st.patrick on 17/1/2007 at 01:22
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I can remember Bush promising to focus more on the problems at home and keeping the country out of foreign affairs during the 2000 election. The fundie rhetoric was almost nonexistent.
Things have changed a bit since then. Keywords: 9/11, Iraq.
Scots Taffer on 17/1/2007 at 01:22
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
But they're justifying the stuff they do with religious texts, using the Bible, the immutable word of God. Without the Bible, anti-homosexual groups wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And to my mind, you cannot separate religion and religious texts.
Everything beyond the Bible stating that sodomy is a sin is pure conjecture - I'm talking about the parts where they say it's a worse sin, etc etc. That's where they're taking their prejudices further than the text allows, but to be honest, that's nearly immaterial, there are no passages regarding the colour of skin but plenty of Bible thumpers were members of the KKK.
Anyway, I think we've pretty much exhausted this narrative.
Celtic_Thief on 17/1/2007 at 01:27
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Very small minorities can't repeatedly get their people elected to the Presidency.
Actually, it is possible. A majority of Americans don't even register to vote.
Edit: And before it comes up, I can't quite remember where I saw that or how valid it is, I'm pretty sure it is but I have nothing concrete with me, so consider the ^ statement on probation until I can find a source.
Kaleid on 17/1/2007 at 01:33
Quote Posted by st.patrick
Things have changed a bit since then. Keywords: 9/11, Iraq.
9/11 changed nothing: PNAC
jay pettitt on 17/1/2007 at 01:37
It changed the way in which the public was prepared to embrace the ideals of the PNAC and it's been played for all it's worth.
Kaleid on 17/1/2007 at 01:39
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It changed the way in which the public was prepared to embrace the ideals of the PNAC.
Don't agree here, I still believe most don't have a real clue what the neocons are all about. But sure, the New Pearl Harbor provided what was needed.
Anyhow...it's off topic and I'll leave it there, no further comments on that...
jay pettitt on 17/1/2007 at 01:46
That's possibly true, I guess my point was that 9/11 provided PNAC with political collateral which they've enjoyed immensely; rather than saying that America is populated by hordes of empire building legionaries.
Illuminatus on 17/1/2007 at 01:59
StD, many of the people arguing against you are atheists. Does that say something about your mode of reasoning?
Quote:
Originally posted by Strontium Dog: I'm not being dogmatic or preachy. I'm not telling anyone what to think, I'm telling them to think (and in some cases, how to think)
So you’re not telling anyone to drop their religion? You’re not peddling Dawkins, using his views to “try and enlighten people with science”?
See, the thing with the Internet is it actually remembers what you said 10 pages ago, even if you don’t.
You’re telling people their beliefs are wrong, and refusing to accept their difference of opinion. That’s called preaching. Lecturing. Sermonizing even. Is it so hard to understand why this puts you on the same level as the people who refuse to acknowledge atheists?
Quote:
Religion is a facilitator for bigotry, ignorance and intolerance. Atheism isn't.
Atheism, like religion, is a giant umbrella under which you’ll find all shades of stupidity and genius. Let me repeat myself though: religion can be a great conduit for Stupid Things. Science can be a conduit for Stupid Things. Who built the system of Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War? I don’t think the Pope had anything to do with it. Ignorance exists wherever differing view points are not tolerated.
Quote:
This is, like, elephant shit. I'm not intolerant, I willingly allow people of all beliefs to have their say
After which, you get to work curing them, right? Regarding someone’s spiritual belief as a threat to your well-being is mighty liberal of you.
Quote:
So you're saying the virgin birth is scientifically possible, and we shouldn't question it?
If it was taught in a history class, of course it should be questioned. Now if you think Church is a history class, you’ve got your compass all mixed up friend. There’s a reason it’s called faith, and once you realize what “faith” actually means, maybe you’ll see why the scientific method has absolutely no place here.
Quote:
so far as keeping science and religion separate, I'm sure you'll be against intelligent design being taught in schools, right? Or is it just science that isn't allowed to step on religion's toes, and not vice versa?
Religion has no place in a Science classroom, because it is not related to the subject matter being discussed. Science has no place in a Church, because it is not related to the subject matter being discussed. Both parties who break this rule are equally stupid.
Quote:
That's a gross simplification, generally used by people who have only a basic grasp of the subject.
Actually, it embodies the essence of your category mistake, which you are still clinging on to. You can fret and fuss all you want man, but the reason you are getting nowhere is because the scientific tools you are employing (probability, falsification) mean nothing in a religious context. If you think they do, then you, like Dawkins, do not understand what religion is all about, and why people actually go to Church.
fett on 17/1/2007 at 02:09
As to America being held hostage by fundies, lets review:
1) Abortion is still legal in U.S. and shows no signs of being made illegal in the near future. Most Christians are pro-life btw.
2) The gay rights movement is steadily overcoming both social and legislative obstacles in the U.S. Most Christians oppose gay rights btw.
3) Evolution is taught in most high school biology/science classes. Creationism is not. When such a thing is proposed it is so controversial that it makes national news. Christians are by definition creationists btw.
4) 10 Commandments are removed from courtrooms across the U.S. in an incredibly fucked-up misinterpretation of separation of church and state. Christians are 100% in favor of the ten commandments btw.
5) It is against the law for pastors, churches, or other types of Christian organizations to proselytize on public school campuses. The majority of Christians approve of proselytizing btw.
6) Entertainment involving every type of 'biblical sin' - including drunkeness, drug use, pornographic sex, murder, rape, theft, adultery, greed, etc. - is available for rent or buy at the local Wal-mart, not to mention basic cable TV. Christians claim to be opposed to such entertainment btw.
7) Americans are free to not attend, and to even protest, church gatherings at any time, anywhere, in the U.S. without fear of legal action (unless they break the law). Christians do not like protest rallies outside of their churches btw.
I'm sure to have missed a few things, but I'm wondering which rights exactly Dawkins is worried about losing and how quickly said legislation is moving forward. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in America, if I lose my job because I'm an atheist, I can prosecute my employer for discrimination just as a Muslim or Hindu could. If someone punches me in the face for being an atheist, I can prosecute them for assault, just as a Christian or Shinto could correct? Atheists are right demand that 'In God We Trust' be removed from the currency, and even to protest 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance. But I'm not sure how much of a threat those things are to their freedom and daily pursuit of happiness.
Explain the problem to me like I'm five.
Pyrian on 17/1/2007 at 02:16
Quote Posted by scumble
Well, I suppose atheists have a tendency to consider religion as "the enemy".
Not nearly as much as religions tend to consider atheists "the enemy".
Quote Posted by Uncle Bacon
More importantly, what sort of shitty holidays are you going to have if you completely expunge religion? Orbital apex day? Migration-time?
Heh, most religious holidays I'm aware of are based on pagan holidays which were in turn based on solstices, seasons, and the like. So, I don't see how that changes anything, or rather, I think the way holy days work kind of undermines religious claims in the first place.
Quote Posted by Convict
Well according to someone rather fundamentalist (Paul), Christianity is falsifiable - if you find Jesus' body you disprove Christianity.
And if you found it (as some have indeed claimed), how would you prove it?
Quote Posted by Thirith
Stronts, perhaps you can answer one thing for me: What came before the Big Bang (if that is how the universe started)?
What came before time is a fundamentally meaningless question. The big bang is really based on little more than the necessary bounding condition of the second law of thermodynamics - if entropy always increases then at some point there must not have been any, forming an absolute bound of time itself.
Quote Posted by Thirith
It seems reasonable to me to think that the question for a beginning may be answered by something outside, or above, the system.
It actually
cannot. You cannot have a causal element for time itself - that's a contradiction in terms. I'm always a little startled when religious folk pursue this line of reasoning, since it was most convincingly debunked by a very religious philosopher, St. Augustine.
Quote Posted by Thirith
Because many people want their lives, their existence, to have meaning. They want to believe in ethics that go beyond "If I don't smash your face in, you don't smash my face in. Deal?". Science alone cannot do this.
Philosophical ethics - fully compatible with science - is frankly far more advanced than religious ethics.
