I asked him about the bones and he told us the "bones" were just rocks that atheists said were bones.

I laughed out loud at him and he never really liked me after that.

65 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:10:10pm

re: #63 JacksonTn


DF ... I don't get why they feel that way ... I am a Christian ... Catholic ... taught by nuns ... I was never told that evolution was wrong ... I don't feel threatened one single bit by evolution ... it takes nothing from my christianity ... will never understand the mindset of Christians who feel that way ... but do not engage them ... having said that I would not vote for someone who wanted to push this in schools ... if they want that taught in schools there are plenty of Christian schools who teach this and they are free to send their children there ... I own my vote and will use it as I see fit ...

Amen!

66 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:10:37pm

re: #41 Mich-again

If what I say shakes someone's belief in God then that faith is weak.

I wasn't ignoring this, I was trying to figure out how to say this best:

If you are trying to change someone's mind, you have to reason with them. If people feel attacked, they see you as an adversary, and aren't likely to listen to what you have to say.

67 6pat6  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:11:24pm

re: #64 Mich-again

My first experience in this exact sort of debate was when I was a kid about 10. My buddy's dad was the preacher at a neighborhood holy roller Church. I said something about dinosaurs in his presence and he made it a point to butt in and say there was no such things as dinosaurs. I asked him about the bones and he told us the "bones" were just rocks that atheists said were bones.

Never heard that one! WoW!

68 FortunateSon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:12:04pm

re: #58 NonNativeTexan

Yes, but the timeframe is somewhat irrelevant if you are talking about generations instead of lifespans.

69 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:12:39pm

re: #61 avanti

I have stated before that documenting an increase in dna is going to be a very difficult row to hoe, because a larger dna carrying animal, is automatically a different animal. The Robertson contracted dna is a different issue.

70 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:12:51pm

Good evening y'all.

71 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:13:26pm

re: #34 Charles

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

Doing your best to tell it like it is without stooping to lies or distortion is not walking on eggshells - it is just the cross you choose to bear.

72 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:13:31pm

re: #70 realwest

hey real!
how's life in your world?

73 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:14:38pm

re: #64 Mich-again
"I laughed out loud at him and he never really liked me after that."
Gee, I wonder why?

74 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:14:46pm

Must drink tea and clean up a bit. I am hoping for some excellent rhetoric before I turn in.

75 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:15:08pm

re: #67 6pat6

The Church is still there at the corner or Coolidge and Goddard in Lincoln Park but the folks in question are about 10 times removed as proprietors of said establishment Nuff said.

76 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:15:42pm

re: #68 FortunateSon

It is really talking about neither. It is the gestation period.

77 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:15:44pm

momcat....
have you caught up yet?

78 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:17:36pm

re: #72 rain of lead
Hey rain, been better on several fronts, most important to me being Mom's health which is not as good as it was a couple weeks ago.
But she's still ok, just sorta sliding some and of course that concerns me.
And politics still pisses me off - even more so with Obama's statement today that he thought waterboarding was illegal and releasing the memos was the right thing to do and then refusing to release memos showing that the waterboarding was effective on the grounds of "national security".

79 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:17:56pm

re: #66 EmmmieG

If you are trying to change someone's mind, you have to reason with them.

How do you reason with irrational people? Is that even possible?

80 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:18:48pm

I quit trying to convert people. Hey, you get older, you prioritize some stuff.
Like, for instance, rotating the air in your tires. Very important, twice a year.

81 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:19:05pm

re: #73 realwest

Kids laugh when they hear something funny no?

82 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:19:50pm

Bookfight!

83 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:19:56pm

re: #63 JacksonTn

DF ... I don't get why they feel that way ... I am a Christian ... Catholic ... taught by nuns ... I was never told that evolution was wrong ... I don't feel threatened one single bit by evolution ... it takes nothing from my christianity ... will never understand the mindset of Christians who feel that way ... but do not engage them ... having said that I would not vote for someone who wanted to push this in schools ... if they want that taught in schools there are plenty of Christian schools who teach this and they are free to send their children there ... I own my vote and will use it as I see fit ...

The Catholic Church has long stood against strict biblical literalism. While the Bible is the center piece of its theology, Catholicism has always seen some need to interpret the Bible and not see everything in it literally. Many Protestant sects do not hold to this view. They see Catholic non-literalism as a grave error.

84 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:20:00pm

re: #79 Mich-again

How do you reason with irrational people? Is that even possible?

You plant a seed. Maybe when there is a quiet moment, they will reflect on it, and start searching on their own. It won't be an immediate change.

85 LwoodPDowd  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:20:14pm

I've always like this philosophical point.

Which sounds more like the actions of an omniscient omnipotent being.

the one that has to create each species individually or the one that creates a system for adaptation that leads to massive diversity and ability for life to adapt to changes to continue propagation.

Basically, the argument (if I had a soul) -- My God can kick your gods ass!

86 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:20:59pm

re: #75 Mich-again

The Church is still there at the corner or Coolidge and Goddard in Lincoln Park but the folks in question are about 10 times removed as proprietors of said establishment Nuff said.

Are you from Chicago? I grew up in Lincoln Park in Chicago.

87 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:21:05pm

re: #78 realwest

just keep loving your mom.... what will be will be.
hmmm that works for zero as well

88 JacksonTn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:21:12pm

re: #80 rawmuse

I quit trying to convert people. Hey, you get older, you prioritize some stuff.
Like, for instance, rotating the air in your tires. Very important, twice a year.

raw ... you so right about that ... dang ... I rarely have the energy to argue or fuss with people now ... I am getting much better at walking away ... but when I do get really mad ... look out ... I can muster up some fight when needed ...

89 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:22:16pm

re: #84 NonNativeTexan

You plant a seed.

Thats all you can do and its enough. Great advice.

90 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:22:22pm

re: #81 Mich-again
Kids laugh at a lot of things Mich - hell, they're kids. But being laughed at - at any age - is not apt to result in having that person you laughed at like you very much.

91 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:23:01pm

re: #84 NonNativeTexan

You plant a seed. Maybe when there is a quiet moment, they will reflect on it, and start searching on their own. It won't be an immediate change.

That works for me.

92 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:23:45pm

re: #88 JacksonTn

Some people, you hang around them and you get dumber.
Like a contact dumb, sort of thing.

93 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:24:20pm

re: #86 Dark_Falcon

Lincoln Park MI. But I've been to the other version in IL and it would have been a much nicer place to have been from.

94 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:27:00pm

re: #92 rawmuse

sorta like " when I listen to you I get a head full of stupid" kinda thing?

95 Mich-again  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:27:17pm

re: #90 realwest

Kids laugh at a lot of things Mich - hell, they're kids. But being laughed at - at any age - is not apt to result in having that person you laughed at like you very much.

Sorry RW but any adult who tries to unteach science to a kid deserves ridicule from that kid.

96 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:27:17pm

re: #87 rain of lead Oh yeah rain of lead, I know what will be will be - hell she's still likely to outlive me.
As for Obama - well I can't do anything about him either but I can write letters, e-mails and the like to try to get him to see the other side of certain issues.
So at least I feel empowered there.

97 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:28:54pm

re: #96 realwest

sure fight,scratch kick etc. just don't let it make you crazy

98 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:29:05pm

re: #92 rawmuse

Some people, you hang around them and you get dumber.
Like a contact dumb, sort of thing.

But the worst are the people who are consistently negative.
They just suck the life force out of you.

99 Adrenalyn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:29:15pm

excuse me, but aren't Muslims "creationists"
...I mean the violent, headchopping kind

I don't think a book will deter them in their quest

100 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:29:36pm

re: #92 rawmuse

contact dumb

I am so stealing that.

101 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:29:47pm

Wisest man in the world.
Atheists could love this quote straight from the bible;

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Not to put too fine a point on what Soloman believed;
Ecclesiastes 9:5 Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

He did not seem to be an atheist, but very much a "here and now" sort of guy. Don't think he was looking for a heavenly reward.

102 Idle Drifter  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:30:57pm

re: #93 Mich-again

River Rouge, MI born and raised.

103 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:07pm

re: #98 NonNativeTexan

Ah, vampires.
Garlic, wooden stake. Apply vigorously while reciting Psalms 23.
Repeat until effective.

104 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:30pm

re: #101 swamprat

I just skipped to song of Solomon and read the dirty parts.

105 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:36pm

re: #100 Cato the Elder

You are welcome.

106 Van Helsing  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:43pm

re: #103 rawmuse

Ah, vampires.
Garlic, wooden stake. Apply vigorously while reciting Psalms 23.
Repeat until effective.

Yeah, that works.

107 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:31:44pm

re: #39 IslandLibertarian

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness…

I still want to know, who the hell was she talking to?

/match+gasoline...........

Well the short answer is, the "we" is the plural of majesty, as with kings and queens.

We look with favor upon your question.

108 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:32:04pm

re: #95 Mich-again"Sorry RW but any adult who tries to unteach science to a kid deserves ridicule from that kid." Possibly, but said kid cannot realistically thereafter expect the adult to like the kid either. And how did we get away from kid to kid and wind up with an adult who tries to unteach science to a kid?

109 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:32:42pm

re: #104 NonNativeTexan
reading with one hand.

110 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:33:30pm

re: #99 Adrenalyn

excuse me, but aren't Muslims "creationists"
...I mean the violent, headchopping kind

I don't think a book will deter them in their quest

Actually, no. All Muslims are not creationists. And all Muslims are not violent headchoppers.

Are you about to melt down or something?

111 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:34:02pm

Oh for craps sake - I downloaded and installed updates from Microsoft and now somehow have IE 8.
Anyone know how I can get back to IE 7?

112 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:34:28pm

re: #92 rawmuse

Some people, you hang around them and you get dumber.
Like a contact dumb, sort of thing.

"The more I teach you, the dumber I get!

113 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:35:16pm

re: #111 realwest

Oh for craps sake - I downloaded and installed updates from Microsoft and now somehow have IE 8.
Anyone know how I can get back to IE 7?

Embrace change. Grin and bear it. You'll get used to it.

114 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:35:49pm

re: #111 realwest

read here that satan microsoft is force pushing IE8
through auto updates

115 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:37:44pm

re: #114 rain of lead
Yeah, I'd heard that too so switched to manual, and MS said that they had 11 updates, 8 of them critical and I looked at 'em and didn't see IE 8 in any of them.

116 Ghazicide  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:37:52pm

Creationism thread. Naturally progresses to Muslims=creationists.

Come on Lizards, we're better than that.

117 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:38:08pm

re: #113 NonNativeTexan
Are you using IE 8 ?

118 solomonpanting  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:38:16pm

OT:

Muslims get long sentences for U.S. Army base plot

119 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:38:39pm

Solomon;
the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Jimmy the Greek;
Maybe so, but that's the way to bet!

120 rain of lead  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:38:44pm

re: #115 realwest

sneaky mf ers

121 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:40:30pm

re: #117 realwest

Yep, on 2 vista boxes and 1 xp box.
It is always a little buggy at first. But seriously, you need to
upgrade because there will be IE9, IE10 and stuff will quit working
with IE7. You just have to fight through it.

122 Silvergirl  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:41:08pm

re: #74 swamprat

Must drink tea and clean up a bit. I am hoping for some excellent rhetoric before I turn in.

Are you one of those caffeine resistant people? If I drank tea before bed I might doze off around 6am. My dad used to drink a cup of coffee and sleep soundly immediately after. I didn't inherit that ability.

123 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:42:01pm

Interesting article from a Hot Air link about BHO closing the "God gap". If he can get the support of regular church goers, it would seem a socially liberal GOP choice could do the same or much better. Maybe the social litmus test is not needed for the right candidate.

link...

124 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:42:08pm

re: #119 swamprat
Or, as Damon Runyon once said "the race may not go to the fastest horse, nor the fight to the better fighter, but that's the way the smart money bets it."

125 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:42:46pm

re: #69 swamprat

I have stated before that documenting an increase in dna is going to be a very difficult row to hoe, because a larger dna carrying animal, is automatically a different animal. The Robertson contracted dna is a different issue.

Artifactual retroviral DNA sequences, which are spliced into the host DNA sequence by infectng retroviruses, increase the total number of base pairs. In fact, 8% of the human genome consists of these added-from-outside sequences.

126 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:43:18pm

re: #121 NonNativeTexan
Thanks for the encouragement. And of course you're right. Just that everything looks weird now.

127 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:43:45pm

re: #122 Silvergirl
relaxes me, coffee still pushes me

128 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:45:15pm

re: #126 realwest

Thanks for the encouragement. And of course you're right. Just that everything looks weird now.

Looks weird to me too. But 2 weeks from now, will look normal.
We evolve. This is an evolution thread, right :)

129 Irenicum  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:45:19pm

Hey there fellow footballers. As a newby who's only getting used to the territory, this is a topic I can't resist! I'm one of those rare birds called a Christian evolutionist. I'm OPC, which is pretty much the definition of fundy. But I actually believe science is right! LGF is right. And I have resources. Probably the most sound resource I can recommend is "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" by Denis Alexander. He uses facts and figures. He also defends orthodox Christian views of the incarnation. So far, of what I've seen, his view represents what could be called the ultimate rapprochment of science and faith.

130 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:47:34pm

re: #111 realwest

I did the same thing, I usually just install updates without looking and missed IE8. I did find a way to do it just by searching for "rollback from IE8 to IE7". I didn't do it on this machine but did it on another here at home. It worked fine and I am now using IE7 again.

131 swamprat  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:47:39pm

re: #125 Salamantis

Are they useful? Any evidence of viral dna leading to a viable permutation?

Even in disease resistance? That counts towards survivability, but it seems to be be a shell game because we are surviving the d**n viruses.

132 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:47:49pm

re: #129 Irenicum

There are many of "us" evolutionary Christians here.
welcome.

133 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:47:53pm

re: #129 Irenicum
Hey newby, welcome aboard LGF. Uh, what's an "OPC"?

134 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:48:15pm

re: #129 Irenicum

Hey there fellow footballers. As a newby who's only getting used to the territory, this is a topic I can't resist! I'm one of those rare birds called a Christian evolutionist. I'm OPC, which is pretty much the definition of fundy. But I actually believe science is right! LGF is right. And I have resources. Probably the most sound resource I can recommend is "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" by Denis Alexander. He uses facts and figures. He also defends orthodox Christian views of the incarnation. So far, of what I've seen, his view represents what could be called the ultimate rapprochment of science and faith.

Christian evolutionists aren't really very rare; 1.6 billion Roman Catholics, and many nonfundamentalist Protestant denominations, accept evolution.

135 Throbert McGee  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:48:26pm

re: #34 Charles

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

Noblesse oblige, Charles.

136 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:49:16pm

re: #130 sngnsgt Cool!
Thanks I'll give it a try!

137 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:50:09pm

re: #131 swamprat

Are they useful? Any evidence of viral dna leading to a viable permutation?

Even in disease resistance? That counts towards survivability, but it seems to be be a shell game because we are surviving the d**n viruses.

Their spliced in inclusion causes descendant immunity, which is much better than mere individual post-infection antibody immunity; no descendents will ever again contract the spliced-in disease.

138 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:51:25pm

re: #135 Throbert McGee

Noblesse oblige, Charles.

Oh yeah?! Oblige up on this bad boy heah!

Heh.

139 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:51:48pm

re: #123 avanti

Interesting article from a Hot Air link about BHO closing the "God gap". If he can get the support of regular church goers, it would seem a socially liberal GOP choice could do the same or much better. Maybe the social litmus test is not needed for the right candidate.

link...

If he gets some support there, I don't see him being able to hold onto it. He's got too many radicals around him and that fact will tell against him in time. A social liberal would be a bad choice for the GOP. We need a social conservative who isn't rural. Someone who can explain the good aspects of a traditionalist position to wide audience. Social liberalism is a losing proposition for us. We won't win by being DNC-lite.

140 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:52:28pm

re: #46 EmmmieG

That would be because lying is actually breaking a commandment. (As opposed to being honestly wrong, which I have been known to do.)

I am worried that I was insufficiently clear here. I meant that it seems unfair because they are actually breaking a commandment they profess to believe in, while expecting others to follow it.

141 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:52:54pm

To broadly paraphrase a famous statement about the Constitution:

Politeness is not a menticide pact.

142 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:53:34pm

re: #136 realwest

Lemme' know how it works for you. ;-)

143 Throbert McGee  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:53:53pm

re: #134 Salamantis

Christian evolutionists aren't really very rare; 1.6 billion Roman Catholics, and many nonfundamentalist Protestant denominations, accept evolution.

Um, I certainly wouldn't take it for granted that all 1.6 billion Roman Catholics reject creationism just because the Vatican officially rejects it -- anymore than all 1.6 billion Roman Catholics believe that contraceptives and masturbation are "objectively disordered and intrinsically evil."

144 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:55:39pm

re: #130 sngnsgt Hmm. I did what you said and discovered a bunch of stuff - comment boards and all but the "best answer" was from a year ago and talked about a beta version of IE 8 - how do I know if I've got a Beta version or not?

145 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:55:45pm

re: #141 Salamantis

To broadly paraphrase a famous statement about the Constitution:

Politeness is not a menticide pact.

Dude, you made me go and look a word up. Jeepers, that's almost work.

146 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:56:03pm

re: #141 Salamantis

To broadly paraphrase a famous statement about the Constitution:

Politeness is not a menticide pact.

Concur. Letting someone believe in a dangerous lie does them no favors. I see it in Christian terms: I am commanded by God to tell the truth and do what is right, not to tell people what they want to hear and do what is popular.

147 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:56:06pm

re: #143 Throbert McGee

Um, I certainly wouldn't take it for granted that all 1.6 billion Roman Catholics reject creationism just because the Vatican officially rejects it -- anymore than all 1.6 billion Roman Catholics believe that contraceptives and masturbation are "objectively disordered and intrinsically evil."

Nor should all those Africans accept Pope Benedict's statement that condoms contribute to the spread of AIDS at face falue, if they wanna both screw and live.

148 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:56:46pm

re: #145 EmmmieG

Dude, you made me go and look a word up. Jeepers, that's almost work.

Me too!
the systematic effort to undermine and destroy a person's values and beliefs, as by the use of prolonged interrogation, drugs, torture, etc., and to induce radically different ideas.

149 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:57:59pm

re: #139 Dark_Falcon

Social liberalism is a losing proposition for us. We won't win by being DNC-lite.

And that's a deal breaker for many on the left, but maybe enough would look the other way for a strong fiscally conservative candidate.

150 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:58:39pm

If you liked menticide, here are a couple more of my fave words:

ipseity - sense of self

velleity - a whim that hasnt strengthened enough to achieve the status of wish.

151 Adrenalyn  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 9:59:38pm

re: #110 Charles

Actually, no. All Muslims are not creationists. And all Muslims are not violent headchoppers.

Are you about to melt down or something?

second part first, no
first part - I mentioned only the violent variant
misunderstanding perhaps ?

but really, thanks for the politeness of the reply

152 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:00:19pm

re: #139 Dark_Falcon
How about Rudy Giuliani? More socially liberal but decidedly not Left or Democrat.

153 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:01:06pm

re: #150 Salamantis

If you liked menticide, here are a couple more of my fave words:

ipseity - sense of self

velleity - a whim that hasnt strengthened enough to achieve the status of wish.

Proprioception goes well with ipseity. The iPhone has the former, but not the latter.

154 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:01:19pm

re: #142 sngnsgt
Did y'all see my answer to you at #144 ?

155 sngnsgt  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:01:49pm

re: #144 realwest

Hmm. I did what you said and discovered a bunch of stuff - comment boards and all but the "best answer" was from a year ago and talked about a beta version of IE 8 - how do I know if I've got a Beta version or not?

Now that, I don't know. I think if it's still a trial update, then it's considered a 'beta' and once the update is considered finished, it's considered an update/upgrade. Someone help me out if I'm wrong.

156 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:02:23pm

re: #150 Salamantis

If you liked menticide, here are a couple more of my fave words:

ipseity - sense of self

velleity - a whim that hasnt strengthened enough to achieve the status of wish.

I had a velleity to use menticide but was thwarted by my ipseity?

157 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:02:33pm

re: #149 avanti

And that's a deal breaker for many on the left, but maybe enough would look the other way for a strong fiscally conservative candidate.

I don't want the support of the left. I want to establish a coalition of the center and the right. The left does not share my view on the world and would not support those policies that I support.

158 Cato the Elder  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:02:52pm

re: #133 realwest

Hey newby, welcome aboard LGF. Uh, what's an "OPC"?

Ditto, and I'd like to know the same thing. RC, here.

159 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:03:02pm

re: #153 Cato the Elder

Proprioception goes well with ipseity. The iPhone has the former, but not the latter.

I like apperception, too; it is the means by which one apprehends one's ipseity...;~)

160 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:06:44pm

re: #157 Dark_Falcon

I don't want the support of the left. I want to establish a coalition of the center and the right. The left does not share my view on the world and would not support those policies that I support.

But the left and then middle are a largely socially liberal group are they not ?

161 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:06:57pm

re: #152 realwest

How about Rudy Giuliani? More socially liberal but decidedly not Left or Democrat.

He's fine, though I don't see him as a Presidential candidate. I'd like him to run for the Senate in New York next year. His views are well-suited to his state and I think he would be a great help to the GOP in the Senate. It is my conviction that Republicans must be willing to accept local deviations from the national norm. We must not try to force all of our Senators to conform to the same template.

162 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:07:30pm

re: #154 realwest

Com'on real. Don't go back on me. Come on over to the dark side. You can do it. IE8, Ie8, Ie8!

163 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:07:54pm

re: #133 realwest

Hey newby, welcome aboard LGF. Uh, what's an "OPC"?

Orthodox Presbyterian Church?

164 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:09:13pm

re: #160 avanti

But the left and then middle are a largely socially liberal group are they not ?

I'm not sure the middle is as socially liberal as the left is.

165 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:10:08pm

re: #163 capitalist piglet

Good guess..

166 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:10:26pm

Apodictic is a nice word; it means self-evident. Thus something can be apodictically true because you can tell it's true at a glance.

Then there's autochthonous - indigenous, or belonging where found, with th added connotation of having been formed or evolved there. Humans are authchthonous residents of this planet.

167 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:10:38pm

re: #164 capitalist piglet

I'm not sure the middle is as socially liberal as the left is.

I've encountered some people on the left that were not socially liberal in certain issues. Typically that would come out in private conversation.

168 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:11:16pm
169 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:11:51pm

re: #160 avanti

But the left and then middle are a largely socially liberal group are they not ?

The left is. The middle can go either way. Conservatives have done a poor job making their social case lately. Gay Marriage is a poor issue to hang our hats on. I don't like it personally, but the voters of each state should be able to decide for themselves, either through legislation or through referendum. We should focus SonCon efforts on promoting family stability and providing the ethical foundations for a decent life. And creationism must be ditched as the garbage it is.

170 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:12:24pm

re: #110 Charles

Actually, no. All Muslims are not creationists. And all Muslims are not violent headchoppers.

Are you about to melt down or something?

That's true. Some muslims point out certain passages of the koran to support evolution.

171 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:13:37pm

Something that contnuously approaches a destination without ever arriving there asymptotically approaches it. Thus, Zeno's Paradox is about a runner asymptotically approaching a finish line, without ever arriving, as the distance between him and the finish line is successively halved.

It took the advent of calculus to resolve Zeno's Paradox.

172 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:14:11pm

re: #162 NonNativeTexan

Come on over to the dark side.

We have cookies!

173 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:14:12pm

re: #163 capitalist piglet
Good guess I'll bet!

174 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:14:28pm

GN all.

175 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:14:34pm

re: #172 calcajun

We have cookies!

No fruitcup? /

176 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:15:23pm
177 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:15:31pm

re: #167 Gus 802

I've encountered some people on the left that were not socially liberal in certain issues. Typically that would come out in private conversation.

Well, I was just looking at some polling that indicates (and it was a CNN poll) that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life, when given a choice of pro-life or pro-choice as identifiers. I haven't looked so I can't confirm, but I believe most Americans support traditional marriage, as well.

If conservatives are the minority we are being told, then the middle must lean more right than avanti assumes.

178 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:16:22pm

And an atelier is an artist's studio.

And I've mainly been citing just words beginning with 'a'.

Can anyone tell I got 770 out of 800 on the verbal section of my GRE?

/I also got 780 out of 800 on the math portion

179 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:16:45pm

re: #139 Dark_Falcon

If he gets some support there, I don't see him being able to hold onto it. He's got too many radicals around him and that fact will tell against him in time. A social liberal would be a bad choice for the GOP. We need a social conservative who isn't rural. Someone who can explain the good aspects of a traditionalist position to wide audience. Social liberalism is a losing proposition for us. We won't win by being DNC-lite.

That political animal doesn't seem to exist. If the GOP doesn't get the social conservatives revved up they will just stay home like they did in November. It's a fact. The social liberals of the left won't vote for a fiscally conservative candidate either when they can get a fiscally and socially liberal candidate.

Sorry, Mitt Romney, but Mormon is just way yonder too out there as far as being considered a Main Stream religion, yeah scientology is out too. I'm not sayin' it's right, fair or just, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

180 [deleted]  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:17:44pm
181 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:18:38pm

re: #161 Dark_Falcon
Huh, why do you not see Rudy as a Presidential
Candidate? He was my first choice and, although I strongly suspect that it didn't matter who the Republicans ran, Obama was gonna win, I think he'd have made it a closer race and if not closer, then the debates would surely have been more interesting and perhaps illuminating.

182 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:20:19pm

re: #179 jdog29

That political animal doesn't seem to exist. If the GOP doesn't get the social conservatives revved up they will just stay home like they did in November. It's a fact. The social liberals of the left won't vote for a fiscally conservative candidate either when they can get a fiscally and socially liberal candidate.

Sorry, Mitt Romney, but Mormon is just way yonder too out there as far as being considered a Main Stream religion, yeah scientology is out too. I'm not sayin' it's right, fair or just, I'm just saying that's the way things are.

Yes, get them revved up. But rev them up with ideas that the center will support, such as the promotion of honest and limited government. Don't use issues like creationism, which (justly) alienates the middle.

183 Irenicum  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:20:24pm

re: #129 Irenicum

OPC is: Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It came into being during the modernist/fundamentalist controversy in the 1920's. It's not as simple as it sounds. At least as far as I'm concerned.

184 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:21:01pm

re: #181 realwest

Huh, why do you not see Rudy as a Presidential
Candidate? He was my first choice and, although I strongly suspect that it didn't matter who the Republicans ran, Obama was gonna win, I think he'd have made it a closer race and if not closer, then the debates would surely have been more interesting and perhaps illuminating.

If Rudy is at the top of the ticket the Social Conservatives stay home. I'm not saying I'm glad or it's good or right, it's just reality

185 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:21:21pm

G'nite Gracie.

186 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:21:58pm

re: #184 jdog29

If Rudy is at the top of the ticket the Social Conservatives stay home. I'm not saying I'm glad or it's good or right, it's just reality

Let 'em.

187 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:22:48pm

re: #184 jdog29

If Rudy is at the top of the ticket the Social Conservatives stay home. I'm not saying I'm glad or it's good or right, it's just reality

So instead, they get Obama. Boy, the "bite off your nose to spite your face" politics drives me NUTS.

188 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:23:26pm

re: #184 jdog29
Ah, excuse me - then you are saying that without the vote of the SoCons, no Republican Presidential Candidate will win?
Did McCain get the support of the SoCons? And if so, for what?

189 NonNativeTexan  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:23:34pm

One joke before I go, my son heard it on the radio this
morning.
People said that America will elect a black president when
pigs fly,, well swine flu.
Now really, good night.

190 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:23:38pm

re: #181 realwest

Huh, why do you not see Rudy as a Presidential
Candidate? He was my first choice and, although I strongly suspect that it didn't matter who the Republicans ran, Obama was gonna win, I think he'd have made it a closer race and if not closer, then the debates would surely have been more interesting and perhaps illuminating.

He's too socially liberal for much of our base. And his support of gun control is not a position the GOP agrees with. Guliani has a place in the GOP, but not as its chief standard bearer.

191 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:25:00pm

Is the "big tent" too big? Or is it too small?

192 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:25:27pm

re: #189 NonNativeTexan

One joke before I go, my son heard it on the radio this
morning.
People said that America will elect a black president when
pigs fly,, well swine flu.
Now really, good night.

[smiles]

193 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:26:07pm

re: #182 Dark_Falcon

Yes, get them revved up. But rev them up with ideas that the center will support, such as the promotion of honest and limited government. Don't use issues like creationism, which (justly) alienates the middle.

I don't know ANY social cons running for national office pushing creationism in the science classes. Are there any? Have there EVER been any?

Just because some people get lazy in a couple of states from time to time and creationism takes over a local school board here and there until it gets slapped BACK down AGAIN, not that they won't try again on some other obscure school board somewhere only to suffer defeat again, How does this even qualify as a national WEDGE issue when it's not even a NATIONAL ISSUE.

194 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:26:22pm

re: #184 jdog29

If Rudy is at the top of the ticket the Social Conservatives stay home. I'm not saying I'm glad or it's good or right, it's just reality

I look forward to the day when the social conservatives all stay home, and the adults can take back control of the GOP.

195 Ben G. Hazi  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:26:24pm

re: #186 Sharmuta

Let 'em.

Exactly...we need a strong Commander-In-Chief, not a Proselytizer-In-Chief.

/hell, we didn't need a Community Organizer-In-Chief, but we have to live with him till 1/2013, at the very least...

196 Ghazicide  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:26:57pm

re: #178 Salamantis

I was expecting a 790 slacker.

197 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:27:34pm

re: #184 jdog29

I'm not so sure....we're at Hussein Dolt's first 100 days thanks in large part to the Conservatives who said they'd stay home and flounce pout instead of pulling the lever for McCain.

198 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:28:24pm

re: #193 jdog29

I don't know ANY social cons running for national office pushing creationism in the science classes. Are there any? Have there EVER been any?

Rick Santorum. Bobby Jindal. Mark Sanford. Mike Huckabee. Sam Brownback.

I could go on for a long time.

199 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:28:28pm

re: #177 capitalist piglet

Well, I was just looking at some polling that indicates (and it was a CNN poll) that the majority of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life, when given a choice of pro-life or pro-choice as identifiers. I haven't looked so I can't confirm, but I believe most Americans support traditional marriage, as well.

If conservatives are the minority we are being told, then the middle must lean more right than avanti assumes.

Depends on how you ask the question. For example, I'm not pro abortion,( Who is ?) others may be pro life personally but don't want to make abortion illegal for others, and very few would want woman criminalized for having a abortion.

200 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:28:39pm

re: #191 Syrah

Is the "big tent" too big? Or is it too small?

I think the entry question should be "what is the role of government?"

201 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:29:04pm

re: #175 Gus 802

If you're tardy, no.

202 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:29:40pm

re: #191 Syrah

Is the "big tent" too big? Or is it too small?

Too small right now. I need to think a bit more about this. The question of defending key principles while broadening the scope of views in the party is a tricky matter that I need to think through before articulating further.

203 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:30:15pm

re: #201 calcajun

If you're tardy, no.

Yeah, I might fall over. I saw tardy and was thinking about what I was about to post something but nixed it. Something about being a moderate and all that jazz.

204 calcajun  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:30:42pm

re: #176 buzzsawmonkey

Everybody has cookies. Do you delete them on a regular basis?

What I do with my cookies is none of your damn business./

205 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:30:56pm

re: #198 Charles

Rick Santorum. Bobby Jindal. Mark Sanford. Mike Huckabee. Sam Brownback.

I could go on for a long time.

Doesn't Ron Paul finagle his way in there somewhere?

206 avanti  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:31:07pm

re: #202 Dark_Falcon

Too small right now. I need to think a bit more about this. The question of defending key principles while broadening the scope of views in the party is a tricky matter that I need to think through before articulating further.

While you think, I'll sleep. It's past my bedtime and as much as I enjoy the discussion, I'm pooped. Nite all.

207 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:31:26pm

It's kind of amazing that people would try to deny there's a GOP problem with creationism, after all the posts on the subject at LGF.

But denial is what creationists do, I guess.

208 My Name Is Larry  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:31:58pm

As far as books with excellent info about evolution, I bought this one for a kid's 12th birthday (friend of my son) and found myself reading it myself. Wow! Despite the title, it had the clearest explanation of evolution I'd ever read even as a grown-up:

Darwin and Evolution for Kids: His Life and Ideas

Definitely recommend it for any kids you want to protect from deceptive creationist tricks. (The books at the top of this post seem too heavy-duty for kids.) And you might want to look at it yourself for a crystal-clear explanation for non-expert adults as well.

209 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:32:08pm

re: #187 capitalist piglet

So instead, they get Obama. Boy, the "bite off your nose to spite your face" politics drives me NUTS.

I agree with your logic, but it won't play to emotion. If Obama has the emotional advantage, i.e. GOP runs a McCain or Dole clone, we're looking at National Healthcare, Card Check, Misery Spread Equally.

We can't pick candidates trying to explain unemployment extrapalations. It has to be Lee Greenwood singing God Bless the USA.

Logically no, in reality yes.

210 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:32:10pm

re: #172 calcajun

We have cookies!

Ok, but what about the dental plan?

211 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:32:41pm

re: #207 Charles

It's kind of amazing that people would try to deny there's a GOP problem with creationism, after all the posts on the subject at LGF.

But denial is what creationists do, I guess.

Creationism and then some.

212 Ben G. Hazi  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:32:47pm

re: #207 Charles

It's kind of amazing that people would try to deny there's a GOP problem with creationism, after all the posts on the subject at LGF.

But denial is what creationists do, I guess.

Like the old joke goes, denial isn't just a river in Egypt...

/

213 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:33:46pm

re: #191 Syrah

When that tent gets big enough to include skinheads, Paulians, 9/11 truthers and the fuckwits who reassured us that 0bama was going to 'govern from the center' is when the tent won't have to worry about making room for me.

214 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:33:48pm

re: #200 Sharmuta

I think the entry question should be "what is the role of government?"

It would be a great question. Its one that I think we should ask every aspiring and sitting politician. (Its the kind of question really needs to be asked in the Presidential debates.)

I would very much like to see a change in our culture such that voters could articulate what they believed in political and could articulate why they vote for the candidates that they do.

As far as the American political parties themselves, they suffer from a systemic inability to be ideologically consistent. It creates one problem while solving another.

215 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:33:50pm

re: #190 Dark_Falcon
Well I was fortunate to have lived in NYC for all 8 years of Rudy, saw him "clean up" the city in terms of fightng crime (which I think SoCons like, right?) Saw him clean out the pornogrpahic movie theaters, bookstores and the prostitution that accompanied it (using really neat techniques if you're a lawyer!) and I think SoCons would like that, too wouldn't they?
And he DID drag NYC out of the financial plight former mayor Dinkins (and the two Dem Mayors before him) helped us get into and I'd have to think that all Cons would approve that (in fact, iirc, Rudy ran on both the Republican and Conservative Party lines in both of his mayoral wins); and I don't think many would find fault with his tough stance on the WoT, either.
And of course he does have executive/Administrative experience.

216 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:34:22pm

re: #207 Charles

It's kind of amazing that people would try to deny there's a GOP problem with creationism, after all the posts on the subject at LGF.

But denial is what creationists do, I guess.

Too many trees blocking the view of the forest.

217 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:35:13pm

re: #34 Charles

While I don't disagree with that in principle, I always wonder why that forebearance is only expected to go one way; pro-evolution people are supposed to walk on eggshells to avoid offending creationists, but creationists are allowed to lie, distort, misquote scientists, and scream about their hurt feelings.

It just don't seem fair.

re: #207 Charles

It's kind of amazing that people would try to deny there's a GOP problem with creationism, after all the posts on the subject at LGF.

But denial is what creationists do, I guess.

Lie
and Deny

Two great tastes that go great together!

218 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:35:41pm

re: #194 Charles

I look forward to the day when the social conservatives all stay home, and the adults can take back control of the GOP.

I don't see social conservatism as juvenile. I see it as the proper way of viewing societal organization, but that it has taken a wrong turn into anti-science in the matter of creationism. I am a social conservative, but I do my best to ensure that I do not let that contradict my support for freedom. I'm not trying to insult or deride you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

219 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:36:46pm

re: #213 Fenway_Nation

When that tent gets big enough to include skinheads, Paulians, 9/11 truthers and the fuckwits who reassured us that 0bama was going to 'govern from the center' is when the tent won't have to worry about making room for me.

There are reasonable limits either way.

Winning elections is important, but not so important that it is worth your soul.

220 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:37:21pm

re: #215 realwest

Well I was fortunate to have lived in NYC for all 8 years of Rudy, saw him "clean up" the city in terms of fightng crime (which I think SoCons like, right?) Saw him clean out the pornogrpahic movie theaters, bookstores and the prostitution that accompanied it (using really neat techniques if you're a lawyer!) and I think SoCons would like that, too wouldn't they?
And he DID drag NYC out of the financial plight former mayor Dinkins (and the two Dem Mayors before him) helped us get into and I'd have to think that all Cons would approve that (in fact, iirc, Rudy ran on both the Republican and Conservative Party lines in both of his mayoral wins); and I don't think many would find fault with his tough stance on the WoT, either.
And of course he does have executive/Administrative experience.

Like I said, he is great. I'd like him to run for the Senate and then see how he does after he wins.

221 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:39:11pm

re: #218 Dark_Falcon

I don't see social conservatism as juvenile. I see it as the proper way of viewing societal organization, but that it has taken a wrong turn into anti-science in the matter of creationism. I am a social conservative, but I do my best to ensure that I do not let that contradict my support for freedom. I'm not trying to insult or deride you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

The ideal of social conservatism isn't juvenile, just so many of those who are self-professed SoCons want to act like kids when they are not given their way.

222 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:39:50pm

re: #213 Fenway_Nation

When that tent gets big enough to include skinheads, Paulians, 9/11 truthers and the fuckwits who reassured us that 0bama was going to 'govern from the center' is when the tent won't have to worry about making room for me.


I'm sorry, it's late and I'm really tired, but do you think the fuckwits who reassured us that Obama was going to 'govern from the center' were in the same tent as the skinheads, Paulians and truthers?

223 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:40:53pm

re: #215 realwest

Well I was fortunate to have lived in NYC for all 8 years of Rudy, saw him "clean up" the city in terms of fightng crime (which I think SoCons like, right?) Saw him clean out the pornogrpahic movie theaters, bookstores and the prostitution that accompanied it (using really neat techniques if you're a lawyer!) and I think SoCons would like that, too wouldn't they?
And he DID drag NYC out of the financial plight former mayor Dinkins (and the two Dem Mayors before him) helped us get into and I'd have to think that all Cons would approve that (in fact, iirc, Rudy ran on both the Republican and Conservative Party lines in both of his mayoral wins); and I don't think many would find fault with his tough stance on the WoT, either.
And of course he does have executive/Administrative experience.

Unfortunately SoCons have a weird lack of understanding of being human. They want all their candidates to toe some arbitrary religious dogma line or else NO support.

224 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:41:30pm

re: #218 Dark_Falcon

I don't see social conservatism as juvenile. I see it as the proper way of viewing societal organization, but that it has taken a wrong turn into anti-science in the matter of creationism. I am a social conservative, but I do my best to ensure that I do not let that contradict my support for freedom. I'm not trying to insult or deride you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point.

I prefer social libertarianism; as long as adults consent, they should be free to choose their own societal views, and live them. But they should not legally either constrain or be constrained by differing others.

For me, it's a matter of maximizing personal freedom.

I feel that all people should enjoy all freedoms that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, and where conflicts between competing freedoms inevitably arise, they should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.

225 Charles Johnson  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:41:48pm

re: #223 FurryOldGuyJeans

Unfortunately SoCons have a weird lack of understanding of being human.

A lack of understanding what it means to be human, and a desire to force their views of what it means to be human on everyone else.

226 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:42:00pm

re: #199 avanti

Depends on how you ask the question. For example, I'm not pro abortion,( Who is ?) others may be pro life personally but don't want to make abortion illegal for others, and very few would want woman criminalized for having a abortion.

That's why I pointed out it was a CNN poll. Are you suggesting they would frame the question to skew the results toward the pro-life side?

Looking at it again, here is the question:

"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

I just now realized I read the dates wrong; there was a shift toward the pro-choice side in the recent past (in spring/summer of '07 it was more pro-life), but it's still divided pretty evenly, just a few points on either side of 50%.

I'm fairly conservative, but there are people FAR to the right of me on this issue. That is to say I'm honestly not arguing for either side here. I'm just telling you what the poll indicates, because it illustrates a flaw in your assumptions about middle-of-the-road voters.

227 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:42:20pm

re: #215 realwest

Well I was fortunate to have lived in NYC for all 8 years of Rudy, saw him "clean up" the city in terms of fightng crime (which I think SoCons like, right?) Saw him clean out the pornogrpahic movie theaters, bookstores and the prostitution that accompanied it (using really neat techniques if you're a lawyer!) and I think SoCons would like that, too wouldn't they?
And he DID drag NYC out of the financial plight former mayor Dinkins (and the two Dem Mayors before him) helped us get into and I'd have to think that all Cons would approve that (in fact, iirc, Rudy ran on both the Republican and Conservative Party lines in both of his mayoral wins); and I don't think many would find fault with his tough stance on the WoT, either.
And of course he does have executive/Administrative experience.

Yeah but, say the wrong thing about abortion or gays once and you are a liberal!

"You shouldn't make a pro-choice statement. Rudy made a pro-choice statement once.... once"

/johnny dangerously

228 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:42:39pm

re: #190 Dark_Falcon

With that said, can anyone here honestly see Rudy going overseas and kowtowing to the likes of a Danny Ortega or Hugo Chavez or apoligizing for America's 'arrogance' to the Euros?

229 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:42:42pm

re: #225 Charles

A lack of understanding being human, and a desire to force their views of what it means to be human on everyone else.

We can't forget the religious dogma litmus test! ;)

230 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:43:26pm

re: #224 Salamantis


I feel that all people should enjoy all freedoms that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, and where conflicts between competing freedoms inevitably arise, they should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.

Hey, keep it down over there, you're frightening the horses...

231 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:43:59pm

re: #220 Dark_Falcon
I say this with the greatest respect my friend, but being Mayor of NYC - with an all Democratic City Council (NYC's version of Congress if the Mayor is portrayed as President there) is a HELL of a lot more challenging than being a Senator. Moreover the question of whether or not Rudy can attract Democratic voters was answered twice - most assuredly yes. Republicans and Conservatives (party I mean) had no where near the number of votes Rudy needed - he attracted a good deal of Democratic voters as well.

232 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:44:08pm

re: #221 FurryOldGuyJeans

The ideal of social conservatism isn't juvenile, just so many of those who are self-professed SoCons want to act like kids when they are not given their way.

Agreed. Too many SoCons seek to impose morality. I do not, seeking instead to persuade.

233 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:44:33pm

re: #230 rawmuse

Hey, keep it down over there, you're frightening the horses...

Okay, then; no more sex with Frau Blucher!

234 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:45:34pm

re: #198 Charles

Rick Santorum. Bobby Jindal. Mark Sanford. Mike Huckabee. Sam Brownback.

I could go on for a long time.

Mike Huckabee, big surprise with him being a former minister, Do you consider Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford and Sam Brownback national candidates? I don't.

So would you, like the social cons, stay home if a creationist got the nomination? Not likely because you would recognize the far greater consequences of not voting and I would think you would feel supremely confident in the abilities of the science based education system to defeat efforts to "creationize" science classes. The last measure would be the science teachers themselves just omitting that part of the curriculum as many teachers already do in any number of areas.

235 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:45:43pm

re: #227 ArchangelMichael

Yeah but, say the wrong thing about abortion or gays once and you are a liberal!

"You shouldn't make a pro-choice statement. Rudy made a pro-choice statement once.... once"

/johnny dangerously

Yep.

Been there - done that.

236 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:46:09pm

re: #215 realwest

Well I was fortunate to have lived in NYC for all 8 years of Rudy, saw him "clean up" the city in terms of fightng crime (which I think SoCons like, right?) Saw him clean out the pornogrpahic movie theaters, bookstores and the prostitution that accompanied it (using really neat techniques if you're a lawyer!) and I think SoCons would like that, too wouldn't they?
And he DID drag NYC out of the financial plight former mayor Dinkins (and the two Dem Mayors before him) helped us get into and I'd have to think that all Cons would approve that (in fact, iirc, Rudy ran on both the Republican and Conservative Party lines in both of his mayoral wins); and I don't think many would find fault with his tough stance on the WoT, either.
And of course he does have executive/Administrative experience.

What would the world look like with Bibi Netanyahu and Rudy Giuliani leading their respective nations?

[Sigh. Shake off that dream, piglet.]

237 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:46:39pm

re: #227 ArchangelMichael

or more accurately it should have been /danny vermin

238 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:46:43pm

re: #227 ArchangelMichael

Yeah but, say the wrong thing about abortion or gays once and you are a liberal!

"You shouldn't make a pro-choice statement. Rudy made a pro-choice statement once.... once"

/johnny dangerously

And that I don't like. I'm not a fan of dogmatic conservatism, any more than I like dogmatic liberalism.

239 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:47:54pm

re: #228 Fenway_Nation

With that said, can anyone here honestly see Rudy going overseas and kowtowing to the likes of a Danny Ortega or Hugo Chavez or apoligizing for America's 'arrogance' to the Euros?

Not just no, but hell no.

240 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:48:56pm

re: #222 realwest

No- I'm saying that I personally have as much use for them as I do skinheads, Paulians or 9/11 truthers.

It's one thing to say that as a sort of theraputic mantra after the GOP had their collective asses handed to them on a silver platter in November, but I'm referring to the ones who were trying to sugar-coat an 0bama administration and his policies before the election.

241 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:49:11pm

re: #224 Salamantis

I prefer social libertarianism; as long as adults consent, they should be free to choose their own societal views, and live them. But they should not legally either constrain or be constrained by differing others.

For me, it's a matter of maximizing personal freedom.

I feel that all people should enjoy all freedoms that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, and where conflicts between competing freedoms inevitably arise, they should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.

I have to say that I agree with almost everything you say, but have two questions for you: how do conflicts be resolved via equal and proportional compromise? (I'm of course assuming unequal and disproportional voting groups here). And my second question has to do with Hate Crimes - do y'all think Hate Speech - defined as calling someone an ugly name, not calling for someone to be killed - should be a crime?

242 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:49:35pm

Look, it is really very simple. All I want the government to do is those things which I/we can not do for myself/ourselves, like build and maintain roads, provide for national defense and security, print the money, and make as few laws as possible in order to do it.

Is that so much to ask?

243 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:49:38pm

re: #236 capitalist piglet

What would the world look like with Bibi Netanyahu and Rudy Giuliani leading their respective nations?

[Sigh. Shake off that dream, piglet.]

Well, for starters, Iran's nuclear site would be craters right now.

244 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:50:03pm

I have this feeling like, despite all the hate on Rudy and to some extent Mitt Romney from the Socons before the last election, if either had actually won the nomination and the election they would have been remembered as the second coming of Ronald Reagen after 2016.

/Especially considering a lot of socons thought Reagen was a RINO before 1980.

245 Syrah  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:50:46pm

re: #242 rawmuse

Look, it is really very simple. All I want the government to do is those things which I/we can not do for myself/ourselves, like build and maintain roads, provide for national defense and security, print the money, and make as few laws as possible in order to do it.

Is that so much to ask?

Yes.

246 Macker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:50:57pm

re: #239 capitalist piglet

Not just no, but hell no.

You stole my line!

/LOL

247 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:51:05pm

re: #242 rawmuse

Look, it is really very simple. All I want the government to do is those things which I/we can not do for myself/ourselves, like build and maintain roads, provide for national defense and security, print the money, and make as few laws as possible in order to do it.

Is that so much to ask?

Given the current crop of the electorate and politicos we are "blessed" with, yes.

248 Macker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:52:08pm

re: #242 rawmuse

Look, it is really very simple. All I want the government to do is those things which I/we can not do for myself/ourselves, like build and maintain roads, provide for national defense and security, print the money, and make as few laws as possible in order to do it.

Is that so much to ask?

For the government, that's too little.

249 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:52:16pm

A great way to piss off so-cons is to say we need to return to our fiscal roots.

250 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:52:56pm

re: #247 FurryOldGuyJeans

Given the current crop of the electorate and politicos we are "blessed" with, yes.

That is what I thought too. I think I heard the Pres tell me to wash my hands for the first time. Not good.

I have been doing that a long time, at least a week or so.

251 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:53:22pm

re: #249 Sharmuta

A great way to piss off so-cons is to say we need to return to our fiscal roots.

BBA2! Yeah! ;)

252 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:54:25pm

re: #248 Macker

For the government, that's too little.

The government is just a result of the electorate.

253 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:54:53pm

If I were a Dem strategist, I would try and figure out a way to get the GOP to run a social moderate/fiscal conservative. The GOP candidate would LOOK LIKE a social conservative to Dems and a social liberal to the social conservatives.

Best Case Scenario for the Dems plays out with a third party candidate emerging from the right a la Perot part deaux sending Obama into his second term with a plurality rivaling Clinton's first term.

254 rawmuse  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:37pm

re: #252 FurryOldGuyJeans

The government is just a result of the electorate.

OK, now you are really scaring the shit out of me.
I'll be hiding under my covers if anyone needs me.
Hasta la manana, Lizards.

255 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:39pm

re: #250 rawmuse

That is what I thought too. I think I heard the Pres tell me to wash my hands for the first time. Not good.

I have been doing that a long time, at least a week or so.

Too many people WANT to be told what to do, how to live their life. They WANT their bread and circuses, no matter the cost.

256 Macker  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:43pm

re: #253 jdog29

As long as it's not Pee-rot.

257 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:55:52pm

re: #209 jdog29

I agree with your logic, but it won't play to emotion. If Obama has the emotional advantage, i.e. GOP runs a McCain or Dole clone, we're looking at National Healthcare, Card Check, Misery Spread Equally.

We can't pick candidates trying to explain unemployment extrapalations. It has to be Lee Greenwood singing God Bless the USA.

Logically no, in reality yes.

This is insanity. By refusing to acknowledge the consequences, they essentially voted for Obama. I, for one, am sick and tired of their "emotions". They had better grow the hell up and get with the program, because where we are now is as much their fault as it is the fault of any liberal idiot whose understanding of politics goes no deeper than "Yes we can."

258 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:56:24pm

re: #223 FurryOldGuyJeans
"Unfortunately SoCons have a weird lack of understanding of being human. They want all their candidates to toe some arbitrary religious dogma line or else NO support." Well absent some specified definition of "religious dogma" what makes them different from the radical left, to whom support of abortion on demand, just as one example, comes pretty close to a religious dogma - and most assuredly is a dogma, religious or otherwise?

259 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:56:49pm

Who knows, Clinton came out of Nowhere, maybe the Socon Urban National Candidate suggested earlier by Dark Falcon does exist and will show up between now and 2012.

260 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:56:58pm

re: #249 Sharmuta

re: #251 FurryOldGuyJeans

Speaking of the BBA, Ive been thinking... is 3/5 really enough protection from every budget being an "emergency"? The make up of the Congress as it is now, seems like one side would only need to grease, asskiss, or bribe a few to get 60%.

I'd prefer the deficit override vote to require 3/4 or more.

261 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:57:53pm

re: #240 Fenway_Nation
"No- I'm saying that I personally have as much use for them as I do skinheads, Paulians or 9/11 truthers."
Glad to hear that, cause that's how I feel, too. But - with apologies, that wasn't clear to me from your original post.

262 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:58:24pm

re: #260 ArchangelMichael

re: #251 FurryOldGuyJeans

Speaking of the BBA, Ive been thinking... is 3/5 really enough protection from every budget being an "emergency"? The make up of the Congress as it is now, seems like one side would only need to grease, asskiss, or bribe a few to get 60%.

I'd prefer the deficit override vote to require 3/4 or more.

Better to have at least some skids on the money train than just accepting the current out of control situation.

263 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 10:59:18pm

re: #253 jdog29

And the best case for the GOP would be to find a candidate who could be a social conservative but filter the crazy out. Promote strong families, but not creationism. Oppose abortion, but don't make an issue out gay marriage. Defend life, defend freedom.

264 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:00:16pm

re: #241 realwest

I have to say that I agree with almost everything you say, but have two questions for you: how do conflicts be resolved via equal and proportional compromise? (I'm of course assuming unequal and disproportional voting groups here). And my second question has to do with Hate Crimes - do y'all think Hate Speech - defined as calling someone an ugly name, not calling for someone to be killed - should be a crime?

Equal and proportional compromise has traditonally been constitutionally resolved via guaranteed rights. The majority has no right to impose behavioral tyranny upon the rights of the minority, but is otherwise free to behave as it wishes. For instance; don't approve of abortion or gay civil unions? Then don't engage in them - but don't prevent others who have differing moral views on them from so engaging.

The 'proportional' principle can be extrapolated to cumulative damage in such matters as small injuries to large numbers of people, as in corporate CEOs ripping off millions of stockholders for minor amounts apiece, or polluting the air or drinking water of millions causing a small but significant statistical rise in cancer rates, being subjected to severe penalties.

As far as racist, sexist, religiously intolerant, and homophobic epithets are concerned, I am not in favor of criminalizing objectionable free speech. If people want to publicly advertize that they're bigoted morons, I figure they'll pay dearly enough in the currency of negative social karma, anyway.

265 Fenway_Nation  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:00:26pm

re: #239 capitalist piglet

Damn straight.....even if Rudy and I would disagree on issues like gun-control or abortion (something tells me the gap isn't as insurmountable as others would have me believe), we wouldn't be pursuing 'diplomacy' with the Taliban, the Castro brothers or Achmedinejahd...

266 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:00:55pm

re: #257 capitalist piglet

This is insanity. By refusing to acknowledge the consequences, they essentially voted for Obama. I, for one, am sick and tired of their "emotions". They had better grow the hell up and get with the program, because where we are now is as much their fault as it is the fault of any liberal idiot whose understanding of politics goes no deeper than "Yes we can."

I agree wholeheartedly, again, I'm not saying this is good, I'm saying this is reality. It happened, they stayed home it's on them, but like the Dem Florida voters who voted for Nader they still refuse to admit reality, even Nader refuses to admit reality.

267 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:01:07pm

re: #258 realwest

At the core I don't see a lot of operational difference between the ends of the spectrum, both want to mandate what people can do and believe. The actual restrictions and beliefs are just camouflage for the real agenda and objective, control and power over others.

268 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:01:53pm

re: #249 Sharmuta

A great way to piss off so-cons is to say we need to return to our fiscal roots.


Um, it's ok, I'm really tired and going to bed shortly but why would fiscal restraint piss off so-cons?

269 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:02:08pm

re: #259 jdog29

Who knows, Clinton came out of Nowhere, maybe the Socon Urban National Candidate suggested earlier by Dark Falcon does exist and will show up between now and 2012.

He or she does not need to be urban, but they do need to be able to speak to urban audiences and show said people how the GOP can help them. A national candidate needs to have national appeal. We won't win with a regional candidate.

270 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:02:53pm

re: #253 jdog29

If I were a Dem strategist, I would try and figure out a way to get the GOP to run a social moderate/fiscal conservative. The GOP candidate would LOOK LIKE a social conservative to Dems and a social liberal to the social conservatives.

Best Case Scenario for the Dems plays out with a third party candidate emerging from the right a la Perot part deaux sending Obama into his second term with a plurality rivaling Clinton's first term.

What are you smoking? You realize that Perot was attractive to people because he was preaching fiscal conservatism, right?

The GOP doesn't win without fisc-cons. Hasn't since 1992 and won't into the future.

271 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:03:50pm

re: #268 realwest

Um, it's ok, I'm really tired and going to bed shortly but why would fiscal restraint piss off so-cons?

Ask them.

272 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:05:02pm

re: #270 Sharmuta

What are you smoking? You realize that Perot was attractive to people because he was preaching fiscal conservatism, right?

The GOP doesn't win without fisc-cons. Hasn't since 1992 and won't into the future.

Concur.

273 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:05:13pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

Ask them.

I'd prefer instead to do a pre-frontal lobotomy on myself by shoving frozen peas up my nose. ;)

274 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:05:51pm

re: #273 FurryOldGuyJeans

I missed you. Good to see you back.

275 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:06:04pm

Dark Falcon #263

I predict the state will be out of the marriage business by the next presidential election.

Ken Starr argued in favor of upholding prop 8 and he admitted that if the state didn't issue ANY marriage licenses it would solve the problem and those married by the religious organization of their choice would feel no less married even if their marriage wasn't recognized by the state.

The opposition agreed!

276 ynahmias  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:07:09pm

You missed Neil Shubin recent book.
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year
History of the Human Body
find out why we hiccup.

277 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:07:31pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

I missed you. Good to see you back.

So you want to see me shove frozen produce up my nose? ;)

278 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:07:50pm

re: #263 Dark_Falcon

And the best case for the GOP would be to find a candidate who could be a social conservative but filter the crazy out. Promote strong families, but not creationism. Oppose abortion, but don't make an issue out gay marriage. Defend life, defend freedom.

You probably know this, but the majority of the country (not a huge gap, either, but several points over 50%) opposes gay marriage. If it can't pass in California, that tells us something.

I would imagine civil unions (because the issue WILL come up) would have much broader support.

But I definitely like the idea of being the party of freedom. That's a good word, and that is what we should be.

279 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:08:02pm

re: #275 jdog29

Dark Falcon #263

I predict the state will be out of the marriage business by the next presidential election.

Ken Starr argued in favor of upholding prop 8 and he admitted that if the state didn't issue ANY marriage licenses it would solve the problem and those married by the religious organization of their choice would feel no less married even if their marriage wasn't recognized by the state.

The opposition agreed!

I doubt that prediction. Marriage has legal implications that are woven pretty deeply into law,

280 Killgore Trout  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:08:14pm

I'm wondering about how the social conservatives feel about the Paulians who seem to have stolen the Republican party (at least for now). The Religious right hasn't made a peep about it as far as I can tell. What gives?

281 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:09:00pm

re: #260 ArchangelMichael

re: #251 FurryOldGuyJeans

Speaking of the BBA, Ive been thinking... is 3/5 really enough protection from every budget being an "emergency"? The make up of the Congress as it is now, seems like one side would only need to grease, asskiss, or bribe a few to get 60%.

I'd prefer the deficit override vote to require 3/4 or more.

That's a fair question to raise. I would think yearly 3/5 votes would be difficult, and the electorate would likely be pissed. But a different super majority number could be inserted.

282 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:09:06pm

re: #275 jdog29

Dark Falcon #263

I predict the state will be out of the marriage business by the next presidential election.

Ken Starr argued in favor of upholding prop 8 and he admitted that if the state didn't issue ANY marriage licenses it would solve the problem and those married by the religious organization of their choice would feel no less married even if their marriage wasn't recognized by the state.

The opposition agreed!

The only reason the state gets involved is because of legal and monetary matters. Why else have common law marriages?

283 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:10:16pm

re: #280 Killgore Trout

I'm wondering about how the social conservatives feel about the Paulians who seem to have stolen the Republican party (at least for now). The Religious right hasn't made a peep about it as far as I can tell. What gives?

Isn't there some commonality in the "return to our original intent" rhetoric?

284 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:10:20pm

re: #278 capitalist piglet

You probably know this, but the majority of the country (not a huge gap, either, but several points over 50%) opposes gay marriage. If it can't pass in California, that tells us something.

I would imagine civil unions (because the issue WILL come up) would have much broader support.

But I definitely like the idea of being the party of freedom. That's a good word, and that is what we should be.

Thank you for that last. I don't favor gay marriage (though I support civil unions), I'm just saying its not an issue we should make a core principle or a litmus test.

285 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:10:38pm

re: #280 Killgore Trout

I'm wondering about how the social conservatives feel about the Paulians who seem to have stolen the Republican party (at least for now). The Religious right hasn't made a peep about it as far as I can tell. What gives?

I'm probably not the kind of "social conservative" you're referring to, Killgore, but I don't agree with your premise. When Ron Paul wins a presidential primary or heads the RNC, I'll acknowledge he has "stolen" the party.

286 BatGuano  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:11:45pm

re: #273 FurryOldGuyJeans

" I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy"

287 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:11:46pm

re: #282 FurryOldGuyJeans

The only reason the state gets involved is because of legal and monetary matters. Why else have common law marriages?

The state did not issue marriage licenses for much of our nation's history; it only began doing so in order to check the applicants' race so as to prevent interracial marriages (the historical former crime of miscegenation).

288 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:12:19pm

re: #284 Dark_Falcon

Thank you for that last. I don't favor gay marriage (though I support civil unions), I'm just saying its not an issue we should make a core principle or a litmus test.

We're on the same page, I think (I would accept civil unions, as well); I just believe that whatever the left thinks is a point of vulnerability for us will become an issue. The media is in the bag, and they will set the table.

On the other hand, they can read polls too.

289 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:12:20pm

re: #270 Sharmuta

What are you smoking? You realize that Perot was attractive to people because he was preaching fiscal conservatism, right?

The GOP doesn't win without fisc-cons. Hasn't since 1992 and won't into the future.

I agree, you're missing my point, just as Perot's fiscal conservatism was the primary driver of his candidacy the social conservatism of the 3rd party candidate would be the primary driver of his or her candidacy.

AND if I were a GOP strategist I would be hoping for a viable 3rd party candidate emerging from the left, but it is hard to imagine someone outflanking President Obama from the left.

290 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:13:14pm

re: #281 Sharmuta

That's a fair question to raise. I would think yearly 3/5 votes would be difficult, and the electorate would likely be pissed. But a different super majority number could be inserted.

Perhaps 3/5 + 1 might do, but I'd push for 3/4. It should be designed to ensure such a decision is actually bipartisan in nature. I don't consider something to be truly bipartisan if 60 democrats vote yes, 40 republicans vote no and there's your supermajority. I know the house makeup is different but we are close to one party having supermajority as it is.

291 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:13:53pm

re: #264 Salamantis
"Equal and proportional compromise has traditionally been constitutionally resolved via guaranteed rights"
Yeah, that's how I feel too and in fact thought that was what we had with the Bill of Rights but then SOMEONE - in our case SCOTUS - has to decide if that "resolution" has been reached in accord with the guaranteed rights of the Constitution. And that's why I brought up the issue of hate speech. Our Constitution provides that Congress shall make no laws abridging the right of freedom of speech. Simple, Congress shall make no laws and yet that simple, pure rule of conduct here has been modified, altered and turned on it's head by Justices of the Supreme Court who are ONLY supposed to NOT enforce a law as it is written if said law is ambiguous.

292 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:16:02pm

re: #271 Sharmuta
Why, you're the one who made the statement and I'll be damned if I'm gonna go talk to 'em!

293 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:16:50pm

re: #278 capitalist piglet

You probably know this, but the majority of the country (not a huge gap, either, but several points over 50%) opposes gay marriage. If it can't pass in California, that tells us something.

I would imagine civil unions (because the issue WILL come up) would have much broader support.

But I definitely like the idea of being the party of freedom. That's a good word, and that is what we should be.

You know. A large segment of the gay population are free-market capitalists. Many invest in real estate and have other financial goals that are very much in line with traditional conservative ideas. Think Adam Smith and Milton Freidman. A lot of this is exemplified by the Log Cabin Republicans.

So-cons only serve to alienate these potential allies and voters for the sake of single issue campaign rhetoric such as the gay marriage issue. This is further amplified by so-cons who even oppose civil unions and are associated some so-cons that are even supportive of restraining divorce laws and other issues of marriage. The latter of which alienates an overwhelming number of Americans since they are seen as prudish adherents to a time long ago forgotten.

294 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:17:21pm

re: #289 jdog29

You're right- I don't get your point at all. The GOP needs to run a fiscal conservative- full stop.

Why you're dreaming of a 3rd party candidate is beyond me. If the so-cons don't like a fisc-con, screw them.

295 realwest  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:17:26pm

Woops overnight thread just came up and that means it's time for me to get some sleep NOW.
Hope you all have a great evening/early morning and that I get the chance to see you down the road.

Good night, all.

296 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:17:47pm

gotta leave it with you. Please get all this straightened out so I won't have think on it anymore.

"Thanks,
Good Night and
God Bless" Bon Scott

297 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:18:10pm

re: #288 capitalist piglet

We're on the same page, I think (I would accept civil unions, as well); I just believe that whatever the left thinks is a point of vulnerability for us will become an issue. The media is in the bag, and they will set the table.

On the other hand, they can read polls too.

They may see us as vulnerable on an issue, but that doesn't mean we have to be vulnerable. The media is an issue but it is one that can be overcome with a good ad campaign, and savvy planing.

I'm starting to tire, so I'm heading to bed. Till tomorrow.

298 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:19:04pm

re: #292 realwest

Why, you're the one who made the statement and I'll be damned if I'm gonna go talk to 'em!

Uh- you already do talk to them. At least- that' been my impression from some of your posts.

299 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:19:30pm

re: #294 Sharmuta

You're right- I don't get your point at all. The GOP needs to run a fiscal conservative- full stop.

Why you're dreaming of a 3rd party candidate is beyond me. If the so-cons don't like a fisc-con, screw them.

Sorry, they said, "Screw McCain." and they will say "Screw fill in the blank" if the candidate is not socially conservative. Good, no. Reality, yes.

300 freetoken  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:21:49pm

re: #49 6pat6

Civilized Man, I can buy as 6,000 years old.

Throughout the fertile crescent, and also central China, one can find remnants of early towns and agriculture going back over 10,000 years.

"Civilization" has been around longer than 6000 years. There is no way, given what we know today through scientific discovery, that we can accept Ussher's calculations as having any truth.

The only way to accept the genealogies of the OT, and still take the Bible as having value, is to look upon the genealogies as being approximations given for the sake of covenantal continuity (e.g., a legal link between generations), and to take the stories at the beginning of Genesis as metaphors.

301 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:22:02pm

re: #299 jdog29

Sorry, they said, "Screw McCain." and they will say "Screw fill in the blank" if the candidate is not socially conservative. Good, no. Reality, yes.

You know when you tell a liberal that some conservatives think McCain is a liberal they laugh. While McCain is not in the same league as the apostolic Ralph Reed and his ilk he is far from being a social liberal.

302 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:23:10pm

We shouldn't just come down on the side of civil unions and first trimester abortions because those are politically expedient stands (although they are), we should also accept them because they are the morally correct stands to take for those who believe in liberty and embrace the principle of individual freedom of choice. And those are bedrock conservative principles.

Trying to dictate to others the courses of their own lives is the aberration.

303 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:24:37pm

re: #299 jdog29

Sorry, they said, "Screw McCain." and they will say "Screw fill in the blank" if the candidate is not socially conservative. Good, no. Reality, yes.

It was the FISC-CONS who didn't like McCain!

304 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:24:58pm

re: #303 Sharmuta

It was the FISC-CONS who didn't like McCain!

He lost them when he voted for the porkulus

305 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:26:24pm

re: #194 Charles

I look forward to the day when the social conservatives all stay home, and the adults can take back control of the GOP.

on that day the GOP will stand for Gone. Out. Past.

306 freetoken  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:28:01pm

re: #301 Gus 802

While McCain is not in the same league as the apostolic Ralph Reed and his ilk he is far from being a social liberal.

This is what convinced me that the likes of Dobsen et. al. are not really serious about governance. McCain had a perfectly acceptable "Pro-Life" record according to according to Pro-life analysts, the signature issue of the so-cons, and yet they turned on him.

307 capitalist piglet  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:29:41pm

re: #293 Gus 802

You know. A large segment of the gay population are free-market capitalists. Many invest in real estate and have other financial goals that are very much in line with traditional conservative ideas. Think Adam Smith and Milton Freidman. A lot of this is exemplified by the Log Cabin Republicans.

So-cons only serve to alienate these potential allies and voters for the sake of single issue campaign rhetoric such as the gay marriage issue. This is further amplified by so-cons who even oppose civil unions and are associated some so-cons that are even supportive of restraining divorce laws and other issues of marriage. The latter of which alienates an overwhelming number of Americans since they are seen as prudish adherents to a time long ago forgotten.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, unless you're assuming my views toward Log Cabin Republicans are negative. They're not. I absolutely welcome them. I believe they are not just wanted, but needed.

However, I think that Americans - largely religious Americans - who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are entitled to a seat at the table, as well. You're not suggesting they aren't, are you?

I've already indicated I'm for civil unions, and I've given the issue a lot of thought. That's as far as I will go on it, though. One group or another will have to give, and I don't think it has to be the faith community every single time.

308 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:29:41pm

re: #304 Sharmuta

He lost them when he voted for the porkulus

But we all knew he didn't know jack shit about economics before that. He was a "Foreign Policy/National Security" conservative and that's it. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.

309 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:30:19pm

re: #306 freetoken

This is what convinced me that the likes of Dobsen et. al. are not really serious about governance. McCain had a perfectly acceptable "Pro-Life" record according to according to Pro-life analysts, the signature issue of the so-cons, and yet they turned on him.

Exactly, and that's a good point regarding his pro-life record. He was also instrumental in creating alliances for the surge which was key to success in Iraq.

310 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:30:37pm

re: #306 freetoken

This is what convinced me that the likes of Dobsen et. al. are not really serious about governance. McCain had a perfectly acceptable "Pro-Life" record according to according to Pro-life analysts, the signature issue of the so-cons, and yet they turned on him.

I don't believe the so-cons turned on McCain. He had them with Sarah. It was the fisc-con who were pissed about the porkulus bill that cost McCain the election. That and Bush hate.

311 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:30:59pm

re: #304 Sharmuta

He lost them when he voted for the porkulus

The fisc cons voted for him because "logically" McCain was a much better option even after the TARP bailout fiasco.

The socons were bemoaning Sarah Palin not being on the top of the ticket. No logic ALL emotion.

312 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:31:52pm

re: #304 Sharmuta

He lost them when he voted for the porkulus

He lost for a host of other reasons, but his capitulation and repudiation of fiscal conservatism so close to the election sure was a major factor.

313 Gus  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:32:29pm

re: #307 capitalist piglet

I'm not sure where this is coming from, unless you're assuming my views toward Log Cabin Republicans are negative. They're not. I absolutely welcome them. I believe they are not just wanted, but needed.

However, I think that Americans - largely religious Americans - who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are entitled to a seat at the table, as well. You're not suggesting they aren't, are you?

I've already indicated I'm for civil unions, and I've given the issue a lot of thought. That's as far as I will go on it, though. One group or another will have to give, and I don't think it has to be the faith community every single time.

No, I was just adding to what you said.

As for limiting who gets to sit at the table I also agree. I think it is essential for democracy. I never like the idea of a one party state.

314 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:33:13pm

re: #305 jdog29

on that day the GOP will stand for Gone. Out. Past.

I don't think so. I think people need to realize most Americans don't want government dictating to them how to live their lives- from the left or the right.

315 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:35:55pm

Think emotion not logic if you ever hope to understand the socon wing desperately needed to get control over the gov't back. Even if the desperation is resented to the point of temptation to mimic their lack of logic by trying to argue logically with a person driven by emotion.

316 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:38:11pm

re: #314 Sharmuta

I don't think so. I think people need to realize most Americans don't want government dictating to them how to live their lives- from the left or the right.

I wish you were right, but I don't think you are based on the FAR FAR FAR FAR left candidate winning against the conservative moderate. It doesn't matter what Obama presented himself as during the campaign. Everyone knew exactly who this guy was when he was elected. Has ANY of his moves surprised anyone?

317 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:39:50pm

re: #315 jdog29

Dictating morality is not my idea of getting back control of government. It is not government's job to make the population into the image of what they wished they governed. Until the so-cons get a grip on civics, they're not helping.

318 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:43:09pm

re: #316 jdog29

0bama won because people were sick of Bush- sick of conservatives who spent money like drunken sailors. If we want big spenders, we may as well elect democrats, and thus we did.

Republicans continue to loses elections because they're not true to the fiscal principles they claim to support.

319 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:46:52pm

re: #317 Sharmuta

Dictating morality is not my idea of getting back control of government. It is not government's job to make the population into the image of what they wished they governed. Until the so-cons get a grip on civics, they're not helping.

Alas more infallible logic falling on the deaf ears of emotion. Until the fisc cons get a grip on reality, that being if the socons don't show up enthusiastically in force at the polls to vote, I can have the argument in the world and it just won't matter.

I agree it shouldn't be like this and this is wrong, but it is simply the reality we have to deal with or deny.

I will gladly be proved wrong in 2010, 2012, 2014, hopefully I am wrong.

320 freetoken  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:49:05pm

re: #310 Sharmuta

From 2007: Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy

From 2008: James Dobson: "I Cannot And I Will Not" Vote McCain

Dobson, Limbaugh... the whole assortment of those who continually beat up on McCain just because he wasn't pure enough for them.

From my perspective there was little difference between the stances of McCain and RR on very many issues.

What changed over 20 years is that the industry of hate (those who make their name by tearing down whatever well known person or movement) needed a new target. The problem with McCain is that if he actually won the election all those who make their fame by complaining about politicians, such as Dobson and Limbaugh, would have to attack someone with an "R" after his name.

321 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:51:00pm

re: #318 Sharmuta

0bama won because people were sick of Bush- sick of conservatives who spent money like drunken sailors. If we want big spenders, we may as well elect democrats, and thus we did.

Republicans continue to loses elections because they're not true to the fiscal principles they claim to support.

even as fiscally irresponsible as the Republicans were, they can't hold a candle to fiscally irresponsibilty shown by the Obama administration.

"You just think you've seen fiscal irresponsibility," Obama railed, "I'll show you real fiscal irresponsibility!"

322 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:52:27pm

re: #320 freetoken

From 2007: Dobson says 'no way' to McCain candidacy

From 2008: James Dobson: "I Cannot And I Will Not" Vote McCain

Dobson, Limbaugh... the whole assortment of those who continually beat up on McCain just because he wasn't pure enough for them.

From my perspective there was little difference between the stances of McCain and RR on very many issues.

What changed over 20 years is that the industry of hate (those who make their name by tearing down whatever well known person or movement) needed a new target. The problem with McCain is that if he actually won the election all those who make their fame by complaining about politicians, such as Dobson and Limbaugh, would have to attack someone with an "R" after his name.

Jerry Falwell was Southern Baptist.

Pat Robertson is Assembly of God.

James Dobson is Church of the Nazarene.

Is it any surprise that these are the three main fundamentalist Protestant denominations that reject evolution?

323 Fierce Guppy  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:53:13pm

OMG! I think this is the same Mark Isaak who was one of the star troopers that fought against sundry creationists on Usenet during the early to late 1990s before Usenet was flooded with AOL dweebs. His name stands out because I lurked around the talk.orgins newgroup for a few years while arguments against evolution from Young Earth Creationists and a Velikovskian called Ted Holden were being thrash unmercifully. Mark Isaak, Chris Colby, Chris Ho-Stuart, Chris Nedin, "DeadDog" (who dealt with matters concerned with abiogenesis) , and James J Lippard are names that stuck with me. I remember Phillip E. Johnson, the Christian law professor, once turned up on talk.orgins (I think it was to do with a book he had written or was writing) and, well, he sort of underestimated the callibre of his opponents, to put it mildly.

Tony.

324 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:53:37pm

re: #320 freetoken

McCain's biggest problem was his own record- that's for sure. Gang of 14, McCain-Feingold.... I think he selected Sarah to please the so-cons, but losst the fisc-cons with the stimulus. Certainly the pundits didn't help.

325 Sharmuta  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:56:32pm

re: #319 jdog29

Then it's time for a reality check. Run a fisc-con and let the so-cons stay home. I think more than enough people will be looking for some fiscal sanity in a few years, and social issues will be in the back of the bus, we won't miss them. A so-con will be the kiss of death.

326 jdog29  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 11:59:32pm

McCain excited no one. Nobody was excited about voting for McCain. How many people were excited about the chance to vote for McCain? That's right, ZERO. I hadn't pulled a lever with less enthusiasm since Dole/Kemp in '96

People were excited about voting for Obama.

Maybe the reason Bush won the two terms he did was because Gore and Kerry were as exciting as McCain. Now if we could've gotten the Dems to nominate Lautenberg or Byrd this last time McCain might've pulled it out.

327 jdog29  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:01:01am

re: #325 Sharmuta

Then it's time for a reality check. Run a fisc-con and let the so-cons stay home. I think more than enough people will be looking for some fiscal sanity in a few years, and social issues will be in the back of the bus, we won't miss them. A so-con will be the kiss of death.

I don't know what's going to happen, but it sure will be intriguing to watch it happen.

Gotta Run
cya later

328 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:04:06am

re: #325 Sharmuta

An interesting idea... actually have the GOP do an experiment in real time, so to speak. I wonder how it would turn out?

I don't feel as if I would never vote for a so-con candidate - after all, I voted for RR and GWB (once each.) I was also very sympathetic to McCain's position on abortion, for example.

What will the future bring? Don't know, and right now I'm working on what to do with the rest of my own life, so I don't concern myself too much with getting involved in large organizations.

Que sera sera....

329 jarheadlifer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:21:53am

re: #318 Sharmuta

0bama won because people were sick of Bush- sick of conservatives who spent money like drunken sailors. If we want big spenders, we may as well elect democrats, and thus we did.

Republicans continue to loses elections because they're not true to the fiscal principles they claim to support.

Oh if that were true. I don't believe the majority of Americans care about the government spending as a percentage of GDP because most Americans haven't a clue what that means. Plus, when only 60% of the country is paying the federal bill, it's tough to make either spending or taxes germane to the political discourse.

Obama won because he wasn't Bush, because he wasn't a Republican and because the traditional media was going to carry him over the finish line if they had to - and they almost had to. In a country of 200+ million possible voters, Barry only won by less than 10 million - that's close. And, did I mention he was black?

330 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:27:00am

re: #329 jarheadlifer

I don't believe the majority of Americans care about the government spending as a percentage of GDP because most Americans haven't a clue what that means.

They're about to find out!

331 jarheadlifer  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:30:50am

re: #311 jdog29


The socons were bemoaning Sarah Palin not being on the top of the ticket. No logic ALL emotion.

They're going to get their wish in 2012. Palin is going to skate to the nomination and will get beat worse than Mondale in '84. Maybe that will be an impetuous to re-construct the GOP sans the crazy, religious nuts. As long as the southern religious conservatives are in control, the GOP will be wandering the desert.

332 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:59:23am

It's ironic; some of you use "Creationist" like libs use "Zionist".

Anyway, I see nobody's yet mentioned Melanie Phillips' recent deflating of Richard Dawkins' truth gland:

The way [Dawkins] chose to defend himself, through insults and sneers which tried to cover his tracks as he attempted to retreat from what he had said, furthermore merely emphasised his notable reluctance to address the many arguments of substance against his pseudo-scientific attack on religion which were made by John Lennox on the grounds of scientific reason and accuracy – arguments which Dawkins most tellingly chose to ignore altogether. Instead, he went for what he thought were the soft targets -- a credulous Irish Christian and a ‘dreadful woman’ journalist – and substituted smears and jeers for proper debate.

Unfortunately, he fell flat on his face. From this attempt to tarnish his opponents with the charge of dishonesty, we learn instead that for Richard Dawkins truth is a delusion. Who other than the similarly deluded can ever take him seriously again?

S'funny how all het up some of you dispassionate, champions of science kin git....

333 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:15:30am

re: #332 jskern

From your link:

The most famous atheist in the world, biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, poses as the arch-apostle of reason, a scientist who stands for empirical truth in opposition to obscurantism and lies. What follows suggests that in fact he is sloppy and cavalier with both facts and reasoning to a disturbing degree.

Let's just presume that Philllips successfully makes her case about Dawkins (e.g., "he is sloppy and cavalier with both facts and reasoning to a disturbing degree.)

Where exactly does that take us?

334 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:18:46am

re: #332 jskern

Speaking of your Ms. Philllips, her article today is interesting:

Creating An Insult To Intelligence

Her claim:

Whatever the ramifications of the specific school textbooks under scrutiny in the Kitzmiller/Dover case, the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it.

shows that she is both unaware of the details of the case, as well as the fundamental historical and philosophical connections between creationism and "intelligent design" (as proposed by the DI.)

335 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:34:43am

Prop. 8 passed in California as a result of the voters. California's electoral points went to Obama as a result of the voters.

These so called socons? They are not the GOP base you are looking for.

336 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:44:01am

re: #333 freetoken

"Where exactly does that take us?"

Well, I think it should take those who share the road with Dawkins to consider slowing down a bit and looking at where the man is heading. He is an evangelist, he is on a mission, and it behoves those tagging along to be very clear about what his ultimate goal is, why he wants it, and what he's prepared to do to achieve it. Jesus took pains to get his disciples to consider the cost of following him. Dawkins isn't about to be nearly as charitable.

Or, to put it another way, if one wishes to denounce fundimentalists, shouldn't he avoid being one?

337 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 1:53:23am

re: #334 freetoken

Are you implying that, since she's mistaken about these things, her assessment of Dawkins is suspect? That seems a bit specious, so I'll apologize now if I've inadvertently mischaracterized your point....

338 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:04:09am

re: #336 jskern

Dawkins... schmawkins.... Really, I don't care what he says, and my knowledge and experience of science is quite fine without him. Dawkins is raised here on LGF because he is well known and fighting the battle against creationism moving into science education, not because he is necessary to an understanding of Earth's history or the acceptance of evolution.

339 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:04:53am

re: #337 jskern

Are you implying that, since she's mistaken about these things, her assessment of Dawkins is suspect?

No.

I'm just saying she is clueless about the origins of what we know today as Intelligent Design.

340 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:13:31am

re: #336 jskern

Just because many of us here agree with Dawkins on evolution doesn't mean he speaks for anyone other than himself concerning religion.

341 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:32:44am

I think that it simply demonstrates that creationist organizations pay well to get columnists with access to mainstream media outlets to propagate their message. My guess would be that the organization with deep pockets in this case would be the Disco Institute, as she completely and totally lied about their propagada PR relabeling of creationism as ID, a history that is so thoroughly documented as to be beyond rational dispute.

Is there any disputation of evolution here? No. But that's their game; Darwin is dead, so they slime Dawkins in his stead, as if relentlessly repeating the 2500 year old Greek logical fallacy of ad hominem will rub off on empirical science.

Btw: can you point me to a refutation of Dawkins' Irreduceable Complexity argument? I haven't seen one; at least not one that works. He points out that any being powerful and wise enough to intentionally create the universe would have to be more complex than its creation, and therefore require even more explanation. And that explanation would have to come in the form of a creator of such a being, requiring yet more explanation in the form of still another creator, requiring additional explanation, and so on ad infinitum (it's called the reductio ad absurdum argument of infinite regress). Occam's Razor would say that we should stop at the universe itself, since its existence would require less explanation than any available alternative. And to say that God cannot be explained is to admit that one is invoking the supernatural in order to murder questions.

But can the Universe be explained in the absence of a creator? Victor J. Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, has answered that question with an unequivocal yes:

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

And what have mathematicians had to say about the matter?

Well, John Allen Paulos, professor of mathematics at Temple University and the celebrated author of Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, has summed up the mathematical and logical arguments, and found them to come solidly down on the side of God's nonexistence:

Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up
[Link: www.amazon.com...]

When people endeavor to invoke science to prove their faith, they have foolishly ventured outside the realm of religion and illegitimately entered the realm of science, which plays by different rules (logic and empirical evidence); it is no surprise that when they do so, they get soundly spanked, and equally unsurprising that paid propagandists for creationism would attempt to whitewash the shellacking.

342 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 2:35:33am

re: #338 freetoken

Dawkins is raised here on LGF because he is well known and fighting the battle against creationism moving into science education, not because he is necessary to an understanding of Earth's history or the acceptance of evolution.

Fair enough, I raised him myself because he is a well known archtype. Charles is always highlighting the dishonesty of the ID'ers and I enjoyed calling attention to the less than honest machinations of so famous an evolutionist as Dawkins.

That whimsy aside, though, there is a rather disquietingly sharp edge being ground into the axes of the more vociferous cheerleaders of the anti-ID parade. Distorting history (recent and ancient) and ignoring ones own base predjudices is not the way to find truth and enlighten mankind. And, yes, of course, both sides of the debate at hand are urged to be cautious in that regard.

Cheers.

343 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:20:14am

re: #341 Salamantis

You didn't say, but as there are only a few people posting at this hour (I live in New Zealand), I assume you're speaking to me....

I can't speak to your inference that Melanie Phillips is in the employ of the Disco Institute, although I have to be honest and tell you that it sounds a tad paranoiac. Although, money does talk and it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

As for "sliming Dawkins" (in place of Darwin!?) instead of disputing evolution, I'm afraid I've no idea what you're on about there. He was caught lying, misquoting and failing to check his facts; a serious blunder for someone so proud of his empiricism, no? Perhaps you're looking where I did not point?

Dawkins' Irreducible Complexity argument and reductio ad absurdum, as you frame them here, makes a nonesense out of evolution, too. If all things regress infinitely, then there cannot be a start point to creation. And we both know that the universe had a beginning and will have an end (entropy, etc). What is your use of Occam's Razor here but a way to invoke an "uncrossable" line of inquiry; to "murder questions", as it were? (Here be monsters, indeed!)

Victor J. Stenger notwithstanding, can the universe be explained without a beginning and an end? No. We are again at an impass. And is the good professor's theory really explaining everything using a Darwinian model?

As for mathematicians, well, if you read the post I initially mentioned, you would've seen the name of the very prominent mathematician, Professor John Lennox. He's a Christian, yes, but can you really write him off as another mouth-breather?

I'm not sure who you imagine has been "soundly spanked" in the Phillips post I brought up, but as far as fools, faith and the rules of logic and empirical evidence go, I think you display a hubristic amount of arrogance in so close-mindedly dismissing a great many brilliant believers, both living and dead, who have ventured with intellectual vigour and honesty into the realm of science and come out praising their God more loudly than when they went in.

My prayers are with you.

344 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:47:39am

re: #343 jskern


Victor J. Stenger notwithstanding, can the universe be explained without a beginning and an end? No.

Yes, it can.

Whether it is satisfactory answer, or whether it is correct, are different questions.

345 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:55:09am

re: #340 Sharmuta

Yes, of course, but you have to admit that often, when a spokesman for an emotionally charged movement emerges, those who agree with him, even only on that single point upon which the movement is based, have been known to be led astray, giving unwitting assent to less savory aspects of that spokesman's creed.

Salamantis' idolatrous apologetic above is a case in point....

346 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:12:41am

re: #344 freetoken

Yes, that's true. And one man's satisfactory is another man's insufficiency. My own explanation of the universe satisfies me, in part because it answers the "why" of creation, not mearly the "how". It is admittedly supernatural and unlikely to satisfy the materialist worldview. I am not pimping it here, either, believe it or not; I lose no sleep over the tens of millions of people who disagree with me. All I'm trying to do, in my limited way, is show that, in their defence of Evolutionary Science, far too many lizards are gleefully painting a distressingly distorted picture of believers in Jesus. It is caricature-building, and, as history shows, that's a very unpleasant thing to do.

God bless.

347 freetoken  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 4:21:23am

re: #346 jskern

All I'm trying to do, in my limited way, is show that, in their defence of Evolutionary Science, far too many lizards are gleefully painting a distressingly distorted picture of believers in Jesus.

Oh? Any examples you would like to point out?

What are attacked here are the ID movement people and their methods. Also, YEC's are somewhat ridiculed, but given that there is sufficient evidence to show that many YEC's don't want to wrestle with the truth (which perhaps you have done) that is understandable.

348 jskern  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 5:00:08am

re: #347 freetoken

Oh? Any examples you would like to point out?

Are you honestly asking for examples? I suppose I could dig some out, but I'd rather not waste my time--it's 11:57pm here and I have to get up at 5:30 tomorrow. I will though, if you're serious, but I couldn't compile them until tomorrow night. Bear in mind, too, as a Christian (I assume you're not), I'm apt to be more sensitive than you are to the inference within many comments, so many of them might seem innocuous to you; much like any member of a racial minority will seem to be making mountains out of molehills when pointing to what to him are clear-cut examples of racism.

Many of the methods of ID'ers are troubling, yes, but, I am no less troubled by the methods of people like Dawkins and Hitchens, etc. As for the unwillingness of YEC's to wrestle with the truth, interestingly enough, the subjectivity of that statement is where the whole problem rests. The same evidence can bolster completely divergent truths when filtered through radically different worldviews. All sides claim objectivity, but that, I contend, is not possible. Humans are subjective by definition; it's what makes madness possible.

Anyway, ridiculing people we think are stupid is hard to resist, but ultimately of dubious merit. It also tends to undermine the claim to higher intelligence made by the one doing the ridiculing. I have no problem with heatedly debating those you think are wrong, or rebuking those in dangerous error (siding with Jihadists in order to push Creationism in schools comes to mind), but lets not make the mistake of thinking everyone who disagrees is subnormal.

Right, I'm off to bed. Thanks heaps for the chat.

Shalom in Y'shua,
j.s.kern

349 crimeshark  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:11:24am
Just some basic texts that will acquaint me with the pro-evolution (and old earth facts) responses that might counter the creationist point of view in debates with anyone capable of honest and rational discourse.

Well. Good luck with that. With all due respect, there is a Biblical injunction against wasting one's breath by arguing with an idiot:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:4

350 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:16:05am

re: #343 jskern

You didn't say, but as there are only a few people posting at this hour (I live in New Zealand), I assume you're speaking to me....

I can't speak to your inference that Melanie Phillips is in the employ of the Disco Institute, although I have to be honest and tell you that it sounds a tad paranoiac. Although, money does talk and it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

And if Ms. Phillips is a creationist herself, she would feel no moral compunction about taking it in the service of 'the cause.'

As for "sliming Dawkins" (in place of Darwin!?) instead of disputing evolution, I'm afraid I've no idea what you're on about there. He was caught lying, misquoting and failing to check his facts; a serious blunder for someone so proud of his empiricism, no? Perhaps you're looking where I did not point?

Let's just say that I do not trust either Ms. Phillips' characterizations, or those of her obviously creationist sources (such people have been known to lie for faith before). And we KNOW that Ms. Phillips either lied or did not check her facts regarding the Disco Institute's coining of the term ID.

Dawkins' Irreducible Complexity argument and reductio ad absurdum, as you frame them here, makes a nonesense out of evolution, too. If all things regress infinitely, then there cannot be a start point to creation. And we both know that the universe had a beginning and will have an end (entropy, etc). What is your use of Occam's Razor here but a way to invoke an "uncrossable" line of inquiry; to "murder questions", as it were? (Here be monsters, indeed!)

The point is that there ISN'T infinite regress; we not only know that the Big Bang happened, but we have ascertained the age of the Universe by checking the red shift coefficient of the Big Bang's echo background radiation (13.7 billion years). But appeal to an intelligen designer would either require infinite regress, or require that such a creator itself evolve, which it could not do in the absence of a 'before' the Big Bang (and there is no more a 'before' the Big Bang than there is an 'outside' the Universe, since that is when spatiotemporality began; matter-energy creates spacetime via gravitational field curvature). And apparently you do not understand Occam's Razor, which states that one should not multiply explanatory entities beyond empirical necessity.

Victor J. Stenger notwithstanding, can the universe be explained without a beginning and an end? No. We are again at an impass. And is the good professor's theory really explaining everything using a Darwinian model?

He's explaining the physics, and leaving the biology to the evolutionary theorists. But he explains perfectly how a Universe with a beginning can begin without a creator.

As for mathematicians, well, if you read the post I initially mentioned, you would've seen the name of the very prominent mathematician, Professor John Lennox. He's a Christian, yes, but can you really write him off as another mouth-breather?

He's not merely a Christian, he's a noted Christian apologist, who has made Christian apologetics his second (or perhaps his first) career:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I'm not sure who you imagine has been "soundly spanked" in the Phillips post I brought up, but as far as fools, faith and the rules of logic and empirical evidence go, I think you display a hubristic amount of arrogance in so close-mindedly dismissing a great many brilliant believers, both living and dead, who have ventured with intellectual vigour and honesty into the realm of science and come out praising their God more loudly than when they went in.

My prayers are with you.

But it is strange, is it not, that the vast majority of these brilliant believing scientists are long dead and gone?

to be continued...

351 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:22:14am

Comparison of survey answers among leading scientists (percentages) by year
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2

352 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:40:59am

re: #348 jskern

Are you honestly asking for examples? I suppose I could dig some out, but I'd rather not waste my time--it's 11:57pm here and I have to get up at 5:30 tomorrow. I will though, if you're serious, but I couldn't compile them until tomorrow night. Bear in mind, too, as a Christian (I assume you're not), I'm apt to be more sensitive than you are to the inference within many comments, so many of them might seem innocuous to you; much like any member of a racial minority will seem to be making mountains out of molehills when pointing to what to him are clear-cut examples of racism.

Many of the methods of ID'ers are troubling, yes, but, I am no less troubled by the methods of people like Dawkins and Hitchens, etc. As for the unwillingness of YEC's to wrestle with the truth, interestingly enough, the subjectivity of that statement is where the whole problem rests. The same evidence can bolster completely divergent truths when filtered through radically different worldviews. All sides claim objectivity, but that, I contend, is not possible. Humans are subjective by definition; it's what makes madness possible.

Anyway, ridiculing people we think are stupid is hard to resist, but ultimately of dubious merit. It also tends to undermine the claim to higher intelligence made by the one doing the ridiculing. I have no problem with heatedly debating those you think are wrong, or rebuking those in dangerous error (siding with Jihadists in order to push Creationism in schools comes to mind), but lets not make the mistake of thinking everyone who disagrees is subnormal.

Right, I'm off to bed. Thanks heaps for the chat.

Shalom in Y'shua,
j.s.kern

Umm...the radiometric dating and big bang echo radiation red shift evidence can only support the position that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and life first appeared on this planet 3.5 billion years ago. It does not, and cannot be made to, support the contention that everything began at the same time a few thousand years ago. Likewise, the genetic, paleontological, and embryological evidence conclusively demonstrates common descent from a small population of ancient common ancestors that evolutionarily diverged, including a common hominid ancestry around 20 million years ago between humans and not just all terrestrial life in general, but great apes, with whom we share 98% of our DNA, in particular. It does not, and cannot be made to, support the contention that millions of different species both existent and extinct were all created independently and as is a few thousand years ago.

People are entititled to their own personal opinions, but they ar NOT entitled to their own sets of empirical facts. We don't inhabit some sort of JZ Knight-channeled Ramtha multiverse where there's 'your' truth and then there's 'my' truth; all varying perspectives are of a single observed reality, and the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been discovered in and experimentally derived from the systematic observation of that reality conclusively falsifies Genesis Literalism. Those who continue to embrace it in the face of massively falsifying empirical evidence may not be stupid, but they are either willfully reality-ignorant or willfully reality-denying.

353 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 6:53:15am

re: #351 Salamantis

Comparison of survey answers among leading scientists (percentages) by year
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2

I've always though that the stability in the propotrtion of agnostics was interesting. The growth in atheism, like the decline in theism, looks like a cultural trend to me.

BTW: you are mischaracterising the G-d created argument. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, G-d is sufficient, meaning that by definition, He is the unique entity on which everything is predicated and He requires no explanation. Also, if G-d must be more complex than His creation, then too, the non-theist substrate from which the universe originates must also be more complex than the universe. Occam will not help you here.

354 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:32:26am

re: #345 jskern

Yes, of course, but you have to admit that often, when a spokesman for an emotionally charged movement emerges, those who agree with him, even only on that single point upon which the movement is based, have been known to be led astray, giving unwitting assent to less savory aspects of that spokesman's creed.

Salamantis' idolatrous apologetic above is a case in point....

I don't consider Dawkins any sort of leader in any movement. Others may view him that way, but I see him as a scientist with a knack for giving his adversaries the ammunition they seek, while they likewise give him what he seeks. Meanwhile- those of us in the middle are content with both God and science and see no conflict.

355 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:38:17am

re: #353 Hhar

I've always though that the stability in the propotrtion of agnostics was interesting. The growth in atheism, like the decline in theism, looks like a cultural trend to me.

BTW: you are mischaracterising the G-d created argument. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, G-d is sufficient, meaning that by definition, He is the unique entity on which everything is predicated and He requires no explanation.

In other words, such a being is exempted from explanation, but provides an explanation for the Universe. This rhetorical mechanism in effect freezes the Universe itself into a position beyond human understanding. Empirical science, of course, does not exempt anything for which any causal efficacy in the natural world is claimed from the necessity of being understandable/explainable, because claiming such causal efficacy for something places it within the empirical realm.

Also, if G-d must be more complex than His creation, then too, the non-theist substrate from which the universe originates must also be more complex than the universe. Occam will not help you here.

Nope, because greater complexity that its creation is only required for something that possesses the understanding and will to intentionally create something else. A Universe that just happened without conscious direction would not require that. In fact, the entire idea of a previously existent substrate is specious here, since 'previous' is a temporal term, and spatiotemporality was born along with matter/energy, and gravitationally created by it. All we're talking about is a random quantum fluctuation from nothingness. And nothingness is indeed unstable, because simplicity naturally begets complexity via spontaneous self-organization, and nothingness is as simple as it gets, so it is quite likely to naturally undergo a spontaneous transition to something more complex, like a matter/energy containing Universe; the probability that something would randomly come from nothing has been mathematically calculated at over 60%. And since the universe began in total chaos, where total universal entropy was equal to maximum possible universal entropy, and since then, due to expansion, maximum possible entropy has progressively outstripped actual total entropy, there has been progressively more and more room for order to form without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

356 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:42:05am

re: #354 Sharmuta

I don't consider Dawkins any sort of leader in any movement. Others may view him that way, but I see him as a scientist with a knack for giving his adversaries the ammunition they seek, while they likewise give him what he seeks. Meanwhile- those of us in the middle are content with both God and science and see no conflict.

Well, Dawkins has been characterised as one of the New Atheists:

[Link: newatheists.org...]

and he certainly sees himself as a sort of standard bearer. You can be content with G-d and science, and still want to stay as far away from him as possioble. Others will disagree, but with regard to his anticreationism, I think he plays a role similar to the fascist anti-jihadists: he's an absolutist, who cannot advance pluralism for its own sake.

357 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:45:15am

re: #356 Hhar

Well, Dawkins has been characterised as one of the New Atheists:

[Link: newatheists.org...]

and he certainly sees himself as a sort of standard bearer. You can be content with G-d and science, and still want to stay as far away from him as possioble. Others will disagree, but with regard to his anticreationism, I think he plays a role similar to the fascist anti-jihadists: he's an absolutist, who cannot advance pluralism for its own sake.

And that might be a reason why he's not promoted around here.

358 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:50:26am

re: #357 Sharmuta

And that might be a reason why he's not promoted around here.

Well Charles HAS featured a Dawkins article on evolution here before:

Dawkins on the Truth of Evolution
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

359 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:50:38am

Nope, because greater complexity that its creation is only required for something that possesses the understanding and will to intentionally create something else.

You might want to think about your ideas of complexity, there.

Looks like I'm wasting breath.

360 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:51:29am

re: #357 Sharmuta

I agree. Dawkins makes some solid anticreationist arguments, but he's basically an antireligious bigot.

361 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:53:38am

re: #359 Hhar

Nope, because greater complexity that its creation is only required for something that possesses the understanding and will to intentionally create something else.

You might want to think about your ideas of complexity, there.

Looks like I'm wasting breath.

My point remains valid.

362 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:55:30am

No Salamantis, your point remains uncontested, because I think contesting it with you is a waste of time.

363 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:57:00am

May I recommend another book to deal with creationists, and one that might help everyone here understand how scientific creationism aka intelligent design evolved?

I offer to you, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Roland L. Numbers.

It was suggested to me over a decade ago by some folks on talk.origins as a good book on the history of the creationists. It has been useful since, and I think Numbers has a new edition out that covers the last few years with ID and the DI.

364 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:00:51am

re: #360 Hhar

I agree. Dawkins makes some solid anticreationist arguments, but he's basically an antireligious bigot.

There are plenty of antiatheist bigots to balance him out.

Whether or not a creator is possible really depends upon what one means when one says the word 'creator'. If it has to do with primordial randomness, there is no problem. The problems arise when one defines this creator as an entity possessing the classical theological categories of omniscience and omnipotence; that is when the logical and empirical difficulties kick in.

But science does not and cannot conclusively prove that any sort of supernatural and extra-empirical God cannot exist; it merely demonstrates that such an entity is unnecessary to explain the existence of the natural empirical cosmos as perceived. And that demonstration is quite enough to raise the hackles of many theists.

365 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:01:48am

re: #362 Hhar

No Salamantis, your point remains uncontested, because I think contesting it with you is a waste of time.

I think it is because you cannot credibly contest it.

366 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:05:32am

re: #364 Salamantis

There are plenty of antiatheist bigots to balance him out.

That's like arguing that there are plenty of jihadis to balance out the fascists. It is intellectually and morally bankrupt. I realise you feel the need to discuss your religious notions, but please, I am not interested in prosetylization.

367 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:08:36am

re: #356 Hhar

Well, Dawkins has been characterised as one of the New Atheists:

[Link: newatheists.org...]

and he certainly sees himself as a sort of standard bearer. You can be content with G-d and science, and still want to stay as far away from him as possioble. Others will disagree, but with regard to his anticreationism, I think he plays a role similar to the fascist anti-jihadists: he's an absolutist, who cannot advance pluralism for its own sake.

Interestingly enough, Dawkins is in favor of continuing to instruct students in the Bible, at least as literature, maintaining that it is so inextricably interwoven with the genesis and evolution of our society and culture that it is impossible to fully grasp western civilization in the absence of such a study. I imagine that he would make the same point concerning Greek philosophy.

368 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:13:04am

re: #366 Hhar

That's like arguing that there are plenty of jihadis to balance out the fascists. It is intellectually and morally bankrupt. I realise you feel the need to discuss your religious notions, but please, I am not interested in prosetylization.

Except that I don't see a whole bunch of atheists offering people the choices of conversion, enslavement or violent death, with eternal torment to ensue in the hereafter.

369 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:18:09am

Interestingly enough, Dawkins is in favor of continuing to instruct students in the Bible, at least as literature, maintaining that it is so inextricably interwoven with the genesis and evolution of our society and culture that it is impossible to fully grasp western civilization in the absence of such a study. I imagine that he would make the same point concerning Greek philosophy.

re: #367 Salamantis

Interestingly enough, Dawkins is in favor of continuing to instruct students in the Bible, at least as literature, maintaining that it is so inextricably interwoven with the genesis and evolution of our society and culture that it is impossible to fully grasp western civilization in the absence of such a study. I imagine that he would make the same point concerning Greek philosophy.

Sure. And both of those are reasonable opinions. But when a man says that teaching my religion to my children is morally comparable to pedophilic child abuse., I think that speaks volumes.

370 leereyno  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:18:14am

When people desperately cling to beliefs that are demonstrably false, they are usually either leftists or creationists, with a few Scientologists thrown in for good measure.

371 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:23:31am

re: #368 Salamantis

Except that I don't see a whole bunch of atheists offering people the choices of conversion, enslavement or violent death, with eternal torment to ensue in the hereafter.

Oh, I'm not arguing that atheists who defend Dawkins' bigotry buy citing the bigotry of his opponents are trying to kill people: I'm simply saying that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt: there is no necessity to choose between bigotries.

372 Spenser (with an S)  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:24:07am

I'll post this again for any fellow Bible-believing Christians who can tell that the earth is not 6k years old but isn't sure what that means for the rest of the Bible. Origins by two very strong Christians with Phd's from Harvard and MIT who show what they've learned about Genesis and what it all means. Good stuff and their creds are impeccable.

373 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:31:40am

re: #371 Hhar

Oh, I'm not arguing that atheists who defend Dawkins' bigotry buy citing the bigotry of his opponents are trying to kill people: I'm simply saying that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt: there is no necessity to choose between bigotries.

I'd also like to remind you that your analogy of militant theists and militant atheists to fascists and jihadis was rather ill-chosen, since in both cases, the large majority of the people implicated in the day-to-day implementation of both Islamofascism and eurofascism have in fact been theists.

374 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:36:26am

re: #373 Salamantis

I'd also like to remind you that your analogy of militant theists and militant atheists to fascists and jihadis was rather ill-chosen, since in both cases, the large majority of the people implicated in the day-to-day implementation of both Islamofascism and eurofascism have in fact been theists.

Oh no, I think it was very well chosen indeed. The fascists use the immorality of the jihadists to justify their immorality. You used the bigotry of anti-atheists to justify Dawkin's undeniable antireligious bigotry. I realise that this puts you in an unflattering light, but the parallel is good. Salamantis, you don't have to choose between bigotries. You can think for yourself.

375 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:37:02am

re: #371 Hhar

Oh, I'm not arguing that atheists who defend Dawkins' bigotry buy citing the bigotry of his opponents are trying to kill people: I'm simply saying that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt: there is no necessity to choose between bigotries.

Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.

376 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:40:05am

re: #374 Hhar

Oh no, I think it was very well chosen indeed. The fascists use the immorality of the jihadists to justify their immorality. You used the bigotry of anti-atheists to justify Dawkin's undeniable antireligious bigotry. I realise that this puts you in an unflattering light, but the parallel is good. Salamantis, you don't have to choose between bigotries. You can think for yourself.

No, I was simply pointing out that there are bigots on BOTH sides; you seemed to only want to mention the bigots on ONE side.

377 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:42:20am

re: #375 Salamantis

Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.

Oh, I think you are being too hard on anti-religious folk. Even before atheists were slaying and coercing theists in the former Soviet Union, and killing missionaries outright in China and North Korea, religions were pesecuting atheists. So it would be very unfair to say that its only atheists who have killed theists for their beleifs. It has gone the other way too.

378 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:46:41am

re: #376 Salamantis

No, I was simply pointing out that there are bigots on BOTH sides; you seemed to only want to mention the bigots on ONE side.

You said Dawkins' bigotry was "balanced" by the bigotry of others. Untruths aren't "balanced" by other untruths, and immorality is not "balanced" by immorality.

379 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:48:16am

re: #377 Hhar

Oh, I think you are being too hard on anti-religious folk. Even before atheists were slaying and coercing theists in the former Soviet Union, and killing missionaries outright in China and North Korea, religions were pesecuting atheists. So it would be very unfair to say that its only atheists who have killed theists for their beleifs. It has gone the other way too.

Yeah; for the entire history of patriarchal monotheism - well over twenty centuries, continuing to this very day. And the body counts simply do not compare. If only 50 thousand people per year were killed in the name or for the sake of one deity or another in that time - and this estimate is so conservative as to be ridiculous - the cumulative body count would be in excess of 100 million. And that isn't even adding in the BC count.

380 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:52:06am

re: #378 Hhar

You said Dawkins' bigotry was "balanced" by the bigotry of others. Untruths aren't "balanced" by other untruths, and immorality is not "balanced" by immorality.

It was a way of stating that all the bigotry was not on one side of a set of hypothetical scales between them, even though all the bigotry that YOU were mentioning WAS.

In fact, would you wager that there are more antiatheist bigots, or less antiatheist bigots, than there are antireligious bigots?

There's no need to fumble for an answer; it is of course a rhetorical question.

381 zeir  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:52:08am

I just want to repeat that from a traditional Jewish perspective it is a non-issue. A preponderant amount of Rabbinic sources view the first 6 chapters of Genesis as metaphorical and the creationist argument of the last Lubovitcher Rebbe was, in fact, a response to the evolutionary speculations of a far more mainstream Rabbinic figure, the author of the Tiferet Yisrael Mishnah commentary.

In case this is helpful.

382 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:53:44am

re: #379 Salamantis

Yeah; for the entire history of patriarchal monotheism - well over twenty centuries, continuing to this very day. And the body counts simply do not compare. If only 50 thousand people per year were killed in the name or for the sake of one deity or another in that time - and this estimate is so conservative as to be ridiculous - the cumulative body count would be in excess of 100 million. And that isn't even adding in the BC count.

Heh. So you've changed your mind now? Before it was only one side has tried to coerce, now its well, maybe not. The mask slipped there, Salamantis.

383 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:55:07am

re: #381 zeir

have you read Slifkin's book on creation? Very nicely sourced.

384 wkeller  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:56:34am

Ya know Charles, you seem to devote a tremendous amount of energy to this topic. We all have our passions, I know. But the certainty that you declare that God's hand is not in evolution seems to be a touch arrogant. Of course, if you are a devout atheist, than it is QED for you, a God could not have played a part at all. But, if you have a glimmer of suspicion that there is a God, how on earth can you claim to understand his creation process? I am Catholic and also an engineer. I see no conflict between evolution and creation - none. Where man falls short is in the imposition of what we can comprehend on the actions of God, which is clearly beyond our understanding. What if what we call evolution is what God uses to develop worlds? What if 7 days to us is 14 billion years to a God? Science allows us glimpses into the wonder that is God, a glimpse on the way He thinks, nurtures, culls, grows. There is not conflict between creation and evolution - only harmony. The conflict is in the mind of man and our arrogance to believe we can understand the actions of a divine being. I suspect we are all in for a true surprise when we pass from this world to the next.

385 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 8:59:04am

re: #382 Hhar

Heh. So you've changed your mind now? Before it was only one side has tried to coerce, now its well, maybe not. The mask slipped there, Salamantis.

Nice way to elide the vast preponderance.

But the actions of Stalin and a few other 20th century communist despots do not even begin to compare to those of all of the clerically directed kings, czars, sultans and emperors in the past 20 centuries of history.

386 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:01:43am

re: #380 Salamantis


It was a way of stating that all the bigotry was not on one side of a set of hypothetical scales between them, even though all the bigotry that YOU were mentioning WAS.

In fact, would you wager that there are more antiatheist bigots, or less antiatheist bigots, than there are antireligious bigots?

There's no need to fumble for an answer; it is of course a rhetorical question.

No, I can answer that: there are a lot more anti-atheist bigots amopung religionists than anti-religious bigots amoung definite atheists. That's easy, and is likely (in my opinion) a simple function of the number of theists vs the number of atheists. On the other hand, it is an open question as to the proportion of bigots in either camp. I don't recall saying that all the bigotry was on one side: you are imagining my motives, and doing a poor job of it. On the other hand, you definitely did state that all the killing and coercion was on one side.

Make yourself a cup of tea.

387 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:01:45am

re: #384 wkeller

Ya know Charles, you seem to devote a tremendous amount of energy to this topic. We all have our passions, I know. But the certainty that you declare that God's hand is not in evolution seems to be a touch arrogant. Of course, if you are a devout atheist, than it is QED for you, a God could not have played a part at all. But, if you have a glimmer of suspicion that there is a God, how on earth can you claim to understand his creation process? I am Catholic and also an engineer. I see no conflict between evolution and creation - none. Where man falls short is in the imposition of what we can comprehend on the actions of God, which is clearly beyond our understanding. What if what we call evolution is what God uses to develop worlds? What if 7 days to us is 14 billion years to a God? Science allows us glimpses into the wonder that is God, a glimpse on the way He thinks, nurtures, culls, grows. There is not conflict between creation and evolution - only harmony. The conflict is in the mind of man and our arrogance to believe we can understand the actions of a divine being. I suspect we are all in for a true surprise when we pass from this world to the next.

Charles has repeatedly posted Lao Stinky, which goes like this:

Belief in God does not preclude acceptance of evolution.
Acceptance of evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who tell you different.

388 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:06:34am

re: #385 Salamantis

Elide? Wouldn't dream of it. I'll happily agree with you: more people have died over conflicts between religions than have died in conflicts between religion and atheism. (shrug) But your argument is revealing of what you feel under all that verbiage. Doesn't look so pleasant. make yourself a cup of tea. It will help.

389 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:08:54am

re: #386 Hhar

No, I can answer that: there are a lot more anti-atheist bigots amopung religionists than anti-religious bigots amoung definite atheists. That's easy, and is likely (in my opinion) a simple function of the number of theists vs the number of atheists. On the other hand, it is an open question as to the proportion of bigots in either camp. I don't recall saying that all the bigotry was on one side: you are imagining my motives, and doing a poor job of it. On the other hand, you definitely did state that all the killing and coercion was on one side.

Make yourself a cup of tea.

So you admit that there are a lot more anti-atheist bigots amoung religionists than there are anti-religious bigots among atheists, and yet you only saw fit to mention those that there are a lot less of.

And I was indeed inaccurate to state that ALL the killing and coercion was on the religious side, but there can be no rational doubt that MOST of it has been. And, more often than not, it was against members of other religions, because you are correct when you state that atheists are a tiny minority, and during the past few millennia that minority has been even tinier, due no doubt in some degree to what religionists did to anyone who publicly admitted to such a position.

390 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:10:52am

re: #388 Hhar

Elide? Wouldn't dream of it. I'll happily agree with you: more people have died over conflicts between religions than have died in conflicts between religion and atheism. (shrug) But your argument is revealing of what you feel under all that verbiage. Doesn't look so pleasant. make yourself a cup of tea. It will help.

What I feel is a commitment to historical veracity. No polite nonmentions or memory hole droppings allowed.

391 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:17:58am

re: #389 Salamantis

Samlamantis, you were talking about science and atheism, and Sharmuta had a conversation with someone about Dawkins. I said was that he was an antireligious bigot (which is a pretty darn obvious fact), and you kinda went all kablooey (It's balanced out! Atheists have never tried to coerce anyone! yer only taking about bigotry from one side! blah blah blah). You have the hots for the man or something?

Spiritual, intellectual and cultural bigotry is all over the place. You can find it on any side of any major social question. When a bigot, or a bigotry, is raised to social prominence, it is fair game to talk about it. Seems obvious.

392 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:20:08am

re: #384 wkeller

But the certainty that you declare that God's hand is not in evolution seems to be a touch arrogant.

Oh, for Pete's sake. This again.

Would you please tell me where I have written anything like your weird, distorted mischaracterization of my views? Go ahead, search LGF and find the post where I wrote with "certainty" that "God's hand is not in evolution."

I'll wait. (Actually, I won't. I have better things to do than get in another argument with another thin-skinned creationist.)

BTW:

wkeller
Registered since: Jun 2, 2005 at 10:47 am
No. of comments posted: 12
No. of links posted: 2

393 Land Shark  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:20:51am

re: #384 wkeller

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution and I.D., to me it's God's way of doing things. I believe it's a process He created.

But I strongly believe I.D. Creationism is a matter of faith that does not belong in the science classroom. I believe forcing public schools to teach this stuff in science class is very detrimental to science education. Like I've said before, science is at it's best when left to be science.

I share and understand Charles' passion for the subject because it threatens the quality and integrity of science education. "This is where the miracle happens" is not sound scientific method. We need more good honest scientists practicing sound science if our country is to remain a science and technology leader.

The last thing we need is to corrupt science education. But we have Creationists throughout the country wanting to do just that. This is one area where separation of church and state is vital.

394 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:28:04am

re: #390 Salamantis

What I feel is a commitment to historical veracity. No polite nonmentions or memory hole droppings allowed.

You mean polite non mentions like Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.
hmm?

Iit looks to me like a commitment to historical veracity went right out the window there, so maybe that particular feeling doesn't run as deep in you as some others. Without malice, I suggest that you work hard to identify what those other feelings are.

395 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:41:43am

re: #391 Hhar

Samlamantis, you were talking about science and atheism, and Sharmuta had a conversation with someone about Dawkins. I said was that he was an antireligious bigot (which is a pretty darn obvious fact), and you kinda went all kablooey (It's balanced out! Atheists have never tried to coerce anyone! yer only taking about bigotry from one side! blah blah blah). You have the hots for the man or something?

Spiritual, intellectual and cultural bigotry is all over the place. You can find it on any side of any major social question. When a bigot, or a bigotry, is raised to social prominence, it is fair game to talk about it. Seems obvious.

I just hate seeing anyone, or any side, get gratuitously singled out for exclusive opprobrium. Like you said, there is plenty of bigotry to go around, on all sides; I was just ensuring that it got spread more evenly.

Perhaps insteasd of making that apparently confusingly abstract point, I should simply have mentioned James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or the late Jerry Falwell instead. They certainly qualify as socially prominent antiatheist bigots. As do a plethora of others I could mention.

396 wkeller  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:43:56am

geezz Charles, step away from the edge. Where I get my idea from is that it is the only point of view you point to. No need to search, all I have to do is simply know that when I check your site - which I do daily - I can be assured that 5 out of 7 days this topic is displayed. And, no problem with it either. As you point out, I could hardly be considered a big contriubtor. I too have a life and a company to run, time is important.

Not sure why I even mentioned it today honestly. I guess with our country being consumed by a socialist dragon, auto companies being seized, banks under federal control, our insurance sector owned by the government, salary caps set, state secrets released, potential terrorists possibly released in our country, N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, looming socialized medicine, new hate speech legislation (which, I assume, could affect this very debate) I have simply noticed that in years gone by your interests were broader. Now they seem to have narrowed - to all our loss.

As for being thin skinned, were I, you would have seen hundreds of posts, not a meager offering of 12. However, I seem to have pulled the lizard's tail.

As for Land Shark's thoughts of separation of church and state, perhaps a refresher on it's original intent is in order. It was to prevent the "Church of America" from occurring, not to keep prayer from school. Where we have lost our way is that the federal government is involved in local school boards at all. The elimination of the Dept. of Education, the repeal of no child left behind and the butting out of the feds in our daily life is our solution.

Anyway Charles, meant no offense, simply stating my opinions. This used to be the home of diverse thought. Seems like those venues are decreasing day by day - even among bloggers. It does give a person pause to think just where this will all end. With government censors determining what is and is not hate speech? Perhaps even on blogs? Time will tell.

397 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:47:09am

re: #396 wkeller

Where I get my idea from is that it is the only point of view you point to.

Then I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

398 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:47:20am

re: #394 Hhar

You mean polite non mentions like Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.
hmm?

Iit looks to me like a commitment to historical veracity went right out the window there, so maybe that particular feeling doesn't run as deep in you as some others. Without malice, I suggest that you work hard to identify what those other feelings are.

When you brought up that there were indeed several 20th century instances of atheistic communist despots persecuting religionists, I immediately agreed, although with the caveat that the lion's share of coercion, over a period many times longer, still remained with the religionists, a fact with which you have agreed.

399 Charles Johnson  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:47:25am

re: #339 freetoken

No.

I'm just saying she is clueless about the origins of what we know today as Intelligent Design.

Clueless, or deceptive? I've liked a lot of what Melanie Phillips has written, but like Ben Stein, when the talk turns to evolution she just goes off the rails. It's sad how many so-called conservatives are so determinedly ignorant about these issues.

There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that "intelligent design" is repackaged creationism; even the founders of ID say so. The prime ID textbook for a long time, "Of Pandas and People," began as a pure creationist book, and this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in the Dover trial. And I'm appalled at her description of Ken Miller's testimony in the Kitzmiller case as "muddled." Good grief.

Charles Krauthammer seems to be the only conservative pundit with his head on straight about creationism -- probably because he was trained as a scientist.

400 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:49:30am

re: #396 wkeller

As for Land Shark's thoughts of separation of church and state, perhaps a refresher on it's original intent is in order. It was to prevent the "Church of America" from occurring, not to keep prayer from school

Nonsense- this is revisionist crap. Trying reading up on James Madison.

401 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:51:35am
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

-James Madison

402 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:53:09am
I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

-James Madison

403 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:55:19am

re: #395 Salamantis

I just hate seeing anyone, or any side, get gratuitously singled out for exclusive opprobrium. Like you said, there is plenty of bigotry to go around, on all sides; I was just ensuring that it got spread more evenly.

Perhaps insteasd of making that apparently confusingly abstract point, I should simply have mentioned James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or the late Jerry Falwell instead. They certainly qualify as socially prominent antiatheist bigots. As do a plethora of others I could mention.

I don't find that a confusing abstract point in the least. I'm sorry that you do. But if your concern is as you state, I support your enthusiasm. In the future, whenever anyone mentions how and agenda driven the Discovery Institute is, I of course expect you to talk about the militant anti-religiosity of Andrew Coyne, and the bigotry of Dawkins. Because, of course, within the wold of science (as you noted) there is a far higher proportion of people who identify themselves as atheists than as theists, and proportionality is important, and it is important to address both sides of the story simultaneously and equally.

But that isn't really what you meant, is it? No it isn't.

404 Land Shark  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 9:59:00am

re: #396 wkeller

"As for Land Shark's thoughts of separation of church and state, perhaps a refresher on it's original intent is in order. It was to prevent the "Church of America" from occurring, not to keep prayer from school."

Err, what's "prayer in school" got to do with any of this? We're talking about forcing public schools to teach I.D. Creationism in science class. I never mentioned prayer in school or anything else. I actually agree with you that the principal reason for the "separation of church and state" was to prevent a "Church of America." But I do believe when it comes to science education it makes a lot of sense.

405 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:02:22am

re: #398 Salamantis

When you brought up that there were indeed several 20th century instances of atheistic communist despots persecuting religionists, I immediately agreed, although with the caveat that the lion's share of coercion, over a period many times longer, still remained with the religionists, a fact with which you have agreed.

The astonishing thing was that you forgot all about them to begin with. That isn't a simple mistake: that is an enormous blind spot. And you didn't say "oops, I goofed" you went on to say "Oh, but religion is historically worse". Your argumentation is in the style of a committed ideologue. just sayin'

406 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:02:37am

re: #403 Hhar

I don't find that a confusing abstract point in the least. I'm sorry that you do. But if your concern is as you state, I support your enthusiasm. In the future, whenever anyone mentions how and agenda driven the Discovery Institute is, I of course expect you to talk about the militant anti-religiosity of Andrew Coyne, and the bigotry of Dawkins. LBecause, of course, within the wold of science (as you noted) there is a far higher proportion of people who identify themselves as atheists than as theists, and proportionality is important, and it is important to address both sides of the story simultaneously and equally.

But that isn't really what you meant, is it? No it isn't.

I notice that you seem to be implying that all, or most, atheists are antireligous bigots, without, however, implying that all, or most, religionists are antiatheist bigots. But what's sauce for the gander is surely sauce for the goose. Why the oddhandedness? If proportionality is important, does that mean that I should mention antireligious bigots, say, one time every thousand times that antiatheist bigots are mentioned? Or would that be too much, considering the actually obtaining population proportions?

407 wkeller  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:07:49am

Sharmuta

Madison:

The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

A few more quotes about relgion and the establishment of a state relgion at: [Link: candst.tripod.com...]

Actually, your second quote seems to support my exact position. The government has no constitutional right to establish the "Church of America". Nor do they have a constitutional right to set education standards, the contents of text books, the qualifications of teachers. That was all meant to be left in the hands of the states and communities.

And with that, I let this topic go.

408 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:07:55am

re: #405 Hhar

The astonishing thing was that you forgot all about them to begin with. That isn't a simple mistake: that is an enormous blind spot. And you didn't say "oops, I goofed" you went on to say "Oh, but religion is historically worse". Your argumentation is in the style of a committed ideologue. just sayin'

I notice that you forgot all about antiatheists altogether until I brought them up, then rather than saying yeah, they're out there, too, you accused me of some strange kind of moral turpitude for doing so. Doesn't that appear to be rather ideologically filtered?

409 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:09:46am

re: #407 wkeller

I fail to see how my second Madison quote helps support religious prayer in government schools. You want your kids to pray at school- send them to a religious institution.

410 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:10:50am

re: #406 Salamantis

I notice that you seem to be implying that all, or most, atheists are antireligous bigots, without, however, implying that all, or most, religionists are antiatheist bigots. But what's sauce for the gander is surely sauce for the goose. Why the oddhandedness? If proportionality is important, does that mean that I should mention antireligious bigots, say, one time every thousand times that antiatheist bigots are mentioned? Or would that be too much, considering the actually obtaining population proportions?

The seeming here is in your imagination. You said that you hated to see opprobrium dished out in one direction. I simply pointed out what this commitment to principle would imply on your part. You said earlier that the proportion of theists to atheists was important in evaluationg the importance of the various bigotries: I am simply pointing out to you that if that is true, and that if you accept that the absolute prevalence of bigotry is in proportion ro the number of people holding to the relevant position, then you should be as concerned about antitheist bigots in science as you are about anti-atheist bigots in society at large. Is this too much of an abstract point for you?

You do not appear comfortable with the consequences of your own ideas.

411 Sharmuta  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:14:47am

Isn't it a Bircher thing to bitch about the Dept of Education?

412 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:17:14am

re: #408 Salamantis

I notice that you forgot all about antiatheists altogether until I brought them up, then rather than saying yeah, they're out there, too, you accused me of some strange kind of moral turpitude for doing so. Doesn't that appear to be rather ideologically filtered?

Well, the discussion was about Dawkins to begin with. If every time a bigot is mentioned, you feel the need to mention a bigotry in the other direction, fine with me. You don't do that, but if that's your new rule, go for it.

I think balance in the discussion over all is important, but I don't think any individual person must commit to maintaining the balance all thetime. I also think that if a person deliberately distorts history, and justifies one bigotry with another, well, that's pretty bad.

413 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:21:49am

re: #410 Hhar

The seeming here is in your imagination. You said that you hated to see opprobrium dished out in one direction. I simply pointed out what this commitment to principle would imply on your part. You said earlier that the proportion of theists to atheists was important in evaluationg the importance of the various bigotries: I am simply pointing out to you that if that is true, and that if you accept that the absolute prevalence of bigotry is in proportion ro the number of people holding to the relevant position, then you should be as concerned about antitheist bigots in science as you are about anti-atheist bigots in society at large. Is this too much of an abstract point for you?

You do not appear comfortable with the consequences of your own ideas.

Once again you are illegitimately equating all, or most, atheists with antireligionism, while failing to do the same for religionists with regard to antiatheism.

The brass tacks fact is that there has historically been much more bigotry, coercion and murder from the religious than there has been from the irreligious, and you want a pass for failing to bring up the vast masses of religious antiatheist bigots, while you refuse to extend one to me for failing to bring up that there were SOME communist atheists who persecuted and murdered religionists, although most of that went in the other direction. So you want to castigate me for failing to bring up a minority of cases, when you yourself failed to bring up the majority of cases, for which you seem to think you deserve no criticism whatsoever. Hardly proportional of you. Or fair.

414 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:25:43am

re: #412 Hhar

Well, the discussion was about Dawkins to begin with. If every time a bigot is mentioned, you feel the need to mention a bigotry in the other direction, fine with me. You don't do that, but if that's your new rule, go for it.

I think balance in the discussion over all is important, but I don't think any individual person must commit to maintaining the balance all thetime. I also think that if a person deliberately distorts history, and justifies one bigotry with another, well, that's pretty bad.

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to discern, between attempting to justify one bigotry with another, and pointing out that all the bigotry does not reside on one side, and in fact that the vast preponderance of it, both contemporarily and historically, resides on the other.

Perhaps this lack of distinction on your part is willful, and perhaps it is merely myopic. Only you, in your heart of hearts, know which. But I suspect.

415 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:29:29am

Once again you are illegitimately equating all, or most, atheists with antireligionism, while failing to do the same for religionists with regard to antiatheism.

Oh hardly. You are hallucinating now. Most atheists do not talk like you at all. In my experience they seem to be rational decent folks.

The brass tacks fact is that there has historically been much more bigotry, coercion and murder from the religious than there has been from the irreligious, and you want a pass for failing to bring up the vast masses of religious antiatheist bigots, while you refuse to extend one to me for failing to bring up that there were SOME communist atheists who persecuted and murdered religionists, although most of that went in the other direction. So you want to castigate me for failing to bring up a minority of cases, when you yourself failed to bring up the majority of cases, for which you seem to think you deserve no criticism whatsoever. Hardly proportional of you. Or fair.

The fact is that you got upset and out of the blue categorically denied violent coercion of theists by atheists, which is silly. At no point did I bring up persecution or violence: you did. The rest is your imagination. calm down.

416 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:34:41am

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to discern, between attempting to justify one bigotry with another, and pointing out that all the bigotry does not reside on one side, and in fact that the vast preponderance of it, both contemporarily and historically, resides on the other.

Sure, there's a difference. But I don't think that that's all you were doing, despite your protestations, and I point to your own behavior as my evidence for that.

417 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:46:41am

re: #415 Hhar

Once again you are illegitimately equating all, or most, atheists with antireligionism, while failing to do the same for religionists with regard to antiatheism.

Oh hardly. You are hallucinating now. Most atheists do not talk like you at all. In my experience they seem to be rational decent folks.

"You said earlier that the proportion of theists to atheists was important in evaluating the importance of the various bigotries: I am simply pointing out to you that if that is true, and that if you accept that the absolute prevalence of bigotry is in proportion to the number of people holding to the relevant position, then you should be as concerned about antitheist bigots in science as you are about anti-atheist bigots in society at large."

You are groundlessly assuming that the same percentage of lay religionists and scientist atheists are bigots. I do not accept that this is the case. I would maintain that there is a greater preponderance of antitheist bigots among the religious than there are antireligious bigots among scientists. Atheism does not entail antitheism.

The brass tacks fact is that there has historically been much more bigotry, coercion and murder from the religious than there has been from the irreligious, and you want a pass for failing to bring up the vast masses of religious antiatheist bigots, while you refuse to extend one to me for failing to bring up that there were SOME communist atheists who persecuted and murdered religionists, although most of that went in the other direction. So you want to castigate me for failing to bring up a minority of cases, when you yourself failed to bring up the majority of cases, for which you seem to think you deserve no criticism whatsoever. Hardly proportional of you. Or fair.

418 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:51:29am

re: #417 Salamantis

My post got truncated; here is the rest of it:

The fact is that you got upset and out of the blue categorically denied violent coercion of theists by atheists, which is silly. At no point did I bring up persecution or violence: you did. The rest is your imagination. calm down.

The fact is that you accused me of moral bankruptcy for even broaching the fact that there were bigots on more than one side of the issue, even though the vast preponderance of them, both contemporarily and historically, reside on the side that you conveniently forgot to mention. This does not seem like a calm accusation; it most certainly is not a valid one. Rather, it seems as though you were attempting to rhetorically punish me for even bringing up the existence of the bigots on the other side, much less their preponderance. To me, this smacks of an attempt to enforce a double standard on the issue.

419 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:52:32am

re: #417 Salamantis

You are groundlessly assuming that the same percentage of lay religionists and scientist atheists are bigots. I do not accept that this is the case. I would maintain that there is a greater preponderance of antitheist bigots among the religious than there are antireligious bigots among scientists. Atheism does not entail antitheism.

Oh no, I wouldn't say "the same" proportion of atheist are antitheist as theists are antiatheist. I'd put it as probably the same order of magnitude. Enough of a similarity to be concerning. Don't have any hard numbers. I would certainly agree that atheism isn't antitheism.

But you make a very strong statement (and probably a typo, which I have correctyed in bold) when you say "I would maintain that there is a greater preponderance of antiatheist bigots among the religious than there are antireligious bigots among scientists." What is your evidence?

420 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:54:42am

re: #416 Hhar

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to discern, between attempting to justify one bigotry with another, and pointing out that all the bigotry does not reside on one side, and in fact that the vast preponderance of it, both contemporarily and historically, resides on the other.

Sure, there's a difference. But I don't think that that's all you were doing, despite your protestations, and I point to your own behavior as my evidence for that.

My behavior has been consistent; when you pointed to the existence of murderers on the atheist side, I replied by admitting the point, but also pointing out that they were in a decided minority; what I DIDN'T do is attempt to impugn your ethics for bringing them up, as you did with me, when I broached the fact that all, or even most, of the bigots were not on the side that YOU mentioned.

So who's behavior is evidence of what?

421 Hawaii69  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:55:10am

Easier solution. Don't move to Texas.

Surrounded by people who think that the Earth
is 6000 years old, and who never get tired of
spouting off about how their State is the best
place on earth to live?

Sounds like paradise.

422 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:00:43am

re: #418 Salamantis

My post got truncated; here is the rest of it:


The fact is that you accused me of moral bankruptcy for even broaching the fact that there were bigots on more than one side of the issue, even though the vast preponderance of them, both contemporarily and historically, reside on the side that you conveniently forgot to mention. This does not seem like a calm accusation; it most certainly is not a valid one. Rather, it seems as though you were attempting to rhetorically punish me for even bringing up the existence of the bigots on the other side, much less their preponderance. To me, this smacks of an attempt to enforce a double standard on the issue.

Oh no, I said that justifying one bigotry with another is morally bankrupt, because that's what I think you were doing. Your out of the blue protestation that atheists never coerced anybody kinda re-enforces that impression, and the rest is you just complaining about the fact that you gave me that impression to begin with. 'cmon. get a grip man. You aren't going to convince me of anything by whining at me.

423 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:01:09am

re: #419 Hhar

Oh no, I wouldn't say "the same" proportion of atheist are antitheist as theists are antiatheist. I'd put it as probably the same order of magnitude. Enough of a similarity to be concerning. Don't have any hard numbers. I would certainly agree that atheism isn't antitheism.

But you make a very strong statement (and probably a typo, which I have correctyed in bold) when you say "I would maintain that there is a greater preponderance of antiatheist bigots among the religious than there are antireligious bigots among scientists." What is your evidence?

My evidence is suppositional, but reasonable, in that the religious seem to primarily identify themselves as religious, and opposed to atheism (as well as to other religions), while scientists appear to primarily identify themselves as scientists, rather than as religious or irreligious. They weren't volunteering their metaphysical stances; in fact, they had to be asked about them. The religious, otoh, have historically not only proclaimed their own metaphysical stances, they have endeavored to convince or coerce even unwilling others to adopt them. This cannot be said of the vast preponderance of scientists.

424 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:03:05am

re: #420 Salamantis

My behavior has been consistent; when you pointed to the existence of murderers on the atheist side, I replied by admitting the point, but also pointing out that they were in a decided minority; what I DIDN'T do is attempt to impugn your ethics for bringing them up, as you did with me, when I broached the fact that all, or even most, of the bigots were not on the side that YOU mentioned.

So who's behavior is evidence of what?

Yeah, your behavior is consistent except when it wasn't. YOU brought up murdering, and in a most prejudicial way. I didn't bring it up: YOU did. 'cmon. Get a grip.

425 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:04:25am

re: #423 Salamantis

My evidence is suppositional....

...

Or in other words, you don't really have any. That's called "prejudice". Thanks for playing.

426 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:05:54am

re: #422 Hhar

Oh no, I said that justifying one bigotry with another is morally bankrupt, because that's what I think you were doing. Your out of the blue protestation that atheists never coerced anybody kinda re-enforces that impression, and the rest is you just complaining about the fact that you gave me that impression to begin with. 'cmon. get a grip man. You aren't going to convince me of anything by whining at me.

I repeat my post #414:

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to discern, between attempting to justify one bigotry with another, and pointing out that all the bigotry does not reside on one side, and in fact that the vast preponderance of it, both contemporarily and historically, resides on the other.

Perhaps this lack of distinction on your part is willful, and perhaps it is merely myopic. Only you, in your heart of hearts, know which. But I suspect.

and also bring up the fact that when you brought up the existence of a minority of atheists who had murdered religionists, I acknowledge the fact while mentioning that they were a minority that had murdered far less people than religionists had, while when I brought up the mere existence of antiatheist bigots, of whom there have been far more than there have been antireligious bigots, you immediately endeavored to impugn my moral character.

That very action renders your own honesty and integrity regarding this issue highly suspect.

427 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:07:06am

re: #424 Hhar

Yeah, your behavior is consistent except when it wasn't. YOU brought up murdering, and in a most prejudicial way. I didn't bring it up: YOU did. 'cmon. Get a grip.

Murdering someone who holds a different religious opinion than yours IS the ultimate act of religious bigotry...

428 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:10:07am

re: #425 Hhar

...

Or in other words, you don't really have any. That's called "prejudice". Thanks for playing.

No, prejudice is supposition in the ABSENCE of evidence; the undeniable fact that a substantial percentage of religionists relentlessly proselytize their faith, while few atheist scientists proselytize their lack of it, is the PRESENCE of evidence.

429 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:11:13am

re: #426 Salamantis

You can repeat yourself out the wazoo. I don't beleive you, and your behavior gives me reason for this. If out of the blue, you can post this:

Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.

and expect me to all of a sudden say "why, this guy isn't prejudiced against religion. He says so, so he must not be." you are dreaming. You got caught with your pants down. Suck it up and move on. Or you can keep whining at me.

430 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:19:39am

re: #429 Hhar

You can repeat yourself out the wazoo. I don't beleive you, and your behavior gives me reason for this. If out of the blue, you can post this:

Both sides try to persuade, although the atheists are rather new at it, and therefore comparably quite clumsy and hamhanded in their proselytizations, but only one side has tried to coerce. And succeeded in doing so, a lot throughout history, by employing extreme and unconscionable measures.

and expect me to all of a sudden say "why, this guy isn't prejudiced against religion. He says so, so he must not be." you are dreaming. You got caught with your pants down. Suck it up and move on. Or you can keep whining at me.

When you brought up the fact, I immediately admitted that some atheistic communists had done in a few countrie for a few decades what religionists have done worldwide for millennia. You, however, called me morally bankrupt for even mentioning that there were such creatures as antiatheist bigots, even though they far outnumber antireligious bigots.

I gues that means you are prejudiced against the irreligious. Your repeated rhetorical actions concerning me certainly make that case much much better than my single and immediately amended statement.

431 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:20:26am

>

re: #428 Salamantis

No, prejudice is supposition in the ABSENCE of evidence; the undeniable fact that a substantial percentage of religionists relentlessly proselytize their faith, while few atheist scientists proselytize their lack of it, is the PRESENCE of evidence.

Umm... ...It isn't evidence of anything other than a perceived ethical obligation towards prosetylisation. Christians have an ethical obligation to prosetylise the world at large, and opinions vary on how to do that. Jews (for instance) do not. Atheism does not necessarily imply any ethical obligation to proselytise. Moreover, the unwillingness to volunteer one's personal beleifs does not imply at all an absence of negative attitudes towards someone else's ideas. This is obvious.

You formed your opinions without any actual evidence: your opinion of the prevalence of anti theism amoung scientists is subjective, and (as your post seems to imply) somewhat confused as well. And I'm STILL supposed to think you aren't a wee tad biased here? g'wan.

432 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:27:03am

re: #430 Salamantis

When you brought up the fact, I immediately admitted that some atheistic communists had done in a few countrie for a few decades what religionists have done worldwide for millennia.

Yes, when you decided to post something quite out of the blue that was an obvious untruth, I said so and you the first thing you did at the time was try to trivialise your untruth. That's true.


ou, however, called me morally bankrupt for even mentioning that there were such creatures as antiatheist bigots, even though they far outnumber antireligious bigots.

enh. If you justify ione biigotry with another, I will say you are bankrupt. That's what you did at thetime, and that's what I said at the time. You want to spin that any way you like, OK.

I gues that means you are prejudiced against the irreligious. Your repeated rhetorical actions concerning me certainly make that case much much better than my single and immediately amended statement

You can't make a lie go away by trying to trivialise it. That just makes people distrust you afterwards.

433 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:32:37am

re: #431 Hhar

No, prejudice is supposition in the ABSENCE of evidence; the undeniable fact that a substantial percentage of religionists relentlessly proselytize their faith, while few atheist scientists proselytize their lack of it, is the PRESENCE of evidence.

Umm... ...It isn't evidence of anything other than a perceived ethical obligation towards prosetylisation. Christians have an ethical obligation to prosetylise the world at large, and opinions vary on how to do that. Jews (for instance) do not. Atheism does not necessarily imply any ethical obligation to proselytise. Moreover, the unwillingness to volunteer one's personal beleifs does not imply at all an absence of negative attitudes towards someone else's ideas. This is obvious.

Otoh, the willingness to volunteer one's negative attitudes towards the irreligious does indeed constitute bigotry, and that willingness is rife within the religious community. Their unholy three, against which they incessantly rail, are atheists, secularists, and humanists (the last two usually combined into 'secular humanists'). The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of presence. When this is compared to undeniable and massive evidence of presence, the latter is granted logical precedence.

You formed your opinions without any actual evidence: your opinion of the prevalence of anti theism amoung scientists is subjective, and (as your post seems to imply) somewhat confused as well. And I'm STILL supposed to think you aren't a wee tad biased here? g'wan.

Actually, I see myself here as countering your own biased agenda, which is to minimize the bigotry of the side with the greater visible amount of prejudice, while accentuating the bigotry of the side with the lesser visible amount of prejudice, so you can then illegitimately equate them.

434 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:38:07am

re: #432 Hhar

Yes, when you decided to post something quite out of the blue that was an obvious untruth, I said so and you the first thing you did at the time was try to trivialise your untruth. That's true.

No, what I did was to admit your point, while simultaneously contextualizing it. Will you dispute the veracity of my contextualization?

enh. If you justify ione biigotry with another, I will say you are bankrupt. That's what you did at thetime, and that's what I said at the time. You want to spin that any way you like, OK.

Post 414, once again:

There is a difference, which you apparently fail to discern, between attempting to justify one bigotry with another, and pointing out that all the bigotry does not reside on one side, and in fact that the vast preponderance of it, both contemporarily and historically, resides on the other.

Perhaps this lack of distinction on your part is willful, and perhaps it is merely myopic. Only you, in your heart of hearts, know which. But I suspect.

You can't make a lie go away by trying to trivialise it. That just makes people distrust you afterwards.

Properly contextualize, not trivialize. And you can't enforce your own omission upon others by attacking them for bringing up that which you omitted without engendering their own distrust.

435 Lynn B.  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:48:35am

For that Texas lizard ...

Ken Miller's Only A Theory is excellent also.

And, as someone else mentioned above, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (now available in paperback).

436 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:52:27am
Otoh, the willingness to volunteer one's negative attitudes towards the irreligious does indeed constitute bigotry, and that willingness is rife within the religious community. Their unholy three, against which they incessantly rail, are atheists, secularists, and humanists (the last two usually combined into 'secular humanists'). The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of presence. When this is compared to undeniable and massive evidence of presence, the latter is granted logical precedence.

It is perfectly true that a lot of theists are prejudiced against atheism. On the other hand, I'm an academic, and I have seen a lot of anti-religious attitudes and prejudice amoung atheists. I would not claim that one is superior to the other in that regard the absence of evidence. The only person doing that here is you.

Actually, I see myself here as countering your own biased agenda, which is to minimize the bigotry of the side with the greater visible amount of prejudice, while accentuating the bigotry of the side with the lesser visible amount of prejudice, so you can then illegitimately equate them.

Well, I suppose if you think pimping for Dawkins and minimising your blatant untruth serves your purpose, that explains it. You feel that you must propagandise in order to counter propaganda. Me, I'd rather not propagandise: as I said before Salamantis: you don't have to pick bigotries.

437 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 11:58:12am

re: #434 Salamantis

Properly contextualize, not trivialize. And you can't enforce your own omission upon others by attacking them for bringing up that which you omitted without engendering their own distrust.

So making excuses for an untruth is now called "properly contextualizing" it. I think I'll remember that one. The rest is just bizarre: I haveto talk about world history to point out that Dawkins is a bigot? Are you deranged?

438 Hawaii69  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 12:58:09pm

re: #14 6pat6

So, why bother? They are much like Libtards - unable to grasp the obvious, or the logical. Some people do not "evolve".


Pro tip for you:

Using "Tard" as a suffix says more about you, than it
does about anyone else. Grow up.

439 heyou  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 3:25:15pm

I'm sure this has been said on other threads, the thing that irks me about the Creationists is for all their efforts to prove that there IS a Creator they downplay WHO they think that Creator is. They pretend it's some generic "creator" but really they believe it is Zeus. It's just a matter of time before they start indoctrinating people. And what if some child dares to suggest that in fact the creator is YoMammma? What then? Will the ID people be okay with competing scientific "theories" about WHO the Creator is? Even if they manage to scienterifcally agree that the Creator is in fact the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. What if a Jew dares to suggest that the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is ONE and not Three? Will the ID people be okay with that?

440 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:19:02pm

re: #436 Hhar

It is perfectly true that a lot of theists are prejudiced against atheism. On the other hand, I'm an academic, and I have seen a lot of anti-religious attitudes and prejudice amoung atheists. I would not claim that one is superior to the other in that regard the absence of evidence. The only person doing that here is you.

Umm...you're confusing, I believe gratuitously, atheists and or academics with scientists. With the caveat that you claim not to be a scientist, but an 'academic', you admit when pressed that antiatheist prejudice is rampant among religionists, and my guess, considering the undisguised vitriol and contempt with which you obviously regard Dawkins, combined with the utter lack of comparable visceral animus you have demonstrated against antiatheist religionists, is that you have personally perceived such antiatheist prejudice among co-religionists, and quite possibly shared it, or at least pretended to; now how prevalent have not just a passive absence of religious practice, but an actual active animus towards the religious, been within the ranks of scientists in your 'academic' experience of them, if you indeed have any?

As if I could expect an honest answer to such a question from the likes of you.

Well, I suppose if you think pimping for Dawkins and minimising your blatant untruth serves your purpose, that explains it. You feel that you must propagandise in order to counter propaganda. Me, I'd rather not propagandise: as I said before Salamantis: you don't have to pick bigotries.

I contend that if you think gratuitously and selectively slagging Dawkins while conveniently omitting the antiatheist bigotry of religionists until pressed to do so, meanwhile lashing out at me for daring to broach the subject, is your version of evenhandedness between opposing bigotries, that it is YOU who are in fact engaging in propaganditic shading, and favoring one bigotry over another, by trumpeting one, and gratuitously impugning the character of someone who brings up the other. As to my 'blatant untruth', I freely and immediately admitted that antireligious bigotry exists (issuing far more from adherents of other religions than from atheists) , but properly noted that antireligious bigotry from atheists is dwarfed by antiatheist bigotry among religionists.

My best considered guess is that you are a theist, and quite a defensive one at that, and that you consider offense against atheists, not to mention gratuitous offensiveness directed at those who broach the subject of religionist antitheist bigotry, to be the best defense.

I am not an atheist, but a pagan; are you a theist? That would explain a lot about your posts.

441 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:32:49pm

re: #437 Hhar

So making excuses for an untruth is now called "properly contextualizing" it. I think I'll remember that one. The rest is just bizarre: I haveto talk about world history to point out that Dawkins is a bigot? Are you deranged?

I made no excuses for my omission of the communist murder of religionists; I merely remarked that it was dwarfed by the religionist murder of those who do not share their faith, be they atheists or members of other religions. The fact that more atheists have not been historically murdered by religionists than have been is a function of the fact that religionists, as long as they were in a position to decide such things, have never allowed atheists to exist in sufficient numbers for their murders to rack up impressive totals.

Apparently you are allowed to bring up Dawkins' antireligious bigotry without mentioning the antiatheist bigotry of religionists, but when I bring up the ubiquitous and pandemic antiatheist bigotry from religionists, I am, in your estimation, richly deserving of excoriation. This fits the manipulatively cynical double standard embraced by many religionists like a glove; they unreasonably demand to be allowed without reproach to dish out their bigotry against atheists while also reserving the right to attack without reproach any and all who mention that they themselves are massively guilty of antiatheist bigotry against the selfsame people whom they are accusing.

442 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:33:40pm

In case you haven't gotten it yet; there is a name for such a double standard: hypocrisy.

443 Hhar  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 7:37:20pm
Umm...you're confusing, I believe gratuitously, atheists and or academics with scientists. With the caveat that you claim not to be a scientist, but an 'academic'...

No, most of the academics I know are scientists. Some are physicians. Me, I'm a clinician that does a moderate amount of research: I've got over 50 papers to my name; some are grant funded research, working on transgenic animals and the like. Others are a lot more clinical. My background and training in graduate and undergraduate was evolutionary biology: specifically behavior and ecology, but I took a lot of courses in philosophy of science at McGill. I decided that medicine would be more fun and lucrative.

See, you have a degree in history and philosophy of science that you wave like a flag, but you have no real personal experience in these issues, and you like to talk. You assume you know stuiff about me that you don't, but its your prejudice talking. So: take your punishment like a man: you don't know what you are talking about, or who you are talking to, and I wouldn't have even posted this except I got bored of you telling me what I am.

When I talk about scientists I mean scientists. When I talk about clinicians, I mean clinicians. When I say 'academic", its because a lot of people don't like calling medical researchers "scientists", so I don't advertise myself as one. But I work at a University as a full time academic staff.

So: again, thanks for peddling your prejudice, but I'm not buying.

444 Salamantis  Thu, Apr 30, 2009 10:51:09pm

re: #443 Hhar

No, most of the academics I know are scientists. Some are physicians. Me, I'm a clinician that does a moderate amount of research: I've got over 50 papers to my name; some are grant funded research, working on transgenic animals and the like. Others are a lot more clinical. My background and training in graduate and undergraduate was evolutionary biology: specifically behavior and ecology, but I took a lot of courses in philosophy of science at McGill. I decided that medicine would be more fun and lucrative.

See, you have a degree in history and philosophy of science that you wave like a flag, but you have no real personal experience in these issues, and you like to talk. You assume you know stuiff about me that you don't, but its your prejudice talking. So: take your punishment like a man: you don't know what you are talking about, or who you are talking to, and I wouldn't have even posted this except I got bored of you telling me what I am.

When I talk about scientists I mean scientists. When I talk about clinicians, I mean clinicians. When I say 'academic", its because a lot of people don't like calling medical researchers "scientists", so I don't advertise myself as one. But I work at a University as a full time academic staff.

So: again, thanks for peddling your prejudice, but I'm not buying.

re: #369 Hhar

Excerpt:

"But when a man says that teaching my religion to my children is morally comparable to pedophilic child abuse, I think that speaks volumes."

You are also an acknowledged religionist, which is okay; what is NOT okay is your apparently deep sympathy with the undeniable antiatheist bigotry of the majority of your coreligionists, as your thread posts amply and abundantly demonstrate - the kind of bigotry that excuses or ignores itself, while selectively railing at antireligious bigotry.

It is YOUR religiously based antiatheist prejudice, and your simultaneous soft-peddling of it and accentuation of its correlative opposite antireligious prejudice, that I'M not buying.

I also notice that you conveniently failed to mention how many of your scientific colleages are - or, more likely, are not - antireligious bigots, even though you were trying to proportionally equate the public antireligious bigotry of a few scientists with the proud antiatheist bigotry of most religionists.

Par for the course, and entirely consistent with your utterly failing to mention antiatheist bigotry in the first place when you went of on your ranting raving anti-Dawkins tirade. And while I immediately agreed that Dawkin's antireligious bigotry was indeed deplorable, I have yet to see you name and deplore a bigoted-against-atheists religionist by name, and sincerely doubt that I ever will - because they're your droogiez.

You are far from an objective commentator on such matters, any more than Antonio Gramski could objectively comment on matters of communism vs. constitutional democracy.

445 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 3:24:22am

re: #444 Salamantis

re: #369 Hhar
what is NOT okay is your apparently deep sympathy with the undeniable antiatheist bigotry of the majority of your coreligionists, .

Booooiiiiiiiingggggggg!. Game over there, bucko. The majority of my co-religionists are antiatheist bigots? You really should "contextualise" that.

446 Salamantis  Fri, May 1, 2009 4:00:10am

re: #445 Hhar

Booooiiiiiiiingggggggg!. Game over there, bucko. The majority of my co-religionists are antiatheist bigots? You really should "contextualise" that.

I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that a majority of theistic religionists are prejudiced against atheists. Including, apparently, you.

I've got your number, Hhar. You don't like atheists. You think there's something wrong with people who don't believe in God, that if they don't believe in God, then there MUST BE something wrong with them (God only knows what you think of nontheistic religionists like Buddhists, Taoists or Confucianists, or polytheists like Hindus and Pagans). It doesn't bother you to hear other religionists voice such bigoted opinions about atheists; you don't mind it because you quietly agree with them. What you really resent, though, is when atheists voice the same bigoted opinions about you and your co-religionists that your co-religionists commonly voice about them.

447 Hhar  Fri, May 1, 2009 6:21:13am

re: #446 Salamantis

Me: The majority of my co-religionists are antiatheist bigots? You really should "contextualise" that.

I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that a majority of theistic religionists are prejudiced against atheists. Including, apparently, you.

I've got your number, Hhar. You don't like atheists. You think there's something wrong with people who don't believe in God, that if they don't believe in God, then there MUST BE something wrong with them (God only knows what you think of nontheistic religionists like Buddhists, Taoists or Confucianists, or polytheists like Hindus and Pagans). It doesn't bother you to hear other religionists voice such bigoted opinions about atheists; you don't mind it because you quietly agree with them. What you really resent, though, is when atheists voice the same bigoted opinions about you and your co-religionists that your co-religionists commonly voice about them.

Idiocy doesn't get any smarter if you a lot of words to say it. First you say you don't know what my religion is, then you say that the majority of my co-religionists are bigots, now you say the majority of theists are bigots......Wow. You are all over the place.

(PS: not all people who are prejudiced are bigots. In my experience, its a minority of people. I guess you hang with a different crowd. )

448 RexMundi  Sat, May 2, 2009 3:56:14am

I'm a little late on this, and this book is a little dated (published 1990) but Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim Berra is an excellent book that I would recommend.

449 Salamantis  Sat, May 2, 2009 5:01:34am

re: #447 Hhar

Me: The majority of my co-religionists are antiatheist bigots? You really should "contextualise" that.

In this case contextualization is not necessary; the majority of adherents to all patriarchal monotheisms are prejudiced againt atheists - and have proven to so be by both word and deed throughout recorded history.

Idiocy doesn't get any smarter if you a lot of words to say it. First you say you don't know what my religion is, then you say that the majority of my co-religionists are bigots, now you say the majority of theists are bigots......Wow. You are all over the place.

(PS: not all people who are prejudiced are bigots. In my experience, its a minority of people. I guess you hang with a different crowd. )

Whether one is prejudiced in favor of something or against it, bigotry is usually involved, because those who are prejudiced in favor of X are more often than not bigots regarding non-X.

And I know what your religion is. You are Jewish, as is buzzsawmonkey. But your religion, or his, does not matter here; what matters is the snide, sneering contempt of alternative perspectives. Whereas you are prejudiced against atheists, he is prejudiced against pagans like me - but at least he, unlike you, is honest about it, and does not endeavor to conceal it beneath a slick rhetorical veneer.

As a long time pagan, I have experienced both monotheist and atheist bigotry, and over the years, both have become easy to recognize, even when the bigots try to deny it and pursue it all at the same time.

You remind me of Jared Taylor, who simultaneously preaches racism while attempting to secrete it beneath sophistries.

450 Hhar  Sat, May 2, 2009 7:03:07pm

So the majority of Jews are bigoted against atheism. Oooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I think what you are finding is that people aren't prejudiced against your ideas: they think that you, personally, are a whack job. That isn't prejudice: that's looking at the evidence.

451 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:06:38am

re: #450 Hhar

So the majority of Jews are bigoted against atheism. Oooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkka aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I think what you are finding is that people aren't prejudiced against your ideas: they think that you, personally, are a whack job. That isn't prejudice: that's looking at the evidence.

Looking at your and my karma point evidence would lead one to draw quite different conclusions.

And it's not just most religious Jews who deplore atheism; it's most Christians and most Muslims, as well.

Although I do note that there are a significant number of ethnic Jews who are in fact atheists:

[Link: www.google.com...]

452 Hhar  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:40:50am

re: #451 Salamantis

Looking at your and my karma point evidence would lead one to draw quite different conclusions.

And it's not just most religious Jews who deplore atheism; it's most Christians and most Muslims, as well.

Although I do note that there are a significant number of ethnic Jews who are in fact atheists:

[Link: www.google.com...]

Ummmm....I'd say that your karma demonstrates that some people like you and probably more don't like me. (shrug). If "people disliking me" or "People liking you" translates somehow into "People don't like you because you're a pagan" in your head, well, OK. I'm kinda glad you aren't a science major because that is NOT sound reasoning from evidence. LOL! Presumably you can "contextualise" that....I'd just say that when people don't like you it has nothing to do with you being a pagan, it has to do with you being a slightly paranoid whack job who things most Jews are "bigots" against atheists. (Your popularity on an internet site notwithstanding, and PS: you can deplore atheism without being a 'bigot", just like you can deplore theism without being a bigot. LOL!)

You hardly need to inform me that there are a large number of Jews who are atheists. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about from experience (PS: its spelt "jamais" not "jamie". Almost as funny as you going on about blastocysts. but I digress. ). Most Jews I know of have at least one atheist in their family, but you know, according to you we're mostly bigots against atheists. You are one confused puppy.

453 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:24:41am

re: #452 Hhar

Ummmm....I'd say that your karma demonstrates that some people like you and probably more don't like me. (shrug).


>
I think it has something with folks finding my points compelling, and yours, not so much.
>

If "people disliking me" or "People liking you" translates somehow into "People don't like you because you're a pagan" in your head, well, OK.


>
Not 'in my head' as far as buzz is concerned; he has repeatedly been quite explicitly up front about it, to the point of the bigoted denigration of Paganism in general.
>

I'm kinda glad you aren't a science major because that is NOT sound reasoning from evidence. LOL!


>
Actually, it is. People with massive positive karma are not those whom are cosidered by their list peers to be 'whack jobs'; poeple with negative karma, such as yourself, is another story.
>

Presumably you can "contextualise" that....I'd just say that when people don't like you it has nothing to do with you being a pagan, it has to do with you being a slightly paranoid whack job who things most Jews are "bigots" against atheists.


>
With regard to buzz, you quite obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but, unlike myself when I misspeak, lack the personal integrity to admit it, which is hardly atypical for you. With regard to creationist and neofascist trolls, they tend not to like me because I employ logic and evidence to conclusively refute their contentions. And religious Jews are not alone among patriarchal monotheists in their prejudice against atheists; in fact, I would suppose such prejudice to be even more common in the Christian community, and ubiquitous in the Muslim community.
>

(Your popularity on an internet site notwithstanding, and PS: you can deplore atheism without being a 'bigot", just like you can deplore theism without being a bigot. LOL!)


>
People can disapprove of the philosophical and/or religious positions of either without being bigots, but once people reflexively dislike other individuals, and gratuitously attribute moral inferiority to them, without having ever met them, solely on the basis of whether they are theists or atheists, yes, that is indeed bigotry, and those who do it are indeed bigots.
>

You hardly need to inform me that there are a large number of Jews who are atheists. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about from experience (PS: its spelt "jamais" not "jamie". Almost as funny as you going on about blastocysts. but I digress. ). Most Jews I know of have at least one atheist in their family, but you know, according to you we're mostly bigots against atheists. You are one confused puppy.


>
I've heard that one before; 'some of my best friends, or even family, are X.' Anecotes are not statistics; I'd like to see a poll taken of attitudes towards atheists, broken down by religion.

I will bet you a diamond to a dung beetle that Buddhists, Taoists and Confucians, being members of nontheistic faiths, would have practically no problem with atheism at all. I also contend that Hindus and Pagans would have not so much of a problem with it; Hindus because there is an atheist traditon within India, called Carvaka, stretching back centuries; Pagans because they can sympathize with atheists, since both Pagans and atheists have historically been persecuted by monotheists, and because fundamentalist Pagans are very rare, and also because polytheists tends to be a bit more accepting and tolerant of religious differences than monotheists (there are Hindus who are intolerant of Muslims, but I attribute this to a defensive reaction against coercive religious imperialism). I would expect the greatest contempt for atheists to emanate from patriarchal monotheists generally, and from more religiously observant Muslims and from the more fundamentalist among Christians and Jews in particular.

454 Hhar  Sun, May 3, 2009 7:39:45am

LOL! So you don't actually have any data! Its all just you supposing this and betting that! Yarking on about your particular prejudice doesn't make it less of a prejudice. In point of fact you have no clue how most religious Jews regard atheists. You have no real experience, and you have no data, but you're awfully darn sure!

ep.

You seriously need to get a grip.

455 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:16:20pm

re: #454 Hhar

LOL! So you don't actually have any data! Its all just you supposing this and betting that! Yarking on about your particular prejudice doesn't make it less of a prejudice. In point of fact you have no clue how most religious Jews regard atheists. You have no real experience, and you have no data, but you're awfully darn sure!

ep.

You seriously need to get a grip.

Here's some data:
Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists
Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted
[Link: atheism.about.com...]

You really think that an Israeli poll would be a whole lot better for atheists? And are you in the market for a bridge?

456 Hhar  Sun, May 3, 2009 5:57:10pm

At last some data! LOL! But you had kinda made up your mind before you found that, hadn't you?

Anyhow, an Israeli poll might show worse numbers, but then again, less than half the world's Jews are in Israel, and 20% of Israelis aren't Jewish, so you would still have to work a bit harder. I also note that your poll numbers are ten years old now, and it would be important to know who commissioned the poll, and what, precisely the questions are, before you should put a lot of emphasis on it. As I said before, bigotry:

[Link: dictionary.reference.com...]

is not the same as prejudice. Everybody has one form of prejudice or another. Few people are bigots.

BTW, I don't really trust stuff on antisemitism from the professional grievance mongers of the ADL, and it makes me wonder that you would trust stuff from "about atheism". I have an old friend who is an atheist who introduced me to that site, and it makes him alternately laugh and cringe. Me, it just makes me shake my head.

But then again, I am talking to someone who threw a hissy when I mentioned that Dawkins is an antireligious bigot. BTW: did you know Dawkins is an antireligious bigot? Yep. Its true. Its very evil of me to say so without mentioning Aztec human sacrifice and witchburning, I know, because (as we know) Prof Dawkins was once nearly sacrificed by Aztecs, and only narrowly escaped from the hands of the inquisition thereafter, so its all so terribly relevant......................

Hey, did you know Jerry Coyne is also pretty down on theism too? And no Aztecs in sight! I am SO evil!

457 Salamantis  Mon, May 4, 2009 7:33:40am

re: #456 Hhar

At last some data! LOL! But you had kinda made up your mind before you found that, hadn't you?

Actually, I'd seen the poll before, but forgot where it was; I just had to find it again.

Anyhow, an Israeli poll might show worse numbers, but then again, less than half the world's Jews are in Israel, and 20% of Israelis aren't Jewish, so you would still have to work a bit harder. I also note that your poll numbers are ten years old now, and it would be important to know who commissioned the poll, and what, precisely the questions are, before you should put a lot of emphasis on it. As I said before, bigotry:

[Link: dictionary.reference.com...]

is not the same as prejudice. Everybody has one form of prejudice or another. Few people are bigots.

When you prejudge against a member of a group because of preconceptions you harbor aginst the group, that's bigotry, if the word possesses any meaning whatsoever. And of course you will try to dismiss or minimize any poll that undermines your position, just as you would trumpet any poll that would support it. Good luck finding one of those.

BTW, I don't really trust stuff on antisemitism from the professional grievance mongers of the ADL, and it makes me wonder that you would trust stuff from "about atheism". I have an old friend who is an atheist who introduced me to that site, and it makes him alternately laugh and cringe. Me, it just makes me shake my head.

Yeah, shoot that mesenger when you can't refute the message! It's been done for millennia, even if it is illegitimate. In fact, the Greek logicians had a name for that tactic; I believe they called it the ad hominem fallacy.

But then again, I am talking to someone who threw a hissy when I mentioned that Dawkins is an antireligious bigot. BTW: did you know Dawkins is an antireligious bigot? Yep. Its true. Its very evil of me to say so without mentioning Aztec human sacrifice and witchburning, I know, because (as we know) Prof Dawkins was once nearly sacrificed by Aztecs, and only narrowly escaped from the hands of the inquisition thereafter, so its all so terribly relevant......................

Hey, did you know Jerry Coyne is also pretty down on theism too? And no Aztecs in sight! I am SO evil!

I already admitted that Dawkins is an antireligious bigot. There are a few of those around (Dennett, Hitchens and Harris come to mind). And literally millions, perhaps even billions, more antiatheist bigots. You called me morally bankrupt when I brought up that little fact.

If you're gonna mention people persecuted in the name of religion, you might mention Galileo; if you wanna mention someone killed in the name of religion, check out Giordano Bruno. Relativity theory, three hundred years before Einstein, and they killed him for it (he dared to opine that the universe lacked an absolute center, at a time when ecclesiastical authority maintained that the Earth was it). Burned him at the stake, they did. "They' being the Roman Catholic Church. That pesky empirical observational science stuff; stamp it out, they said! But at least they apologized for Galileo, in 1992. Not that it did him any good. And they haven't gotten around to apologizing for Bruno yet.

Of course, various and sundry religions have killed many millions more (usually members of other religions, because the truly irreligious have been kinda hard to find in the West, since murder by all monotheistic religions has kept their numbers down).

458 Salamantis  Mon, May 4, 2009 7:46:23am

BTW: Here is a list of the folks who have put out atheist books recently, along with the book titles (just in case you're interested):

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
by Daniel C. Dennett

The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens

The End of Faith
&
Letter to a Christian Nation
by Sam Harris

The Blank Slate
by Steven Pinker

God: The Failed Hypothesis
by Victor J. Stenger

The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture
by Darrel W. Ray

Religion Explained
by Pascal Boyer

Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Dont Add Up
by John Allen Paulos

459 Hhar  Mon, May 4, 2009 5:53:58pm

Oh look, a mass of verbiage wherein Salamantis completely evades his own prejudice, sloppy reasoning and lamentable excuses.

The fact is you have accused huge numbers of people of bigotry based on what you quaintly call "suppositional evidence" (which to an empiricist is an oxymoron) and flounced around accusing me of bigotry because I mentioned a simple truth (ie Dawkins is a bigot) while you, who pretends to be Mr Open Mind not only post your own prejudice, but deliberately posted an overt lie. Which one of us let emotions get the better of reason? Which one of us posted a malicious slander and then tried to make it seem less relevant than it was? Who has posted that a popularity contest is a measure of intellectual cogency? That's all you, no matter how much you "contextualise" it, or whatever you call making excuses this time round.

You need to get a grip on yourself, Jamie. Here: you can have the last words (and knowing you, there will be many of 'em, and all worth the same mount).


This article 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
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
Yesterday
Views: 109 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
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
3 weeks ago
Views: 380 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1