Dawkins DESTROYS Perry on Evolution

[kpete]

Dawkins said that while a candidate's views on evolution are not paramount, they're indicative of his or her ability to understand science and general levels of educational literacy. He also had harsh words for the valuation of ignorance among the Republican electorate:



There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.


***

A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/657136/dawkins_destroys_perry_on_evolution/

[Exilednight]

1. I love Dawkins. n/t

[patrice]

2. "...prefer someone like themselves..." It's a whole-heated embrace of mediocrity, because the

anxiety of inadequacy drives them to attack even the most un-intentional superiority as somesort of assault upon their value as persons.

Personally, I think this also explains their hostility to Labor, because collaborative professionalism does indeed produce superiority against which mediocrity becomes increasingly paranoid.

[savannah43]

99. Mediocrity maybe, but I see it as purposeful ignorance.

People like this are too lazy to educate themselves and feel superior to others, especially those who are obviously smarter than they are. I know someone with a slightly higher than average I.Q. who thinks that, alone, makes him super intelligent. He has never put any effort into learning anything. Didn't even finish high school and now he's 60. He is and always has been an ignorant and arrogant jerk. In his mind, he's never wrong. It's just that the masses have not caught up with him yet. I think of Tesbaggers as being just like him.

[Larry Ogg]

129. Purposeful ignorance, yes...

And as it turns out, criminal enterprises thrive when morons are given political power, and control of government, this in-turn empowers criminal enterprises.

Do you ever wonder why corporations finance the campaigns of such utter fools, and successful criminals?
(successful criminal means haven't been caught, or able to buy off the justice system.)

So when they say government is the problem and can't do anything right, most people will agree and blame government, and not the corporations that own and control the M$M (main stream media), your mind, the electoral process, and thus, who most Americans will vote into office.

Government is not the problem, the kind of people that are elected into government is the problem, and the corporations hand pick who most Americans will vote for.

The bottom line is that ignorance in government, is good for corporate criminal profits.

[dotymed]

182. The movie "IDIOCRACY" becomes more prophetic each day.

I thought it was a silly B-movie when I saw it. Now, it is becoming reality.

[Orrex]

286. Maybe so, but it's still a crapfest of a movie

The central "joke" was played out before the opening credits had finished.

Very disappointing.

[madrchsod]

3. it`s really easy to beat up someone with a 2.2 grade average...

the last sentence is a great summation on intelligence.

[malaise]

4. We need more Dawkins on this planet

to tell these ignorant fools that they are indeed ignorant fools.

[sarcasmo]

15. Correct, more Dawkins and less evangelists.

[CrawlingChaos]

18. more scientists, yes, but please, no more Dawkins

His racist hatemongering toward Muslims is physically sickening.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/05/12/richard-dawkins-%E2%80%9Cislam%E2%80%9D-is-an-%E2%80%9Cunmitigated-evil%E2%80%9D/

And really, how hard is it to take Perry apart? He virtually self-satirizes. Hardly an impressive accomplishment on Dawkins' part.

[Confusious]

42. Have you seen anything Dawkins has done?

He says the same things about EVERY religion.

Racist? Are all Muslims black? or brown? or Yellow? or White? Please let me know. I didn't realize everyone who is muslim and/or christian and/or (insert religion here) was one color. Do they overlap? Or do they have different colors, like they have different symbols? Is the skin color of Zoroastrians purple?

Do atheist have a color? Do I have to get injections to change color if I decide to be an atheist?

[CrawlingChaos]

74. no, he does not say the same things about every religion

http://youtu.be/LhYus6TiGEE

His demeaning and dehumanizing caricatures of Muslims are, indeed, racist and designed to incite fear and hatred.

Chris Hedges wrote a very powerful piece recently which covers this issue with far more eloquence than I could hope to offer: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fundamentalism_kills_20110726/

[spooked911]

102. thanks for the Youtube link

I wouldn't say he gave "demeaning and dehumanizing caricatures of Muslims" but he is very wrong about Islam vs Christianity, and displays a disturbing ignorance there.

On the other hand, that Hedges piece is really annoying and I don't buy his argument at all.

[Larry Ogg]

158. What he said applies to all right wing authoritarian extremist religions...

But I can understand how the violence of darker skinned Muslims might stand out above the "Wight" skinned Jewish and Christian religions who insure the crusade against Muslims, or dark skinned people in general, is a constant thing.

Much of the Middle East is a war-zone, thanks to greedy rich white skinned people who use the religion of dark skinned people as an excuse to attack them, and fleece the regions resources. So evil is a condition of psychology, religion is simply an excuse.

And it doesn't mater what color of skin or religion you are, if you live in a war-zone, and the war is against you, there's a good chance you will become a violent sociopath in response. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The same thing happens in America's poverty stricken ghettos.

[Confusious]

176. Yes he does say say the same thing about other religions

He has a distaste for all religions, and he slams Christianity in "The Root of All Evil?" which of course, you gloss over to try and make it seem like he's got something against Muslims alone.

As for racism (Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified.) you seem to want to expand the definition, since it's useful to you.

The last I heard, not all Muslims are the same color.

Another interesting note, Dawkins isn't even mentioned in that article link.

[CrawlingChaos]

216. ridiculous!

He lamented the decline of Christianity in Europe because he considered it "a bulwark against something worse" (Islam). How is that evenhanded in any way, shape or form? And his misinformation about Muslims is riddled with distortion and outright fabrication. When he says Muslim women walk around in "a bin liner" (garbage bag), how is that different than using a slur like "towelhead"? Of course it's racist and it plays to racist types. Are you entirely incapable of perceiving nuance?

I honestly cannot believe any of this requires explanation! What is happening to people?!

[Confusious]

257. Anything can be twisted

Dawkins is openly hostile to Christianity also. wiki "Dawkins is well-known for his contempt for religious extremism, from Islamist terrorism to Christian fundamentalism"

"The 69-year-old author and Oxford academic said he is filled with “visceral revulsion” when he sees women wearing the traditional Islamic covering.

But he held back from advocating a ban on the all-enveloping cloak, insisting that such legislation would fly in the face of Britain’s liberal tradition."

Personally, I'm glad it was banned. It's means of oppressing women.

"how is that different than using a slur like "towelhead""

Maybe because "towelhead" is recognized as a slur, and a "bin liner" has a certain irony to it. Since you seem to lack the understanding, it references the fact that societies that force women to wear it treat women like garbage.

"Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”"

I would agree. A fundamentalist Muslim would be worse them the Christianity of Europe today, just as I think a American Fundamentalist Europe would be worse, though not quite as bad.

The quote isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

"What is happening to people?!"

Better look closer to home.

[CrawlingChaos]

259. You must have loved the Peter King witch hunt

Does it matter to you that your opinions are non-fact-based? Muslims are by FAR the LEAST likely group to commit a violent terrorist act. The number of actual incidents is infinitesimal. But don't let that stop you from getting your hate on.

And I guarangoddamntee you MANY of those dropping bombs on Muslim targets are Christian, and many of those consider it a holy war.

[Confusious]

260. That's a non sequitur

Really, how do you go from what I wrote to that? Couldn't respond so you thought you'd put words in my mouth?

I really don't care for any religion. I see them as the enemy to things which I hold dear

The right of free thought
the right of free inquiry
I,e. Hostile to science
human rights, more specifically, the rights of women.

Some are worse then others, like Islam, but all are bad. It has nothing to do with terrorism.

I also see now why you want to tie racism to Dawkins. Racism is unacceptable, but criticism of Religion is not.
If you could tie one to the other, presto, you can't be criticized. Nope, not going to happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

264. Reminds me of a couple of my co-workers.

One was absolutely staggered that the other was islamic. After all, he seemed like such a normal, middle aged anglo white man.

[CrawlingChaos]

270. Hardly, but I guess you have to grasp those straws

You're regurgitating his talking points so, no, not a non sequitur. You've swallowed a whole lot of War on Terror propaganda about Islam being "worse" and thus, are unwittingly furthering the agenda of those who would make war on the Muslim world. You do this by helping to spread fear and ignorance.

You can try to promote mutual understanding or you can keep trotting out vile stereotypes of the scary, scary Muslims. I guess you've made your choice.

[Confusious]

277. Grasping at straws is your business

My feelings about this come from basic observation and reading. Knowing some history of Islam and the imams who influenced Islamic Religious thought. And I didn't like what I saw.

(Surprisingly, some people read and had an interest in such things and knew about them before they became big news.)

Why is it they were so far ahead, and now, so far behind? You probably don't know the answer.

Just as I don't like what I see in the fundies in the United States, and just as I don't like what I see in fundamentalist Hinduism. Any fundamentalism for that matter.

Some have more influence over governments, the middle east being the worst.

Are you going to tell me that women are allowed to go anywhere they want, alone, driving or walking, in Saudi Arabia? That women are not required to wear the burka? That women are treated like second class citizens becuase the men folk can't control themselves?

The mind that is fogged isn't mine, it's yours.

[AtheistCrusader]

263. And we oppose them too.

And this is why you won't see a lot of support for Hitchens here, as his foreign policy advocates war against these people.

[PonyJon]

147. CrawlingChaos's link is to Islamophopia Today a severly biased web site.

I took a look at it. They "cherry pick" any quotation from anybody they can to prove that Islam is unfairly critisized. It seems their mission is to provide moral support for lapsing Muslims.

[CrawlingChaos]

211. yes, well, biased against racist xenophobic bullshit (n/t)

[Confusious]

261. So biased

That they'll claim it when it's not even there.

HELL, they,ll preemptively claim it.

[cpwm17]

44. Excessive Muslim bashing is common among prominent atheists

Though I think Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Bill Maher are much worse. I can't listen to any of them. They openly support violence against Muslims.

Even though atheist on average have a more sophisticated view of the world than most people, the atheists that are obsessed with atheism often have many of the same faults as folks that are more religious. Perhaps, unlike most atheists, these obsessed atheists are excessively proud of not believing in things that are obviously not true. So they tend to be shallow.

Dawkins does do a good job challenging religion, so I still can watch him.

[grantcart]

51. Which is highly ironic given the fact that our modern scientific method

is largely an extension of the premises established during Europe's "Dark Ages" when Islamic scientists layed out and commonly practiced scientific experminatation using the scientific method in the 11th century laying the foundation for Bacon and Newton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

The first of these experimental scientific methods was developed in Iraq by the Muslim physicist and scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), who used experimentation and mathematics to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021).<16> In particular, he combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his intromission theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes. He used similar arguments to show that the ancient emission theory of vision supported by Ptolemy and Euclid (in which the eyes emit the rays of light used for seeing), and the ancient intromission theory supported by Aristotle (where objects emit physical particles to the eyes), were both wrong.<17> Ibn al-Haytham's scientific method resembled modern scientific method and consisted of the following procedures:<18>

Explicit statement of a problem, tied to observation and to proof by experiment
Testing and/or criticism of a hypothesis using experimentation
Interpretation of data and formulation of a conclusion using mathematics
The publication of the findings
One aspect associated with Ibn al-Haytham's optical research is related to systemic and methodological reliance on experimentation (i'tibar) and controlled testing in his scientific inquiries. Moreover, his experimental directives rested on combining Classical physics ('ilm tabi'i) with mathematics (ta'alim; geometry in particular) in terms of devising the rudiments of what resembles a hypothetico-deductive procedure in scientific research. This mathematical-physical approach to experimental science supported most of the propositions in his Book of Optics and grounded his theories of vision, light and colour, as well as his research in catoptrics and dioptrics. His legacy was elaborated through the 'reforming' of his Optics by Kamal al-Din al-Farisi (d. ca. 1320) in the latter's Kitab Tanqih al-Manazir (The Revision of


Which just shows that scientists can be brilliant but if they don't know history can also be extremely foolish.

[AlbertCat]

301. they don't know history can also be extremely foolish.

Dawkins isn't talking about Muslims of the Middle Ages.

He's talking about today. Now. Contemporary times.


It's like you Dawkins bashers can't comprehend what you read.


That Islamic extremists are a greater threat to a greater number of people TODAY is just something we all have to deal with. It used to be Christians, in times past, but not so today. In the future it may be Hindus.... who knows? No religion gets a pass. Not by Dawkins.... or me for that mater. Religions are not a "race". Dawkins' "crime" is merely criticizing religions.... which think they are beyond criticism.

[cpwm17]

305. TODAY, the most violent and war loving nation is the USA

And the majority of the victims of American violence are Muslims. For Dawkins, crusading Americans are just an inconvenient fact which he refuses to condemn (at least from what I've seen), for Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris crusading Americans are to be applauded.

Many crusading Americans seem to think that Iran is the pinnacle of Muslim evil. Well Iran hasn't conducted a war against another nation that didn't attack it first in over 200 years. How many nations has the US attacked since then? But the Iranians are such scary Muslims. We must fear them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

324. Dawkins was always vocal in opposing the invasion of Iraq

so "For Dawkins, crusading Americans are just an inconvenient fact which he refuses to condemn" just shows you never bothered to try and look.

An article for The Guardian, from March 2003:

Imagine how it looks from Bin Laden's warped point of view...

"If the American victory is swift, Bush will have done our work for us, removing the hated Saddam and opening the way for a decent Islamist government. Even better, in 2004 Bush may actually win an election. Who can guess what that swaggering, strutting little pouter-pigeon will then get up to, and what resentments he will arouse, when he finally has something to swagger about? We shall have so many martyrs volunteering, we shall run out of targets. And a slow and bloody American victory would be better still. "
...
Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Bush seems sincerely to see the world as a battleground between Good and Evil, St Michael's angels against the forces of Lucifer. We're gonna smoke out the Amalekites, send a posse after the Midianites, smite them all and let God deal with their souls. Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Some of Bush's faithful supporters even welcome war as the necessary prelude to the final showdown between Good and Evil: Armageddon followed by the Rapture. We must presume, or at least hope, that Bush himself is not quite of that bonkers persuasion. But he really does seem to believe he is wrestling, on God's behalf, against some sort of spirit of Evil. Tony Blair is, of course, far more intelligent and able than Bush. But his unshakable conviction that he is right and almost everybody else wrong does have a certain theological feel. He was indignant at Paxman's wickedly funny suggestion that he and Dubya pray together, but does he also believe in Evil?

Like sin and like terror (Bush's favourite target before the Iraq distraction) Evil is not an entity, not a spirit, not a force to be opposed and subdued. Evil is a miscellaneous collection of nasty things that nasty people do. There are nasty people in every country, stupid people, insane people, people who should never be allowed to get anywhere near power. Just killing nasty people doesn't help: they will be replaced. We must try to tailor our institutions, our constitutions, our electoral systems, so as to minimise the chance that such people will rise to the top. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we in the west must bear some guilt. The US, Britain and France have all, from time to time, done our bit to shore up Saddam, and even arm him. And we democracies might look to our own vaunted institutions. Are they well designed to ensure that we don't make disastrous mistakes when we choose our own leaders? Isn't it, indeed, just such a mistake that has led us to this terrible pass?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa

And if you mean his views on Afghanistan, then he points out the Taliban both supported Al Qaeda, and ran a violent fundamentalist regime themselves:

MK: I wanted to move on briefly to you views on Iraq. You weren’t opposed to the war in Afghanistan were you?

RD: Well I wasn’t because I felt that America needed to try to find those responsible and it did really appear as though Al-Qaeda was being actively encouraged by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and it was promoting that kind of terrorism and promoting the most awful religious repression in its own country as well which is an additional factor.

MK: But in terms of Iraq, did you feel it was establishing a new military norm for the US?

RD: Well what I really objected to was the lying about the motives for going into Iraq. I mean lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction and really taking our eye off the ball of world terrorism since whatever else Saddam has done, he did not mastermind the 9/11 attacks and so the deliberate lies by Cheney and Bush and that gang who implied that he did – the timing of it. If there was a reason for going into Iraq that reason had been around for a long time before, why suddenly choose a time of hysteria immediately after 9/11? Obviously, because it was an act of political opportunism – catching the America mood – the tendency just to blame all Arabs because it was Arabs who did 9/11 and the Iraqis are Arabs aren’t they?

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/richard-dawkins-interview-on-religion-evolution-and-iraq-2777/

[cpwm17]

I've seen Dawkins in a discussion with Harris and Hitchens

Where Harris and Hitchens are talking their crusading nonsense. Dawkins remained mum. I didn't claim that Dawkins supported the crusading, because I've never seen him support such activities, and my impression was that he didn't.

He also refuses to comment on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, where Muslims are the victims. When ask about the conflict, he says it's too controversial and he refuses to comment.

I go by what I've seen. But my target in my comments have been against Harris, Hitchens, and Maher, and not Dawkins. I still enjoy Dawkins.

[CrawlingChaos]

368. Your second link is an example of Dawkins' warmongering

Dawkins says:

"...what we’re seeing in Islam – they are now doing what Christianity used to do in the Middle Ages, in much more dangerous circumstances because now there are much more terrible weapons than the Crusaders, for example, ever had. Or than other Medieval Christians ever had.

So Islam is the big danger today because they have a Medieval mindset which bursts through into the twenty-first century."

There is absolutely NO evidence to support the threat of a medieval-style Muslim crusade! NONE. But that is the kind of talk that helps get Muslims killed and he damn well knows it, unless he's a dribbling idiot.

His rhetoric of late has evolved (no pun intended) into some kind of neocon wet dream.

[grantcart]

312. Very ignorant indeed.

the three largest Islamic countries in the world are Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Most Muslims are ethnically Asian. There are more Muslims in China than there are in Saudi Arabia.

I have lived in Muslim countries and can tell you that they are exceptionally peaceful places, albeit boring.

No drinking and no night life. A wedding goes on for 7 days.

Ramadan, their Thanksgiving feast, goes on for a month.

I was safer living in Malaysia or Indonesia where individuals do not own guns than here where some idiot can shoot a congressperson because they saw something on the TV.

In all of the years I lived in Muslim countries I did not see a governor threaten the head of the national bank about treating them 'ugly' when they visited their state or town.

Your chauvinism has colored your perception. You should get out and visit some of these places, you would be surprised at what you will find.

Currently the most dangerous country to live in, is Mexico where homicide rates exceed that of Iraq.

[CrawlingChaos]

359. Great post

I remember Scott Ritter saying if he could get Americans to actually visit the Middle East, their fear would quickly melt away.

[renate]

53. you just put your finger on what drives me crazy about *certain* atheists

... and I hadn't really realized what it is till now.

I would call myself a religious person (pretty much Buddhist with a smattering of Christianity) but I really don't like organized religion, and what you said about "atheists that are obsessed with atheism" just clarified to me that to *some* atheists, atheism is basically an organized religion in terms of its absolute intolerance of and disdain for other beliefs.

Thank you! Now I understand why some people's atheism rubs me so strongly the wrong way when, in theory, I should be as supportive of it as of anybody else's beliefs.

[skepticscott]

72. Intolerance?

Define "Intolerance"

Where do *some* atheists advocate that all laws providing for freedom of religion be repealed, that all places of worship be destroyed and that all religious believers be killed? Or anything remotely like that?

And you ought to get a grasp on the difference between atheism and anti-theism before you go ranting about either.

[dogmoma56]

90. The GOP has been taken over by the Dominionist movement and the C st Family>>Links>>

this is where all the Tea Party fools are going and taking us with them, weather or not they realize it, or want it.
the The GOP has been taken over by the Doug Coe C st group, the following link are their Fly'n Monkeys.

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

richest 1% holds 42% of Americas Financial Wealth, top 5% holds 72%, bottom 80% holds only 7% and dropping,shock doctrine

the GOP believes that wealth/power is proof of gods favor of a man so it is a sin to tax them, and the poor are being punished by god so it is a sin to help them or not torment them. this crap is a product of Doug Coe's "the Family, AKA: the Christian Mafia, they call themselves that. their organization was started by a Nazi, Abraham Vereide in 1934, they are still Nazi's. Vereide started the popular Prayer Breakfasts that Politicians are always going to.. Doug Coe, who picked up Vereides torch/cross personally draws up the guest list and chooses who speaks. Coe and 'Family' members call themselves the Christian Mafia. their organization is constructed of secret prayer cells. they have taken over the leadership of the GOP and the Evangelical movement.. they have merged with the Straussian NeoCons. they are using the Dominionists to push them into total power.. they believe that god talks thru the rich and the poor must submit to god's will ..

the best books on the subject, he lived with them..wonderful writer..A MUST READ BOOK...'THE FAMILY' this will answer every :wtf: you ever had about politics and the economy. these are cheap on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1298244911&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Street-Fundamentalist-Threat-American-Democracy/dp/0316091073/ref=pd_sim_b_1

basic info

http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm

http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm

http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#War


sorry, but it takes a certain amount of effort to become informed and more effort not to become these evil bastards slaves.

[dogmoma56]

101. give a link for who advocates destruction, an advocating "Freedom from Religion" is not intolerance

it is in these days advocating the survival of freedom in America and protecting the survival of the Constitution

these people have taken over the GOP and some Democrats.

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

Thom Hartman's opinion.....
http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10016

http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm


THIS IS A MUST READ BOOK, over 6 months on the NYT best seller list.. about Doug Coe's C st infection of all parts of government.. he had access to their archives.. THIS IS THE BOOK OF THE CENTURY.!! CHEAP USED ON aMAZON, PASS IT AROUND

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314538234&sr=1-3

ONE NUTCASE DOES NOT REPRESENT A GROUP, just as Ossama does not represent Islam. where is the link from..??

[StarsInHerHair]

232. also talk2action.com & rightwingwatch.com or maybe it's .org

I think the major reason why some atheists are so vocal against Islam is because of the violence, same with violent Christian sects. They may feel their survival is being threatened by such fundies

[spooked911]

104. Tom Hartman would agree with you

he had a RT video segment a few weeks back where he made similar comments.

I think it's a big stretch to compare atheism to organized religion, and I don't know any atheists who are "obsessed" with atheism (though depends on how you define obsessed).

It's hard not to be disdainful about many religious doctrines that are patently false.

[dash_bannon]

145. Thom Hartmann claims Atheism is a Religion

I love Thom Hartmann's show, but I adamantly disagree with him when he says atheism is a religion.

He's claimed that Sagan was an atheist mystic.

Atheism is NOT a religion. They don't worship anything. They see no reason to give accolades to deities they see as complete works of fiction. They don't attend pot luck dinners or organized events, have specific ceremonies to authorize two people to make babies, or talk about anything that can't be verified.

I also disagree when Hartmann claims that Sagan was a mystic.

Sagan was amazed at the wonder, beauty, and mystery of the universe and of life. Where he could wax poetic about nature and its wonders is not the same as adhering to a religious belief or dogma. It's simply one man being emotionally moved at the state of nature.

There's a great series of podcasts for people who want to learn more about atheism: listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast.

The bottom line, atheists disbelieve because they don't see any evidence or proof to verify the existence of the supernatural. They also tend to be very logical and know the Bible better than most Christians. I'd wager most of them became atheists because of the Bible. Science is simply a foundation for learning about the world around them in a way that can be verified and measured in space and time.

[dogmoma56]

246. a link to Critical Thinkers Meetup.... nice folks, not many are religious

http://critical-thinking.meetup.com/

[spooked911]

256. I'm with you

Normally I agree with Hartman 99%* but he was way off base with the atheism spiel.

*He's not so good on conspiracy issues

[cpwm17]

150. Atheism isn't a religion

but a few atheists seem to try to make it a religion. I'm an atheist and I don't identify with Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens at all. They are crusaders. They promote aggressive wars based on their religious beliefs.

Here's Chris Hedges good, but long winded, view on these atheists: http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/?page=1

[Goblinmonger]

156. Ah, yes, Mr. Hedges.

Interesting how, in his attack on Harris, he takes Harris out of context and doesn't provide all that Harris is saying in his book.

[cpwm17]

169. Here's Sam Harris' response to this criticism:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

Sam Harris loses. He can't walk back his obscene and vile quote:


What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.


The complete quote is at Sam Harris' link.

[Goblinmonger]

171. From your link:

"I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."

His ultimate call is on the Muslim world to stop the crap that is going on.

[cpwm17]

195. That is called projection

Sam Harris (and Christopher Hitchens) were both strong supporters of the US's unprovoked attack on Iraq, a Muslim country.

Since WWII the US has been the most aggressive war making country on earth.

President Obama has conducted drone attacks against six countries, all Muslim.

The US is the only country that has used nukes, and it wasn't in any way a military necessity.

How dare Sam Harris put down in writing his genocidal fantasies against Muslims. He's a war mongering scumbag.

[CrawlingChaos]

227. +1000

[AlbertCat]

302. He's a war mongering scumbag.

"Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime"

Apparently, it isn't needless to say...once. He may have to repeat such a statement several times to people with big religious chips on their shoulders, or they'll call him a war mongering scumbag.

Is there a correlation between religion and reading comprehension, or the lack of it?

[cpwm17]

310. I'm an atheist

and my reading comprehension appears to be better than yours. As if slamming one atheist is a slam on all atheists. Well, as someone else wrote, "atheism isn't a religion and Harris ain't my pope".

Once again, here's the quote:


*What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade.*


He's fantasizing about a genocidal attack on a Muslim country and putting it in words. These words, no matter what else he wrote, can't be defended: "In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

This would be an attack on a Muslim nation for being Muslim.

Bill Bennett, several years ago, got slammed for making a comment about aborting black babies to reduce crime, He also said that it would not be the right thing to do. Liberals properly attack Bill Bennett, but some folk gave a similar defense of him that you are giving for Sam Harris. And Sam Harris' call for nuclear genocide is actually much more serious than Bill Bennett's comment.

[CrawlingChaos]

223. How do you take this entire article out of context?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

Could have been written by Antonin Scalia himself, or any neocon really.

[Goblinmonger]

240. Yep. I don't agree with his position on that.

Good thing is, atheism isn't a religion and Harris ain't my pope, so I can say he's wrong on this.

My point is that Hedges takes a lot of Harris' book out of context in his arguments.

[cpwm17]

250. "atheism isn't a religion and Harris ain't my pope" - exactly!

That's why atheists should not have such a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Sam Harris or any other atheists when they promote B/S or evil, including when they base their B/S or evil on their atheism. Atheism isn't a religion.

Defending these atheists that treat their atheism as a religion by replying that atheism isn't a religion is backwards. The fact that atheism isn't a religion is an argument against these crusading atheists.

As an atheist I'm rather offended by these low-life atheists, and annoyed by other atheists that want to defend them.

[Goblinmonger]

296. I'm not knee-jerking to the criticism, per se.

I am responding to the criticism that relies on Hedges who is as big of a douche as the rest of them. If you want to say Harris is a dick because he did something, then go ahead. But don't rely on those that are intellectually dishonest in their criticism.

[edhopper]

159. And what are the tenets of their religion?

Other than the God concept is not valid. They "crusade" to end stupidity.
Atheism is fine, unless you actively defend it?
What aggressive wars do they promote?
Chris Hedges knows not what he speaks of.

[donquijoterocket]

210. who or

what is their deity and what are the sacraments? People try to put the religion tag on atheism like they tried with secular humanism so they can turn and use the separation of church and state argument.

[CrawlingChaos]

225. "what aggressive wars to they promote"?

New Atheism is heavily laden with War on Terror propaganda. It leans right and it leans authoritarian.

Emphasis on New Atheism there, and not atheism, which, needless to say, should not have any sort of orthodoxy attached to it!

[dash_bannon]

140. Or...

Atheism is not a religion. Religions are based on a central authority that forms the dogma and teachings it's followers adhere to.

I see the reaction by Hitchens, Harris, and others who are militantly atheist as self-defense.

Seeing people like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann who wish to instill their brand of Christianity on people is extreme, especially for a democracy. The extreme end of atheists are simply fighting back and attacking all religions.

In the mind of an atheist, all religions are bogus.

The one common thread among all atheists is that they disbelieve because there is no evidence proving the existence of gods. They get tired of debating any god's existence because people try to use arguments and logical fallacies to prove a god exists. Yet, there is no physical evidence for the existence of any god.

I think the fringe set of atheists are scared of living in a theocracy and are defending themselves.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. No, but many religious people want to pretend atheism is a religion.

a-theism: without theism.

We seem 'strident' to you, because there's a herd of jackasses like Bachmann and Perry, that 'inform' their political view with arbitrary religious 'morality'. As long as we see people trying to legislate religion in the public sphere, you will see 'strident' atheists like me.

And no, it's not an 'organized religion'. If you think good and hard, you migh think of ways in which religion is in our face, that you don't normally consider. I had mormons disregard my 'no soliciting' sign and piss off my dogs and wake up my kid last week.

When's the lsat time an Atheist came to your door to prosletyize about not believing in god?
When's the last time an Atheist tried to strip comprehensive sex ed away from your kid's school, because it 'promotes promiscuity'?

As long as Religion impacts political discourse, brace yourself for 'being rubbed the wrong way'.

[2banon]

206. Hear, Here!

I don't identify myself as an "avowed" atheist, because in my mind, atheism doesn't require devotion.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

224. Yeah really

That's the beauty of being an atheist...you get to free up your mind for better things.

In my book there's no such thing as a 'practicing' atheist.

[2banon]

204. I find this conversation curious, I have never ever seen athiests

as an organized anything. Religion is rarely discussed except whenever the Religious Right is intending to impose their doctrines on the rest of us vis a vis legislation or various edicts and pronouncements.

I'm just trying to sort out what is at issue here.. If the religious right, be it, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Domininists want to worship their gods in the privacy of their homes or places of worship. fine with me.. have at it. But I don't want to have to be subjected to hearing or seeing worshiping in front of me in the public square. (public places)

Is this thinking regarding religion by athiests (and agnostics in general) the issue at hand in this conversation?

[provis99]

207. oh, the old atheism is religion spiel.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Bull.

I'm not going to speak to or for Hitchens, but I'd like to see evidence in the form of links and quotes of Sam Harris or Bill Maher "openly supporting violence against Muslims."

[dogmoma56]

97. i've seen some open ridicule, but never supporting violence. he is a cynical comedian,

wadaya expect

[cpwm17]

146. Not my kind of atheists

Here Sam Harris promotes the idea of a nuclear first strike against Muslims for being Muslims: http://nouspique.com/2008/11/the-end-of-faith-by-sam-harris/

Here are quotes of Sam Harris supporting torture against Muslims and promoting his kooky Buddhist beliefs: http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/

Bill Maher (agnostic) is a hard core Zionist that supports Israel's cruelty toward the Palestinians. He openly supports Israel's ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. Bill Maher also believes in kooky psuedoscience and metaphysical non-sense - including ghosts.

[zappaman]

221. Prove it.

"Bill Maher (agnostic) is a hard core Zionist that supports Israel's cruelty toward the Palestinians. He openly supports Israel's ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. Bill Maher also believes in kooky psuedoscience and metaphysical non-sense - including ghosts."

Back this bullshit up, please.

[cpwm17]

243. Bill Maher links

As I mentioned earlier, links to the various bigoted Bill Maher quotes are hard to find. Anyone who has listened to Bill Maher much at all should not take long before they discover his bigotry. The problem is that Bill Maher's bigotry is accepted in much of the US, so he receives little attention. Perhaps because his shows are copyrighted, videos are scarce.

Here's a typical bigoted segment from Bill Maher. He can get worse than this: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/its-official-bill-maher-is-a-racist/

He has a cartoonish view of the Arab and Muslim world, partly influenced by the religions of his parents.

Bill Maher opposes vaccinations based on his psuedoscientific beliefs. Here he makes Bill Frist look good on a video in this article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/bill-maher-vs-the-flu-vaccine/

[Warren DeMontague]

234. Sam Harris responds:

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2

Can't find those quotes from Bill Maher, eh? Keep looking.

[cpwm17]

252. I actually posted that same link myself on #178 above

And I responded to it.

A couple of Bill Maher links are above on #253.

[Warren DeMontague]

282. Yeah, links to Bill Maher being against vaccination. Which is not what you said.

Neither was it "Bill Maher criticizing the cultural state of womens' rights and relationships in the Islamic world".

You said, Bill Maher OPENLY SUPPORTS VIOLENCE AGAINST MUSLIMS.

So, prove it. With an actual quote of him doing that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Islam says to kill unbelievers, and that's why atheists attack Islam.

Read some Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Nomad" and "Infidel" about her escape from Somalia and Islam, about how dangerous Islam is in Europe. They won't assimilate in Europe and will not accept the ideas of the Enlightenment, which she says totally changed her life and opened her eyes.


Atheists like Hitchens say "You do not get a pass for your behavior if it has a religious reason, and that includes mutilating your children's genitals."

That's pretty easy to understand.

I see nothing wrong with atheists saying that Islam is dangerous because of its "kill the infidel" doctrine. Any religion that has cruel, evil actions done in its name needs to be called out and identified.

That usually means the Abrahamic ones.

[CrawlingChaos]

75. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a neocon and a fraud

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/388318.html

Hirsi Ali and her cohorts are peddling bullshit, designed to make you hate and fear the desired enemy. Stop and think about where your information is coming from.

[MH1]

108. Do you think EVERY report of evil done in the name of Islam is fraud and propoganda?

What about the subjugation of women and gays by many Islamic cultures? (for my honest education, please list the most egalitarian of Islamic cultures so that I can confirm that I am merely mistaken about all this.)

What about apostasy (deciding one isn't a Muslim even after being born one - of which one has no choice) warranting a death sentence? Is it not true that Islamic Law supports that?

Never mind that Islam is based on fairy tales and a charismatic leader like any other religion.

I think that any fundamentalist religion is pretty much 'unmitigated evil' and the fundamentalists seem to have far more influence in the Islamic world than in the Christian world (although it is getting worse among Christians, too). So I would probably agree with Dawkins that 'Christians' are the lesser evil, for now. Assuming we are talking about fundamentalists, and from the context of the first article you posted, it seems that we are. I think also, most Westerners feel more comfortable with Christianity because of (most of us) being raised 'Christian', we have high confidence that the Gospel does NOT support the crap the fundamentalists spew. We have no such confidence in the Koran. We are told over and over again about 'Islamic' groups that claim things are required or at least justified by Sharia, like death for apostasy, or the subjugation of women. I just don't have enough knowledge to disprove it, and where are the vocal Islamic leaders coming forward to call bullshit on that? Where is the vocal Islamic leadership to call bullshit on the burqa?

[CrawlingChaos]

219. I think much of what we're told is crap

You're repeating Peter King and Pamela Geller's talking points. Do you really want to do their hatemongering for them? The MSM will not give you accurate information. We're being trained to hate and fear the desired enemy.

The people encouraging you to gnash your teeth over Sharia Law don't give two shits about human rights! Look, the Koran has WAY less calls for violence than the Bible. It may not be something I endorse or subscribe to, but the truth is, we're being manipulated.

[riderinthestorm]

278. I'm a diehard Dem of the leftist sort and you are dodging specific questions.

1. What about the subjugation of women and gays by many Islamic cultures?

2. What about apostasy (deciding one isn't a Muslim even after being born one - of which one has no choice) warranting a death sentence? Is it not true that Islamic Law supports that?

Never mind that Islam is based on fairy tales and a charismatic leader like any other religion.

3. Where are the vocal Islamic leaders coming forward to call bullshit on that? Where is the vocal Islamic leadership to call bullshit on the burqa?


These aren't questions from Pamela Geller! These are legitimate questions period not withstanding your facile dismissal....

[CrawlingChaos]

281. what a load of crap

1. I never said there weren't human rights issues that urgently need to be addressed in the Muslim world (as there are right here in this country). Are we given remotely accurate information about these issues or are they cynically played for their propaganda value? Hell no to the former, that's for sure.

2. And doesn't the Bible sentence me to death for mixing fabrics, or laboring on the Sabbath? Where are all these dead former Muslims, btw? The bodies ought to be piling up by now. What's your point?

3. How do you know what Islamic leaders have to say? Have you really looked beyond what MSM spoon feeds you? If we take the trouble to develop a deeper understanding of other cultures it just might lead to progress, but belligerence will certainly not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

325. Current widespread support for death sentence for blasphemy against Islam, in Pakistan

This is a big problem:

Gunmen on Friday kidnapped the son of Salman Taseer, the liberal provincial governor assassinated by one of his bodyguards earlier this year in retaliation for Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law.

The abduction of Shahbaz Taseer in the eastern city of Lahore raised concerns that Islamic extremists were intent on targeting members of the Taseer family, some of whom have continued to speak out against intolerance in Pakistani society after the governor's slaying Jan. 4.

After bodyguard Malik Mumtaz Qadri shot to death the elder Taseer outside an Islamabad restaurant, he told police he killed the Punjab provincial governor because of Taseer's stance against the country's blasphemy statute, which makes it a crime to insult the prophet Muhammad, the Koran or Islam and can entail execution as punishment. Qadri, 26, is awaiting trial.

Western leaders and analysts were particularly dismayed by how segments of Pakistani society reacted to Taseer's assassination. Many Pakistanis showered Qadri with praise and called him a hero, a reaction that showed how widely supported Islamist radicals and extremists are within Pakistan. Two months after Taseer's murder, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian and Pakistan's minority affairs minister, was assassinated apparently also because of his opposition to the blasphemy law.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/26/world/la-fgw-pakistan-abduction-20110827

And his opposition to the law was because a woman was condemned to death for 'blasphemy':

Mr Taseer made headlines recently by appealing for the pardon of a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who had been sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12111831

As Taseer was laid to rest in Lahore, his assassin, 26-year-old policeman Mumtaz Qadri, was also being showered with rose petals, in Islamabad. Cheering supporters clapped Qadri as he was bundled into court. "Death is acceptable for Muhammad's slave," they chanted.

Qadri says he killed Taseer, the man he was supposed to protect, because he advocated reform of Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law. Few other politicians have dared to speak out against the law; those who have now live in fear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal

And those rose petals didn't come from some extremist sect - they came from Pakistani lawyers, and the mainstream of Islam in Pakistan:

A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside. The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case.

As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted ”death is acceptable for Muhammad’s slave.” The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled ”God is great.”

More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan’s majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws.

”The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” the group warned in a statement, adding politicians, the media and others should learn ”a lesson from the exemplary death.”

http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/05/lawyers-shower-roses-for-governors-killer.html

[CrawlingChaos]

364. the claim was that Muslims are killed for leaving Islam

Where are these dead former Muslims, executed for the crime of deciding they're no longer Muslim, as the poster above me suggested? Our warmongering news media would have a field day with such incidents, if they were indeed occurring.

You gave me one specific incident, probably politically motivated if truth be told, and I have no way of judging the accuracy of those claims of "widespread support". The news is full of stories that aim to make Muslims sound like crazed zealots. I have no reason to take them at face value.

When I read Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Nir Rosen, Dahr Jamail, and other unembedded journalists who have lived through what they report, I get a very different picture of the Muslim world than what is served up by corporate media.

Meanwhile here we are living in a true terrorist state (assuming you are also American) with very real, very violent religious extremism. Talk about crazy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

373. No, it's not 'politically motivated' - read up about it

I've given you a few starting points. You can look for the story of the woman, the calls for her death, the assassination of the governor after he stood up for her, and now the kidnapping of his son. Note that some of those links were from Dawn, a leading English language Pakistani newspaper. They do not "aim to make Muslims sound like crazed zealots." They are Muslims.

No, the religious violence in the US does not rise to the institutional level of Pakistan. Or Afghanistan, where there is a death sentence for apostasy:

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam." He will rule on the case within two months.

Shariah law states that any Muslim who rejects Islam should be sentenced to death, according to Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chairman of the state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Repeated attempts to impose a jail sentence were barred.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said he had offered to drop the charges if Mr Rahman converted back to Islam, but he refused. "He would have been forgiven if he changed back. But he said he was a Christian and would always remain one," Mr Wasi said. "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty."

Which the man only escaped because he was deemed mentally unfit for trial and quickly sent to Italy.

Iran is just as bad.

[CrawlingChaos]

375. religion as a tool for political power and control..

..should not be a difficult concept to grasp. I remain skeptical of the claims of widespread support for such oppressive laws and it is wrong to use stories like this to smear Muslims.

Your links tend to underscore how rare it is for anyone to be prosecuted for leaving the Muslim faith. You had to go back years to find what sounds like a test case, and the man was released.

Which is not to say there aren't very serious human rights issues that need to be urgently addressed. Western military aggression and interference creates just the right atmosphere for the worst of the worst to rise to power (certainly true of Iran). It really isn't about Islam at all.

[MH1]

110. I just love this from the indymedia article:

"If Ali and others are outraged when rape victims are punished under Sharia law, they should also be concerned when Iraqi women are killed by American bullets."

Wait, what??? because the US (s)elected a stupid idiot to be president and allowed him to start a stupid war, that killed innocents (as all wars do, even wars of actual liberation), this woman shouldn't care about women being FUCKING PROSECUTED FOR BEING RAPED?? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND??

sorry, had to get that out of my system. you didn't write the article, but you linked it approvingly. Hirsi Ali may be peddling some bullshit, but anyone who minimizes the fucked-up-ness of a woman being prosecuted for being raped, loses all credibility with me.

[Hosnon]

173. +1. nt.

[2banon]

208. Hear, Here! n/t

[PonyJon]

152. If they can't practice their religion without practicing on others

they are dangerous. This goes for any religion and especially the fundamental follys.

[spooked911]

105. good points-- I don't know who Sam Harris is and Hitchens is intolerable for other reasons

Bill Maher is hilarious on most issues but definitely annoying about Islam.

[PonyJon]

153. Islam is most "annoying" to credulity. nt

[dash_bannon]

138. Please give examples

I don't recall Sam Harris or Bill Maher advocating violence against Muslims. I know Harris and Hitchens have both said that Islam teaches things that are anti-peace. I do recall Hitchens supporting Bush and the US invasion of Iraq.

[cpwm17]

199. I've given links elsewhere

#155 and #178

I wish more links to Bill Maher's shows were available. I've never been able to find a link to this this quote from Bill Maher. I heard him say that Arabs only know violence, and the way to deal with Arabs is with violence. I don't remember the exact words. It was one of the most racist things I've ever heard in my life.

[Syntheto]

142. Any religion...

...is bullshit. There is no 'god', 'allah' 'jehova' or forest spirit, sea sprite, wood nymph or any other sort of supernatural entity. All you have are manipulators who claim to have an inside line to god because of some pious quality they (and certainly not scum like you and I) possess. Religion has no place in government - none. Adherents to islam who believe that so-called sharia law should be the foundation and guiding principle of their legal system are fools, just as are christian or jewish believers who think decisions such as abortion or same-sex marriage should be viewed through a religious lens, with religion-based authority being the arbitrator. By the way, what do muslims think of abortion and same-sex marriage?
The legacy of Attaturk is something everyone should become a lot more familiar with. Turkey is a much better place than it would have been had he not stepped in to establish and enforce secular law. There is no reason to defend islam against 'unfair attacks', precisely because there is no such thing as an 'unfair attack' where religions are concerned. Would such defenders of such a bullshit belief system as islam feel better if everyone teed off on christianity, judasim, hinduish, buddhism with equal time and scorn? I'm all for that. There needs to be a television program that lambastes a different religion a week, making fun of their respective stupid rituals and dietary requirements. Call it 'Little Enders', after one of Swift's egg-cracking antagonists (as opposed to the Big Enders) in Gulliver's Travels.

[2banon]

198. You said Hitchens, Harris and Maher "openly support violence against Muslims" ...

links? I have heard and read each of these people openly critisize the religion of Islam, pretty much on par with their criticism of Christianity. But openly support violence against Muslims? That's a new one and I find it difficult to believe..

got links?

[blank space]

60. Pretty much somes up what Dawkins is saying -

the most idiotic, self negating post in the history of DU - well done CrawlingChaos - if idiocy was lethal the Darwin Awards would be calling you.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. You don't even know what 'racist' means. Religion isn't a race.

I'd say 'try again', but don't bother.

[CrawlingChaos]

220. so if the same smears were applied to Jews...

You couldn't see the problem?

You can't look back on history and see what kind of very bad things happen when one group is vilified and dehumanized? The obliviousness here is chilling.

[AtheistCrusader]

262. Do you not understand the difference between race and religion?

Islam isn't a race.

Dawkins had plenty to say about the jews last time he visited them, as well. Anywhere Religion takes front seat to science, or basic human decency, he is not going to hold his tongue.
And that is both a race, and a religion.

I can see how it might seem chilling if you don't understand what you are talking about.

[CrawlingChaos]

273. You just made me LOL

"Anywhere Religion takes front seat to science, or basic human decency, he is not going to hold his tongue."

You should write for Marvel Comics. You have picked a real asshole to hero worship, I must say.

And please, you must realize that Dawkins criticism of Jews is relatively toothless, especially when compared to his over-the-top attacks on Islam. Let's cut the BS for once.

And finally, it's really depressing to me that I have to spell out why the demeaning caricatures of Arab Muslims promoted by Dawkins and other New Atheists are racist in nature, and appeal to racist leanings in their intended audience. Muslims (read: Arabs) are portrayed as savage, almost sub-human at times. It is utterly sickening.

[AtheistCrusader]

275. So, is the majority of the south east pacific 'arab'?

There are approximately 1.5bn muslims around the world, and only about 500m arabs total, and not all arabs are muslims.

If you insist upon slinging charges of racism, you should check your own grossly ignorant, and possibly racist assumptions at the door.


I do not 'worship' Dawkins, nor do I consider him a hero. By all means, keep flailing though.

[liberation]

196. No more Dawkins? Do you even understand the significance of the bulk of his scientific work?

You're willing to subsume scientists of the caliber of Dawkins because you disagree with his personal views?


I much rather have scientists of the caliber of Dawkins, even if I may disagree with some of their personal views, than a troupe of mediocre scientists with super agreeable personality. But hey, that's just me...

[CrawlingChaos]

222. I don't think much of him as a scientist

The line between his ideologies and scientific work has become hopelessy blurred, and his utopian notion that humans can morally evolve in the absence of religion is not very Darwinian, not to mention downright silly.

[liberation]

226. In other words, you have no clue what he has done in the scientific realm

no wonder you're resorting to make this a silly personal issue.

Have you even read any of his major scientific papers?

[CrawlingChaos]

231. How is my criticism invalid?

The "have you even read any of his major scientific papers?" bit is a pretty transparent dodge.

[liberation]

241. No, it is not a dodge at all. It was a pretty simple and straight forward question.

If you haven't read a single one of his major scientific papers and you are not involved in his same field of study, then how can you gauge his caliber as a scientist properly?

So what I asked was a very simple question: have you or have you not read any of his published scholarly/research papers? If the answer is yes, then provide a factual argument as to what makes those papers bad and as such reflect on his qualities as a scientist. If the answer is no, then your criticism is based around personality issues, and as such it is completely subjective and "invalid" in the context of science. Frankly I would expect that to be a rather straight forward concept to grasp.

You may find Dawkins personality disagreeable, and that is perfectly fine. But then leave science out of the equation.

[CrawlingChaos]

245. this is obfuscation

I raised a serious issue - the tainting of scientific work with personal ideologies - which you are simply skirting around. I have seen articles/book reviews by other evolutionary biologists raising the same concern about him. That is NOT a "personality issue".

[liberation]

248. First off, how is a simple question you have refused to answer "obfuscation?"

The issue would be "serious" if you had bothered to read any of Dawkins major research/scholarly papers in order to certify wether or not your claim is correct. But since you have done none of the sort, it seems nothing more than personality disagreements, with nothing but projection from your part.


It is indeed a "personality issue" since you can't provide an actual counter argument, other than "I have heard things...", to prove Dawkins science flawed.

You doth wanting to have it both ways too much, it seems...

[CrawlingChaos]

258. I have read Dawkins

I've read some of his books and some of his articles. I wasn't particularly impressed with his facile argumentation and what I consider a superficial understanding of some of the topics into which he wades. As a non-scientist, I would have no reason to read his scientific papers. You, of course, will seize on that as a means to discount everything I have to say without addressing anything substantive. It's a dodge.

You haven't said a word about the issue I raised. Is it troubling to you that some of the conclusions raised by Dawkins in his scientific work seem to be colored by his personal ideologies? Not saying that's never happened before, or that it invalidates all of his work -- just saying it makes me think less of him as a scientist.

My major problems with Dawkins are outlined somewhere upthread.

[AtheistCrusader]

267. Interesting, if you read any of his works, why are you misrepresenting his position?

The only people I have ever seen allege Dawkin's scientific works are 'tainted by ideology' are creationist 'scientists'.

Can you maybe be a little more specific/cite to evidence?

[CrawlingChaos]

271. I don't believe I am misrepresenting him

Earlier in the thread I said Dawkins' utopian notion that humans can morally evolve in the absence of religion is not only anti-Darwin, it's downright silly. Am I not accurately representing the man's own espoused view?

[AtheistCrusader]

274. Well for starters

We HAVE evolved social order that doesn't require religion. Secular ethics have been expanding for a very long time, and will continue so.

Second, there is nothing anti-darwninian about secular ethics. Indeed, with the incompatibilities between the various religions, and the resulting violence and disruption, it is perfectly logical that we would move on to something better. Dennett has quite a lot of work you can review for how religion itself has evolved over time, and some of us are simply taking the next step.

Dawkins has written about it as well, in several books.


On what grounds do you consider it 'downright silly' or 'anti-Darwin'?

[CrawlingChaos]

276. A cursory review of human history shows otherwise

Frankly, what you wrote strikes me as dangerously deluded.

Dennett, eh? Do you read anyone besides New Atheists? That could be your problem right there.

[AtheistCrusader]

279. Nice words.

By all means, back them up, and be specific.

I spend a lot of time fighting fundies of all stripes, so yes, I find some of Dennett and Dawkins work, and to some extent, Hitchens, quite useful. Hitchens would be better if he wasn't a war monger. That's a total digression though.

[AtheistCrusader]

266. Considering you just constructed an invalid strawman to represent Dawkins

you might not want to bring up the issue of 'who is dodging who'.

[AtheistCrusader]

265. So, you really haven't listened to him for a whole straight 10 minutes have you?

And clearly you've never expended the energy to pick one of his books up off the table.

[LondonReign2]

304. By your statement

you believe humans can only morally evolve due to the presence of religion.

BWHAHAHAHAHA.

Next please.

[CrawlingChaos]

306. what the hell are you talking about?

On second thought, don't bother.

[AlbertCat]

299. racist hatemongering toward Muslims

Muslims are a race now????


Dawkins' books are great. I like "Unweaving the Rainbow". "The Selfish Gene" is a must read if you want to understand biology these days.

Like he says.... Perry and his ilk are easy to handle. His commentary is about the cult of ignorance that is the USA today, not Perry. Perry is just the most current example... as Dawkins points out in the beginning of his commentary.
Really, you should read AND understand what Dawkins says before accusing him.

[CrawlingChaos]

308. oh FFS

Is it really necessary to keep explaining and re-explaining the freakin' obvious? Has everyone unlearned EVERYTHING they ever learned about racism?

The fact that you can't see that Arab Muslims are under attack in a racist manner is really pretty fucking scary. Richard Dawkins and all the New Atheists do this. They use demeaning and dehumanizing stereotypes designed to spread fear and hate. They cartoonishly portray Arab Muslims as savage and almost sub-human (HOPEFULLY you don't subscribe to this view as well). For example, did you know that Richard Dawkins has been featuring the videos of the notorious racist (think Arab-bashing EDL-type) Pat Condell on his website? When Dawkins own followers objected to this very offensive content, Dawkins removed some of the worst videos but essentially dug in his heels and defended Condell.

And yes, taking down Perry is like shooting fish in a bathtub. And yet, we have a threadfull of people falling all over themselves praising Dawkins for this epic achievement. Big fucking deal. I'm trying to say, take another look at this guy and what he really stands for. Take a good, hard, critical look. But apparently the man is not to be criticized or scrutinized. What. the. fuck?

[cpwm17]

345. Pat Condell gets more hits than any other Atheist on the internet

I constantly see him linked on other atheist websites. Pat Condell is a first order bigot.

One of the two most disturbed individuals that I met while I was in the Air Force was an Atheist. While stationed in Iraq, he would comment on his desire to commit genocide against all Arabs. I was the only person around who spoke up at all. He was one of the only atheists that I met while in the Air Force. Often I felt like I was the only atheists in the Air Force.

The other disturbed individual was a Christian that said he wanted to join the Army to kill people. Unfortunately he got an Air Force position with the Army to interrogate Iraqis.

It's not true that religion is the main cause of evil in this world - greed and bigotry is. Also we don't get our morals from religion. That's a false claim from the religious folks trying to take credit for our morality. Independent from religious books and teachings, religious folks judge the morality of their own religion. Morality is mostly innate and also taught, it's just that some people don't have it.

[CrawlingChaos]

370. wow, that is disturbing

Condell is truly beyond the pale and it's so discouraging to hear he is gaining widespread acceptance. These are some dark days we live in, no doubt about it. At least his videos still get removed here at DU.

Thanks for sharing your experience and for speaking out against the bigotry. I certainly agree with your assessments.

[MH1]

100. we need more competent teachers, to end the ignorance

(by 'teachers' I mean 'people who teach', not necessarily limited to the official profession).

While I agree wholeheartedly with what Dawkins says in this piece:

When the world is ruled mostly by the ignorant or those who pretend to be ignorant because it suits their agenda, and it is they who have the wealth and the guns, the confrontational, 'you're so stupid' approach may not be helpful, even if it is completely true.

Or in other words, great piece, but I'm thinking I won't post it on FB to insult my associates who unfortunately have not been as well educated as they should have been.

[Name removed]

318. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lindysalsagal]

5. cultivated and adequate citizen-Ouch!

The GOP really doesn't understand that most americans can see this ridiculous ignorance. The earth isn't flat, the earth rotates around the sun, and the ancient bible writers did the best they could with the information available. They'd be totally pissed off to find out that some morons held onto these views centuries after they were misproven.

Even the Pope has a team of working astronomers, and they're doing hard science right now. And the pope sure as hell goes to the hospital and submits to the best medical experts he can find.

It's beyond the pale for a person who claims to be ready to be president to make such infantile statements.

[pokerfan]

7. medical science

And the pope sure as hell goes to the hospital and submits to the best medical experts he can find.

Reminds me of this...

[JDPriestly]

12. Love your cartoon!

Funny thing is that I know some creationists who are very interested in genealogy. Why should they care about who their ancestors were if they don't believe in evolution.

[pokerfan]

14. How else would they explain the Curse of Ham?

Black people are cursed by Noah: http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2009/08/13/creation-museum-says-black-people-are-cursed-by-noah

[Posteritatis]

21. I'll never get tired of the punchline in that one. (nt)

[Pooka Fey]

86. Tee-hee-heh-heh-heh...

:P

[Pooka Fey]

87. Sorry - dupe

:P

[Moonwalk]

98. If "most" Americans can see it, why are any of these folk in office? Likewise--

Why the popularity of Fox News and its denial of science or, hey, of the facts? Why do other news organizations, in hopes of being poplar, pit such ignoramuses against scientist and pretend the two are presenting equal sides of something that *can* be argued? If Most Americans can see all this, why are churches that deny science and argue for faith over reason so rich and popular and running propaganda programming 24/7?

Most telling of all, if this is the way most Americans think...why do so-called science and factual television channels (like History) run so many programs about Bible stories, ancient astronauts, ghosts and other "unexplained" phenomena, etc.? Even our science channels are catering to the ignorant masses.

And while even the Pope has a team of astronomers doing hard science, you'll notice that no hard science enters into his arguments against homosexuals or birth control or even equality for women.

I wish you were right, but as a scientific thinker, I have to say that the evidence indicates that people still fear and hate science, and would rather have ignorance. And why not? Ignorance keeps them from facing unpleasant facts--like that our lifestyle is destroying the ecology of our planet--who wants to hear that? Ignorance allows people to feel special and unique (center of the universe, god breathing life into them), not small and insignificant (one small planet among trillions, haven't even survived as long as the dinosaurs). Ignorance lets them feel that a lack of knowledge is superior (how many popular movies have someone telling the rational person: "Stop trying to make sense of it. Just believe!"--and they're right?), and so they don' t have to feel stupid...or like they should get more of an education? Ignorance doesn't ask them to do homework, face facts, or change they way they think or live.

I wish you were right. But I'm afraid you're wrong about most Americans. And the more education gets gutted and destroyed, the more kids are home schooled or not schooled at all, the worse it will get.

[dash_bannon]

149. They Win Elections... LOL

The simple answer is that the Republicans win elections. They're great at framing messages, pandering to fear and ignorance, and rallying their supporters to get out and vote. There are well funded think tanks (The American Heritage Institute, CATO institute, and lot of others) that study and learn how to focus and concentrate their messages to win elections and stifle debate.

Scientists on the other hand, don't have the same political backing or organization skills as the pro-industry, pro-right-wing Jesus groups do. They also don't have the funding.

My arguments is grossly oversimplified, but they get organized, vote, protest, and control the majority of media.

Scientists don't stick their necks out because they need and want evidence to support their claims. Religious people and business people don't need evidence. They use sophistry and logical fallacies summed up in bumper sticker talking points.

So, for us to win and keep the ignorant at bay, we need groups and organizations that are pro-science, pro-education, pro-logic, pro-democratic to get out the message, remove the fear and ignorance, and get people organized and active so that they vote and win elections. They also need to constantly be in the media.

Science appeals to reason. Religions appeal to emotions. Emotions trump reason almost every time. We lefties, pro-science types, need to realize we'll lose every time we try to use reason with the unreasonable.

The way to knock 'em between the eyes is for us to ask questions that make them think.

[BadgerKid]

6. Reading this, the term "inferiority complex" comes to mind

to describe the "New Republicans." I could understand how such people would want to "dumb down" the electorate our of their own insecurities, but evidence of this is clouded by the apparent need both sides of the aisle to attack education :(

[malaise]

13. Youi nailed it

It is why they use terms like Ivy League elites to diss graduates of universities which have been accredited for centuries while promoting themselves with their religious quack college degrees from places like Falwell's quack college.

[callous taoboy]

8. And yet, both of my parents are extremely intelligent people, eggheads, but will vote GOP every time

:banghead:

[coalition_unwilling]

50. 'Intelligent Republican' is an oxymoron. Have you asked your

parents why they vote Republican? What possible reason could any intelligent human have for doing so any longer, once the secessionists were defeated and slavery ended?

[callous taoboy]

120. When I turned 18 my dad advised me to "vote your pocketbook."

[mwb970]

79. That just doesn't compute for me.

"Extremely intelligent people" voting republican? I can't think of any way those two things go together.

[dogmoma56]

103. nothing to do with intelligence, it comes from deep psychological/emotional sources, read>>

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B0013LTF2Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314539076&sr=1-1

$4 on amazon.. explains it well..

this is pretty good....

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

[MisterP]

9. he's a great Darwin's Rottweiler against creationist BS

but otherwise...

[stuntcat]

10. love this

k and r!!

[Thinkingabout]

11. Perry had problems in college

And his classes for pre vet was not nice to him.  No sense in
lying about him, he looks for crowds with those crazy
misspelled signs and tries to speak on science.  All could
care less about science.  He is a member of "I would
rather climb a tree and tell a lie than to tell the truth on
the ground" club.  Where does Texans send their dumba??
Governors, why to Washington.  

[quaker bill]

16. As an evolutionary biologist,

I occasionally do not fully agree with Dawkins. However in this instance I could not agree more.

[Posteritatis]

19. What's your take on his ability to explain it to the layman?

I came out of reading The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale feeling I understood how it worked a lot better than I did before reading either book, but I'm also coming from a humanities background so I'm not as able to evaluate the material.

(I actually spent a few years working on a similar sort of thing in history, specifically how to convey it to a non-specialist audience in a variety of ways, and I've since been interested in seeing how other disciplines handle that.)

[quaker bill]

22. He is a tad strident, but puts forward alot of good info

I think he over reads the strength of data a bit on the genetic control of social behavior. The theoretical math and the real data do not rigorously support some of his assertions, in fact the math gets pretty sketchy at the far end of group selection models because the percentage of shared genetics is not high enough. At that point of attenuation you can only force a result with very high selective pressures, on an order that are generally not observed for social behaviors. The math works very well for siblings, and well enough for kin, but larger social groups is where it tends to break down.

I like his writing in general and he makes a strong case for natural selection that is readable by the layman, and it is sufficiently popular and well written to be read by many. All in all, his work is a good thing. It is a little over glamorous, whereas most scientists toil away more or less anonymously...

[Enthusiast]

25. I see the need to promote scientists

in the public eye. You know, sort of the way we elevate athletes, musicians and actors. We need to generate enthusiasm for science -in a populist way.

[quaker bill]

73. I think scientists were more popular

and highly regarded in Einstein's day. Some are still popular figures in a minor way today. Good scientists are generally not great self promoters. Some might have this ability, but it is generally not where they spend their time and energy.

[Enthusiast]

96. It would help the cause -the battle against ignorance.

The other side has visible leadership and organization. Our side has none.

[Shining Jack]

17. K&R n/t

[RegieRocker]

20. Evolution is a theory. Look it up.

It is not a fact. Damn. See both sides have the same problem.

http://evidence-based-science.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-scientific-law-theory.html

[Marrah_G]

23. Use of the term theory in regards to science does not mean what you think it does

[RegieRocker]

27. Are you Ok? I even gave you a link.

It's a theory. It's not proven. Damn! Goes for all that replied to this.

[Marrah_G]

29. Oh... a link.. well then, I stand corrected.

:eyes:

"In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true."

[joshguitar]

34. gravity is also a theory

jump off a bridge and see how likely it is the theory holds up

[RegieRocker]

35. No it's called the Law of Gravity.

Read the visit the link and read the whole page so you understand.

[joshguitar]

37. you gave a link to a blog....

*facepalm

[RegieRocker]

38. It's a blog so what.

[joshguitar]

43. alright bear with me

lets discuss basic rules of DEDUCTIVE reasoning. just becuase the sun rose after setting yesterday does not PROVE that it will rise tomorrow. you could call the idea that there will be a dawn hypothesis if you want to argue semntically. however, while deductive reasoning is fantastic at binary math and programing it doesn t fit so neatly into the natural world. the primary reason for this (though not the only) is because we cant know for sure we are accounting for all the variables. just because it has happened before, even a million times, does not PROVE it will happen again...(maybe there is a giant videoscreen that no one can detect that fools us all regarding sunsets)

but this is academic. natural science deals with the empirical: it accepts a thousand repititions of an experiment having the same
result to be INDUCTIVE proof of a valid hypothesis. once the scientific community also repeats these experiments thousands of times we have a THEORY.

laws are merely old theories and no less susceptible to being disproven. actually newtons "Laws" apply neither to very large or very small masses; which was discovered much later. the difference btwn law and theory is largely semantic, being a matter of tradition
now. i hope this clears things up.

[Pooka Fey]

89. Great post and Welcome to DU, newbie

:hi:

[RegieRocker]

106. Lol there is a blog echo in here.

[callous taoboy]

109. You can be as obdurate as you like:

The overwhelming evidence supporting the evolution of species makes evolution much more than just a theory. Saying it's "just a theory" is a very weak argument against it unless you have as much evidence against it as there is for it. Instead of directing me to a link, why don't you spend some time right here in this thread expounding upon what evidence you have against evolution being the primary cause for species change over time. I'd be interested to see what you've got.

[RegieRocker]

117. You don't understand what scientific theory means.

[callous taoboy]

122. Like I suspected, you've got nothing.

Tell you what- Start a new thread in GD listing the many scientific experiments that shoot a single hole in evolutionary science. I'd be very interested to see what you've got. I still say you've got bupkis.

[RegieRocker]

130. I posted a link that explains what a theory is and the fact

that they can and have been disproved. In science that is always open to possibility.

[edhopper]

139. So what do you suggest

also teach Intelligent design, which has zero scientific evidence to support it.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution not only is proven by all the evidence, but it is the only theory that can explain all the evidence. There are no competing theories.

When 100% of the scientist in a field tell you something is so, you might want to listen, rather than maintain a contrarian view point.

[RegieRocker]

141. Wrong!

A list of scientists who refutes Darwin's theory of evolution
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

[edhopper]

144. How many should I use?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You link a Creationist organization with ZERO scientific validity and reveal yourself.

Good to know you are in Rick Perry's camp and therefore have no credibility.

I don't have to bother with responses anymore.

"Against stupidity the God's themselves contend in vain"

[callous taoboy]

214. Yup, another DI empty set. Posting in this thread is another 15 minutes I'll never get back

[2banon]

203. Curious why you were spending energy on what appeared to be simply semantics..

you just can't figure out how to promote the theory of creationism based on factual data. And you do not understand the meaning of the term "theory" as used in the fields of the Sciences.

So you figured you'd begin by putting forth the very old canard that scientific "theory", such the theory of evolution, is prima faci evidence that Evolution is merely speculation, in an attempt to promote your belief in the idea that the world was formed in 6 days.

It's as if you're so certain the color of red is actually black, not realizing you're color blind and can only see in shades of black and white. But you insist just the same! There is no such thing as Red! It's only a theory!

There's no getting through to you because you're premise is wrong and it has mislead your line of logic and reasoning, simply because you are unable to see it.

[RegieRocker]

238. That would be you. It is you who doesn't understand theory.

It's obvious that you have no clue and you're guessing at my beliefs. Quite hilarious really.

[AtheistCrusader]

269. Not sure what your beliefs are, but downthread you adequately demonstrated you don't know what

theory means. Funny you stopped posting once it was pointed out.

[RegieRocker]

294. Lies. I've posted many times and tired of the knuckle headedness

of you. I posted a link with theories that have been disproven. Atheists can't handle The truth just like creationists.

[AtheistCrusader]

268. You sound like a teabagger doing an appeal to authority to 'refute' anthropogenic global warming.

Smooth move there.

[RegieRocker]

293. RW nut propoganda.

[Orrex]

287. I reject your argument because of your idiosyncratic use of capitalization

[Blecht]

288. A law (in science) is not what you think it is

There is no ambiguity in the terms "theory" and "law," at least not in science. And they are two, distinct things. A theory never becomes a law. Let me keep it simple for you.

A law is a concise summary of a set of observations. There is no attempt to explain anything in a law.

A theory is a well-tested hypothesis. It is an explanation.

And I don't have a blog link for you. I do have a Ph.D. in theoretical chemistry.

[bowens43]

47. Once again you make yourself look foolish.

Laws and theories re not the kind of thing. Seriously, quit while you're behind.

[joshguitar]

49. oh well when you put it like that

it changes my mind completely. *sigh

well i suppose its the old ad hominem next, right?

i will personally pay for you take a class on scientific method.

[Speed8098]

76. Once again you make yourself look foolish

LOL, man you really put him in his place. :sarcasm:

[Frank Cannon]

81. "Law of Gravity" is a colloquialism. In scientific terms, gravity is a theory.

Although our theory of gravity explains phenomena that we see all around us and, from it, we can make pretty accurate predictions as to how things will behave (as with our theory of evolution), it is impossible to go to every place in the universe and test it out everywhere. It could be that we might find out something that makes us have to change our understanding; therefore, it remains a theory. Theory just means we accept something to be the truth until we are presented with information that clearly shows otherwise.

You really should enroll in an evening general science class at your local community college. I think you might be surprised that you actually enjoy it.

[RegieRocker]

239. No actually it is a law in a given set of circumstances.

Example tie a rope around a anvil, place it in a tree, stand under it and pull the rope. That is the law of gravity.

[Frank Cannon]

272. "Given set of circumstances" is the key.

By your definition, evolution by natural selection is a "law" because we can also see (and have seen) it happen before our very eyes. The rise of multidrug-resistant bacteria strains, for instance; if those were created by intelligent design, the creator has a strange sense of humor.

[RegieRocker]

295. That is micro evolution not macro evolution. Adaptation is real.

[LTX]

321. What is the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution?

Or, to put it another way, when does "micro" evolution stop, and "macro" evolution begin"? Examples would be helpful.

While you're explaining that, maybe you can also throw in an explanation of the actual mechanism that stops "micro" evolution from becoming "macro" evolution. Is it some kind of as-yet-undiscovered barrier to ongoing mutagenesis?

[Orrex]

372. Duh. That one's easy.

"Micro" evolution is what Creationists grudgingly accept.

"Macro" evolution is what Creationists deny at all costs.

[RegieRocker]

381. That is correct.

But did you know 40% of scientist believe in GOD guided evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

[Orrex]

385. Thankfully, science isn't based on poll results

I don't have time to read the original study, but you seem thoroughly familiar with it.

Can you tell me what population of scientists was polled? And how the poll was conducted?


Also, perhaps you missed the point that there is no actual, science-based distinction between so-called "micro" evolution and so-called "macro" evolution. It's an aesthetic distinction maintained only by people who aren't comfortable accepting evolution as fact, even though it's been observed and proven many times over.

[LTX]

387. Rather hilariously, our resident creationist agrees with this definition!

I'd put it another way, though. "Micro" evolution is a little bit of evolution -- "Macro" evolution is a lot of evolution. The willingness of creationists to concede a little bit of evolution is really rather curious. It puts them in the awkward position of trying to explain why, or by what mechanism, the little bit of evolution comes to a stop, which not a single creationist has ever actually addressed.

[RegieRocker]

388. Not at all. Your assumption is skimming with no depth. And if you had read

all my posts you would've known that already. I'm neither a evolutionist not a creationist. You couldn't convince me of either one. The fact you label me a creationist just because I don't buy into the complete evolution theory speaks volumes about you.

[LTX]

390. Ok, I'll accept that. And my apologies. Perhaps you'd like to actually

discuss the issues after all.

You can begin by describing the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution, and the mechanism that stops "micro" evolution from continuing on into "macro" evolution. And then perhaps identify the specific "atheist propaganda" that is contained in the current understanding of the Cambrian period and its related fossils.

[RegieRocker]

391. Discuss? I don't fall for fakery. I have posted a link that explains

micro and macro evolution. It was a link to an atheists explanation of the Cambrian period. We are done here.

[LTX]

392. I think we are done here.

You display all the characteristics of the disingenous creationist poster, so there really is no point in trying to discuss the actual science. If the shoe fits . . .

[Orrex]

393. If the shoe fits, then the shoe proves an intelligent designer

[RegieRocker]

395. What dna scientists are achieving in the field is exactly that.

Are you ridiculing the research and achievements in this field? Are they unintelligent designers? You don't know jack. Done with you too on this subject.

[Orrex]

397. They might be intelligent, but they're still wrong

Complexity does not imply design, no matter how much you and Hovind and Dembski and Behe and all the other creationist quacks wish otherwise.


The really funny part is that I was "done with you too on this subject" from my very first post, by which time I'd already realized that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

[Name removed]

398. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Yeah, actually

it is fucking proven. You are related to the apes in the zoo, and further back, your cat, the fish in the ocean, and even further back to the carrots and cucumbers in your dinner salad.

It's a known fact, scientifically corroborated by literally mountains of physical evidence, and people need to grow the fuck up, accept reality, and fucking deal with it already.

[RegieRocker]

107. You're delusional. No it isn't. Mutations are proven, man evolving from

apes is not.

[callous taoboy]

112. Seriously, you have nothing to back this up, Regie. Sorry.

[RegieRocker]

126. Yes I do and it's posted.

Let me explain. The evolution theory main back bone is adaptation (mutation) and that has been proven. But the underlying thing for people to understand is that in science "nothing is absolute". A law or theory never becomes 100% proven. All theories are susceptible to being found false. I have a post below that have the top 10 theories that were disproved.

[edhopper]

194. You have posted below a list

that has nothing to do with modern science. Something you have shown to have no understanding of.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

189. .

.nevermind

[AtheistCrusader]

193. We evolved from a common ancestor.

And yes, it has been proven, many different ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

[donquijoterocket]

209. of course

That's not at all what evolution says which proves, if nothing else, something about your knowledge of evolution which would seem to be on a par with gov. greasyhair.

[rexcat]

88. Despite the link you could have used the "sarcasm"...

emoticon. I read your post a second time and sensed what you were trying to convey but did not bother with the link.

[AtheistCrusader]

192. There's an enormous body of evidence supporting it.

You don't understand the word. Sorry.

[Occulus]

24. You're using 'theory' incorrectly n/t

[RegieRocker]

30. You need help too. I even gave a link. READ IT

It explains what a scientific theory is and more. Damn.

[Occulus]

54. Then you're misunderstanding the link

No, I didn't read it. I don't need to. I'm very, very well-aware of the difference between 'scientific' theory and 'colloquial' theory.

If you weren't being sarcastic, you misunderstand the term. Period.

EDIT: you don't even know that there's no actual difference between 'scientific law' (whatever that is) and 'theory'.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye!

[RegieRocker]

114. Nothing is absolute in science

Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. <b>A scientific theory stands until proven wrong<b> -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

[skepticscott]

161. Unproven, as in not proven to a 100%

mathematical certainty? Of course it is, in that sense. But nothing in science, not even the things we know with as much certainty as we know anything, is every proven to that degree. If you actually understand that (which is questionable), why would you dismiss evolution because it doesn't meet that standard?

Do you understand that science is not about "proving" things in the way that mathematics is? Do you understand what science IS about? Also unlikely, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.

[RegieRocker]

253. Because I understand micro evolution and macro evolution

and there are many many parts of evolution that are not proven. I doubt that you knew that.

[skepticscott]

255. Again, do you have any understanding

of what "proven" means in a scientific context? Do you even understand what it is that science does? Or are you just repeating blithering idiocy that you found on a fundy website?

And yes, I am aware that every last detail of how every feature of every one of the millions of species that have ever existed came into existence is not completely understood. Please tell me you're not ignorant enough to believe that invalidates evolution...

[RegieRocker]

291. You.re the one that is ignorant of what is factual and what it's not. You seem

to relish in this. Do some research then respond. I am through with these ignoramus responses. Far too complex for most to comprehend. You and others simplify it to one meaning. All is not proven.

[skepticscott]

309. Translation: I have no freaking clue about science

and I'm just babbling to cover up my total lack of understanding.

If you can't answer the questions, just be honest and admit it.

[RegieRocker]

313. You have absolutely no clue about science. And your lack

thereof and the accusation that I don't is a cover for it. Evolution is complex and you're too simple to admit it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

326. You ought to be aware that 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution' are creationist concepts

No scientist uses them. They are a desperate attempt to backpedal when people point to examples of evolution that we have seen happen over the past century or so (moth colouration, antibiotic resistance, etc.). A creationist says "oh, OK, some evolution can happen, even though I may have denied that before, but what about really big changes, huh? The appearance of a whole new genus? We've haven't seen any of those since Darwin, have we?" Well, no, and we wouldn't expect to in such a short period. But the appearance of a new genus can indeed be shown, both in fossils and in genetic analysis.

The distinction is also useful for them to try to explain how all current species were fitted into Noah's Ark; they say there were examples of each major family, and there has been a diversion of species in the few thousand years since then (despite the obvious fossil evidence of modern animals going far back before then).

So, when you talk about 'micro evolution' and 'macro evolution', you're defending a ridiculous idea of creationists which doesn't hold up to a moment's examination.

[RegieRocker]

365. Wong again. No scientist use them?

Micro evolution
Origin

The term microevolution was first used by botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette in 1909, addressing what he called the "mystery" of how formlessness gives rise to form.<46>

..The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in any significant measure. This microevolution forms an integral part of the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we shall have to understand the minor process before we can thoroughly comprehend the more general one...

However, Leavitt was using the term to describe what we would now call developmental biology, it was not until Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko used the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation", that it attained its modern usage. The term was later brought into the English-speaking world by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937).<1>

Macro Evolution
Misuse
Main article: Objections to evolution
See also: Speciation

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").<1> Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.<13> The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.<5><14> The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.<5><15> Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.<16> While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".<17><18>

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.<1> The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".<1>
See also

[LTX]

322. And here you claim to actually "understand micro evolution and macro evolution."

Thus, you must have a coherent explanation for the difference between the two. So --

When does "micro evolution" stop, and "macro evolution" begin"? Examples would be helpful.

While you're explaining that, maybe you can also throw in an explanation of the mechanism that stops "micro evolution" from becoming "macro evolution." Is it some kind of as-yet-undiscovered barrier to ongoing mutagenesis?

[RegieRocker]

327. That is real funny it shows that you don't understand either one.

[LTX]

337. So enlighten me.

What is the difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution? When does "micro" evolution stop, and "macro" evolution begin"? And what is the mechanism that stops "micro" evolution" from just carrying on into "macro" evolution?

Don't be coy. Educate.

[RegieRocker]

362. Don't be false. Educate yourself. I posted a link with that info.

Read it.

[LTX]

386. What link explained the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution?

You really need to keep track of your own, supposed "links." I can't find any such link in the thread (could be me, but I've looked). How about you post the link again, and summarize your understanding of the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Your style of argument, assertion followed by vague re-assertion, and persistent reference to links that you refuse to actually identify when asked, is very typical of creationists. It is also not surprising. Creationists are unwilling to engage on the merits precisely because they don't know the merits.

[Enthusiast]

26. First learn what 'theory' means then talk to us.

Both sides do not have the same problem. It's unfortunate that you do not recognize this.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RegieRocker]

328. It's sad that you don't.

[Zambero]

36. As is gravity. As is relativity.

An accepted theory (such as evolution) is based on scientific finding and and explains how the physical and biologic universe functions. The "other" use of the word implies an untested or unproven belief, but there are two distinct meanings for the term. Einstein's theory was borne out in the atomic bomb. The next time something heavy crashes down on your foot or (worse yet) head, consider whether the force of nature contributing to your discomfort was just another Isaac Newton pipe dream, or perhaps something approaching reality.

[RegieRocker]

39. NO relativity is a theory. It just amazes me....

no wonder. Both sides.

[Occulus]

55. define theory.

No, don't regurgitate a link. YOU tell me.

[bluestate10]

84. A theory is a postulate that is supported by some observation and is accepted.

But has not been proven beyond doubt. Relativity is a theory, although that is plenty of empirical data that says that the theory is in fact correct. Evolution should be called a law, reams of proven data and scientific observation over centuries have shown Darwin's theory to be true and unyielding.

[callous taoboy]

115. Cut to the chase already. What are you advocating in all of this?

Teaching junk science in schools? Presenting both sides of the evolution / creationism debate and presenting it as science? You would kids growing up thinking that there is any valid scientific proof out there that creationism has a leg to stand on in the science curriculum? Spell it out. Really. I'm interested to know why you are so invested in trying to undermine mountains of data that support evolution.

[RegieRocker]

127. I'll answer for him or her.

Just that theories can be disproved. Quite simple really. Without taking that fact into consideration the Evolution Theorists are no different that the Creationist Theorists. They both have a mental mindset that are similar.

[callous taoboy]

217. Quite simply one of the most ignorant points of view, yet you say we have a lot to learn.

There is ZERO, let me say it again, ZERO scientific evidence supporting the existence of some super-intelligent extra-terrestrial. Never mind all of the mythology that goes along with the creationist view of the planet that has been thoroughly debunked by mounds of scientific evidence. I guess the fossil record is suspect in your mind.

It's like arguing with a fence post with you. But, hey, you're entitled to your point of view, I'll give you that.

[RegieRocker]

242. My post was about Evolution is a theory. Not about whether

a God exists or not. This is what I meant by both sides getting carried away emotionally with this topic. I can't prove there isn't a God and neither can you. I can't prove there is a God and neither can you. I'm stubborn though and I will say it for the hundredth time. Theories can and do get disproved. Nothing in science is 100% factual. You can validate 1,000,000 times and the 1,000,001 time can disprove it. That was my point. So go ahead and believe what you want and think you know what is fact when it's not. Only open minds understand that anything is possible and can be disproved. Stand outside and look up into the sky and say yep I know it all. I have it all figured out. I know everything there is to know.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I know! Can you believe it??? BOTH SIDES are, like, totally nuts!

[JBoy]

119. LOL.

[d_b]

233. Lol

[NickB79]

40. What a joke

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process."

[callous taoboy]

116. Bingo.

[RegieRocker]

123. Read my post

Theories that have been proven wrong.

[newspeak]

155. yeah, I would've loved my daughter being taught

that Adam was lonely so god took out one of his ribs and made a woman, just for him. Or that God made Lilith for him but she was an upstart so he had to make another model. Or we could go the Sumerian way, and the gods, like Enkil, made both men and women, more than one, made from part of the gods. And, then there's after man was made and the earth was being populated, some of the angels looked down from above and lusted after the women.

[liberation]

197. Zing...

Ironic how xintians complain about evolution being "just a theory" while conveniently ignoring the massive inconsistencies from their book of Genesis. Abraham's family plagiarized multiple, and some times very different, creation myths into one awfully edited mess. And here we are 3 millennia later, still having to endure the gullible fools who try to make some sense of what basically was nonsense from the get go.

[RegieRocker]

332. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. There is however

some truth to the inexplicable wonder of all things. It doesn't have to be religious oriented.

[Orrex]

45. I like you. You're silly.

Evolution is a fact and has been observed directly. The explanation of how evolution occurs may indeed be a theory, but it is as thoroughly proven as any theory in science.



Thanks for the giggles, though!

[RegieRocker]

128. The post was never about whether there are large amounts of

proof. It is a theory and that is all. Unfortunately that is over most heads. People get emotional on both sides and go nuts. Look at the replies. Is evolution a theory or not? Yes. That is the scientific label for it. Can theories be disproved? Yes. Has theories been disproved? Yes. In my original post I did not say if I believed in Evolution or not. Do I? Almost 90%. Why? I leave out 10% for human emotional error. It's still a theory.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Now hopefully you see and have seen that the emotional responses on both sides are way off the meter.

[Orrex]

175. Thanks again for the giggles!

:rofl:

The problem is that you're failing to distinguish between the fact of evolution and the theory that explains its process. No one is disputing that it's a theory, but by saying it's "just" a theory, you're attemtping--deliberately or otherwise--to diminish it. It's a backhanded way of reducing one of the most thoroughly supported theories in to a simple guess, which it isn't.

I don't know who you're accusing of emotionalism, either.

[joshguitar]

180. that is the first sensible thing you have said

calling people names does not change minds, and no one ever turned to god because they lost an argument. i totally agree that some atheists are just as coarse and verbally violent as fundies.

this plays right into republican hands. i.e "those elitist, god-hating scientists can t prove global warming."

i try to keep it rational. i know them calling me "wrong" wont change my mind, so i imagine me calling them "ignorant" wont change theirs. but the only way to refute bogus evidence (as you illustrated) is to point in the direction of better evidence: this is often misunderstood as an attack...


i agree that manners are most effective in a situation like this, and find your exmaple illuminting. please keep in mind that it should go both ways

[RegieRocker]

333. If you look into my posts you see I never draw first blood.

[bowens43]

46. You have no idea what a scientific theory is .....

when you say something like this, you make yourself look foolish.

there are not two sides....there is science and there is myth.not two sides.

[RegieRocker]

133. There are creationists and evolutionists

they both suffer from the same thing. Initial emotional outbursts when someone refutes their beliefs.

[Warren DeMontague]

237. Okay, "refute" evolution.

Go.

[RegieRocker]

329. Prove it first.

Why would anyone disprove anything that is not proven completely.

[Warren DeMontague]

344. You said people don't like "evolution being refuted"... guess you can't do it, huh?

Again, you demonstrate your complete cluelessness re: what a scientific theory is, with your insistence that it "be proven completely".

It's a logically consistent framework for understanding phenomena that is corroborated by the available evidence. There are MOUNTAINS of EVIDENCE PROVING EVOLUTION.

If you wanted to disprove it, it would be very simple: Find one mammal fossil, for instance, in the pre-cambrian layer. Wham! You're done. You've disproven evolution.

But you won't, you can't, because it's not there, evolution is a fact, and I'm sorry it's so distressing to your worldview that you need to remain in denial about it, but you evolved along with all life on this planet, you share common ancestry, and it's simple, factual, truth.

Deal.

[RegieRocker]

347. Clueless in your own mind. Whew plenty of proof here on this thread

people don't like being refuted. You in particular. So once again prove it. You can't. So give up stating something is factual when you have no clue.

[Warren DeMontague]

348. Again, you're not refuting evolution. Evolution has not been refuted in this thread, either.

What people don't like is this uninformed, nitwit RW meme about how evolution is "just a" theory.

[RegieRocker]

354. What normal people don't like is knucklehead evolutionists not

acknowledging the obvious.

Read this
http://www.discovery.org/f/119

Oh and one more thing, did you get the reason for my use of the turkey?

Here is the link you could not find.

http://www.physorg.com/news174634964.html

[Warren DeMontague]

356. And there it is, folks. THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE.

i.e. the religious right funded, wholly disreputable in legitimate scientific circles, source of every piece of dubious shit-science "creation study" that's ever been attempted to be shoehorned into a 6th Grade Texas biology textbook....

:rofl:

there is nothing in the physorg link about paleontologists not believing in evolution.

And by the way, I don't give a shit what so-called "normal people" "don't like".. All the normal people in the world thinking the Earth is flat doesn't make it any less round.

[RegieRocker]

363. More B.S.

Let me tell you something or better yet read all of this

The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on earth among industrialized countries.<127>

According to a 2007 Gallup poll,<128> about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.<129> Only 14% believed that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution.<128> Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.<129> A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.<130>

Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of the respondents did not believe in a personal God.<131>

40% of democrats do not believe in evolution
So you think it's all right wing huh?

Go ahead and join with your fellows in alienating much of the Democratic Party.

[Warren DeMontague]

371. If the truth alienates people, that's their own fucking problem.

Sanitizing the world and the scientific truths pertaining to it to accommodate the superstitions and denial of people who can't be bothered to deal with reality doesn't do anyone any favors.

[RegieRocker]

376. What you see in others Is in you.

[Warren DeMontague]

377. The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

[RegieRocker]

379. The more you try and think the more the logic decreases.

[Warren DeMontague]

394. Interesting theory.

[Odin2005]

59. Your scientific illiteracy is show. Understanding definition of "Theory" FAIL.

[RegieRocker]

132. That would be you.

[blank space]

61. gravity is a theory as well pumpkin.

Seriously, Dawkins has a real issue with Americans, as does most of the educated world, yes in general, because in General this is all we get from you - comments like this.

Educated Americans need to be far, far more rejecting of idiotic ideas and far less "accepting" of other peoples rights to express their opinion.
Telling people they are intellectually, scientifically, politically and socially retarded is not impacting on someones rights to express an opinion, locking them up, gassing them, shooting them, or lynching them is stopping them from expressing their opinion.

[callous taoboy]

118. I suppose some would prefer the term, "Intelligent Falling," to "Law of Gravity."

[RegieRocker]

134. Shallow

[callous taoboy]

215. "Ignored."

[RegieRocker]

320. Ignoring the truth?

[Warren DeMontague]

353. No, ignoring the ignorance.

Some of us have other shit to do than spend all our time re-fighting the fucking Scopes trial.

[RegieRocker]

380. Lol you really think that there is a risk evolution won't be taught

in schools. It must be horrifying living in your skin. If you read all of posts you would know that isn't what I'm conveying. I will not stand idly by and let the reverse of scopes happen either. Calling religious people crazy is imbecile. This behavior is what you detest on the right and you do it yourself. That is ignorance at it's best. I'm done with you brick walls but will call you out on it when it arises.

[Ilsa]

148. ITA. Educated rebuttals need to be confrontational with the idiots

that are spouting their ridiculous dogma as truth. Unfortunately, I think some people with advanced educations are too polite and don't want to appear to be intolerant of ignorance when they are actually dealing with arrogant stupidity.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

63. So is gravity not real?

Because that's a "theory," too. A scientific theory is NOT the same as what laypeople call a "theory." I can't believe I have to explain this on this website.

[RegieRocker]

135. LAW OF GRAVITY

It's not a theory here on earth. Damn.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. It's "JUST A THEORY!" "JUST A THEORY!" GOOD GOD MAN ITS JUST A THEORY!!!!

See, it's a "theory", like, "I have a fucking THEORY that if I put on a red cape I'm superman!" Stop picking on Jesus with your silly THEORIES about people being related to apes an' billions of years of physical fossil record evidence that is fully 100% corroborated by DNA evidence and no rabbit fossils in the precambrian an' stuff!



IT'S JUST A THEORY!!! DO YOU HEAR ME??? THAT'S ALL IT IS!!!!! JUST A THEORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



JUST! A! THEORY!!!!!

[RegieRocker]

137. You can't handle a theory!

[Warren DeMontague]

236. No, anyone who waves that fucking "It's Just A Theory" crap around like it means something

in terms of the FACT of evolution (and, yes, it's a FACT) doesn't understand what they're talking about, and frankly I'm fucking tired of it.

[RegieRocker]

247. It does mean something and I am tired of both sides

emotional bull shit. So there.

[Warren DeMontague]

283. I'm sorry the emotional bullshit bothers you, but evolution is a fact.

It's a fact. You are related to apes, cats, fish, and bananas, and you are the product of a several billion year evolutionary process of life developing on this Earth.

Fact.

[RegieRocker]

292. It is not a fact. Only in your mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

300. No, it's a fact corroborrated by literally mountains of geologic, fossil, and, yes DNA evidence

don't you find it a tad odd that the relatively new science of DNA decoding has given us endless amounts of genetic evidence that gels 100% COMPLETELY with the prior evolutionary theoretical framework?

It's a fact, jack. Time to ditch the denial and deal with it.

[RegieRocker]

330. Explain to me what epigenome is when it was discovered and is

their any possibility of further discoveries farther into dna?

[cpwm17]

311. Human DNA is 98% identical to chimps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&list=FLcCDUbqXhpWBTMiyKefTWXg&index=25&feature=plpp

Get over it. Evolution is a fact.

[RegieRocker]

314. We are pigs

http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/Discover/discover37.cfm

[mwb970]

80. That's what Perry said. It's wrong no matter who says it.

Some people seem to have the definition of "theory" as "goofy idea I just had" and seem blissfully unaware of its meaning when used by scientists. (Such people are usually not on DU, though.)

From your link:

In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Proven = fact. Sorry.

[Silent3]

91. Evolution is both a fact and a theory

Einstein's "theory of gravity" isn't about whether gravity exists or not. That gravity exists is an established fact. The theory of gravity is a framework for explaining how gravity works and for making predictions about how it will work in as-yet untested situations.

The fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics all establish that evolution has occurred as a fact, as close to 100% verified as almost anything can get in science. The "theory" part of evolution is not about whether or not evolution has occurred, but about how it has occurred, and even that "how", natural selection, is incredibly well supported by a large body of evidence. Current work on refining the theory of evolution involves trying to understand the mechanisms and dynamics of natural selection to a greater degree.

[RegieRocker]

111. That is closer to the truth. But still not the absolute truth.

[Silent3]

151. It's pretty foolish to talk about "absolute truth" anyway.

None of us are in possession of absolute truth. Bizarre unsolvable Philosophy 101 conundrums aside, however, for all practical intents and purposes evolution is a fact.

Unanswered questions about the origin of life (a related but separate issue from evolution) and about specific details of specific lineages and timelines do not detract at all from the fact of evolution. Educated debates among evolutionary biologists don't come anywhere close to challenging the broad fact of evolution itself.

Even the idea of God-assisted evolution (something you can't disprove, but also an unnecessary and superfluous idea) does nothing to challenge the fact that evolution has occurred, it only tweaks the mechanism of evolution.

[liberation]

200. Science does not claim to have the absolute truth

in fact, if you knew anything about science you'd understand that with things like the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, science is very clear that in the regard that it can never attain the absolute truth due to aspects of the infinite.

Science is at least intellectually honest, in that it understands its limitations and that it is a work in process. Never to be completed. However, the fact that we do not know something, does not mean that anything else is true. It simply means that we do not know. Period.



In any case, this has nothing to do with "absolute truth" and evolution per se. If anything this has a lot to do with the fact that you don't understand what the term "theory" means in science. There is a fossil record, we know what DNA is and how it works, we have a well documented biological diversity, etc, etc, so we have plenty of FACTS. Evolution then as a theory explains the PROCESS under which species appear. And if it wasn't correct, then you wouldn't need a flu shot every other year, and people would not have a hard time deciding which BREED of dog or cat they like best.

Yes, both Darwin himself and Dawkins got a lot of their DETAILS incorrect, but that does not mean that the concept behind evolution is void.

[RegieRocker]

317. There is no fossil record that isn't speculation.

Over your head. You don't understand theory. There is so much you don't want to know just like the creationist.
http://www.physorg.com/news174634964.html
Just because your told it's true then it must be. LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

357. Actually, you're just a head in a jar, dreaming all of this.

everything else is 'just' speculation.

[RegieRocker]

382. Better than the illusions and lies you believe to be real.

[Warren DeMontague]

396. You mean, evolution?

Yeah, science is pesky and pernicious that way. Still, getting the illusions and lies to be logically consistent and fully backed up by mountains of physical evidence; you gotta admit it's a neat trick.

[Ilsa]

95. Delete. Nevermind

[RegieRocker]

121. Theories that have been proven wrong.

What's that you say. Theories can't be proven wrong! You're grossly mistaken and that is the problem with many in understanding science.

Top 10 theories proven wrong
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

[Deep13]

181. Evolution has not been proved wrong.

Nor will it. We are more likely to find Santa's workshop at the North Pole than we are to find evolution is wrong. Sure some detail about some species may have to be revised, but the basic theoretical underpinnings of evolution? Impossible.

[Orrex]

202. Santa's Workshop is only a theory

God! Why can't people understand this simple and obvious truth?!?

[Deep13]

244. LOL. Not without supporting evidence it isn't.

Most people don't know the difference between a theory and a wild guess.

[RegieRocker]

316. Parts of it have not been proven.

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,<6> and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

[LTX]

323. General estimates put the Cambrian "explosion" between 5 and 10 million years in duration,

with some estimates giving it a 40 million year duration. An "explosion" only in geological time.

Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion was not the origin of complex life, and period fossils contain distinct transitionals, as succinctly explained here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

[RegieRocker]

331. Propaganda by atheists.

[LTX]

338. What is "propaganda by atheists?" The duration of the Cambrian?

The existence of transitionals in Cambrian formations? The existence of pre-Cambrian complex fossils? You're kind of vague here.

[RegieRocker]

351. You didn't read it now did you? Talk about being vague.

Your link is to a site from a atheist anti creationist. My link however was neutral.

Here is another neutral link
http://www.discovery.org/f/119

Do yourself a favor and read it.

It is not settled.

[LTX]

358. Hoo boy.

The discovery institute is a political organization dedicated to proselytizing intelligent-design-creationism. It is notorious for its "wedge" document, its farcical papers on "irreducible complexity," and its utter lack of actual scientific research (which is not surprising, since it is principally a clubhouse for publicists and lawyers).

Adding together your description of the discovery institute as "neutral," your refusal to actually describe the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, your description of talkorigins as an "atheist anti creationist" site, and your refusal to actually identify the "atheist propaganda" you claim to be lurking in the current understanding of the Cambrian period, I think I can reasonably conclude that you are fundamentally (though perhaps not irretrievably) science illiterate.

[RegieRocker]

361. You're hysterical. LOL

No the link I posted from wikipedia. I was just countering your anti creationist atheist link.

[edhopper]

185. Theories from

hundreds or thousands of years ago before the days of modern science, with a few crackpot theories like expanding earth and cold fusion that were rejected outright by the scientific community.
Is this what passes for an argument among you creationist these days?

[RegieRocker]

319. Einsteins expanding universe? LOL

[Deep13]

179. A theory is a complex explanation consisting of many facts...

...but Dawkins is using the term "fact" in the way most people understand it. He's trying to debunk the whole "just a theory" meme.

[RegieRocker]

336. It is what it is. Some of it proven and some not. None of religion is

provable but that never was my point. Freedom of religion is just that. I believe that also includes freedom from religion. However aetheists calling religious people crazies is just as intolerable as rounding up aetheists and burning them on the stake. Tolerance is needed on both sides to allow for freedom. Do you wonder why the religious people have left the democratic party?

[fascisthunter]

367. creationism is mythology

science is based on facts and time tested results.

[WCGreen]

31. The money people behind the GOP love hem stupid....

easier to control....

[Zambero]

32. Perry destroys Perry

Dawkins explains how Perry goes about destroying his own credibility, and why conservatives insist that their candidates are bona fide dumbasses like themselves.

[Fearless]

33. Music to my ears! n/t

[Johonny]

41. politicians conduct political science experiments with your life

so you might want one that understands the basics of science.

[InvisibleTouch]

48. Oh yes oh yes! :) n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

52. pwned!!! nt

[defendandprotect]

56. K/ for Dawkins -- !!

[calimary]

57. Staggering in its eloquence!

This:

Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.

This is almost mind-numbingly brilliant (if such a thing could be claimed)! The MOST exquisite condemnation of the whole "gee, I could have a beer with him" voter mentality!

Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

and

There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.

Freakin' BRILLIANT!

I know a lot of people I could go have some sort of drink with (I'm not a beer drinker) but I don't regard any of them as remotely qualified to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!! And some of 'em are incredibly nice, very dear to me, and pretty damn smart, too.

:crazy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Dawkins is honorable, completely correct and his own worst enemy

The sheer usage of language is a killer to him and my/his cause: if you want to convert people, NEVER use complex, arcane or obtuse language. If you want to convert people, don't use any word that can't be understood by an eight year-old.

One of the most annoying things about strident atheists is an expression of superiority. Believers are besieged by atheists calling them stupid, and that is the worst thing for the advancement of non-belief as a viable cultural stance.

Disclosure time: I am an agnostic, by which I mean that I do not say there is or isn't a God. Worse still, I am an agnostic with the assumption of atheism. Having been raised by scientists and engineers, I don't accept anything without proof and am operating under current theories, which are subject to review. Coldly, though, I think that the concept of an afterlife is ridiculous, the idea of a big Sky Daddy is childishness and that the major religions are political con-games to enslave the weak and reap the rewards of privilege. Things are--to me, at least--mostly as they seem: we die, and with the next birthing, little incremental changes are brought about, which result in new species. Viable ones succeed and the others get pushed aside.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That's easy: the egg; mutations occur in birth, and the thing that laid that egg simply wasn't quite a chicken yet...

Enough of that, though, and back to the main point: he does us a disservice by using any words that can't be readily understood. He also does a disservice by haughtily insulting (although not deliberately) those who don't "get" the concept. We should be embracing the fearful masses, not lecturing them.

Yes, the irony of the wording of this post is not escaping me, but the world is filled with scared people, and there are always enough snake-oil salesmen to offer them a pill to make it all go away.

All arguments for evolution should be in ultra-plain language; one wants to reach the largest possible audience in a world where people consider using a dictionary for an unknown word to be some version of torture.

Dawkins is too obtuse, and he also talks down to people a bit. Hitchens is an asshole, although he's dead-on correct about religion, whether he is about his other crackpot beliefs like attacking Iraq. They both articulate many important things, but do us a disservice in general: they alienate believers and often antagonize them.

'Nuff said.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Yeah, he thinks he's superior because he uses big, hard to understand words.

:eyes:

Jesus fucking Christ. How about the stupid people start apologizing for being stupid for once, instead of expecting the intelligent to dumb themselves down to avoid "offending" the masses with shit they don't understand?

[Orrex]

77. With respect, I believe that you may be missing the point

At this point, the whole thing is still a sales pitch, and for a great many people the pitch is the most important part.

You'll seldom "offend" people into learning and understanding. If Dawkins deliberately "offends" the people he's apparently trying to reach, then he's making a big mistake in his presentation, and he shouldn't expect to open any eyes any time soon.

I'm sorry that you feel pressure to "dumb yourself down," but even that choice of phrasing implies superiority and betrays a failure to grasp a basic step in successfully influencing people's thinking.

[Warren DeMontague]

235. Well, tough.

[hatrack]

289. ONLEE SIMPULL WERDZ!!! DON'T BEE EELEETIST!!!!

This one needs both hands, I think.

[Fumesucker]

71. "Believers are besieged by atheists."....

There is no way you live in the USA, out and out atheists make up about five percent of the population or less and Christians make up about seventy five percent. You're saying that seventy five percent of the population is besieged by five percent..

In a lot of the country any atheist with a sense of self preservation keeps his head down and his mouth shut about his atheism.

[Shadowflash]

82. I know, right?

<>

[liberation]

249. LOL

there you go prosecuting Christians like that! You should be ashamed ;-)

[PurityOfEssence]

154. Perhaps I should have said "feel besieged when encountering certain atheists"

Yes, there's a suffocating tyranny of belief in this country, and for one to not be part of the group, one is beaten down at every turn. The amount of harassment and discrimination one gets for admitting non-belief is staggering and undeniable. The vehemence is sanctioned and the numbers are overwhelming.

Certain statistics, by the way, suggest non-believers are more in the ten percent range.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are many aggressive asshole non-believers who insist on calling people stupid, childish or crazy for their beliefs. I actually agree with this assessment, but to harangue people into submission is bullying, and simply doesn't work. It makes enemies. It justifies the slur that non-believers are arrogant assholes.

Dawkins is not a dick, but you can just go through any thread on the subject on this board and find plenty of people who ARE. They set back the cause and make the believers feel antagonized. Yes, it's tiresome to have to have sympathy for the oppressors who demand that their overwhelming majority be met with no dissent at all, but if we're going to make any headway, honey is better than pus.

[Fumesucker]

163. The main reason you see the aggressive atheists here on DU and other place online..

Is precisely because atheists have to keep their head down and their mouths shut IRL unless they plan on losing jobs or having their property vandalized.

Obama enrages many white people, particularly older ones, just by the very fact he's black and POTUS.

Most of the same people are enraged by anyone who disagrees with their Christianism too, no matter how meekly or politely it might be done.

And as for your claim that ten percent of the nation are admitted atheists, I've been an atheist for a very long time and have never met another person IRL who I knew for a fact was also an atheist.

Where I live it's just not a subject you bring up if you wish to have any social life at all.

[PurityOfEssence]

172. No argument there.

I've injected myself into quite a few religious discussions over the last 10 years on this board, and often to chide hothead atheists for being demeaning or to remind offended believers that this is a place of refuge where we can let our hair down a bit. Still, the dynamics are important to keep in mind.

Mercifully, I've lived my adult life in the Bay Area and Los Angeles, although I travel and work in many places in this country and occasionally abroad. Even in these enlightened climes, one is often met with EXTREME discrimination for being a non-believer. It's everywhere.

Let's get straight on a couple of premises here: I did not refer to "admitted atheists" when bringing up that statistic; I was talking about non-believers, which is a set that also includes truly non-aligned agnostics and those who just don't consider the subject important in the least.

Minorities always have to be on their best behavior on the path to gaining acceptance; that's just the way it is. The great majority of mankind is not with us on this one. I personally identify myself as an agnostic with the presumption of atheism: there's no proof either way, so even though all god- or gods-based beliefs seem preposterous to me, as does an afterlife, I can't simply say there is no such thing. I was raised by scientists and engineers, and am comfortable with working theory and wary of flat-out pronouncements, especially in absence of proof.

This forum is always on the knife-edge of strife over religion, and all one has to do is read the endless posts by believers striking back at militant non-believers who need to ridicule the religious. That just makes me cringe; too many believers are too thin-skinned and too many non-believers are too insulting. People are constantly raging about how this place, which they mistake for a blissful paradise, could ever tolerate things that would enrage them. Obama partisans are livid that anyone would criticize him from the left; to them, we are closet conservatives, racists, spoiled brats or just plain reckless. Leftists resent the third-wayers. It's understandable how these dynamics happen, but it doesn't release one from manners, pluralism and a tad of cosmopolitanism...

By the way, I had to look up IRL after reading your post, so that's a kissing-cousin to Dawkin's (and others') diction issue: jargon. (The answer I got from acronymfinder.com was "in real life", so I presume that's what you mean.)

I know that sounded like a bit of a barb, but it was meant more as an example of how, when writing, it's often easy to not keep the reader in mind. What was shorthand for you--and relatively understandable from context--took me out of the moment and undercut your communication.

Writing is HARD. That's sort of the point of the whole thing: I think Dawkins needs to dumb things down if the real intent is to sway the groundlings.

Personally, I consider religion a scourge and terrifying influence in our world, but I'm very wary of it and try to respect others' beliefs as much as possible. Still, I think those of us who don't believe should be ambassadors for a way of life: not arrogant, not proselytizing, forthcoming when possible and honorable.

[joshguitar]

187. truth n.t

[Fumesucker]

191. More than a few of us have been seriously harmed by religion or religious people..

For some of us you might as well be telling a victim of child abuse to just let things ride and get along with the abuser, it's insulting to the person who has suffered harm.

I think it's extremely telling that the more regularly an American goes to church then the more likely they are to support torture of "terrorists".

[PurityOfEssence]

213. Yeah, and so have I. Victimhood does not grant one immunity from criticism.

I am not advocating just sitting back and taking it at all. One of the ugliest things about religion is the aristocratic expectation of immunity from any criticism. If you, by the harm you've suffered, expect the same, you're no better than the close-minded certainty of rigid faith.

My point is that I'd like to see certain critics of religion be less strident in their rhetoric, and for Dawkins to try to be less stuffy with his diction. I greatly admire Dawkins, and that's very clear from my initial response here and the follow-ups.

I have major horrors from a lover who should have been a life partner, but this person was effectively destroyed by religion in childhood. Years of a desperate relationship ended: the person is clinically insane and still living in seclusion in and out of institutions more than twenty years later. My life has gone on, but I still get the occasional phone call to talk the person down from suicide; it is largely attributable to the strict religion of childhood and other siblings' madness, at least one of whom committed suicide.

I've been maneuvered out of jobs that were important to me at the time by religious fanatics. There's more, but I don't particularly feel like going into it. Your last post smacks of pulling rank on some kind of victimhood scale, and I'm a prig when it comes to having my morality or predicament marginalized. Call it a flaw.

Still, when the smoke clears, the question I ask is: do you want to engage people and hopefully change them, or do you want some kind of personal cathartic release? Far too many seem to want the latter.

The line of insult commonly leveled at non-believers is that they think they're so effing smart and talk down to people with a mean streak. They're correct: that is common and can be seen here. I intensely dislike people engaging in that: it's akin to religious bullying and it's tiresome. It also sets back the cause.

There's a nauseating through-line of selfishness in religion, yet those opposed to it seem to often have the same bent.

When venturing into the public sphere attempting to communicate in mass media, one should be as clear and inclusive as possible. It's all fun to sit around congratulating ourselves on how smart we are, but it would be way cooler to express the opinion with a much more inclusive vocabulary. To do otherwise is to give them ammunition that we're arrogant show-offs, and they are ready to do that at the drop of a hood.

The diction used in a book should be determined by the target audience, but he diction used in an American newspaper should be quite simple; that's the readership: it's broad and meant to be inclusive. I can't remember what the style books for the New York Times and Washington Post said about the model reader, but it was something like a 9 year-old girl for one and an 11 year-old boy for the other. That's the arena. That's what one should be attempting to provide when in that forum.

[Fumesucker]

229. I never mentioned my own problems, notice I wrote in a general sense and not a personal one.

Then you went into chapter and verse on your own travails after which you proceeded to point the finger at me.

That's a pretty good performance I must say for someone who is looking for a higher level of dialogue.

I keep my format very simple, short sentences, no more than two per paragraph. Indeed I try to keep my paragraphs to a single line.

It really doesn't matter how Dawkins writes, he's going to be criticized for it. If he simplifies he'll just be accused of talking down.

There was a poster here on DU by the handle of Az who was really good at doing what you're talking about, I haven't seen Az post in a long time.

[rhett o rick]

177. I agree there are aggressive non-believers here on DU. That doesnt make them

or us "arrogant assholes". In my experience non-believers generally suffer quietly at the hands of the believers. For example, recently a believer friend died and I went to the memorial service held in a church. I had to sit thru listening to bs propaganda quietly. I did it for my friend and will again. My money has In God We Trust, etc. etc. And you wonder why we get frustrated and speak out. Every day the believers speak out, shout out for their beliefs, on the radio, TV, door to door, etc. Yet if a non-believer speaks out, he/she is being aggressive.

What do you mean by: "...but if we're going to make any headway, honey is better than pus." What "headway"? I am not trying to "make headway", just get by. And if I were to meet a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, I would tell them where to stick their "headway". If that makes me arrogant, I will wear it proudly.

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Not only that, but the stupid people are apparently constantly being assaulted with big words

they don't understand, by thesaurus-wielding eggheads.

[skepticscott]

83. And should all arguments

for general relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory be in "ultra-plain" language?

[PurityOfEssence]

160. If they're intended to sway the broad populace, yes, they should

It's very hard to question a mindset of certainty without seeming demeaning, and when dealing with religion, one is dealing with the dark, primitive and deepest hopes and fears of people. To enter into the conversation at all is to face serious roadblocks.

If one is trying to have a reasoned discourse with a more articulate group, or if one is dealing with complex concepts in any way beyond general introduction of the concepts, one should still always try to keep language as understandable to the most possible in the target group. Otherwise, one is showing off or not trying hard enough to make things clearer.

Dawkins has been writing books purportedly for mass culture, and could easily make things more accessible. In this instance, he's addressing the American electorate, and his own assessment of that subset is pretty accurate, so he should be trying to make it as clear as possible.

If one is introducing the basic concept for laypeople--which is what he's trying to do here and elsewhere--then one should write accordingly. If he's writing for a more sophisticated crowd to discuss evidence for his theories, then he can be free to get a tad polysyllabic here and there.

I don't mean to be snotty, but your question is one of black-and-white ultra-simplicity, which is pretty silly when talking about complex subjects. I'm not talking about ALL arguments, my case is premised upon the stated fact that his arguments are meant for the masses, including hostile people with different beliefs.

It's like the salesmen at the beginning of "The Music Man": the recurring refrain is "you got to know your territory".

[skepticscott]

166. Dawkins understands that the "territory" consists

essentially of three groups (excluding other evolutionary scientists with whom he communicates on a professional level):

-People who need no real convincing of the truth of evolution, but who find it a fascinating topic to read about, and who want to understand more of the details.

-People who are not well educated in science, and who have not entirely made up their minds one way or the other on the evolution/creationism question, but who are open to evaluating new evidence.

-People who are so mired in the fear, superstition and ignorance fostered by fundamentalist religion that they are unlikely to be convinced by any evidence or argument of his that creationism is baloney.

If he chooses (wisely) not to waste much time or effort convincing the third group, that leaves the first two, and it is essentially impossible to target just one or just the other. Some of what he writes may be better geared towards one group and some may be better geared towards the other. It's simply not the case that everything in science that is worth knowing or teaching people about can be explained in simple terms. And when trying to actually educate people, what problem do you have with forcing THEM to actually extend themselves a little, and to expand their minds, rather than having everything be pureed and spoon-fed to them? Did your best teachers do that?

[edhopper]

113. I do not know if you have read

The God Delusion and/or The Blind Watchmaker. They are both among the most coherent, intelligent and accessible books on atheism. His ability to write in a way that all can understand, to make his arguments easy to follow is close to that of Carl Sagan (who did it as well as anyone)

Read his books, plain language is his forte.

He is the opposite of obtuse.

[MH1]

124. Perhaps, but

regarding the linked article in the OP, I agree with PurityOfEssence. My initial reaction was 'this is great - I'm going to post in on FB', then realized it would insult a lot of my FB 'friends', and I'd rather post something less sledgehammer-like. (Although I do agree 100% with what was written in the article - it just isn't accessible to certain of my associates.)

Just because this piece is written in that fashion doesn't mean Dawkins always writes that way. I'll check out the books you suggest.

[edhopper]

131. He wrote a hard hitting piece here

because Perry is an idiot and deserves it. I don't think we should go easy on someone so wrong and dangerous to our country.
I refrain from posting anything political on FB because it is not a good place for political discourse and it is easy to offend friends who don't want to talk about politics.

The God Delusion and the Blind Watchmaker are meant to reach out to people to show them the valid arguments for atheism and against the idea of a God. They are extremely successful. Far beyond what even Dawkins had imagined.
I find most (not referring to you) who attack the God Delusion have never read it.

[skepticscott]

157. Exactly

The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale, Unweaving the Rainbow all explain science, and evolution in particular, in terms that any intelligent layperson can grasp, if they care to make even minimal effort. There will always be people who have no interest whatsoever in educating themselves, and who no amount of evidence or argument will ever convince, but why waste too much time trying to enlighten such as they?

[PurityOfEssence]

162. I've read "The God Delusion", and yes, I think he is a bit off-putting with his diction fairly often

The best lesson I ever learned from either of my very engaged parents was from my Mom: when reading, always have a dictionary at hand. I do this to this day, and although I've always been a voracious reader, I still encounter many new words on a regular basis. I use dictionary.com, and am constantly consulting it, both for new words or ones that I'm suddenly thinking I might not be as clear on the meaning as I thought.

When I'm reading and encounter a word I don't know and don't have a dictionary at hand, I write the word at the very end of the book and look it up later. Those are the only marks I ever make in books, and they aren't in the body of the texts.

Doing so, I sort of have a running approximation for the level of diction used, and when reading "The God Delusion", there were--in my opinion--far more instances where I had to look something up than there should have been in what was intended to be a work of persuasion for the masses. On the other hand, Christopher Hitchens--who is a toxic snot of roiling arrogance--kept himself to somewhat simpler language. "God is Not Great" is a great work, and one thing I like about it is that it was unabashed in not "playing nice" with certain religions; he skewers Islam, and justifiably so.

Anyway, although Dawkins is a clear thinker and presents ideas in an orderly and digestible way, I think he is either showing off a bit or simply not reapplying the effort to simplify the language enough to be less threatening to those not so sophisticated. Regardless, I'm not making pronouncements just from this small article; I've read other articles by him as well, in addition to that book.

[struggle4progress]

62. It's pointless "preaching to the choir" -- Perry's current support comes from teabaggers, and none

of them will care tuppence what Dawkins thinks of Perry

[joshguitar]

64. truth /n.t

[PurityOfEssence]

164. It's all incremental; if simplified, perhaps a few could be peeled off

That should be what he's trying to do. Sure, he wants to galvanize non-reactionaries for the fight, but he also seems to want to pick away at the potential supporters as well.

Hey, why not just say "Actually, Gravity is nothing but a Theory too..."?

I always get this feeling when reading him that were he to simplify the language a tad, it'd serve his purpose better.

[struggle4progress]

174. They're more likely to think "Dawkins and Obama were childhood friends in Kenya"

[mwb970]

78. Conservatives combine self-absorption with a total lack of self-awareness.

"Republican voters, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job."

This is the very height of human hubris and self-centeredness. They use themselves as the standard for human perfection without the slightest awareness of how that makes them come across.

I will never, ever understand conservatives.

[Pooka Fey]

85. Bravo.

[tavalon]

92. Why, I believe Mr. Dawkins just called Guvna Goodhair stupid, bless his heart.

I just wanted to translate that for Perry since he's not a big fan of words or especially big words. Oops, I think I just said the same thing about Perry, bless his stupid little heart. He wants to be king and he's pretty enough but we had eight years of Stupid out of Texas and we're pretty well done with that, thanks.


Obligatory note: I lived in Texas for twenty years and there are some mighty fine and mighty smart people in that state, but neither Dumbya nor Perry are indicative of either.

[tavalon]

93. Do you remember the abysmal gameshow called: Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Perry isn't, and Dawkins very much is much smarter and come to think of it, so is our President so if Perry, the dumber actually remains closeted and becomes the Republican frontrunner, at least the debates will be a hoot. Kind of like Palin, but gay but closeted.

[MH1]

125. Abysmal? Hey I liked that show!

the few times I watched it ... I don't watch all that much tv so only occasionally caught it while channel surfing. But I think Jeff Foxworthy's a hoot so I usually stopped for a few minutes when I encountered that during a surf.

[tavalon]

254. To me, the horror was that we were saying that 5th grade intelligence was something

when in my day, it was nothing. Whether self or school taught, the goal was college level reading and comprehension. I'm not so old.

[spooked911]

94. thanks-- great little piece by Dawkins

the comments are amusing, though maddening in that they devolve in a religious argument

[dash_bannon]

136. Common people fear the educated

I've been told by people I meet that my intelligence is intimidating. I can see how people who are not book smart can feel inferior to people who are.

Republicans pander to that fear and ignorance and fan the flames of ignorance. They use the logical fallacy of "appeal to democracy" to win votes from voters.

Evolution, gay marriage, global warming, are examples of Republicans exploiting the ignorance of others. By claiming academics, scientists, and people who are specialists in areas of study are elitist, they can use a divide and conquer strategy.

Pit the uneducated common man against the "liberal" professors. How dare they teach your kids to hate God by teaching evolution, and promote communism by advocating democratic values and teaching kids that global warming is caused by human beings.

They use fear and ignorance to win elections. They pander to base fears and stereotyping.

Sadly, it works. Just look at the Tea Party; manufactured dissent sponsored by the Koch Brothers.

Our way to counter this is not through reason, but to appeal to people's other emotions, like inspiration, hope, and love/fraternity. If we try to use logic and reason with the ignorant and unreasonable, we'll lose every time.

[icarusxat]

165. Religion is like a car

The good ones can take you to wonderful places. You don't hop into the family car, drive to Disneyland and then sit in the parking lot and praise the automobile. "This is the only true car, what a wonderful car, those who got here in another car are evil...you get the point (I hope). No, you get out of the car and enjoy the destination. The values some of them teach, when given more than just lip service, can help create a better society. Too many snake oil salesmen.

[edhopper]

170. The problem atheist have with religion

is not that many of them teach peace and humanitarian acts.
It's that they have as a foundation myth's, falsehoods and concepts that have no basis in reality.
"But religious people do good" says nothing to support the belief in God.

[liberation]

230. Exactly, both religious and atheist alike are capable of good and bad

which means that religion does not have a monopoly in either good or bad, thus making it far more of the human than the divine realm.

[liberation]

228. Nope, religion is like a true scotsman

the real ones are apparently wonderful, too bad they're so hard to find. Like all those mythical invisible pals up in the sky...

[myrna minx]

143. K&R n/t

[slackmaster]

167. Dawkins has completely missed the point. Perry is not uneducated.

He's pandering to uneducated voters.

[liberation]

201. Perry is both uneducated and pandering

Sorry but anyone who graduates with a 2.5 GPA in "Animal Science" and can't grasp a basic concept like evolution, seems like a pretty uneducated individual...

[slackmaster]

290. I think you are not getting my point

He DOES grasp the concept of evolution.

[gulliver]

168. Actually, evolution explains Republican "stupidity" quite nicely.

Republican-like behavior is classic animal behavior. They seek to propagate their own. They are not merely or purely dumb. Most Republicans would probably admit that evolution is correct if they had to bet their life on it. Unfortunately, they correctly see that they don't have to bet their life on it. They can act and speak as if evolution weren't true, and it actually improves their survival odds.

Republicans definitely act as if they both believe in and are in favor of natural selection. For example, to a Republican one of the worst things a government can be accused of doing is to "pick winners and losers."

Republican sharks understand their food chain though. They know better than to cross Republican plankton. The many Republicans who are too stupid to accept evolution are also probably unaware that most religions are officially coming to terms with it. Those folks need to be accommodated. Swearing allegiance to an undeniable scientific principle is not required; swearing allegiance to your team is.

[provis99]

205. that's as good an explanation of republicans as any I've seen.

Idiocracy has it's advantages...

[pansypoo53219]

178. the GNEWS MEDIA also wants a president less smart than they are.

it's good for teevee ratings. and reporters don't feel stoopid.

[Deep13]

183. So Perry is basically Bush, but without all the brains and integrity.

:(

[edhopper]

184. But better

hair!

[Deep13]

188. Well, yes, Perry at least looks manly.

While Bush's cover accurately described the book, Perry has a flashy dust jacket to wrap pages of insane rambling.

[Soylent Brice]

212. K&R

[BootinUp]

218. People criticizing a science writer at the DU? Say it isn't so. nt

[dogknob]

251. So what do we do about the moron takeover?

In a culture that edges frighteningly in the direction of the world of Harrison Bergeron, what's an elitist to do?

http://dogknob.com/2011/08/22/c-h-u-m-p-wants-to-take-back-merica/

[shanti]

280. too late to rec

k&r!

[opihimoimoi]

285. The need for greed, vanity, power often leads to DELUSION...which allows for a rejection of logic,

reason, and sanity

[Liberal_in_LA]

297. kick

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

298. Well, Perry proves that evolution really is directionless.

[Hubert Flottz]

303. The truth is that,

most republicans, even though they may have shed a lot of their body hair and today, some may even look a lot like 21st century human beings, their brains/minds have done very little in the way of evolving. So the black and white scientific evidence and indeed, the total concept of evolution, seems quite fantastic to 99.9999999.9% of them.

Mathematically it kind-of looks like this: Republicans = Neanderfuks

[hifiguy]

307. In matters intellectual

Richard Dawkins fights from a dreadnought and pRick Perry from a raft of palm trees tied together with twine.

Idiots should not go out of their way to pick fights with one of the smartest people on the face of the planet.

:rofl:

[RegieRocker]

315. So which one of you Evolutionary Scientists can tell me

What these are? Which came first? Are they related?

[LTX]

335. The top is an ostrich skeleton, possibly the 19th century specimen

in Maisons-Alfort, France. The bottom is an artist's rendering of what appears to be a modern bird, although I can't tell the species, and the sternum is not a familiar shape. Perhaps you could identify it, and then explain what your point is.

[RegieRocker]

339. Paleontologists are not all convinced of evolution. There is no tissue

with fossils. The guessing of what something is and whether it is the same or different specie is at best a hunch. I posted earlier a link to palentologist who discusses this in depth. Also in my posts was a link stating that a third of fossil identification could be wrong. The thing with humans is they have a strong inclination to perceive and justify what they want to. Sorry, almost forgot, it's a turkey.

[LTX]

342. Sorry. Long thread.

Can you provide that link again to the paleontologist who isn't convinced of evolution?

And I'm still not getting your point. How is a comparison of an ostrich skeleton to a turkey skeleton (sorry I didn't immediately recognize the latter) a demonstration that evolution is unconvincing?

[RegieRocker]

346. You are not a palentologist

Paleontologists are not all convinced of evolution. There is no tissue with fossils. Tell me what part of that you don't understand. You have to dig to find the link. :-)

[LTX]

349. I have no idea how one can even be a paleontologist,

and not be "convinced of evolution." And I can't find your link to this renegade paleontologist who is not convinced of evolution, whoever he/she is. Heck, just a name would help. But I'm guessing you'd rather assert than discuss.

As for there being no tissue with fossils (which is itself not entirely true), you work with what you have. There are no samples from stars either. But scientist don't throw up their hands and go bowling because of it.

[Warren DeMontague]

352. I've searched the entire thread for the word "paleontologist" and can't find your fucking link.

You find a paleontologist "not convinced of evolution" and I'll bet you dollars to donuts he's somehow affiliated with the discovery institute or some other bullshit creationist think tank.

So, let's see that link. You've got a record of all your posts, it's no big stretch for you to find it and put it up again.

[trotsky]

341. How old are the skeletons?

In what kind of rock formations and on what continent(s) were they found?

That you would just post two pictures of skeletons and DEMAND someone answer some questions for you based on the pictures alone pretty much shows you do not understand science or evolution at all.

[RegieRocker]

360. I don't understand becuase you can't identify them?

LOL

You helped me thanks. You see, the pics are birds that are in existence today. Why would continent be important? Hell scientist claim at one time the world only had one continent. Have you heard of Pangea? That's the clincher right there. It is you who doesn't understand. Why? Because when a new dinosaur fossil is found if it's not related to anything else previously found, then they make up a name and presto, you have a new dinosaur. If not new, they guess (educated) as to what possible relation it is to a another previously found fossil. Here in lies the rub. Have you heard of Piltdown Man? Or how about Lucy? There are many others. Fossils. How many pics of turkeys have you seen? I've seen plenty. No whole bird skeletons though. Plenty of thanksgiving skeletons. That is the point of fossils without tissue it doesn't tell much. You need to do some honest open minded research for yourself. After having done that, ask yourself "Since I don't know anything about it why am I taking some persons word on this and believing it absolutely"? When it comes to adaptation and mutation I am thoroughly convinced that is factual. Do I believe everything is related? No. Why? Just because everything has similar DNA does not mean it's related in the sense we use relation for. Also don't be to quick to believe the DNA fact.
Check this out http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/dinosaur-cloning.htm
I only look for possibilities. The possibilities are endless. For me, it stops there.

[trotsky]

374. I'm right.

You don't understand science OR evolution.

[RegieRocker]

383. Your failure to understand the complexity of the evolution theory

makes you grossly wrong. Because of this failing, your only recourse is "you don't understand" . You and I are done here.

[trotsky]

389. I'm not the one who fails to understand things here.

But we are indeed done.

[snappyturtle]

334. Kick! nt

[joshguitar]

340. i thought this was a progressive site

Pardon me. I am relatively new here. I am so confused that users here are evolution deniers. . .

In the past 24 hours I have seen DU users deny climate change, attack evolution, and even mistake the theory of gravity.

Perhaps one of the veteran users could enlighten me. Are these people serious? Do they believe this misinformation? Do they vote liberal? why?

Are they freepers? trolls?

I dont get it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

343. I can think of one young earth creationist DU has had (apart from drive-by trolls) in 8 years

and that Duer has not posted in this thread. It is pretty astounding to see that evolution has to be explained to someone else here. I did think that both education was better, and DUers better at processing facts, than we see in this particular case. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether they actually believe the misinformation they are trying to pass on.

[Warren DeMontague]

350. It's fucking maddening, is what it is.

Denial is deep, and the fear, even among some erstwhile 'progressives' of the spooky-scary science truth is strong.

Maybe some people are afraid that if they admit they're related to monkeys, next thing they'll be down at the zoo throwing shit at each other?

[joshguitar]

355. ha h!

well there is already a lot of horse and bull shit getting thrown around on this forum!

they are closer to that than they realize already!

[fascisthunter]

366. creationists are nutcases

don't bother arguing with them... everything is based on belief for them.

[joshguitar]

369. i really don t mean to mince words here

but technically that is true with everyone: even material skepticists have made a similar choice. We all choose what to believe.

i think i know what you mean though. creationists are not persuaded by physical evidence.

[NNN0LHI]

378. would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job

There is the fatal flaw of Mr. Dawkins theory. This isn't just Republican voters. This is the case for just about every American I know.

Don

[Jmaxfie1]

384. Not even a fair match up, come on n/t