[Fluffy]

Dinosaurs is a point for evolution?

Come on, World was created 5000 years ago, it was created from a previous saved game, wich god back up since god didn't ike the end with nuclear war earth had.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Nov 21 2007, 10:11 PM, said:

Quote

why are you concerned? what is it you fear?

That these people become too much influence. That they will limit the freedom of the normal people. That they will start wars because they "know" they are right. Fundamentalists of any faith are dangerous, and those who have the most chance to neutralize them are those of the same faith but without the fundamentalism. If they stand up to these dangerous people, they will lose their support.

There was a wonderful old card game called "Illuminati" that we used to play back in undergrad...

I still chuckle that "the opposite of fanatic is fanatic"

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Nov 21 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 21 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

lukewarm lol. He made points and explained them. You quoted only the points without the explanations, then asked him to explain them!

i don't think so... iow, what is the danger? if he means that someone will be called an infidel, that doesn't seem dangerous to me... if calling someone an infidel leads to other things, what things? iow, what does he see as the end result, in terms of danger?

i'd also take issue with your "he made points" statement... he certainly made assertions, but i think that's a different thing

Gerben eloquently made the point for me, but let me contribute, as well.

First, let me define my concept of fundamentalist, which may differ from yours. My definition is that a fundamentalist is an extremist in that he takes an extreme view of the absolute correctness of his views - there is no room for debate, logic, or doubt within the fundamentalist.

There is great fear that these type fundamentalists of Islamic faith gain access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons - and I think that fear is justified; however, I think there is as much to fear from christian fundamentalists gaining control of the U.S. arsenal and military.

The fear in either case is the fear of war over ideologies that the fundamentalist accepts as truth, thus making their actions the actions of god.

Pat Robertson has previously and publicly called for the U.S. to assassinate Hugo Chavez - do we really want this type mentality sitting at the command center of the greatest war machine in history?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

A concern of mine is the increasing power of the fundamentalist movements worldwide - when watching the Nova show the thing that struck me most was the spiteful tone of Pat Robertson's statement. It made no sense to hear such hostility against the citizens of a community who were only trying to uphold constitutional law.

It is a dangerous group who makes the claim that a rejection of their ideology is the equivalent of a direct rejection of god. It is the same as equating themselves as god. As such, whatever they do is automatically justified and any opposing view is villified.

Robertson might as well called the Dover citizens "infadels" for opposing his views.

Comments like his make sense if you consider how leaders throughout history have used religion to subjugate people. Why do you think many religions include the notion of damnation and hell? It's used to scare people into following the precepts of the religion.

If you read any of the "why religion is bad" books, this point is frequently raised. If the point of religion is to actually believe something, shouldn't it also have to be voluntary? If you coerce people into stating that they believe, can you really be sure that they believe? Isn't it more likely that they're just professing belief merely to avoid punishment (either while alive by institutions such as the Inquisition, or after death through the threat of damnation). Like when Galileo recanted his claim that the Earth moves around the Sun.

But leaders don't really care whether their subjects actually believe, they just want to be able to control them. And having more people profess belief, whether or not they're sincere in it, helps them recruit more minions. Which then explains why Pat Robertson found the decision in the Dover case so worthy of vitriol -- by rejecting his ideology, they reduce his power in their community, and he can't stand that. That the decision was based on the Constitution is irrelevant to him; I don't think he's a big fan of the exclusion clause, and he'll lash out whenever it's used to reduce the power of religion in the community.

[kenberg]

Religious experiences differ. In my own case I got myself baptized and confirmed when I was thirteen, after which the Minister started in on me to get my parents into church so that they wouldn't burn in hell. I wasn't raised with the idea that a thirteen year old tells his parents what to do, so I thought this over and told the minister bye-bye. Since then I have met fine religious people and awful religious people, and fine non-religious people and awful non-religious people. A narrow minded bigot is a narrow minded bigot regardless of his religion or lack of it.

That being said, I do find some religious folks very prone to organize with the purpose of ramming their views down our throats. I'm fine with mangers and such on public grounds in December, but exactly why my granddaughter must, as a condition of going to school, either recite that this nation is under God or make a public statement of the fact that she is being raised to think differently, escapes me. I'll survive, as will she, but I wish the religious zealots would be as willing to allow me and mine to think as we please as I am willing to allow them.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 21 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 21 2007, 02:05 PM, said:

lukewarm lol. He made points and explained them. You quoted only the points without the explanations, then asked him to explain them!

i don't think so... iow, what is the danger? if he means that someone will be called an infidel, that doesn't seem dangerous to me... if calling someone an infidel leads to other things, what things? iow, what does he see as the end result, in terms of danger?

i'd also take issue with your "he made points" statement... he certainly made assertions, but i think that's a different thing

Gerben eloquently made the point for me, but let me contribute, as well.

First, let me define my concept of fundamentalist, which may differ from yours. My definition is that a fundamentalist is an extremist in that he takes an extreme view of the absolute correctness of his views - there is no room for debate, logic, or doubt within the fundamentalist.

There is great fear that these type fundamentalists of Islamic faith gain access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons - and I think that fear is justified; however, I think there is as much to fear from christian fundamentalists gaining control of the U.S. arsenal and military.

The fear in either case is the fear of war over ideologies that the fundamentalist accepts as truth, thus making their actions the actions of god.

Pat Robertson has previously and publicly called for the U.S. to assassinate Hugo Chavez - do we really want this type mentality sitting at the command center of the greatest war machine in history?

yes, gerben's post made sense and helped me see what you might have meant... i wasn't disagreeing with you winston, i just wanted to know exactly what you meant and whether or not your meaning was limited or was inclusive...

my definition of fundamentalism is close to yours, but i don't limit it to religion or religious types... for example, most atheists i know are fundamentalists... i don't view fundamentalists (my meaning of the word, not yours) as necessarily dangerous... i'd view a fundamentalist ruler who attempted to impose his view (religious or otherwise) on the ruled as one who should not hold power, but he would then be more than a fundamentalist... he'd be a rabid (as opposed to radical) fundamentalist

i was never for robertson and would never support him, simply because it's my opinion that he can't separate Christ and the world... he seems to think the world can be christian and he's wrong to think that and (imo) to try to merge the two... he wants to both live in and be a part of the "world"

your statement about robertson re: chavez perfectly points out why he should not be in power, or at least why he shouldn't seek power using christianity as his main (or only) qualification... the assassination of chavez might or might not be an acceptable political goal, but it can never be a christian goal

[mike777]

I am a bit lost what do you want a leader of a fundamentalist group (The Pope) to do when he interacts with the secular world and why should he do what you want? Or do you want leaders to not interact with the secular world?

I will repeat the Pope loves science.

[Bridge_Bain]

Just wondering:

If “Intelligent Design” could only be taught IF it said "some alien life form visited Earth and placed the living species here", would its supporters still want it to be taught?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Nov 21 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

I am a bit lost what do you want a leader of a fundamentalist group (The Pope) to do when he interacts with the secular world and why should he do what you want? Or do you want leaders to not interact with the secular world?

I will repeat the Pope loves science.

the pope (and pat robertson, and you and i) are free to interact with the world, we are not free to be a part of the world (in the biblical sense)... this assumes two economies, God's and the world's

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

Just wondering: 

If “Intelligent Design” could only be taught IF it said "some alien life form visited Earth and placed the living species here", would its supporters still want it to be taught?

it wouldn't be intelligent design then, would it? that's like asking: if evolution taught that some alien life form visited earth and killed the weak and aided the strong, would its supporters still want it taught?

in those cases they would be something else, not ID and evolution

[Bridge_Bain]

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years?

[I sure wish I had a link for that fact. I saw it on NCB Nightly News. I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Nov 21 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

I am a bit lost what do you want a leader of a fundamentalist group (The Pope) to do when he interacts with the secular world and why should he do what you want? Or do you want leaders to not interact with the secular world?

I will repeat the Pope loves science.

What the pope (or other religious leaders) do when they interact with the secular world matters nothing to me as long as: 1) they do not hold public office and attempt to impose their beliefs via government or 2) they do not try to intercede in public elections based on support of a candidate due to that candidate's religious convictions, and 3) do not try to impose their ideologies on anyone who does not ask them to do so.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

mike777, on Nov 21 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

I am a bit lost what do you want a leader of a fundamentalist group (The Pope) to do when he interacts with the secular world and why should he do what you want? Or do you want leaders to not interact with the secular world?

I will repeat the Pope loves science.

What the pope (or other religious leaders) do when they interact with the secular world matters nothing to me as long as: 1) they do not hold public office and attempt to impose their beliefs via government or 2) they do not try to intercede in public elections based on support of a candidate due to that candidate's religious convictions, and 3) do not try to impose their ideologies on anyone who does not ask them to do so.

What? If impose means to establish by force. ok...but do you really think that is what the Pope or other leaders are doing in the Western World? This sounds a bit like a strawman.

[Winstonm]

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years?

[I sure wish I had a link for that fact.  I saw it on NCB Nightly News.  I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

This is not surprising to me as the cost of continued education continues to rise beyond the average reach. History is repleat with examples of how believers in magical solutions to the world's complexities are those societies with the least education. I would think that if this poll were divided further into educational classes, the disparity between "creationist" believers would intensify in proportion to reduced education.

It would be nice to see someone write "Adam Shrugged", where all the world's scientists stopped working and left the "creationists" in charge. I can see the opening line now: "Who is John Baptist?"

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years?

[I sure wish I had a link for that fact.  I saw it on NCB Nightly News.  I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

This is not surprising to me as the cost of continued education continues to rise beyond the average reach. History is repleat with examples of how believers in magical solutions to the world's complexities are those societies with the least education. I would think that if this poll were divided further into educational classes, the disparity between "creationist" believers would intensify in proportion to reduced education.

It would be nice to see someone write "Adam Shrugged", where all the world's scientists stopped working and left the "creationists" in charge. I can see the opening line now: "Who is John Baptist?"

Let me see if I follow the logic here. Where evolution was only taught 47% believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. This is without intelligent design being taught in the schools where these people are polled? So if intelligent design is taught this number goes down in those schools?

[Winstonm]

Quote

What? If impose means to establish by force. ok...but do you really think that is what the Pope or other leaders are doing in the Western World? This sounds a bit like a strawman.

I thought I had made it reasonably clear but perhaps not - government=power. Ergo, what they do is unimportant as long as they do not use the power of the government to impose their religious beliefs - the number of ways government can impose its power is left to you to understand, but I am sure you realize that it doesn't require armed force to be power.

I do not even consider the pope to be in the fundamentalist camp - see my definition above of fundamentalist - so I am unconcerned about what he does or does not do. It is obvious to me that the pope is not attempting to impose the beliefs of Roman Catholisim on governments.

I am discussing extreme fundamentalist viewpoints, which does not mean the entrie Western World. Just as with Islam in the East, the West has its share of religious far-right crackpots whose influence over government should be feared.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Nov 22 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years?

[I sure wish I had a link for that fact.  I saw it on NCB Nightly News.  I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

This is not surprising to me as the cost of continued education continues to rise beyond the average reach. History is repleat with examples of how believers in magical solutions to the world's complexities are those societies with the least education. I would think that if this poll were divided further into educational classes, the disparity between "creationist" believers would intensify in proportion to reduced education.

It would be nice to see someone write "Adam Shrugged", where all the world's scientists stopped working and left the "creationists" in charge. I can see the opening line now: "Who is John Baptist?"

Let me see if I follow the logic here. Where evolution was only taught 47% believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. This is without intelligent design being taught in the schools where these people are polled? So if intelligent design is taught this number goes down in those schools?

I would guess that Bridge Bain is suggesting a very different causal mode:

The high incidence of religious fundamentalists and a given geography leads to the presence of an organized movement to push intelligent design into the schools

I have no idea why you are inferring that the introduction of intelligent design would cause that statistic in question to go down.

[barmar]

mike777, on Nov 21 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:08 PM, said:

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years?

[I sure wish I had a link for that fact.  I saw it on NCB Nightly News.  I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

This is not surprising to me as the cost of continued education continues to rise beyond the average reach. History is repleat with examples of how believers in magical solutions to the world's complexities are those societies with the least education. I would think that if this poll were divided further into educational classes, the disparity between "creationist" believers would intensify in proportion to reduced education.

It would be nice to see someone write "Adam Shrugged", where all the world's scientists stopped working and left the "creationists" in charge. I can see the opening line now: "Who is John Baptist?"

Let me see if I follow the logic here. Where evolution was only taught 47% believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. This is without intelligent design being taught in the schools where these people are polled? So if intelligent design is taught this number goes down in those schools?

No, I think he's saying that it's already incredible how many people believe in the biblical creation myth, and it would probably be even worse if schools were forced to teach ID.

Presumably, states/cities where they're trying to force ID into the curriculum are places where there's a very strong religious community (i.e. "red states"). The number is probably lower in more liberal states, although I've also seen nationwide polls that report similar figures. I've also seen reports that state that the US is one of the worst in this regard among industrialized countries; it's probably not much of a coincidence that we're also near the bottom in quality of science and math education.

It's pretty disgraceful that the country that practically led the modern technological revolution has sunk so low in the past few decades.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Let me see if I follow the logic here. Where evolution was only taught 47% believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. This is without intelligent design being taught in the schools where these people are polled? So if intelligent design is taught this number goes down in those schools?

Again, I thought I was clear but apparently not - I thus will simplify my thoughts on this polling subject.

Ignorance increases mystical solutions. Education decreases mystical solutions.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Nov 21 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Quote

What? If impose means to establish by force. ok...but do you really think that is what the Pope or other leaders are doing in the Western World? This sounds a bit like a strawman.

I thought I had made it reasonably clear but perhaps not - government=power. Ergo, what they do is unimportant as long as they do not use the power of the government to impose their religious beliefs - the number of ways government can impose its power is left to you to understand, but I am sure you realize that it doesn't require armed force to be power.

I do not even consider the pope to be in the fundamentalist camp - see my definition above of fundamentalist - so I am unconcerned about what he does or does not do. It is obvious to me that the pope is not attempting to impose the beliefs of Roman Catholisim on governments.

I am discussing extreme fundamentalist viewpoints, which does not mean the entrie Western World. Just as with Islam in the East, the West has its share of religious far-right crackpots whose influence over government should be feared.

IF I follow you, you are saying that no religious beliefs will be in government? This seems naive at best. Do the voters have any say in this issue? In any case what nonreligious beliefs are allowed? You just seem to rule out religious beliefs?

As I said I think only science should be taught in science class in public schools. I have no idea what intelligent design says but I assume it teaches that the world is as old as what evolution teaches us?

http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design

In any event it seems per this poll 47 % people who only learn evolution think the world is only 6000 years old....

[mrdct]

Bridge_Bain, on Nov 21 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

Just wondering:

If “Intelligent Design” could only be taught IF it said "some alien life form visited Earth and placed the living species here", would its supporters still want it to be taught?

I'd be quite happy with that with a minor modification along the lines of, "a mechanism by which ID may have occured might have involved aliens placing species here ..."